text:
Denver Civic Center

The Denver Civic Center is a civic center area that includes two parks surrounded by government and cultural buildings and spaces. Civic Center is located in central Denver, Colorado, on the south side of Downtown Denver. Much of the area is a historic district which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974 (boundaries clarified 1988). A somewhat smaller area was designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark in 2012 as one of the nation's finest examples of the City Beautiful movement of civic design. Denver Civic Center lies partially within the north end of an official Denver neighborhood also named Civic Center. It includes the Colorado State Capitol building, in the west end of Denver's official Capitol Hill neighborhood, and it includes a few buildings in the south end of Denver's Central Business District.

The Civic Center area is known as the center of the civic life in the city, with numerous institutions of arts, government, and culture as well as festivals, parades, and protests throughout the year.

Parks
Civic Center Park is part of the City and County of Denver park system, located at the intersection of Colfax Avenue and Broadway, perhaps the best-known and most important streets in Denver. The park is bordered by Bannock Street on the west, Broadway on the east, Colfax Avenue on the north, and 14th Avenue on the south. The park is home to a fountain, several statues, and formal gardens, and includes a Greek amphitheater, a war memorial, and the Voorhies Memorial Seal Pond. It is well known for its symmetrical Neoclassical design. Lincoln Park, immediately east of Civic Center Park, is operated by the State of Colorado. It holds a replica of the Liberty Bell and several memorials.

History
Civic Center was an idea that originated with former Denver mayor Robert W. Speer. In 1904, Speer proposed a series of civic improvements based on the City Beautiful Ideas shown to him at the 1893 World Columbian Exposition in Chicago.

Speer hired Charles Mulford Robinson among others to develop plans for the area. Robinson proposed extending 16th Street to the Colorado State Capitol and to group other municipal buildings around a central park area. Such a plan was expensive however. Voter approval was necessary to acquire the funds, but the measure was defeated in a 1906 election.

Undaunted, Speer gathered business leaders who brought in new ideas for the Civic Center including the creation of an east-west axial between the Colorado State Capitol, and swinging the north and south borders of the park into the city grid system.

These plans were stalled when in 1912, Speer was replaced as mayor. The new mayor brought in Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. who was developing plans for Denver's mountain parks. His ideas included an informal grove of trees on the eastern edge of the park, and a lighted concert area.

When Speer was reelected in 1916, he went against Olmsted's designs. Speer instead hired Chicago planner and architect Edward H. Bennett, a protégé of Daniel Burnham. Bennett combined the ideas of all of the previous plans, adding the Greek amphitheater, the Colonnade, the seal pond, and the realignment of Colfax Avenue and 14th Ave., around the park. The park officially opened in 1919. The City and County Building was finished in 1932.

Institutions and development
Civic Center has long been the government, arts, history, and learning nexus of both the state of Colorado and the Denver Metropolitan Area. Among the institutions in the Civic Center are Denver Art Museum and the Denver Central Library along the park's south side, the Colorado State Capitol and the City and County Building of Denver along the east and west axis of the park, the Wellington E. Webb Municipal Office Building on the park's north side, and the History Colorado Center and the Colorado State Judicial Building to the southeast of the park. The Denver Mint lies immediately west of the Civic Center Park across the street from the City and County Building.

The area has seen a new civic development, including the Denver Newspaper Agency (northeast of the park), the home of The Denver Post. Voters in 2004 approved a new Denver Justice Center, two blocks away from Civic Center Park. This project was completed in 2010.

Events
Civic Center is known throughout the state as the rendezvous for the largest and most important cultural and civic events. Being at the center of the state and local government institutions, Civic Center has become the place for political statement for various groups and individuals representing a variety of causes. In 1990 and 1991, the Civic Center was the location of the CART Grand Prix of Denver.

It was Civic Center where the public held a vigil for the victims of Columbine High School massacre, and 9/11. Former presidential candidate and Denver native John Kerry made a 2004 campaign stop at Civic Center, and 2008 Democratic nominee Barack Obama gave a speech there on October 26, 2008 to an estimated 100,000 supporters.

On October 11, 2019, a School strike for climate protest was held in Civic Center Park with Greta Thunberg.

Civic Center is also the location for many annual events. These include:
 * January - The City and County Building has a Christmas lights display up until the National Western Stock Show ends in mid January.
 * March – Civic Center is at the end of one of the longest St. Patrick's Day parades in the nation.
 * April - Flyhi 420 Festival an annual pro-cannabis rally/ cannabis culture gathering is held in Civic Center every year on April 20, otherwise known as 420.
 * May - Denver has a large Cinco de Mayo festival, held at Civic Center.
 * June - Civic Center is host to the People's Fair, a bohemian festival with various music, art, political booths, and other happenings; PrideFest, the annual gay pride festival is held at Civic Center, which is also the endpoint of the parade.
 * Summer - There are various theatre and music events held throughout the summer at the Greek amphitheater.
 * Summer - Each Wednesday night, the Denver Cruiser Ride stops at the Greek amphitheater, which riders refer to as the "Circle of Death."
 * September - A Taste of Colorado is a food and music festival held during Labor Day weekend at the park.
 * October - The park is the end point for a Columbus Day parade that often brings protests from American Indian groups.
 * December - The Parade of Lights ends at the City and County Building which has holiday lights from the beginning of the parade until the National Western Stock Show.

title: Denver Civic Center


text:
Shonda Rhimes

Shonda Lynn Rhimes, (born January 13, 1970) is an American television producer and screenwriter, and founder of the production company Shondaland. Inducted into the Television Hall of Fame and NAB Broadcasting Hall of Fame, Rhimes became known as the showrunner—creator, head writer, and executive producer—of the medical drama Grey's Anatomy (2005–present), its spin-off Private Practice (2007–2013) and the political thriller Scandal (2012–2018), becoming the first woman to create three television dramas that have achieved the 100 episode milestone.

She has served as the executive producer of the ABC thriller series How to Get Away with Murder (2014–2020), the Netflix period series Bridgerton (2020–present) and Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story (2023), and drama Inventing Anna (2022). She has been nominated five times for a Primetime Emmy Award, won a Golden Globe Award, and received special honors at the British Academy Television Awards and International Emmy Awards.

In 2017, she was inducted as a Chair's Appointee of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences‘s executive committee. She is also part of the USC Film Council and the Writers Guild Inclusion Committee.

In 2007, 2013, and 2021, Rhimes was named by Time to the Time 100, their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world. As of 2023, she is one of the richest women entertainers in America, with a net worth of $250 million. In 2015, she published her first book, a memoir, Year of Yes: How to Dance It Out, Stand in the Sun, and Be Your Own Person. In 2016, Rhimes formed The Rhimes Family Foundation whose mission is to support arts, education, and activism.

Early life and education
Rhimes was born in Chicago, Illinois, as the youngest of six children of Vera P. (née Cain), a college professor, and Ilee Rhimes Jr., a university administrator. Her mother attended college while raising their six children and earned a PhD in educational administration in 1991. Her father, who holds an MBA, became chief information officer (CIO) at the University of Southern California, serving until 2013.

Rhimes lived in Park Forest South (now University Park, Illinois), with her two older brothers and three older sisters. She has said she exhibited an early affinity for storytelling. While in high school, she served as a hospital volunteer, which inspired an interest in hospital environments.

Raised Catholic, Rhimes attended Marian Catholic High School in Chicago Heights, Illinois. At Dartmouth College, she majored in English and film studies and earned her bachelor's degree in 1991. At Dartmouth, she joined the Black Underground Theater Association. She divided her time between directing and performing in student productions, and writing fiction. She also wrote for the college newspaper.

After college, she relocated to San Francisco with an older sibling and worked in advertising at McCann Erickson. She subsequently moved to Los Angeles to attend the University of Southern California and study screenwriting. Ranked at the top of her USC class, Rhimes earned the Gary Rosenberg Writing Fellowship. She obtained a Master of Fine Arts degree from the USC School of Cinematic Arts.

While at USC, Rhimes was hired as an intern by Debra Martin Chase. Rhimes credits her early success, in part, to mentors such as Chase, a prominent African-American producer. Chase later again served as a mentor to Rhimes on The Princess Diaries 2. Rhimes also worked at Denzel Washington's company, Mundy Lane Entertainment.

Career beginnings: 1995–2004
After graduation, Rhimes was an unemployed scriptwriter in Hollywood. To make ends meet, Rhimes worked at a variety of day jobs, including as an office administrator and then a counselor at a job center that taught job skills to people with housing instability and mental illness. During this period, Rhimes worked as research director on the documentary Hank Aaron: Chasing the Dream (1995), which won the 1995 Peabody Award. In 1998, Rhimes made a short film, Blossoms and Veils, starring Jada Pinkett-Smith and Jeffrey Wright, which is her only credit as a film director. New Line Cinema purchased a feature script of hers. Rhimes received an assignment to co-write the HBO movie Introducing Dorothy Dandridge (1999), which earned numerous awards for its star, Halle Berry.

In 2001, Rhimes wrote Crossroads, the debut film of pop singer Britney Spears. Despite being panned by critics, the film grossed more than $60 million worldwide.

Rhimes next worked on writing Disney's sequel to its popular movie The Princess Diaries (2001). Although The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004) did not score as well at the box office, Rhimes later said that she treasured the experience, if only for the opportunity to work with its star, Julie Andrews. In 2003, Rhimes wrote her first TV pilot for ABC about young female war correspondents, but the network turned it down.

Grey's Anatomy, Private Practice, Scandal and other projects with ABC
Rhimes is the creator and currently executive producer and head writer of Grey's Anatomy. The series debuted as a mid-season replacement on March 27, 2005. The series features the surgical staff at the fictional Seattle Grace Hospital (later to be named Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital), in Seattle, Washington. The series features an ensemble cast with Ellen Pompeo serving as titular character Meredith Grey, who provides narration for a majority of the series' episodes.

In 2007, Rhimes created and produced the Grey's Anatomy spin-off series Private Practice, which debuted September 26, 2007, on ABC. The show chronicles the life of Dr. Addison Montgomery (Kate Walsh) as she leaves Seattle Grace Hospital for Los Angeles to join a private practice. The series also features an ensemble cast, including Tim Daly, Amy Brenneman, Audra McDonald and Taye Diggs among others. The first season was shortened because of a writers' strike; it has nine episodes. In May 2012, ABC picked up Private Practice for the 2012–13 television season with 13 episodes. The series finale aired January 22, 2013.

In 2010, Rhimes created a new pilot for ABC called Inside the Box, a female-centric ensemble drama set in a Washington, D.C. network news bureau. The lead character is Catherine, an ambitious female news producer who, with her colleagues, pursues "the story" at all costs while juggling their personal animosities and crises of conscience. It was not picked up by the network.

In 2011, Rhimes served as executive producer for the medical drama, Off the Map, which was created by Grey's Anatomy writer, Jenna Bans. It focuses on a group of doctors who practice medicine at a remote clinic in the Amazon jungle. The series was officially cancelled by the ABC network on May 13, 2011.

In May 2011, ABC ordered Rhimes' pilot script Scandal to series. Kerry Washington starred as Olivia Pope, a political crisis management expert. The character is partially based on former Bush administration press aide Judy Smith. The series debut aired on April 5, 2012.

In 2012, Rhimes developed a pilot for a period drama, Gilded Lilys, but it was not picked up to series.

In December 2013, ABC ordered a pilot for a new Rhimes series, How to Get Away with Murder. Actress Viola Davis joined the cast as the lead character in February 2014. It was officially picked up to series on May 8, 2014.

In March 2016, ABC premiered The Catch, a comedy-drama led by Rhimes based on a treatment by British author Kate Atkinson. It stars Mireille Enos and Peter Krause. Later that month, Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder and Grey's Anatomy were respectively picked up for their sixth, third and 13th seasons. The following year, it was announced that Scandal would conclude after its upcoming seventh season, while The Catch was cancelled after its second.

Netflix deal
On August 14, 2017, Netflix announced that it had entered into an exclusive multi-year development deal with Rhimes, under which all of her future productions will be Netflix Original series. The service had already purchased U.S. streaming rights to past episodes of Grey's Anatomy and Scandal. Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos described Rhimes as being a "true Netflixer at heart" since "she loves TV and films, she cares passionately about her work, and she delivers for her audience". The deal was considered to be a coup for Netflix due to Rhimes' prominence at ABC; it was also considered to be a counter toward the effort by Disney, ABC's parent company, to reduce the availability of their content on Netflix in favor of a planned subscription streaming service of their own.

As of October 2020, she was working on more than 12 projects for Netflix, extended her deal with Netflix. The first production was Bridgerton, which was released in 2020 and became the most-watched series ever on the platform, leading to the production of three seasons by 2024. In 2021 Rhimes produced the drama miniseries Inventing Anna. In April 2022, the production of Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story conceived by Rhimes was announced, as a spin-off of Bridgerton.

Personal life
Rhimes adopted her first daughter in June 2002 and adopted another daughter in February 2012. In September 2013, Rhimes welcomed her third daughter via gestational surrogacy.

In 2014, Rhimes gave a commencement address at her alma mater, Dartmouth College, where she received an honorary doctorate.

In September 2015, Rhimes revealed she had lost 117 lbs via exercise and dieting.

Activism
In April 2017, Rhimes joined the national board of Planned Parenthood. Later that same year, Rhimes and Katie McGrath co-founded Time's Up, and both of them donated the funds to hire its first seven employees.

In 2019, Rhimes joined the organization When We All Vote as a co-chair. This organization was founded to get out the vote prior to the 2020 general election.

Shondaland
Shondaland is the name of Rhimes's production company. Shondaland and its logo also refer to the shows Rhimes has produced and to Rhimes herself. Shows included in Shondaland are:
 * Grey's Anatomy (2005–present)
 * Private Practice (2007–2013)
 * Off the Map (2011)
 * Scandal (2012–2018)
 * How to Get Away with Murder (2014–2020)
 * The Catch (2016–2017)
 * Still Star-Crossed (2017)
 * For the People (2018–2019)
 * Station 19 (2018–2024)
 * Bridgerton (2020–present)
 * Inventing Anna (2022)

Awards and nominations
Winner of the Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama in 2006 for Grey's Anatomy, Rhimes won the International Emmy Founders Award and the Special Award at the British Academy Television Awards. She also received special honorees for her works at the Costume Designers Guild Awards, Directors Guild of America Award, ICG Publicists Awards, Writers Guild of America Award and Producers Guild of America Awards.

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

title: Shonda Rhimes


text:
Exponential object

In mathematics, specifically in category theory, an exponential object or map object is the categorical generalization of a function space in set theory. Categories with all finite products and exponential objects are called cartesian closed categories. Categories (such as subcategories of Top) without adjoined products may still have an exponential law.

Definition
Let $$\mathbf{C}$$ be a category, let $$Z$$ and $$Y$$ be objects of $$\mathbf{C}$$, and let $$\mathbf{C}$$ have all binary products with $$Y$$. An object $Z^Y$ together with a morphism $\mathrm{eval}\colon (Z^Y \times Y) \to Z$  is an exponential object if for any object $$X$$ and morphism $g \colon X\times Y \to Z$  there is a unique morphism $\lambda g\colon X\to Z^Y$  (called the transpose of $$g$$) such that the following diagram commutes: This assignment of a unique $$\lambda g$$ to each $$g$$ establishes an isomorphism (bijection) of hom-sets, $\mathrm{Hom}(X\times Y,Z) \cong \mathrm{Hom}(X,Z^Y).$

If $Z^Y$ exists for all objects $$Z, Y$$ in $$\mathbf{C}$$, then the functor $$(-)^Y \colon \mathbf{C}\to \mathbf{C}$$ defined on objects by $$Z \mapsto Z^Y$$ and on arrows by $$(f\colon X\to Z) \mapsto (f^Y\colon X^Y \to Z^Y)$$, is a right adjoint to the product functor $$-\times Y$$. For this reason, the morphisms $$\lambda g$$ and $$g$$ are sometimes called exponential adjoints of one another.

Equational definition
Alternatively, the exponential object may be defined through equations:
 * Existence of $$\lambda g$$ is guaranteed by existence of the operation $$\lambda - $$.
 * Commutativity of the diagrams above is guaranteed by the equality $$\forall g \colon X \times Y \to Z,\ \mathrm{eval} \circ (\lambda g \times \mathrm{id}_Y) = g$$.
 * Uniqueness of $$\lambda g$$ is guaranteed by the equality $$\forall h \colon X \to Z^Y, \ \lambda (\mathrm{eval} \circ (h \times \mathrm{id}_Y)) = h$$.

Universal property
The exponential $$Z^Y$$ is given by a universal morphism from the product functor $$- \times Y$$ to the object $$Z$$. This universal morphism consists of an object $$Z^Y$$ and a morphism $\mathrm{eval}\colon (Z^Y \times Y) \to Z$.

Examples
In the category of sets, an exponential object $$Z^Y$$ is the set of all functions $$Y \to Z$$. The map $$\mathrm{eval}\colon (Z^Y \times Y) \to Z$$ is just the evaluation map, which sends the pair $$(f, y)$$ to $$f(y)$$. For any map $$g\colon X \times Y \to Z$$ the map $$\lambda g\colon X \to Z^Y$$ is the curried form of $$g$$:
 * $$\lambda g(x)(y) = g(x,y).\,$$

A Heyting algebra $$H$$ is just a bounded lattice that has all exponential objects. Heyting implication, $$Y \Rightarrow Z$$, is an alternative notation for $$Z^Y$$. The above adjunction results translate to implication ($$\Rightarrow : H \times H \to H$$) being right adjoint to meet ($$\wedge : H \times H \to H$$). This adjunction can be written as $$(- \wedge Y) \dashv (Y \Rightarrow -)$$, or more fully as: $$(- \wedge Y): H \stackrel {\longrightarrow} {\underset {\longleftarrow}{\top}} H: (Y \Rightarrow -)$$

In the category of topological spaces, the exponential object $$Z^Y$$ exists provided that $$Y$$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space. In that case, the space $$Z^Y$$ is the set of all continuous functions from $$Y$$ to $$Z$$ together with the compact-open topology. The evaluation map is the same as in the category of sets; it is continuous with the above topology. If $$Y$$ is not locally compact Hausdorff, the exponential object may not exist (the space $$Z^Y$$ still exists, but it may fail to be an exponential object since the evaluation function need not be continuous). For this reason the category of topological spaces fails to be cartesian closed. However, the category of locally compact topological spaces is not cartesian closed either, since $$Z^Y$$ need not be locally compact for locally compact spaces $$Z$$ and $$Y$$. A cartesian closed category of spaces is, for example, given by the full subcategory spanned by the compactly generated Hausdorff spaces.

In functional programming languages, the morphism $$\operatorname{eval}$$ is often called $\operatorname{apply}$, and the syntax $$\lambda g$$ is often written $\operatorname{curry}(g)$. The morphism $$\operatorname{eval}$$ here must not to be confused with the  function in some programming languages, which evaluates quoted expressions.

title: Exponential object


text:
Category:User ne-2

The users listed on this page are able to contribute at the medium-level of Nepali;

title: Category:User ne-2


text:
User talk:EmergentProperty

Notes to self:

 * Fix Sawtelle page to not say it's just the VA
 * Yucca Corridor - reference book properly
 * Megalopolis - LA area, cascadia, Bay area?
 * Help:Merging_and_moving_pages

Welcome!
Hello, EmergentProperty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  18:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

 * Thanks, I'm glad you found my welcome message helpful. :) Sango  123  18:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?
It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup. The date has been set for Monday, July 25, 7:30 pm, probably at Phillipes in Chinatown. It looks like 10-15 people might attend. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

SoCal WikiProject
As a Wikipedia editor in the LA area, you may be interested in the Southern California WikiProject (and its parent California WikiProject). Please take a look at the project's page and see if there is anything that interests you. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. Blank Verse  ∅ 02:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Central Los Angeles
There have been some questions about your Central Los Angeles, if you want to look at talk:Central Los Angeles. Blank Verse  ∅ 16:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Central Los Angeles has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this information might be based on your own conclusions or research, rather than published ideas. Please review No original research for the relevant policy. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, citing sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Soical Process in LA
Hi EmergentProperty, I am a geographer too. May I know what is your interests in social process, I am very interested about the ethnic enclaves and social segregation in LA. Geographer 23:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

More about geographic thought
I wholeheartedly believe we share a life long passion in geography as reflected from your insightful comments on ethnic enclaves and social segregation. I think everyone has a different geographic mental map. In my preception Westsiders are more afriad of East LA instead of Hollywood in enthnical and socio-economic points of view. Westsiders and Hollywoodishs (They both hang out in Sunset and spent 20 bucks for valet parking) are the same to me in my perspective, This concept has related to personal experience and stereotype. Although general public will not analyze spatial distribution systematically, nor they care the social construction of poverty. It is because the mosaic physical and cultural setting of LA that unstoppablely drive me to the edge of the geographic inquiry. Your interest in transportation geography reminds me, how the evolution of transportation in LA from red car to freeway has greatly foster my emotional attachment to a place. Freeway is identical to freedom in my concept, and I will intuitively think about LA when I think about freeway. I could not have imagined that the freeway was originated from a mass transit system. The study has also intensified my love of LA by experiencing its history. By looking at the location of freeway, we may find out why people live in particular location. I heard about the neigborhoods of social disadvantaged groups are more likely to be planned on the route of a freeway back in the 50s and 60s. Higher value homes are usually clustered around hillside rather than next to the highway.

As you said "why do people choose to live in the particular neighborhoods they choose?" I would first think about what are the external controls for people to choose the best place to live because I believe people do have a similar mindset for where is a good place to live. So, I consider "controls" are more important than "choices" in settlement distribution. The ability to access the resources is my basic understanding for settlement distribution. On the other hand, I discovered the geography of education in U.S. is not quite justified in my cognition. Every student needs to attend school in his/her home's school district, expect you go for private. It seems extremely unfair in my eyes, because in my home city, everyone can compete for the top tier schools no matter where do they live. I can't imagine the difference in education quality between Inglewood and San Marino. Does it mean one can receive better education if he or she lives in a better neighborhood and vice versa? I am not fully understand this issue but I found parents give special priority to school district.

I am very excited to exchange geographical ideas with you. Geographer 07:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yucca Corridor
Thanks for your work on the Yucca Corridor article (and others). I wish that I had noticed it earlier! We've visted the area every two or three months over the last year; it has its challenges, but also its charms. Unfortunately, we're leaving tomorrow to go help our son move out of the area. I especially liked the photo of Cherokee Avenue that appears to have been taken standing directly across the street from his apartment building. Jim (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (Hollywood native)

Wikipedia Meetup
You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)
 You are invited!

 * Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm
 * Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU
 You are invited!

 * Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
 * Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
 * Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
 * This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming Art+Feminism events in Oregon
You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up: About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.
 * Portland: Yale Union (800 SE 10th Avenue), 12:00–5:00pm
 * Eugene: Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) Library (200 Lawrence Hall, University of Oregon), 12:00–5:00pm

You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Art+Feminism @ Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (March 18, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon @ PNCA Library (April 29, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27
You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color - Thursday, Oct. 26 at PNCA
On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8, Oregon Jewish Museum)
On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (March 10, Pacific Northwest College of Art)
On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (April 13, University of Oregon)
On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic
It's the 7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic! Sunday, September 30, 11:00-4:00 PM Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036 Hang out. Consume crowd-sourced BBQ! Bask in the glory of late September in Los Angeles (and the glory of our new user group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles). RSVP (and volunteer) here. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group, or follow us on Twitter! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Wikipedia Editathon: The Visibility Project - Saturday, January 19
Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oregon State University Black History Month Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Friday, February 8
To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference
Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Art + Feminism 2019
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

PNCA Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathon, Saturday, March 9
The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Oregon Jewish Museum, Thursday, March 7
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation
 Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19 Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To subscribe or unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name from this list.

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles!
--JSFarman (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You're Invited! Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia
On, Friday, February 25, 2022, Oregon State University will be hosting an online editathon focused on Black history of the Pacific Northwest. You can learn more here and/or register here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Portland Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon: March 12, 2022
You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

International Women’s Day Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon, Sunday, March 10
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

June 8, 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:EmergentProperty


text:
Talk:Blood type personality theory

Should not be linked to Japan
There are many other Asian countries/cultures who believe this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.244.18 (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

yes but those other countries don't make anime and video games so how can we find a reliable source to verify this original research? 99.21.39.161 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How the hell is being conservative a bad trait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.45.174 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * South Koreans believe in this just as strongly, though I guess the idea originated in Japan. Mayumashu (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * This is also popular in China. We make much less anime (and they are of much lower quality; and they are not called "anime", which is a Japanese word anyway) and video games though. However, we can still try and find some newspaper references to this phenomenon. [] may be worth looking at. Ahyangyi (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Was Masahiko Nomi's book really based on Takeji Furukawa's theory? If so, reference and quote is required.
"Interest in the theory faded in the 1930s as its unscientific basis became evident. It was revived in the 1970s with a book by Masahiko Nomi"

In the above first sentence "the theory" refers to the racist theory of Takeji Furukawa explained in previous sections. Therefore "it" in the second sentence refers to the same racist theory. The direct assertion is that Masahiko Nomi's book is based on the theory put forth by Takeji Furukawa. Does Masahiko Nomi's book refer to Takeji Furukawa's work to support this claim? If so, a reference and quote is required. If not, the assertion that Masahiko Nomi's book is based on the theory put forth by Takeji Furukawa should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicksycle (talk • contribs) 05:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Rename as "Blood types in East Asian culture"?
This isn't specific to Japanese culture after all. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Subtle Racism?
Really, the backgrounds for the blood type labels are yellow on a page about Japanese/Asian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.87.15 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, i will change it to red, color of blood. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this change on aesthetic grounds but isn't this stretching it? Like, a lot?Fritz1776 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blood type personality theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826120840/http://db1.wdc-jp.com/cgi-bin/jssp/wbpnew/master/detail00.php?submission_id=2008-E-0208 to http://db1.wdc-jp.com/cgi-bin/jssp/wbpnew/master/detail00.php?submission_id=2008-E-0208

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blood type personality theory


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comunleng 2

 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. – ABCD✉ 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comunleng
This article was proposed for deletion in May, but after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus. This is a non-notable conlang ("known by an only guy" according to ArnoLagrange) that has managed to sit on Wikipedia and become spread around the internet in mirrors and apparently by other self-promotion. Part of the reason people objected to the suggestion that it was original research last time around was that there are three interwiki links, though people didn't seem to appreciate that it's possible to create articles worthy of deletion in multiple languages. The French and Spanish versions of the article are extensive but have unanswered questions about such things as just how significant this language is on their talk pages. After the last VfD func put various questions on the talk page relating to verifiability and notability. These have not been answered. This article has sat around for far too long and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete, nn/vanity. -Sean Curtin 06:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already survived one VfD, not enough time has passed since last one.  Almafeta 06:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with it? The last VfD was a spectacular example of faulty logic and failure to read what was being said. Do you have any real argument for keeping this article? Can you verify the facts in it? Can you establish its notability? — Trilobite (Talk) 06:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement with the result of the previous VfD is not a reason to keep nominating it until you get the result you want. --Malathion 06:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the second nomination, after a gap of a few weeks, so it's not as if this is going up every week. Any chance of answering the very reasonable questions posed by func about verifiability and notability? — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your complaint comes down to wanting it deleted, being disappointed in those who didn't delete it in the previous VfD, and relisting it after some time has passed. Unless you have evidence of fraud in the previous VfD, or a significant amount of time has passed (3 months minimum) without update or expansion, pages shouldn't be relisted on VfD.  Almafeta 07:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the three month rule please? I see you also invoked this mysterious policy on the talk page. And no I am not alleging fraud in the previous VfD, just an odd and surprising result that needs confirmation. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no "three month rule". I once nominated an article for deletion twelve hours after the previous VfD had closed, with no changes having been made to the article page, on the grounds that the circumstances that had lead to the article being kept had changed.  The page was deleted with no outcry about "too soon". --Carnildo 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Almafeta. --Malathion 06:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Trilobite that the last VfD was a disgrace. I agree that this article should be removed. I could not in good faith vote to delete this article at this time. We should not be dipping into the well again because we don't like the first taste.  This should apply to any consensus decision, by the way: changes to CSD, RFA, anything. It's bad form, and weakens respect for "process". A four month moratorium sounds reasonable to me.  brenneman (t) (c)  07:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The nature of a Wiki is that anyone can modify anything at any time in any way. There is no logic to a 4 month lock after modification: it runs counter to how this 'place' works. -Splash 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I've been misunderstood before, but never so egregiously! (I blame all my problems on poor communication. Just never on my poor communication.)  I was suggesting that when consensus in a vote has been reached, that that vote not be re-introduced again for four months.  And before anyone whips out "show me the policy" of course it's not policy.  If you don't feel bound by a vote you didn't participate in, Splash, does that mean you don't recognize as policy anything you didn't vote on? (That's a rhetorical question.) Pacific Sunwear was kept by a 7 to 1 vote and you voted keep. So imagine Nova Cygni thinks this was a "spectacular example of faulty logic" and nominates it again in four weeks. And imagine that by some crazy coincidence everyone was on wikibreak but for a bunch of rabid surf-short haters.  When you'rE back from the beach and find PS gone, you'd feel cheated by the system. Justifiably.  brenneman (t) (c)  15:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa! What part of "after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus" do you not understand? There was no consensus in vote reached. Why do you compare it to a vote that ended in a 7 to 1 to keep? Quale 17:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I responded on your talk page, but you probably spotted that already. -Splash 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with this "4 month rule", and that is it's open to abuse by people who want to keep an article. Let's say I write an article on Origami chocolate and manage to convince just enough people its a real thing so that it just barely misses consensus to delete. It looks like that vote was a fluke and it will be deleted when it comes up for a vote again. So I nominate it in 3 months, and it again evades deletion because "it's last vote was not 4 months ago". Now it has another 4 month reprieve. Again in 3 months I nominate it, etc. This process goes on forever, and my travesty of an article on chocolate origami stays in Wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Of the 6 Keep votes last time, three were based on its having interwiki links. One makes the claim that "conlangs are a special case", not backing it up with any reasoning. One is from an anonymous user claiming that it is a "well-recognized auxlang name"; when challenged, produced a Wikipedia mirror as more evidence of its existence. The last claimed it was a userful article even if the subject was not widely known -- taking the position that all original research should stay if the articles are good?
 * Comment. Obviously if any keep voters can verify the information in this article or establish the notability of the language I'll be happy to vote keep myself. I just don't see that happening somehow. Am I missing something here? Is this language so ubiquitous as to be immune from the need to provide evidence of its significance? — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. No proof it's used by anyone but it's creator. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity/unverifiable. Interwikis just show people translated it because its there.  Morwen - Talk 09:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable and unverified. I do not feel bound by a previous VfD in which I did not participate. -Splash 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable. Radiant_ >|< 14:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as I respect decisions made by consensus, even when I do not agree with them. Even when I think that they are really really dumb.  brenneman (t) (c)  15:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But there wasn't a consensus last time, there was a lack of a consensus either way. Morwen - Talk 16:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this matter has already been decided james gibbon  16:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very wiki to maintain that once a vote has been conducted and it ends in no consensus (there was certainly not a consensus to keep last time, it just defaulted to keep), that an article must be kept for all time and the matter must be considered settled once and for all. Common sense surely dictates that where there are sensible reasons, and you don't do it constantly, it's okay to reopen the debate about an article's inclusion, particularly when simple requests like providing one source other than stuff that has itself been pulled from Wikipedia go unfulfilled. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't give a hit about the last VfD. A bad result last time does not justify a bad result this time. -R. fiend 16:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per my commentary during the first vfd and my comments on the talk page. I understand and appreciate the above comments concerning consensus, ie: it is possible to abuse our system by repeatedly placing an article on VFD. However, this isn't about the VFD process, it is about what Wikipedia is all about. The issues regarding verifiability and original research are at the core of our ability to maintain a neutral point of view, ie: to give undue coverage to a language virtually no one has heard of is to allow Wikipedia to be used as an advertising platform. I think the Wikipedian who wrote the original article was perfectly aware that by placing his creation on Wikipedia, it would be copied to dozens of mirrors, floating lists of conlangs, etc. We are not here to establish the notability of the things we write articles on: they have to already be established. func (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just because the article previously survived a VfD vote doesn't mean that that error shouldn't be corrected as soon as possible.  Non-notable, original research.  Quale 17:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It defaulted to keep last time after no consensus based largely on some flimsy claims. Several people voted to keep because it has interwiki links... well, the Spanish version (the only other one I can read) is longer, but it too fails to address any claims this language has to relevance outside the personal dabblings of its creator. It's not surprising that a conlang has interwiki links; conlangers are likely to be also speakers of several natural languages. This is not like the repeated GNAA VfD, which received a good deal of attention and roughly 100 votes and still arrived at no consensus; this got comparatively little attention, and many outstanding concerns from last time were not addressed.

I don't care about Comunleng; I just want to make the case that the renomination is not out of process (and yes, I will kick the WP:ASS of anyone who renominates GNAA anytime soon), and that the previous default keep should not be a reason to dismiss this nomination entirely. This is the sort of article No original research was meant to provide justification for deleting; there's a conlang Wikicity here for just such things. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. This is an example of where, if the process fails, it should be examined and invoked again, once the failure is noted and corrected. jglc | t | c 17:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unverifiable, only argument to keep is spurious. Kept by no consensus default is not an indefinite reprieve. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unverifiable — mendel ☎ 20:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — unverifiable, but abuse of VfD. "No consensus" results are not "errors" to be "corrected".  I agree with Almafeta and brenneman.  ‣ ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ] 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is making the case that in general, "no consensus" results are errors to be corrected, and I agree with the default to keep where the community is genuinely split. But sometimes we come to no consensus based on faulty or incomplete information—why shouldn't we be able to correct that within a reasonable timeframe? I believe sufficient time has passed since the last VfD for any evidence regarding its verifiability to be presented, and it has not been. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree completely with Mindspillage. And if it's unverifiable, how can its inclusion be justified except on bureaucratic grounds concerning VfD? — Trilobite (Talk) 20:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable conlang. --Carnildo 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absence of cites suggests original research/vanity.  Article and Google have no information about number of native speakers, how it is taught (for non-native speakers, and for the standardization of native speech), how to obtain a comunleng dictionary (suggesting one does not exist).  Spanish Wikipedia article contains little information not included in this one except for tables of words - still with no cites - meaning we can't import some saving tidbit from there to this article.  Finally, I just checked my univeristy library's online journal collection.  A search in Forum for Modern Language Studies revealed 0 results for comunleng, but 432 for constructed language.  A search in Language Variation and Change and all other journals by the Cambridge University Press, including the Journal of Linguistics and Language in Society revealed 0 results for Comunleng - but 159 for Esperanto, 8000 for constructed language, 13 for "constructed language", and 21 for "invented language" - oh, and 46 for Klingon.  Applied Linguistics has 0 results for comunleng, but 1 for "constructed language" and 2 for esperanto.  No citations here or in the interwiki items.  Google results are squat.  No indication of any legitimate quantity of speakers, nor of a historic body of speakers whose use of the language was repressed and caused the language's extinction (as with natural languages of aborginal peoples).  No scholarly interest.  No validity to this article, its deletion is required.   The Literate Engineer 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Conlangcruft.  Just because there was a no consensus vote doesn't mean that it deserves to stay.   ral  315  23:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, POV, as evidenced among other signals by the fact that the article begins by responding to purported (unsourced) criticisms before providing, seemingly as an afterthought, any information about the language. The extensive discussion in this and the previous VfD should not obscure the fact that this is not even a close call. -EDM 23:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Original research, nonnotable. It's also POV conlangcruft, but that's not a reason for deletion. - Mustafaa 01:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree in part and should have been clearer - the POV alone is not a reason for deletion, it was a criticism of the article as it stood. However it's an interesting question how to replace the POV with verifiable neutral information when the subject is inherently unverifiable, being apparently someone's unpublicized and undiscussed (let alone analyzed) invention. My personal view (irrelevant to this discussion) is that a conlang is inherently more interesting than lots of other kinds of thought experiments, but until the language achieves notability by being known to somebody besides its creator, this isn't the right place to publicize it. -EDM 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete My google searches show few signs of notability when removing wikipedia itself.  All votes for keep cite, not sources of notability or logic on the article, but instead that the previous VfD that resulted in 'no conensus'.  Wikibofh 02:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 04:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all nonnotable conlangs. Conlangs are just large-scale neologisms: they have to become widely used and recognized (like Esperanto) before being encyclopedia-worthy. Wikipedia must establish some guidelines on the notability of includable conlangs. --Angr/undefined 07:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, vanity, and what do I care that it's been voted on before? --Calton | Talk 02:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Calton and others may not care, but I do. The three-month rule may be informal, but is a mechanism that helps keep VfD from becoming even more overloaded with gripes about prior decisions.  We need consistent due process. I don't care if the full text of the article is "poop", if it manages to survive VfD, it lives to be improved for a time, barring an appeal against the admin for a loony ruling.  Xoloz 15:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you really want an article reading "poop" to stay in wikipedia for 4 months based on a stupid principle? You must not care much for the contents of wikipedia then. I'm sorry but sometimes votes are skewed by incomplete information, and when new information is brought to light it makes sense to readdress the issue. Three months is a very long time. Now, assuming this is kept because people are voting purely on the previous vote not on the actual article, would we have to wait 3 months from its original nomination or three months from this one? See my comments above. -R. fiend 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If an article actually said "poop", it wouldn't survive VfD; and if it did, I would edit it to make the best content possible under a bad heading -- I did this for Normative legal thought which survived despite me. The three-month period would count from the original vote, assuming VfD's before the elapsed time were called invalid by the admin closing. Xoloz 17:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It almost certainly wouldn't survive VfD, but hell, I've seen things get "lost in the shuffle" or whatever that didn't get any real attention. A couple partisan trolls voting keep can skew the process, and it is possible (albeit highly unlikely) that their actions could result in a default keep for even the shittiest of articles, including "poop". If that unlikely event did happen, would you really defend the article on a technicality? Even if there was no real "improvement" to be made? Let's talk common sense instead of policy. We're rational human beings here. Can you honestly say this article should be kept on its "merits" alone? -R. fiend 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My common sense tells me that it is so much better to let one stupid article (that no one but the author will ever look up) live here with a "totally disputed" tag for a month and half, than to establish a precedent that articles can be reopened on Vfd sooner. This precedent is the surest way to have VfD hit 200 articles/per day before 2006. Xoloz 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is it an inherently bad thing for VFD to hit 200 articles a day? Doesn't it just reflect that people are determining 200 articles a day to be deletion-worthy?  If they've got a valid reason for judging the article that way... problem strikes me as more one with the article writing and editing than with the VFD process.  The Literate Engineer 00:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming the number of complaints now about the process at 100/day (and the CSD debate) I imagine that double that volume would cause enormous complaint. Since the Wikipedia solution seems to be to add to CSDs to reduce volume, I could also imagine such an upsurge contributing ultimately to more bureaucracy.  Normally, VfD's are very accurate at screening out crap, but when they fail, better to abide with them, then to propose other solutions which either increase the risk of VfD expansion, or cause the proliferation of regulation, or both.  An extra 90 days for a stupid article is simply not damaging enough to merit unbalancing the VfD process.  Xoloz 03:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is madness! Can't you see this? The article is totally unverifiable and non-notable, but you'd rather go exactly by the book (the book in your head, since the three month rule isn't policy at all) and spend your time rules-lawyering and arguing about procedure so you can preserve it. If you're so keen on keeping it, how about providing a reference for the information in it that doesn't originate with Wikipedia, and finding something that indicates it's a notable topic? I honestly cannot see why you would want to keep this article. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See comment immediately above. This isn't madness or legal formalism -- it is holding the line against a VfD nightmare.  If we have to live with a stupid article lurking in the unseen shadows for 90 days, so be it. Xoloz 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note also that, even if this debate ends in deletion, the Keep votes here serve a purpose; at least a sizable portion of members care about process, and this knowledge helps deter frivilous re-VfD on articles that are much closer calls than this. Xoloz 04:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - wow, I'm turning into a deletionist today ;) No evidence that this even exists, except in the mind of the creator. If anyone provides links or citations to the contrary, I might change my vote. Sam Vimes 20:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CryptoDerk 23:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't believe in listing and relisting things for vfd over and over again, as I said when I voted keep for GNAA.  However, two vfds is hardly outrageous or uncalled for.  I also think the fact that I've seen zero evidence that anyone uses or even knows about this language beyond its creator and Wikipedia.  That trumps any concerns about relisting and it troubles me that so many people are so unconcerned that this thing barely exists. Gamaliel 05:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Neither the Spanish nor the French wikipedia articles have come up for deletion, and in fact, the English wikiarticle was referenced in the Spanish talk page when there were POV issues on the Spanish page.  Almafeta 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that has any bearing on the English Wikipedia. Other language Wikipedias have their own policies. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Referencing the English wikiarticle for the Spanish one was as much an inappropriate citation as referencing the Spanish article here is. The difference between self-referencing in an article and referencing another wikiarticle is nil: both are unverified recursion, and may as well be original research.  It's no different than citing a mirror of this article.  Only sources that are completely independent from any form of wikipedia whatsoever should be regarded as eligible for being considered valid; I would think that would be obvious enough that it shouldn't need a policy dictating it, though I would be glad to propose such a policy if there isn't one.  The Literate Engineer 15:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete due to unverifiability. Nandesuka 20:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Had no vote the first time, and I still don't know anything about these languages and what counts as notable or not. However, while there may or may not be a wikipolicy or wikiguideline about wait periods, I would rather wait a reasonable time (a few months) to delete. Despite Trilobite's dramatic invective, this page is not harming the wikiproject in a significant way, and we will be none the worse for wear if this survies VfD for ninety turns around our central axis or so.--Tznkai 22:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the dramatic invective. Some of the comments made in support of this article have caused me wikistress because they have all been complaints about process and no one has come forward with evidence of verifiability or notability. I have to say to you as I've said to others, provide some external source for what's in the article and I'll be happy to vote keep myself. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any proof of its notability one way or the other. I see this as an issue of comparitive good and ills. On one hand, removing this article is probably the right thing to do as far as our notability notions and WP:NOT. That having been said, having any sort of precedent that any VfD can be rendered "invalid" is dangerously close to anarchy, another violation of WP:NOT. As this article is not sufficeintly distructive to the wikipedia project, I do not believe it is worth the risk of starting a precident for VfD revotes/recounts.--Tznkai 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. A few verifiable citations establishing Comunleng's status would be enough to sway my vote. No Comment on the practice of renominating articles. This does appear to be a valid candidate for deletion. Dystopos 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (conditional) Delete. Hmmm, I think that notability still hasn't quite made it as an official deletion criterion. I also don't like the concept of re-vfd. Even so: an article does have to provide some kind of reference, of course! - This vote is conditional: If one or more external references with a description of the langauge are linked to or are proven to exist (in dead tree format, perhaps) at time of closing, read this as a vote to Keep instead. Kim Bruning 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments
brenneman (t) (c) 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no argument regarding this article's merit for inclusion. The only open point is what the appropiate process for inconclusive VfDs is.  In the absence of affirmative arguments about merit, I suggest we don't need anything further about its obvious crapitude.
 * All of the keep votes are based upon concerns about abuse of VfD. The mosr recent GNAA nomination was in fact about respect for the process, about insuring that the standards were maintained.  In this instance there was no irregularity, just disagreement. If even half of the people who voted keep before come back and vote keep here, we're again at no consesus.  What will you do then, Tri?  Wait another four weeks and try again??
 * I'm willing to change my vote to delete iff:
 * Trilobite places this message on the talk page of every user that voted keep in the previous VfD: As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments.
 * Following that, it can be show that over half of those users have logged on.
 * In light of point one, though, I wonder why the process matters. I.E., in the absence of affirmative arguments, does that not obligate us to repeat the deletion process until such time as an affirmative argument about merit is produced or the article is successfully deleted?  Whether we wait 4 weeks between nominations, 4 months, or 4 years, all of the first bullet will remain true in the absence of affirmative arguments or changes to the article's content that meet, for instance, the requirements set forth by func - which would constitute an affirmative argument for keeping it.  What makes a 4 week interval disrespectful or abusive of the VFD process, but not a lengthier one?  An article that is infused with "obvious craptitude" has obvious craptitude, regardless of the time at which it is discussed, the number of edits between nominations, or any other consideration not related to the content of the article and the standards for an acceptable article.  I believe voting to keep or delete an article based on the results and date of a previous VFD is what constitutes abuse of the VFD process.  The process exists to judge the article's content in its present form and, if the present form is unacceptable for Wikipedia, to determine the proper remedy: merge, redirect, delete, move.  Either this article is or is not acceptable; if a user judges it unacceptable but votes keep, that is abuse.  If a user judges it acceptable but votes delete, that is abuse.  If a user judges it unacceptable and in light of that nominates it for deletion, as Trilobite has, that's proper use of the process.
 * That said, I will place those notices, though I believe it will be a repeated travesty if this article is kept a second time. The Literate Engineer 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you have placed notices on the talk pages of those who voted to keep last time while not notifying those who voted to delete. Would you consider doing this? It seems very unfair to only tell one side about it when the others would probably appreciate the opportunity to voice their opinion a second time. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Will do, Trilobite. I actually don't believe any notices should be given, but you're right that they should be given to all concerned parties if given at all.  I feel like I'm participating in meatpuppetry, and I really regret (and wish I could take back) the original notices I gave last night.The Literate Engineer 23:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That was a serious oversight on my part. You are correct, it is inappropiate to notify only those who voted keep.  Thank you for that.   brenneman (t) (c)  04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I must object most strenuously to one user thinking he can hold the VfD to ransom. If you want something done around here on the Wiki, do it yourself. Don't go demanding that other users do it for you. Your vote is no more (and no less) important to the process than anyone else's. If you want to vote keep because of the reasons you give above, that's fine, but don't go demanding that the rest of us do things to placate you. -Splash 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And, you seem to think there is some lack of clarity over inconclusive VfDs. There's not: they are kept unless there is a "rough consensus" to delete. Then, they can be renominated anytime someone feels like it. -Splash 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Held to ransom? Did my vote somehow become really important and I wasn't notified? Stating conditions upon which you'll change your vote is almost standard practice: I'll vote "keep" if (this article is expanded or the other one is deleted or its notability is proven to me).  Look closely that last one.  Isn't that, to use your word, "demanding", that others commit some action to "placate"?  I'm also puzzled by your repeated misinterpretations.  I state I think "we should wait four mounths between VfD nominations", your response is about "locks on editing articles".  I raise "how long is appropiate between nominations", your response adresses " no consensus means keep".  I'm left with several possibilities: Either you aren't reading my comments before you respond, you are failing to understand my intent (which could be my fault), or you are being deliberate.  This questions was raised when Trilobite func first stated he was going to re-nominate (see Eventually Back to VfD) so it should some as no suprise now.   brenneman (t) (c)  04:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Voting delete-unless-made-better is quite different. It (in my case, anyway) usually means that I don't think the article can be made into a keepable one, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of the area to verify this fact to my own satisfaction. I mean to encourage others to help out who know where to look for information. Your condition here, however, has nothing at all to do with content and is something you could just go and do and yourself rather than expecting that others will do it for you just because you say so. As for my "no consensus means keep" response, this was because you said "The only open point is what the appropiate process for inconclusive VfDs is", and the appropriate process is keep. -Splash 16:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to doubt my ability to form english-like sentences. If it were not the default that a VfD without strong consensus was a de-facto keep, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we?  From the context of this discussion, a reasonable person would read that sentence as "The only open point is what the appropiate [time until renomination] process for inconclusive VfDs is". Again, either we are not communicating well or these straw-man arguments are an attempt to divert.  brenneman (t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep It seems that to me that Wikipedia's rules state that if there is no consensus, the default is to keep the article. If there are people who are unhappy with this, and keep proposing deletion whenever they have failed to get something deleted, this is an abuse of the VfD process, as it simply is an attempt to try to wear out the patience of those who have voted to keep in a previous VfD. -- BRG 18:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Keep proposing deletion" is an odd way to describe it. It was proposed once before and several weeks later has been put up again. Have you actually read the article? Have you read the comments on its talk page? Have you read the previous VfD? Have you read the arguments set out on this page? Can you provide a single source external to Wikipedia that verifies the content of the article or establishes its notability? Would you rather Wikipedia was full of nonsense than permit a second VfD after a decent interval for an article that no one has shown to be encyclopedic? It does seem this way. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. I did a Google search, which gave me 505 hits, of which 229 are in English . The first website listed is the Spanish Wikipedia. The second, called Language Maker, lists the main website for the language organization is at the Spnaish Wikipedia. Most of the other sites I found are Wikipedia mirrors and other sites that pretty much copy ours. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, wouldja just look at this page. Just judging by volume of comments anyone would think this was one of the weightiest and most significant articles on WP. It's just somebody's little article on their own personal conlang. I voted delete (at least I think I did, it seems a long time ago), but really, people. Is this the hill we want to die on? -EDM 23:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I thought it was an open-and-shut case myself. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unverified, and certaintly unnotable. I've seen no evidence presented that gives any hint that this is verifiable, all of the keep votes thus far have been keeping because of the VfD proccess, not over the merits of this article -- Joolz 01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (I voted Delete the last time this came up, just got a notification of this current vote.) I agree with func above. Wikipedia reports on things already notable in the outside world. It's not an advertising portal for non-notable things. (Non-notable does not mean "bad", it just means not notable.) Note that I would not vote to delete articles on conlangs like Ceqli and Slovio for which one can show the existence of some kind of community of people, going back a number of years, who have an interest in the language. If this can be shown in the article (I don't think it can, but who knows, maybe someone can prove it somehow) I would change to a weak keep. Cam 03:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Joolz -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional Delete The time that has passed between the VfD's should have been time spent putting together arguments for inclusion, or gathering evidence of the language's existence outside of Wikipedia. I don't like repeat VfD's (let's try someone until they come up guilty!), but since this has been re-listed, and there's still no evidence, I can't justify a vote to keep. !!If someone comes up with non-Wikipedia evidence of this language before voting closes, change my vote to keep!! --cprompt 00:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keeeping an article we all know to be worthy of deletion to preserve the system is absurd. The system is meant to serve wikipedia, not the other way around, and wikipedia is better off without this article on an unverified, non-notable subject. carmeld1 20:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia wold be better off with clear and consistent way of addressing issues like this one. Hop over to Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland for a moment. Whatever happens there, someone is going to be left "shaking their head" at the outcome. How about if that article get re-cycled every four weeks for deletion/undeletion?  And how about all the contentious articles about religion and race, why don't we have a go at them once a month as well? This article is a fly-speck, and if it had been simply trimmed back to a verfiable stub and left for six months, there would have been no real harm done.  But when we start jacking with the system because we get our knickers in a twist, then there is harm done.The last VfD was conducted properly and closed properly, and even though I think they were idiots, it's insufferable to simply say, "Well, we think that was dumb, so it doesn't count."  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is, it's back on VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles supporters to argue why we should keep. So far, not one of them has said why this article is worthy of staying on wikipedia. Every keep vote has complained about the proccess. Renominating this article is not against the rules. I do not see that there was any other option but to renominate, because every article on wikipedia must be verifiable, a fair chance was given on the article's talk page for evidence that the subject can be varied to be submitted into the article. No such evidence was submitted. It is fair and correct therefore, that, considering that there's no evidence of verifiability, that the article be subject to another VfD. No article should be on wikipedia unless it is verifiable. -- Joolz 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is, it passed one VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles opposers to argue why we should delete. Every keep vote with concerns about the process is not against the common practice. Your argument fails to address:
 * How closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus affects perception of the process,
 * The possible follow-on effect for other more contentious articles,
 * Why other options were not explored for this article in light of known objections to renomination, and
 * What you would propose is to soon to re-nominate. Would the next day be too soon?
 * Perhaps it's my eventualist leanings, perhaps it's my love of order, but I strongly believe that more harm is done by removing an article in this manner than by leaving one crappy article around for a few months.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Brenneman, I answer your four questions in this way:
 * 1. Closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus (which does not apply in this case, as the month's time passed does not constitute "closely following") improves perception of the process by allowing the process to do what it exists to do: efficiently dispose of articles that do not belong on wikipedia through an appropriate method, of which deletion, merging, renaming, and redirecting without merger are common choices. It ensures that the appropriate keeping of inconclusive articles is kept as a temporary measure, and forces debate to continue until it is resolved in consensus - either clear consensus to keep or to delete.  Indeed, I believe that policy should require renomination of any inconclusive VFD after no later than two to three weeks.
 * 2. The possible follow-on effects are desirable, as more inconclusive VFDs may be revisted. Furthermore, we are setting valuable precedent that inconclusive VFDs, rendered inconclusive due to keep arguments that are quickly shown to be factually false or otherwise faulty (accurate descriptors, I believe, for all the "keep" votes in the original Comunleng VFD) are no different from consensus-to-keep VFDs that are subsequently shown to have been kept on false premises.  Finally, we are establishing that articles are to be voted on due to judgement of their content alone, and not due to procedural matters that have no place, I believe, in VFD discussion.  I repeat and clarify what I said earlier: to vote keep for this or any other article, for any reason at all,  if you believe it does not meet such criteria as verifiability required, no original research allowed, no advertising allowed, or encyclopedic nature required, is a worse abuse of VFD than any renomination could ever be.
 * 3. What other options are there?  This is an unsalvagable article.  It is vanity about a conlang so unnotable that it is unverifiable to the point of being indistinguishable, in my mind, from a hoax.  Three or four reasons all of which the deletion policy defines as grounds for deletion.  I can't find anything in this article that belongs on wikipedia.
 * 4. As I see it, as a VFD can be closed after 5 days, then by the same reasoning that 5 days is sufficient time for consensus to be reached and edits that would change an article's status from Deletion Required to Keepworthy to be made, 5 days is sufficient time for new edits to be made prior to a revisiting.  I believe inconclusive VFDs are more often inconclusive because of faulty reasoning one way or the other than because the article's contents do not lend themselves to consensus; 5 days allows enough time for those articles whose contents do require some clarification to be edited enough to tip the discussion in the appropriate direction.
 * Every article and every topic has a fundamental essence. That essence is either Deletion Required or Keepworthy.  It is the purpose of VFD to discover that essence with maximum efficiency.  If its essence is Deletion Required, our duty as editors is to eradicate the offending article.  If its essence is Keepworthy, our duty as editors is to edit and reshape the article until it is someday transmuted to Ideal.  Yes, I'm being foolishly metaphysical, but I believe it is wholly inappropriate to allow inconclusive VFDs to stand.  They need to be renominated.  And in this case, it needs to be deleted, and it did not "pass" anything.  Discussion was closed too soon, and the original "keep" votes were never legitimate to begin with.  The Literate Engineer 03:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We should judge the article on its merits, rather than argue the process. In the uncommon case that an article gets two nominations in a row, people are likely to just copy their votes from the last one anyway. Radiant_ >|< 07:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiki pedia is not anarchy either. We have the processes to guide and protect us from abuses and accidents. Again, putting this in perspective, no one here is objecting to another vote in a few months. Wikigods will not strike us down in the next 90 days for a bad article.--Tznkai 00:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I find Radiant's argument compelling. All of our allegience should be toward making the actual encyclopedia as best as it can be. If the policies and procedures lag behind a little bit, what's the harm? If the lack of a renomination waiting period is a problem, address the problem on Deletion policy, not by voting to keep an article that is nonsense. Dystopos 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A look at Google hits makes it clear to me this created language is not notable, and probably vanity. I would like to ask all of you voted to keep, have you actually ever seen anything written in 'Comunleng'?  I haven't.  As far as I'm concerned, if there are zero sites on the Internet written in your made-up language your made-up language is not notable.  --Fazdeconta 02:13, 20 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:The Good Will Out

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding recording date
This article indicates the album was recorded in 1998, but "All You Good People" article lists a 17 February 1997 release date, implying it was possibly recorded as early as 1996. I don't know which is correct so I put up a contradiction template. -Rolypolyman (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Good Will Out


text:
Talk:LexisNexis

Promotional Tag
I removed the promotional language tag from the page after rewriting the majority of it in a neutral and factual manner. 60clawsand20paws (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Excessive condensation of article
I am proposing to revert User:60clawsand20paws's edits on 6 August 2021. I will concede that the original text was too long, but it's important to read the underlying texts cited before attempting to condense a historical narrative. The resulting text fails verification against the cited sources in numerous ways. In some respects it is simply wrong, and in others it is technically correct but as written does not make sense because too much background information has been removed. The errors inserted by User:60clawsand20paws's edits include:
 * The current text states that LexisNexis was "based" on Horty's work. This gives Horty more credit than he is due. As Bourne and Hahn stress, Horty's early work at Pittsburgh merely inspired OSBA to build its own project in Ohio, independently of Horty.  OSBA did study Horty's work but started from scratch and did not borrow his code.
 * The current text omits the explanation of what is OBAR, meaning that the use of that acronym comes out of nowhere and will bewilder readers.
 * The current text omits the explanation of where Data Central came from and what it was intended for, how it was a repurposed project that turned out to be a poor fit for legal research, how Mead was a paper manufacturer that picked up Data for printing technology and wasn't really focused on Data Central, how Wilson's group recommended that Mead start over from scratch, and how Wilson then refused to carry out his own recommendation when Mead put him in charge. As a result, the remaining narrative about Rubin's promotion and subsequent actions makes no sense, because the why behind those events is missing.
 * The current text omits the important fact that computer literacy was rare at the time, which explains why Rubin's work was so important. Most people in the 1970s had never seen a computer in person, let alone a computer terminal, and had no idea what to do if they encountered one. It was Rubin who grasped the intrinsic value of CALR, and more importantly, the necessity of teaching lawyers that investing the time to learn how to use CALR could be of great value to them and their clients. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I will proceed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm
— Assignment last updated by Meimulee (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:LexisNexis


text:
Category:Order of Canada

This category is for pages related to the Order of Canada. Please add individual members to the specific categories for grade: Category:Members of the Order of Canada/Category:Officers of the Order of Canada/Category:Companions of the Order of Canada.

title: Category:Order of Canada