text:
Battle of Waterloo reenactment

The Battle of Waterloo reenactment is an annual modern recreation of the 19th century Battle of Waterloo on the original battlefield in Waterloo, Belgium. It is held every June on the weekend nearest to the historic date of the Battle of Waterloo (18 June 1815). In a regular year there will be 600–800 reenactors. The 5-year-anniversaries are greater events with 1,500–2,000 reenactors from France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Great Britain, USA, Germany, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and Chile among others.

Waterloo 2015
A major event, one of the largest ever staged, was held on the site of the battle to mark the 200th anniversary of the engagement. 6,200 re-enactors, 330 horses, and 120 cannons took part in actions in an arena area close to La Haye Sainte. During the event, the Allied Army was camped at Hougoumont, with the French camped about a mile away from La Caillou.

The event was opened with a poetic interpretation of the Battle, created by Luc Petit. The show was located on a stage 150 metres long, with giant projector screens, pyrotechnics, dancers, classical musicians and local choirs – in addition to cast members drawn from the re-enactment groups. Three re-enactors were injured by explosives during this production, with one being taken to hospital with serious burns.

title: Battle of Waterloo reenactment


text:
Category:FIFA Women's World Cup

This category lists all articles relating to the FIFA Women's World Cup.

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

title: Category:FIFA Women's World Cup


text: Template:User eo-0

title: Template:User eo-0


text:
Talk:Lifestyle anarchism

Rationale for shorter entry
I removed a paragraph that was added in good faith. That paragraph contained some useful exposition on this entry, but the entry was too long for an entry on a pejorative term used by a few people. The entry does include 4 citations and three external links, so anybody who wants to learn more about this topic can easily find more information. It should be noted that this entry has been tagged as a "low importance philosophy" article, so it's not far removed from being a non-notable article. I would prefer that this article be deleted, but I can compromise if the article is kept short. Chuck0 (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough to accept this strategy. The added paragraph was only a passing mention of the term and of dubious quality. I will add additional content to the article only if I can find a comprehensive, even-handed and impartial account of the term that adds encyclopediac value. скоморохъ  04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lifestyle Anarchism
tO the contrary,

I propose an expansion of the article-- and a revision of the definition: 'lifestyle anarchism' is not merely the attendance to the superficialities of subcultures such as punk or goth musical subcultures which have a anti-authoritarian or anti-social perspective, but rather is the deliberated and conscientous objection of people of any class and background to illegitimate authority or hierarchies founded on unsound values. As such, 'lifestyle anarchism' is a philosophy which promotes a consciousness of individual consumption, and its impact in empowering corporations, businesses, governments, and organizations and the hierachies and authority they derive from such empowerment. It may be seen as a realization of a 'Middle-Way' or 'Third Way' philosophy, -- the realization that total economic independence in a world of complex, global interconnections is impossible, and likewise that zero consumption is impossible short of death, which forces individuals to consider their consumer ideology and reasoning (rather than merely express disdain for the term 'consumer', which is at best a superficial rejection of the 'Status Quo')... I will begin working towards such an expansion. -- 0101Roger0101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifestyle anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523111651/http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=03%2F07%2F18%2F3115851 to http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=03%2F07%2F18%2F3115851

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifestyle anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223164754/http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2008spain-interviews-chuck to http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2008spain-interviews-chuck

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lifestyle anarchism


text: Template:User es-0

title: Template:User es-0


text:
August 3 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics)

August 2 - Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar - August 4

All fixed commemorations below are observed on August 16 by Orthodox Churches on the Old Calendar.

For August 3, Orthodox Churches on the Old Calendar commemorate the Saints listed on July 21.

Saints

 * Holy Myrrh-bearer Salome (1st century)
 * Hieromartyr Stephen, Pope of Rome, and Companions (257)  (see also: August 2)
 * Venerable Saints Isaac (383), Dalmatius, and Faustus (5th century), ascetics of the Dalmatian Monastery at Constantinople.
 * Protomartyr Rajden (Razhdenes) of Tsromi and Nikozi, Georgia (457)
 * Saint Cosmas of Palestine, eunuch and hermit (6th century)
 * Martyr Olympios the Prefect (Olympius the Eparch), Byzantine noble martyred under the Persian King Chosroes II for confessing the Orthodox Faith (c. 610-641)
 * Saint John of Patalaria Monastery, Confessor and Abbot (8th-9th centuries)
 * Venerable Theoclita (Theokliti) the Wonderworker, of Optimaton (Theme of the Optimatoi) (ca. 842)
 * Saints John the Monastic, and John the New, Bishops of Ephesus.
 * Venerable Nuns Theodora, and Theopisti her daughter, of Aegina, in Thessaloniki (892)

Pre-Schism Western saints

 * Saint Aspren (Aspronas), Bishop of Naples (1st century)
 * Saint Euphronius, Bishop of Autun in France and a friend of St Lupus of Troyes, Confessor (c. 475)
 * Saint Trea, hermitess, converted to Orthodoxy by St Patrick, she spent the rest of her life as an anchoress in Ardtree, now in County Londonderry, Northern Ireland (5th century)
 * Saint Faustus, son of St Dalmatius of Pavia in Italy, lived the life of a holy monk (5th century)
 * Saint Senach (Snach), a disciple of St Finian and his successor as Abbot of Clonard in Ireland (6th century)
 * Saint Benno, hermit on Mt Etzel in Switzerland, a founder of the monastery of Einsiedeln, became Bishop of Metz in 927 (940)
 * Saint Gregory of Nonantula, Abbot of Nonantola Abbey near Modena in Italy (933)

Post-Schism Orthodox saints

 * Venerable Anthony the Roman, Abbot in Novgorod (1147)
 * Nine Kherkheulidze brothers, their mother and sister, and 9,000 others, who suffered on the field of Marabda, Georgia (1625)

New martyrs and confessors

 * New Hieromartyr Viacheslav Lukanin, Deacon (1918)
 * New Hieromartyr Nicholas Pomerantsev, Priest (1938)

Other commemorations

 * Repose of Hiero-schemamonk Ignatius of Harbin (1958)

title: August 3 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics)


text:
Saint Julien Memorial

The St. Julien Memorial, also known as The Brooding Soldier, is a Canadian war memorial and small commemorative park located in the village of Saint-Julien, Langemark (Sint-Juliaan), Belgium. The memorial commemorates the Canadian First Division's participation in the Second Battle of Ypres of World War I which included fighting in the face of the first poison gas attacks along the Western Front. The memorial was designed by World War I veteran and architect, Lieutenant Frederick Chapman Clemesha, and was selected following a design competition organized by the Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission in 1920.

Background
The village of Saint Julien and a section of forested land called Saint Julien Wood was at a pronounced bend in the north east sector of the Ypres Salient prior to the Second Battle of Ypres. The area was also the junction between the British and French sectors of responsibility. The Canadian First Division was assigned the most northern section of the British line and to their left, the 45th (Algerian) Division held the southernmost end of the French line. The German Army had brought forward 168 tons of chlorine gas deployed in 5,730 cylinders buried in front of their trenches, opposite Langemark-Poelkapelle, north of Ypres. The Canadians, who had been moved into their positions only a few days earlier were manning the lines for several hundred metres along a front to the southwest of St. Julien when the German Army unleashed the first poison gas attack on the Western Front on 22 April 1915.

Pushed towards the Allied lines by a wind from the north, the initial gas attack largely drifted to the north and west of the Canadian lines, into the trenches of the French colonial troops of the French 45th (Algerian) and 87th (Territorial) Divisions, of 26th Reserve Corps. The gas drifted across positions largely held French colonial troops who broke ranks and abandoned their trenches after witnessing the early casualties, creating an 8,000 yard (7 km) gap in the Allied line. The German infantry were also wary of the gas and, lacking reinforcements, failed to exploit the break before the First Canadian Division and assorted French troops reformed the line in scattered, hastily prepared positions 1,000 to 3,000 yards apart. In actions at Kitcheners Wood, Mauser Ridge, Pilkem Ridge and Gravenstafel Ridge the Canadians held the line and prevented a German breakthrough until they were relieved by reinforcements on the 24 April.

In the 48 crucial hours that they held the line, 6,035 Canadians – or one man in every three who went into battle – became casualties; of that number, approximately 2,000 (or one man in every nine) were killed.

Site and design selection
At the end of the war, The Imperial War Graves Commission granted Canada eight sites – five in France and three in Belgium – on which to erect memorials. Each site represented a significant Canadian engagement in the war and for this reason it was originally decided that each battlefield would be treated equally and graced with identical monuments. The Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission was formed in November 1920 and decided a competition would be held to select the design of the memorial that would be used at the eight European sites. In October 1922, the submission of Toronto sculptor and designer Walter Seymour Allward was selected as the winner of the competition, and the submission of Frederick Chapman Clemesha placed second. The commission decided Allward's monumental design would be used at Vimy Ridge in France as it was the most dramatic location. Originally, Clemesha's 'Brooding Soldier' design was selected for the remaining sites but was later, for a number of reasons, erected only at Saint Julien in Belgium. The remaining six sites at Passchendaele, and Hill 62 in Belgium and Le Quesnel, Dury, Courcelette and Bourlon Wood in France each received an essentially identical Canadian granite block memorial marker, differentiated only with brief inscriptions that describe the battle they commemorate in English and French on their sides. The blocks are situated in small parks that vary in shape and design and are typically situated on key points of the battlefield they memorialize.

The memorial at Saint Julien was unveiled on 8 July 1923 by Prince Arthur, the Duke of Connaught and the tribute was made by French Marshal Ferdinand Foch, former Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers on the Western Front. In his address, Foch stated: "'The Canadians paid heavily for their sacrifice and the corner of earth on which this Memorial of gratitude and piety rises has been bathed in their blood. They wrote here the first page in that Book of Glory which is the history of their participation in the war.'"

Design and location
The memorial is found on the northern fringe of the village of Saint Julien at the intersection of the N313 road and Zonnebekestraat. During the war, the location where the memorial is located was known as Vancouver Corner. Visible for miles around, the memorial stands 11 metres tall. The 'Brooding Soldier' column rises from a low circular flagstone terrace and is sculpted at its top to form the bowed head and shoulders of a Canadian soldier. The soldier's hands resting are on the butt of his down-turned rifle in the 'arms reversed' position, a pose used as gesture of mourning and respect for the fallen performed at funerals and services of remembrance. Surrounding the column and central terrace are gardens of tall cedars trimmed into the shape of artillery shells and low cut cedars trimmed to look like shell explosions. Some of the soil that nourishes the gardens of the memorial was brought from various locations from across Canada to represent the broad spectrum of Canadian men who fought shoulder to shoulder on the battlefields of 1915.

A replica of Clemesha's St-Julien monument was incorporated into the cenotaph designed by R. W. G. Heughan which was erected in Victoria Park, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada in 1926.

title: Saint Julien Memorial


text: Category:Grand Trunk Railway

title: Category:Grand Trunk Railway


text:
User talk:Red Slash/Archive1

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 23:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

P.P.S. I live in Bothell WA, ever hear of it? Redwolf24 23:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

12th Man
Sorry Matt - the problem wasn't the content of the page, it was the fact it was at The 12th Man, which has many meanings (hence the redirect to the disambiguation page). I have moved the content to an article 12th Man (American football), and fixed the link at 12th Man. I also didn't read the article in detail, thinking it was the same as 12th Man (Texas A&M) which is different, but related to American football. Perhaps they could be merged, with each other, or with American football itself? -- Chuq 10:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

First President
John Hancock, was absolutely not the first president of the United States. see. President of the Continental Congress, It clearly and correctly states that John Hancock is sometimes incorrectly reffered to the first president. Although the United States was an independent country at the time, the office was called President of the United States in Congress Assembled, the first president of The United States of America was most definatley George Washington., and by the way John Hancock wasn't even the first president of the Continetal Congress, he was simply its president when the declaration of independence was signed, you couldnt be more wrong, obviously history isnt your strong subject. (Mac Domhnaill 23:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC))

Divboxing
Hey! I'm so pleased you found use for divbox. I'm even more pleased you created a new color scheme daughter template to go with it.

I'd like to suggest, though, that you add to the documentation at Template talk:Divbox. By adding your new color scheme along with the others, you make it easily available to all. — Xiong 熊 talk * 03:16, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre
PLEASE help me with the rationale for the images. It's the only thing holding this back from being a Featured Article. I've been trying, and trying but I keep getting it wrong. I need HELP. I'm going kind of nuts, is there any way you can help? Thank you for your support. I actually do want it to be on the front page, but I respect your opinion about why it shouldn't be. Of course, I want my work to be rewarded with a front page status, but you are right, it is a touchy subject. - PRueda29

Thanks anyway, as I wrote the message to you, a user that normally moderates the page with me contacted me about the pictures and he's helped fix most of them. It is frustrating, but I tend to get frustrated easily anyway, so I'm used to it. Also, thanks for fixing the typo and adding the wikilink. I'm glad you liked the article, it took me and 4 other users eight months to gather up all the info, and I spent three entire days putting it together for featured article status (giving it a facelift). Good luck with Wikipedia, as soon as u find an article you like, you'll get addicted (trust me). PRueda29

Coug It
Do you know what Sock puppets are? One type of sock is the sock that messes with VfD to keep certain articles. Also, IP Addresses aren't counted in VfD. Also, I never count unsigned votes. That VfD was a landslide Delete. Redwolf24 04:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Coug_it Go. Redwolf24 05:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * User talk:Redwolf24. Redwolf24 05:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please contribute to the collaboration!
Girl is the collaboration of the week! Please come grow this article... Mamawrites 03:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User categorization
Greetings, Matt Yeager! I've noticed you've already categorized your user page in Category:Wikipedians in Washington. Could you remove your name from the Wikipedians/Washington page? The page will be deleted when all users have been removed. Thanks!!

For more information, please see User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne  Talk •  Hist 06:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

greetings
how does one get into the business of having strong opinions about deleting stuff? I mean, how do you get to the point where you'r offended by someone else's sillyness? I'v never wanted to delete anything. not that I oppose all deletion. I know wikipedia needs somebody to delete trash and vandalism. oh well. seeya 'round probly. Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh 18:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoo!
Spoo has just been featured! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize
Hi. Please don't vandalize pages, even if Nirvana was "WAY overrated," as it's just more work for editors to do when not writing articles, and it also makes you look bad if you're ever on WP:RFA or in some kind of dispute. Thanks and happy editing. -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 08:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about the definition of vandalism, but there are plenty of other applicable terms. Anyway, I've made more edits making noise about this than it took to fix it, so this seems like a good as place as any to quit while we're behind. -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 08:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

States of Mexico
Not sure I understand the edit summary ("who in the world thought that this was an acceptable entry?") with which you modified my signed comments on Talk:States of Mexico, but yeah, when I wrote that over a year ago, Washington State was a redirect to Washington. But of course you know that, because you just changed it. Put me down as confused, but not terribly concerned. –Hajor 00:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. –Hajor 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

wikiversity vote
If you cast a wikiversity vote, please make a link at your Wikimedia meta-wiki user page linking back to your wikipedia user page. If you do not do so, your vote will not count. --JWSchmidt 15:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Exploding animals
I think you're right about this one, so I'm giving in, as I said on the talk page. I just wanted to say "thank you very much" for being nice and humoring me by not re-reverting the template after I reverted it. You made your case clearly and without any scorn of arrogance, something that was a breath of fresh air for me. Thanks. Matt Yeager 06:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Likewise, thank you very much for participating in the discussion and considering my reasoning. That was a breath of fresh air for me.  —Lifeisunfair 19:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hangman game
I'll do game 16 myself, but if you want to host game 17, have a look at User_talk:Quadraxis, for instructions, make a puzzle, then let me know here or on my talk page that you're ready. CanadaGirl 06:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Edit on my userpage
According to User page, it does seem acceptable to edit someone else's userpage as such in good faith unless they have requested that it not be edited (for example, on mine, I invite users to correct any spelling and grammar errors, and even take a shot at reorganizing it if they wish.) Forgot which page, but I found a link to your userpage somewhere, and I have a habit of reading people's userpages for some reason. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 06:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think it was the page history for Template:Boom-stub. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 06:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure...
...George Bush sucks. But if you use that as an edit summary you may simply be reverted instinctively. It just looks like a vandal post. Marskell 23:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

...and, in fact, you have been reverted. Marskell 23:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Useing missleading edit summuries is frowed on. Please stop it.Geni 23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The page is in a class by itself. You'll be reverted, often, within seconds. Which is a good thing most of the times... I'd just suggest: don't do "vandal tests" or, in this case, "edit summary tests that aren't actually vandalism" on George Bush. Well, don't do this anywhere. But here it's particularly annoying as it just creates work for others who look at the page as a real f***ing drag on their time. I could care less about George Bush's political standing; I just watch it because it gets vandalized (literally) dozens of times a day. If I do one revert I'm helping out. Marskell 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I reverted myself. What you did stoped being funny somewhere around the 10th time I saw it. Missleading edit summuries is a clasic trolling tactic as such I would advise you against doing it.Geni 23:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry if the last post was brusque. Marskell 12:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fuchsia (color) coordinates
Check various Internet sites that talk about fuchsia as a color with defined RGB coordinates. The color 255 0 255 is obviously magenta, as indicated by the M in CMYK. Doing a Google search for CFYK reveals only a Canadian radio station and thus it is never used as a synonym. Any opinions on what the best choice for fuchsia is?? 66.32.248.238 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Tokitae
I've rewritten the article Tokitae from scratch. Perhaps you could take a look and reconsider your opinon to delete. Zeimusu | Talk page 14:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris Vance
One man's vandalism is another man's opinion. You see, what you've written for Vance is filled with opinion, which really has no place in an encyclopedia. The article, for instance, gives the impression that Dino Rossi was elected governor of Washington. Fact is, after all election laws were conformed with, the final recount showed that Gregoire came out on top. Calling the lawfully demanded hand recount a "last ditch effort" is opinion. You've also used selective facts in the article, by claiming that Rossi's election was "certified". While it's true the vote count was certified by the Sec of State, Washington State law gives the legislature the power to certify an election, and they "certified" Gregoire. And finally, it is clearly a matter of opinion that Vance "played an important role" in Rossi's challenge. Why not leave it at "played a role"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.148.12 (talk • contribs)

 * Hmm, that wasn't me who put all that stuff in. I just saw a huge amount of ridiculously unfactual information thrown in. Do you actually blame me for deleting this

 * "Vance eventually revealed himself as a fraud, when in 2005 he erroneously challenged thousands of voter registrations in King County. Ironically, most of the challenged voters were fellow Republican fat cats, who lived on luxury yachts and registered at rented mailboxes. Vance eventually withdrew into bitter seclusion, living out his days sending vitriolic hate mail to various regional newspapers, none of whom would print any of his rambling diatribes."

 * I mean, really? Anyways, your point about the rest of that article (which I didn't have a dang thing to do with, thank you very much) was taken. I've improved it (which you could have very easily done yourself, you know). As you don't have much of an account (and neither does the IP address that did the vandalism), I figured I'd respond here.

About Hangman
Hey, it's your friendly WB. Anyway, you seem interested in Hangman. So make sure you check out Hangman/application to apply to host the next round of Hangman. Thanks. (I'm spamming this to people who participated in round 19) -- WB 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

American
I always thought that American should link to United States, good work! Anyhoo, the reason why I'm here is that you couldn't move it to American (disambiguation). I've fixed that now, and since I'm an admin with a special interest in disambiguation I'm happy to help you sort out any problems you have like this next time. Or you could always pop in a Requested moves. Cheers.--Commander Keane 08:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't move it to American (disambiguation), Acjelen will probably revert me, and if your move idea is turned down by the community then the dab should exist at American. I don't understand why people won't let it redirect, United States is clearly the predominent usage (and I know, I've cleared 1500 "What links here" for American). I think the problem could be people from the United States feeling guilty about their world domination and wanting to pretend that they are fair, which is a shame because it means more work for the rest of us. --Commander Keane 00:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Processed Cheese
I reverted your change, since - my opinion - American cheese is not a synonym for processed cheese; it is a specific type of processed cheese. If you feel otherwise, we should discuss it on the article's talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Updated poll
I have completely changed the poll. Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)/Poll --AllyUnion (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

January 2006 Seattle meetup
Redwolf24 mentioned on Meetup/Seattle3 that you might be interested. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rose Bowl Game
From the score, it was OBVIOUSLY a "blowout", so adding that is just redundant editorializing. It would be more interesting for the article if you could source your contention that the score was the reason that they took so much time before the next Rose Bowl. Blank Verse 13:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your user page, etc.

 * A. It is past my bedtime.
 * B. "aren't" is a redirect. You might consider aren't.
 * C. You should consider coming to Seattle Wikipedia Meetup 3

WAvegetarian 07:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4. Canadian Hockey AFD. You got rather badly served on the "not paper" comment; I wanted to know who you were. 5. It was accidently deleted, sorry. WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 07:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Amongst
I may be a Wikirookie ... but ..... dude! "AMONGST" is a totally valid word ..... excuse (insert offensive explicative here) ;-) me for having a broad vocabulary, albeit a touch archaic. Seeing as you have a fondness for the arts (which hopefully includes literature), you surely wouldn't begrude someone their particular style of verbosity, now, would you?  Maybe once you advance more into adulthood ;-) you will have more appreciation for an author's decisive choices in turns of phrase, even if you "think" there is a better choice. I mean, I can totally see correcting errata such as typographical errors, or incorrect information ....... but, come on now!

Please, do not take this as a slam, and it is certainly not intended to evoke any expostulation or rebuttal ... just food for thought in, perhaps, less aggression for SUBTLE content changes. When I say amongst, I mean AMONGST!! LOL

Smiles .... and .... as always ..... have the day of your choice!! Eye 19:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Washington State
Ahoy there. Regarding your edits for Washington State, Washington, being the capitol district of the US, becomes a bit confused with the state, (see Washington state) I think Washington State should become a disambig page for these two, simply for clarity. I thought I'd check with you, since you seem to have taken the lead on this page. Thanks, --The Grza 08:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Diamond Rio
iTunes has wrong information. The group has 9 #1 singles. You can check their website (http://www.diamondrio.com/) to verify that. Other than that... good job on the Rio article ^_^

Dawn Escapes
Easily as good as Crashings, I think it's better. A slower sound but more mature. Marathons is easily their best song yet. Kertrats | [[User talk:Kertrats|Talk]] 04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Microsoft Hearts"
Why are there quotation marks around this title? I think you should move it to the non-quoted name. Good article, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * ....um never mind. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi Matt Yeager, Thank you for your support on my RFB. I withdrew it with a final vote of 14/5/2 and am planning on wait awhile before possibly re-applying. Thanks again for your vote. Jtkiefer T 21:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
If you believe that I've earned the community's trust, I'd be honored to accept your nomination. :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Matt! I sincerely appreciate your kind words.  I've formally accepted the nomination and answered the questions.  —Lifeisunfair 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks again for your nomination and support, Matt! I only hope that I'm able to live up the level of trust that the community has placed in me. —David Levy 06:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support of my Rfa, Matt Yeager. I am happy to announce that I have successfully been voted an administrator, and wish to say that I will work harder to make Wikipedia a more reliable source of information. I apologize if this seems impersonal but it is past my bedtime...zzzzz... Croat Canuck 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohhhh
I was trying to figure out how you know me. I realize now that you're upset I voted against LifeisUnfair because you nominated him. Just so you know, there is already an RFA(rbitration) against me, partly for my voting style, though it is not listed. Please provide diffs for any RFA(dminship) you have a query regarding and I will explain my reasoning. Please also be aware that many users vote controversially->Boothy, Zordrac, etc., but have not been disiplined because it does not break any policies. freestylefrappe 19:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your intense support of my RfA, and for your generous comments. I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re : Articles_for_deletion/Tapioca_Days
Hi Matt,

All done! Let me know if I have accidentally missed out anything more. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 08:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected?
Huh, so it is. I think that's really rather unnecessary, and just part of template-phobia. Anyway, I'll recategorize it. -Splash talk 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Running up the Score
Dealing with the article on running up the score in college football, the Alabama fan makes some very reasonable points about why they kept their players still in the game in the 3rd quarter. The page should try to balance the issues more. In my opinion, running up the score means playing starters and passing in the 4th quarter when favored to win big and leading by an insourmountable margin. In the 3rd quarter, it is possible for the other team to come back, especially a florida gators team. Just remember the Bills comback agasinst the Oilers in the early 1990s. see The Comeback (American football) Nick Dillinger 05:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * considering all the possible examples throughout the history of football, I don't believe that the Florida example is the most deserving of including. I suggest we delete the florida example and keep the Western Carolina example and include the critcism about keeping the starters for the start of the 2nd half.-Nick Dillinger 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use image
How come you deleted my picture of Spike from the teen pregnancy page. The picture is fair use; look on it's description page. It is a low-resolution screenshot from a tv show, which qualifies as fair-use. See template:tv-screenshot for more information.--  (  ✒  |  ☏  ) 19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Spider Solitaire
I saw on your user page a while back, that you liked Spider Solitaire, but it was a red link. I have since found an article about the game at Spider_%28solitaire%29, but since you removed the link, I couldn't just correct it. If you want to re-add it, it's there. CanadaGirl 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me on my successful RfA! It passed with a final tally of 40/9/1. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask!  Sceptr e  ( Talk  )

POV check on Sammamish, WA
You deleted the POV-check I had left on Sammamish, Washington as a “seemingly unnecesary POV-check”. It would've been nice to leave a blurb on the talk page with reasoning. It appears this sort of flowery chamber of commerce pamphlet-style language is pretty common in Wikipedia city pages, but I'd assert it’s not a good thing.-- wac (talk contrib) 07:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanation and edits. Cheers. - wac (talk contrib) 21:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your ArbCom vote
Hi Matt. I am rather confused as to the vote you made on the page regarding my ArbCom candidacy. You wrote: Arbritration is nowhere NEAR as important as articles... anyone who puts them within worlds of each other is liable to be too arbcom-absorbed (self-absorbed) for the committee. I fully agree with you. May I ask where you got the opinion that I didn't? If it was in relation to my comment that I don't write many articles, I see my role on WP as facilitating the writing of articles, as this is where I can most productively contribute. Please note that I am not asking you to change your vote, merely to clarify so I properly understand. Cheers, [[Sam Korn ]] 10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much. :-) [[Sam Korn ]] 12:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My hand / cohabitation
Thank you for the best wishes :) My hand is improving/healing better than expected, so I hope to be able to reply to your comment on Talk:Cohabitation next week. When I´m completely back, I'll see whether I can clean up the article, to meet some of the issues raised on the talk page. Would you be opposed to one more template on the article: globalize? Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have (finally) replied to your comment on Talk:Cohabitation. I hope there's still something new and useful in what I said, and that we haven't reached stalemate yet. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

washington
ok Ill remove the New York part since that doesnt relate to the Washington article. But I was referring to a different move than the one discussed: make Washington direct to the city, I thought the one that was discussed was to make it a disambig -- Astrokey44 |talk 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Mad Season, Mad season, mad season -- mad Season?
Mad Season released a CD in 1995 titled Above please explain why the search for mad season should point only to the album mad season by matchbox twenty? Also, how is the band improperly referred to as mad season? Basing this redirect on a user typing mad season instead of Mad Season is a little persnickety (especially considering mad season isn't properly referred to as "Mad season" either). Besides, I belive most people disregard proper capitalization conventions while performing searches. All that is accomplished is that looking up Mad Season (band) becomes more difficult. --Torsin 18:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix
You asked:

 * After there are no (non-talk page) links pointing there, would you support a changing of the redirect to Phoenix, Arizona? Matt Yeager 00:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't live in the USA; so personally I next to never have reason to think about Phoenix, Arizona. For me the automatic association of the word phoenix is the mythological bird. Inevitably, that colours my view. Secondly Phoenix, Arizona is very often called just that -- it has a standard disambiguifier which is regularly used as part of its name. Phoenix (bird) does not. That to me is weight behind Phoenix (bird) being the primary redirect.

I think there can also be a case for Phoenix (disambiguation) being the primary redirect -- because that might encourage more article writers to disambiguate Phoenix links, which would make the "what links here" button more useful for each of the substantive articles. Also, I strongly doubt that either of the uses Phoenix (bird) or Phoenix, Arizona can claim to be statistically dominant, to the extent of accounting for say 95% of searches or 95% of links or 95% of link traffic.

For me, any case for Phoenix, Arizona being the primary redirect is significantly weaker than either of the above. -- Jheald 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

Redirects, etc.
Personally, I don't have any strong feelings about where "AD" should point, but if redirecting it to Anno Domini instead of the disambig page is really so important to you, you could at least do it properly. You didn't bother including a line at the top of the Anno Domini page; most people wouldn't (or shouldn't have to) type "AD (disambiguation)" to get the disambig page.

Fourohfour 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * As per your userpage... Sorry about that. My bad. Thanks for noticing, though! Matt Yeager 22:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome,, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. Redwolf24 runs the spam to keep members up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of FireFox, Flcelloguy, Titoxd, and Karmafist. The next set of elections will be in February, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work! Cheers, Sango  123   (talk)  00:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Mad Season
I understand there are technical difficulties, what I don't understand is why it should be so difficult to get to information about the band Mad Season. Most search engines are not case-sensitive so why should a search on Wikipedia be so? The most user friendly approach would be have searches for mad season, Mad Season, Mad season or mad Season (not to mention MAd season, MAD season, etc.) point to a disambiguation page except for the pages mad season (album) or Mad Season (band). If one searches Google for mad season the first six links point to the band not the album which is another reason why there should be a disambiguation page for Wikipedia searches for mad season. Also, as you stated Mad Season does not properly refer to the album mad season, but rather to the band, so by your own logic the page Mad Season should redirect to the band not the album, especially considering the aforementioned Google search.--Torsin 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the compromise searching for the band or the album should now be hassle free.--Torsin 03:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Request for reconsideration: my RFA
At Requests_for_adminship/Matt_Yeager, you voted "oppose", noting that you "do not see the truth in Matt's statement above, I've been in my fair share of disagreements on Wikipedia, winning some and losing some, but I've learned a lot from all of them, and I believe that I could handle administrator responsibilities without losing my head. From what I see in the e argument, he has not learned a lot and he cannot handle responsibilities without losing his head."

I don't really want to do this, but I'm wondering if you would please reconsider. The "e" issue occured about three months ago. That's what I meant when I said that "I learned a lot" from it; I did learn an awful lot about WP:CIVIL, etc. . I know I DID make mistakes on the page in multiple facets, but I'm wondering if you could point out any time where I really "lost my head". I don't personally believe that I ever acted too far out of line; I'd really appreciate knowing where I went so wrong (if in fact I did), since once a source emerged for the claim, I did back off. I haven't asked any of the other "oppose" voters to reconsider (though I might), but you seemed to have a very positive opinion of my adminship potential, except for one (admittedly bad) mistake I made. I really do believe that I've learned from that mistake, and hope that you reconsider (though of course I understand why you wouldn't). Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if I sounded harsh when I left that comment, but I reviewed some of the pages in your answer to question three. For example, you mentioned your current debate at Talk:Cohabitation.  Your first comment already sets a bad impression because, first of all, you CAPITALIZED words (which is discouraged as per WP:TALK since it is SHOUTING) and you shifted all responsibility to Aecis.  I understand that Aecis was just trying to revert vandalism and was a bit lazy, but that doesn't mean that you should be lazy, too.  I like to think of Wikipedia as a mutual community - we all have to work together.  The debate does get a bit friendlier, but I noticed that you finished the debate on a "good note" less than one hour after nominating yourself for adminship and before accepting.  You knew that nobody would vote until you accepted, so you wanted everybody, upon scrutinizing (excuse my word choice) your edits to see it end with a positive.

 * Other than that, you are an extremely well qualified candidate. You have 2900 edits and almost 300 in the WP namespace.  I'll compromise with you - since your debate with Aecis ended nicely and your argument here seems both friendly and flawless, if you can demonstrate to me one improvement in your "debates" before your RfA ends, please post it on my talk page and I'll gladly change to support.  Just one improvement - it could be by kindly asking me to vote for you, by leaving comments on your own RfA page, by further compromising with Aecis, or by engaging in a discussion somewhere else.  I do believe you have what it takes - now just prove you can improve. -- M  @  th  wiz  2020  00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * By the way, I like the link to Special:Random in your signature! :) And I recommend that, once your RfA ends, you archive all pre-RfA discussions on your user talk page! -- M  @  th  wiz  2020  00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Probably the best example of me learning from my mistakes would be the Mad Season pages (Mad Season, Mad season, Mad Season (band), Mad season (album)), especially Mad Season itself (page history). The article on the grunge band (whose actual name is Mad Season) was originally placed at (keep track of the capitalization here!) Mad Season, and the album (whose actual name is mad season) was placed at Mad Season (album), with a disamb header over the band's page. Well, mad season is a 4-million+ seller with a #1 hit, not to mention one of my favorite albums (might as well be honest =P), so I disambiguated the pages, putting the band at Mad Season (band), which worked fine until User:Torsin came along and made Mad Season redirect to the band's page. (Still with me here?) I reverted with a note in the edit summary and on his talk page, and Torsin left this note on my userpage. He provided solid evidence, and so I made Mad Season a redirect to the band's page, and made Mad season redirect to the album's page, with a disambiguation header on top of each of them. As you can see on our talk pages, this disagreement was handled civilly by both parties and to a conclusion which we both agreed with.

 * That's one example. I don't have all that many others, because I don't do the "talk page of contentious article" thing so much anymore. That's why, actually, my little musical note redirects to Special:Random... because that's how I've made so many of my worthwhile edits (like the ones to Chris Vance, Dedan Kimathi, etc... some totally random dudes that I just stumbled across in a state of total disrepair). I've tried to put the encylcopedia first, especially since the e debacle... I've come to realize that there are vastly more important (and vastly more easily changed) things than one sentence on a certain number's importance. Really, that's the most important thing I've learned from the arguments I've had on Wikipedia, and I hope that the scope of my edits proves how thoroughly I've taken it to heart. If the reasons I've presented seem compelling enough, then I would like to ask you to please change your vote on my RFA. Thanks for listening in any case. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Wow... looks like you are a superb admin candidate after all. One lesson from all of this: patience is extremely important (for example, see this other discussion I had about my signature).  I'll go and change my vote in just a minute!  And good luck with your RfA!  (I'm also sorry I couldn't respond yesterday, but I was sick and I slept through most of the afternoon and evening, when I normally edit Wikipedia.) -- M  @  th  wiz  2020

My RFA
Hi, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your request for adminship
Hi Matt,

It is with regret that I have to inform you that your request for adminship was not successful on this occasion. The consensus required for a successful adminship nomination is 75-80%, and you achieved 63%. Keep up the good work however, and I look forward to seeing your name on a nomination again in the future. -- Francs2000 12:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Red Slash/Archive1


text:
Paul Doucette

Paul John Doucette (born August 22, 1972) is an American musician best known for being the drummer, rhythm guitarist, and backing vocalist of the band Matchbox Twenty. Doucette is also known as a film composer and as the frontman of his own band The Break and Repair Method. He was married to Moon Zappa from 2002 to 2014.

Career
After moving to Orlando, Doucette met Rob Thomas and Brian Yale and became part of the band Tabitha's Secret. The trio went on to form what would become Matchbox Twenty, which he is credited with naming. For their first three albums, he played mainly the drums. In 2002, for the band's third album, More Than You Think You Are, Doucette took on significantly more instruments to play. He played piano and both acoustic and electric guitar, as well as more obscure instruments such as Synthesizer, Clavinet and Mellotron.

In 2005, with the departure of rhythm guitarist Adam Gaynor, Doucette took over the rhythm guitar duties. The Break and Repair Method drummer Ryan MacMillan took over on the drums for the compilation album Exile on Mainstream with both MacMillan and Doucette playing on the song "How Far We've Come". For the band's fourth album North in 2012, Doucette returned to play the drums, but continued on rhythm guitar and backing vocals.

title: Paul Doucette


text:
Talk:Salome (disciple)

New Testament Apocrypha WP:Weight
It seems there is a little too much sympathy given to the apochryphal forgeries of early Christianity in this article. Clean it up, someone! Tix 23:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you've noticed, but there are special tags to place on pages to indicate things like bias (or sympathies) in articles. There are complete lists at Cleanup resources and Template messages/Disputes.  You should also know that followers of apochryphal Christian scriptures are a strong element on Wikipedia.  Any edits to this page will have to be done in cooperation with them. -Acjelen 01:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If anyone doubts whether assertions of violation of "POV" are code terms for "Not my point-of-view", the POV label has been applied here by User:Tom Peters "because|This article elaborates on apocryphical writings and mostly ignores the canonical tradition". Let's have some "canonical" tradition for this article, and let us keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an approved organ of the Roman Church. --Wetman 15:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, what were they thinking?
Matthew] Is that supposed to be normal, or does somebody need to clean that up? I'm just bringing that up because whoever did that needs to be taken behind the woodshed (given a "talking to"). [[User:71.210.96.162|71.210.96.162 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to clean this up, maybe it's more clear now. Rwflammang 01:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't salvage the phrase "leaving Salome unrelated to Jesus" at the end of the paragraph on the gospel of John; It's a non-sequitur as far as I can see. Perhaps the original editor was thinking of something he did not write? Rwflammang 01:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What does this sentence in the middle of the paragraph on John have to do with Salome? Or with John for that matter? Let's move it.
 * "Mary the mother of James and Joses" mentioned in Matthew may be identified with Mary, the mother of Jesus, backed up by an earlier passage in Mark which names a James and a Joses (or Joseph) as being among Jesus' brothers.
 * "In 15:40, we read: "And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the Mother of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome." This is a falsified quote. An interpretation presented as text. What else is wrong? --Wetman 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment about a falsified quote. What does Mark 15:40 really say? That quote looks accurate to me. Rwflammang 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Salome the Heresiarchess
Salome appears briefly in Mark, which is believed to be the earliest Gospel. Then her name is not even mentioned in Matthew, Luke, or John. Later, in the apocryphal literature, she is represented sometimes as Jesus' most faithful disciple or the woman who tried to tempt him. She must have been a prominent heresiarch, a major heretic and the leader of a heretical sect, which is why Matthew, Luke and John suppress her name. Saint or Heretic? Great Leader or Temptress? Or All of the Above? Next: The Salome Code.Das Baz 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Distinct Salome
I am wondering if anyone has sources that identify that this Salome and Salome, daughter of Herodias are different people. I am not disputing this fact, I just think that that information should be properly sourced and integrated into the article, rather than simply given a passing mention in the redirect.

--trlkly 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

 * Salome the disciple at the foot of the cross of Jesus was a grown woman, the mother (perhaps) of James and John, grown men and followers of Jesus. The daughter of Herod was a young girl at the time of Jesus' ministry. It is unlikely that James and John were both grandsons of Herod and disciples of Jesus. There is no reason to suppose that the woman is the same as the girl. Rwflammang 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we can not even be sure that the names were the same, since "Salome" can be either Shulamith or Shlomzion. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - this is an issue that could be raised at many a disam page - How do you know they aren't the same person? Perhaps a new tag is needed? Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The wife of Zebedee?
And the mother of James and John? Sorry, this "fact" just does NOT appear in any of the Gospels, it is an extremely thin inference that we simply are not allowed to make at this late date. I am removing. If someone puts it back, you MUST SOURCE. (Knowing already that there are no such sources.) 173.20.132.128 (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Legend
I read somewhere she settles in Veroli, Italy and spread the gospel there. I also read 22 October for her feast day. Must get references. Rwflammang (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently she plays a large role in the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles. (Epistula Apostolorum? Gospel of the Twelve? Rwflammang (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * May want to discuss her role in iconography some more, too. Rwflammang (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

More on the equation between Salome and the Mother of the Sons of Zebedee
I do not think it is appropriate to state that Salome is the same as the mother of the sons of Zebedee as an objective fact (as was done on the article before). I instead wrote "She might be the same person as the wife of Zebedee" to make it clear that there is some dispute about this identification. On that note, I wonder if it would be appropriate to add another section to the article discussing the case for and against the link between Salome and the wife of Zebedee. Artemzista (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Bad language comparison?
Not a language expert, but even I know that the Arabic "Salome" is cognate to Hebrew "Shalom". Either Salome's name is from Hebrew "Shalom" (and that would be highly relevant), or the mention of the Arabic and Aramaic is irrelevant and inaccurate. I'm not qualified to assess which. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:F145:1DBC:D2FC:F6BD (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Salome (disciple). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901222449/http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=salome to http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=salome

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Salome (disciple)


text:
Category:UEFA Women's Championship

This category lists articles about the UEFA Women's Championship.

title: Category:UEFA Women's Championship


text: Category:Slovakia geography stubs

title: Category:Slovakia geography stubs


text:
User talk:Tkorrovi/archive1

page size
Read Page size. Pages are to be kept under 32 KB, except in special cases, such as Village pump. ugen64 15:33, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't know where it is written, many pages are more than 32K, like artificial intelligence talk page (42K), and I didn't see nowhere splitting talk pages to archives. The text you mentioned only recommends splitting pages to sections, not archives. BTW the page is not accessible now. Tkorrovi 16:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Isolation of artificial consciousness
Until some consensus it agreed and the bit at the top of the artificial consciousness page is removed, i.e. the disputed objectivity of the article, it might be better to direct wikipedia readers to a straightforward exposition of the various experts in the field and a list of related topics in an article that cites its sources in every instance, rather than expressing unattributable opinions. I notice that Paul has already started copying some of his stuff from AC to the synthesised consciousness page, which I'm not particularly in favour of, as there's no need to duplicate what's already written. My intro on the simulated consciousness talk page attempted to make the distinction that the AC page is more about the philosophical aspects of what constitutes AC (and I'd have thought a good direction to go in here on the AC page is to explain Aleksander's theory in this respect, which I think you had started to do. I don't understand Aleksander's theories, so you'd be doing me a good turn if tou could explain them to the lay person), whereas the synthesised consciousness page is about practical implementations, e.g. Kismet, etc, which you didn't want included under AC. The synthetic consciousness page is new and therefore it is useful to draw readers' attention to it, which is why I diverted some of the links. You have now included both links, which seems fine, though it might be helpful perhaps to have a disambiguity page to highlight the different foci of the separate pages. Matt Stan 16:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

To enumerate the points above: Matt Stan 16:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Paul is copying stuff from AC to synthetic consciousness - which I disagree with. Perhaps you will support me in this. The focus of the two articles is at present different, which is OK in wikipedia terms, provided we make clear the distinction, hence my idea of a disambiguity page. What do you think?
 * Igor Aleksander's theoretical paper on artificial consciousness, which he explicitly calls artificial consciousness, could do with some explanation. He mentions emotional aspects and the point about prediction, which we discussed some while ago. Are you going to cover his arguments under Artificial consciousness, or should I put a link to Igor Aleksander on the synthetic consciousness page?
 * You objected to my reference to Kismet on the AC page on the grounds that emotion was a psychological rather than AC topic. Nevertheless, Kitmet gives a close approximation to the type of test to which a machine consciousness implementation might be assessed. Whether it passes the test or not is aonther question. But it's at least a first step, which is why I want to cover it under synthetic consciousness. Any objections to that?

To summarise the above, there are three questions:
 * 1) To stop Paul wrecking the synthetic consciousness page and duplicating material that is already on the artificial consciousness page.
 * 2) To give good encyclopedic coverage of Igor Aleksander's work
 * 3) To decide whether the emotional components of a machine consciousness implementation should be on the AC or on the syhthetic consciousness page.

1, 2, 3: clear enough?

You used the argument that you started the artificial consciousness page and hence that that gave you some rights of proprietorial control of it. I don't think this is quite the spirit of wikipedia, but nevertheless you would no doubt grant me the same grace in that I started the synthetic consciousness page. We might at some stage merge the two, or at least delete one of them.

You mention that there is no link to artificial consciousness from synthetic consciousness. But what about vice versa? Matt Stan 16:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Paul had nothing to do with me starting the synthetic consciousness page. I just found the arguing on the AC talk page too distracting to build a good encyclopedia article. It is good practice from time to time to do a re-write, because there is a natural entropy in wikipedia with different people coming in in an unstructured way and resulting in articles that lose their focus. There is even a special namespace message {msg:inuse} to indicate that a rewrite is in progress. In this instance I thought it better to start again afresh and take a slightly different tack, i.e. to dwell on machine implementations of consciousness, leading to ideas about what the practical uses of stynthesised consciousness might be, along the lines that I have been discussing on the AC talk page.

Paul decided to come along and debate matters like the relevance of Leibniz's law to assessment of any implementation, and I hope this will be constructive, but you have seen what he is like! Are you saying you want Paul back arguing with you on the AC talk page? I'd have thought you would be grateful that I was distracting him elsewhere so you could get on with building a good encyclopedic article on the theoretical aspects of artificial consciousness and give some in-depth coverage of the proponents with whom you are familiar, eg. Aleksander, et al., while I dwell on the engineering aspects, which I find more interesting and easier to grasp. Matt Stan 17:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Who supports whom
I try not to make direct public criticism of anyone, and everything written here is in the public domain. Therefore I am neither going to support nor arraign Paul for his behaviour. I have, however, just given a reference on the AC talk page to Aleksander's notion of consciousness involving prediction, which you can construe if you like as me supporting you rather than Paul, thought it is just intended to take the discussion forward. In an academic context such as in the preparation of an encyclopedia, where all we are after is truth and certainty, it is a distraction to discuss one's own feelings or the motivations of others. I have already written that I don't think you are a troll, and made welcoming noises when you complained that no one was being welcoming. But writing here is occurring at a level of abstraction that is a step removed from personal encounters. I should much enjoy meeting you if you were to visit London, or if I travelled to Estonia, and I'm sure we could have a good laugh together as well as having a lively discussion about AC, etc.. It is far better to stick to the topic at hand here, though. Rather than complaining about how others treat you personally (which, as I've indicated is not so because of the detachment that one should apply in this medium) it is better to argue about the nature of artificial consciousness and make expositions of what leading thinkers have to say about the topic. You will get a lot further if you back your arguments up with references (always). Then people won't try to refute you, except perhaps to clarify what you mean. I think that is the crux of the problem actually. Your incomplete grasp of English leads me to puzzle about much of what you write, in order to determine what you are on about. I have made what I considered gentle criticism of your English, in the hope that you would take that on board. It was not intended as hypercriticism. As I've already shown, confusion in the usage of what and that can lead to differences in meaning, so that there can arise a discrepancy between what you mean and what you put. That is problematic, and the example I chose is not the only one. Since you are evidently sensitive about this issue I have not pursued it. But if I were attempting to write in Estonian (a language that I know not at all), and I made mistakes, then I would definitely not resent any criticism that others made about my usage, no matter how hypercritical, because I would see that as a path towards excellence. As for pretending to be your friend, I am trying to keep the peace, in order that we can make progress. (The fact that I take time to write this surely speaks for itself.) The dialogues on the AC talk page are, I think, viewed as entertainment by other wikipedians, but things have recently been getting out of hand, and we had lost sight of what the article should be about and making no real progress at all. I am hoping to move things on. There was a suggestion recently (not from Paul) that the AC page should be deleted. What is wrong now with having a little competition? You burnish the AC page, and I will attempt to develop the synthetic consciousness page. Then we can hold a poll to see which page other wikipedians think should be kept. Matt Stan 10:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

"I find the mediation necessary..."
 * Ok, in that case, I suggest you request it officially at requests for mediation. I was suggesting that you should enter mediation, but unfortunately, I won't be able to be the mediator as I am already involved in a case which is quite time consuming. There is a list of mediators at Mediation Committee. Do you have a preference for who mediates? I believe Anthere is currently too busy, and BCorr is involved in a different case but the others are available as far as I know. If you could let someone know who would like to mediate, they can contact Paul Beardsell about it. TUF-KAT and sannse are the current chairs of the committee, so you could contact either of them about it. Angela. 22:08, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Months of work
I agree that there is a great deal of material, as evidenced by your Google search. These are some names of researchers hat come up again and agan and there are various universities, e.g. Birmingham, that seem to publish more material than others. It would be interesting and, I think, useful to get some kind of overview of the field, perhaps by a simple statistical analysis of results of Google searches. I don't think the scale of the task should deter us, however, unless you are looking for a 'quick fix'. My concern, over a longer term project, is, as I mentioned, that we keep sight of a vision, namely to build an article that might one day be featured on Wikipedia's main page for a day. If you are in agreement with my classification, we might start to collate the research material, read it, and extract the summaries/overview to make a good article. The classification scheme I proposed was essentially:
 * a) material that provides the background (perhaps covering the philosophical debate)
 * b) early attempts (which may have failed or only go partly toward the ultimate objective), and I think criticisms of the early AI research have a bearing on this, highlighting the difficulties encountered by early implementations
 * c) current research topics and achievements, leading to predictions about future possibilities. Matt Stan 10:41, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I note that you took out the link to http://mind.sourceforge.net/conscius.html from the AC page. My feeling is that it's generally not helpful to remove links, unless they are clearly patent nonsense. The sourceforge resource is generally useful, so I'd suggest putting that link back, but perhaps with a qualifier suggesting that it may not be mainstream, i.e. category b) above. Matt Stan 10:41, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back
Matt Stan 20:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness article
I re-read the stuff in there whaich hadn't been altered since May this year, and then read the contribution of our anonymous contributor. I must say that he is clear, concise and, I think, knowledgeable and right in the points he makes. I am not into having edit wars, but I agree with his notion of moving the original artificial consciousness stuff to Strong AI, and representing the AC stuff in the way that he now proposes. It moves us all forward. Don't you agree? Matt Stan 10:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
You asked on my talkpage, whether I would like to mediate the matter of the artificial consciousness article? I can try to help you and those who agree to the mediation; but it is as yet unclear who the other parties are that you would like mediation with, and whether they are willing to participate. -- Cimon 07:04, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I can try to see what I can do to ease teh tension
Ok. Well, that is a bit more explicit. I'll definitely look into it. -- Cimon 17:09, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Psb777
Look, this is going to get messy. You know that as I point out the history, event by event, you will end up looking very silly, and already in the arbitration request you are looking ridiculous. Why not just withdraw your request for arbitration? Paul Beardsell 23:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
The request for arbitration involving you has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Psb777, again
If you don't like the way this is going you could just withdraw your request for arbitration. Paul Beardsell 08:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Paul, you really don't do yourself any credit by bullying people around like this. --Chinasaur 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Chinasaur, I think you misunderstand. I am preparing a mass of evidence which will show Tkorrovi in bad light.  I think he is aware of it - it is available as a link from my Talk page.  I am giving Tkorrovi a chance to back down, to say: "OK, let's forget it all, there is (no longer?) any real problem".  Then we can all go home and I do not need to defend myself.  You seem to forget that I did not bring this case.  Nor do I think I really provoked its bringing - this is mostly all many months ago.  All I did recently was (i) revert a deletion by Tkorrovi of some interesting material and (ii) delete an unparseable sentence he added.  It's in the log.  And upon his reversion of my changes I see someone else has done what I did without complaint by him.  But I wonder if you are saying that Tkorrovi deserves some special consideration of which I am unaware.  I at least credit Tkorrovi with "all the capabilities of a normal human" (to use one of his favorite phrases at artificial consciousness).  Why do you patronise him so condescendingly?  Paul Beardsell 07:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction
The Arbitration Committee has passed an injunction related to your case; you and Paul Beardsell are hereby prohibited from editing artificial consciousness for the duration of the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:34, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Personal questions

 * Moved here from the ArbCom case

Chinasaur, you don't have to answer, and this has nothing to do with the subject whatsoever. But as my nationality was already mentioned here against my will, may I ask, are you not Russian? I mean the authors you like, Prokofiev, Dvorak, Turgenev, Gogol, Bulgakov. I again don't say that there is anything wrong with these authors, but just as much as I know, non-Russians usually don't have so many Russian authors as their joice.Tkorrovi 22:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No I'm not Russian. I just happen to have an interest in Russian literature.  I will assume this is just a friendly inquiry; I also would like to know more about who you actually are since my knowledge of you is limited to these unfortunate circumstances.  However, I'm sure you understand that I don't really know where I stand with you, and can't be sure whether you are acting in good faith, so it makes me a little uncomfortable to have you digging into my identity.  --Chinasaur 02:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Tkorrovi is a customs officer. Ergo, he is not stupid. See in this regard. Matt Stan 07:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving comments
I felt like the comments, especially your argument with Paul, are pretty tangential to the case itself. That's why I invited you to select some points that you think are relevant and summarize them in close proximity to my original comments. But having that whole huge chunk at the bottom is just going to discourage people from reading any of the page.

But if everyone has already agreed not to do any moving or summarizing then I apologize. Or if this is standard for ArbCom cases, I didn't know any better.

--Chinasaur 03:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I just feel bad for anyone who has to read through all of that. I don't agree that the information content is all that high.  Especially no one is going to want to read you and Paul arguing with each other.  But actually I don't really care much; I was just trying to be helpful by creating a summary and saving people time.  Feel free to change it back.  Actually, better than changing it back would be to move my original comments to the side page; at least that would declutter the talk page, and you wouldn't have to worry about my comments getting preference.  What do you think about that?  --Chinasaur 03:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, again
If you don't like the way this is going you could just withdraw your request for arbitration. Paul Beardsell 22:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of English
I studied anthropology at university many years ago, but I am not an anthropologist. I am an engineer now - testing software mostly. There is an old Czeck proverb: Learn a new language and get a new soul. I did not suggest that people whose language does not use a particular construction, e.g. future tense, are necessarily deficient in their gasp of the concept of the future, though I can't remember which language it is which sees the future as behind us and the past in front, wherease English uses the opposite metaphor. The justification for putting the future behind is that you can visualise the past whereas the future is hidden. Things that stand behind one are hidden from view whereas things in front one can see. So there's good logic in switching past and future round like that. It is generally easier for English people to learn Indo-European languages than, say, Japanese, because those languages are more closely related and hence present fewer difficulties in translation. Some of the Baltic languages are not from the same stable. Finnish, I gather was invented a century or so ago. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are quite closely related, and Estonian is more closely related to Turkish. My disussion of the future tense in relation to Estonian was merely to enquire whether English might present particular difficulites for learners because, if so, there might be other difficulties, which a native spreaker could then be sensitive to when interpreting that writer's text.

As for relevance to the AC, article, I think the main difficulty there has been one of interpretation. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass. That is a famous quote because it makes the point that Humpty Dumpty is an idiot. Though English is not formally defined - there is no English equivalent to the French Académie Françcaise to control the language - we do generally accept words to have particular meanings in particular contexts, and if an utterance is ambiguous or unclear then that is the writer's error and not the reader's. But one does need to know what words mean - as the grammar book that you copied parts of into wikibooks explained - before one can expect to use them correctly. Perhaps a better example than usage of future tense would be the distinction between proprietorial and proprietary - two entirely distinct adjectives with no overlap in meaning. But someone who had only ever lived under a communist government might be forgiven for finding proprietary (and perhaps even proprietorial) difficult concepts to understand because they refer to cultural phenomena that do not exist in communism: if there is no such thing as copyright/trademark then there is no such thing as proprietary. English has about ten times as many words in it as Norwegian. That doesn't in any way imply that English is a superior language or that there are things incapable of being expressed in Norwegian, but it might make it more difficult for an English speaker to learn Norwegian (because there woud be some words that couldn't be translated), and vice versa (because Norwegian writers would need to find the 'right word', which might not exist in their language). But I suffer from another problem, as evinced in this quote: "A man who uses a great many words to express his meaning is like a bad marksman who, instead of aiming a single stone at an object, takes up a handful and throws in hopes he may hit." Matt Stan 19:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness
It is hard to say how your arbitration case will turn out. If you can continue editing it, let me make some suggestions regarding references. If you use information from any source in the article, set forth a brief quotation, the page, author, title, ISBN, url or what ever would help a knowledgeable person to find the passage you are relying on. Those references can be commented or put in a references section. This should include even difficult to find or access material, if in fact, you use them in the article. Other material which is easy to access should be the section other reading or external links. Fred Bauder 20:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bully
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision. Paul Beardsell 19:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You made a good post on Jimbo's page
Hello, Tarvo Korrovits:

I think you made a good post here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=18551597&oldid=18540927#.3D.3DA_concern.3D.3D

You have difficulty in the English language, but you tried hard and did well.

I tried to rephrase your concern, so it would be more easily understood, and I also tried to offer some suggested solutions. Thank you for your effort. I hope that I did well. If your language is listed here: http://world.altavista.com/tr then you can translate my message to you. Thank you. Have a nice day,--GordonWattsDotCom 20:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tkorrovi/archive1


text:
Video game director

Video game director may refer to:

 * Video game producer, the person in charge of overseeing development of a video game
 * Technical director, usually a senior technical person within creative group
 * Art director, a blanket title for a variety of similar job functions
 * Creative director, a position often found within creative organizations
 * Sound director, the head of the sound department

Video game director may also refer to the lead roles of:

 * Video game developer, a software developer that creates video games
 * Video game designer, a person who designs gameplay
 * Video game programmer, a person who primarily develops codebase for video games or related software

title: Video game director


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Park Diamondback

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to University of Maryland. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

College Park Diamondback
Student newspaper for University of Maryland. No claims of notability, just three short sentences. Willmcw 23:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge and redirect to UMD. Not notable.  (And I'm an alumna)  And I think the proper title is The Diamondback, anyway.  If memory serves... --  Etacar11   01:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's a better idea. -- Etacar11   15:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to the school. Xoloz 05:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Revise; should be renamed University of Maryland Diamondback, is notable in several areas and this article should be allowed to grow -Howardjp 13:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is it notable? I'm curious. -- Etacar11   14:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it is the largest circulation college paper, and one of the few dailies, it is the newspaper that originated the comic strip The Boondocks and was edited by Jayson Blair before he became a fiction writer for the New York Times
 * I know USC and UCLA both have dailies. And I think Columbia does too. Not sure how widespread this is. But I think the Diamondback merits mention in the UMD article, not its own.  Just my opinion.  All I remember of it is kids whining about city noise restrictions... ;) --  Etacar11   14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, nn. Radiant_ >|< 14:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the University. I gotta say, though, it always strikes me as amusing when the VfD has more information than the article. -R. fiend 15:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn student paper. JamesBurns 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect after adding the information added from this discussion. Vegaswikian 00:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Note - I've sourced the info that someone provided above and added it to the University article. -Willmcw 22:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Brooklyn Children's Museum

The Brooklyn Children's Museum is a children's museum in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn in New York City. Founded in 1899, it is the first children's museum in the United States – and according to some, the first one worldwide. It is unusual in its location in what is predominantly a residential area. Housed in a multi-level underground gallery, the museum underwent an expansion and renovation to double its space, reopened on September 20, 2008, and became the first green museum in New York City.

Exhibits
The museum's collection and exhibitions reflect its long history as well as the changes in children's educational needs over time and the changing environment. Its original focus was the presentation of natural science to children raised in an urban environment, but following World War II, technology and cultural awareness became more important. The underground gallery in which the museum was located following a 1975 move provided the ideal location for arranging evolving exhibits. The museum was not intended to solely attract the interest of a young audience, but rather to engage their minds from a young age. Children contribute extensively in the planning of museum exhibits, and have done so for a significant part of its history.

History
The Museum was founded following a proposal from the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences (now the Brooklyn Museum) on December 16, 1899, in the Adams House. The museum operated under the direction of the Brooklyn Institute and received approximately $70,000 in funds from New York City each year to supplement the donations it received. Attendance grew quickly, with monthly visitation exceeding 13,000 by October 1905.

In 1929, the museum opened the Smith House annex. Eleanor Roosevelt attended the ceremony. In 1930, the Works Progress Administration supplied hundreds of workers to the museum, which thrived in the Great Depression. Among these workers was Ellis Credle, who painted murals before her career as an author began. By October 1930, monthly visitation had reached 60,000 and by 1939, the museum had received move than 9 million visitors since it opened 40 years prior. In 1968 the Brooklyn Children's Museum opened MUSE, the Bedford Lincoln Neighborhood Museum. In 1975, the museum moved to an award-winning new space, housed underneath Brower Park at St Mark's and Brooklyn Avenues, following the demolition of the Victorian houses that served as its prior home. In 1996, the museum was once again renovated at a cost of $7 million to include miniature amphitheaters and a number of new galleries. Two years later, it became a part of Heart of Brooklyn, a cultural partnership established to promote tourism to Brooklyn.

In 2005, it was among 406 New York City arts and social service institutions to receive part of a $20 million grant from the Carnegie Corporation, which was made possible through a donation by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In the same year, work began on the $43 million expansion that was to nearly double the size of the museum, and handle more than 400,000 visitors each year. As part of its commitment to environmental integrity and energy efficiency, the institution has taken credit for being the first New York City museum to use geothermal wells for heating and cooling purposes.

A section of the museum's building was converted into space for the Brower Park branch of Brooklyn Public Library, as part of a wider partnership between the museum and the library system. It opened in July 2023.

title: Brooklyn Children's Museum


text:
Talk:Brooklyn Children's Museum

March 2008
I cleaned up the article and added significant substance. The history needs work and there are a ton of sources if someone wants to get back to it before I do. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Brooklyn Children's Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://carnegie.org/sub/news/anon2005.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805212533/http://brooklynkids.org/index.php/parties/birthdayparties to http://www.brooklynkids.org/index.php/parties/birthdayparties
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806080640/http://brooklynkids.org/index.php/parties/spacerentals to http://www.brooklynkids.org/index.php/parties/spacerentals

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brooklyn Children's Museum


text:
Ghost in the machine

The "ghost in the machine" is a term originally used to describe and critique the concept of the mind existing alongside and separate from the body. In more recent times, the term has several uses, including the concept that the intellectual part of the human mind is influenced by emotions; and within fiction, for an emergent consciousness residing in a computer.

The term originates with British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's description of René Descartes' mind–body dualism. Ryle introduced the phrase in The Concept of Mind (1949) to highlight the view of Descartes and others that mental and physical activity occur simultaneously but separately.

Gilbert Ryle
Gilbert Ryle (1900–1976) was a philosopher who lectured at Oxford and made important contributions to the philosophy of mind and to "ordinary language philosophy". His most important writings include Philosophical Arguments (1945), The Concept of Mind (1949), Dilemmas (1954), Plato's Progress (1966), and On Thinking (1979).

Ryle's Concept of Mind (1949) critiques the notion that the mind is distinct from the body, and refers to the idea as "the ghost in the machine". According to Ryle, the classical theory of mind, or "Cartesian rationalism", makes a basic category mistake (a new logical fallacy Ryle himself invented), as it attempts to analyze the relation between "mind" and "body" as if they were terms of the same logical category. This confusion of logical categories may be seen in other theories of the relation between mind and matter. For example, the idealist theory of mind makes a basic category mistake by attempting to reduce physical reality to the same status as mental reality, while the materialist theory of mind makes a basic category mistake by attempting to reduce mental reality to the same status as physical reality.

Official doctrine
Ryle states that the doctrine of body/mind dualism was the "official doctrine", or dogma, of philosophers:

"There is a doctrine about the nature and place of the mind which is prevalent among theorists, to which most philosophers, psychologists and religious teachers subscribe with minor reservations. Although they admit certain theoretical difficulties in it, they tend to assume that these can be overcome without serious modifications being made to the architecture of the theory.... [The doctrine states that] with the doubtful exceptions of the mentally-incompetent and infants-in-arms, every human being has both a body and a mind.... The body and the mind are ordinarily harnessed together, but after the death of the body the mind may continue to exist and function."

The central principles of the doctrine, according to Ryle, are unsound and conflict with the entire body of what we know about the mind. Of the doctrine, he says "According to the official doctrine each person has direct and unchangeable cognisance. In consciousness, self-consciousness and introspection, he is directly and authentically apprised of the present states of operation of the mind."

"Descartes' Myth"
In his essay "Descartes' Myth", Ryle's philosophical arguments lay out his notion of the mistaken foundations of mind-body dualism. He suggests that, to speak of mind and body as substances, as a dualist does, is to commit a category mistake:

Ryle attempts to show that the "official doctrine" of mind/body dualism is false by asserting that it confuses two logical-types, or categories, as being compatible: "it represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type/category, when they actually belong to another. The dogma is therefore a philosopher's myth."

I, Robot
In the 2004 science fiction film, I, Robot, inspired by Isaac Asimov's novel of the same name (see Robot series), the "ghost in the machine" is a phenomenon investigated by robotics designer, Dr. Lanning. Lanning utilizes the phenomenon to explain the behavior of advanced robots in the film:

"'There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul. Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together, rather than stand alone? How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote of a soul?'"

The film explores the "ghost in the machine" as an example of emergence, where complicated interactions in the software of a robot organize to create a local "soul." Just as Ryle believes a human's mental processes, and consciousness, arise from the culmination of our independent physical nature, Lanning posits the same for machines. Such an assumption leads to questions regarding the sentience of machines and the ethics of artificial intelligence.

title: Ghost in the machine


text: Category:Danish screenwriters

title: Category:Danish screenwriters


text:
Kixx

Kixx may refer to:

 * Kixx (U.S. Gold), a defunct budget video game label associated with former publisher U.S. Gold
 * KIXX, a radio station broadcasting a Hot AC format serving the Watertown, South Dakota, USA area
 * Philadelphia KiXX, an American indoor soccer team
 * Kixx, also known as Experiment 601, a fictional alien character in Disney's Lilo & Stitch franchise
 * "Kixx", an episode of Lilo & Stitch: The Series that features the alien

title: Kixx


text:
User talk:Satuka~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Welcome to the Wikipedia, Satuka! And thanks for your contribution on the PNAC bio page...

Here are some perfunctory tips to speed your indoctrination into the Wikipedia experience:

 * Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial.
 * When it strikes your fancy, try to grasp some of the nuances at Manual of Style, Assume good faith and Policies and Guidelines.  But keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Don't worry about keeping up with the Jones' learning curve on NPOV, but be respectful of others' POV and use a neutral point of view; your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends:

 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Satuka, and have fun! Ombudsman 23:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Satuka. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Satuka~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Satuka~enwiki