text:
Arbiter (electronics)

Arbiters are electronic devices that allocate access to shared resources.

Bus arbiter
There are multiple ways to perform a computer bus arbitration, with the most popular varieties being:
 * 1) dynamic centralized parallel where one central arbiter is used for all masters as discussed in this article;
 * 2) centralized serial (or "daisy chain") where, upon accessing the bus, the active master passes the opportunity to the next one. In essence, each connected master contains its own arbiter;
 * 3) distributed arbitration by self-selection (distributed bus arbitration) where the access is self-granted based on the decision made locally by using information from other masters;
 * 4) distributed arbitration by collision detection where each master tries to access the bus on its own, but detects conflicts and retries the failed operations.

A bus arbiter is a device used in a multi-master bus system to decide which bus master will be allowed to control the bus for each bus cycle. The most common kind of bus arbiter is the memory arbiter in a system bus system.

A memory arbiter is a device used in a shared memory system to decide, for each memory cycle, which CPU will be allowed to access that shared memory.

Some atomic instructions depend on the arbiter to prevent other CPUs from reading memory "halfway through" atomic read-modify-write instructions.

A memory arbiter is typically integrated into the memory controller/DMA controller.

Some systems, such as conventional PCI, have a single centralized bus arbitration device that one can point to as "the" bus arbiter. Other systems use decentralized bus arbitration, where all the devices cooperate to decide who goes next.

When every CPU connected to the memory arbiter has synchronized memory access cycles, the memory arbiter can be designed as a synchronous arbiter. Otherwise the memory arbiter must be designed as an asynchronous arbiter.

Asynchronous arbiters
An important form of arbiter is used in asynchronous circuits to select the order of access to a shared resource among asynchronous requests. Its function is to prevent two operations from occurring at once when they should not. For example, in a computer that has multiple CPUs or other devices accessing computer memory, and has more than one clock, the possibility exists that requests from two unsynchronized sources could come in at nearly the same time. "Nearly" can be very close in time, in the sub-femtosecond range. The memory arbiter must then decide which request to service first. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do this in a fixed time [Anderson 1991].

Asynchronous arbiters and metastability
Arbiters break ties. Like a flip-flop circuit, an arbiter has two stable states corresponding to the two choices. If two requests arrive at an arbiter within a few picoseconds (today, femtoseconds) of each other, the circuit may become meta-stable before reaching one of its stable states to break the tie. Classical arbiters are specially designed not to oscillate wildly when meta-stable and to decay from a meta-stability as rapidly as possible, typically by using extra power. The probability of not having reached a stable state decreases exponentially with time after inputs have been provided.

A reliable solution to this problem was found in the mid-1970s. Although an arbiter that makes a decision in a fixed time is not possible, one that sometimes takes a little longer in the hard case (close calls) can be made to work. It is necessary to use a multistage synchronization circuit that detects that the arbiter has not yet settled into a stable state. The arbiter then delays processing until a stable state has been achieved. In theory, the arbiter can take an arbitrarily long time to settle (see Buridan's principle), but in practice, it seldom takes more than a few gate delay times. The classic paper is [Kinniment and Woods 1976], which describes how to build a "3 state flip flop" to solve this problem, and [Ginosar 2003], a caution to engineers on common mistakes in arbiter design.

This result is of considerable practical importance, as multiprocessor computers would not work reliably without it. The first multiprocessor computers date from the late 1960s, predating the development of reliable arbiters. Some early multiprocessors with independent clocks for each processor suffered from arbiter race conditions, and thus unreliability. Today, this is no longer a problem.

Synchronous arbiters
Arbiters are used in synchronous contexts as well in order to allocate access to a shared resource. A wavefront arbiter is an example of a synchronous arbiter that is present in one type of large network switch.

title: Arbiter (electronics)


text:
EyeToy: Play 3

EyeToy: Play 3 is the third game in the EyeToy: Play series, for up to four players. The camera takes snapshots during the game for your player and is a requirement to play the game. Unlike previous EyeToy: Play games, Play 3 was not released in North America. Unlike the previous games, 4 players were able to play on screen at the same time as opposed to taking it in turns like the previous games.

Game list

 * Volleyball - two teams play beach volleyball.
 * Bowling - play 10-pin bowling against up to three friends.
 * Touchdown - compete for the American Football Touchdown Trophy.
 * DJ - entertain crowds as a DJ.
 * Be The Band - perform in front of an audience as a band.
 * Maestro - conduct a group of musicians.
 * Boot Camp - follow the sergeant's orders and tackle grueling assault courses.
 * Beauty Salon - work in the salon as a professional beauty technician.
 * Ghost Grab - bravely explore the Haunted Mansion.
 * Monkey Rampage - crush the most buildings by winning minigames.
 * Kitty Loves Me - compete against up to three other friends to win the affections of a kitten.
 * Athletics - compete in a variety of track and field events to become world champion.

Extras
Alongside the games, there was also the PlayRoom where the player could mess around with the motion capabilities of the camera including making special effect such as glitter or rainbows from their bodies, as well as annoying a beehive by tapping it to unleash a swarm of deadly bees that will follow the player as they move and will only go back to the beehive if the players restrict own movement.

PlayRoom:

 * Laboratory
 * Face Mixer - Merge faces together
 * Head Swap - Swap faces with a friend
 * Photo Booth - Taking photos and saving them to a USB Mass Storage Device connected to the PS2.
 * Recog-Cam - Discovering the hidden secrets of EyeToy Play 3
 * Fun
 * Theremin - Create Wacky Sounds in this noise PlayRoom activity.
 * Vs Knockout - Take Part in crazy, back-to-front kung fu combat with a friend
 * Wild Fauna - Chill out and stay still as the player can turn own room into a woodland paradise. Watch trees and grass grow before your eyes, and really go to appreciate Mother Nature.
 * Motion-Cam - There are all kinds of special effects to be found in the Motion-Cam mode.

There was also the Recog Cam option. Here, if the players were to show a particular card (basically an image) in front of the camera while in this mode, it will activate something within the game. 3 of these cards were available on the manual supplied with the game. One of them was the logo of the then upcoming game, EyeToy Kinetic. Displaying that card in front of the camera would activate a video promoting the game. After the video, some information on the game would then show up where they could go Next to read more. Additional prints could have been downloaded from www.eyetoy.com to unlock further hidden secrets. The size of the pages was 1 page of a PS2 manual page.

Reception
The game received "mixed" reviews according to the review aggregation website Metacritic.

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

title: EyeToy: Play 3


text: Category:Afghanistan-related lists

title: Category:Afghanistan-related lists


text: User:Psy guy/Sandbox

title: User:Psy guy/Sandbox


text: User talk:128.163.239.254

title: User talk:128.163.239.254


text:
Autumn Reeser

Autumn Reeser (born September 21, 1980) is an American actress. She is known for her roles as Taylor Townsend on the Fox series The O.C., Lizzie Grant on HBO's Entourage, Katie Andrews on ABC's No Ordinary Family, and Leslie Bellcamp on E!'s The Arrangement. She has appeared in the films The Girl Next Door (2004), So Undercover (2012), Sully (2016), and in ten Hallmark Channel television films in leading roles.

Early life
Reeser graduated from UCLA's School of Theater, Film and Television in 2004. She also studied acting at the Beverly Hills Playhouse.

Television
Early in her career, she appeared in television commercials for Burger King, Clean & Clear and International House of Pancakes. Her first on-screen appearance was a role as Ventu Girl in the episode "Natural Law" of UPN's Star Trek: Voyager. Shortly thereafter, she booked guest roles in television shows CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Birds of Prey and Cold Case, and moved onto recurring roles in the sitcoms Grounded for Life, Maybe It's Me and Complete Savages. She rose to fame through her role as Taylor Townsend on the Fox series The O.C. (2005–2007). She reflected back on the character during a 2010 interview, saying "I feel like there's a lot of girls out there who could really relate to her, who hadn't seen themselves on TV in that way. I loved that about her. I loved that she made no apologies for who she was even though she wasn't what all the magazines said was OK. She was like, 'I'm still valid. And I'm awesome. And I know I'm odd, and that's OK.'"

Reeser portrayed Lizzy Grant in ten episodes of HBO's comedy-drama television series Entourage (2009–2010). First appearing in the show's sixth season, Lizzie is a junior agent working in the Miller Gold Agency's TV division under Andrew Klein, with whom she has an affair. Reeser played Phoebe Valentine, a goddess from Greek mythology in The CW's romantic comedy-drama series Valentine (2008–2009). In 2009, she portrayed lawyer Ashley Hastings in three episodes of TNT's legal drama series Raising the Bar. Reeser played Katie Andrews, Julie Benz's personal assistant in ABC's No Ordinary Family (2010–2011). The show centers on the Powells, a typical American family living in fictional Pacific Bay, California, whose members gain special powers after their plane crashes in the Amazon, Brazil. Reeser also had roles as Kylie Sinclair in Last Resort, as Dr. Gabrielle Asano in Hawaii Five-0 and as Abigail Bruce in Necessary Roughness. She had guest roles in several television shows, including It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Ghost Whisperer, Pushing Daisies, Human Target, Royal Pains, Jane by Design, and Hart of Dixie.

In 2015, Reeser portrayed Amanda Weil in three episodes of ABC's science fiction drama series The Whispers. In 2017, she had a recurring role as Tess, Darius Tanz's childhood sweetheart, on the CBS show Salvation. She played talent agent Leslie Bellcamp on the two seasons of The Arrangement, on the E! network. The series follows an unknown actress who, after a successful audition, is plucked from obscurity and offered a secret contract to be the fiancée to Kyle West, one of Hollywood's biggest stars. In 2018, she made a guest appearance as Dr. Wells on Fox's procedural drama television series 9-1-1, in the episode "Let Go".

Films
Reeser has appeared in several feature films and television movies, such as the musical The American Mall with Nina Dobrev, the comedy The Girl Next Door with Elisha Cuthbert, the horror film Lost Boys: The Tribe with Corey Feldman, the thriller The Big Bang with Antonio Banderas, the action movie Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball with Tom Berenger and the detective comedy So Undercover with Miley Cyrus. She appeared in Clint Eastwood's biographical drama film Sully (2016), released on September 2, 2016. The film received positive reviews from critics and grossed over $240 million worldwide. She also appeared in films Kill 'Em All (2017), Valley of Bones (2017), Dead Trigger (2017), and The Legend of La Llorona (2022). In late 2012, she received positive reviews for Hallmark Channel's Love at the Thanksgiving Day Parade, in which she was the main heroine. Shortly after, she appeared in a number of romantic comedies aired on the Hallmark Channel, with leading roles in Midnight Masquerade (October 2014), I Do, I Do, I Do (February 2015), A Country Wedding (June 2015), Valentine Ever After (February 2016), A Bramble House Christmas (November 2017), Season for Love (August 2018), Love on the Menu (February 2019), All Summer Long (August 2019), and Christmas Under the Stars (November 2019).

She joined forces with fellow Hallmark regulars Lacey Chabert and Allison Sweeney in a trilogy that aired on the Hallmark Channel in 2022 about three long-time college friends who find an antique wedding veil that was reputed to bring its possessor her destined partner. She played Emma, who teaches art history and later travels to Italy to investigate the veil's origin. Lacey Chabert as Avery and Allison Sweeney as Tracy were her cohorts, and the three actresses reprised their roles in a sequel trilogy that aired on the Hallmark Channel in 2023.

Theater
Since 2006, she has been a member of The WorkJuice Players, a theater troupe primarily known for The Thrilling Adventure Hour, a popular Los Angeles staged production in the style of old-time radio. She stars in the Amelia Earhart segment, playing the famed pilot, traveling through time; as well as playing a wide variety of other characters in other segments. In 2015, Reeser and The Thrilling Adventure Hour were invited to perform in New York City and Chicago, then Australia (Sydney) and New Zealand (Auckland and Wellington). Other members in the troupe include Paul F. Tompkins, Paget Brewster and Busy Philipps. An accomplished singer and dancer, Reeser has played in many musicals throughout her life. She also sang in numerous cabarets around Los Angeles, including Upright Cabaret and the acclaimed For The Record: Quentin Tarantino (Show at Barre). Reeser played Julie Cooper in The O.C. one-night musical, which took place at The Federal Bar in North Hollywood on August 30, 2015. In 2019, she starred in the West Coast premiere of Nicky Silver's Too Much Sun at the Odyssey Theater in Los Angeles.

Video games
Reeser played the character of Lissette Hanley in the video game Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, released in 2008.

Other ventures
Reeser was featured on the cover of December 2006 issue of Stuff magazine. She has also appeared in editorials for Maxim, Celebrity Skin and Zooey. She was ranked at number 57 on the Maxim magazine's "Hot 100 of 2006" list, at number 65 on the Maxim "Hot 100 of 2007" list and at number 85 on the Maxim "Hot 100 of 2011" list.

Personal life
On May 9, 2009, Reeser married writer and director Jesse Warren in Ojai, California. The couple have two sons. In November 2014, Reeser filed for divorce from Warren and requested joint physical and legal custody of their children. Author and friend Patrick Loubatière wrote her 2014 biography, titled No Ordinary Girl, published in English and French. In 2015, she was elected to SAG-AFTRA's National and Los Angeles Local Boards.

title: Autumn Reeser


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Friday

 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Friday
[ Vote here]  (41/4/2) ending 10 October 2005 21:30 (UTC)

– I would like to nominate Friday for adminship. She has been a user in Wikipedia since June 2005, and has racked up more than 2600 edits since then. She is a dedicated editor who has been very useful in AFD and very active in NP Patrol and also Rarely Avoid Conflects and has more than 600 edits in User Talk. She deserve a mop and bucket and would make a outstanding admin. --JAranda'' | yeah 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * ''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Yes, I accept, thanks. Friday (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator --JAranda'' | yeah 21:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Another good one. Ryan Norton T 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. El_C 23:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Soup ort Private Butcher 23:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Christopher Mahan 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Extreme TGIF Support! Ac  e  tic  ' Acid  01:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support good egg. Hamster Sandwich 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Merovingian (t) (c) 02:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support.  Rob e  rt  02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. utcursch | talk 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I can't believe I'm the first one to say "thank God it's Friday". -- BD2412 talk 05:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No you're not. See User:Acetic Acid's vote at #8. — J I P | Talk 05:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah... um... I can't believe I'm the first one to say in spelled out words, "thank God it's Friday". -- BD2412 talk 13:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Extreme FSM support, I need someone to support before I can nominate User:GraemeL and User:JoanneB. — J I P | Talk 05:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  Ral  315   WS  17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, so long as he can keep his objectivity about him, he seems prime meat for the admin grinder... now if we can just find a monkey or two to process him...Gimmiet 17:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. One revert rule, appears to be reasonable when there is a disagreement. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Dvyost 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Heartily. Makes good edits, helpful and full of good advice.  A force for the betterment of Wikipedia; the community should be grateful to have such editors.  As for time-in-service, I know of no such requirement.  Who was it that said adminship is supposed to be "no big deal?"--Craigkbryant 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Andre ( talk ) 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Extreme FSM support (but a different FSM to JIP's. Thryduulf 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Demonweed 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Most certainly. I'm slightly astonished that incivility is being proferred as a reason to oppose Friday, of all persons. The quality of Friday that has always stood out to me the most—and the reason I assumed until now that she was a long-time admin—is a certain unshakeable equanimity and poise that she maintains in discussions, even when attacked. We may not require of our admins that they never involve themselves in conflict, but we can expect them to maintain an even keel, have a willingness to entertain different points of view, demonstrate a firmness in upholding policy—and no less the grace to apologise for their errors when these are pointed out to them. Friday is all these; taken with her editing experience, I think she's a shoo-in for administratorship.— enceph alon  03:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes - seen this editor being sensible and thoughtful in various places. Good 'un. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Friday's a great editor, and is extremely helpful and polite. I'm surprised that Denelson83 offers below this as an example of incivility, when in fact it shows the opposite: civility in the face of dealing with a difficult user, which is exactly what's needed in an admin. Friday's just the sort of editor who ought to be promoted. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support our man Friday The exchange noted below actually shows that Friday can learn from mistakes, and be civil in exchanges. Bratsche talk 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support They opposed me because I had too many article edits, and they oppose her because too few. --Rogerd 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support- A thoughtful person, a good editor and very civil. Sunray 18:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - Tεx  τ  urε  22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Molotov (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 23:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support -Splash talk 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, good editor, manages to stay cool when the editing gets hot, as the link in the oppose section shows. --fvw *  01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) S'port - partly in protest at the discussion below! --Doc (?) 23:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Supporting Friday on a Saturday [[Image:Smiley.png|14px]]. --Bhadani 13:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support from one bemused by politics to another.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support From one admin candidate to another. I'll work on the edit summaries if you work on the civility issues, both of which seem to be somewhat minor, and fixable. Karmafist 16:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support for civil handling of Gabrielsimon and his many incarnations. Patience with problem editors is a valuable quality. android  79  17:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose re: civility issues and lack of time... sorry but 4 months is WAAAAAAAAY too short of a time to gain admin.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think time is a bit overrated. Editors can get the "feel" of Wikipedia in as little as 3 months, given that he/she contributes daily; Ive been here for 3 months. →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not so much for time to figure their way around the site as to not enough time to spot whether or not this person can remain cool in a bad edit war.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For me, four months and only 556 edits in article space is just too little, and the civility issue is also troubling. --Angr/undefined 14:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC) The comment below is right; she hasn't been uncivil (don't know what I was thinking). Changing vote to neutral
 * I've been looking at her edits and I'm not finding any examples of her being uncivil... she seems to be very thoughtful in her words. Can you provide a link? --Gmaxwell 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It is nice that one stays in touch with Wikipedians, but that's not a good enough credential for adminship.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose note enough time. freestylefrappe 21:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) NeutralPersonally pissed off as hell at this user, but will not let selfish or trivial emotions get in the way, or do something evil like oppose him. Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 05:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral For me, four months and only 556 edits in article space is just too little. --Angr/undefined 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) In looking through your user talk archives, you seem to receive the full spectrum of comments, from good to bad. However, I'm particularly troubled by this particular exchange.  It seems to suggest to me that you might have a short temper and an attribute of hypocrisy.  On this basis, and since this incident happened only just over a month ago, I shall render an opinion of opposition neutrality to your adminship candidacy.  Just so you know, my most recent adminship nomination was opposed on this very same type of scenario, one on which my RfC was built.  Denelson83 06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading the post cited above, I feel Friday conducted herself quite well in what could have been a very heated exchange. KHM03 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, with KHM03. I not sure if I know this editor enough to vote, but her involvement in that exchange only does her only credit in my eyes. --Doc (?) 11:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, edits to Wikipedia count as part of a permanent record. I have had uncivil exchanges on Wikipedia as well, and even though I apologized for my most recent uncivil scenario, the fact that remains that it still occurred, and the Wikipedia community will remember it for time immemorial, resulting in my reputation being damaged.  I opposed Friday's candidacy for adminship because she expressed incivility in the first place, and her reputation, and therefore credibility, is damaged as a result. Denelson83 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to neutral, as a response to Andre's objection. Denelson83 05:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Incidently, the exchange pointed out above with User:DreamGuy as the example of me being uncivil was the very same one I linked to below in the answer to the third question. It's certainly true that he felt I was being uncivil (hence him leaving me the "Your lack of civility" message), however I felt that I was polite even though we disagreed.  Still, this was certainly my strongest disagreement with another editor; I'm not trying to hide that at all.  If you want to know how I respond to disagreement, there it is.  Friday (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An observation on that exchange - the "I'm sorry you were offended" approach is not much of an apology, because it effectively blames the other party and will often aggravate rather than placate. I understand that it's motivated by a desire to defuse the situation, which is commendable, but only a sincere apology for something you did can work. Sometimes, if you don't have anything to apologize for, don't (I say this with trepidation, because most of us could find something to apologize for most of the time). --Michael Snow 22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I already do some vandalism reverting, so I'd certainly continue with that, altho perhaps a bit quicker. I've also been closing Afds here and there, but with sysop rights, I'd be able to do it in cases that required deletion also.  I would also speedily delete things, if they definitely fit an existing CSD (and of course, I would cite which CSD was used).  For cases that may be borderline, I'd tag it as a speedy but not do the actual deletion myself.  As a rule, I don't like page protection, but I may do that occasionally if the situation really warrants it.  I would also eventually block vandals, when appropriate.  However, I think to start with, I'd stick to admin actions that are less potentially controversial than blocks.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Well, I'm basically a Wikignome, so I can't claim to have written any brilliant articles by myself.  I do try to be active in policy discussions, though, and I feel I can keep a level head even during conflicts.  This will probably sound like a small and silly thing, but I think perhaps my proudest accomplishment so far was a month or so ago, when I was patrolling new pages.  I found an obviously inappropriate page which had been created by a new, but signed-in user.  I was able to explain to the author why it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia.  The author understood and agreed that the page should be deleted.  So, with the author's consent, the page was speedily deleted, avoiding both Afd and bad feelings on the part of the article's creator.  I want Wikipedia to be a newbie-friendly place, but not at the expense of having bad articles.  I considered this a best-of-both-worlds outcome.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I make every effort to not succumb to wikistress.  I'm generally a laid-back person, but when I do feel stress, I simply refrain from editing until I'm calmer.  I can't claim to have always avoided editing under stress, but I do make an effort.  As for conflicts, one of the first editors I encountered was User:Gabrielsimon.  We had some disagreements at first, but eventually made our peace.  I also ran afoul of User:DreamGuy a bit here and there, but I like to think I usually kept things civil.  You can see some of that history at User talk:Friday/archive2.  I do have my own opinions  (sometimes strong ones) about what makes Wikipedia better, so I know I'll have disagreements with other editors.  I follow the one revert rule, so that whatever disagreements I may have do not result in edit warring.  If given sysop tools, I would apply the 1RR to their use also: if ever someone else undid one of my actions, rather than fighting over it, I would stop and talk things over.  Friday (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Friday


text:
Talk:Clarias

Articles for Deletion debate
An earlier version of this article survived an Articles for Deletion debate as a result of being turned into this version. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarias is a species of catfish, which is how I got here. Not sure if an unknown band is appropriate.  I would say delete, personally.  Pharmboy 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To fix the problem, I have created a seperate page for the band and restored this one to the catfish genus. I'm putting this tag on top of the page: This article is about the catfish genus; for the band see Clarias (band) --Melanochromis 08:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good fix. I am now neutral about this article regarding the band, as I haven't enough information to have a firm opinion.  Pharmboy 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clarias. 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/20110719125046/http://zoolstud.sinica.edu.tw/Journals/40.2/158-162.pdf to http://zoolstud.sinica.edu.tw/Journals/40.2/158-162.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606051050/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s6/s6rbz157-167.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s6/s6rbz157-167.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226201806/http://www.mnhn.fr/sfi/cybium/numeros/pdf/251pdf/11.teugels.pdf to http://www.mnhn.fr/sfi/cybium/numeros/pdf/251pdf/11.teugels.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) 03:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clarias


text: User talk:205.154.182.195

title: User talk:205.154.182.195


text: Talk:Kenyapithecus

title: Talk:Kenyapithecus