text:
Talk:South Pole Telescope

Sorry
sorry for writing this article anonymously, I didn't know I hadn't logged on. Raskolnikov The Penguin 20:44, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Concern
Important discovery made in March 2014 is missing in the Article Page. Scientists have announced what was going on in the earliest moments of Universe right after the big bang! The gravitational waves generated due to inflation has produced a signature on the microwave sky. It has been now seen. The new data discovered by the team at SPT is almost perfect fit for Inflation.

This info is attributed to a documentary that I have, wherein the detailed images of this discovery are shown. I am afraid if I put this as an update with the relevant images then it would amount to copyright violations. Am I correct in assuming so? Else I would be more than glad to contribute to the article. - Anand2202 (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I think you are referring to results from the BICEP2 instrument, which is different from the South Pole Telescope although they were located next to each other. As for copyright violations, you can read up here. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do think that restrictions are quite rigid on this front. Plus, you have to learn how to upload the media to the Wikimedia Commons. A2soup (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Construction, location and EHT involvement
I would really like to see some information added about the construction and specific location of the telescope.

Surely there must have been challenges in getting a telescope of any size down to the South Pole. Where was it constructed. Was it shipped in one piece, how did they move it to its current location, etc.

As for location, sitting on the bottom of the Earth must have other specific advantages that are not really mentioned in this article. Not being an astronomer myself, maybe a slight amateur, but I would think that being on the South Pole would have the advantage of having the same night sky basically in view all night long and pretty much the same view all year long.

Also be good to add in the involvement this telescope had in the EHT and the story about how the data had to wait for fare weather to fly out the hard drives.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing this information added if possible. Thanks! --Skippingrock (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You have problems with clearing algorithms for Dish's aberration
It will not be a bad idea to look at your algorithms for clearing of the aberration from your abnormal-looking dish. These your aberration errors are leading to fake reconstruction of an Event Horizon Telescope's black hole image. Some of the EHT's Team test images show a clear resemblance to the shape of your dish.

Team 2 image, show most clear resemblance to your dish https://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/875/1/L4/downloadHRFigure/figure/apjlab0e85f4 https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Qh48kg8ywaYJ6P2huGsucf-970-80.jpg

But this aberration has slipped into the final black hole image too.

Best regards, Emil Enchev, CEO Agiel Technologies.

Inaccurate information. Inaccurate location.
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

-- Blake Stanley
 * You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and I'm unable to check them, since online mapping services don't display locations so close to the South Pole. If you think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is, preferably with a source for the correct coordinates. Deor (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:South Pole Telescope


text:
2006 Vermont gubernatorial election

The 2006 Vermont gubernatorial election took place on November 7. Incumbent Republican Governor Jim Douglas won re-election to a third term, defeating Democratic nominee Scudder Parker.

Democratic Party

 * Scudder Parker, former Democratic Party Chair, state senator, minister and director of energy efficiency at the Vermont Department of Public Service. Began campaigning in late 2005 and subsequently won the Democratic nomination when no other Democrat filed by the July 16, 2006 deadline. His fundraising efforts resulted in $110,000 in donations in the month of July 2006.

Republican Party

 * Jim Douglas, incumbent Governor of Vermont

Liberty Union Party

 * Robert Skold, website publisher

Vermont Green Party

 * Jim Hogue

United States Marijuana Party

 * Cris Ericson

Independents

 * Benjamin Clarke

Results
Official results from the Vermont Secretary of State:

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

title: 2006 Vermont gubernatorial election


text:
Category:Symphonies by Anton Bruckner

Symphonies by Anton Bruckner.

title: Category:Symphonies by Anton Bruckner


text: Category:Cinema of Croatia

title: Category:Cinema of Croatia


text:
User:Rickyboy

Account blocked indefinitely, due to copyright violations.

User claimed to have created hurricane graphics and other images, but NASA website credits World Book Encyclopedia for at least one of them.

Unless he can prove that NASA or World Book got the images from him, we can't allow him to upload any more images.

See Policy_enforcement_log

title: User:Rickyboy


text:
Talk:Washington State Route 108

Incorrect length
The first paragraph incorrectly states the length of Hwy 108 as 20 miles. Actual length of the highway is approximately 12 miles.

title: Talk:Washington State Route 108


text:
Talk:Washington State Route 102

Dayton Airport Road
It should also be mentioned within the article that, according to local highway signage, as well as business addresses, refer to it as Dayton Airport Road.

The official address of the Washington State Patrol Academy, for example, is:

631 W Dayton-Airport Rd. Shelton, WA

It is signed on the highway as SR 102, but is also locally known as Dayton-Airport Road.Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington State Route 102


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DASH KIT

 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 delete · Katefan0(scribble) 03:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

DASH KIT
Delete This article is a promotion for an online site. Information on dash kits would be more appropriate on a car article, if at all.
 * This nomination was malformed and never added to a main VfD page; doing so now.
 * Delete, spam, how-to, possible copyvio (but I couldn't find it). JYolkowski // talk 14:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete per JYolkowski Ashibaka (tock) 00:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising. TheMadBaron 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete spam. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete So, "Edashkit.com has granted permission for release of their installation instructions for this article" have they? How very gracious of them. Advertising. CLW 08:05, 13 September 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:
User talk:Sirlearnsalot

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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! -  BanyanTree 20:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * 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.

Image Tagging Image:Ups southquad.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ups southquad.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ups campusmap.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ups campusmap.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Praguetvtower.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Praguetvtower.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sirlearnsalot


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Ruthenia

 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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Old Ruthenia
Delete, do not redirect. the anon author creates a fork of Kievan Rus. The usage of "old ruthenia" in this sense is zero. mikka (t) 20:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although it probably should be delete it, we shouldn't do so hastily because it contains a lot of content. The anon knows Wiki markup and even categorized it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, lots of content. And markup is excellent. And all Copy-and-Pasted from Kievan Rus', the term the authors tries to drive out from WP. --Irpen 02:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete would be the best solution IMO (see comment below). --Irpen 00:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * anon just "copy-and-pasted" the Kievan Rus' article in here. This should not stand. The article should not exist as a duplicate or anything else but a redirect or a one paragraph explanation of the term an the usage or lack of it. I am fine with redirect to Kievan Rus'. In any case the current content has to be blanked. I am not sure whether it's better to delete or return to redirect because in either case another malicious user can recreate it. I would just recreate redirect and sanction the user for 3RR when he will reach it. --Irpen 21:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am strongy against a redirect, which would imply the legitimacy of the term. Please provide a reference to a moderately reputable scholar who uses it in English language. mikka (t) 21:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is none. Similarly, there is no scholar who uses Prussian Holocaust and Ukrainian Holocaust for the events the POV pushers apply to what WP describes as Evacuation of East Prussia and Holodomor, respectively. There was no way to have these articles deleted via VfD. I ended up writing these articles about the terms, pointing out that it is arcane and obscure. The article about the term doesn't imply its legitimacy if it says explicitly that the term is not used in the mainstream . There is no reason not to do the same with Old Ruthenia. Again, deleting is fine with me. But if it has to stay, should be the term article rather than the article about the Kievan Rus' or a redirect. And under no circumstances should two articles be allowed to simply duplicate each other. Kievan Rus' is the article for the historic material. No question about it. --Irpen 21:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are misdirecting. The "holocaust" articles are about these terms and their (biased) usage. "Evacuation" is a descriptive term about an event that does not have an established name. "Holodomor" The article in question attempts to establish a new name for a thing that was never called in this way in English language, mainstream or else. This is a fresh POV pushing, to be resisted. mikka (t) 23:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the article denounces the attempts to establish the new term. A redirect helps establish a term more than an explanation denouncing it. Discussed in more detail at talk:Ukrainian Holocaust. Pls, respond there and pls show a little more tolerance to those who disagree . --Irpen 00:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * So far I did not call anybody names. What is going on here is a normal discussion, an exchange of arguments. Aren't you being a tad oversensitive? mikka (t) 00:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, just a tad. Blanking of a different article ticked me off. Sorry, --Irpen 00:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: keeping fork is definitely no-no. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as soon as possible. It is not OK to come up with a crappy and fictitious terminology and mess up existing articles. Sashazlv 01:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This was a shortcut around renaming the article on Kievan Rus’.  The correct way to deal with this is to discuss it there, and rename that article or not.  —Michael Z. 2005-07-19 04:33 Z
 * Delete --Ghirlandajo 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I remember the earlier actions on this, and applaud Irpen and mikka for their foresight this time. Peter Ellis 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I just thought that perhaps redirect of Old Ruthenia to Ruthenia might also be not a bad idea. The Ruthenia article already includes the info on usage and etymology. Not that I would mind deletion of Old Ruthenia, but the old way (redirect to Kievan Rus') was a more odd solution, I think. --Irpen
 * In fact, the "old" redirect was to Ruthenia. mikka (t) 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * All right. Should we restore it then? My point, as I said, is that whether the article ends up with a delete or a redirect, nothing can prevent a malicious user to recreate a fork or fill the entry with bs. A redirect to Ruthenia seems both reasonable and defensible. I am just afraid, the deletion won't last (even if it passes). Anyway, the fork will go away for sure. --Irpen 17:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do understand your arguments; in fact, it was me who created this redirect some time ago, for the very reasons you are putting forth now. But please contemplate seriously what I am saying now:
 * "Old Ruthenia" was never in use as a distinctive term for a certain entity, like Old Sacramento or Old Norse. One may speak of, say, "Old France," and there even is Old French, but I don't think anybody ever will want the redirect Old France. There is no practical reason to have this Old Ruthenia redirect: most certainly every thing was sometimes old and sometimes new, and sometimes neither. That is why I placed it for deletion, rather than reverted to my original version, to close the issue once and for all. And each time this russophob will try to recreate it, I will delete it basing on this vote, rather that engage in revert wars. There are even precedents to create an empty protected page, using, if the guy will be too perisistent. mikka (t) 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Now I got the idea. If you, as an admin, are allowed to use the vote result to delete the reappeared article in the future, it is indeed for the best to do the VfD once and for all. Unless, of course, a different text gets dumped into the newly recreated entry. Then, we will need a new VfD. It's amazing, how easy it is for a frivolous editor to waste so much time of so many others. But that's common in life, not only in WP. I am glad, the empty protected page solution exists as a last resort. Regards, --Irpen 21:54, July 19, 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:
2006 Wyoming gubernatorial election

The 2006 Wyoming gubernatorial election took place on November 7, 2006. Incumbent Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal won re-election in a landslide over Republican Ray Hunkins, becoming the first Democrat since 1910 to win every county in the state. To date this was the last time a Democrat was elected to statewide office in Wyoming, the last time a Democrat carried every county in the state, the last gubernatorial election in which a Democrat received more than 30% of the vote, the last statewide election in which a Democrat received more than 45% of the vote, and the last statewide election in which a Democrat won any county besides Teton, Albany, Laramie, or Sweetwater. As of 2024, Ray Hunkins is the last Republican gubernatorial nominee who was never elected Governor of Wyoming. This is the last time that Wyoming voted for and elected a Senate candidate and a gubernatorial candidate of different political parties.

Candidates

 * Dave Freudenthal, incumbent Governor of Wyoming
 * Al Hamburg, perennial candidate

Candidates

 * Ray Hunkins, attorney and rancher
 * John H. Self

Counties that flipped from Republican to Democratic

 * Big Horn (Largest city: Lovell)
 * Campbell (Largest city: Gillette)
 * Converse (Largest city: Douglas)
 * Crook (Largest city: Sundance)
 * Fremont (Largest city: Riverton)
 * Goshen (Largest city: Torrington)
 * Johnson (Largest city: Buffalo)
 * Lincoln (Largest city: Kemmerer)
 * Niobrara (Largest city: Lusk)
 * Park (Largest city: Cody)
 * Sheridan (Largest city: Sheridan)
 * Sublette (Largest city: Pinedale)
 * Uinta (Largest city: Evanston)
 * Washakie (Largest city: Worland)
 * Weston (Largest city: Newcastle)

title: 2006 Wyoming gubernatorial election


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Obvious

 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 delete. Woohookitty 07:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Totally Obvious
Non-notable website attempting to create notoriety by creating a Wikipedia entry EdwinHJ | Talk 20:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete See the text of the article if you need any more reason to support deletion of this page EdwinHJ | Talk 20:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As above. KeithD 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that "a blog that struggles for the wikipedic recognition it so clearly deserves" in the article is reason enough. MicahMN | Talk 20:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously a joke in bad taste. --Madchester 21:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense, tries to promote the website. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete joke/spam. --Etacar11 00:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising for a non notable blog. JamesBurns 08:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, consider redirecting to Obvious. Radiant_ >|< 10:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable - (Radiant, did you mean an article other than "Obvious"?) - Tεx  τ  urε  17:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - not as notable or commercial as Fuji Rock Festival or Creative Zen perhaps, but it exists. And if you try to kill it, you'll only make it more obvious.  -- A Partisan Reviewer (Unsigned vote by, user's third edit)

 *  Keep A banal observation for one can be a breakthrough epiphany for another. The concept of the obvious blog cannot be so easily digested in a simple glance, and an entry such as this will perhaps motivate a better understanding of such experimental texts for all people alike. KeepingMyMindOpen (Unsigned vote by, only edits to this page)
 * Delete. Vanity/advertisement.  Postdlf 22:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity cruft. -- Karada 22:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - Interesting entry of a public forum. No harm in this . It may grow if left to it's own devices .Doalch 00.30 July 20, 2005 (GMT)
 * First edit by . -- Etacar11   01:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep Non-notable is subjective, perhaps the blog is pseudo-notable verging on neo-notability. As for the charge of vanity, ALL is vanity sayeth the preacher. (Unsigned vote by, user's first edit)
 * Normally I wouldn't say anything as consensus has been clearly established, but just to answer this comment (which I found intresting). Pseudo is greek for false, therefore you just said the article is non-notable. Ergo, Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let it come back when 'obvious' is at least 'massive', if not 'mamoth'. Peter Ellis 04:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep . And what if your mother had said " come back Peter when you are bigger ", until then I cannot accept you ? .Doalch 08.37 July 20, 2005 (GMT) (This vote actually by , only edits are to this page)
 * Strong delete, non-notable website plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 17:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Ever notice how these vanity editors always say the same thing and always make exactly the same argument: "It's not hurting anyone... just let it grow naturally... I have every right to parasitize your site... how would you like it if I were mean to you?... Wikipedia is stupid anyway..." We've seen it. Binadot 03:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * A Defense
 * Whether you believe the Totally Obvious deserves an entry in the Wikipedia depends on your conception of the Wikipedia. I'm sure conceptions of the Wikipedia are many and varied, but for the sake of my argument, let me draw a simple but useful dichotomy here.

 * If you think of the Wikipedia as a more or less informal communitarian reference work, you'd probably have no sustainable objection to including the entry here proposed. If, on the other, you see the Wikipedia in more possessive or rigid terms as an effort toward definitive epistemological excellence and authority -- the open source rival to the Encyclopedia Britannica -- then you're probably of the mind of many on this page to exclude it.

 * I happen to be of the more liberal camp here, as in many things, and even in spite of my patently interested position in the debate, I would endorse its inclusion on these philosophical grounds. Indeed, I find the position and the practices here demonstrated by those who have sought to exclude it rather misguided. For one things, it is contrary to the "public commons" spirit of the wikipedia as a whole and, in many cases, contrary to the spirit of their own arguably marginal contributions. Secondly, and more substantially, it establishes a false and unfitting expectation for the Wikipedia.

 * As a sometime college instructor of writing, I encourage my students to browse and read the Wikipedia freely in the course of their research -- especially their preliminary research -- of a subject. But I sternly advise them against citing it in their final papers or essays. Not that the information is inherently unreliable, but there are more reliable sources out there. Open markets have, under the right circumstances, a capacity for great wisdom. But they also have a tendency toward speculation, mania, and extremism -- all things that make the Wikipedia much more enjoyable reading than most traditional encyclopedias. Reputable, deliberately funded, professionally staffed journals and reference books have established their credibility in their field and they make it their reason-for-being to uphold that credibility. The two types of cultural production can certainly reinforce one another. But it would advance the debate here, I believe, if their different roles were not confused.

 * This is not to say outright trivia, libel, slander, vandalism, hate-mongering, or incoherence have any place here. But a casual perusal of the Totally Obvious should reassure a fair-minded viewer that, while it may be irrevent, ramshackle, and novel, it rises above that more minimal standard for relevance and is worthy of the namespace here requested for it.

 * But put aside these philosophical arguments and let us focus on the practical merits of the case at hand. Objections or votes in favor of deleting the Totally Obvious entry have been justified on the following grounds:

 * 1. It's nonsense.

 * Rebuttal: This is an invidious and almost wholly unsubstantiated claim. As noted above, a casual investigation of the Totally Obvious should satisfy a reasonable person that there is some sense behind: a sense of humor, a sense of the absurd, a literary sensibility, a political sensibility -- there is much sense in it.

 * 2. It's promotional

 * Rebuttal: This can be said of every entry as any entry in the Wikipedia that includes external links -- or refers to external events! -- is liable to the same charge. I would guess that the blog has done more to promote the Wikipedia than the Wikipedia has done -- or will ever do -- to promote the blog. Moreover, even if this were a motivation driving its original submission to the Wikipedia, it is not a primary one. As one voter suggests above, this might even be looked upon favorably as a singular and creative application of the Wikipedia as a gateway for public recognition and public evaluation. If it is ultimately frivolous or transient, let it moulder away in its namespace --or, more in the spirit of things, be overshadowed and pushed down the page by more substantive claims to its namespace.

 * 3. It's a joke

 * Rebuttal: I take this objection as having something to do with either the way it is represented in its entry or with the thing itself. That the thing itself might be light-hearted, irreverent, predominantly comical spirit is no real claim against its inclusion here. If the objection is against the tone and terms with which it has been represented, that may be emended easily enough, without exterminating the thing altogether.

 * 4. A violation of procedure

 * I can offer no defense of the pranksters and vandals who have injected themselves into this debate other than to say their efforts have been pretty harmless thus far.

 * I recognize that those who oppose inclusion of the Totally Obvious here in the Wikipedia on institutional ground probably do so out of the noblest reasons. But in doing so, they make us all victims of that inexorable law governing unintended consequences. In positing themselves as dogmatic guardians of the integrity and civility of the community, they have introduced the most negative and unnecessary emotions to the matter. And in trying to preserve their own particular vision of the Wikipedia, they have ended up, in an admittedly very minor way, undermining it by making it smaller than it need be. It's the Wikipedia, not the Cliquipedia. If you want to establish small coteries of like-minded individuals who share your tastes and would suppress that which challenges your views or vision, I'd strongly recommend setting up a blog.
 * Newpoete 08:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: The above user, Newpoete is likely a sock/meat puppet, as its first and only contributions are to this vote, see  EdwinHJ | Talk 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 *  I AM NOT A SOCK/MEAT PUPPET! I AM A HUMAN BEING!    Besides, that's ad hominem and utterly beside the point. Newpoete 18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That actually is not an ad hominem attack, because I am not insulting you or demeaning you. You created your account for the purpose of voting on this VfD page, that is the definition of a meatpuppet:
 * ...When non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common on Votes for Deletion. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion.

 * EdwinHJ | Talk 21:43, 22 July 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:
Talk:Washington State Route 543

BC shield
You can not place the BC shield on this page as it is a fair use image, which is also why its not in the jct template. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Border Crossing redirect
This should not be a redirect to this Washington highway-page, as it's as much a part of the corresponding Highway/street on the Canadian side; I'll raise this at WP:Canada also, but the border crossing facility should have its own article and should have a page that can carry both WAashington and BC highways logos (since this one can't have, apparently, BC's - note previous).Skookum1 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington State Route 543


text:
Gavin Lambert

Gavin Lambert (23 July 1924 – 17 July 2005) was a British-born screenwriter, novelist and biographer who lived for part of his life in Hollywood. His writing was mainly fiction and nonfiction about the film industry.

Personal life
Lambert was educated at Cheltenham College and Magdalen College, Oxford, where one of his professors was C. S. Lewis. At Oxford, he befriended Penelope Houston and filmmakers Karel Reisz and Lindsay Anderson, and they founded a short-lived but influential journal, Sequence, which was originally edited by Houston. The magazine, which lasted for only 15 issues, moved to London after the fifth issue, and Lambert and Anderson took over as co-editors. Lambert eventually left Oxford without obtaining a degree. From 1949 to 1956 he edited the journal Sight and Sound, again with Anderson as a regular contributor. At about the same time Lambert was deeply involved in Britain's Free Cinema movement which called for more social realism in contemporary movies. He also wrote film criticism for The Sunday Times and The Guardian. In late 1955, he moved to Hollywood, California, to work as a personal assistant to director Nicholas Ray and worked on the script (uncredited) for Ray's Bigger Than Life (1956). Later, he co-wrote the screenplay for Ray's film Bitter Victory (1957). According to the critic David Robinson, Lambert was Ray's lover for a time.

Gavin Lambert became an American citizen in 1964. From 1974 to 1989, he chiefly stayed in Tangier, where he was a close friend of the writer and composer Paul Bowles. He spent the final years of his life in Los Angeles, where he died of pulmonary fibrosis on 17 July 2005. He left behind a brother, niece and nephew, and named Mart Crowley executor of his estate.

Gavin's father's half-sister was Ivy Claudine Godber aka Claudine West (1890–1943), a screenwriter who won an Oscar for her joint writing of the script of Mrs. Miniver in 1942.

His papers are currently housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University.

Screenplays
Lambert became a notable screenwriter of the Hollywood studio era. In 1954, while still living in England, he wrote his first screenplay, Another Sky, about the sexual awakening of a prim English woman in North Africa. In 1955, he also directed Another Sky in Morocco. This was followed in 1958 by the Hollywood screenplay, Bitter Victory and in 1960 by Sons and Lovers. The latter, for which Lambert gained an Academy Award nomination, is based on a novel by D. H. Lawrence. The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (1961) adapted a novella by Tennessee Williams on the affairs of an older actress with a young Italian gigolo. As, from the 1920s through the late 1960s, homosexuality was rarely portrayed on the screen, gay screenwriters like Lambert learned to express their personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film. "The important thing to remember about 'gay influence' in movies," observed Gavin Lambert, "is that it was obviously never direct. It was all subliminal. It couldn't be direct because the mass audience would say, Hey, no way."

But then, in 1965, Lambert adapted his own Hollywood insider novel Inside Daisy Clover (1963) for the screen. Clover, starring Natalie Wood and Robert Redford, which tells the cautionary tale of a teenage movie star involved in the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and her unhappy marriage to a closeted gay leading man. However, in the film version, he was not fully identified as gay because, at Redford's request, the husband he played was changed from homosexual to appear as though he might be bisexual. From this time on, Lambert and Wood became lifelong friends. Another of Lambert's screenplays was I Never Promised You a Rose Garden (1977), based on a novel by Hannah Green, which describes in layman's terms a teenager's battle with schizophrenia. Later, the author also wrote the scripts for some TV movies such as Second Serve (1986) on transgender tennis player Renée Richards and Liberace: Behind the Music (1988) on gay performer Liberace. In 1997, he contributed to Stephen Frears's film A Personal History of British Cinema. He was heavily quoted in William J. Mann's book, Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969.

Biographies and non-fiction
Lambert was also a biographer and novelist, who focused his efforts on biographies of gay and lesbian figures in Hollywood.

According to screenwriter and writer Joseph McBride, he was "a keenly observant, wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements." He wrote biographies on Hollywood figures such as On Cukor (1972) on film director George Cukor and Norma Shearer: A Life (1990) on the Canadian actress Norma Shearer. His book, Nazimova: A Biography (1997) was the first full-scale account of the private life and acting career of lesbian actress Alla Nazimova. He was the author of the memoir Mainly About Lindsay Anderson (2000) (whose title echoed that of Anderson's own work, About John Ford).

He also wrote the book GWTW: The Making of Gone with the Wind (Little, Brown and Company, 1973). Working as a Hollywood screenwriter, Lambert was able to interview and gain personal remembrances of most of the cast and crew involved with the film, including dismissed director George Cukor and star Vivien Leigh (Scarlett O'Hara).

His final biography, Natalie Wood: A Life (2004) supplied an insider's look at actress Natalie Wood and chronicled everything concerning her life, since Lambert was a friend of Wood for sixteen years. The book was praised by Natalie Wood's daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner, as "a wonderful biography on my Mom. It will be the definitive biography on my mother." Lambert's biography includes Wood's relationship with Elvis Presley, and interviews with the people who knew Wood best, such as Robert Wagner, Warren Beatty, Tony Curtis, Paul Mazursky, Tab Hunter and Leslie Caron. In his book, Lambert controversially claimed that Wood frequently dated gay and bisexual men, including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter, and Scott Marlowe. Lambert said that Wood supported homosexual playwright Mart Crowley (a later lover of Lambert's) in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play, The Boys in the Band (1968). Lambert's final book was The Ivan Moffat File: Life Among the Beautiful and Damned in London, Paris, New York and Hollywood (2004).

Novels and short stories
Lambert also wrote seven novels primarily with Hollywood settings, among them The Slide Area: Scenes of Hollywood Life (1959), a collection of seven short stories that portray a bevy of tinsel-town lowlifes, Inside Daisy Clover (1963), The Goodbye People (1971) about Hollywood's beautiful people, and Running Time (1982), a portrait of an indefatigable woman from child starlet to screen goddess, but also a unique life history of the American film industry. Other works of fiction included Norman's Letter (1966), which received the Thomas R. Coward Memorial Award for Fiction, A Case for the Angels (1968), and In the Night All Cats Are Grey (1976). In 1996, Lambert wrote the introduction to 3 Plays, a collection of works by his longtime friend, Mart Crowley.

title: Gavin Lambert


text:
Talk:Diocese of Meath

Untitled
Very, very interesting about the headquarters of the diocese moving from Navan to Mullinger because the bishop criticised Parnell. Where can I read more about that? More importantly, where was the diocese based in the sixteenth century?

title: Talk:Diocese of Meath


text: Category:Fictional religious workers

title: Category:Fictional religious workers


title: File:Endless1Cover.jpg


text:
Wikipedia talk:Organised Watchlists

You might want to take a proposal for a new technical feature over to Proposals over at the Village Pump, where it will get much more exposure. -Splash 20:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You might also put it in Bugzilla. However, what you're really trying to do is already possible... simply create a page User:Foo/Articles about Butterflies that has a series of links to articles about butterflies you wish to watch. Then, weekly or so, go to that page and click on 'related changes'. Radiant_ >|< 11:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * isn't that kind of a roundabout method, when what i proposed was actual integration into the code? Lockeownzj00 07:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Organised Watchlists


title: File:Endless2Cover.jpg


text:
Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn

For more information, see Symphonies by Joseph Haydn

title: Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn


text: User talk:80.141.220.227

title: User talk:80.141.220.227


text: User talk:163.41.136.51

title: User talk:163.41.136.51


text:
West Stow

West Stow is a small village and civil parish in West Suffolk, England. The village lies north of Bury St. Edmunds, south of Mildenhall and Thetford and west of the villages of Culford and Ingham in the area known as the Breckland. This area is located near the Lark River Valley and was settled from around AD 420–650. West Stow Hall is to the north of the village.

Its name may come from Anglo-Saxon wēste stōw = "deserted place", rather than "western place".

West Stow is home to the West Stow Anglo-Saxon Village where visitors may see reconstructed Anglo-Saxon houses, and often living history re-enactments of early medieval life.

Fullers Mill Garden run by Perennial (Gardeners' Royal Benevolent Society) is open to the public.

Archaeology
A major archaeological dig from 1965–1972 headed by Stanley West of West Suffolk Archaeology Unit revealed a well preserved Anglo-Saxon site beneath the sands of the Breckland. West’s findings contributed to much of what is now known about this area. The site’s layout tells us much about the way of life in this period. This area is set up with a large hall in the middle of the village surrounded by other houses and structures. This suggests a tight-knit community, with the inhabitants using the large hall for events such as feasts and story-telling. During the excavation 69 houses, 7 halls and 7 other structures were found. The community lived with their extended families in their houses, with each house containing around 10 family members. The people of this area still traded with their homeland, as is evidenced by the glass in the necklaces and other metals that were found at the site, but not produced locally. The Anglo-Saxon community that was found here was not the first to settle in the area. The remains of circular huts with ditched enclosures suggest occupation by Iron Age farmers. There were also tools found that suggest that Mesolithic warriors had hunted in this area, and burial grounds and cultivation which suggest settlement of a Neolithic group.

A pagan Anglo-Saxon burial ground was also excavated. The archaeologists revealed that the village moved the mile or so east to its current location following Christianisation.

On exhibit at West Stow Anglo-Saxon Village
Alongside the recreated village are the archaeological collections formerly housed at Moyse's Hall Museum Bury St Edmunds. These are collections of archaeological findings that were made in the region between Devil's Dyke and the line between Littleport and Shippea Hill (i.e. along the borderline of East Cambridgeshire and Suffolk) from the Stone Age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Findings include the Isleham Hoard of more than 6500 pieces of bronze, in particular swords, spear-heads, arrows, axes, knives, daggers, armour, decorative equipment (in particular for horses) and many fragments of sheet bronze, all dating from the late Bronze Age. The swords show holes where rivets or studs held the wooden hilt in place (studs were usually made of bronze except for commanders who had silver-studded swords or for a commander-in-chief who had a gold-studded sword).

Farming techniques
Among the more interesting findings of the excavations pertain to the farming aspect of this culture. This village, and others like it, replaced Roman farms after the imperial administration left Britain. The Anglo-Saxons settled in small villages that were generally self-sustaining. Within these self-sufficient communities there is evidence that these peoples were more likely to provide for themselves through a farming lifestyle than a foraging one. Within the archaeological remains there were more domesticated animal species found than wild animal species, indicating less dependence on hunting as a means of survival, and supports the idea that they were farmers. The settlers in this area were thought to be from a different area, with German descent being the most likely area, and as such it is interesting to see what farming techniques may be employed by this group. Since the landscapes are quite different, it would be interesting to see if the newly settled group would use a German style of farming in this new terrain. This area helps to provide some insight into these farming adaptations. Within animal husbandry, however, this group was more likely to use elements found within the native system of the country.

Notable residents

 * Edward Proger (1618/21-1713), Member of Parliament for Breconshire, Page of Honour to King Charles I, Groom of the Bedchamber for King Charles II and Lord of the Manor of West Stow Hall.

title: West Stow


text:
Arden, Glasgow

Arden is a medium-sized housing estate on the south-western edge of the city of Glasgow, Scotland. The M77 motorway runs directly to the west of the neighbourhood, with Junction 3 serving the area; a small industrial estate is located to the south-east (this falls within Glasgow although is named after the neighbouring settlement of Thornliebank in East Renfrewshire). The residential area of Carnwadric is to the north-east of Arden, and the Jenny Lind part of Deaconsbank to the south, while the land to the north is open ground (formerly Kennishead Farm) and woodland.

History
Historically, Arden was a farm and formed part of Sir John Maxwell's land, one of approximately seven adjoining holdings which were situated on ancient Stewart land, originally granted to Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland by Robert the Bruce upon his marriage to Marjorie Bruce, the King's eldest daughter. Arden is near Thornliebank, a village formed on the river to manufacture cloth and a specialized printing of cloth known as beetling; Thornliebank linen was quite famous from the early-nineteenth century until the closure of the mill, in or around 1920. The building adjoining part of what is now Arden was used as a Prisoner of War (POW) camp during the Second World War.

The S.S.H.A (Scottish Special Housing Association) built the estate (consisting mostly of four-storey tenements with a common close entrance) between 1953 and 1957 to rehouse families from the old, overcrowded inner city tenements. Arden became very run-down during the 1970s and 1980s, with grants made for its refurbishment. It is not quite completed but is much improved. The shopping area containing around six businesses is in immediate need of investment and refurbishment. In 1999, the estate was bought by Glen Oaks Housing Association for a rumoured £6 million but the association has since acknowledged this may have been a rather inflated sum, and they have struggled to make necessary repairs as they are funded only by rents.

Amenities
Arden became the first housing scheme to have a public house (The Cuillins) privately built in 1964-5 which then became a brewery pub in 1968.

Arden boasts the new Ashpark Primary School which opened on 2 December 2008 and replaced the former Arden Primary School and Carnwadric Primary School. The second school, St. Louise Primary was merged with the newly rebuilt St. Vincent's Primary in Carnwadric, St. Louise's closed in June 2009 and the buildings subsequently demolished.

The nearest railway station is Kennishead, named after another of Sir John Maxwell's farms.

In popular culture
Arden featured in the documentary programme Colin and Justin on the Estate which looked at the efforts to improve the area. Some of the current and former residents of Arden, were concerned about the slant of the show, and were particularly annoyed by the fact that the producers of the show concentrated their attention on housing units that were scheduled for demolition and not on housing that had seen extensive and successful renovation. Alasdair McKee, Glen Oaks chief executive, concluded however, that the program was a success and "the improvements have helped to convince people that we can make a difference" and contributed to a waiting list of people wanting to get into the estate.

Social deprivation
Over the years, the area has gained a reputation as a well documented centre of social deprivation, particularly the southern area near Nitshill Road. The life expectancy for males in this part of the city is around 60 years, as a result of the 'Glasgow effect'.

title: Arden, Glasgow


text:
File:Bengali Vowels IE6 1.png

Summary
A section of the table of vowels from the Bengali script article, as viewed in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.

title: File:Bengali Vowels IE6 1.png


text:
File:Bengali Vowels IE6 2.png

Summary
A section of the table of vowels from the Bengali script article, as viewed in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.

title: File:Bengali Vowels IE6 2.png


text:
User:Jerzy/Secondary Hot Pages

Partisan
Requests for comment/CVA t Partisan t

Transclusions
User:Jerzy/Church & Supporters or Socks

User:Jerzy/Index-Only pages

title: User:Jerzy/Secondary Hot Pages


text:
Talk:Fox News/Archive 11

Different Approach...
I've been told not to protect this page, however I am archiving the talk and starting it fresh. If you think something in there is still alive, feel free to start the discussion, or bring it back from the archive. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 14:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Silverback was the one who asked you not to protect this page. Sadly, it was mainly Silverback I had in mind when I asked for this page to be protected. I'm obviously biased against Silverback, but, IMO, Silverback has a tendency of engaging in edit wars if things aren't going his way on the talk page. The main reason I'm asking for page protection is that we are having a lot of little issues cropping up faster than we can deal with them. And Silverback's edits are a fairly large (but not the only) source of these issues. Protecting this page will at least force Silverback to bring his proposed changes up for review on the talk page.

If Silverback is the only one who has asked you not to protect this page (and if he isn't, I apologize for bringing this up), I ask you to please reconsider. However, I have no issues with Silverback's edit of 06:20, 26 Jun 2005 being made the protected version. What issues I do have with that version can be worked out more permamently on the talk page.

I'm happy to hear that you are somewhere on the pro-Fox side of the spectrum. I think it would be helpful to have someone who is somewhat sympathetic to Silverback's POV provide some sort of sanity check. We on the anti-Fox side do try to be fair but... crazyeddie 17:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Silverback deliberately uses ambiguous (often snarky) edit summaries (like his "reverting to a 'good' version"), makes repeated deletions without discussion (many of his edits over the past month are identical deletions), and I sincerely doubt Silverback's request to leave the page unprotected has any "good faith" to it whatsoever. It's as though he thinks people will just grow weary of trying to work out consensus, allowing him to revert, delete, and misrepresent critics any way he likes.  I likely agree with Silverback on the issues moreso than I do crazyeddie, but agree with eddie's request that you protect the page regardless of Silverback's desire to continue editing it.  We need people editing this page, the Talk page, right now – not the main article. Shem(talk) 20:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I will reconsider protecting the page if that's what both of you think. Unless I get a good enough reason not to... — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 04:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It is not appropriate for you to make an agreement to revert the article to a specific version and then protect it. This is a clear violation of the Protection policy. Cross-posted on Administrators' noticeboard. Rhobite June 28, 2005 05:10 (UTC)

No Original Research -- please document and source all "right-wing" name calling
There are several uses of "right-wing" as perjorative name calling. The redundant "right-wing conservatives" is particular obvious. Unless documented and sourced, this original research. "critics" or "many critics" is not a source. --Silverback June 28, 2005 04:55 (UTC)
 * "Pejorative," you mean. No, Silverback, "this not" original research.  There are consistent wikilinks to Right-wing politics throughout the article, and the term is no more pejorative than "left-wing" or "liberal."  Your editing, such as Alan Colmes' critics being "the anti-globalism anarcho-progressives"  is, and your hubris with regard to this is nothing short of POV hypocrisy. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 06:09 (UTC)

 * Sorry, that wasn't hypocrisy, that was a reductio-ad-absurdem of your defense of "right-wing" pejoratives, from anonymous, unattributed critics. Evidently you don't like it, only when you don't agree with it.--Silverback June 28, 2005 10:25 (UTC)
 * The two aren't at all comparable, and I wholly doubt you were looking to make a point at the time. If you weren't, it was blatant POV editing at its finest, and if you were, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Silverback.  You are absolutely not editing in good faith. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Silverback, Shem, if you will direct your attention to the to-do list, you will see that this topic is second on the list. So could you please hold your horses? I think this will go much smoother if we take things one step at a time. crazyeddie 28 June 2005 06:23 (UTC)
 * We were well on our way, I think, before Silverback decided to take the interpersonal route (combined with false invocation of Wikipedia policies) instead of a full-editing-stop consensus approach. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 06:27 (UTC)

Admin User:Ilyanep colluding on content before protecting
Starting with this diff here, see the rest of the discussion above and perhaps on their talk pages, to see this admin colluding on content before protecting. It was an unnecessary protection at that. His co-colluder User:Shem obviously is unfamiliar with the history of this article, since he accuses me not using the talk page, which I certainly have in the past. He is unresponsive to edit summaries, restoring unsourced and undocumented and unattributed material. His co-colluder User:crazyeddie is always playing to the crowd instead of objectively applying wiki standards to the material.--Silverback June 28, 2005 05:17 (UTC)

 * As I said before, I've read the archives in their entirety. You know (good and well, I'm sure) that I'm referring to your activity since I began contributing on this page.  Your claims of others reverting "unattributed" (et al) material refer to ideological descriptors only you dispute (right-wing, yet not conservative), the reasons for which you do not elaborate upon in edit summaries (preferring instead to apparently accuse me of following "Kennedy or Chomsky" ), instead incorrectly (perhaps falsely?) invoking No original research.   Hell, you're actively building more strawmen than a Kansas cornfield right now with this nonsense interpersonal PR rhetoric, and're accusing User:crazyeddie of "playing to the crowd" how? Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 06:24 (UTC)

 * You should read the Kennedy/Chomsky statement again. I didn't accuse you of anything. I just was wondering who the unnamed critics were that were calling Fox right-wing.  Lets attribute the namecalling.  If the name calling is not original research, you should be able to document it.--Silverback June 28, 2005 07:10 (UTC)
 * I contest that it is "namecalling" at all, and will not address this framed in your rhetoric. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)
 * You remind me a lot of Crazieddie. He also would refuse to discuss things with me on talk.  You need to make up your mind whether you want to discuss things on talk or not.--Silverback June 28, 2005 10:35 (UTC)
 * Untrue, I said I'd not address it under your rhetorical banner. You claim the term is pejorative (and "name calling"), which I totally dispute.  The burden of proof lies with you ("prove it is pejorative," not "prove it is not pejorative"), and I await something from you other than rhetoric, misrepresentation, and personal attack. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)

 * You neglected to respond to the part about the label being unreferenced and unattributed, you are refusing to prove that it is not original research. This isn't just a matter of word choice, you are apply a label to people that some might consider pejorative, objectionable or false, document and attribute it.--Silverback June 28, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

I suspect Silverback is confusing "making sure I have consensus approval before doing major editing" with "playing to the crowd". If you will check out Shem and Illyanep's talk pages (as well as the histories, to verify that no incriminating evidence was edited out), Shem made exactly one comment: "I'd love to have Silverback on the Talk page, for once. Indeed, come over." It is difficult to construe this as "collusion". As for myself, all of my interactions with Illyanep have taken place on this very talk page.
 * Also (conveniently) omitted is that the comment I'd made on Ilyanep's talk page was to Silverback himself, not Ilyanep. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Illyanep has expressed concerns about taking an administrative role over this article, because he admits to a bias. But, according to him, this bias is pro-Fox. So why would he be colluding with two anti-Foxers? (Assuming that Shem is willing to admit to being such. I freely admit it.) I also suggested that Silverback's edit be made the protected version. But Rhobite has pointed out that reverting to a prior version and then protecting is against Wikipedia policy. According to the article history, Illyanep did not revert the article, he simply protected the current version. By chance, the protected version (aside from some edits done to the "controversial article" box by Illyanep) happened to be Shem's. I suspected that Silverback would object strongly if his version was not made the protected one, which is why I suggested that his be used.

Quite frankly, Silverback's statements are showing why it was necessary to protect this page, far better than anything I could say. crazyeddie 28 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)
 * I'll be frank with my impression thus far: Silverback apparently has an ideal version, and has moved to implement it via interpersonal dialogue and excessively liberal interpretations of Wikipedia policy – not consensus. What he's started just now is meant to shift focus away from building consensus. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Looking through the above text, I came across this:

 * I will protect it tomorrow morning (so be quick and revert to a good version) if no other admins post here. After that, I will archive this talk page and start a to-do list, etc. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 03:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Going through the history now, I'll only be 10 minutes. Shem(talk) 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Make an edit comment that says "keep this version for tommorow". Thanks. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 04:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Done, no worries. Shem(talk) 04:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This might be the "collusion" Silverback is talking about. However, Ilyanep changed his mind about protecting the page after Silverback had a discussion with him on Ilyanep's talkpage: User_talk:Ilyanep

Then, Ilyanep changed his mind again after both me and Shem requested that he protect the page. Ilyanep clearly asked for conflicting opinions. "I will reconsider protecting the page if that's what both of you think. Unless I get a good enough reason not to..." AFAICT, since there were no further objections, with two contributors asking for protection, one objecting, Ilyanep simply went with the majority. crazyeddie 28 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)
 * After (pro-FOX News) Ilyanep "colluded" with User:crazyeddie and myself, he decided against protection. Editing was open even after I'd posted "keep version for tomorrow"; it was not protected in any way. He later took it to the Talk page, waited, and reconsidered. Again, I believe User:Silverback to be engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Ilyanep announced his renewed intention to protect the page at 04:03 27 Jun - after Shem made his last edit at 20:47 26 Jun. Unless Shem had somehow gotten advance warning about the protection, I fail to see how the two could have possibly been in "collusion". crazyeddie 28 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * Shem did have advance warning of protection, that is why he was careful and quick to revert tongue in cheek claim that mine was the good version. He was still intending to lobby for protection and hope that Ilyanep would be compliant.--Silverback June 28, 2005 10:28 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory and deliberate misrepresentation, nice. No, I reverted you for editing under the summary of "rv to a good version" without discussion, having assumed the page would not be protected and was open to editing. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)

 * Three people, none in danger of 3RR violation do not an edit war make. There was and is no need for protection. If you don't value your edits enough to provide and attribute references, then don't make them. It doesn't matter what the "consensus" is.  Instead of whining for support, just address the issues.--Silverback June 28, 2005 07:15 (UTC)
 * More rhetoric, the "whining" card, now. Charming. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Please stay on subject. The subject is whether Ilyanep was engaged with one or more parties in collusion over what version of this article was protected. The subject is not whether or not this protection was necessary. The subject is not this whole right-wing vs. conservative argument. The subject is not whether or not I "whine". Shem, it's getting late, and tempers are getting hot. Let's sleep on it shall we? crazyeddie 28 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)
 * You stomped the words right from my just-submitted edit. ;-) I ain't much for getting "hot," but my bed (and work in the morning) is calling.  Hopefully, we can restore the to-do list and archiving of this Talk page tomorrow.  Cheers. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 07:37 (UTC)

Re-Archive.
Can we please do the following?:
 * Stop whining
 * Re-archive the talk page
 * Restore the To-Do List
 * Vote on the conservative vs. Right-Wing issue
 * Go on with bringing this article up to an encyclopedic standard which everyone can be happy with.

— Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 28 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

 * In fact, I will go an re-archive the talk page. Silverback, if you have any particular issues, please feel free to bring them back, but please don't bring back the entire talk because it makes this page too bulky (as some of the issues have been resolved, or need to be presented differently) — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 28 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have made the right-wing vs. conservative issue first on the list ;) — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 28 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Ilyanep, with all due respect, Silverback has made some serious allegations. If those allegations are allowed to stand unchallenged, it could significantly impair your ability to function as an administrator.

It seems to me that Silverback is in clear violation of the “Assume good faith” policy: WP:AGF. Silverback has failed to apply Hanlon's Razor, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Even if our actions regarding placing this page under protection were in violation of Wikipedia policy – an allegation that I deny – such violation could be explained by a lack of understanding on our part.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Silverback’s wild accusations can not be explained by mere stupidity, and that we are forced to assume malice.

With this in mind, I would like to begin the dispute resolution process as outlined here: WP:RFC.

The first step in this process is to attempt to settle the dispute by direct discussion with the other party.

With this in mind, I request that Silverback retract his allegations that Ilyanep, Shem, and myself engaged in collusion regarding which version of the Fox News was placed under protection, and that he apologize for making such allegations.

If he does this, then I will consider this dispute settled, and we can return to either discussing whether or not this article should be continue to be protected, or discussing the right wing vs. conservative terminology dispute.

If he does not do this, then I would advise him to begin his own dispute resolution process regarding this alleged collusion. Meanwhile, I will go on to the next stage in the dispute, which consists of two contributors contacting the user in question on the user’s talk page. Shem, I trust you will act as my second on this matter? crazyeddie 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)
 * Don't try to frame this as personal, when others also see the impropriety. Rhobyte called it "inappropriate" and Proteus labeled it "bordering on unacceptable".  I hope you are not hanging Ilyanep out to dry, by claiming it was all his idea and that Shem and you had nothing to do with it?--Silverback June 28, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
 * Rhobite and Proteus did not have a complete understanding of events; they have not commented since clarification. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you (plural) are trying to go with this, but personally I'd like to stop this petty bickering (I refuse to take sides in this unless it must be brought to RFC), and change the protected version to be to everyone's liking. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 28 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea why you protected the page? The person you colluded with was not editing in good faith, whereas, almost all my edits were in good faith (one out of frustration was tongue in cheek).  My edits generally proposed compromises in the edit summaries.  The compromise was the language or point they want will be accepted if it is referenced and properly attributed which was implied by my request for references and attribution and backed up by my long history of yielding to the evidence.  Some, did that and compromise language was found.  The one you collaborated with did not edit in good faith.  You should realized that page protection is seldom needed, in fact, protecting this page, just removed any incentive to compromise.  Of course, you also should have done a better job of analyzing the situation and should never have colluded.  Do you have any idea why you changed your mind and went ahead and protected after you had decided not to?  Your language seemed to indicate that you did it because "they" wanted it.  You should make your own decisions.--Silverback June 28, 2005 21:23 (UTC)
 * Yes, I protected because there was a consensus within this group of 4 editors somewhat. If you want to make the protected version a 'good' one, perhaps we should go on with discussing instead of this bickering. BTW, co-luuding implies us working together, and we never worked together to make it what you call a 'bad' version...we simply reverted to what he thought was a good enough version before the anon started editing. I don't see why you have to be so vehement about this. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 28 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)

Whether or not Ilyanep violated Wikipedia policy is another matter entirely. I personally believe that he did not, and I will defend him if and when you intiate a dispute resolution process against him. Am I to understand that you refuse to retract your allegations of collusion and to apologize for them? crazyeddie 28 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)
 * I apologize to you Crazyeddie, the evidence isn't there for you. BTW, Shem doesn't believe in AGF, look at his user page.--Silverback June 28, 2005 20:04 (UTC)
 * There's a marked difference between assuming good faith and editing in good faith. I don't do the former, but you don't do the latter. Shem(talk) 28 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)
 * Shem is allowed to believe what he wants about Wikipedia policies, and to express those beliefs on his user page, just so long as he does not actually violate those policies. crazyeddie 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)
 * Were you assuming the page would not be protected when you edited under this summary "Done, Ilyanep. Keep this version for tommorow"???--Silverback June 28, 2005 20:19 (UTC

RfC?
If this article does come to an RfC, I ask that it is brought as an RfC for the article, not against a specific person, this way we can get more done. Thanks, — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 28 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)

If you have suggestions on how to do that, I'm all ears. But Silverback is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and I intend to see him brought to task over it. Shem, the next step consists of two contributors attempting to resolve the dispute on the user's talk page. I'm one, will you be two? crazyeddie 29 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Done. User talk:Silverback Shem, your turn, assuming you want to. Your call. crazyeddie 29 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)
 * I have commented on both of your talk pages. Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 06:45 (UTC)

RATINGS
RATINGS The "Cume" debate is quite outdated. CNN stopped using that argument about 2 years ago when Fox passed CNN in cume also. Plus, although the article claims Fox's ratings are falling, it doesn't mention that that info was taken from a CNN press release... and Fox's ratings are higher than they've been all year. The latest numbers have Fox more than doubling CNN's ratings.
 * The article notes it quite clearly: "Ratings success," paragraph four. Now please, clarify your comments:  Which argument is CNN's, and where can we see that CNN "stopped using it," and whatnot?  I see no mention of CUME ratings in any of your sources, and your last link appears to be dead. Also, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes ( ~ ). Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

"CN"
"By the "share" measure Fox is the most watched, though CN still tops FOX News in unique viewers."

This should be "CNN", right? maybe with CNN too?
 * I was going to bring the same thing up. By the way, CNN is already linked, so it doesn't need it again-Jeff 29 June 2005 04:30 (UTC)

Unfair
I (as the dutch creator of the (unprotected) Fox News article) have not followed the ongoing discussion about this article. I just have to say that the critism in this article on Fox News is about half the article long. In other similar articles like CNN there's hardly any critism at all. Isn't this strange? Wiki213ip 29 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
 * The article has been measured. The "Allegations of bias" section is less than 1/3 of the article.  Perhaps you should read through the archives, follow the ongoing discussion?  It'd answer many, if not all, of your questions. Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)
 * ;). The answer to this is to lengthen the article relative to the criticisms section. Also, CNN obviously needs a larger criticisms section. --Oldak Quill 29 June 2005 14:43 (UTC) PS. I have just checked the article again and do not believe "criticisms" to take up half. The "Controversies" section takes up rougly a third, but to call something controvertial is not necessarily critical. Not all of this section is critical.
 * Like I said I have not followed the ongoing discussion. Well now I've read a large part of it and I've got some new material for the article on the dutch wikipedia. And second of all; the measure that about the half of the article consists critism on Fox was just a rough guess. But still I think that the're is to many critism on a news station that has twice the size of audiance then CNN. MSNBC hasn't got any critism at all. Wiki213ip 29 June 2005 15:08 (UTC) (excuse me for my English I am Dutch so....)
 * My advice, avoid "rough guesses" and other such "guesstimating" when making comments on such an actively-edited article. As for the other networks, you'll have to take up complaints on other articles with those articles' respective Talk pages.  The controversy surrounding FOX News is an extremely notable element of its identity, and depending upon who you ask, an important part of the network's success. Shem(talk) 29 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

 * I'm personally not a big fan of comparing other articles like CNN to this page, as CNN and Fox while both cable news networks are completely different organizations. The reason why there is so much allegation of bias is because there is a major debate as to whether Fox is a conservative-leaning station, despite their slogan of "We report, you decide."  CNN, regardless of anybody's personal feelings on the matter, does not have this same debate or criticism attached to it, unless you want to add any studies (preferably not simple punditry) that show CNN shows a liberal bias.  Length of any portion of an article should be proportional to the prescence it has in the public eye. --kizzle June 29, 2005 16:26 (UTC)

 * Certainly not true, it even had the moniker of the Clinton News Network for quite a while. Any criticism that exists for one news station/program will certainly exist for the rest.  If you'd like you could name the channel and I could point you to the complaints even. -bro 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

I have issues with the CNN allegations of bias section as well, but I'm a bit too preoccupied to do anything about it. To start off with, I seem to remember that earlier versions of the CNN article described international concerns that CNN was too Amero-centric, (including its overseas outlets). There was some concern about its exclusive, in-person coverage, of the Gulf War, and what deals it might have had to cut with the US government to do it. There are also concerns about the "all the news print to fit" problem inherent in all 24-7 news formats. I doubt these criticisms have gone away, it's just that FNC makes CNN look good by comparison. In the existing version, IIRC, all allegations of bias seem to be from the POV that CNN has a liberal bias. These allegations also have not had the same scrutiny from the left as the allegations of bias against Fox have had from the right.

As for MSNBC, I'm not aware of any widespread allegations of bias. I'd encourage anybody interested to do some research into the matter. Some notoriety might improve their ratings. MSNBC is my favorite of the big three 24-7 news networks, not in the sense that I actually watch it, but in that I can stand to leave it on for more than five minutes.

I'd rather not worry about how long the Bias section is, provided its not truly outrageous (which it once was, hence the Trodel Rewrite). If a particular allegation belongs, it belongs. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I'd rather not trim out worthy information just because it doesn't "fit". crazyeddie 1 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

 * BigDaveDiode here, if I may interject with a short comment. This argument that CNN has a shorter criticisms section and therefore Fox should too is a false argument.  It is not egalitarian to treat different subjects equally if one has a longer history, including a court and legal history, that needs to be covered.  This is a common logical fallacy falsely trying to slip under the cover of even-handedness.

 * If I may say one other thing. I read Silverbacks accusation, then his misrepresentation, and then when called on it his accusation of "whining."  This immature level of posting should not be allowed.

Technical Problem
Could somebody please do something about this wierd doubling of sections on this page? crazyeddie 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 1 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

A belated thanks. crazyeddie 6 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

I've also shifted the FOX News logo down to beneath the "controversial" text, because it was creating a thick band of shite space at the top of the article, at least in my browser. - Mark 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any difference. Perhaps it's an IE thing. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 16:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"exclusively" conservative?
I removed that word because its extreme POV to say anything of the sort. How could that be said with shows such as Hannity and Colmes (Colmes is a liberal) that debunk any evidence of being exclusively conservative. THey may tilt right-wing, but to call them exclusive is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * One liberal example such as Alan Colmes is probably not sufficient to convince the critics. Besides, what is wrong in promoting conservative ideas? Do you think it is not right? Docku (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with saying "exclusively" is because it deceives people into believing that the network is close minded and/or bias. MSNBC is very liberal, but we can't call them exclusively liberal just because they prefer to promote a left-wing viewpoint. Cannot the same be said of FOX News? And furthermore, at network that calls itself "Fair and Balanced" is clearly not trying to be exclusive. They hire what is profitable, and conservatives are profitable. Thus, they dominate the primetime slots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * So the network that dumped Phil Donahue and employed Michael Savage is now a liberal hotbed? I guess these are the new right-wing talking points. Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Network employed Savage for a few weeks, and since then the network has made ZERO attempts to be fair and balanced. Name me ONE host on the network that is at least from a centrist viewpoint. The closest they can come up with is Chris Matthews, and he's a huge liberal. I guess these are the left-wing talking points. FOX News is every bit, if not less, bias than the other networks who time and time again are bailed out by the media liberals including the leftist blogosphere who controls the majority of the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * What about Carlson Tucker? The guy who called Canadians as retarded cousins... Docku (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Chris Matthews is a huge liberal? Seriously? Assuming that laughable notion was the case, the presence of one or two "huge liberals" does not make an entire network tilt left, especially one that has employed the likes of Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Alan Keyes, and Michael Savage. There simply is no equivalence to Fox, and imagining it to be the case doesn't make it so. Gamaliel (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly stating that a network has a 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias is entirely in the opinion of who's watching. All we can do is present equal viewpoints from highly-regarded people or organizations on both sides in their analyses of the network's supposed biases and make a judgment based on the majority of those opinions. Liberal people think FOX is conservatively biased and conservatives think CNN and MSNBC are liberally biased, and that will probably never change. Unless there's a source that proves every presenter and commentator on FOX News has stated that he or she is conservative, and the same goes for CNN and MSNBC in regards to their respective bias accusations, then I don't think we can accurately state that a network is 'exclusively' anything. NcSchu ( Talk ) 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I say keep it in. Any reader that sees that will realize that the criticism is directed from the extreme left and realize how rediculous the statement is, especially since the most recent surveys show that FNC has been the most balanced with regards to the 2008 presidential election.  Arzel (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann wins large audience
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (NBC) - 3 million viewers The Factor - (FNC) - N/A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.219.159 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * First, it doesnt belong here. Second, do you have any reliable reference? Docku (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What he is saying happened for 1 week, in which half of the week O'Reilly was on vacation (his ratings drop when he is not there) and the liberals made a huge deal of it because they have been getting spanked by FNC for so long. One week doesn't justify a wikipedia notice for anything, and it was by a few thousand viewers even then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * For God's sake; Olberman (for example) and others are on vacation too. So why not taking a break till they're all back? --Floridianed (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not be ridiculous. --Floridianed (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we arguing about Olbermann statistics on the Fox News talk page? Let's keep this page for discussion on the content of the Fox News Channel article. Our position shouldn't be to continue the debate between both television personalities. NcSchu ( Talk ) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Good point! So let's close this discussion here if nobody minds. --Floridianed (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fox news conservative?
How can something like that be said in the lead when there is no agreement to that opinion. Fox is certainly more conservative than the other networks, but they are not conservative relative to the American population, only to the other networks. Verwoerd (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the FAQ will help explain things. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Also the lead does not say FNC is conservative. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in lead
I have changed to lead. That sentence never had a "consensus". It is simply inaccurate to mention "critics and most observers". Some critics have said that Fox is moderate. To simply write critics without a modifier is wrong.

Original:''Critics and most observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting.'' New: ''Some critics and observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting.'' Verwoerd (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Reverted, as your changes modify the meaning of the statement. Beyond that, this has been repeatedly decided by a wide consensus over a number of years.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know who put "most observers" in the lead, that certainly does not have a consensus. I believe the consensus was "some observers". Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ratings
I was browsing this article for information about FNC's ratings and came across a line under Ratings - "For the year 2007, Fox News was the number one rated cable news network. It was down 1 percent in total daily viewers and down three percent in the 25-54 year old demographic. In comparison, CNN was up one percent and three percent, respectively. Fox News finished 2007 as #6 rated overall cable network.[34]" Well, needless to say, I was wondering why a comparison was made between FNC and another Broadcasting News Network and then the information on FNC's ratings out of ALL cable network stations. So, I went to the 34th source on the article and found that FNC was indeed still ahead of all Cable News Stations in 2007. So, I was just wondering why the comparison was made between the two news corps., and then the information given on FNC's ratings out of all networks listed right afterwards. I felt as if it was giving a false sense of CNN being ahead of FNC - even though the article clearly states differently - just thought I'd throw this info. on the Talk page so it can be deliberated upon. 74.244.29.221 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really understand your reading of the statement. It shows FNC's change in ratings and compares it to what is arguably the other large news network and then it broadens the criteria to include all cable channels. I don't see how it makes it sound like CNN is ahead in ratings of FNC; it merely states they had a raise in viewers whereas FNC had a decline. NcSchu ( Talk ) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe the comparison was made due to this sentence in the lead: In the United States, Fox News Channel is rated as the cable news network with the largest number of regular viewers, although CNN retains a larger number of unique viewers. In the section on ratings it appears that there was an attempt to delve into the relationship between the two organizations mentioned in the lead.  I've never understood why the distinction was made in the lead, but with all the other battles on this article, it never really got discussed.  Also I wonder if the information is still correct or does it need to be updated as we are almost now in the second half of 2008, and the information is from 2007. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The 2007 ratings were reported on January 2008 as per the reference. I dont know if it needs an update unless there is an interim ratings report somewhere. Furthermore, the comparison with CNN makes no sense and it can be removed. It may have been an attempt to diminish the significance of high FOX news ratings. Dock Hi 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I should make it clear however, as I didn't address this in my response, that I do agree that the mention of CNN does seem a bit random and awkward. NcSchu ( Talk ) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I removed it. Now, the article still sounds still a little bit obscure because it doesnt say 1 percent down from when (though I assume year 2006). Also, I am not sure how statistically significant is 1 and 3% to be mentioned here. Dock Hi 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I would assume 2006 as well, but it's interesting the link doesn't actually say, as that can make a difference in statistics. 1% and 3% changes all depend on the size of the viewing audience I would think, but I don't think we're really in a position to judge that significance. NcSchu ( Talk ) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the whole history, but this is at least part of it. There used to be no distinction between FNC and CNN, however some time ago someone put CNN as the No. 1 station into it's lead. An editor saw this and put a "conflicting" tag because both stations stated they were the No. 1 station. Not to debate the merits between the regular Neilson Ratings and the Cume ratings, the ratings which are used most commonly are those that show FNC as 1 (Neilson Ratings), and when you hear Neilson ratings these are those ratings. The Neilson Cume ratings (which show CNN as 1) are used as well, but they seem to be used more often internaly by the stations for setting of ad rates. Regardless of which is a more accurate reflection, it is not clear to most people what the difference is (FWIW, Cume ratings indicate unique viewers, Neilson ratings indicate overall viewers. FNC has fewer viewers but they watch for a longer period of time than CNN). So in the interest of removing the conflict between the lead sentences of FNC and CNN, those sentences were put into place. To remain consistant with how the average person views Neilson ratings, this article should say FNC is 1 and CNN's should say they are 2....however, there is nothing that I could find that explicitly states this...so here we are. Arzel (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Nice perspective, a little confusion. boy, dont you know so much (including ratings used for ad rate). Do you work there or what? (just kidding :)) Dock Hi 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Closest to working there was that I was a Neilson Viewer once. Discovery Channel got a huge boost those couple of weeks.  :)  Arzel (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * There has been some spirited discussion regarding the ratings over the years; most of the established editors of the page are all too familiar with the situation. ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fox News/Archive 11


text:
The Spirit of Detroit

The Spirit of Detroit is a monument with a large bronze statue created by Marshall Fredericks and located at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center on Woodward Avenue in Detroit, Michigan.

Description
The Spirit of Detroit is a monument with a large bronze statue created by Marshall Fredericks and located at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center on Woodward Avenue in Detroit, Michigan. Fredericks also designed the seal of Wayne County at the time he was designing The Spirit of Detroit, as it was a part of the work and the county had no seal at the time. The seal is still used today and is also featured on the county's flag. Cast in Oslo, Norway, the 26-foot (7.9 m), 9-ton sculpture sits on a 60-ton marble base and it was the largest cast bronze statue since the Renaissance.

In its left hand, the large seated figure holds a gilt bronze sphere emanating rays to symbolize God. The people in the figure's right hand are a family group symbolizing all human relationships.

Fredericks did not originally name the sculpture and the name came from the citizens of Detroit based on an inscription from 2 Corinthians (3:17) on the marble wall behind it, underneath the seals of Wayne County and the City of Detroit:

The 36 x 45 foot semicircular wall includes the seals of the City of Detroit and Wayne County. The Wayne County seal was created by Fredericks specifically for The Spirit of Detroit, as the county did not have a seal beforehand. A plaque in front of the sculpture bears the following inscription: "The artist expresses the concept that God, through the spirit of man, is manifested in the family, the noblest human relationship."

History
The sculpture was commissioned on August 2, 1955 for a cost of $58,000 (equivalent to $415,000 in ). Fredericks considered the statue to be part of his civic responsibility and waived the commissioning cost. As part of the design of the divine elements of the sculpture, Fredericks met with several religious groups. Fredericks shipped a scale model from the United States to Oslo, Norway for casting. After casting, the sculpture underwent acidic treatments for several weeks to oxidize the bronze and to create the warm, aged green color. the thickness of the bronze is 3/8 inches up to 1.5 inches. Steel framework was constructed to protect the sculpture during transport. Additional protection for the sculpture was provided using wooden beams, wooden platforms, and burlap covering, for a total shipping weight of 12 tons. For shipping, the sculpture was placed facedown onto a wooden platform. The sculpture was transported by the Fjell Line, who chartered the German freighter ''Thomas Schulte.  After the 4,800 mile journey across the Atlantic Ocean and through the Saint Lawrence Seaway, the freighter arrived at the Port of Detroit on September 20, 1958.  The Thomas Schulte'' was the only freighter with sufficient below deck storage space to accommodate the sculpture while still being able to navigate the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

As part of the shipment, four miniature scale models of the sculpture were included to aid with customs clearance.  The sculpture was delivered to the Detroit City-County Building (now the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center) and installed onto the marble base for the September 23, 1958 dedication ceremony.

The Marshall M. Fredericks Sculpture Museum has the original plaster head for The Spirit of Detroit, as well as a quarter-scale plaster model.

The sculpture has regular maintenance, as well as restorations. Once a year, the sculpture is cleaned with non-ionic, biogradable detergents and customized petroleum-based waxes are used for protection. The annual maintenance also includes applying heat to the bronze surface and cupric nitrate in order to preserve the green color and patina. In 1984, the sculpture was covered in plastic while the marble panels behind the statue were replaced. The statue underwent a restoration, funded by foundations and other private donations.

For the sculpture's 50th anniversary, funds from operational savings and energy conservation totalling $170,000 were used for restoration improvements. In 2018, the sculpture had routine maintenance completed which involved touching up the green patina, as well as the gold figures and sphere. On September 21, 2018, the City of Detroit had a ceremony to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the sculpture.

In 2017, Spirit Plaza was initially constructed and subsequent upgrades completed in 2019 and paid for by $800,000 in bond funds have yielded a 20,000 square-foot plaza with a playground, stationary musical instruments, tables, chairs, vehicle charging stations, and drinking fountains.

In 2013 art dealer and art historian Eric Ian Hornak Spoutz was quoted in The Detroit News stating that the value of the statue is in excess of $1 million. In 2017, the Detroit-Wayne Joint Building Authority said that based on the most recent appraisal of the sculpture, it would cost $6 million to repair significant damage.

Uses as a community symbol
As one of Detroit's most easily identifiable landmarks, a sketch or depiction of the statue appears as the central element of most of the logos of Detroit's city departments and services. During the late 20th century, a facsimile of the statue was featured on the Detroit Police Department's insignia and on the sides of its police cars. An image of the statue appears on the "Spirit of Detroit Award" certificate, which is issued by the Detroit City Council to a person, event, or organization deemed to have performed an outstanding achievement or service to the citizens of Detroit. The sculpture is the main image on Detroit Community Scrip.

The Spirit of Detroit represents local sports teams, such as when it is dressed in sports jerseys to celebrate local professional teams competing in the playoffs. As the number of sports and non-sports requests for the sculpture to wear jerseys increased, there began to be concerns about damage to the sculpture and starting in 2017, the Detroit-Wayne Joint Building Authority began new rules for having a jersey displayed on the statue, including winning a championship and paying $25,000. The payment was intended to cover the restoration costs after a jersey is removed, including cleaning, reapplying the patina, and reapplying the wax. Another example of local sports team representation is the use of an image of the sculpture as part of the crest of the Detroit City Football Club.

The sculpture has also been involved with arts events, such as being dressed in a tuxedo in 1999 during a visit by the Three Tenors. The ceremonial naming of the section of the John C. Lodge Freeway running from Livernois to I-94 in honor of Aretha Franklin was held in front of the sculpture in 2019. Spirit Plaza was the site of a floral tribute, which included 3,000 roses, that commemorated Big Sean's Detroit 2 album release on September 4, 2020.

The Spirit of Detroit represents Detroit in media and video games, such as the 2011 Chrysler 200 Super Bowl commercial, "Born of Fire", which featured rapper Eminem along with Detroit landmarks, and the 2018 video game Detroit: Become Human.

In 2020, The Spirit of Detroit wore a blue-green shirt and a white ribbon to commemorate medical and "essential" workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two people installed the 420 square foot polyester poplin shirt and three foot ribbon.

title: The Spirit of Detroit


text: User talk:83.250.208.203

title: User talk:83.250.208.203


text:
File:Bengali Vowels Opera8 1.png

Summary
A section of the table of vowels from the Bengali script article, as viewed in Opera 8.01.

title: File:Bengali Vowels Opera8 1.png


text:
File:Bengali Vowels Opera8 2.png

Summary
A section of the table of vowels from the Bengali script article, as viewed in Opera 8.01.

title: File:Bengali Vowels Opera8 2.png