text: User talk:129.123.23.101

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

title: User talk:129.123.23.101


text:
Cipriani Potter

Philip Cipriani Hambly Potter (3 October 1792 – 26 September 1871) was an English musician. He was a composer, pianist, conductor and teacher. After an early career as a performer and composer, he was a teacher in the Royal Academy of Music in London and was its principal from 1832 to 1859.

Early years
Potter was born in London to a musical family. He was the third son of the seven children of Richard Huddleston Potter (1755–1821), a flautist, violinist, and teacher, and his wife, Charlotte, née Baumgarten (1757–1837). The name Cipriani, by which he was known throughout his life, came from his godmother, who was said to have been a sister of the artist Giovanni Battista Cipriani.

When Potter was seven his musical instruction began, first with his father and then with Thomas Attwood, William Crotch and, from 1805 to 1810, Joseph Wölfl. The last, who, like Attwood, was a former pupil of Mozart, is considered by the biographer Philip Olleson to have been the teacher who most influenced the young Potter. At 21 Potter was accepted as an associate member of the recently founded Philharmonic Society, and was elected to full membership in 1815. The following year the society commissioned an overture in E minor from him, and he featured in subsequent concerts both as composer and performer. He made his debut as a pianist in his own sextet for piano, flute, and strings, Op. 11, another commission from the society, in April 1816.

Vienna and concert career
In 1817, Potter travelled to Vienna, where he stayed for eight months, before moving on to other cities in Austria and Germany and then going to Italy. Looking back at Potter's life, the composer and academic Sir George Macfarren observed in 1884 that Potter's temporary residence in continental Europe was "as much for the purpose of study as for the sake of obtaining experience of other musical performances than were to be heard in London. At that time London was not, as it is now, the centre of all that is to be heard in music."

In Vienna, Potter met Beethoven, who approved of him but declined to teach him composition, advising him to study with Aloys Förster. Beethoven nevertheless read some of Potter's compositions and gave him his comments. Potter later published an article, "Recollections of Beethoven" in Musical World, making clear his great admiration and affection. During his time in Italy, Potter developed an admiration of Italian opera, and particularly the works of Rossini. Twelve years later he wrote Variazioni di bravura on a theme by Rossini, using a melody from Matilde di Shabran.

Returning to England in 1819, Potter became a central figure in London concert life as both a pianist and conductor. He regularly programmed the piano concertos of Mozart, which were scarcely known in London: there had been only six performances of a Mozart piano concerto there before Potter's return. He gave regular performances of at least nine of them. He also gave the English premieres of Beethoven's Third and Fourth piano concertos.

Royal Academy of Music and later years
In 1822, Potter began teaching at the newly founded Royal Academy of Music, first piano and later conducting the orchestra. In 1832 he became principal, holding the post for 27 years, a tenure surpassed in length only by that of Alexander Mackenzie. His students included Laura Wilson Barker, Joseph Barnby, William Sterndale Bennett and Edward Collett May. As he focused more on his educational work and preparing editions of Mozart and Beethoven keyboard music, he composed less and less often. There are few works written after 1837. He maintained a keen interest in new music from the continent, championing the works of Schumann and, in his later years, Brahms. According to Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, "Potter's influence as a teacher was great; a man of ready wit and generosity, he was much admired and loved." Among his students were Henry Charles Banister, Laura Wilson Barker, Joseph Barnby, William Sterndale Bennett and William Henry Holmes. In 1849 he was invited by the Bach Society to become their Honorary Auditor, promoting Bach's organ music.

In 1871 Potter's last appearance in concert was in the first British performance of Brahms's German Requiem, in the version with two-piano accompaniment, with the pianist Kate Loder. He died on 26 September of that year at his home near Hyde Park, London, and was buried at Kensal Green Cemetery.

Orchestral
Potter seems to have adopted two separate systems for the numbering of his symphonies of which nine are extant, the same total being quoted in contemporary commentary: one based on the order of composition (hence those styled 1, 6, 7, 8 and 10) and another based on key (hence the G minor symphony of 1832 is also styled number 2, i.e. the second G minor symphony whilst the two D major symphonies are styled numbers 2 and 4, i.e. the second and fourth D major symphonies). Thus it is possible to surmise that several works, including both a first and a third D major symphony, were lost or destroyed. This has led to considerable confusion which the following list seeks to clarify by adopting a simple chronology.

 * Overture in E minor (1815, revised 1848)
 * Symphony [No. 1] in G minor (1819, revised 1824–26 & 1833) [styled No. 1 by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 2] in B♭ major (1821, revised 1839) [unnumbered by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 3] in C minor (1826) [styled No. 6 by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 4] in F major (1826) [styled No. 7 by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 5] in E♭ major (1828, revised 1846 with replacement slow movement) [styled No. 8 by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 6] in G minor (1832) [styled both No. 10 and No. 2 in G minor by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 7] in D major (1833) [styled No. 2 in D major by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 8] in C minor (1834) [unnumbered by the composer]
 * Symphony [No. 9] in D major (1834) [styled No. 4 in D major by the composer]
 * Antony and Cleopatra, overture (1835)
 * Cymbeline, overture (1836)
 * The Tempest overture (1837)
 * March (1854)

Concertante

 * Introduction and Rondo Alla Militaire for piano and orchestra (1827)
 * Duo concertante for piano, violin and orchestra (1827)
 * Concertante for violin, cello, double bass, piano and orchestra on Les folies d'Espagne
 * Bravura Variations on a theme by Rossini for piano and orchestra (1829)
 * Ricercata 'on a favourite French theme for piano and orchestra (1830)
 * Piano Concerto in D minor (1832)
 * Piano Concerto in E♭ major (1833)
 * Piano Concerto in E major (1835)

Chamber

 * Grand Trios for clarinet, bassoon and piano
 * * No.1 in E♭ major
 * * No 2 in D major
 * * No 3 in B♭ major
 * Piano trio, Op. 12 (c. 1824)
 * Sonata di bravura for horn and piano, Op. 13 (alternative version for bassoon, cello and piano) (c. 1824)
 * Sextet for flute, string quartet and piano, Op. 11 (c. 1827)
 * Sextet in E♭ major, for flute, cello, viola cello, bouble basse and piano (1836)
 * String Quartet in G major (1837)

Piano
(Solo except where otherwise stated)
 * 3 Waltzes in German Style (1816)
 * Recueil de valzers (1816)
 * Trio, piano 5 hands (c. 1816)
 * Andante "La placidità" (1817)
 * Sonata in C major, Op. 1 (1818)
 * Variations on Mozart's "Fin ch'han dal vino", Op. 2 (1816)
 * Sonata in D major, Op. 3 (1818)
 * Sonata in E minor Op. 4 (1818)
 * Polonaise (1818)
 * Rondeau (1818)
 * Thirteen Variations, on "Bekränzt mit Laub" (c. 1818)
 * Rondeau brillant [no.1] (c. 1818)
 * Fantasia, March and Trio (c. 1820)
 * Grand duo, piano 4 hands, Op. 6 (c. 1821)
 * Fantasia, on "Chi dice mal d'amore" (c. 1822)
 * Mes rêveries (c. 1823)
 * Le départ de Vienne (c. 1823)
 * Pezzi di bravura, Op. 15 (c. 1824)
 * Andante and Allegretto "Il compiacente", Op. 16 (c. 1824)
 * The Parade, military divertimento, Op. 17 (c. 1824)
 * Impromptu, on the Scottish air "Auld Robin Gray", Op. 8 (1825)
 * Enigma Variations, Op. 5 (c. 1825)
 * 3 Toccatas, Op. 9
 * Studies in All the Major and Minor Keys, Op. 19 (1826)
 * Introduction and Rondo giocoso, Op. 20 (c. 1826)
 * Introduction and Variations, with coda and cadenza (c. 1826)
 * Allegro di bravura "Il vispo e la fuggita" (before 1827)
 * Rondeau brillant no.2, Op. 21 (1827)
 * Fugue in E major for 3 pianos (1827)
 * Fantasia and Fugue for 2 pianos (c. 1818)
 * 54 Impromptus, Op. 22 (1832)
 * Celebrated Octave Lesson (1834–48)
 * Introduction and Variations, on "Alice Gray" (before 1837)
 * Impromptu in B♭ (1841)
 * 3 amusements, Op. 28 (c. 1848–51)
 * Impromptu in D (c. 1850)
 * Introduction and Rondoletto, Op. 23 (c. 1851)
 * Impromptu in G major and G minor
 * Eine Grille (1868)
 * Rondo scherzando "Il sollievo" (undated)

Vocal

 * When evening draws her curtain round, for voice and piano (c. 1817)
 * No More, canzonet, for voice and piano (1825)
 * Medora e Corrado, cantata for solo voices, chorus and orchestra (1830)
 * Source: Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians.

In the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Philip Olleson writes that Potter's most productive period as a composer was between his return to Britain 1819 and 1837 after which he produced hardly any music. Olleson comments that although in the list of Potter's works those for solo piano greatly outnumber his other compositions, it is the nine surviving symphonies that are the most important, and show "many effective touches of orchestration and a good deal of counterpoint and imitation". In the article on Potter in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Philip Peter and Julian Rushton express regret that Potter gave up composing, and consider some of his works "masterly": they instance "at least half a dozen of the symphonies", the G major String Quartet, the Sextet for flute, clarinet, viola, cello, double bass and piano and the three overtures to plays by Shakespeare.

The musicologist Lewis Foreman comments that Potter's was the first body of symphonic works by a British composer. In Foreman's view, the symphonies are, for their time, ambitious in their use of the orchestra, showing the influence of early Beethoven, and reminiscent of Schubert's symphonies although the latter were completely unknown in Britain at the time.

Commercial recordings of works by Potter

 * Symphony No. 1 in G minor. BBC National Orchestra of Wales, Howard Griffiths, CPO 555 274-2
 * Symphony No. 7 [also listed above as No. 4, 1826] in F major. Czech Chamber Philharmonic Orchestra, Douglas Bostock, OCLC 767869392
 * Symphony No. 8 [also listed above as No. 5, 1828] in E-flat. Milton Keynes Chamber Orchestra, Hilary Davan Wetton OCLC 28508988
 * Symphony No. 10 [also listed above as No. 6, 1832] in G minor. Milton Keynes Chamber Orchestra, Hilary Davan Wetton OCLC 28508988
 * Cymbeline overture. BBC National Orchestra of Wales/Howard Griffiths, CPO 555 274–2
 * Introduzione e Rondo (alla militaire) for Piano and Orchestra. Claire Huangci (piano), BBC National Orchestra of Wales, Howard Griffiths, CPO 555 274–2
 * Piano concerto No. 2 in D minor. Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, Howard Shelley OCLC 993050841
 * Piano concerto No. 4 in E major. Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, Howard Shelley OCLC 993050841
 * Variazioni di bravura on a theme by Rossini. Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, Howard Shelley OCLC 993050841
 * Sonata di bravura for horn and piano. Louis-Pierre Bergeron (natural horn); Meagan Milatz (fortepiano). 2023 ATMA Classique ACD22864.
 * Sonata di bravura for horn and piano. John Stobart (horn); Barbro Jansson (piano) OCLC 648758081
 * Source: WorldCat.

title: Cipriani Potter


text:
Ramon Lazkano

Ramon Lazkano (born 26 June 1968) is a contemporary French and Spanish Basque composer of classical music.

Career
Born in San Sebastián, Basque Country, Spain, in 1968, Lazkano attended piano and composition classes at the San Sebastián Higher Conservatory of Music, where he obtained a Higher Degree in Composition. Holding a Gipuzkoako Foru Diputazioa scholarship, he was accepted at the Conservatoire National Supérieur de Musique of Paris, where he studied composition and orchestration with Alain Bancquart and Gérard Grisey, and was awarded a First Prize of Composition in 1990. A Sasakawa Foundation Scholarship allowed him to follow the studies of composition and analysis in Montreal with Gilles Tremblay. At his return to Paris, he studied orchestra conducting with Jean-Sébastien Béreau and Arturo Tamayo, and received a DEA degree in 20th Century Music and Musicology from the'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.

His piano concerto Hitzaurre Bi earned him, at the age of 26, the prestigious Prince Pierre de Monaco Foundation Prize. Shortly afterwards, in 1997, a jury chaired by Luciano Berio gave him the Leonard Bernstein-Jerusalem Composition Prize for his Auhen Kantuak. In 2007, the French Academy of Fine Arts gives him the Georges Bizet Award; he was also a prizewinner of the Institute of Music and Drama Arts, the Colegio de España, and the Gaudeamus Foundation. While resident with the Joven Orquesta Nacional de España, he had the opportunity of composing several pieces which were performed, among others, at the Auditorio Nacional in Madrid and Berlin Konzerthaus. Stanford University invited him in 1999 to introduce his music and that same year he was appointed, along with Luis de Pablo, resident at the Musica Festival and the Strasburg Conservatoire. His residence in Rome (first as a scholar of the, then of the Villa Medici French Academy in Rome) allowed him to carry out a reflection on what composition is and what it means today, focusing mainly on thoughts about intertextuality and the saturation, silence and experience of sound and time, all of which giving birth to emblematic pieces such as Ilunkor (commissioned by the Euskadiko Orkestra Sinfonikoa) and Lur-Itzalak (commissioned by the Printemps des Arts of Monte Carlo).

His works have been played in many countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, Spain, Italy, Ukraine, Denmark, United Kingdom, Russia, USA, Austria, and others) in the framework of prestigious festivals such as: Musica (Strasbourg), Ars Musica (Brussels), Festival d’Automne (Paris), Éclat (Stuttgart), Witten (Germany), Présences in Radio-France, Philharmonic Green Umbrella New Music series (Los Angeles), Gaudeamus Muziekweek (Amsterdam), International Society of Contemporary Music (Copenhagen), Festival of Contemporary Music (Alicante, Spain). His music has been played by such renowned orchestras and ensembles as, among others, the Philharmonic Orchestra of Radio France, the Symphony Orchestra of Jerusalem, the National Orchestra of Spain, the Symphony Orchestra of Euskadi, the Symphony Orchestra of Bilbao, the Spanish Broadcast Symphony Orchestra, the Orchestra of the Teatre Lliure of Barcelona, the ensembles Gaudeamus, Ictus and Accroche Note, the Ensemble Barcelona 216, the Conjunto Ibérico de Violoncellos, Ensemble Wiener Collage. He has been commissioned by the Ministry of Culture (France), the Basque Government, the CDMC (Spain), Radio France, ABRSM of London, the Orquestra de Cadaqués, the Orquesta de la Comunidad de Madrid, and others.

Lazkano gave orchestration lessons at the Strasburg Conservatoire and composition lessons at the Higher Academy of Music of Catalonia in Barcelona. At present, he is professor of orchestration at the Higher Academy of Music of the Basque Country "Musikene".

Orchestra

 * Hondar (2017) for large orchestra
 * Hauskor (2006) for eight cellos & orchestra
 * Ttakun (2005–06)
 * Ortzi Isilak (2005) for clarinet & orchestra
 * Itaun (2003) for accordion & orchestra
 * Hilarriak (2002–2003)
 * Ilunkor (2000–01)
 * Zur-Haitz (1999)
 * Ilgora (1998) for string orchestra
 * Eriden (1997–98) for chamber orchestra
 * Hitzaurre Bi (1993) for piano & orchestra
 * Oskorriz (1990)

Chamber music
Igeltsoen Laborategia (Laboratory of Chalks):
 * Egan-1 (2006) for ensemble
 * Egan-2 (2006–07) for ensemble
 * Egan-3 (2007) for ensemble
 * Wintersonnenwende (2005) for string trio & celesta
 * Wintersonnenwende-2 (2007) for cello and piano: I, II
 * Hatsik-1 (2001) for E♭ clarinet, trombone, cello & piano
 * Hatsik-2 (2002) for alt saxophone, double bass, accordion and percussion
 * Hatsik-3 (2004) for violin, clarinet, alt saxophone and piano
 * Laiotz (2003) five pieces for two pianos and two percussions

Itzalen Zikloa (Cycle of Shadows): Other Chamber Music:
 * Lur-Itzalak (2003) for violin and cello
 * Haize-Itzalak (2002) for string sextet
 * Su-Itzalak (1991) for eight cellos
 * Nahasmahasi (2002) for flute, alt saxophone, guitar, piano and percussion
 * Aurresku (2000) for saxophone quartet, piano & 2 percussions
 * Hizkirimiri (1999) for bass clarinet, guitar, marimba & doublebass
 * Seaska Kanta (Berceuse) (1998) for flute and string quintet (or string orchestra)
 * Ur Loak (1998) for bass flute, contrabass clarinet, two string quintets and two percussions
 * Hodeiertz (1997) pour alt saxophone & percussion
 * Sorginkeriak (1995) for small ensemble
 * Hizpide (1995) for viola, alto flute & guitar
 * Hitzaro (1994) for alto flute & guitar
 * Izotz (1993) for string quartet
 * Eskaintza (1992) for ensemble
 * Bihurketak (1991) for violin, cello and piano
 * Quinteto (1991) for wind quintet
 * Chant III (1990) for bass clarinet, 3 trombones & 3 cellos
 * Chant II (1989) for viola & tape or viola solo & four violas
 * Argilunak (1989) for baryton saxophone & two cellos

Music for solo instruments

 * Zintzilik (2005) for piano 4 hands
 * Presencia (in memoriam Joaquin Homs) (2005) for piano
 * Ezkil (2002) for guitar (with quarter-tone scordatura)
 * Gentle Sway (2002) for piano
 * 4. Bakarrizketa (2000) for piano
 * Zortziko (2000) for piano
 * Sorgindantza (2000) for organ
 * Aztarnak (2000) for accordion
 * Suziri (1999) for piano
 * Seaska Kanta (Berceuse) (1998) for piano
 * Ilargi Uneak (1996) for piano: 1. izar, 2. ekhi, (l. h.), 3. urtzi
 * Otoitz (1996) for clarinet
 * Sonatine (1996) for quarter-tone tuned guitar
 * 3. Bakarrizketa (1996) for flute
 * 2. Bakarrizketa (1993) for guitar
 * Ekhiez (1988) for piano (left hand)

Vocal music

 * Malkoak euri balira (2005) for 12 voices & guitar. Poem by Xabier Lete.
 * Infantia Mea (2004) for eight mixed voices. Lyrics by Saint Augustin.
 * Otoitz baten gisan (2003) for baryton & orgue. Basque poem by Xabier Lete
 * Cinco poemas de Luis Cernuda (2000–02) for voice and cello octet: 1. El Prisionero, 2. El Viento y el Alma, 3. Instrumento Músico, 4. El Sino, 5. El Intruso
 * Canciones de Ausencia (1999) for voice, guitar & cello. Poems by Miguel Hernández
 * The Epilogue (1999) for male choir & ensemble. Lyrics from The Tempest by Shakespeare
 * Auhen Kantuak (1993–95, 1997) for choirs & orchestra. Lyrics based upon Jeremiah's Lamentations and translated into Basque by Itxaro Borda.
 * Les Djinns (1993) for children choir & wind orchestra, after the eponymous poem by Victor Hugo.
 * Hiru seaska kanta eta etsipen abesti bat (1991) for voice & string quartet
 * Madrigal (1991) for five voices. Lyrics by Catule, Cernuda & Gil de Biedma.
 * Leherketa batetako hotsak (1988) for baryton, narrator & ensemble. Poem by Patxi Ezkiaga.

Orchestrations

 * J. C. Arriaga – Ouverture "Los esclavos felices" for the ensemble of Mozart's Gran Partita
 * M. Mussorgsky – Songs & Dances of Death for voice and orchestra
 * F. G. Lorca – Canciones Antiguas Españolasfor voice and ensemble

Writings

 * La guitare dans notre imaginaire in "Guitares croisées – utopie ou réalité?", CNR de Strasbourg, 2004.
 * "Two Feelings" with Helmut Lachenmann in "Contemporary Music Review", vol. 23, September 2004.
 * El sonido como elemento natural de la deducción compositiva in "Ontology Studies – Cuadernos de Ontología", vol. 1–2, 2001.
 * Préliminaires pour une étude de la polyrythmie in "Musiker", vol. 11, 1999.

title: Ramon Lazkano


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner light theory of consciousness

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Inner light theory of consciousness
Marked as a speedy delete, but doesn't really meet the criteria. It may well meet the slow-delete criteria, though. CDC  (talk)  21:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just one of (tens of) millions of books. Website has an Alexa rank of 1,550,000. Plus, it only gets 90 Google hits, and has an Amazon sales rank of 1,250,000th. It's also a bad book: it has a score of 2.5/5. I don't feel inclined to turn Wikipedia into Amazon for nn texts. -Splash 22:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV ad for bush-league book. Fire Star 03:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Fire Star --NeilN 13:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Anetode/archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Amren (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Articles for deletion/Fake color articles
Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Color AfD's
Hi. The mass of colors we voted on before has been undeleted and relisted as individual AfD's. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 01:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

John Nelson (convert)
Anetode, I have no problem with your point (i.e. considered) and have given reasons for changing my vote on this from delete to keep. The point I have been trying to make is that there is no scholarship or research on the existence of John Nelson. He may or may not have existed. All that is known of him is that he is mentioned in passing in a 16th century work that compiled supposed eyewitness accounts in Tripoli. Based on that work, serious and reputable scholars have cited him as an early or first known British convert to islam (and this has been relayed by the BBC and other media outlets). However, to my knowledge, the veracity of the original account has not been examined (and would be extremely difficult to verify). I raise these points because the history of travel literature, going back to Marco Polo, Mandeville or even the Greeks is rife with exaggeration or even fiction designed to appeal to readers in a sensationalistic fashion. Accounts of enslaved British sailors were bestsellers from at least the 17th century. Like Shakespeare's plays, they can not always be relied on as historical sources. --JJay 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. Would you object to "According to Richard Hakluyt's The voyage made to Tripolis, John Nelson was the first English convert to Islam." under a ==Trivia== heading? --Anetode 22:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That's fine, "considered" is fine too. The source, as with everything on the wiki, naturally should be cited. It would be interesting to find out more about Nelson and possible earlier converts. --JJay 23:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yellow hard hat
No, the image was not appropriately licensesd. A "free" image on Wikipedia is not one that Wikipedia has been allowed to use, but one that Wikipedia is allow to distribute freely, so that it can be used for any purpose. The license on that image was restrictive, prohibiting re-sale and use for certain purposes. It would be very helpful if he agreed to license it under the GFDL, but then he'd effectively be giving up the restrictions he explicitly placed on it, so it seems unlikely to happen. ed g2s •  talk  13:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Video Game Screens
Where is it safe to get video games screens like that Xbox 360 thumbnail set you did? I dont want to break copyright laws and such. Taladar 09:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Videogame screenshots are usually the copyrighted property of the game distributer/developer, meaning that any gaming website (IGN, Gamespot, etc.) which uses screenshots is asserting fair use. It is, as far as I understand, acceptable to borrow these screenshots and upload them to Wikipedia, provided that you obey the rules stated on the image tag Template:game-screenshot. --Anetode 09:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks I tried it out and made a similar PS3 screenshot gallery I think I got it to work right. Taladar 13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tourettes guy
Hi Anetode. Further to Howcheng's suggestion and your subsequent comment at Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy, I've also tagged Tourettes guy for deletion - just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to vote there too... Regards, CLW 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: RSoD
Consensus? What consensus? Who? The page survived Votes_for_deletion/Red_screen_of_death and in Talk:Red_screen_of_death nothing of consensus. --Mateusc 00:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please look over the votes at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Red_screen_of_death: six people suggested a merge. On the RSoD talk page, three people suggested a merge. Please add your opinion to the RSoD talk page before you begin reverting and posting accusations. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The page survived on vfd. No {merged} tag was placed in the article, only today you invoked with this. I advise that you nominates the article for VDF/merge again. Your attitude is based on Xbox 360 screen of death and the creation of the article and not in the RSoD article existence. --Mateusc 00:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The VFD was closed with: "The result of the debate was keep or merge, but not delete. Discussion of whether to keep or merge is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)" Also, there is no formalized vote process for mergers (unlike deletions), lets discuss this at the relevant talk pages. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

- By the jokes, I hope you respect the community and not commit impulse merges again. Because I will revert -again- until all the processes of consensus in the Wikipedia are finished. --Mateusc 11:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't launch these empty platitudes at me, *you* do not represent the entire Wikipedia community. Further, the merges were made as good faith efforts to improve the coverage of the SoD topic, and the decision behind proceeding with them was made with consideration of talk page discussions. You did not offer any objections to the mergers proposed on these talk pages before I acted, am I supposed to somehow read your mind? Also, your threats of an edit war are absolutely pointless, I've stated multiple times that I have no intent in getting involved in some childish revert-battle. --anetode¹ ² ³ 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * This is apparently going to have to come to a vote, which I fear will then be followed by a violent edit war. You know of anyone else who'd be willing to help out with this mess? --InShaneee 17:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I posted a link to the dispute on the videogame wikiproject, and Mateusc posted one at WP:3O. Hopefully these will attract a level-headed mediator. --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of a mediator, I'm going to see what I can do as far as mediating goes. Can you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Kameo:_Elements_of_Power
Sorry but you can not replace the Boxart of a videogame for another image in the infobox. See WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games for more details. (Or see many videogames articles around...) --Mateusc 11:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the image I placed in the infobox is the box art. It is an official rendition of the cover art that was released for free use in a fansite kit (http://kameo.com/RoyalFun/FansiteSupport). Please examine Image:Kameo_boxart.jpg vs. Image:Kameo_cover.jpg. --anetode

GMA Films
Presumably, 202.65.191.134's deletions were done to respond to my point that the article, as he/she previously had it, was too much company propaganda. With the deletions, the article actually reads more NPOV and better, I think. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Nlu 09:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith
Trust me. I don't have nothing against you, nothing personal. I'm the uploader of toons of others boxsheets including games with Fansite Kit (Dungeon Siege II/Dungeon Siege). I think that in terms of source you are right. But it's bad see specifications and standards of a project (WPCVG) start fall in days. I think that we must hear all the WPCVG community before starting replace all covers that exist fankit/source images. Thanks. --Mateusc 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry afterall for all incovenience. I will leave for community decide this. --Mateusc 18:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

4.242.*.*
Who knows... I don't really try to analyze their motivations. -- Curps 07:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for supporting me for adminship. The RfA passed today. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better place. --Nlu 05:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Thanks for reverting the 'accusations' on my talk page; Jeff returns periodically avoiding his permanent block, pretending to be someone else while trying to embellish his page with what he considers flattering information. Unfortunately he acts in such a recognizable way the regular editors of his bio page recognize these edits with ease for what they are. --MJ( ☎ 18:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
 * It was my pleasure, such underhanded attempts to circumvent user blocks do little to reinforce his cause. Good luck in dealing with him in the future. --anetode╔╝ 05:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientology page additions
All of my additions to the to part of the Scientoloy page are veritable. I feel it is inappropriate for you to delete my additions that L Ron Hubbard was an Explorer's Club member and movie script writer among other veritable addition relevant to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.52.165 (talk • contribs)
 * Your "additions" were made at the expense of deleting portions of the article that discussed criticism of scientology. The deletion of whole sections of the article, and the unilateral and dubious nature of your pro-Scientology additions make your motives suspect. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --anetode╟╦╢ 11:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for the deletion fo crical secitions of Scientology in the article. Thank you for re=posting my additions to the article. You have to understand that the whole "Xenu" section has nothing to do with Scientology or any Scientologist. Except in that it is an alleged incedent that is meant to be addressed throught counselling at a certain point on what is known as "the Bridge". It is totally irrelevent to the doctrines and fundamental beliefs of Scientology and is not a belief of any scientologist or the "huge secret" Scientology's critics make it out to be, in an attempt to make Scientology look like a foolish belief system in aliens. I personally find such a post as this "Xenu" section offensive and irrelevant to the subjuect of Scientology as a Religion, which is what this page is supposed to be. This is my viewpoint on the matter, and I do appreciate your actions in attempting to be a fair arbitrator of this Wikipedia page. But to make a comparison, if I posted a section on the Christianity Wikipedia page that described at length the Essene Gospel scripture (which may or may not be fabricated or altered much like the Xenu story) that describes Jeses having sex with a young boy, I'm sure it would be looked at as religious bigotry and too irrelevant to the subject of Christianity as a religion to be posted on the page.

My opinion may not be popular, since I have seen few postings to the Scientology page that are not done by critics of Scientology or ex-Scientologists, but only ask you to consider my opinion and to do what you percieve as just as an arbitrator to the Scientology Wikipedia page. Once again, I do appreicate you reposting my veritable comments about L Ron Hubbard's other professions, and I do not wish to sound antagonistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.52.165 (talk • contribs)
 * I am not an arbitrator, nor any sort of protector of the page. I will, however, revert any vandalism, including contributions that try to delete cited info or attempt to obfuscate articles. If you have a qualm with the Xenu section, or any other part of the Scientology article, please discuss it at Talk:Scientology. On a side note, the Essene Gospel was not Christian scripture, but a hoax perpetrated by Edmund B. Szekeley, who attributed it to the Essenes, a Judaic sect. This "gospel" is not irrelevant, but it is also not verifiable. --anetode╟╦╢ 11:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL's RFA
Hi Anetode, I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. All hail Discordia! --GraemeL (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please help save article RuneScape cheats
I have appreciated your help with stopping vandals very much. Jagex employees are now pushing for an official delete of the article. Please comment on the talk page so it isn't destroyed.Jonathan888 (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ken Kutaragi
I'm requesting your opnion about this dispute. Lot of POV-Pushing, the article is currently blocked. --GroundZero 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Alkhemi and Aladin
Hi, back in October05 you participated in the deletion-discussion about a company called Alkhemi, which was subsequently deleted with your vote. Now the same deletion question is posed for another article about the man behind Alkhemi, a magician who calls himself Aladin. Despite being a truly bad article (extremely biased, outrages claims are made, and the sources used to back up those claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion to make the subject sound like the second coming of the christ), the vote is so far flooded with "keep" votes, which might be because of dozens of sockpuppets, so I'd like to invite you to add your vote about this matter to tip the balance. The vote is here. Thank you :-) Peter S. 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

David L Cook Article
Anetode, we would like to thank you for your help with the David L cook article. we were having a great deal of trouble with Wikipediatrix. She was surely not an easy individual to deal with. We finally got to the point where we just allowed her to write the article how she wanted it and we did the revisions we felt were waranted. You were a diplomat during that and we just wanted to thank you for your help and understanding. --iamascorp 5:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:YamahaBassGuitar.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:YamahaBassGuitar.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Sherool (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have assigned the taskforce item Cleanup Taskforce/Spore to your desk for copy editing and a general tune-up. Thanks.  haz  (user talk) e

Xbox 360 pic
Hey it's Delta Elite, I'd like to upload my pic of the 360 breaking down, but i just got this account and honestly, don't know how to do that. If you could help me, that would be great. Thanks. Delta Elite 22:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

pic @ Bill Gates
Thanks for sorting that - the vandal placed a double edit which I missed :-( Agathoclea 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OneUp Studios
I recently created an article about OneUp Studios that was shut down. I re-opened with out realizing that I got a message saying why it was shut down. I apologize for that. But I do have a few questions about it. The reason for shutting it down was, and I quote,

"We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as OneUp Studios, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.oneupstudios.com/faq.php. As a copyright violation, OneUp Studios appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. OneUp Studios has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

Now I am not completely familiar with the rules here I Wikipedia but I know that the part that was a direct copies title was, "An Excerpt From OneUp Studios FAQs." If you noticed that and it was not an acceptable then I apologize again. If so than how would you like me to cite it, in bibliography form?

Also, you said, "Note also that Wikipedia is not a proper place to publicize a business as articles have to meet certain notability guidelines." I do not understand that either. I am in no was affiliated with OneUp Studios beyond being I member of their forum. My purpose of creating this was not to advertise them, but have an easy to reach database of information of them.

Kcirtap1990 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 "Simply put, if you quote a significant chunk of text that was written by somone other than yourself and used in a commercial venture, you're violating copyright. Wikipedia is not a forum but a publication, one that requires that all the text contained within be original. Now you can link to the FAQ, even summarize what questions are addressed in the FAQ, but you can't just reprint it verbatim.

''As for the "publicize" comment, there are some standards of notability (fame or infamy) that the potential subject of an article must possess. Your article might still be deleted, or nominated for deletion, unless you can provide evidence that the OneUps satisfy one of several specific eligibility requirements. Otherwise, as you might imagine, every garage band and kid with a turntable might put up an article about their band, and Wikipedia is not MySpace.''

''I understand that you're new here, and I'm sorry if these laws and requirements seem daunting or obtuse, but people on Wikipedia tend to be pretty vigilant about following them and new articles are often challenged or simply deleted. If you need any help or are confused about these guidelines, feel free to post a note on my talk page or at Newcomers_help_page. Also, here are a few helpful links:''

Five pillars Tutorial What Wikipedia is not Thank you for the contributions, and good luck on your article!"

I read through the Music - Notability page. OneUp Studios meets more than one of the eiligibility requirments. I am now taking notes from the OneUp Studios FAQs and turning it into a short article. They have been...

 * Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
 * Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

The second one I am not as sure about. They are quite big in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and even bigger in the Video Game music community in the United States. They may apply to more than those two. Also, my wikipedia that I was trying to make is not only about the band, The OneUps, it is about all of OneUp Studios.

Kcirtap1990 11:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

re: the Dianetics introduction
your edit summary states: "Anetode (Talk | contribs) (reworded part of the lead sentense. it's important to mention the diagnosis of mental problems as hubbard's methodology differs from modern psychology)" And I want to say, the introduction of that article has been a main discussion for some while on its discussion page. Dianetics is not "mental therapy" though Hubbard's early (1950's) presentation of it, with the "patient" on a couch, much resembled mental therapy at the time. But even in those days Hubbard preferred the term "therapy" to "mental therapy" and it isn't presented as a "mental therapy." Today the Dianetics website ] doesn't present it as a therapy at all. Please feel completely free to introduce the concepts of the differences, please feel completely free to edit the article to suit your understanding of "Dianetics" but please discuss changes to the introduction on Talk:Dianetics because it has been a major point of contention for a long time. Thank you. Terryeo 11:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hubbard's semantic posturing is largely irrelevant. As I noted on the talk page, what matters most is providing unbiased coverage of what Dianetics is perceived as. It is currently viewed as a type of therapy, albeit a controversial and largely discredited one. My edit elaborated on this by stating that Dianetics is a "method of diagnosis and treatment of psychological problems". Whatever Dianetics is presented as in Scientology, it still serves the same function. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 00:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that you said so, Anetode. I'm not sure how to approach the subject with you because the Dianetics website says nothing at all about "diagnosis" nor does it mention "treatment" nor "psychologogical problems" and so I'm at a loss of what the entry point of communication with you would be. Are you saying that Dianetics does some diagnosis but calls it a different word, or some kind of treatment but calls it a different term, or some sort of clarification, analysis or codification of psychological problems but calls them by different terms?  Or are you saying instead that Dianetics is viewed that way, no manner what wordage Hubbard used? Terryeo 00:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'm glad I understand too. What Diagnosis does Dianetics do? I actually don't know of any, nor any treatment of psychological problems based on such diagnosis.  If there is a primary source on this, then it should probably be included in the introduction of the Dianetics article. Terryeo 00:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You stated about this introduction, stated to me, "As I noted on the talk page, what matters most is providing unbiased coverage of what Dianetics is perceived as" and I want you to understand that is not how Wikipedia suggests articles be introduced. I'm going to do my best to introduce the subject. After that of course, anyone is free to post any controvery or point of view they can support, but the subject needs an introduction of what it is, not how it is perceived to exist.Terryeo 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It would hardly be encyclopedic to introduce Dianetics as "a dubious therapy" because "dubious" is an evaluation. Better, don't you think, to introduce Dianetics, more or less as its website introduces it, monitored by the experience and viewpoint of many editors.  And then, after its introduction, present by verifications and publications, its "dubious" (or any other) nature? Terryeo 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your post on my page, "pissing in the wind" kind of sounds like a second dismissal. My point is that Dianetics should be introduced.Terryeo 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tactical shooter
Thanks for your suggestion. I came across a very cheap copy of Delta Force in my local toy store. It's a bit fire heavy and lacks the stealth I like, but I like it nonetheless. SWAT 3 appears to be sold no longer in my local shops (They only have SWAT 4 which I can't run) so I'll try buying that online. Do you know of any free stealth/tactical games I could download somewhere? - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anetode/archive 1


text:
Wikipedia talk:Zap

This is duplicated at WP:XD, and might be better discussed in that more unified forum. -Splash 21:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any objections to moving this to XD6? Radiant_ >|< 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Only that cross-namespace redirects are generally Considered Bad (although that's received wisdom; I can't point at why), and we ought not to be proposing their adoption. But no harming in moving it and thnking about it. -Splash 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not policy
No, no, no, this is not a policy proposal! I'll not disturb the tag, if the tagging editor feels a need for it -- but in no way does this page purport to establish any kind of policy. We don't need more policy. We need to use what we have.

Policy says, "This is how we do things around here." Zapping is an individual action -- and has always been available within current policy. I've just made the action a bit more explicit, added a catchy name, icon, and a few tools to make the job go more smoothly.

I've given some suggestions to the individual who contemplates zapping a page. These also are not new policy of any kind, but merely an explanation of how current policy applies to this kind of action.

This is not a policy proposal. It is a formal statement of an existing method for management of questionable content. That's all. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:56, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Not XD, either
Woo! I just had a look at XD. What a complicated mess! Zapping has nothing to do with this, either. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:59, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Problem
One problem I can see with this method is that if the title of a newly created article contains copyvio's, or personal attacks, or disparages the subject, then it can't be kept, even as a redirect page; copyvio's especially, as these have to be deleted. Rob Church Talk 23:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Then delete it. Zapping does not hinder this materially. You should try to understand that you can let something stew on XfD for a week and delete it -- but there is nothing you can do to delete the cached versions in so very many places outside of this Project. By that point, it's too late. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:35, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Sandbox being vandalised
How does one know when they redirect a page to the sandbox that it hasn't been vandalised? Frequently the sandbox has content that may offend and I don't think it is a appropriate to send someone to a page and have them confronted with a giant penis because they made a page about their dog.

And also as yet reading through the proposal I have no idea what this page is intended for. Vandalism? Pages that violate Wikipedia is not? Things that fall under WP:CSD? Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it is intended for everything anyone wants to otherwise delete. -Splash 23:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Definitely not. Half the problem with this Community is selfish editors acting out their biases. I don't really care if you want to delete something. Act on behalf of our cornerstone goals.

 * Deletion, speedy or otherwise, is always inappropriate for expressing your disagreement with anything. So is zapping. So is page blanking. So is barging in and editing the matter to suit yourself.

 * The only appropriate editing in this Community (with the possible exception of your user page) is editing that promotes the goals of the Project. Zap, if you dare, only if you are pretty damn sure that this action must have this effect.

 * The other half of the problem with this Community is wise editors afraid to employ their good judgement. We need more editors willing to exercise individual good judgement. There is no substitute for this. A hundred timid fools do not somehow equal one wise man -- no matter how organized. No process can replace good, mature, responsible, individual action.

 * Since zapping is obviously a drastic step, it's also obvious that it ought only be taken in extreme cases. Unfortunately, we have great wads of these extreme cases coming in the door every day. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:31, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Safer alternative
Whilst I do not particularly support this proposal as a whole, a safer alternative than the sandbox (first impressions count, censorship or not) would be a dedicated protected-page. -Splash 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Fragmented discussion merged from User talk:Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions. — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:02, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) I, for one, would consider redirecting an article that should be deleted to the sandbox (or some other obviously innapropriate place) to be a form of vandalism. So, it's not really long-established that you can redirect anything anywhere. On the other hand, redirecting to some special "marker" page would be less innapropriate (but still, why not just tagging it for deletion?). --cesarb 23:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirects

 * As Splash says, redirecting across namespaces considered harmful.
 * Then don't do it. New targets have been created for more namespaces. You can create more.

 * Redirecting to the Sandbox is likely to be confusing to at least some of the people who create meaningless little articles.
 * Then don't do that. The method has been changed to indicate redirection to the method page itself.

 * It seems likely to promote awkward edit wars between people who think they are looking at their shiny new articles and people who think they are playing in the sandbox.
 * I think we're past this point now.

 * I also agree with Evil Monkey that you never know what you're going to get in the Sandbox.
 * And this.

 * I don't even want to contemplate the potential for Zap-warring over honestly disputable articles.
 * Then don't do that. Edit warring is always bad.

 * Redirecting an article title to a related article is good. When someone created Hamodialysis with nonsense, it makes total sense to treat it as a misspelling of "hemodialysis" and redirect accordingly. No new tools, no new policy, no new anything needed for this.
 * You're absolutely right. If a related article exists, that is the proper target of a redirect. I can't uphold your statement strongly enough. The only purpose of the Zap family of dummy targets is to serve as redirect targets for page titles that can't possibly be redirected to anything else.

 * If you believe this is the empty set, then this suggests you:

 * 1. Don't zap anything.

 * 2. If Somebody zaps something -- redirects to a Zap dummy target -- find the better redirect target and fix the redirect. Be Bold.

 * Redirecting an article title to an unrelated target increases chaos, not order. Not good.
 * I think some page titles cannot properly be redirected to anything except a dummy target. I'd rather redirect to the Sandbox, the Main Page, Zap, or the creator's User page than strain to find something distantly and inappropriately related (GNAA → Black History Month).

 * Whether or not you want to call it a "policy" or "guideline" or a "set of instructions with tools" is not the point. Putting this list of instructions in the Wikipedia namespace positions it as a recommended practice. I do not believe this practice should be recommended. FreplySpang (talk) 00:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it is certainly not a policy, guideline, or even a set of instructions; it is a set of tools and a description of a currently available method. I tried hard not to recommend zapping to anybody, and anybody who zaps and points to me for justification will be in hot water.

 * Zap at your own risk. Do not zap unless you are thoroughly familiar with all of the policies relevant to your chosen action.

 * I think I'll add that to the page. Better? — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:01, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

 * Okay. All the sandbox-related arguments went away while I was typing. Great. (Redirecting to Zap still likely to be confusing for newbies though.) And no, I am not suggesting that some farfetched target should be contrived for any given article one wants deleted. Nevertheless. Placing a "description of a currently available method" in Wikipedia space, with supporting tools even, has the rhetorical effect of recommending the use of the method. Putting a "don't do this unless you're sure" warning at the top of the page confuses the message but does not overcome it. I still think this "method" page does not belong in Wikipedia: space. FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't just shit on it. Improve it. I challenge you to build, and not merely tear down. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:17, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

 * Not here, thanks. I do not share your fundamental objection to deletion. FreplySpang (talk) 11:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's a wiki -- so fix it

 * You asked for it, you got it. Now, the method specified is to redirect exclusively to dedicated target pages. I thought of this, but I kind of liked the Sandbox.

 * You know, guys, this is a wiki. I don't own the front side of this page. Anybody could have fixed this. (Hell, Somebody did! I guess it's working --X.)

 * As for why not just tagging it for deletion, well, if you want to do that, fine. I want to move objectionable content out of the way as quickly as possible, with a minimum of delay and debate. Obviously this kind of Bold action is only acceptable in extreme cases -- if there's really room for debate, it's inappropriate.

 * After zapping, you can still go right ahead and nominate, debate, vote, close, and beg for an admin to mop up. I won't stop you, and I certainly won't say that zapping something pre-empts further action. Go ahead and let 'er rip.

 * Folks seem to miss the point that anybody who zaps a page takes the entire responsibility for the action on his own head. He does not have a policy to fall back on; nothing on the front side of this page gives anybody special permission to exercise this method. There is no exemption from good conduct. If you're not damn sure it's appropriate to zap, don't do it. — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:15, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

 * You know, this proposal looks like it would fit perfectly as one of the experiments at WP:XD. Then, why creating a separate page for it? Why not just add it to the place where most people interested in such experiments are already looking? --cesarb 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not an experiment; it's an existing method brought to light. This approach has always been available -- all I've done is add tools to make it more coherent. — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:44, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

 * It's not really "available" if it's considered vandalism. The proposal would be to say "no, this is not vandalism if you do it this way". --cesarb 00:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Show me where it says redirection = vandalism. — Xiong 熊 talk * 02:15, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Image redirection
This doesn't work. If you change the image description of to a redirect, you get the old image, but the new image description. And it doesn't change what appears on the articles that use it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I noticed that. What's your solution? How would you improve this method? Upload Image:Zap on top of the bad content? That still preserves the original version in file history (not edit history, but it's linked from the image page). — Xiong 熊 talk * 00:40, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

WonderBread
moved this page to POINT. Sockpuppetry suspected (check his contribs). Reporting on WP:AN/I.

Folks, this is an ugly one... looks like it could be another Wikipedians-for-Decency-level situation. N (t/c) 00:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

One More Time
This is not a policy proposal! I certainly did not write it as such. I don't think it has become a policy proposal. It is completely inappropriate to label it as a proposal!

Oh, I understand the thinking: "If it were a policy proposal, then everybody would hate it. So let's call it a policy proposal, because that's the fastest way to get it shot down." That is jackassed bad-faith. If you think something has merit to be a policy proposal, you propose it. If you don't, you don't.

If this were a policy proposal, then it could not be considered for deletion, since all policy proposals demand the full attention of the entire Community -- for as long as the Community may choose to chew on it, and there is no end to that.

It is pure rat-bastardy to tag this page repeatedly with every damn label you can find -- delete it, propose it as policy, slap a Toby on it, go crazy. At least make up your mind what you think it is -- or better yet, look to the author's stated intentions. It's not hard.

This is nothing but a list of dummy redirect targets and an explanation of how to use them and why you might wish to do so. This is like so many things in this world, which I guess you have to grow up to understand: Personal responsibility is key. You don't -- you can't -- make a policy telling people to take individual action without the sanction of policy and process. That would be madness.

For what I dearly wish was the last time: If you don't understand something, please don't mess with it. Thank You. — Xiong 熊 talk * 19:35, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is a policy proposal, because currently the activities it suggests would be considered vandalism and not permitted. If a page was zapped, it would almost certainly be unzapped and CSDed or VFDed. This page is proposing that zapping be officially recognized as OK, something that there is a consensus against. N (t/c) 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Show me where it says "I propose zapping be officially recognized as OK". Point to that text, or demonstrate a related construction. (I've already challenged the assertion that redirection = vandalism; nobody has answered that, either.) — Xiong 熊 talk * 15:42, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

What is this?
Umm, could somebody explain to me, well, what the purpose of "zapping" is? And give a better description of the process? Right now, I'm confused as to what this is and why somebody would want to do it. Best I can figure out, it looks like a variant on the "pure-wiki deletion" proposal. Is that right? The Literate Engineer 19:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's nothing more than a variant of Experimental deletion, even if the original creator says it isn't. --cesarb 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * So, what benefit does it offer over the present system? I'm trying to figure out why somebody (me, really) would ever want to do this.  Isn't it just an embellishment of page-blanking?  The Literate Engineer 06:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * None. WP:POINT.  Yes.  Hope that helps!  Nandesuka 03:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rejected Policy
Let's look over this. At the VfD everyone voting keep who's not Xiong is saying keep, tag it with rejected, and keep it as an archive of a failed good faith proposal. Xiong says its not a proposal. However, the Wikipedia community has labeled it IS one. Wikipedia is about consensus, and being the original author, unfortunately, doesn't mean anything. May I quote a warning underneath this text box? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Xiong should take this into account and let us keep the rejected on the page. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Head scratching
I don't understand what people are thinking here. There seems to be a basic lack of understanding about what it means to seek endorsement of a statement as "policy". I'm going to try, very seriously, once more, to correct this misunderstanding. Then, I'm going to remove the "failed policy proposal" tag -- again.

Let's illustrate this concept with a simple example. One day I decide that it would be good if I were to wear a stick of butter for a hat. However, I fear to do so -- who knows, people might laugh at me, it might be against the law, maybe I'll be the only one to do it and I'll feel left out of the group. So, I write on a piece of paper: "Wearing of butter hats is permitted." Then, I nail this to the tree in public square. That is a policy proposal.

If a number of people stop, read the paper, and say, "Yes, that's a great idea," then that proposal becomes policy, through a gradual process of increasing community acceptance. Perhaps some stop to sign their names; perhaps others go so far as to edit it to read "Wearing of butter hats is required." It's entirely possible that a mass meeting will be held, speeches in support, the text of the proposal engraved on a plaque and bolted to the wall of city hall.

If more people who read this proposal walk by, ignore it, or perhaps even stop to write comments on the paper such as "This is silly" and "Butter hats draw flies" then the proposal fails. It does not become community policy. This does not mean that I am forbidden to wear a stick of butter on my head, or call it a hat -- forbidding butter hats would be another, distinctly different policy initiative.

However, none of the above applies here. I do not seek community endorsement; I do not fear to walk around with a stick of butter on my head. I don't ask for permisssion, and I certainly don't ask anybody else to join me. All I have done is to put a stick of butter on my head and put up a paper saying, "If you see somebody with a stick of butter on his head, then that is his choice of headgear."

Some of you are confusing a statement with a proposal. A statement just means "This is what I am doing." A proposal means "I think you should do this" or at least "I think you should let me do this". Is that clear?

It is possible for the community to convert a proposal into policy: "We agree; butter hats are okay." It is possible for the community to convert a proposal into failed policy: "We don't agree that butter hats are okay." But it is impossible to convert a mere statement into a failed policy: "We don't agree that Xiong is wearing a stick of butter on his head." That is denial of reality.

One more time, very clearly: Any editor can, at any time, redirect any page to any other location. Cross-namespace redirects have been questioned, but they can still be performed. Redirects within a namespace are a part of normal editing activity; nobody can possibly challenge this directly. Shall I file an RfC against every editor who redirects a page? Maybe I'll just take a 24-hour slice out of Recent Changes and charge that every such editor has vandalizing. I don't think so.

If you don't agree that some redirect of mine is wise, you can revert it. You might want to discuss that on talk. You'll surely read my explanation of why I redirected before you revert, right? And, of course, if you think one of my redirects is in bad faith, then you can always get angry and take action against me. That is why zapping is a personal action, demanding the actor take personal responsibility. If I don't seek Community endorsement of my action before I take it, then I pretty much have to assume all the consequences of my action. You can always attack me for my wrong action -- but it will do no good at all to attack the tool.

Having decided to redirect a page, I created a dummy redirect target, with explanation. This is a mere tool. It will do nobody any good to delete such a target -- none at all; that would lead to chaos. It is safe and sane to have only one dummy redirect target, or at worst, one per namespace. I hope nobody imagines that screwing with this page will have any effect whatever on any editor's ability to redirect a page anywhere he chooses. If cross-namespace redirects are the primary concern, then it's really dumb to go around deleting namespace-specific dummy redirect targets!

Note that when I created this page, I chose the Sandbox as the primary dummy redirect target. Objections were raised -- good ones. That's why Zap itself is now the primary dummy redirect target. If you screw with it enough, then it will become a poor choice, and editors will go looking for another. What's the point?

Remember: If you see somebody, anybody, do something you don't like, go ahead and question that. Don't waste everybody's time questioning the tools he uses or the name he put to the action. Question the action directly.

'''If you see somebody wearing butter on his head, tell him to wash it off before it draws flies. Don't waste time telling him it's not a hat; don't make an ass out of yourself by first calling butter hat wearing a new proposed law, then voting against it.'''

— Xiong 熊 talk * 15:36, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

 * The consensus here is clearly that this is a policy proposal. If you remove the tag, then I (or presumably one of the other several hundred editors reading) will put it back.  I will quote myself from another page in this namespace:"The maze of pages in the Wikipedia: namespace can be extremely confusing and intimidating to new users. Many of them are policies, and many of them are guidelines, and editors refer to items in the namespace them by gnostic-sounding abbreviations constantly. It is unfair to those users to put things in the Wikipedia: space that are neither fish nor fowl without some attempt to indicate what they are looking at."
 * You wrote an article that looks, walks, talks, and quacks like a duck. Your vigorous claims that it is not, in fact, a duck, have been noted, but disagreed with.  If you find it distressing to have other editors point out that it is a duck, then I sincerely suggest that you find a more appropriate place for it, such as a subpage of your User space, although as a rejected proposal that may no longer be an option; perhaps keeping a copy in your userspace without the rejected tag is your best option here. Kind regards, Nandesuka 16:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Your writing is spirited, but still falls short of passing the test: Answer the challenge directly! Tell me: In what way does the page propose a policy? This is a matter of fact, not of opinion. No "consensus" that the Moon is made of green cheese will make it so.

 * I certainly disagree that Community consensus has expressed itself on the matter; few editors have even commented in any way. Indeed, I feel that a primary cause of the breakdown in our Community values is that a very small group is able to control nearly any issue, by speaking loudly and quickly and claiming a spurious "consensus". The greatest concession I will make in this direction is that many editors have expressed their opposition to the activity so described.

 * The opposition is noted, and I reacted in conciliatory fashion, by strengthening the warning against imagining that Community support existed for zapping. I agree that it does not. Any editor who undertakes such a bold act is on his own. Read that warning carefully. I believe it goes very far toward removing any shadow of doubt: This is not policy.

 * Your point that this page may not belong in Wikipedia namespace is well taken. Unfortunately, this is an outstanding issue that goes far beyond one page. Zap does not belong in userspace, because it is public. It does not belong in helpspace, because that has become dominated by automatic copies of Meta pages.

 * I have, in other places, advocated new namespaces. Personally, I think the Wikipedia namespace should be retired; it is cumbersome to type and confusing. I absolutely agree that Zap does not belong in the same namespace as Manual of Style -- but there is no better place for it now. I find a link to Namespace proposal, but I'm unable to load the page just now, so I can't say if the discussion is active.

 * Again, I strongly agree with this last point of yours. I think it well demonstrates the need for new namespaces. — Xiong 熊 talk * 17:16, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

 * A number of random, mostly unrelated, points, in no particular order:
 * The silence on the part of the editors is probably mostly because they've given up trying to convince you.
 * "Zapping" has almost the same effect as blanking. What happens when an article is blanked? The answer is: it's reverted, unless it was the article's only editor who blanked it, in which case it is simply deleted.
 * Most people do not share your deep dislike for deletion.
 * Tagging a page for deletion is at least as quick as "zapping" it, and often quicker.
 * If you are afraid of mirrors, you can blank it at the same time you tag it for deletion.
 * The editors commenting here are mostly a self-selected subset of all editors who care more about wikipedia policies than most.
 * If a page that should not be speedy deleted is "zapped", it's the same kind of vandalism as blanking an article, which is almost the same kind of vandalism of adding a bogus speedy tag.
 * If a page that should be speedy deleted is "zapped", it only creates more work for the sysops later, who will have to chase them and delete them.
 * There's already a large backlog without creating more things to do.
 * If people started to "zap" pages, you would have another set of people following them around and changing the redirects into speedy tags. Then why not adding a speedy tag instead?
 * "Zapping" leaves blue links behind. Deleting leaves red links behind.
 * The VfD/AfD/RfD/CfD/IfD/MD debates are centralized and grouped by area of expertise.
 * If everyone else says it's a dumb idea, you have to consider it might be a dumb idea after all.
 * Speedy is restricted; the set of valid reasons for speedy deletion was carefully chosen so no good content is lost.
 * Notice most of the "keep" votes on MD (or WFD, or whatever is today's name for it) are because it's a (failed) policy proposal.
 * (You do not need to do a point-by-point reply; this is just a dump of some of the ideas floating around in my mind.)
 * --cesarb 20:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Fiddle about
Leave the warning alone. You're making matters worse -- even from your own point of view:

 * Zapping is not a system for deleting a page. It is an action that any editor can take, rather than tagging for deletion, engaging the Community in a long-winded debate over the flavor of a particular bit of nasty garbage, or (if an admin) simply deleting on sight and worrying whether consensus will support you after the fact. The primary values of zapping are that it is not deletion, it is not a system, and is reversible by any other editor.

 * This is not the place to tell editors, "Don't zap!" At some point, you begin to create your very own policy anti-proposal. This is pretty much unwise, since then all previous debate on the page becomes invalid. You've changed the nature of the page, so it must be debated all over again. Bad idea.

 * The page Zap itself is not the place to debate the page. This Talk page is. See above. Edit this page if you think you can improve it; don't try to destroy it under the guise of improving it. That is editing in bad faith. I've attempted to restore the page to a useful state by removing damage and retaining improvement. Please don't make work for other editors; either improve the Project, or leave it alone. Thank You!

— Xiong 熊 talk * 16:05, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

 * You seem to be under the impression that editors are correcting the warning to the stronger, less ambiguous version out of a wish to debate. You are under a misapprehension.  The debate has already occurred, and consensus has been reached.  The stronger warning is appropriate because a weaker one may mislead those who don't obsessively read talk pages into doing something extremely unwise, such as trying to zap an article as per the instructions in this thoroughly rejected policy proposal.  We are no longer debating the community consensus.  We are implementing it.  You are welcome to continue to pose questions and engage in discussion, of course, and to convince the community of the wisdom of your position.  But I worry on your behalf.  You seem to indicate, below, that you are inclined to interpret a lack of spirited debate as in indication that the community agrees with the consensus of whoever spoke last.  I want to make sure you understand that this is incorrect.  Consensus is not determined through stamina, but through discussion.  Part of discussion is listening to what those around you say.  Everyone around you has indicated that this is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad policy proposal.  They are not under any obligation to repeat themselves ad infinitum simply because you don't like the result.  I suggest you gird yourself to accept this, so that you are not overly disappointed.  Kind regards, Nandesuka 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Answering objections directly
I notice that when I make a counter-challenge, it is often ignored. Some editors seem to miss the point that if you are unable or unwilling to contest a point, you yield it. I have so far answered every objection raised, and I yield nothing; my opponents have yielded much. Perhaps it is time for editors to rethink their positions and protect any claim they desire to maintain to intellectual honesty.

I shall continue to answer objections, however put, to the best of my ability:

 * Creates extra work for RfD. The text "aksgajshgs" shouldn't be a page in ANY incarnation.

 * I disagree. The redirect can be left in place indefinitely. No harm is done, and much immediate good. I find it hard to believe there is even such a process as RfD -- anybody who so chooses to waste his time should be given a good supply of busywork. Any process that deletes redirects en masse should be eliminated, as it masks history, leading to lack of transparancy and all the other ills that come from "we know better than you"-ism.

 * However, if you insist that the page be deleted, then surely it is no more effort to delete it as a redirect than as a page itself. The only difference is that "work" is shifted from one deletion category to another.

 * Redirecting across namespaces is discouraged unless its actually handy.

 * My impression is that cross-namespace redirects are always discouraged. In any case, the point is moot -- the page does not provide for or suggest cross-namespace redirects. I did write it with that weakness, but as soon as the objection was raised, I overcame it by creating namespace-specific dummy redirect targets. If there is an insufficiency of these, they may be created and added to the list.

 * CSD is much cleaner... (speedy deletion)

 * I don't even understand this position; it seems unrelated to the second half of the statement. Cleaner in what way? Less dirt and grime? Less sweat? More fair? The sheer volume of pages shoved through speedy means that any given page gets little or no attention before it is done to death. Having been speedied, it becomes inaccessible, invisible; soon, it is buried under a pile of corpses. I should hate to have good, though obscure, content thus frog-marched to the gas chamber.

 * Speedy is evil.

 * ...and unrevertible except by other admins.

 * That's not a Good Thing. It takes just two editors to speedy something: one to tag, one admin to chop off its head. I have no special faith in admins, as a class; many have ridden a ripple of support into office over vocal and well-reasoned objections. I don't see that any two editors have the right to decide for all of us.

 * I can zap, and you can disagree. You can revert the zap, and that's the end of zapping for that -- clearly, as I state on the page, repeated zapping is in bad faith. Zapped and restored, the ball is in the air again, and something else must be done with it -- beyond the scope of this page.

— Xiong 熊 talk * 16:43, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

 * What's this talk about yielding? I've never accepted that line of thinking, that if you don't respond to something, you must agree.  What about the thought process of "If you ignore him, he'll give up and go away?"  Not saying that's what's going on here, but...  Anyway, on topic, I disagree with your characterization of CSD and your statement that there's value to redirecting to what is effectively a blank page - a dummy target, especially since it preserves bad content in the form of the page history.  CSD doesn't "frog march good content to the gas chamber", it gets rid of valueless text that doesn't deserve to exist.  And if something doesn't belong in the current-page-form of an article, it doesn't belong anywhere.  We preserve the history, as I understand it, for a combination of technical and legal reasons, and it does help with things like vandalism reversion.  Nonetheless...  an alternative to publication or deletion is uncalled for.  "Zapping" has indeed long been possible.  Perhaps now is the time to ban it?  The Literate Engineer 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How can you not have faith in admins? They were elected by the community, so that's a consensus of the community trusting them. Plus Xiong, you are the only one truly for Zap, notice how most those voting keep just want it for historical interest. Keep the banner. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Around and around
Congratulations, guys; I'm starting to tire of this. I have other fish to fry -- juicier, tastier, and of more nutritious content. I still say this is one of the most astonishing displays I have seen -- either of stupidity or ignorance, I'm not sure which.

I no longer have any interest in this page whatever; if I decide to zap something, I will; and I'll have to take responsibility for that when the time comes -- as always.

Zapping -- given whatever name -- is simply redirection, well documented. Nothing in current policy forbids this outright, so it's absurd to say so -- it's just not true. Go ahead and create an anti-redirection policy proposal, if you like; until that is accepted, zap away.

I do intend to abandon this page, therefore I shall not attempt to meet any further challenge to it. Please yourselves. — Xiong 熊 talk * 11:42, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

 * If you ever do "zap" something, I will be more than happy to revert it and give you a 24-hour block for vandalism. --Carnildo 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * A bit harsh? I would point out to whoever does it that its a failed proposal and it says on the page to NOT do it. I don't know about blocking. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Zapping may not explicitly be forbidden, but that doesn't mean it's permitted. Virtually anyone would consider it to be vandalism, and you know that. N (t/c) 17:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd say it is explicitly forbidden by a consensus of wikipedia. In fact I have not seen any admins who have supported this. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * True, no admins have supported this, so it is presumed that it is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a chat weapon
This is not a constructive Wikipolicy. It's just a very effective discussion armament. Very effective at first, but then everyone realizes they can use it and either revert it or start zapping on their own. Chaos ensues and no one is happier. I will never, ever support anything like this.

Peter Isotalo 11:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Zap


text:
Facts and Logic About the Middle East

Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME) is a non-profit pro-Israel organization based in San Francisco, California. The Los Angeles Times described FLAME as "an organization that must literally buy its way into print."

Their ads, they state, are meant as an explanation for "the proverbial man from Mars" regarding various aspects of Arab/Israeli issues.

History
It was founded by Gerardo Joffe and began as a local chapter of the pro-Israel media watchdog group CAMERA. By 1987 the ads, which had appeared using the CAMERA name were now sponsored by FLAME, an independent organization. Its stated purpose is "the research and publication of the facts regarding developments in the Middle East and exposing false propaganda that might harm the interests of the United States and its allies in that area of the world."

Since 1987, it has regularly placed ads that it describes as "monthly hasbarah (educating and clarifying) messages in major publications of general circulation, such as U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, The Nation, The National Review, The American Spectator, The Washington Times National Weekly, and others". The New York Times' Anthony Lewis described one such advertisement as "a sorry evasion of reality".

According to The Village Voice, when a reporter "pointed out the overt bigotry" in a FLAME ad in 1998 that described Islam as "virulent" and blamed it for promoting violence against the U.S. and Israel, FLAME's Gerardo Joffe said "All Arab Muslims may not be a bunch of fanatics, but I've never met one who isn't".

Regarding the issue of a Palestinian state, FLAME is in favor of using Jordan as the homeland for Arab Palestinians.

title: Facts and Logic About the Middle East


text:
Lazcano

Lazcano, also spelled Lazkano, is a variant of the name of the Spanish Basque town of Lazkao.

Notable people named Lazcano or Lazkano

 * Alejandra Lazcano, Mexican actress
 * Antonio Lazcano, Mexican biologist
 * Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, Mexican drug trafficker and leader of Los Zetas
 * Jaime Lazcano, Spanish footballer
 * Jesús Mari Lazkano, Spanish painter
 * Jorge Marchant Lazcano, Chilean writer
 * Juan Lazcano, Mexican-American boxer
 * Julieta Lazcano, Argentine volleyball player
 * Ramon Lazkano, Spanish composer and conductor

title: Lazcano


text:
User talk:Elliskev

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Smashwords, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worldwide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Category:American expatriate soccer people in the United Kingdom
Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 7. GiantSnowman 17:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elliskev


text: User talk:83.197.71.126

title: User talk:83.197.71.126


text:
Robert Adam Lyon

Robert Adam Lyon (baptized 4 October 1829 – June 6, 1901) was a Canadian businessman and Liberal member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament from 1878 to 1884 and from 1885 to 1890.

He was born in Glasgow, Scotland in 1829 and came to Halton County, Ontario in Upper Canada with his parents in 1832. With his brother William Durie Lyon, he opened a general store in Milton. In 1866, he became involved in the development of timber on Manitoulin Island. He established a settlement at Michael's Bay on the island.

In 1878, he became the MLA for Algoma in a by-election, replacing Simon James Dawson. He was re-elected in 1879 and 1883, but resigned in 1884 over allegations of irregularities during the election. In 1885, he was elected in the new riding of Algoma East. In 1888, his business went into bankruptcy and he was defeated in the election of 1890. He died in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario in 1901.

title: Robert Adam Lyon


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina, How I Love Thee

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina, How I Love Thee
Bnad/song vanity. If it's made it "on the charts" (what charts?), how come there are zero references on Google, Google news, or Usenet? Zoe 21:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it exists, nothing's heard of it. Allmusic.com hasn't heard of either artist, and neither has Wikipedia so there's no need to merge it anywhere. -Splash 22:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above (if this is a hoax, it is in very poor taste) --Doc (?) 22:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Solo One

Solo One is an Australian television series made by Crawford Productions for the Seven Network and screened in 1976. There were 13 half-hour episodes.

Synopsis
The series was a spin-off from Crawford's other police show Matlock Police and featured Paul Cronin reprising his role as Senior Constable Gary Hogan, but tailored for a younger audience.

It was set in the real country town of Emerald in the Dandenong Ranges east of Melbourne and used the town's actual police station.

In the series Hogan sorts out problems for the locals. His call sign is Solo One, hence the series title.

Cast

 * Paul Cronin as Senior Constable Gary Hogan
 * Aileen Britton as Aunt Nan
 * Keith Eden as Joe Porter
 * Terry Norris
 * Lionel Long
 * George Spartels as Harry Thomas
 * Lesley Baker as Mrs Pickett (1 episode)

DVD releases
The complete 13 episodes of this series are available on DVD and were released on 12 September 2017.

title: Solo One


text:
Trans-Caspian railway

The Trans-Caspian Railway (also called the Central Asian Railway, Среднеазиатская железная дорога) is a railway that follows the path of the Silk Road through much of western Central Asia. It was built by the Russian Empire during its expansion into Central Asia in the 19th century. The railway was started in 1879, following the Russian victory over Khokand. Originally it served a military purpose of facilitating the Imperial Russian Army in actions against the local resistance to their rule. However, when Lord Curzon visited the railway, he remarked that he considered its significance went beyond local military control and threatened British interests in Asia.

Construction
Construction began in 1879 of a narrow-gauge railway to Gyzylarbat in connection with the Russian conquest of Transcaspia under General Mikhail Skobelev. It was rapidly altered to the standard Russian gauge of, and construction through to Ashkabad and Merv (modern Mary) was completed under General Michael Nicolaivitch Annenkoff in 1886. Originally the line began from Uzun-Ada on the Caspian Sea, but the terminus was later shifted north to the harbour at Krasnovodsk. The Railway reached Samarkand via Bukhara in 1888, where it halted for ten years until extended to Tashkent and Andijan in 1898. The permanent bridge over the Oxus (Amu-Darya) was not completed until 1901, and until then trains ran over a rickety wooden construction that was often damaged by floods. As early as 1905, there was a train ferry across the Caspian Sea from Krasnovodsk to Baku in Azerbaijan. The Tashkent Railway connecting the Transcaspian Military Railway with the network of other Russian and European railways was completed in 1906.

Economic impact
The railway permitted a massive increase in the amount of cotton exported from the region. This increased from 873,092 pudy in 1888 to 3,588,025 in 1893. Also sugar, kerosene, wood, iron and construction material were imported into the area. These rising trade figures were used by Governor-General Nikolai Rozenbakh to argue for the extension to Tashkent, while the merchant N. I. Reshetnikov offered private funds for the same purpose.

Revolution and Civil War
The railway was the most important means of communication in the area, and workers on the railway became key activists during the Russian revolution. It was thirty-five railway workers who founded the Tashkent Soviet on 2 March 1917. They decreed that the administration of the railway should be transferred away from Ashkhabad and sent Commissar Frolov to that city, a move that proved unpopular. In turn, railway workers along the western end of the railway initiated a break away from Bolshevik-oriented Tashkent, setting up the Ashkhabad Executive Committee on 14 July 1918.

Both railway and workers played an important role in the Russian Civil War. Troops of the British Indian Army participated in some of the battles along the railway line. Tashkent was an important bastion for the Red Army.

Under the Soviet Union
During the Soviet period and beyond, the railway was administered from Tashkent.

Route
The railway starts at the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea at Turkmenbashi (Krasnovodsk) and heads southeast, along the edge of the Karakum Desert. The important junction on the route and locomotive repair depot is located in Bereket city (formerly Gazandjyk) some 340 km to the east. Also at this point the Trans-Caspian railway intersects the newly constructed North-South Transnational Railway which connects Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran and ends at Persian Gulf. After Bereket, the route runs parallel to the Karakum Canal. It passes through Ashgabat (Ashkhabad) and continues southeast, hugging the foothills of the Kopet Dagh mountains, and passing through Tejen. At Tejen, a modern railway link branches off, heading to the Iranian border at Serakhs, and thence to Mashhad in Iran. From Tejen, the Trans-Caspian heads northeast, through Mary (Merv), where a branch line built in the 1890s leads to the Afghan border at Gushgy, and the main line carries on to Turkmenabat (Chärjew). From there, a branch built in the Soviet period connects northwestward to Urganch and on to Kazakhstan and Russia.

The main line continues from Turkmenabat through Bukhoro (where a branch line built in 1910 leads to Termez and Dushanbe) and then carries on to Samarqand. At Sirdaryo, where it crosses the Syr Darya river, a branch runs east into the fertile Fergana Valley. From there, the railway continues to Tashkent. There another northwest bound line runs to Kazakhstan, which branches at Arys forming the Turkestan-Siberia Railway to Novosibirsk.

title: Trans-Caspian railway


text: User talk:24.185.12.152

title: User talk:24.185.12.152