text:
User talk:Curps/archive13

Removing Nelson Mandela From the Terrrorists Category
Hi Curps, I was wondering if you looked at the discussion on NM being a terrorist before you removed him from that category. Also I can understand that you might want to remove it because he isn't practicing anymore but I notice that you did not remove him from the category of political prisoners either. I'm not interested in having an edit war, I just want to get a feel for why you did so that we can come to a consensus. How would you feel about adding the category again but perhaps adding the word "former" in parenthesis? Best,TitaniumDreads 19:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

ON SP
Is anyone keeping track of all of this things sockpuppets, and does anyone know who it is? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block
Thanks for clearing that mad /16 block so quickly last night. I woke up this morning thinking "Gosh! I did that?" and just checked the log now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Banning people
Hi, Curps. I'm a sysop here from a long time ago, and I just recently started using Wikipedia again. The last time I was using Wikipedia, banning people was rare, but now it seems more common and acceptable to do without a 5 week mailing list discussion. Now, I need to block 67.66.60.180, but I don't know how. I saw that you recently blocked some people. Could you tell me how to do it, or point me to a page explaining it? LDan 18:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wow, so much has changed since I was last here. I'll be sure to read all of those pages. LDan 18:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 141.154.50.8 19:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. 141.154.50.8 19:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * User:141.154.50.8, as Curps is a longtime contributor to Wikipedia and an administrator, it is unlikely he is making test edits. Could you provide a diff showing the edits you object to? Looking at his contribution history, it looks like he is restoring comments you are removing from a talk page. Please don't remove others' comments, and please don't misuse the templates. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates
Hi curps, thanks for all the hard work you've been putting into the province templates! I've made an "overview" page of sorts at WikiProject Chinese cities/Prefecture navigational templates, in case you're interested. ;) -- ran (talk) 23:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Block conflicts
Regarding block conflicts, I brought this up recently at WP:AN. Apparently, as soon as one block expires, all blocks are removed. If I were to now block Irate for 24 hours, tomorrow my block and all others would expire. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"du" "of" vandalism
I think that someone was using find/replace to get rid of du and replace it with of but didn't think that this could have negative consequences. It's going to take some more work to translate the list -- but once we're done, it'll be far, far more visually pleasing than the original English version. --Zantastik 04:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I figured that out. I think maybe it could have been done a bit more carefully, to preserve some of the work that had been done previously... for instance, there were a number of redlinks in the new version that weren't redlinks in the old version, I fixed some of them but probably not all. -- Curps 04:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RC
Are you on RC patrol today? Thanks for picking up snafus on supergalactic coordinate system and supergalactic plane so quickly. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just for a few minutes at a time. -- Curps 16:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taipei American School vandal...
Can you help me figure out what I need to do to simply get this person banned/blocked? They have violated just about every wiki rule. 3RR on this article, POV and personal attacks. We have tried to reason on talk pages, both for the IP and the article, and finally had to resort to the request for protection. Aside from calling User:Allentchang a "dumbass" and "phucked in the head", he graciously allowed me in on the fun with "dumb shit". I think reviewing the information shows that Allentchang and I (as well as yourself and at least one other) have worked really hard to be understanding and to communicate with this person on how they can make this a better article. We have not resorted to personal attacks, and have tried to help. It is all to no avail, and I think if we eliminated this user, we could actually work on the article to make it somewhat better. As it stands now, we just end up fighting revert wars or having to get the page protected, where we are also prevented from contributing. Thanks. Wikibofh 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the anon is a lost cause. I think the article is actually pretty good, and I think it only needs a little help.  The only reason I got involved was catching some of the initial 'vandalism'.  I actually view this exchange as entertaining, and a good learning experience for me...I just don't have a lot of desire to make changes to the article that will end up in a revert war.  :)  Wikibofh 18:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I did add some material after you unlocked, and before his first revision. I'll just look to revert the anon's crap and then edit.  As a relatively new user I didn't want to appear to be violating 3RR.  Wikibofh 20:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

University of Santo Tomas
I would like to resolve the dispute with the following.

† †cross-reference foot note at the bottom of both the San Carlos and Santo Tomas pages should be posted:

At the bottom † University of Santo Tomas(1611) is considered by some as the oldest existing University. Others consider University of San Carlos as the oldest. It was foremerely called Universidad de San Ignacio and was founded in 1595, closed in 1769 and reopenned under a its current name with essentially the same Jesuit staff and at the same location.

premier: I suggest placing AA is a leading/premier university, AA meaning Ateneo, DLSU, UST .(place in all pages)

For myself I feel we need to consider ontological views.

I believe that University of San Carlos really should be considered the oldest existing University considering that Universidad de San Ignacio is San Carlos. An entity(person, school, organization) can change its name but it is essentially the same entity. We really have to consider ontology.--Jondel 05:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Zenupassio
I am sorry your impotence is obvious. But I am not sockpuppet and have not engaged in the behaviors you allege. I hope you apprehend those responsible. Zenupassio 02:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right, please amend as required. My PC is a brute. Zenupassio 02:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Ward Churchill. Nor was I even aware of Wikipedia last night. I have a good alibi actually, I was at my grandmother's house having dinner. I wouldn't lie about that surely if it wasn't true. She's special. Zenupassio 02:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went to the Ward Churchill article and see what you mean. Misconduct of that kind has no place on Wikipedia article. I agree though the article does seem to be a rather ugly white-wash. So to speak. Zenupassio 02:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I see TonyMarvin is a guilty white leftist like most of those editing that article. Why has the disease of political correctness tainted our campuses so much. It is just anti learning. Anyway, I don't care about Ward Churchill. I am just following up on some interesting articles I have noticed around. Zenupassio 02:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're really interested in being nice to me you will review your bourgeois anti Rufio policy which I know has caused a major disturbance in the Force. Zenupassio 02:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I see from your record you are a trigger happy blocker of people. Can't you see that authoritarian leftism is failing here. Just as it failed everywhere else it's been tried. Only by respecting diversity can Wikipedia be anything. I have been editing very briefly and I see many problems. I doubt I'll be back. Zenupassio 02:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly not my objective. But I can understand why those terrorized out of articles chose desperate means to make it clear that there is dissent. It hasn't effected me though. But I respect dissent. All you do by bullying edits, blocking, reversions, operating in packs, all of which I have noticed in the very brief time I've registered is create permanently frozen articles which warnings about their neutrality. This is probably a second best option I would hope for sincere editors but this is the monster you - more than anyone - have created. What's that saying about being careful what you wish for. You've got it. Zenupassio 02:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be honest, you're a leftist. It's obvious. I have no problem with that. But the authoritarian streak in the left probably caused more misery these past one hundred years than anything else so forgive me for just not agreeing with you about a subtle approach. I've edited one or two articles and one COINTELPRO is basically an FBI bashing joke. Now that might appeal to some but it just is very 1970's politics. Zenupassio 02:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Show me a leftwing editor you've blocked recently and I might reconsider.

I have stated clearly disruption is certainly not a goal of mine. I respect though those people excluded in brutal form by groups of leftist editors from areas they call their own. They refer to "like minded souls", send each other messages, I have just been reading some of these. It's really disgraceful. So again I ask you, can you name a left leaning editor you've blocked recently? Zenupassio 02:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I can't hear you. Name one left wing editor you've blocked ever? Not recently. Ever? Zenupassio 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An utterly disingenuous response. You haven't nominated a left wing editor ever have you? It's a disgrace. I don't wish to be rude or disrespectful to you but for you to ask me (who has been around 20 minutes) for disruptive left wing editors or people who breach the rules is frankly outrageous. You pointed me to the Ward Churchill page. Look at the edit history on it. It's disgraceful. The resulting article is bizarre. I know not much about Ward Churchill but I do know how to Google search him. Why is it that Wikipedia's take on him is so different from the respected local newspapers of his area? We know the answer. You take it on yourself to police Wikipedia, well that's great but like a corrupt cop you are only interested in enforcing the law against the gang that isn't your gang. And if you can defend that and pretend you take "the project" seriously then you are able to straddle both sides of Ross Perot's wire fence. Aside from not being good for reproduction it is just plain dishonest. Enforce the rules against some lefties before darkening my door with your faux piety. Zenupassio 02:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have demonstrated you're a smart person capable of arguing your case and I respect that.

You have not demonstrated your honesty.

You know as well as I that you just go to that Block List and look one up. One left wing editor, scum like Viajero or such. I have just reading his trail of destruction.

But you cannot.

You cannot find one.

And you know why you cannot find one.

Because there isn't one. Not one.

Dozens of right-wingers blocked.

And not one left-leaning editor every blocked by a supposedly honest cop.

And you ask why some users have no faith - forget about the process and the tragedy of certain articles - in you.

You should be protecting the editors from the mob-bullying going on in various articles. You should become familiar with what the effect is of your intervention. You cite Churchill. I refer you to COINTELPRO, it's bullshit. It says the FBI killed people and beat them up. Well it might have but I imagine that there is no evidence presented. Not one valid source.

Absurdities like this are the consequences of your 'police' work.

There are dozens of examples. Dozens. And I've been here very briefly so I can't really in good faith tell you but I'm sure you know where the bias cancer has spread. Zenupassio 03:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deny sockpuppetry. Totally deny it. Sorcery too. Perhaps burning these witches at the stake would address the problem. But seriously, there have been different approaches on different articles from what I've seen. Your favorite example of Ward Churchill is a case in point. The article seems to obscure what is well known about the guy. He's going to be fired. Read the Denver Post, the guy is toast. So why is there no mention of it. Zenupassio 03:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can I possibly know who you've blocked? You know, at least I hope you do. You haven't blocked any of the editors of COINTELPRO who have produced the most outrageous pap you could read this side of 1970 Pravda. Zenupassio 03:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of the inquiry in the introduction, it reads as if he doesn't have a problem in the world. Whether your wish that he stay, or my prayer that he is axe-murdered by the ghost of a real Indian are answered is not the point. I'm not saying it should say what will happen, but it should identify what's happening. The only reason it doesn't is that it's a whitewash. If Churchill had said Iraqi babies were not innocent victims, the article would read quite differently. You know it. I know it. The article is scorched earth and while I don't agree with them, I understand how it ended up that way. Zenupassio 03:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People don't get blocked for writing outrageous pap, they just get reverted. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. They only get blocked if they get into an edit war and break the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, or if they lose their cool and start committing clear-cut vandalism (blanking pages, replacing other user's pages with obscenities, etc).

You're slipping, by the way. First you said "Dozens of right-wingers blocked." then you say, "How can I possibly know who you've blocked?" Well, do you know who I've blocked or don't you... and if you don't know, how could you know unless it was you (your sockpuppets)? And admit most of those sockpuppets did indeed cross the line into vandalism... the cases that didn't were cases where a sockpuppet was used to evade the three-revert rule, which is also covered in the blocking policy. No admin can block a user merely for their opinions... of the "dozens of right-wingers blocked", name one that wasn't justified by the provisions of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. -- 03:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the reverting is the problem. There are multiple sock-puppets of Viajero for example who act in unison to revert on sight - and with no reason anything outside their narrow political agenda.

So you want to balance it. You either match them sockpuppet for sockpuppet or you get blocked.

I've never been blocked so I don't know but I assume it's frustrating and actually adds to the problem.

I don't doubt as a corrupt cop that you have technically acted inside the guidelines. No doubt. Doesn't make it right.

OK I lied about not knowing who you blocked, I just thought it was rich for you to ask me who you blocked. If you don't know you shouldn't be doing it.

No admin needs to block a user merely for their opinions. They can use the rules and just do it anyway. They can devise some corrupt spin to explain it but we know why it happens. The Churchill page is a good example. It is scorched earth, was it made better by your intervention or worse? It's a protected page. It's a catastrophe and I can blame Viajero and he can blame the users trying to get some balance in there (unsuccessfully) but to be fair we should all blame you. Zenupassio 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but when you're a victim of terrorism you can either laugh or get angry. I laugh. Zenupassio 03:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if you're a corrupt cop perhaps you'd consider a payoff to join my gang. I'm very generous.You could start with blocking Zen-master for breaching the 3 revert rule I was just reading about. Zenupassio 03:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Reverting simple vandalism isn't subject to the 3RR. Please stop vandalising Zenupassio and your fellow sock puppet Zen-masturbator (which is also impersonization). zen master    T  04:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it's protected I believe. Gee I love the comment above that "Zen-masturbator" is impersonating Zen-master, I think that counts as an admission.

Isn't the Churchill article protected. I haven't added anything to it. I would if I could. Zenupassio 04:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not created any sock-puppets. Check my IP address please. I am one user on one computer this cold cold night. All alone with only a corrupt cop to talk to. Zenupassio 04:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not impersonating anyone. I signed up as zenupassion. Except I forgot the 'n'. Doh. That's how I stumbled on Zen-master you see. I typed in the wrong thing on my contributions and saw all of these crazy things. SO no impersonation. He's the one impersonating an editor. He's actually something else entirely. Zenupassio 04:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS Why is your user page blocked. Same reason as the British cops in Belfast have strong armor? Zenupassio 04:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Had no such plans although maybe zen-mastur and his 14 yo sockpuppet ugen64 did. Do you think it's right that 14 year olds are up this late?

What do you think Zen-mastur is doing to him? Zenupassio 04:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another_One_Bites_The_Dust

My concern is what Zen-mastur is doing with the 14 yo. Do his parents know? Zenupassio 04:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are slipping now.

It would be easier for Saddam Hussein's camel (the one he used to dry hump geddit?) to pass through the eye of a needle than for me to get the lefty editors to agree to that move. Why don't you do it as an experiment into the liberal paradigm here. Zenupassio 04:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing blocks on greek socks
''It's probably not necessary to remove those blocks. Blocks on IP addresses have a certain overhead, because they need to be checked every time, every edit... but blocks on a username only need to be checked once, at login time. I don't think there's any real overhead at all. -- Curps 05:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)''
 * That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I was also concerned about the autoblocking of IP addresses, but I'm on a dynamic IP anyway. --Deathphoenix 14:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert
I've reverted the blanking of this talk page byUser:Whenwilltheylearn? (talk • contribs). Cheers! Mgm|(talk) 22:32, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

MIM on The Matrix
It seems rather POVish to remove the MIM review from the Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix section, but leave all the others. Especially when you are claiming your rational is that only "mainstream" reviews, viewpoints, and opinions should be allowed. I am willing to leave others alone pending disussion on talk pages but asking for now that you atleast leave the MIM reviews of the Matrix alone. --Mista-X 02:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In this case you are discriminating simply based on POV. The other entries in Religion/philosophy/theory of The Matrix can hardly be considered noteable either. So if you are going to remove the MIM review, which is based on philosphy of dialectics and fits in to the catagory, then it is only fair that you remove the others. In the other cases your argument holds more water, but in this one it does not. I am asking you one more time to please rv. Thanks. --Mista-X 02:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Movie reviews and POV
(I posted this on TheGrza's talk page and am also posting it here as it deals with some of the issues you raise)
 * " The POV is inherent in these type of reviews the same way Christian reviews are bound by their ideology instead of actually critiquing a film"

TheGrza, I think you misunderstand our POV policy which applies to the content of the articles only, not to external links. First of all if we did not allow POV in external links we'd have to remove half the external links in Wikipedia. Secondly, all film reviews are, by definition, POV (I don't know of any reviews that don't express an opinion) so we'd have to remove all links to film reviews if NPOV applied to external links. We don't remove links simply because of the politics of the site linked to. I think you also misunderstand the concept of "vandalism". We can't simply throw around the term to justify removal of any material we don't like. It applies specifically to activity that disrupts wikipedia or disrupts an article. I've seen MIM reviews quoted in Harper's so they are actually relatively well known if only for their amusement value. There is no reason why we shouldn't have external links to Christian film reviews or Marxist film reviews. A broad variety of links is encouraged. What's discouraged are repetitive links to similar material (eg reviews from a dozen daily newspapers would be repetitive).

As to your point about ideology, I don't know if you've ever studied film theory in university or read academic journals on film such as cahiers des cinema but serious film criticism does actually deal with ideology, subtext etc and is not just the "thumbs up" "thumbs down" type review you see in a newspaper. By your argument we couldn't link to serious scholarly articles on films, many of which "deconstruct" films from a Marxist, feminist, postmodern, or other ideological perspective. For instance, Susan Sontag's important and influential writings on film would be banned, by your argument, as they are ideological in nature and explore the subtext of films rather than simply being a technical critique.

Hope this clarifies things. AndyL 14:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Specifically to Curps, while I agree that linking to hundreds of mainstream reviews would be repetitive I see no problem with listing to a variety of reviews from different mainstream and non-mainstream viewpoints. Whether or not a review is listed on "Rotten Tomatoes" or IMDB is not really relevent as that site really only deals with popular mainstream reviews. Indeed, by your criteria we could not link to serious scholarly critiques of films carried in scholarly journals. We do not determine the worthiness of links by how mainstream or popular they are. Rather we look for diversity of opinions in our links. AndyL 15:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all your reasoning for removing protection is somewhat bizarre and possibly a violation of wikirules. There's no rule against people on "holiday" protecting a page nor is there one stating that such pages should be unprotected quickly.

In any case, I'm not on wikiholiday, haven't been for some time (as you could tell by looking at my user contributions), and have removed the note from my page. Not wise to make up rules to justify unprotecting an article after a few mintues. The article has been protected, it shouldn't be unprotected until at least an attempt to resolve the issue has been made on the talk page. What I'm curious about is what policy you are using to justify removing an extenrnal link? Marxism is a philosophy (at least according to most university philosophy departments) but if you don't think the link fits under that category than why not suggest a new category rather than removing the links altogether. What I am interested in knowing is how the other links such as the one on Jewish history and the Matrix are justified while the marxist link is not.

As with your rationalization for unprotecting the article you seem to be relying on improvisation rather than policy. AndyL 19:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Please read Mista-X's talk page, where I explained to him my reasons for believing the link to be inappropriate.

 * Your reverting the article prior to protecting it was very questionable. You are taking sides in an editing dispute after all.  Protection was premature in any case, there has been active discussion at Mista-X's talk page and other talk pages.  It is perfectly normal for Wikipedia to be quite selective about what external links are appropriate; this is standard practice.  At this point, the global consensus (across multiple pages) seems to be against you and Mista-X... it might be appropriate to back off and call a vote to seek a wider consensus. -- Curps 19:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert the article prior to protecting it. I protected an earlier version and your objection is dealt with at The Wrong Version]. There would have been no incentive for going to the Talk pages had I protected the version you prefer and in any case, since the external link in question is not a violation of wikipolicy there's no reason to protect the version excluding it. Votes are not the way to "seek a wider consensus". In fact, settling matters by voting is discouraged on wikipedia. An RFC is the usual course of action. AndyL 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Your rationalization above simply doesn't hold water. You protected the page at 16:59 UTC, added a "protected" template at 17:01, but then applied a revert at 17:35.  If you yourself decided to protect the page against edits, it was not appropriate for you to then edit the page yourself, to your preferred version. I don't believe you have entered into this content dispute as an above-the-fray mediator, rather you are a partisan participant. -- Curps 20:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Curps.27_inappropriate_use_of_admin_power_at_The_Matrix AndyL 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you to admit that you had no justification for unprotecting the article and to stop reverting protected articles. AndyL 23:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The article was protected at 16:59 by you, a "protected" notice was added at 17:01 by you, and then you reverted it at 17:35. If it's protected, then you yourself should not edit it.  Why will you not admit that the person who reverted the protected article (that you yourself protected!) was none other than yourself.  If you have protected an article against editing, then you should not edit it yourself, especially if you have become a party to the content dispute despite disingenuous denials. -- Curps 23:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I think my actions were justified. You reverted a protected page (which you yourself know and state to be wrong), and undoing this was justified"

If you had really thought so then you wouldn't have cited my "wikivacation" as an excuse. AndyL 23:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahoy...As a result of User:Mista-X's vandalism spree and my subsequent attempts to revert his actions, he was blocked by User:UtherSRG. Having not edited these pages in several hours and listing it on the vandalism in progress page, User:AndyL found it necessary to block me for the one time I passed three reverts, The Battleship Potemkin. After blocking me, he reverted the page. This is a complete violation of his Admin trust and he should be removed from such a position from now on. Would you be willing to help out in this?--The Grza 17:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * If it was indeed a 3RR violation then I don't think he was violating policy in the sequence of events you described above. I did object to some of his other actions, and have discussed this with him. -- Curps 18:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was almost exactly 10 hours after the 3RR violation and only after User:Mista-X had been blocked for his spamming, after which he himself violated the same rule by reverting on the same page he blocked me for reverting. There's nothing wrong with that?--The Grza 18:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe the justification UtherSRG gave for blocking Mista-X was for 3RR. I don't think AndyL's revert in that particular case constitutes an incidence of spamming, although Mista-X's overall actions might indeed be considered link-spamming.  AndyL's involvement at Battleship Potemkin seems to be limited to applying 3RR (apparently fairly) and getting involved in a content dispute... I don't think there's grounds for complaint against him with regard to that specific activity at Battleship Potemkin.  I suppose you could ask UtherSRG  or some other admin for a second opinion. -- Curps 18:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you interested in being a Bureaucrat?
Hi, I am considering nominating you to become a Bureaucrat. The role would involve giving administrator or bureaucrat access to other users following consensus on Requests for adminship. Although there are currently 18 bureaucrats, it may be helpful to have a few more. If you would accept a nomination, please let me know. Kingturtle 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation
"Scroll upward for your answers"

Please show me where you've spoken about your 3RR violation. AndyL 08:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Replied on your talk page. -- Curps 10:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just kudos
Keep up the articulate arguments and good common sense. Bravo. Mason 08:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC
Could you please certify/add to my basis for dispute at Requests for comment/AndyL? Thanks! — Phil Welch 18:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC has been commenced on you at Requests for comment/Curps. AndyL 03:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I think my actions were justified. You reverted a protected page (which you yourself know and state to be wrong)"

So then you wouldn't have had a problem had I initially protected the earlier page?AndyL 16:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have made extensive comments at Requests for comment/AndyL (I would have done so sooner, but real life intruded). You should find your answer there.  -- Curps 18:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You've placed your comments in the wrong part of the RFC. Since you are not the bringer of the RFC and the RFC has already been certified your comments, as far as I understand, do not belong where you've placed them -- I've moved them to the RFC's talk page. Since the RFC has already been certified you've also put your endorsement in the wrong section. It belongs in the "Other users who endorse this statement" section. AndyL 20:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's acceptable to rewrite an RFC after its been certified and replied to and I am unaware of any precedents where this has been done. It makes a mockery of the RFC process. AndyL 20:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The "Other users who endorse this statement" section says (in HTML comments): If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. I don't fit in that category... I was part of the dispute.

 * As I posted to your talk page: what is your proposed solution? Should I file a second RfC over the same dispute? Should I file an RfA? You tell me. -- Curps 20:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

(I withdrew my original response shortly after having made it - I see now that Curps responded to it in the meantime).

Perhaps the most reasonable solution is for all RFCs to be withdrawn and for us to go to mediation for guidance, particularly since the dispute at The Matrix seems to have been resolved and this is no longer a pressing concern it may make more sense for us to obtain clarification of what both of us did wrong so we can abide by that in the future. AndyL 20:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Given the lack of outside comments made on either of our RFCs would have been resolved. The most likely scenario would have been for them to languish for a few weeks and then been removed as old. We seem to be four or five people nattering at each other, all thinking our actions, and those of our "opponents" to be of far more significance than they really are.

I've already said I should not have left the article alone after initial protection. I'd be happy if you were to concede that rather than unprotect or edit the protected article, it would have been more prudent for you to either ask for unprotection on the Requests for protection page or gone to an uninvolved admin.AndyL 20:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * "If original two certifiers endorse any addition, it should be acceptable to you. "

As I asked Phil, can you show me a precedent where an RFC has been certified and then added to after the fact and "recertified"?AndyL 20:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"I've wasted far more time than I originally wished to on this, had to take time away from Wikipedia over the past few days as real life intruded, and now I'd like to see this through. If you really intend to boycott the RfC I think I'd need to go to RfA. I'm not calling for your head on a platter, but I do think your actions need some scrutiny and some... admonishing. Anyways, now I really am going to head out for a while"

Similarly, I don't have time to constantly rewrite my response to Phil's RFC just because Phil or someone else wants to rewrite the complaint. I criticised Phil once already for belatedly making minor changes after I'd already responded and now this. I think you should have co-ordinated things better and not presented an RFC until you were all ready. This sort of ad hoc-kery, Phil writing an RFC, getting it certified and then having it change on a daily basis is really nonsense. If you weren't ready you should have told Phil to withdraw his RFC and hold off for a few days. Similarly, Phil should have consulted with you. As it is, the two of you have created a mess and in real life that would result in the whole thing being thrown out.

The dispute at the Matrix page is over. As for the momentous events of 25 April I think we both got carried away. I've admitted that, you haven't (and indeed, when violet/riga said on the incident page that we'd both made mistakes you suddenly disappeared from that page rather than contend with criticism), but I've got better things to do than get a pound of flesh for you. I think if you continue your habit of self-justification and refusal to admit error you will eventually find yourself in trouble here (if not in real life) but I'm fine letting that be someone else's crusade.

As for my ignoring your suggestion of mediation, you should look again at the sequence since you seem to have forgotten that you had just rejected mediation for the content dispute.AndyL 21:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

As for Arbcomm, I've participated in a few ArbComm complaints, a few times as a complainant or witness, once as a respondent (the complaint against me was not upheld and the complainant was ultimately banned for a year) and you should be aware that it is not uncommon for complainants to suffer blowback and have their own actions undergo severe scrutiny resulting in unanticipated outcomes and sanctions that are much more severe than one would have originally anticipated. ArbComm is best left for issues that are truly unresolvable and chronic, not for a one time limited spat that seems to have been resolved in essence. Also, you should be aware that the current ArbComm practice is to ban both complainant and respondent from editing all articles related to the complaint until the complaint is resolved (a process that takes weeks, sometimes months). AndyL 21:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Your Request For Comment Page
AndyL has just removed an addendum by PhilWelch from the page because he is not the official respondent. I think it should go back on there, but I'm not going to be the one to revert AndyL's edits after the way he's been acting. Just thought I'd let you know. --The Grza 21:26, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also, AndyL has made some large editions to The Matrix, clearly violating the discussion page. Again, I don't want to get back into this again or I'll inevitably get banned.

I suggest TheGrza reread the discussion page, particularly the section titled "resolution?". I suggest he also look at a few RFCs and familiarise himself with how they are formatted and where people put comments before making specious complaints. AndyL 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can't find it. I agree with the comments on the AndyL page and if you see the notice, just remove it for me. --The Grza 22:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page but the RFC seems to be quite invalid given what's occured (for one thing, the way it now stands, the RFC was certified more than 72 hours after it was initiated rather than the required 48). Is that agreeable?AndyL 22:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I swear to Christ that I don't see it. Are you sure it isn't a cached page in your browser? I don't intend to be difficult, but I've searched the page both with my eyes and my browser and failed to find it.--The Grza 22:32, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

"April 20, 2005 A new user, Mista-X (talk · contributions), makes his first edit at Wikipedia."

You're one year off. AndyL 22:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I approve of your undertakings. Really, I'm just bowing out from working on it myself--it was your dispute the whole time, and I'm letting you take care of it from now on. — Phil Welch 05:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the heads up. I've been watching the page and I don't disagree with anything in it; you're showing the restraint that epitomizes a good admin and I congratulate you for it.--The Grza  06:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks for the notice. I will wisely stay uninvolved, though if asked questions, I will respond. — Phil Welch 01:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Please see Requests for mediation. AndyL 12:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

History of Quebec
Hey, yeah, big mistake with that pic huh? It was next to an article about 1967 and I just assumed really. So someone's already fixed it so no biggie. Bremen 16:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Pelican Shit
who is this user? (User:PelicanShit (talk • contribs)) He doens't seem to be vandalizing, but shouldn't he get a new account? — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirects for Deletion
Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Redirects_for_deletion. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * "But then you boycotted the RfC process you yourself started,"

Wrong. Philwelch started the RFC process, not meAndyL 20:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"and even reverted other people's contributions to RfC pages as a way to avoid answering what they wrote. "

That's a misrepresentation. A third party inappropriately added comments to the response which belonged on the discussion page.AndyL 22:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"I filed an RFC which you did not reply to"

I replied to Philwelch's RFC and then wrote one of my own in regards to your behaviour. You then rewrote Phil's RFC after it had already been certified and after I had already written a detailed response. I thought rewriting an RFC after it had been certified and expecting me to rewrite my response was inappropriate and a violation of procedure.AndyL 01:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Registration/ Sock Puppeting of Confusing Usernames
I was following another Wikipedian's suggestion to grab up every variant of Wikipedia is Anarchism. Go ahead and ban Wikipedia is Anarchism, etc., indefinitely, but leave User:Rickyrab and my real sockpuppet User:Truthaboutreform alone. Thanx. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) See my talk page.

 * Good point. BTW, the Wikipedia block mechanism is still blocking my original IP.  — Rickyrab | Talk 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope. I may have to log off one before editing. I'm on my account in two separate IPs, thanks to my being on Netscape and AOL. brb   — Rickyrab | Talk 05:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I tried. The block still exists. look up the block list. At least you blocked "Wikipedians are Anarchists" indefinitely.   — Rickyrab | Talk 05:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks.   — Rickyrab | Talk 05:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Protected against spambots
Hello Curps, what is the status with Category:Protected against spambots? Is it okay if I unprotect (and delete those that are eligible for speedying) the remaining pages there? I don't think the bot is active anymore. jni 08:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles
Please see my note under the heading ==Duplicate Articles== at Talk:Robert Burnham, Jr. Thanks. --DannyZ 05:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew
Thank you very much for the page protection. ;) Oh btw, as was discussed with User talk:Vsion, I was kinda wondering if the 3RR rule applies in handling obvious cases of vandalism. If it does, and if the talk pages fail to solve the issue, may I confirm if asking for page protection is the proper way forward? Thank you very much for the clarifications. :) --Huaiwei 10:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You have to be a bit careful because "obvious cases of vandalism" usually refers to blanking, replacing the article with garbled letters, etc. This particular case looks much more like an edit war, and some admins might interpret it that way; however the fact that this anon included sentences like He believed in eugenics, just like Hitler, but the whole idea was debunked when an albino retard was born into his family line pushes it over the line in my opinion.  In general though, you should avoid getting into a rapid-fire edit war that clutters up the page history.  It would have been better to make a 3RR report at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR when the anon first broke the rule. -- Curps 11:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I see your point there, and thanks for the advice!--Huaiwei 11:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hamilton, Ontario
Hi. Any chance you could block the IP that keeps vandalising this article? Cheers TigerShark 00:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Pelican shit
I'm curious, what is the Australian slang usage for "pelican shit"? → Jarlaxle Artemis   00:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Oxag
Hello Curps. I am a regular, genuine, Wikipedian from the French wiki, with accounts on fr:, de:, es:, it:, pt: and th:. These are all under the handle Oxag but the name is unfortunately not available on en: As it seems, however, that the account was created by someone who only used it last March to vandalize pages my question is thus simple : is there any chance of making an exception to the official policy and cancelling that account so I can re-use the handle ? Thanks for your answer on my discussion page — Oxag, the one and only :) 08:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) PS: I contact you because it seems from your discussion page that you've had to deal with the rogue Oxag user.

Template:ISO
You expressed interest in an ISO flag template: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template (SEWilco 06:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

about Image:Comet Kohoutek orbit p391.jpg
Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that I have uploaded the image Image:Comet Kohoutek orbit p391.jpg to commons. Thanks --Spundun 07:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Full earth.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Full earth.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) This image is out of focus and is an orphan. Nv8200p 22:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Curps/archive13


text: Category:459 BC

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

title: Category:459 BC


text:
Louis Lewandowski

Louis Lewandowski (April 3, 1821 – February 4, 1894) was a Polish-Jewish and German-Jewish composer of synagogal music.

He contributed greatly to the liturgy of the Synagogue Service. His most famous works were composed during his tenure as musical director at the Neue Synagoge in Berlin and his melodies form a substantial part of synagogue services around the world today.

Life
Lewandowski was born in Wreschen, Grand Duchy of Posen, Prussia (now Września in Poland). The name Lewandowski is derived from the place name Lewandów, itself derived from the Old Polish word lewanda – 'lavender' (lawenda in modern Polish).

At the age of twelve he went to Berlin to study piano and voice, and became solo soprano in the synagogue. Afterward he studied for three years under A. B. Marx and attended the school of composition of the Berlin Academy. There his teachers were Carl Friedrich Rungenhagen and Eduard Grell. Lewandowski was the first Jew to be admitted to the school at the request of Felix Mendelssohn. After graduating with high honors, he was appointed in 1840 choirmaster of the Berlin synagogue. In that capacity he developed an extensive body of music for the synagogue ritual.

In 1866 he received the title of "royal musical director." Shortly afterward, he was appointed choirmaster in the Neue Synagoge, Berlin, for which he composed the entire musical service. The Neue Synagogue was what would then have been called a conservative synagogue and what now would be considered progressive. His arrangements of ancient Hebrew melodies for choir, cantor, and organ are considered masterly productions, characterized by great simplicity and a profound religious sentiment. Many of Lewandowski's pupils became prominent cantors. Lewandowski was the principal founder of the Institute for Aged and Indigent Musicians, an institution that prospered under his management.

Lewandowski died in Berlin in 1894. He and his wife Helene are buried in the Weißensee Cemetery. On their gravestone is inscribed: "Liebe macht das Lied unsterblich!" (Love makes the melody immortal!) A daughter, Martha (1860–1942), died in Terezin, the Nazi concentration camp, in 1942, at the age of 82.

Contribution to Jewish liturgical music
Lewandowski's principal works include: "Kol Rinnah u-Tefillah," for cantor; "Todah ve-Zimrah," for mixed chorus, solo, and organ; 40 psalms, for solo, chorus, and organ; symphonies, overtures, cantatas, and songs. During Lewandowski's life the issue of whether an organ should be part of a synagogue service was one of major contention. Lewandowski advocated communal singing and the organ was essential to facilitate this. Eventually organs became commonplace in synagogues around Europe, hence the popularity of "Todah ve-Zimrah". Lewandowski's writing is notable for incorporating the strict four-part harmony of church music with ancient cantorial modal melodies.

Lewandowski's music today
Today Lewandowski's music forms a central part of the synagogue service in Reform, Liberal, Conservative and Orthodox communities. Several of his compositions were added to Samuel Alman's supplement when he edited The Voice Of Prayer And Praise in 1933 introducing Lewandowski's music to the UK. This helped to spread his music across the British empire and his music is now sung across the world from Europe to Australia and America to South Africa. Most Orthodox synagogues refrain from a mixed choir or instrumental music, and hence much of this music has been arranged for a capella male choir. Even in communities without choirs one can hear the melodies of Lewandowski either chanted by the cantor or in a communal unison.

Over the past decades attempts have been made to celebrate the music of Lewandowski. The Zemel Choir of London released an album of the works of Lewandowski according to their original settings entitled "Louis Lewandowski - Choral and Cantorial Works". In 2020, Deutsche Grammophon Records released a recording of his "Eighteen Liturgical Psalms," recorded by the Hungarian Radio Choir and soloists, with organ. In 2011 in Berlin an annual international choir festival was started under the auspices of the mayor called the "Louis Lewandowski Festival". "The Synagogal Ensemble Berlin", the resident choir at the Pestalozzistraße Synagogue in Berlin, present full Lewandowski Shabbat services every Friday night and Saturday morning, as does Belsize Square Synagogue in London in most of its liturgy for cantor choir and organ. It has also created digital editions. The Lewandowski Chorale, Johannesburg is a non-denominational mixed choir focussing on bringing the music of Lewandowski to a wider audience. The Society for Classical Reform Judaism (USA), the international voice of advocacy for the preservation and renewal of the historic worship and musical traditions of the Reform Movement, actively promotes the Lewandowski repertoire for contemporary liturgical usage. In addition to the production of CD recordings of this music, the Society has supported the renewed use of the Lewandowski tradition at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and at its campus synagogues in Cincinnati, Los Angeles and particularly in Jerusalem, where a Classical Reform worship service and concert have become an annual event. The Society also supports the use of these compositions, with instrumental and choral accompaniment, at congregations throughout the United States, as well as in Jerusalem and Warsaw.

title: Louis Lewandowski


text: Category:461 BC

title: Category:461 BC


text: Category:462 BC

title: Category:462 BC


text: Category:463 BC

title: Category:463 BC


text:
Talk:William D. Lutz

Expansion request
Anyone want to try writing this? This guy is at least as important as Karl Rove. He has been doing a lot of pioneering and influential work on language manipulation in political campaigning. For instance, only a tiny minority of people in large, scientific surveys in the U.S. minded that there was an inheritance tax until after Lutz did repeated and minutely examined focus-group testing that produced the phrase "death tax". When this phrase was used in surveys, a majority of those surveyed were opposed to it. George W. Bush's first presidential campaign quickly made opposition to "the death tax" a fairly prominent feature of the campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.50 (talk • contribs) at 10:00, 19 July 2005

title: Talk:William D. Lutz


text: Category:464 BC

title: Category:464 BC


text: Category:465 BC

title: Category:465 BC


text: Category:466 BC

title: Category:466 BC


text: Category:467 BC

title: Category:467 BC


text: Category:468 BC

title: Category:468 BC


text: Category:469 BC

title: Category:469 BC


text: Category:471 BC

title: Category:471 BC


text: Category:472 BC

title: Category:472 BC


text: Category:473 BC

title: Category:473 BC


text: Category:474 BC

title: Category:474 BC


text: Category:475 BC

title: Category:475 BC


text: Category:476 BC

title: Category:476 BC


text: Category:477 BC

title: Category:477 BC


text: Category:478 BC

title: Category:478 BC


text: Category:479 BC

title: Category:479 BC


text: Category:480 BC

title: Category:480 BC


text:
User:Sekabin

I am British citizen living in Tokyo, Japan, where I research within the field of human-computer interaction and science and technology studies. I hold a PhD in Sociology.

title: User:Sekabin


text: Category:481 BC

title: Category:481 BC


text: Category:482 BC

title: Category:482 BC


text:
Talk:Chacarera

Untitled
Any german speaker willing to translate de:Chacarera? -Mariano 10:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Chacarera. 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/20101021092619/http://www.folkguitar.com.ar:80/2010/10/chacarera.html to http://folkguitar.com.ar/2010/10/chacarera.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309092755/http://www.elfolkloreargentino.com:80/danzas/chacarera.htm to http://www.elfolkloreargentino.com/danzas/chacarera.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217034043/http://www.inmuvega.gov.ar:80/ to http://www.inmuvega.gov.ar/

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) 21:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chacarera


text: Category:483 BC

title: Category:483 BC


text: Category:485 BC

title: Category:485 BC


text:
Science Centre Singapore

The Science Centre Singapore, previously known as Singapore Science Centre is a scientific institution in Jurong East, Singapore, specialising in the promotion of scientific and technological education for the general public. It houses over 850 exhibits over eight exhibition galleries and receives over a million visitors every year. In 2003, it celebrated its silver jubilee.

History
The Science Centre was carved out of the National Museum of Singapore as a separate institution so that the latter could focus on its artistic and historical collections. This idea was first mooted in 1969 by the former Science Council of Singapore, now known as the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star), and was approved by the government. The SCS building's design was decided by an architectural competition organised by the Science Centre Board, in which Raymond Woo architects' entry was selected. Built at a cost of S$12 million on a 60,000 sqm site in Jurong East, it was officially opened on 10 December 1977 by Dr. Toh Chin Chye, the Minister-in-charge of the centre.

In 1987, the centre saw a significant expansion with the opening of Singapore's first and only OMNIMAX theatre, the Omni-Theatre. Costing $18 million, it has a 276-seat theatre underneath a 23 m tilted dome.

In 1999, a $38 million renovation expanded the centre's exhibition space with larger open areas, a direct connection to the separate Omni-Theatre building, as well as a new entrance. In 2000, Snow City, a recreation of a -5 C environment in tropical Singapore, was set up beside the Omni-Theatre.

On 7 December 2007, in its 30th anniversary year, the centre rebranded itself as the Science Centre Singapore (SCS).

Relocation
On 4 April 2008, the Urban Redevelopment Authority announced plans to relocate the Science Centre next to Chinese Garden MRT station within ten to 15 years.

On 24 May 2019, the Science Centre board awarded a multi-disciplinary team led by Architects 61 a contract for the design of the new Science Centre. At the time, the project was expected to be completed by 2025. The Science Centre commented that the team, which includes Zaha Hadid architects, submitted the "best proposal which reflected the boldness of scientific endeavour and future focused Stem aspirations".

On 2 December 2022, the Science Centre and the Ministry of Education jointly announced that a new Science Centre would be opened in the Jurong Lake District in 2027, which is set to be the 50th anniversary of the Science Centre. According to the joint press release, the new Science Centre will be designed by Zaha Hadid Architects and Architects 21, and will consist of 5 interlocking rectangular buildings, each with large glass windows overlooking Jurong Lake.

Exhibitions and events
In 2023, the Science Centre held an exhibition featuring art pieces inspired by the Korean pop group BTS as well as props worn by the group's members. The exhibit, named "BTS x James Jean: Seven Phases Exhibition", ran from 16 December 2023 until 25 February 2024 at the Science Centre.

Location
The Science Centre Observatory is situated at 15.27 m above mean sea level and is one of the few observatories in the world located next to the equator. Its unique position allows constellations in both the northern and southern celestial hemispheres to be observed.

Telescope
The main telescope of the Observatory is a 40 cm Cassegrain reflector of a combined focal length of 520 cm. The sub-telescope is a 15 cm apochromatic Kepler refractor with a focal length of 180 cm. The equatorial mount for the telescopes was designed for Singapore's unique location; the accompanying English yoke provides the stability needed for the drive and tracking mechanisms. The 5.5 m stainless steel dome can be made to swivel in any direction and its shutter can be made to slide open for the telescope to be focused on to interesting objects in the sky.

Stargazing sessions
The Observatory has been open to the public for stargazing sessions every Friday night since June 2006. The opening hours are from 7:50 to 10:00 pm. The Observatory can comfortably accommodate 50 visitors per session. It is important to note that stargazing through the observatory telescope is only possible when the sky is clear. However, regardless of weather conditions, the staff will be present.

The Observatory hosted a viewing session for the 20 April 2023 solar eclipse from 11am to 1pm. It set up telescopes which were available for use, gratis, for anyone with a Science Centre admission ticket. The eclipse was also livestreamed on the Science Centre's YouTube channel.

Controversies
The Science Centre organised a discussion titled "What is the difference between Gender and Sex?" to be held on 14 June 2024 at The Projector. Attendance at the event was limited to persons aged 18 years old and above. According to the synopsis, the discussion was intended to center around the psychological, social, and cultural factors shaping the understanding of gender and sex in Singapore.

On 1 June 2024, several hours after initially publicising the event on Facebook, the Science Centre announced that the event was cancelled and that all tickets would be refunded.

According to news reports, a Telegram channel named "Protect Singapore", which described itself as "a channel for those who want to safeguard the future of Singapore in the face of LGBTQ+ activism so that Singapore can continue to thrive", had shared the event and requested that its subscribers "write in and express your concern to MOE and The Science Centre".

title: Science Centre Singapore


text: Category:486 BC

title: Category:486 BC


text: Category:487 BC

title: Category:487 BC


text:
Electron configurations of the elements (data page)

This page shows the electron configurations of the neutral gaseous atoms in their ground states. For each atom the subshells are given first in concise form, then with all subshells written out, followed by the number of electrons per shell. For phosphorus (element 15) as an example, the concise form is [Ne] 3s2 3p3. Here [Ne] refers to the core electrons which are the same as for the element neon (Ne), the last noble gas before phosphorus in the periodic table. The valence electrons (here 3s2 3p3) are written explicitly for all atoms.

Electron configurations of elements beyond hassium (element 108) have never been measured; predictions are used below.

As an approximate rule, electron configurations are given by the Aufbau principle and the Madelung rule. However there are numerous exceptions; for example the lightest exception is chromium, which would be predicted to have the configuration 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 3d4 4s2, written as [Ar] 3d4 4s2, but whose actual configuration given in the table below is [Ar] 3d5 4s1.

Note that these electron configurations are given for neutral atoms in the gas phase, which are not the same as the electron configurations for the same atoms in chemical environments. In many cases, multiple configurations are within a small range of energies and the irregularities shown below do not necessarily have a clear relation to chemical behaviour. For the undiscovered eighth-row elements, mixing of configurations is expected to be very important, and sometimes the result can no longer be well-described by a single configuration.

 * {{legend| | Group 18 element (noble gas), has a complete shell. Complete shells are referred to as "[Ar]" for argon etc.}}

NIST
This website is also cited in the CRC Handbook as source of Section 1, subsection Electron Configuration of Neutral Atoms in the Ground State.
 * http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/IonEnergy/ionEnergy.html ; retrieved July 2005, (elements 1–104) based on:
 * Atomic Spectroscopy, by W.C. Martin and W.L. Wiese in Atomic, Molecular, & Optical Physics Handbook, ed. by G.W.F. Drake (AIP, Woodbury, NY, 1996) Chapter 10, pp. 135–153.

 * 91 Pa : [Rn] 5f2(3H4) 6d 7s2
 * 92 U : [Rn] 5f3(4Io9/2) 6d 7s2
 * 93 Np : [Rn] 5f4(5I4) 6d 7s2
 * 103 Lr : [Rn] 5f14 7s2 7p1 question-marked
 * 104 Rf : [Rn] 5f14 6d2 7s2 question-marked

CRC

 * David R. Lide (ed), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th Edition, online version. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida, 2003; Section 1, Basic Constants, Units, and Conversion Factors; Electron Configuration of Neutral Atoms in the Ground State. (elements 1–104)
 * Also subsection Periodic Table of the Elements, (elements 1–103) based on:
 * G. J. Leigh, Editor, Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1990.
 * Chemical and Engineering News, 63(5), 27, 1985.
 * Atomic Weights of the Elements, 1999, Pure Appl. Chem., 73, 667, 2001.

WebElements

 * http://www.webelements.com/ ; retrieved July 2005, electron configurations based on:
 * Atomic, Molecular, & Optical Physics Handbook, Ed. Gordon W. F. Drake, American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, New York, 1996.
 * J.E. Huheey, E.A. Keiter, and R.L. Keiter in Inorganic Chemistry : Principles of Structure and Reactivity, 4th edition, Harper Collins, New York, 1993.
 * R.L. DeKock and H.B. Gray in Chemical Structure and bonding, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California, 1980.
 * A.M. James and M.P. Lord in Macmillan's Chemical and Physical Data, Macmillan, London, UK, 1992.
 * 103 Lr : [Rn].5f14.7s2.7p1 tentative ; 2.8.18.32.32.9.2 [inconsistent]
 * 104 Rf : [Rn].5f14.6d2.7s2 tentative
 * 105 Db : [Rn].5f14.6d3.7s2 (a guess based upon that of tantalum) ; 2.8.18.32.32.11.2
 * 106 Sg : [Rn].5f14.6d4.7s2 (a guess based upon that of tungsten) ; 2.8.18.32.32.12.2
 * 107 Bh : [Rn].5f14.6d5.7s2 (a guess based upon that of rhenium) ; 2.8.18.32.32.13.2
 * 108 Hs : [Rn].5f14.6d6.7s2 (a guess based upon that of osmium) ; 2.8.18.32.32.14.2
 * 109 Mt : [Rn].5f14.6d7.7s2 (a guess based upon that of iridium) ; 2.8.18.32.32.15.2
 * 110 Ds : [Rn].5f14.6d9.7s1 (a guess based upon that of platinum) ; 2.8.18.32.32.17.1
 * 111 Rg : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s1 (a guess based upon that of gold) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.1
 * 112 Cn : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s2 (a guess based upon that of mercury) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.2
 * 113 Nh : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s2.7p1 (a guess based upon that of thallium) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.3
 * 114 Fl : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s2.7p2 (a guess based upon that of lead) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.4
 * 115 Mc : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s2.7p3 (a guess based upon that of bismuth) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.5
 * 116 Lv : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s2.7p4 (a guess based upon that of polonium) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.6
 * 117 Ts : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s2.7p5 (a guess based upon that of astatine) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.7
 * 118 Og : [Rn].5f14.6d10.7s2.7p6 (a guess based upon that of radon) ; 2.8.18.32.32.18.8

Lange

 * J.A. Dean (ed), Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (15th Edition), online version, McGraw-Hill, 1999; Section 4, Table 4.1 Electronic Configuration and Properties of the Elements. (Elements 1–103)
 * 97 Bk : [Rn] 5f8 6d 7s2
 * 103 Lr : [Rn] 4f14 [sic] 6d 7s2

Hill and Petrucci

 * Hill and Petrucci, General Chemistry: An Integrated Approach (3rd edition), Prentice Hall. (Elements 1–106)
 * 58 Ce : [Xe] 4f2 6s2
 * 103 Lr : [Rn] 5f14 6d1 7s2
 * 104 Rf : [Rn] 5f14 6d2 7s2 (agrees with guess above)
 * 105 Db : [Rn] 5f14 6d3 7s2
 * 106 Sg : [Rn] 5f14 6d4 7s2

Hoffman, Lee, and Pershina
This book contains predicted electron configurations for the elements up to 172, as well as 184, based on relativistic Dirac–Fock calculations by B. Fricke in


text: Category:488 BC

title: Category:488 BC


text:
Bird language

Bird language refers to birds' system of communication. It may also refer to:

 * "The Bird Language", a short story by Pu Songling, first published in 1740, about a monk who can communicate with birds
 * Language of the birds, a mythical language by which humans can communicate with birds
 * "The Language of the Birds", a Russian fairy tale
 * Turkish bird language, a whistled version of the Turkish language used by farmers to communicate over long distances

title: Bird language


text: Category:489 BC

title: Category:489 BC


text: Category:490 BC

title: Category:490 BC


text: Category:491 BC

title: Category:491 BC


text: Category:492 BC

title: Category:492 BC


text: Category:493 BC

title: Category:493 BC


text: Category:495 BC

title: Category:495 BC


text:
Talk:Electron configurations of the elements (data page)

Reference by Haire
This newly added reference seems to be the only source for the undiscovered elements, Z > 118. Could we please have more information on what it contains. Perhaps a sentence such as This article contains predicted electron configurations for the elements 119-168, based on approximate relativistic Hartree-Fock-Dirac calculations with configuration interaction and spin-orbit coupling by X and Y (journal reference). Note that my version is probably incorrect because I have not seen the article and I am guessing, but it illustrates the level of detail which I believe should be added to the mention of Haire's article. Dirac66 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, i will go and do some research things. Hubbiety (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Chromium and other exceptions
To Bobdolan22 and everyone else who keeps trying to "correct" chromium: The point is that the Madelung rule (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, etc.) is only an approximation, and there are lots of exceptions of which chromium is the first. Yes, the rule would say that Cr is 4s23d4, but the experimental atomic spectrum shows that it is actually 4s13d5. This article gives the true experimental configurations, even when they disagree with the Madelung rule. For more discussion see Electron configuration. Dirac66 (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps interesting cases and exceptions to important "rules", like that which you mentioned, can be pointed out on the article in some way? JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I have now added a second short paragraph in the introduction to the table, to explain what the rule is and to point out that there are numerous exceptions. Dirac66 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I should also point out that these "irregularities" are an artifact of insisting on ground-state gas-phase electron configurations. The d and f elements have lots of configurations very close in energy and difference in chemical environments can easily change which happens to be the ground state, so the Madelung exceptions you often see actually have very little relevance to real chemistry. In particular, the Madelung-predicted configurations like [Ar]3d44s2 are always at least close to the ground state for the first 118 elements, well within the range of chemical bond energies. The ref and paragraph I added points out this chemical irrelevance of the irregularities. Double sharp (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

New property for WikiData
Please vote for new property of WikiData - "Electron_configuration" creation Васин Юрий (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nefedov
Hi - comparing and contrasting this with Periodic Table I see Nefedov et al's results are not examined here - http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/chem/nefedov.pdf. They are quite different – FLYING CHRYSALIS  💬 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There have not been complete and conclusive results from E123 onwards: there are many disagreements in the sources (the two Fricke papers do not even agree with each other 100% IIRC). I suppose we should mark this as just one possibility, and present the others as well, and do the same Extended periodic table. That would be more in line of what the other data pages do, e.g. Boiling points of the elements (data page). Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely support that; we'd then have to add additional rows for each undiscovered element and label them as distinct predictions from different sources (or some other substantial reformatting). ComplexRational (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be several tables, labelled something like "Configurations determined from experimental spectra", "Configurations predicted for known elements" and "Configurations predicted for undiscovered elements." Dirac66 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be all right. What's the last element for which the configuration is actually determined from experimental spectra? AFAIK that for Lr is only inferred from volatility experiments, for example, not directly measured. Double sharp (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the articles and ref Silva, it seems the last directly confirmed configuration is Fm. ComplexRational (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so I guess we would have to split into H through Fm (determined from spectra); Md through Hs (inferred through chemical experiments); Mt through Og (calculations only); E119 and up (calculations only, elements not even discovered). Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we can add notes to the element entries to deal with special cases, as for Nickel in the table now.
 * Also note that there is some information on the reliability of the result for each element in the References section, especially in the WebElements subsection. But the table should still be divided up to make the point more clearly. Dirac66 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The g shell configurations should be regarded as tentative, and I'm not sure that it even makes sense to assign a single configuration. In my (unpublished) DHF/CI calculations on single configurations 5gj 6fk 7dl 8sm 8pn, there are often near-degeneracies, e.g. 6f3 8p1 and 6f2 8p2, and even indeterminate 5g occupations around Z=129-131. So these are very multi-reference states with many possible contributing configurations. KGDyall (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for telling us this! I've added a brief note about the tentativeness beyond E120 to the article, citing the Nefedov article above.
 * You might like to talk to Droog Andrey too: he's also a computational chemist (I'm not), and he has some great ideas about how post-120 elements should best fit into the periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been discussing this with on his talk page, and looking around at various sources, and it looks to me like we should really prune this table because there is not much agreement between sources past 121 in fact. (Nefedov in fact makes something close to the point did above; there is so much configuration interaction that a single configuration may well start becoming a little bit nonsensical.) Therefore I am thinking that this table should be pruned to either element 118 (predictions up there) as the heaviest known element, or element 121 (three more predictions) as the heaviest element for which all contemporary sources seem to agree on the configuration; and to leave what lies ahead to Extended periodic table (where the table should be edited to show all the possibilities that have been floated, I guess). What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for telling me about the article Extended periodic table of which I was not aware. The last section Extended periodic table seems to be a good presentation of the predictions for the undiscovered elements, so I don't think it is necessary to repeat the information in this article. Therefore I now think that this article should end with Oganesson (E118), at least until more elements are actually discovered. This can be followed by a link explaining that predicted configurations for undiscovered elements to E173 are in the other article.
 * And I still think it would be a good idea to indicate the type of data for each element Z = 1-118. We could divide the table into three parts as discussed above (H-Fm, Md-Hs, Mt-Og), but this division could become awkward if in the future the elements in each category are no longer consecutive. Suppose for example that in 2025, someone reports chemical experiments which indicate the configuration of Flerovium (E114) only. Do we then put it in Table 2 even though Mt-Nh are still in Table 3 (calculations only)? A more flexible presentation allowing for new data might be to retain one table, but to add after the name of each applicable element words such as "based on chemical behavior" (for Md-Hs now) and "predicted from theoretical calculations" (for Mt-Og now). Dirac66 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One table sounds the best to me for those reasons. So, we'll revert to when this stopped at Og, and add new elements as predictions only when they're discovered. Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. It does not seem like the sources are making much of the distinction between configurations from direct measurement and configurations from inferences – see for example NIST which just gives everything till Hs without comment. So, I have stuck with the lede statement that elements beyond Hs are just predicted and a two-way division between experimentally known and experimentally unknown. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I think that it is much better now. I have added a See also link to the extended table Z = 119-173 so the information will be accessible. However by putting it in a separate article it seems clearer that the configurations are not to be taken as seriously for undiscovered elements. Dirac66 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Electron configurations of monovalent ions
Data from https://www.nist.gov/pml/atomic-reference-data-electronic-structure-calculations/atomic-reference-data-electronic-8. Data for elements beyond U are predictions.

The elements having irregular electron configurations for their atoms also have irregular electron configurations for monovalent ions. V, Co, Ni, Y, Lu have regular electron configurations for their atoms but their monovalent ions are irregular.

The elements having only one (n-1)d electron (Y, Lu, Ac, Pa, U, Np, Cm) tend to lose its (n-1)d electron before ns when forming monovalent ions. This does not apply to Sc and Gd, which lose an ns electron before (n-1)d. La and Ce even lose two ns electrons and get one more (n-1)d electron. Here Lu (and not La) behaves as the real homologue of Y.

 * I made some changes to your table, per NIST (up to Hs) and the calculations in (Mt-Cn). Double sharp (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. for divalent ions (once the g-shells come in, these will probably be close to the ground state in many cases, though I won't be surprised if they're not exactly the ground state). Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 129.104.241.193 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the link you provided, I could list the exceptions for divalent ions as follows:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! Z !! Symbol !! Electron configuration by Aufbau principle !! Actual electron configuration
 * 57 || La || [Xe] 4f1 || [Xe] 5d1
 * 64 || Gd || [Xe] 4f8 || [Xe] 4f7 5d1
 * 71 || Lu || [Xe] 4f14 5d1 || [Xe] 4f14 6s1
 * 89 || Ac || [Rn] 5f1 || [Rn] 7s1
 * 90 || Th || [Rn] 5f2 || [Rn] 5f1 6d1
 * 91 || Pa || [Rn] 5f3 || [Rn] 5f2 6d1
 * 103 || Lr || [Rn] 5f14 6d1 || [Rn] 5f14 7s1
 * 104 || Rf || [Rn] 5f14 6d2 || [Rn] 5f14 7s2
 * 105 || Db || [Rn] 5f14 6d3 || [Rn] 5f14 6d2 7s1
 * 106 || Sg || [Rn] 5f14 6d4 || [Rn] 5f14 6d3 7s1
 * 107 || Bh || [Rn] 5f14 6d5 || [Rn] 5f14 6d4 7s1
 * 108 || Hs || [Rn] 5f14 6d6 || [Rn] 5f14 6d5 7s1
 * 109 || Mt ||[Rn] 5f14 6d7 || [Rn] 5f14 6d6 7s1
 * 110 || Ds || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 || [Rn] 5f14 6d7 7s1
 * 111 || Rg || [Rn] 5f14 6d9 || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 7s1
 * 112 || Cn || [Rn] 5f14 6d10 || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 7s2
 * }
 * It is quite irregular that Y2+, Ce2+, Hf2+, U2+, Np2+, and Cm2+ are regular. It is even more astonishing that Th3+ might be regular (5f1). 129.104.241.193 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I wrote a note (h) in Periodic table about this kind of thing. There's a gradual transition between the Madelung order (roughly correct at zero charge) and simply filling in order of n (roughly correct for almost-bare nuclei). Within the chemically relevant ionisations for metals (roughly +2 to +6), this amounts to a mild correction to Madelung for the most part, in which (n−1)d and (n−2)f get drowned below ns and np. The 6d metals are exceptions for relativistic reasons. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 106 || Sg || [Rn] 5f14 6d4 || [Rn] 5f14 6d3 7s1
 * 107 || Bh || [Rn] 5f14 6d5 || [Rn] 5f14 6d4 7s1
 * 108 || Hs || [Rn] 5f14 6d6 || [Rn] 5f14 6d5 7s1
 * 109 || Mt ||[Rn] 5f14 6d7 || [Rn] 5f14 6d6 7s1
 * 110 || Ds || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 || [Rn] 5f14 6d7 7s1
 * 111 || Rg || [Rn] 5f14 6d9 || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 7s1
 * 112 || Cn || [Rn] 5f14 6d10 || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 7s2
 * }
 * It is quite irregular that Y2+, Ce2+, Hf2+, U2+, Np2+, and Cm2+ are regular. It is even more astonishing that Th3+ might be regular (5f1). 129.104.241.193 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I wrote a note (h) in Periodic table about this kind of thing. There's a gradual transition between the Madelung order (roughly correct at zero charge) and simply filling in order of n (roughly correct for almost-bare nuclei). Within the chemically relevant ionisations for metals (roughly +2 to +6), this amounts to a mild correction to Madelung for the most part, in which (n−1)d and (n−2)f get drowned below ns and np. The 6d metals are exceptions for relativistic reasons. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 111 || Rg || [Rn] 5f14 6d9 || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 7s1
 * 112 || Cn || [Rn] 5f14 6d10 || [Rn] 5f14 6d8 7s2
 * }
 * It is quite irregular that Y2+, Ce2+, Hf2+, U2+, Np2+, and Cm2+ are regular. It is even more astonishing that Th3+ might be regular (5f1). 129.104.241.193 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I wrote a note (h) in Periodic table about this kind of thing. There's a gradual transition between the Madelung order (roughly correct at zero charge) and simply filling in order of n (roughly correct for almost-bare nuclei). Within the chemically relevant ionisations for metals (roughly +2 to +6), this amounts to a mild correction to Madelung for the most part, in which (n−1)d and (n−2)f get drowned below ns and np. The 6d metals are exceptions for relativistic reasons. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I wrote a note (h) in Periodic table about this kind of thing. There's a gradual transition between the Madelung order (roughly correct at zero charge) and simply filling in order of n (roughly correct for almost-bare nuclei). Within the chemically relevant ionisations for metals (roughly +2 to +6), this amounts to a mild correction to Madelung for the most part, in which (n−1)d and (n−2)f get drowned below ns and np. The 6d metals are exceptions for relativistic reasons. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldegrave School for Girls

 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Waldegrave School for Girls
This page seems like overt use of Wikipedia for advertising... IMHO, i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. What do other wise Wikipedians say ? Manik Raina 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Well documented and nicely linked to topics we should have like Leading Edge Partnership -Harmil 10:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I wrote this, it's not my fault it sounds like advertising, it's mostly from a government report . See also Schools/Arguments. Kappa 11:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Cedars 12:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is education in Twickenham, London not notable? Kappa 12:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. Good point. And other schools get kept, since school = notable. Article's a bit gushy, but that's always fixable. Grutness...  wha?  13:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot see what distinguishes this school from other unnotable schools that ought to be deleted. Dunc|☺ 13:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * D. nn. Radiant_ >|< 14:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep!! Elliott C. Bäck 14:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Also, Kappa, if you wrote the article, it is your fault if it sounds like advertising. Whatever the govt. report said, you chose to add that information in the way that you did. --Scimitar parley 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So should I have left things out, or gone digging for something negative to say? Kappa 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Either/or. I'm not picky. ;) Seriously though, if you don't have enough information to keep an article from sounding like advertising, maybe you shouldn't start the article. Also, I don't actually think it does sound like advertising; you note in the text that all info comes from the govt. report. I just found your "it's not my fault" response slightly disingenuous. --Scimitar parley 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Adding and removing information for the purpose of sounding unbiased introduces actual bias. If I follow your policy, I will be easier to make articles on average school than good ones. Kappa 16:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you read my post aside from the first tongue-in-cheek line? Editors don't exist to copy their sources verbatim; they must exercise judgement and determine what from their sources is unbiased and NPOV. Also, as to adding information, what is that but finding another source and getting a more rounded, balanced view of the article's subject.--Scimitar parley 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ofsted reports give rounded, balanced views by reporting major weaknesses when then find them. If they don't find any, that's significant fact worth reporting. They have a tendancy to flatter schools, so I toned that aspect down. I didn't copy the report wholesale, but strengths/weaknesses and popularity are some of the most important aspects for describing what is distinctive about a school. Kappa 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you don't like the style, rewrite it.  VfD is not cleanup.  -- Visviva 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Double Blue  (Talk) 17:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — RJH 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Banana. As above. --Carnildo 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is a great resource, and should continue to be. Themindset 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggestion if every high school is going to be created, at least merge them into a list by area. This article contains nothing notable on its own. --Tim Pope 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I'd also like to say that for those who are extreme school inclusionists who want to draw and quarter the VfD nominators and so forth, there is the option of starting a separate wiki for schools, where any school can be included without question of whether or not it is encyclopedic/notable/etc. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Or we could just take that approach to Wikipedia, which the consensus currently supports. Grace Note 04:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing notable on its own. --Idont Havaname 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please it does not look like advertising to me Yuckfoo 23:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Go banana. Gamaliel 01:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 01:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Other wise Wikipedians have noticed that this is a dead horse discussion, where have you been?  —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. n. Grace Note 04:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for the purpose of ending school VfD debates. Xoloz 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not encylopedic as written or any indication at this point that it will be. If the only content is a government report, it makes you wonder.  Vegaswikian 06:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep some notability. JamesBurns 07:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted by the nominator it is as notable as other schools. CalJW 10:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 14:20, 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: Category:497 BC

title: Category:497 BC


text: Category:498 BC

title: Category:498 BC


text: Category:499 BC

title: Category:499 BC


text: File:Bluedevilportrait.jpg

title: File:Bluedevilportrait.jpg


text:
It's Beginning To And Back Again

It's Beginning To And Back Again, also known by its acronym IBTABA, is the sixth studio album by the British post-punk group Wire, released in May 1989 by Mute Records.

The title of the album derives from the lyrics of the third song, "German Shepherds". Half of the album consists of reinterpretations of live performances of material from the band's previous record, A Bell Is a Cup...Until It Is Struck. The recordings are "based on performances in Chicago, Portugal and London." Live tracks were deconstructed in the studio and remixed by Wire. The album contains the single "Eardrum Buzz", which was the band's most successful single in their history, charting at #2 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart and #68 in the UK.

Recording
Wire started recording It's Beginning To And Back Again in November 1988 at Kitsch Studios in Brussels, Belgium. The sessions would last one month and included live recordings from June and October 1988, taped at the Metro in Chicago and Pavilhão do Belenenses in Lisbon. Instead of cleaning up the live recordings for release, Wire started from scratch, overdubbing new instruments and removing crowd noise. The exercise was to explore the 'live album' form. Wire's Colin Newman has explained that the band "took the recordings from the Metro in Chicago and Lisbon and took off everything but the drums and vocals, and played along to it, playing everything else again. The concept was that it was a band doing 'a remix-by-playing'."

The album includes alternate versions of five tracks originally released on Wire's previous two albums; plus "German Shepherds", which had been released in June 1988 as the B-side to the "Silk Skin Paws" single; and the previously unreleased "Eardrum Buzz" and "Illuminated". Since the project was unlikely to produce any chart-bound tracks, Mute Records' Daniel Miller had asked the band to record some potential singles, separately from the recording of the album. "Eardrum Buzz" (12" version), "In Vivo" and "The Offer" were therefore recorded at Terminal 24 Studios in London prior to the Brussels sessions and appeared as bonus tracks on the CD release of the album.

Critical reception
AllMusic retrospectively gave the album 4 out of 5 stars, writing, "while the record is respectable on its own terms, it's impossible to discern its relevance – neither a true live album nor a remix collection, its original intentions remain lost in the translation." Trouser Press felt that "the studio trickery was more inspired than the music."

Stereogum ranked it 8th (out of 15) in their 2015 "Wire Albums from Worst to Best" list, writing, "As the centerpiece of Wire's second act, IBTABA reaches neither zenith nor nadir, as the band seemingly opts for having fun rather than breaking ground.

Track listing
All tracks written by Bruce Gilbert, Robert Gotobed, Graham Lewis and Colin Newman.

Personnel
Adapted from the album liner notes.

 * Wire
 * Colin Newman
 * Graham Lewis
 * Bruce Gilbert
 * Robert Gotobed
 * Production
 * Paul Kendall – production, engineer, mixing [1–8]
 * John Fryer – production, mixing [1–8]
 * Wire – production [1–8]
 * Rico Conning – engineer, mixing [9–11] (at Terminal 24 Studios)
 * Designland – sleeve Layout

title: It's Beginning To And Back Again


text: Category:500 BC

title: Category:500 BC


text:
Talk:Lichfield

Hi Edward Smith was not from lichfield,

I have moved him to items of interest because his statue is in beacon park. can people stop putting him in

scu98rkr

Edit war
It seems like an edit war is going on?

It is indeed - check out scu98rkr's talk page!

Another edit war between 24.90.237.107 and 86.146.233.61 appears to be in progress over which image of the Cathedral to use. Both look to be good images, so I am not sure why there is a disagreement. Suggest both parties discuss on this page their different viewpoints. Jschwa1 (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Hi,

I agree, I think both pictures are good. I like the light on the original photograph, however, I thought it was important to show a picture with all 3 spires as this is what makes the cathedral so special. I don't have any very strong objection to the original though, they are your photographs, I'll let you decide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.237.107 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Place-name meaning
This is disputed. --Sunfazer |Talk  14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way? 82.10.34.16 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The lastest history books on lichfield and mercia suggest that the place name has derived from lectocetum. I can get a reference if needed.

Are you deisputing that lectocetum is not grey wood in celtic ? I think its trying to suggest that the roman name lectocetum is in some way related to the local british dialet word for grey wood. Not that is actually is grey wood in some celtic langauage.

Is this what you are disputing ?

Waste Management
Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The theory that lichfield developed from meaning field of the dead has long been renounced. Although im sure it may has had some effect on the later spelling of the name. This theory is covered in other items of interest.

scu98rkr

Welsh name
As this is the English language wikipedia and Lichfield is in England is this really appropriate?Njd.1892 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was known as Luitcoyt in Roman and Romarno British times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.51.32 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New housing development and Waitrose
The current text gives the impression that Waitrose has been built on the site of the old cricket ground. This is not correct. The Kensington Oval housing development is situated on this site. Waitrose is situated at the opposite end of the new development. I have not changed the text, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.199.93 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lichfield. 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100403045115/http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/geography/products/geog-products-area/names-codes/administrative/index.html to http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/geography/products/geog-products-area/names-codes/administrative/index.html

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) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision/updating of article
In recent weeks I've been trying to improve the style and grammar of the article; this is still a work in progress, but I think I've now addressed many of the specific concerns identified when the article was reviewed for GA status back in 2011.

The reviewer then also identified the need for additional source citations in some sections; can anyone, with better access to Lichfield-related sources than me, help with this?

There are also quite a few areas badly in need of updating: the sections on politics will have to be revised after the forthcoming elections, and some of the information in the sports section is clearly out of date. There may well be other sections requiring similar attention.

I love Lichfield, but am not a resident, and so it is difficult for me to do much more to the article. Are there any Lichfeldians (or others with good access to source material) who would be willing to pitch in and do some updating/revision? Chronarch (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lichfield. 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/20110727004018/http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html to http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lichfield. 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/20110724162428/http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc-statistics.ihtml to http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc-statistics.ihtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724162428/http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc-statistics.ihtml to http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc-statistics.ihtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717103042/http://www.midcomb.com/tables/premier.php to http://www.midcomb.com/tables/premier.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306091043/http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/twinning.ihtml to http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/twinning.ihtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lichfield. 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 tag to http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/new-mayor-and-sheriff-of-lichfield-sworn-in/story-30334895-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715073152/http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc-structure.ihtml to http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc-structure.ihtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423113052/http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc.ihtml to http://www.lichfield.gov.uk/cc.ihtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625013319/http://www.lichfieldbower.co.uk/the-bower-and-it-s-origins/ to http://www.lichfieldbower.co.uk/the-bower-and-it-s-origins/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112144506/http://www.lichfieldfestival.org/about-us/ to http://www.lichfieldfestival.org/about-us/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723094630/http://www.lichfieldfolkfestival.co.uk/minisite/minisite_home.aspx to http://www.lichfieldfolkfestival.co.uk/minisite/minisite_home.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110222024612/http://www.lichfieldarts.org.uk/rajb.asp to http://www.lichfieldarts.org.uk/rajb.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

2021 census data
Someone please remind me to update all the 2011 census data to 2021 census data. Alternatively, do it yourself if you have time JjStrawb (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Just reminding myself to fix one of the images which I’ve messed up on mobile. Also, update some census data that I missed 81.99.122.89 (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lichfield


text: Category:503 BC

title: Category:503 BC


text: Category:506 BC

title: Category:506 BC


text:
Indian Federal Democratic Party

The Indian Federal Democratic Party was a political party in India. In the 2004 Lok Sabha elections IFDP won one seat from Kerala P. C. Thomas Defeating Jose K. Mani of Kerala Congress (M). That was the first parliamentary electoral victory of a National Democratic Alliance member in the state.

On 2005, IFDP merged with the Kerala Congress of P. J. Joseph. A breakaway faction of IFDP led by M. P. George split from the party. In 2014, this faction merged with All India Forward Bloc.

title: Indian Federal Democratic Party


text:
User:Threshold

New at Wikipedia
My first contributions were made a few weeks ago under the nickname "DrWorld", but I quit after discovering it was being used outside Wikipedia for offensive or unfit purposes. Therefore, I am not using that name any more.

Although I have got some spare time to contribute, for now, I am just trying the tools and getting used to rules, and basic tricks.

More info about me will be coming.

Current centre of interest
For some time, in the search for a comprehensive approach to general systems analysis, systems design, systems construction and systems deployment, I have been elaborating on the Christopher Alexander's core concept of synthesis of form. On my view, this core concept, looks at the inner nature of systems (whatever their sort), as they having the structure induced by the entropy exchanged among their components. I will appreciate any input, comment or whatever on the topic that I opened at the articles Notes on the Synthesis of Form and Talk:Notes on the Synthesis of Form.

title: User:Threshold


text: Category:509 BC

title: Category:509 BC