text:
Etazeta of Bithynia

Etazeta (Greek: Εταζέτα; fl. 255 BC – 254 BC) was the second wife of Nicomedes I, king of Bithynia. After his death, she was a regent of Bithynia.

Life
Nicomedes removed his sons by his first wife from the succession; instead, the throne would go to the children he had borne with Etazeta. Since Nicomedes and Etazeta's children were still very young, the king sought to strengthen his family's hold on the Bithynian throne by offering the guardianship of the infants to the sovereigns Ptolemy II of Egypt and Antigonus II of Macedonia. The city-states of Byzantium, Heraclea and Cius were added to the guardianship.

On the death of Nicomedes I in around 255 BC, Etazeta ruled on behalf of her infant sons. However, Nicomedes' first-born, Ziaelas, refused to accept his father's decision and started a war against his stepmother to conquer the kingdom. Etazeta tried to resist and married the former king's brother, but around 254 BC she was removed by Ziaelas and forced to flee to Macedon with her sons.

title: Etazeta of Bithynia


text:
Together (The Supremes and the Temptations album)

Together, released by Motown in 1969 (catalog number MS 692), was the second and final duets studio album combining Diana Ross & the Supremes and The Temptations into an eight-person Motown act. Like the first duets LP, Diana Ross & the Supremes Join The Temptations, it is composed almost entirely of covers, including versions of The Band's "The Weight", Sly & the Family Stone's "Sing a Simple Song", Frankie Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" (featuring Mary Wilson leading, in preparation for Ross' departure from the Supremes) and Motown songs like "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing" and "Uptight (Everything's Alright)". "The Weight" was the only single in the US, and failed to make it into the American Top 40. "Why (Must We Fall in Love)", a UK exclusive single, was a Top 40 hit on the UK singles charts.

Together was released on the same day (September 23, 1969) as Puzzle People, a regular Temptations album showcasing the group's then-current psychedelic soul sound.

Personnel

 * Diana Ross – vocals
 * Mary Wilson – vocals
 * Cindy Birdsong – vocals
 * Dennis Edwards – vocals
 * Eddie Kendricks – vocals
 * Paul Williams – vocals
 * Melvin Franklin – vocals
 * Otis Williams – vocals
 * The Andantes – additional background vocals
 * Frank Wilson – producer, executive producer
 * Smokey Robinson – producer
 * Al Clevland – producer
 * Terry Johnson – producer
 * Tom Baird – producer/arranger
 * Various Los Angeles area session musicians – instrumentation

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


text: User talk:64.95.172.26

title: User talk:64.95.172.26


text:
Talk:Hypergraph

Notation
This article needs the notation unifying between what I've just added and the rest. Rich Farmbrough 20:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Set of Subsets
Someone not logged in just changed S(X) (as the set of subsets of X) to P(X). I'll consider it as a vandalism (specially because he or she didn't log in), but there's a reason for the exchange? --FernandoAires 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * A script P ("P" for "power set") is commonly used to denote the collection of all subsets of a set. Austinmohr (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Image
I would just like to point out that the graph depicted on the page is not really a hypergraph. Since node 7 is not a part of any edge, but is in the nodeset of the graph, taking the dual will lead to an empty edge, not allowed according to the definition. I think also that Berge stated in his book that the superunion of the edges should be equal to the nodeset. /Jonatan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.173.106 (talk) 17:52, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

 * Yep, sounds right. linas (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It is correct that Berge would have disallowed it. Quite a lot of hypergraph theorists would allow, though.  There is actually another reason it doesn't have a dual: vertices v5 and v6 would map to equal edges while the definition on this page only allows distinct edges (the edges form a set, not a multiset).  Both these problems mean that the claimed equivalence of hypergraphs, set systems and incidence structures is not true.  What is really needed is a rewrite of the page to expose the major variations in the definition and their consequences.  The main issues are: can there be multiple edges, can there be multiple vertices, can there be isolated vertices, can there be empty edges?  I expect that all 24 combinations have occured in the literature.  McKay (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Uses
What are hypergraphs used for? RJFJR (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC) For instance, in knowledge representation, by people citing Wikipedia for reference. Therefore, I am annoyed by such vandalism.--Efidetum (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The NYTimes had an example of a hypergraph, in describing relations among 2013 Oscar nominees: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/20/movies/among-the-oscar-contenders-a-host-of-connections.html (well, I guess that's a multi-hypergraph, since it has repeated edges). That example is behind a paywall (kinda); it'd be nice to have a [link to] a nice visual javascripty example like this, near the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not-just-yeti (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hypergraph drawing (circuit diagram)
I don't think the text under the circuit diagram example is true:

"This circuit diagram can be interpreted as a drawing of a hypergraph in which four vertices (depicted as white rectangles and disks) are connected by three hyperedges drawn as trees."

If you take the circuit components as vertices, you lose information about which terminals the wires/hyperedges are connected to. For example, the hypergraph of that circuit would be the same if the voltage source E was flipped around, but the circuit would most definitely not be the same (unless you also negated the voltage provided by E). Does anyone agree or disagree with me here? Hypergraph (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you are doing with the netlist. In the case of partitioning a netlist or placing of components, which pin is connected to which hyperedge does not matter, and these functions can use a pure hypergraph formulation.  For circuit or logic simulation, you do care, and you now have a network of 'instance pins', each connected nets represented by hyperedges.  For high performance logic, the delay through the wire itself matters, an each hyperedge needs to be replaced by a directed graph (or something even more complex) that describes the propagation of the signal through the wire itself.   LouScheffer (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Directed Hypergraph
There should probably be some mention of how a directed hypergraph is defined (i.e. a prescription for directed edges). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.141.142 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I second this. Also, some mention of a petri net and it's connection to hypergraphs. It also seems like undirected hypergraphs have some connection to the formal definition of a topological space and a well-ordered set, but I don't see mention of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.131.40 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Back in Jan 2021, I agreed with this and added a definition and some applications of directed hypergraphs. SoloUnEditor (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

goodfaith insertion
This paragraph was just added to the article (and reverted by me):
 * I believe that is is possible to think of a hypergraph as a Polygon mesh, where the edges are surfaces. A surface has many vertices, and a vertex has many surfaces. Someone please write this in mathematical terms. We aren't limited to 2 dimensional paper anymore.

One difference between the two concepts is that in a mesh it may be important that edges are shared by exactly two facets (something that affects me as I've just designed my first 3d print!). —Tamfang (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Another difference is that a polygon mesh might be an example of a hypergraph, but a hypergraph is an abstract set system and therefore is not necessarily a polygon mesh. Zaslav (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
I changed "link" (the alternate name of a hyperedge) to "edge", which is much more common in my experience. Maybe "link" can be added back, but it means something else in graph theory (a "link" is an edge that isn't a loop), and I'm not aware of its being used much (or at all) by hypergraph theorists. Zaslav (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Language
The article is just too verbose. Regarding the Definition, index set is not used to explain anything in the article as far as I've scanned it. If the whole purpose is to introduce the notion of an index set, the heading title might be apt with "terminology", but it seems unmotivated. A clear definition is lacking, anyway, if that should be in the lede, the lede is far too long to be clear. The index set doesn't help to clarify anything, because x_i remains undefined (unbound?), even if $$i \in I_e$$ was defined. I propose:
 * Why do we have to mention a universal set in the lede? There's no link to universal set, but from that article i take away that universal sets are not very popular in formal logic.
 * Why does the definition, titled §Terminology, use index set
 * The type setting ie. the formatting in said section could use some make up, too, to become clearer and lighter.
 * The $$I$$ in section "homomorphisms" isn't one of the previously mentioned index sets, is it? I don't know what the standards on maths articles are, but I guess the section is below standard. We do need to explain the notation if it isn't obvious and we shouldn't assume it was obvious unless a linked-to article explains it well, which in this case with "permutation" is not the case.
 * Definition: H=(X,E), where X is the set of Vertices and E={e|e subseteq X}

although I am not sure if self-adjacent vertices are actually allowed or not as it currently stands. Certainly, the article is messy anyhow, following some comments on the talk page. I'm just curious if we can slowly improve it.91.66.71.216 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible that this article could be made less technical, and I'd welcome edits that accomplished that. But to answer some of your questions: the reason there's no link to universal set is that that article is about a different concept than the meaning here, which is just the union of the sets in the family. I think Universe (mathematics) is more relevant. And the use of an index set for the edges, at least, should be to allow more than one edge to have the same incident vertices, but the definition in our article doesn't actually achieve that, because it still says that the edges are sets and that the collection of edges is a set of sets. Your proposed replacement definition is wrong for the same reason. For what it's worth, Berge ("Hypergraphs", North Holland, 1989) defines a hypergraph to be a "family" of finitely many nonempty finite sets (E_1, E_2, ... E_m) whose union is the set of vertices of the hypergraph. So he allows repeated edges, allows single-vertex hyperedges, but does not allow isolated vertices and does not allow infinite hypergraphs. I'm sure other authors have varying definitions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comment that the article is too verbose. Although verbosity is not the only problem; the article is worded in a very difficult, math-centric way. I come from biology/bioinformatics and we also have hypergraphs in network topologies, yet the wikipedia article is almost useless to me, since it is way too complicated. It's ok to write about the mathematics behind, but the introduction, the header, should be MUCH simpler. So many other articles in wikipedia, including scientific ones, are simpler to read. I am not sure if this is a problem by those who wrote the page here or whether mathematicians like to "talk" through "formula first". 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:F462:6A60:DEA:83A0 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Undirected Graphs are wrong
The example directed graph is wrong as is all talk about it. An undirected hypergraph is *not* a a set of vertices and a set of edges which is a subset of P(V). The edges are pairs, just as with a graphs. The way undirected hypergraph was defined was simply as a subset of P(V) but that is just a subset of P(V) and not a hypergraph. A hypergraph is a graph on hypervertices(which are elements of P(V)). That is, edges in the graph on the hypervertices are hyperedges in the hypergraph. E should look something like E = {(e1,e2),(e1,e3)} where ek is the sets given in the picture. Edges can be thought of as lines/edges/connections/morphisms between subsets. 173.173.45.154 (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 * The first sentence above says "directed", do you mean "undirected"?
 * I expanded directed hypergraphs on this page in Jan 2021. Having just revisited the page I am also now rather unsure that the definition of undirected hypergraph makes sense, and should probably instead be undirected connections between two sets of vertices. I'll be happy to update the page myself, or you can do so, but it will help me if you can give here a reference for your definition? SoloUnEditor (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

issue
There is a formal definition of "directed hypergraph" but no formal definition of "hypergraph". Saying that is a generalization of "graph" only helps a little; for example it doesn't say if edges can be the same (as each other), which impacts whether every bicoloured graph can be considered the incidence graph of a hypergraph. McKay (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I would say that if a directed hypergraph is a generalisation of a directed simple graph, then whether the start and end of a hyperedge can be the same is the same question as for a directed simple graph: are loops allowed for that graph? But spelling that out in the page seems like a good idea. SoloUnEditor (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hypergraph


text:
Talk:Julian Stanley

Untitled
I've started on a new article at Julian Stanley/Temp. I've mostly included a list of various sources I found through Google, so others can put in more info culled from those. --zandperl 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There is another article on the same subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_C._Stanley_Jr.. 68.237.7.60 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041230053137/http://www.merf.us.mensa.org/awards/lifetime_achievement/2000winner.php to http://www.merf.us.mensa.org/awards/lifetime_achievement/2000winner.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julian Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217001129/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/StanleyObit2006.pdf to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/StanleyObit2006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617020728/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/DoingPsychScience2006.pdf to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/DoingPsychScience2006.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Julian Stanley


text:
The Longest Line

The Longest Line is a 12" EP by the punk rock band NOFX, released in 1992. This was the first release on Fat Wreck Chords and the cover art was done by Dan Sites. The first 200 copies of this record were printed on dark-blue vinyl, some on grey vinyl, and all others on black vinyl. It was repressed in 2007 with 1,082 copies on "Peruvian" white vinyl. This coloured version sold out within a day. The band denied all suggestions that the title referred to cocaine.

The pop punk band Blink (later Blink-182) covered "The Longest Line" on their demo tape Flyswatter.

All five songs were later released on The Longest EP.

Track listing

 * 1) "The Death of John Smith" – 3:51
 * 2) "The Longest Line" – 2:04
 * 3) "Stranded" – 2:09
 * 4) "Remnants" – 2:58
 * 5) "Kill All the White Man" – 2:48

Personnel

 * El Hefe – Guitar, Trumpet and Vocals on "Kill All The White Man" and "The Death of John Smith"
 * Eric Melvin – Guitar
 * Fat Mike – Bass, Lead Vocals
 * Erik Sandin – Drums

title: The Longest Line


text:
Farid Essebar

Farid Essebar (فريد الصبار) (born in 1987, known as Diabl0) is a Moroccan black hat hacker. He was one of the two people (along with Turk Atilla Ekici) behind the spread of the Zotob computer worm that targeted Windows 2000 operating systems in 2005. Among the affected were CNN, ABC News, The New York Times, Caterpillar, United Parcel Service, Boeing and also the United States Department of Homeland Security.

Microsoft used 50 investigators and had put a $250,000 reward for the capture of the hacker(s). Microsoft's General counsel declared on August 26, 2005 that "The fact that we were able to see these arrests in less than two weeks and see them halfway around the world really drives that point home."

Essebar is a Russian citizen, also.

Intentions
It is believed that his intention was to facilitate credit card forgery scams. The FBI believes that Atilla Ekici paid Farid Essebar to code the worm.

Other accusations
In July 2006, investigators stated that Essebar may have authored more than 20 viruses.

2014 Arrest
On 17 March 2014, Essebar was arrested in Thailand after a 2-year investigation by Thai police. The investigation was triggered by a complaint from Swiss authorities over an alleged infiltration of a Swiss bank that caused dozens of billions of dollars' damage.

Trial
On September 15, 2006, a Moroccan court sentenced Essebar to two years of prison. It was reduced to a year on December 15, 2006.

title: Farid Essebar


text:
Talk:Second Ugandan Civil War

Merger proposal
It seems to me that this merely repeats information from the far more detailed LRA article. It is slightly facile to state that the war "started in 1995" and I personally would classify this conflict as a rebel insurgency rather than a fully blown civil war. TreveXtalk 20:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Second Ugandan Civil War


text:
Cat Cove

Cat Cove is a cove in the northwestern portion of Salem Harbor in Salem, Massachusetts. The cove is located between Winter Island and Salem Neck. There is a powerplant located on the coast of Salem Neck bordering the southwestern edge of Cat Cove.

title: Cat Cove


text:
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material

This is a part of Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal.

The problem
One of wikipedias main problems, alongside NPOV and vandalism, is the importation of copyrighted material. Although this is dealt with at WP:CP at present, there is a lot of wasted time and effort in this process, which is reflected by the fact that there are in the region of 1000 listings on that page at present; it is akin to WP:VFD having to vote on every article to be deleted, i.e. we could vfd every article, and it would work, but it would be a massive waste of time.

This proposal is similar to the failed Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/14, but aims to be stricter and less subjective (and less subjective than existing speedy criteria), while also dealing with the other reasons for oppostion as well. These are watertight criteria that would allow some material that is a blatant copyright violation to be speedy deleted. This proposal is not meant to replace the current system, but reduce the inefficiency, this would mean articles where the copyright situation is more ambiguous can have more attention. It would be a requirement that the administrator provides the url of the material source in the "reason for deletion", and if material is repeatedly uploaded, it would be asked that it be dealt with in the current way (through WP:CP).

The proposal
The following shall be a criterion for speedy deletion.

 * An article that is a blatant copyright violation and meets these parameters:
 * Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service).
 * The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits.
 * Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely.
 * The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).

 * Notification: When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using wording similar to Nothanks-sd or an equivalent message. Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should do so. If the creator was not logged in and did not use a consistent IP address, such notification is unneeded.

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on 06:02, October 1, 2005 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1)  Martin  09:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  N (t/c) 00:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Geni 11:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Extreme lesbian support! -- Phroziac (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  14:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I'll buy that.  It would relieve a lot of the unnecessary load on WP:CP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I was initally rather dubious about this proposal. But several of my suggestions were accepted during the discussion phase, and I now think most of the problems have been removed. I think it is unlikely to do harm and it may well do some good. DES (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) nice. -Ravedave 20:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Sounds useful. Paul August ☎ 20:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) SimonP 20:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC), would make going through New Pages a much easier task.
 * 11) Certainly worth a try --Doc (?) 20:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Dragons flight 20:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) R. S. Shaw 21:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) NSR (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) ErikNY 22:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Eric119 23:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but should say "Uploader makes no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use, and none seems likely." Bovlb 23:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think "ownership" falls under "permission"... it should be spelled out, but there's no harm in it not being. N (t/c) 00:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is from a commercial website, "ownership" isn't enough, there needs to be an explicit GFDL release or a plausible fair use claim, so "permission" covers the matter. It can use GFDL-self if the uplaoder is also the owner. DES (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that ownership may fall under permission, but it's best to be as clear as we possibly can be. I agree that ownership may not be enough to avoid deletion, but it should be enough to avoid speedy deletion. Bovlb 04:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Fieari 00:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--nixie 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--Aranda56 01:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Carnildo 04:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support; absolutely. Save us a lot of trouble with that ghastly WP:CP page.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, with the suggestion about ownership. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, with modifications per Bovlb. – ABCD✉ 08:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support let's keep WP:CP for problems, i.e. pages which need a specialist opinion: most copyvio is so blatent than anyone (i.e. random nominator and random deleting admin) can take care of it. Physchim62 10:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support because in excess of 90% of WP:CP submissions are obvious. Let's cut out the bureacracy in the easy cases, just like we do with other criteria for speedy deletion. —Morven 11:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * SupportHere, here Morven! I believe the credibility of Wikipedia is at risk if correcting content is bogged down in bureacracy.  Even the sound of that word is anti-wiki. The "no thanks" statement reads well and does not deny an element of appeal.  Overall, a well-executed solution.  Keep it moving. Segue 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC) This is this user's first edit, and thus can be discounted as clearly stated at the top of this page. --Blackcap | talk 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Guarded support. It's not entirely clear to me what a commercial content provider is. Is Slashdot a commercial content provider? Is IMDB? What about content copied from a forum on one of those sites? Pburka 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The personm who proposed this term said, on the talk page: "commerical content providers covers the very broad class of people that are trying to make money on their work (and hence are unlikely to give them away). However, it excludes enterprises which, while commercial, may want to provide free content to Wikipedia for the purposes of free "advertising". ..." Does that clarify matters? DES (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Sure, it will lift the terrible mess off of CV. I wasn't aware discussion of this was held (a fact I am a bit put off by, then again I have been relatively idle in the past weeeks). I like the notification requirement as well. If it doesn't work out, then we can always get rid of it. This link is Broken 17:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussiuon was announced at WP:RFC, at WP:CP, and on the village pump, and I think in other places as well. Where shoulkd an announcement have been made to ensure that interested people took note of it? DES (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said I have been busy and editing less so I missed any notes on the discussion. The only source of news I regularly check is the signpost, a story there would have been nice. (I have VP on my watchlist but I didn't see it, odd)I don't fault you or anyone for this though. I wouldn't have argued with the proposal anyways. This link is Broken 21:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. -- grm_wnr  Esc  18:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, Thue | talk 19:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, since we can delete the copyvios and just start fresh on a later date. Zach (Sound Off) 21:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, anything that lightens the load at Copyright Violations. Rje 00:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. This is just common sense. Gamaliel 05:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support; I actually wish it included more copy 'n paste submissions than just those from "commercial content providers." Postdlf 07:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as long as they're undoubtedly copyvios and as long as the creator is warned about the issue. Dealing with copyvio's becomes a problem the longer they remain, and also gives them the chance to be mirrored which should be avoided. Jimbo already put in place speedy deletion if unsourced and copyvio-ed images, so we might as well treat text the same way. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes, this is fine. James F. (talk)
 * 9) Support, keeping material like this malingering around in history for weeks until the copyvio page gets processed acheives nothing. --Stormie 09:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -- ⟳ ausa کui × 09:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I read the opposing arguments, and talked to Ngb in IRC... and I just don't find them at all compelling. The WP:CP process is a substantial burden and it is demeaning as a human editor (i.e. not a robot) to be forced to go through it for every obvious violation caused by an uneducated new user. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a Free encyclopedia, not to copy one out of parts found elsewhere. Although it use useful to be able to use outside content we must not allow the cost of that freedom to be the happiness of the editors here or the overall copyright purity of our project, at least wherever we can help it. The rules in this proposal appear sufficient to mostly remove most judgment variability, they focus on the content which has the least probability of ever being okay, and the greatest probability of causing frustration in an editor forced to go through an overly complex process. --Gmaxwell 09:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Reasonable. -feydey 10:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. The vast majority of entries at WP:CP are such obvious copyvios that this proposal amounts to brining more hands onto the deck at CP. This can only be a good thing: CP is exploding at the seams with usually only one or two admins paying it any deletion attention. Having many more admins mucking in will only help. -Splash talk 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. My one reservation is that, I presume, in many instances the copyvio notice on a page for several days encourages the creator or another user to draught a non-copyvio temp version to replace the copyvio one. — Eoghanacht  talk 18:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I was going to vote against, but the thing that swayed me was the restriction to commercial content providers. I've certainly had experience with an article that was blatently copied from a University site, but it turned out that the poster was the original author. DJ Clayworth 18:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) MarkSweep ✍ 20:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) support seems very reasonable. Tuf-Kat 21:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. This has always been a criteria for speedy deletion on the Simple English Wikipedia and hasn't caused problems there. Angela 00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. mikka (t) 00:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support The workload is untenable. The few remaining doubts I have would be erased if we could "tag and bag" these. The variables here could use a couple pair of eyes. Rx StrangeLove 01:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I don't see a problem with this proposal. Carbonite | Talk 03:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. As good a proposal as any I could think of; lets WP:CP deal with real issues instead of the blatant copyvio cruft. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Just spend an hour on RC Patrol and you'll see how many of these occur. Tito xd 04:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I have seen too much of this problem on RC patrol -- Chris 73 Talk 10:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Tεx  τ  urε  16:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) support - CP is a painful process, and there is hardly ever any interesting discussion (unlike, say AfD). — brighterorange  (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support: Absolutely reasonable — Cory Maylett 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, I find the copyvio reporting process cumbersome and the present backlog overwhelming, this would make it simpler and more efficient. JJJJust 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support, and I am shocked that images aren't included explicitly in this policy proposal. Tempshill 22:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We considered including images, but kept stumbling over fair use problems. See the discussion this talk page.  If you can come up with an ancillary proposal for copyvio images, you are more than welcome to do so, though Jimbo's recent declaration that unsourced / untagged images are speediable after 7 days on the site may largely make the need for such a provision moot.  Dragons flight 23:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The intent, by the way, is not that images are "not explicitly included" but that images are explicitly not included. This proposed criterion will not be usable on anything but articles, which is to say text. DES (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Very strong support, see these tons of times, and WP:CP grows larger and larger and larger.... -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 17:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. There's no need to copyvio an illegal article with no potential, it must be deleted as quickly as possible. Speedy is the answer. --Commander Keane 17:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per all of the above. Groeck 17:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Dark fred Talk to me 20:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support' so long as the definiton of "blatant" is strictly and carefully defined. --S.M. 03:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) *Note: When this vote started on September 17, this user had 53 edits. (contribs | count) --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Stephen Turner 09:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support  Jtkiefer  T - 20:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I've already been doing this. --Golbez 22:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Especially after the last total page copy I just found and tagged.  Vegaswikian 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Fred Bauder 23:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. --EngineerScotty 21:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC).  Concur that this only should apply in blatant cases.
 * 13) Support. Backlog makes this necessary. Xoloz 07:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Here here! --Woohookitty 08:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Seems like the best solution to clear the backlog. KeithD (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. This is going to make it easier to handle copyright violations, and the risk of abuse or misinterpretation seems small. If problems should arise, I'm convinced that we can handle them along the way. / Alarm 22:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. novacatz 06:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I've always advocated a "speedy copyvio" process.   [  +t,  +c ,  +m  ] 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Guarded support for reasons of pragmatism only. User education still seem key.  For example, "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION" could be more visible on edit pages. and if it was coupled with a "...Why?" link to explain the GFDL in less-jargon-y language, we might see less infringement. Dwiki 10:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Lakes 20:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) SupportI encourage the change to "infringement" and the addition of ownership as a specific case for claims to permission. --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 01:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support with a strong recommendation that fair use is explained to all admins. DirectorStratton 02:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. --Blackcap | talk 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. No reason to keep blatant copyvio stuff around for many days; stealing others' work without attribution is unwiki. Colin M. 07:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Sick and tired of all this copyvio being cut-and-pasted into WP.   Ral  315   WS  00:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Qwghlm 11:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Howcheng
 * Support. Grobertson 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC) This is this user's 45th edit, and can be discounted as stated at the top of this page. Grobertson's edit count: . --Blackcap | talk 21:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Guarded support per Dwiki above; I recognise the danger of making newcomers feel like criminals for making a mistake, but WP:CP is such a huge morass now that some form of stronger action is needed. Loganberry (Talk) 22:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --GraemeL (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Rschen7754 04:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. McPhail 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) 'Support. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Schuminweb 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support for this idea. Rob Church Talk 16:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Add my support - there seem to be enough safeguards in the wording. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) me too. Dunc|☺ 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support.  --Hurricane111 18:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Guarded support, per Dwiki.  It's easier than dragging these things through AfD, and the people at WP:CP have a crazy amount of work to sort out.  Also, I especially agree with Dwiki's point that we need a plain-English explanation of the GFDL and licensing issues.  I've been here as a regular, registered editor for 10 1/2 months and still find it somewhat tedious to sort through WP:GFDL.  Most copyvios are put up by newbies with only a few edits.  Why should we expect the newbies to understand our documentation on the GFDL as well as our most experienced users can? --Idont Havaname 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Ngb?!? 09:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC) My various objections on the talk page remain totally unsatisfied.
 * 2) Cryptic (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC) per objections at Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations), almost all of which are just as valid for this proposal as they were for that one.
 * Such as...? This was designed to deal with those concerns. Martin  10:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In particular, that since all speedy criteria are regularly bent, this will lead to adminstrators deleting things that "look like" copyvios; and that the current copyvio process works, aside from the occasional backlog that won't be relieved by moving it into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion instead. —Cryptic (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Except that speedies don't have to wait a week. N (t/c) 16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the notiofication provision requires that an explicit uRL be supplied. If this is complied with, lo "looks like" will be speedied. (Of course some people will violate the policy, but i hope not many once editors and admins are used to it.) DES (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Jamesday 06:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC) This doesn't narrow the previous proposal, it broadens it substantially. It'd be nice if the proposer had actually used correct language: you infringe copyright, you don't violate it. I oppose because too many have too poor an idea of what is and isn't fair use or already exercise views which differ from the law and this makes it easier to do so. The addition of a requirement to notify is very welcome, but where's the time for the person to read that and respond to the question about the status of the work?
 * It is clearly stricter then previous proposals. The word "violation" was used because at present we tag pages as "copyvio", but it hardly matters does it, this isnt a legal contract. Time isnt needed to respond, if they do happen to have permission to copy material from a commercial site, then they can easily re-upload all of it, stating permissions. Martin  09:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 'They can easily re-upload all of it'> My concern is that this amounts to biting the newcomers -- it could permanently discourage potentially productive contributors from adding content to Wikipedia if they find their first additions were deleted on sight and with no discussion. --Ngb?!? 09:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We already speedy delete lots of stuff from newcomers, and quite a lot that was uploaded in good faith (e.g. non-notable bios). Plus uploaders will receive the polite and helpful notice explaining what happened, which does not happen for other speedies. Martin  09:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Guettarda 16:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC) - I have come across several instances in which people were accused of copyvios when in fact the material had been copied from the Wikipedia article.  Since experienced editors have accused other experienced editors of copyvios on these grounds, I am unwilling to put that decision in the hands of a single admin.
 * That situation would breach pretty much all the parameters. I could similarly delete an article for being a non-notable bio (and that wouldn't even require notifying the uploader!) even if it was a notable bio; we can undelete articles to deal with these mistakes. Martin  16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note to fit this criterion, there must be a specific, commercial site, not a mirror, from which the copyvio text has been taked pretty muich unchanged, and the page must be a recent creation. Did any of the cases you fit those criteria? DES (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing in our license prohibits mirrors from being commercial sites. --Ngb?!? 21:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The most relevant part of this proposal to deal with your problem is that the page must have been created within the last 48 hours. What are the chances a page is mirrored within 48 hours? Fieari 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And on a page that was a nonobvious mirror, no less. A point should be made that if the content was copied from some *other* Wikipedia page then there is also no loss in deleting it. I think undeletion is a fitting solution to the unlikely case where a new article is created, mirrored, and mistakenly deleted all with 48hours. What do you think Guettarda? --Gmaxwell 14:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose any policy granting special consideration to "commercial content providers". Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, no matter whether the copyright holder is a "commercial provider" or just J. Random Blogger. Nothing in Wikipedia policy should further the abuse of copyright to centralize power in the hands of commercial providers. This proposal should be amended to eliminate all mention of commercial providers, thereby extending its protection to all online information publishers. --FOo 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you too an extent, however, remember that this proposal isn't about protection in the slightest though, it is about reducing the bureacracy in dealing with the more obvious cases. thanks Martin  20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason for this limitation is not because we want to give any greater protection to commercial sites. it is because a commercial content provider is particualrly unlikely to grant permission for GFDL release. The first version of the proposal had instead the rather vague condition "no chance that wikipedia has permission". The discusion on the talk page by several, including me, raised the point that this was too vague for a speedy delete criterion -- it could lead to lots of debates over how we knew that there was "no chance". So this conditon was suggested instead. It does sometimes happen that a person posts what seems to be a copyvio, and it turns out that they had permission, or that they didn't but when asked, the content provider grants permission. But this pretty much never happens with commercial content providers. Can you suggest any other distinction that can be made with little or no research by the person tagging an article and/or the admin deleting it that marks off those sites virtualy certian never to grant permission> Read the discusssion on the talk page that lead to this wording. If you have a better idea, please propose it. But extending it to all web sites simply will not fly. DES (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your responses, but my objection stands. Even if you do not mean it as granting special treatment to commercial sites, that is what the provision does. It says that Wikipedia will remedy infringements of commercial sites' copyright more speedily than we will remedy other infringements. (Acting more speedily is the purpose of CSD, after all.) Whether or not you intend that as special treatment, it amounts to one in effect. And it is not an OK thing for us to say to noncommercial copyright holders: that an infringement of their copyright is of lesser importance to us; that it does not merit the same speedy treatment that a commercial copyright holder's does. --FOo 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What alternate criterion, that would be neutral on the commercial/noncommercial axis, would you suggest? I at least would be open to any reasonable alternative. Such an alternaive must, IMO identify with fair assurance (very low false-positive rate) sites which will not grant a GFDL release on content. Or would you adopt the position that "since some non-commercial sites may grant releases, we shouldn't speedy any copyvios as that would be unfair"? I think that is elevating style over substance. Or would you say that we should drop this requirement altogether, and assume no site will ever grant a release? If so, I strongly disagree -- such releases are grnted in a fair number of cases (albiet a small proportion of the whole) and this would be to toss out perfectly good content over an academic point of fairness. Note also that if ANY copyright holder, commercial or non-commercial, reaches out to us and complains, things are handled by a different and quite swift process. We would probably be legal if we always waited for a compalint -- not waiting for an actual complaint is as much to protect our overall reputation and as a matter of "doing the right thing" as it is a matter of avoiding legal liability. DES (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, let me see if I understand this right, you oppose this because this isn't dealing with all kinds of copyvios but only those coming from commercial sites? -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 17:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'll oppose for the same reason as Foo, despite the fact that the measure will probably pass anyway. Superm401 | Talk 20:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) While I think this idea is useful the lack of encouragement to use the copyvio source to write an article white citing it seems like a flaw.  For copyvio articles I often take the gist and cite the violated article and make a stub.  This, to me, seems like a good idea considering it gives the basis of an article for users with more expert knowledge to expand upon.  While I admire this proposals aims of getting rid of the backlog I believe it should at least encourage that credible sources on credible subjects be turned into stubs rather than just be deleted.  In any case, it appears this will pass. gren グレン 09:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Would such encouragement in the warning notice be a good idea, do you think? That wouldn't have the same effect as the copyvio notice simply sitting there, but it couldn't hurt. DES (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be? It at least creates stub placeholders if the article is wortwhile.  Something like (Normal violation/deletion notice followed by) If this violation is from a credible source then you are encouraged to use it as a reference in creating a stub for this topic. gren グレン 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have edited the draft warning template to make a clearer suggestion to create a non-copyvio version. Please take a look at User:DESiegel/Nothanks-sd and see if you like the current text, or have any suggestions. DES (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that looks good. I really think some people just have no concept of copyrights online and telling them they can rewrite it in their own words (I would add citing  as a source and maybe say if it's credible) will be a good way to get content from sources and not have them as copyright violations. gren グレン 08:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think that this will necessarily lead to many unwanted deletions, but I see other problems with speedy deletions, not just of copyvios. I think that the newcomers who commit innocent mistakes shouldn't be treated the same way as vandals, i.e. with instant unexplained reverts and deletions. Bear in mind that passers-by are likely to return with a different IP and never see the notification on their talk page. I would support a simpler mechanism for removing obviously useless pages (i.e. no voting), if the explanation of why the page is to be deleted was left on the page for at least 48 hours before the page is deleted. Zocky 01:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I initally argued for a delay period for thais and other reasons, but there was very little support for such an idea. For one thing that would mean a third deletion mechanism, neither speedy nor regular (nor the current WP:CP procedures, either). The notification isn't perfect, but it will help in a fair number of cases -- many people do now have static IP addresses, and some do register. DES (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Regarding - Shouldn't we create this anyway and use it when deleting copyvios using the long method? (At least until the short method passes.) - Tεx  τ  urε  17:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The long method already has, and WP:CP recomends nothanks I modeled my draft of Nothanks-sd on it, with what i thought were useful additions for the speedy case, particualrly since the page may be gone, which isn't usualy true so soon in the long method. if you think any of what I did in my draft should be migrated back into nothanks, feel free to edit that just as you would any widely used template. DES (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Will the current backlog at WP:CP meeting these parameters be eligible for speedy deletion? Rx StrangeLove 04:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure any non-admin could go ahead and tag the straightfoward and long overdue copyvios as speedies, just tag them like this .--nixie 04:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, just so I'm clear, when/if this passes admins can immediately start deleting those WP:CP entries that meet these parameters. Rx StrangeLove 05:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This "vote" is unnecessary; we can speedily delete blatant copyright violations anyway. Kelly Martin 20:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Under what grounds? Eric119 05:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That is entirely wrong. Martin  10:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, under the grounds that knowingly violating copyright is a felony in the US? DMCA safe harbor for content hosts doesn't extent to willful infringment. Although there is always an open question of how sure can you be? If the uploader tells you that it's copyvio, I think we can say it would be safe to speedy it. :) Beyond that, ... thats why we are having the discussion here. --Gmaxwell 12:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but having a process to inviatigate a possible copyright violation, particualrly when no alleged owner or owner's represenative has complained, is perfectly legal under US Law, pleanty of sites delay for a week or more to look into copyright claims even when an owner does complain. That does not require instant deletion of alleged copyright infringments. DES (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * By the way, per Jamesday's comments above, if this passes can please we alter the final text to use the word "infringment" rather than "violation"? it is more legally correct, and has the same practical meaning. DES (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Also, the "commercial sites" thing should be reworded. We shouldn't, as a matter of principle, distinguish between commercial and non-commercial copyright holders. Zocky 01:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note the wording is not "commercial sites" but "commerical content providers" which is more limited. see the discussion above. The reason is not to give more protection to soem people's rights, but to distinguish between thsoe sites wildly unlikely to grant a GFDL release from those not so unlikley. In an fair number of cases, when a copyright holder is contacted after a copyvio is detected the holder does grant a release, but AFAIK this has never happened whith a site in the buisness of selling content (which is what is meant by a "commercial content provider", as i understand it). If you can suggest any better wording or criterion to distinguash sites highly unlikely to grant a release from sites not so unlikly, please suggest it. DES (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Magical Sakura

Magical Sakura

This image appears in the article "Sakura", and I feel that this image perfectly describes those cultural aspects that are commonly associated with Sakura trees, which are described in the main article. Plus, isn't it just beautiful to look at? I realize that the picture is very artistic and probably not viable from a scientific point of view, but the article isn't about the technical aspects of Sakura trees.

 * Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 20:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, beautiful shot --Gutza T T+ 05:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * support. It gives a wonderful idea of why the Japanese might partake in blossom viewing, and why the Japanese have been writing waka, renga, and haiku on cherry blossoms for 1,000 years. I may even use the photo in the kigo article. Blank Verse   ∅  08:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful - it surely captures the true essence of sakura trees. Enochlau 11:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support per Enochlau and BlankVerse. - Mgm|(talk) 19:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Breathtakingly beautiful.--Eloquence* 23:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Awe-inspiring picture. TomStar81 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Sweet - Darwinek 08:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - It makes me want to go to Japan... --AllyUnion (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I love it. -Haon 12:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. James F. (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Apresort. Check plus. —  BRIAN  0918 • 2005-09-4 17:25
 * I hate to do this, and I know everyone disagrees with me, but oppose. I wish I could describe why I don't like this one. It looks a little, well, lurid? It just doesn't look natural to me. Raven4x4x 05:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not looking natural is the whole point. This is an artistic shot, not a picture for a science book. When I edited the picture, I intentionally went for an unnatural, glowing, "fairyland" sort of look. The original picture was boring and unremarkable in all respects. This is also how I saw the picture in my mind's eye when I was standing among the trees. You don't think the picture fits the theme of the article? Now you've made me cry! ;)PiccoloNamek 05:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not just that I don't think it's natural, I don't really care for the effect either. I don't know how to explain why. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. Raven4x4x 12:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I understand why I didn't really like this photograph when I first saw it. I had not realisd you had used a filter to jazz it up (in retrospect it is obvious). I was half squinting at it to try and figure out the detail, however, it is not there to see.  Have you considered describing the filter you applied to the photograph to get this effect on the image page. I think it would be useful for others to know.David D. (Talk) 17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well hmph to you guys. =P At any rate what I did was duplicate the bottom layer and then set it to partial transparency (around 50-65%) and then I applied a light gaussian blur to the photograph to make it look more dreamlike. I also bumped up the red highlights as well. As for the photo itself, I still say it works perfectly in the article. It isn't a scientific article like Prunus Serrulata, (where I would never use such a picture) but rather, the cultural significance of sakura trees and their meaning to the Japanese, and I think the picture gets this feeling down perfectly. But that's just me. I'll add the technique I used on the image to its page. Well, no hard feelings, I can't win 'em all. :)PiccoloNamek 18:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, it's a great picture but i thought I was looking at a photo and something didn't quite click (excuse the pun). The effect you have created is stunning as is obvious from the support above.  Thanks for the info David D. (Talk) 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. I think a significantly altered image (however subtle) has to be very special and make a more-than-usually relevant contribution to its article to be worthy of FP, and this fits those criteria! With your addition to the image page explaining that an effect has been applied it can't cause any confusion (although personally I don't think you were under any obligation to reveal your exact method!)  ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a nice pic, but camera shake and blurring on the full-size make it not good enough to feature - MPF 16:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no camera shake. The shutter speed I was using was something like 1/320 at full wide angle zoom.PiccoloNamek 18:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Twelve support votes (not including mine) and two oppose? I think we have a featured picture on our hands!PiccoloNamek 01:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Józef Łukaszewicz

Józef Łukaszewicz (13 December 1863 – 19 October 1928) was a Polish physicist, geologist and mineralogist, as well as a 19th-century revolutionary. During his life he took part in a failed attempt to assassinate tsar Alexander III of Russia, served a lifetime sentence in Shlisselburg prison, was a professor at numerous universities, headed the Petersburg Institute of Geography and a chair in the Stefan Batory University of Wilno.

Life
Józef Łukaszewicz was born on 13 December 1863 in his family's manor of Bikiškė (Bykówka) near Vilnius (currently in the Elderate of Medininkai, at the border with Belarus). After graduating from the local gymnasium he joined the Mathematic Division of the University of St. Petersburg. There he became friends with Aleksandr Ulyanov and Petr Shevyrev, two young revolutionaries that were preparing an assassination attempt on the life of Alexander III of Russia. Łukaszewicz became one of the members of the Terrorist Faction of Narodnaya Volya and invited to the circle one of his friends, Bronisław Piłsudski, also a student at the local university. Ulyanov's brother, later to be known as Lenin, became the first leader of the Soviet Union, while Bronisław's brother Józef Piłsudski would later become the leader of Poland.

Assassination plans
As a skilled chemist, Łukaszewicz was chosen as the person to build three bombs that were to kill the tsar. To make it easier to hide the bomb, he concealed it in a copy of Grunberg's Medical Dictionary. The inside was filled with shrapnel and dynamite, while the fuse was made of a tube filled with mercury fulminate. Two additional bombs were prepared in case the main did not detonate as planned. To make the explosion more lethal, Łukaszewicz decided to fill all three bombs with capsules filled with strychnine.

However, before the attempt was ready, on 1 March 1887 all the revolutionaries were arrested by the police. After a short trial on 8 May, Ulyanov and his comrades Pakhomiy Andreyushkin, Vasili Generalov, Vasili Osipanov and Petr Shevyrev were sentenced to death and hanged at Shlisselburg. Most of the Polish accomplices (including Lukaszewicz, but also the future marshal of Poland Józef Piłsudski and Tytus Paszkowski) were also sentenced to death, but their sentence was later exchanged to that of katorga, or forced resettlement to a prison camp. According to trial records, Łukasiewicz appealed for the tsar's mercy.

Life in prison
Łukaszewicz was sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress and then, on 17 May 1887, to the Shlisselburg Fortress. There he started working on his first geological maps and studies on mineralogy. According to his long-time friend Vera Figner, for his first sketches Łukaszewicz used the soot of his lamp and a blue paint from the walls of his cell. With time he became a member of an informal circle of natural scientists serving their sentences in the fortress and exchanging knowledge. Finally in early 20th century Łukaszewicz was allowed to receive books and newspapers from the outside, which allowed him to continue his studies.

Life after the Revolution of 1905
The Revolution of 1905 and the thaw that ensued resulted in Łukaszewicz's release from the prison and return home. In 1906 he was allowed to return to St. Petersburg and in 1907, at the age of 44, he graduated from the St. Petersburg University. By that time he already started writing his opus magnum, a 3-volume monograph on dynamic geology and geophysics. The work, published five years later, brought him limited fame and fortune and was awarded by the Russian Geographic Society and the Russian Academy of Sciences. In the following years he travelled to Italy, Egypt, Turkey and Greece. He also continued his work as a professor at various universities in the Russian Empire.

During World War I, in 1916, Łukaszewicz became the dean of the Faculty of Geomorphology at the Higher Course of Geography, later to be transformed into the Petersburg Institute of Geography. Following the February Revolution he also joined the Petrograd Soviet and became one of its deputies. Because of that in 1918 he was elected the first rector of the newly created Geographic Institute. However, he was disappointed with the course of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and in 1919 he returned to Lithuania. Initially serving as a supervisor of colleges at the General Commissariat of the Eastern Lands (an agenda of the Ober-Ost), he settled in Vilna and on 1 January 1920 he became a deputy professor in the Chair of Geology of the Stefan Batory University. On 1 July that year he was promoted to the rank of professor and became the head of the Chair of Physical Geology, a post he held until his death. He died on 19 October 1928 and was buried in the Rasos Cemetery in Vilnius. The largest collection of his memorabilia is preserved in the Polish Secondary School of Medininkai.

Works
Łukaszewicz authored a large number of works on geology, most of them published in Russian language. He also authored memoirs on the assassination attempt he took part in, first published in a white émigré journal Byloye and then in a book form in 1920.

Trivia

 * Ignacy Łukasiewicz, the inventor of the kerosene lamp, was a distant relative of Józef Łukaszewicz.

title: Józef Łukaszewicz


text:
Chief Butler of England

The Chief Butler of England is an office of Grand Sergeanty associated with the feudal Manor of Kenninghall in Norfolk. The office requires service to be provided to the Monarch at the Coronation, in this case the service of Pincera Regis, or Chief Butler at the Coronation banquet.

The manor of Kenninghall was given by Henry I to William de Albini, and was later inherited by the Dukes of Norfolk. It was sold in 1872 to John Oddin Taylor of Norwich.

The last occasion on which a coronation banquet was considered was in 1902 for Edward VII, but plans were abandoned as a result of his illness. Three people claimed the right to act as Chief Butler at the Court of Claims that preceded the coronation – the Duke of Norfolk, Frederic Oddin Taylor of Kenninghall and Lord Mowbray, a descendant of William de Albini, but the claims were not considered and no decision was taken.

List of Chief Butlers
Note that the right to act as Chief Butler has not been established by the Court of Claims since before 1902

 * Roger d'Ivry (c.1068–1079)
 * Roger Perceval (1079–1087)
 * William de Albini
 * William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel (1120–1176)
 * William d'Aubigny, 2nd Earl of Arundel (1176–1193)
 * William d'Aubigny, 3rd Earl of Arundel (1193–1221)
 * William d'Aubigny, 4th Earl of Arundel (1221–1224)
 * Hugh d'Aubigny, 5th Earl of Arundel (1224–1243)
 * John FitzAlan, Lord of Arundel (1264–1267)
 * Edmund Fitzalan, 9th Earl of Arundel (1285–1326)
 * Richard Fitzalan, 10th Earl of Arundel (?1326–?1376)
 * Richard Fitzalan, 11th Earl of Arundel (?1376–?1397) (died 1397)
 * Gregory Ballard (1396–1399)
 * John Payn (1399–1402) Deputy: Hugh Fenn
 * (...) (1402-1404)
 * Thomas Chaucer (1404–1407) Deputy: Hugh Fenn
 * John Tiptoft, 1st Baron Tiptoft (1407)
 * Thomas Chaucer (1407–1415) Deputy: Hugh Fenn
 * Nicholas Merbury (1415–1421)
 * Thomas Chaucer (1421–1434)
 * John Tiptoft, 1st Baron Tiptoft (1434– )
 * Sir Ralph Boteler, 1st Baron Sudeley (1435-1458)
 * John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury (1458-1460)
 * Sir John Wenlock, 1st Baron Wenlock (1461–1471)
 * John Stafford, 1st Earl of Wiltshire (1471–1473)
 * Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers (1473–1483)
 * Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell (1483–1485)
 * William Fitzalan, 9th Earl of Arundel (1485, at Henry VII's coronation)
 * Sir John Fortescue the younger (1485–1500)
 * Sir Robert Southwell (1505–1513)
 * Sir John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford (1521–1537)
 * Sir William St Loe (under Elizabeth I)
 * Sir Nicholas Throckmorton (1564–1571)
 * George FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Northumberland (1713–1716)
 * Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland (1716–1730)
 * William FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Cleveland (1730–1774)
 * Henry Howard, 13th Duke of Norfolk (?–1856)
 * Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 14th Duke of Norfolk (1856–1860)
 * Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 1860–1917)
 * Bernard Fitzalan-Howard, 16th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 1917–1975)
 * Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 1975–2002)
 * Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 2002–present)
 * Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland (1716–1730)
 * William FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Cleveland (1730–1774)
 * Henry Howard, 13th Duke of Norfolk (?–1856)
 * Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 14th Duke of Norfolk (1856–1860)
 * Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 1860–1917)
 * Bernard Fitzalan-Howard, 16th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 1917–1975)
 * Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 1975–2002)
 * Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 2002–present)
 * Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk (Disputed, 2002–present)

$ Cited in Patent Rolls from 1396 to 1399.

Taylors of Kenninghall disputed lines:

 * John Oddin Taylor (Disputed, 1871–?)
 * Frederic Oddin Taylor (Disputed, ?)
 * Athelstan Odin-Taylor (Disputed, ?–1975)
 * Russell Moore (Disputed, 1975–1983)
 * Patrick Palgrave-Moore (Disputed, 1983–1986)
 * Ingalill de Joussineau, Countess of Tourdonet (Disputed, 1986–present)

title: Chief Butler of England


text: Category talk:Perry County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Perry County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Pike County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Pike County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Porter County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Porter County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Posey County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Posey County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Pulaski County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Pulaski County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Putnam County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Putnam County, Indiana


text:
Loudonville, New York

Loudonville is a hamlet in the town of Colonie, in Albany County, New York, United States. Loudonville was a census-designated place (CDP) in the 1970, 1980, and 1990 US Census, but ceased to be in the 2000 Census, but became a CDP again in 2020.

History
The hamlet is named after John Campbell, 4th Earl of Loudoun and was originally a 19th-century summer resort for some of Albany's wealthiest residents. Loudon Road, known as Old Plank Road in the early 19th century, is lined with several historic Jeffersonian mansions. Loudonville started as a hamlet on Loudon Road (originally a plank road), at the intersection of Crumitie Road. Ireland's Corners was a separate hamlet to the north at the intersection of Loudon Road and Menand/Osborne Road, with a post office. Ireland's Corners is named for Elias H. Ireland who in 1832 bought the heavily wooded area from the Patroon, Stephen Van Rensselaer. In 1871 the post office at Ireland's Corners was renamed Loudonville.

Geography
The community is located directly north of Albany and south of Newtonville. The hamlet is centered on the original Ireland's Corners, the intersection of U.S. Route 9 with Osborne Road (County Route 154)/Menand Road (NY Route 378) (west bound name/east bound names respectively), with the northwestern corner bisected by Old Niskayuna Road (County Route 152). Though as a hamlet, it has poorly defined borders, the census designated place of Loudonville had concrete borders.

Landmarks

 * Siena College: A private Roman Catholic College (Franciscan)
 * Schuyler Meadows Club: The Club was founded in 1926 by residents of Loudonville who did not wish to travel to the Albany Country Club, which at the time was located at the current site of the uptown campus of the University at Albany, SUNY. The clubhouse, built in 1927, is modeled on the central portion of George Washington's Mount Vernon home.
 * The Bryan's Store, D. D. T. Moore Farmhouse, Gorham House, Hughson Mansion, Loudon Road Historic District, Springwood Manor, Wheeler Home, Holub Home, Friend Humphrey House, and Whitney Mansion are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Notable people

 * Roger McNamee, venture capital and private equity investor, founder of Elevation Partners and Silver Lake Partners, grew up in Loudonville.
 * Henry Reed Rathbone, present at Lincoln's assassination, lived on Cherry Tree Rd.
 * Joan Vollmer, beatnik and common law wife of William S. Burroughs.
 * James H. Fallon, American neuroscientist and author.
 * The Right Rt. David S. Ball, Former bishop of the Episcopalian Diocese of Albany

title: Loudonville, New York


text:
User talk:Tuckerresearch

Proposed deletion of Venezuelan poodle moth

The article Venezuelan poodle moth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "The subject of this article is a single photograph of a possibly undescribed species, and is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Venezuelan poodle moth for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Venezuelan poodle moth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Venezuelan poodle moth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa
Hi, you added to this article "David F. Lappin maintains that the best solution is 1483 BC". He's basically a dentist.. Note that he also published in Troubador, but that is a self-publishing website. I think you probably found this in an edit originally by David Rohl who wrote 22.5% of New Chronology (Rohl). Doug Weller talk 13:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't think a little "sourced" "fringe" hurts the article. But, I don't disagree removing it either.  TuckerResearch (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Properly sourced fringe maybe, but a dentist? Anyway, thanks for your friendly response.  Doug Weller  talk 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tuckerresearch


text: Category talk:Randolph County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Randolph County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Ripley County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Ripley County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Rush County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Rush County, Indiana


text:
Talk:507th Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States)

Edson Raff and the 509th
This was where I had my greatest confusion. Some sources had Raff coming from the 2nd Battalion of the 509th, which would be real difficult if the 509th itself was a battalion. Since the 509th was at one time the 2nd Battalion of the .... dang I am lost. I know he commanded something over there, but this is confusing. Help me, Bean, help me! --Habap 20:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Edson was the 509th PIB's commander when they jumped into North Africa. The unit, just before then, was called "2nd Battalion of the 503rd PIR".  That is where "2nd Battalion" creeps in.  At Normandy, he came ashore on a LCT at Utah.  Not sure why.  He fought his way in to Ridgeway's HQ (who jumped on D-Day), and was assigned the 507th at that time.

Any source that mentions a "2nd Battalion" of the 509th in 1944 is just wrong. The 509th was not called that since late 1942. Beanbatch 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * For those wondering, Edson Raff has been found. We just hadn't updated this talk page. --Habap 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Page should be moved
This page should be moved to U.S. 507th Parachute Infantry Regiment to conform to other units in Wikipedia. WikiDon 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote no. The unit number/name is unique.  Other units are not.  Adding "U.S." would be redundant. Beanbatch 18:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

who made the film
"In 2004, the documentary film, D-Day: Down to Earth — Return of the 507th, was released." This passive construct doesnt' tell us much. Was it a Defense Department film that "was released"? Maybe a Warner Bros. or a PBS film? Who does documentary films these days? Did the film play in theaters? That would be odd, theaters don't show many documentaries these days. I suppose the apparent credibility of the unsourced assertion is proportional to the credulity of the reader. Xientist 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


text: User talk:68.50.63.215

title: User talk:68.50.63.215


text: Category talk:Shelby County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Shelby County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Scott County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Scott County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Spencer County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Spencer County, Indiana


text: Category talk:St. Joseph County, Indiana


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Kevin's Bar

 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 unanimous delete. Scimitar parley 18:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Irish Kevin's Bar
nn in itself. Anyone want to create a list of Irish bars and merge it? Dlyons493 20:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable Soltak | Talk 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. *drew 01:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pilatus 01:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletenn.--Play Brian Moore 22:29, 28 August 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:
File:Candy and gumball wheels.jpg

Candy and gumball wheels from my Triple Play machine.

title: File:Candy and gumball wheels.jpg


text: Category talk:Starke County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Starke County, Indiana


text:
Frenzy (Split Enz album)

Frenzy is the fourth studio album by New Zealand new wave band Split Enz. Frenzy ventured even further beyond the band's art rock roots to more of a pop sound.

The album is notable for being the first to feature Neil Finn on lead vocals – though the lyrics to "Give It a Whirl" and both music & lyrics to "Master Plan" were written by his brother Tim.

Details
The album was primarily recorded at The Manor Studios in England between November and December in 1978; however, the song "I See Red" had already been recorded at Startling Studios (also in England) in July 1978.

There was a long delay between the writing of the songs and the recording. Tim Finn said, "We'd been waiting nearly a year to do it so we'd done all the demos, rehearsed it and written new songs. We'd been waiting too long. There's so much material. The album has twelve songs, but by the time we'd recorded it we'd written fifty more."

The song "Abu Dhabi" created controversy due to the use of phrases such as "greedy westerners" and "oil barons", considered to be racist by some. As a result, the song's vocals were mixed softly, the offensive lyrics were not printed anywhere on the album and with the exception of a few shouts of 'Abu Dhabi' left in, completely mixed out of the 2006 remix of the track.

The cover artwork was done by the band's then lighting director, Raewyn Turner. Tim Finn said, "We deliberately wanted something of us without the costumes. There's no need to promote our image anymore – it's our music that needs to be promoted".

Dissatisfaction with the original mix of the album led to Eddie Rayner remixing the album in 1981 for the North American and European releases. Side one comprised songs from the original release, while side two was a mix of songs recorded on the Rootin Tootin Luton Tapes from 1978. The sound of the original album apparently suffered from either bad tape stock used for the recording of the album, or misalignment of the tape machines used to record it – which limited what Rayner had to work with in the aforementioned 1981 remix. Release of the Rootin Tootin Luton Tapes finally eventuated in 2007 after many delays.

Subsequent developments in recording technology led to the remix of album track "Stuff and Nonsense" for the 1997 compilation Spellbound, and an entire remix of the album by Eddie Rayner released in 2006. Although the remix was available for a short while after its release in 2006, it is now a rarity – with fans having to pay large sums of money to obtain it. Mushroom Records did not make the remixed album available in digital format.

Reception
Reviewed in Roadrunner at the time of release, it was described as, "a very mature and subtle piece of vinyl ... although not as immediately stunning as the stark Mental Notes or as smoothly polished as the sleek Second Thoughts. This a creative work of appreciable depth." Particularly praised were "I See Red", "Give It A Whirl" and "Hermit McDermitt" (for its "unique demented hillbilly sound").

Track listings
All tracks written by Tim Finn, except where noted. "I See Red" was not included on the first 10,000 copies of this album, having not been a part of the same sessions. It was added subsequently on 1 March 1979.

1979 release
Side One
 * 1) "I See Red"
 * 2) "Give It a Whirl" (T. Finn, N. Finn)
 * 3) "Master Plan"
 * 4) "Famous People"
 * 5) "Hermit McDermitt"
 * 6) "Stuff and Nonsense"
 * 7) "Marooned" (Rayner)

Side Two
 * 1) "Frenzy" (T. Finn, E. Rayner)
 * 2) "The Roughest, Toughest Game in the World"
 * 3) "She Got Body She Got Soul"
 * 4) "Betty"
 * 5) "Abu Dhabi" (T. Finn, E. Rayner)
 * 6) "Mind Over Matter" (T. Finn, N. Finn)

1981 release
Some bootleg versions of the A&M 1981 Frenzy also include B-sides "Message Boy", "Hypnotized" and rare "Next Exit" – all recorded during the Luton sessions. "Stuff & Nonsense" is preceded by a brief introduction by Tim Finn, who dedicates the song to the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team. The original version of "Next Exit" from the Luton tapes was released on the More Hits and Myths compilation.
 * 1) "I See Red"
 * 2) "Give It a Whirl" 1981 remix (T. Finn, N. Finn)
 * 3) "Master Plan" 1981 remix
 * 4) "Betty" 1981 remix
 * 5) "Frenzy" 1981 remix (T. Finn, E. Rayner)
 * 6) "Stuff and Nonsense" 1981 remix with spoken dedication
 * 7) "Marooned" 1981 remix  (Rayner)
 * 8) "Hermit McDermitt" Luton version
 * 9) "Holy Smoke" (N. Finn)
 * 10) "Semi-Detached"
 * 11) "Carried Away" (N. Finn)
 * 12) "She Got Body, She Got Soul" 1981 remix
 * 13) "Mind Over Matter" Luton version (T. Finn, N. Finn)
 * 14) "Livin' It Up" (N. Griggs)

2006 release
All tracks remixed in 2005–2006 by Eddie Rayner. The track listing on the CD booklet and back cover is incorrect on most editions.
 * 1) "Give It a Whirl" (T. Finn, N. Finn) – 3:04
 * 2) "I See Red" – 3:15
 * 3) "Famous People" – 3:02
 * 4) "Hermit McDermitt" – 4:03
 * 5) "Stuff and Nonsense" – 4:28
 * 6) "Mind Over Matter" (T. Finn, N. Finn) – 2:57
 * 7) "Marooned" (Rayner) – 2:32
 * 8) "Master Plan" – 3:07
 * 9) "She Got Body She Got Soul" – 2:58
 * 10) "The Roughest, Toughest Game in the World" – 3:44
 * 11) "Abu Dhabi" [Instrumental] (T. Finn, E. Rayner) – 5:23
 * 12) "Betty" – 4:45
 * 13) "Frenzy" (T. Finn, E. Rayner) – 2:30
 * 14) "Semi Detached" – 5:05
 * 15) "Carried Away" (N. Finn) – 4:34
 * 16) "Horse to Water" Frenzy session outtake – 3:06

Personnel
Split Enz
 * Tim Finn – vocals, acoustic guitar, piano
 * Neil Finn – vocals, guitar
 * Noel Crombie – percussion, backing vocals
 * Eddie Rayner – keyboards, backing vocals, piano
 * Malcolm Green – drums, backing vocals
 * Nigel Griggs – bass, backing vocals

title: Frenzy (Split Enz album)


text: Category talk:Steuben County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Steuben County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Sullivan County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Sullivan County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Switzerland County, Indiana


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggrepedia

 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Aggrepedia
Non-notable web site. No traffic. No inbound links. Vanity: page was created by User:Cochrate; site was apparently created by a Thomas Cochran, who is responsible for all 5 Google mentions. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Macrakis 21:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Amren (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete per nom. Dottore So 00:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. *drew 01:57, 28 August 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:80.229.155.98

title: User talk:80.229.155.98


text:
Talk:KUSI-TV

Untitled

 * I laughed so hard when I learned that "kusi" is a name of a tv channel... --Thorri 19:54, 21 Aug (UTC)

 * The last I heard, the McKinnons sold their downtown property. So, there will not be any new building opening up in 2007.24.165.8.41 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Phil Konstantin

 * I don't know why John Coleman (I think that is his name) says KUUUUUSI! I think he just likes saying it. On every report he does, like KUSI-TV's Wheater Report he does not say KUSI but he says KUUUUSI! --Poinana9284728 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Poinana9284728

Fair use rationale for Image:BridgetNaso.jpg
Image:BridgetNaso.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I was very impressed with John Coleman's information on the "real truth" about global warming and how Al Gore has again invented false information to fool everyone. I didn't know John had all these accomplishments behind him. Very impressive! Debbiewar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbiewar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

KUSI | kusi
I'd come here due to the California_wildfires_of_October_2007. There should be disambiguation  for  KUSI  |  kusi.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize John Coleman had so many accomplishments with the weather channel and as a meteorologist. I also was impressed with his research and findings on Al Gore's wrongful information on global warming and the scientific proof he has to back it up. John Coleman is known as The Weatherman nationwide as I just found out....our local TV weatherman. I was very impressed and surprised.....Thank you John, Debbiewar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbiewar (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KUSI logo.png
Image:KUSI logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KUSI-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1841097&printer=yes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814014023/http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080801/news_1c01karla.html to http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080801/news_1c01karla.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KUSI-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209140522/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/79/79.F3d.1187.95-1128.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/79/79.F3d.1187.95-1128.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KUSI-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814035214/http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-1859-behind-the-bluster.html to http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-1859-behind-the-bluster.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:KUSI-TV


text: Category talk:Tippecanoe County, Indiana


text: Category talk:Tipton County, Indiana

title: Category talk:Tipton County, Indiana


text:
Talk:Japanese submarine I-52 (1942)

Uranium shipment?
Does anyone have any additional detail about the proposed uranium shipment on the I-52? - --mkamat 21:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kojima Hideo disambiguation
The link to Rear Admiral Kojima Hideo points to the famous game developer Hideo Kojima, who was born in 1964. I don't know if they're related, but they're definitely not the same person. I'm removing this link. --Djakdarippa 14:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Any word on the salvage?
OK, It's May 2006. Any word on the salvage operations, mentioned in the last paragraph?

Good question. I have found nothing on it. My suspicion is until they (investors) actually see some salvage gold, in advance, it would be hard to get backing for this effort. May 2007...Engr105th 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Most advanced sub of WW2 ??
I'm uncertain of the veracity of a statement in the paragraph "Type C-3 subs"...It says "They were the largest submarines ever built at that time, and were known as the most advanced submarines of their time."

They were most definitely the largest. But they were basically cargo vessels. One could easily say the German Elektroboots (e.g. Type 21 & 23's?) were the most advanced at least as far as technology - which is what most people mean by "advanced"...The Elektroboots were a bit later, but were under development about that time. Even if they weren't concurrent with the C-3 subs, the C-3's certainly were not "advanced" weapons...

Anybody else have thoughts on it? Engr105th 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Folks, not having had any response to my post above of 24 May 2007, I took the liberty of adding "Japanese" to the sentence about it being the most advanced sub of its time. Seems to me that might even be questionable. Engr105th 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Recording?
The article mentions sonobuoy and cockpit recordings. Does anyone know if these are available online? 75.75.110.235 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are available online at http://hnsa.org/sound/index.htm#i52wire : Proteus 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

more submarines?
Aren't there more submarines who undertook the same mission? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterseeboot_859 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.20.86 (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Take a look at the paragraph on the Yanagi Missions, on this article. You'll see several subs that attempted or made the Japan to Europe mission. Of course, the payoff for these risky and expensive attempts was nil, taking into account the whole war. Engr105th (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese_submarine_I-52_(1943)
Under the paragraph VALUABLE CARGO stands the sentence: <> While this concept was part of the official stance of the US government (and perhaps still holds in US history books), this is far from the truth. After declassification processes in the 90's and the public availability of documents from various actors of the time, it is a fact that Japan had instigated overtures as early as spring 1944. The path was by short wave radio cables to their Ambassador (Sato) in Moscow, whom was forwarding them to the Soviet government for further despatch to their US ally. At least once they proceeded through diplomatic channels in Stockholm. On Feb 2nd, 1945 (2 days before Yalta's conference), Franklin Roosevelt received a 40-page memo from Mac Arthur outlining five separate SURRENDER overtures from highly placed Japanese officials (cf. Admiral Leahy - Chief of Staff of FDR - 19 Aug 45 in The Washington Times and The Tribune). Reading related documents and especially the diaries of US major figures (Truman, Stimson, Byrnes, Grew, Forrestal, etc...) should bring some light into this old misconception of "no surrender". 94.67.158.1 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Your points are well-taken, but they probably belong in the article discussing the Japanese surrender (which can be accessed thru the Wiki WW2 article, or under History of Japan, etc). The point here is that I-52 almost certainly had nothing to do w/ Japanese overtures to the USA regarding a peace proposal. Engr105th (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Recordings
So if Taylor dropped first, and they believe that he sank the I-52 with his FIDO, and Gordon arrived later and dropped a FIDO after hearing a German sub 20 miles away, then how come the recordings from Gordons plane contain the sound of a torpedo exploding and metal twisting? He didn't hit the German sub, so he must have hit something. If the I-52 was already sunk by Taylor, then what did Gordon hit and what is in that recording?.45Colt 00:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Crew/passenger counts
Hi, the infobox says 94 crew and 18 civilians perished, but the section on the accident says only 14 'passengers', and later an addition two non-civilian radar operators boarded, for a total of 94+16. I couldn't readily find a source to clarify, if anyone has either of the book references on hand. Also it would be good to clarify whether or not the 14 technicians were in fact civilians, as written it seems like its possible they were military (ie., if they were studying the technology, wouldn't they likely be engineers instead of technicians?) Strangerpete (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Japanese submarine I-52 (1942)