text:
Talk:Kuch Kuch Hota Hai

Untitled
Article was somewhat disorganized and badly written; rewrote. User:Alwin 08:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
Unless someone can come up with an actual critic who says that KKHH is plagiarism, I'd like to remove the allegation. Having watched both movies, I don't any plagiarism at all. Zora 06:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

interestin' analysis
KKHH a masterpiece of Indian cinema —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.164.232.85 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kkhh2.jpg
Image:Kkhh2.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 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) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kuchkuch.jpg
Image:Kuchkuch.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 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) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/kuch_kuch_hota_hai#.VvRYkbtei1t

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Starring cast
Hey there, since you were involved in a lot of the editing around the time this article went to GA, I'm not exactly clear who the starring cast is. starring currently lists Shah Rukh Khan, Kajol and Rani Mukerji as the stars, but the lead contradicts that, indicating that Mukerji had a supporting role. It would seem that the lede and infobox should indicate consistently the importance of whomever was credited as the stars, and I often see Indian entertainment articles confusing "starring" for "appeared in". If Mukerji got a starring credit, then the lede should reflect that. If she was a supporting cast member who didn't receive the same credit as Khan or Kajol, then she shouldn't be in starring. And if there is any ambiguity about this (some films don't have "starring" credits in their on-screen credit roll, ex: Mean Girls), then we would need to reconsider how to present the appropriate cast members in starring and in the lede. Your input is kindly requested. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the opening credits the three of them get equal billing and most everyone else is listed as supporting. Salman Khan is listed as a special appearance at the very end. Bollyjeff  |  talk  23:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for responding. If that's the case, then should the relevant content in the lede be changed? Currently it reads:
 * It features the popular on-screen pair of Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol in their fourth film together, along with Rani Mukerji, and Sana Saeed in her film debut.
 * It presently is ambiguous who the film's stars are, because of the supplementary details about "popular on-screen pair", their film # count, and then noting Saeed's film debut. It also feels like we're suggesting Saeed is a co-star. The simplest fix would be something like:
 * It stars the popular on-screen pair of Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol in their fourth film together, along with Rani Mukerji. The film also marks the film debut of Sana Saeed.
 * There is probably be a better way to phrase it, but I was just going for simplicity. Thoughts? Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What you suggested is better. Bollyjeff  |  talk  00:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kuch Kuch Hota Hai


text:
John Howe (loyalist)

John Howe (October 14, 1754 – December 27, 1835) was a loyalist printer during the American Revolution, a printer and Postmaster in Halifax, a spy prior to the War of 1812, and the father of Joseph Howe a Magistrate of the Colony of Nova Scotia. He was born in Boston, Massachusetts Bay colony, the son of Joseph Howe, a tin plate worker of Puritan ancestry, and Rebeccah Hart.

Early years
John Howe was born October 14th in 1754, the same year that the French and Indian War or Seven Years' War (1754–1763) began. It was the consequences of this conflict that required the British to demand greater taxes from, and assert greater control over, their American colonies and it was the consequences of this conflict that raised and disappointed the English-American colonists' expectations about their opportunities for expansion, all of which contributed to the colonists' determination to revolt against an increasingly costly, authoritarian, and obstructive British rule. John Howe was eight years old at the end of this war on September 7, 1763, so he grew to maturity influenced by the events that followed, such as colonial resistance to the Stamp Act (1765–66), when he was 11, and the violence of the Boston Massacre (1770), when he was 16, in which British troops opened fire on a mob of Bostonians who were brawling with the troops.

John Howe's family were converts to a religious sect called the Sandemanians, whose best-known member was Michael Faraday, the famous scientist. The sect began when the Rev. John Glas (1695–1773), who had been the Presbyterian minister at Tealing, Perthshire, Scotland, sought a return to a "New Testament Christianity" that included Agapēs, pacifism, good works, charity, communal property, as well as a strong opposition to state control over the church. These views led to his suspension from the Church of Scotland in 1728. With the help of his son-in-law, Robert Sandeman, the sect grew to several churches in Scotland and England. Sandeman first moved to London in 1760 and then, in 1764, to New England. He arrived in Boston, where he helped his nephew get established as a bookseller, and then moved to Danbury, Connecticut, where he lived until his death in April, 1771. Sandeman's teachings to live a more purely Christian life appealed to New England's Puritan descendants and, with the rising tensions between the colonists and royal rule, Sandman's command to "Fear God and honour the King" and "if it be possible...To live peacefully with all men" found a receptive audience amongst the loyalists. A Joseph Howe is listed as a member of the Boston Sandemanians; this was probably John's father, but it might have been John's elder brother. John Howe's Sandemanian beliefs likely contributed to his loyalist stance, and definitely contributed to his lifelong pacifism.

John Howe probably began his apprenticeship as a printer to Richard Draper in either 1766 or 1767. Richard Draper was the King's printer in Massachusetts and the publisher of the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News Letter, the oldest English newspaper in the Americas. As Richard Draper was known to be a frail and sickly man, and as he was Draper's apprentice, John Howe probably witnessed and wrote the article about the Boston Tea Party that appeared in the December 23, 1773, issue. Less than six months after the report on the Boston Tea Party, Richard Draper, owner of the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News Letter, died on June 5 or 6, 1774, leaving the paper in the hands of his widow, Margaret Draper. Richard Draper may have anticipated his demise, as he formed a partnership with John Boyle in May, the month before his death. However, Margaret Draper soon ended this partnership (between August 4 and 11, 1774) as Boyle did not share her loyalist sympathies. Margaret Draper published the paper by herself from August 11, 1774.

A Loyalist printer in the American Revolution
On April 19, 1775, the opening battle of the American Revolution occurred when the British forces raided inland from Boston to Concord "to destroy a Magazine of Military Stores deposited there." When the raid broke into a firefight, the "Troops had above Fifty killed, and many more wounded". In the April 20, 1775, issue of the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News Letter a short article appeared that briefly described the battle, and—a day or more later—a broadside was published that reported on the Battle of Lexington and Concord at greater length. Both were quite likely written and printed by John Howe, who would have been just a few months short of his 21st birthday. After the Battle of Lexington and Concord news of the event quickly spread to the other colonies and American patriots came in great numbers to lay siege to Boston. On June 17, 1775, the American forces seized a hill across the Charles river to the north of Boston in Charlestown and began building fortifications upon it from which they would be able to fire upon the town and harbour. In the morning light, a British ship in the harbour, seeing the fortifications being constructed on the hill, began firing on the hill. Soon, British troops were ferried from Boston to Charlestown, where they charged up and took the hill, although at an enormous cost in lives. John Howe witnessed, wrote, and printed the broadside describing the Battle of Bunker Hill. In later years, he described his experiences at the battle to his youngest son, Joseph, in which he watched as General Sir William Howe led the final bayonet charge up the hill "with the bullets flying through the tails of his coat." After the battle, John told of aiding "a young officer whose leg had been amputated and who he cured of a raging fever by letting him drink a bucket of cold water." Shortly after the battle, John Howe proposed to Martha Minns, who accepted and became his fiancée.

Margaret Draper continued to print the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News Letter until September 7, 1775, when she appears to have had some trouble as no issues were published (or at least no issues have been found) from September 14 to October 6, 1775. John Howe, although he was just completing his apprenticeship, became Margaret Draper's new partner, and he was listed as the publisher from October 13, 1775 (the day before his 21st birthday, the time at which apprenticeships were completed in the practice of the time) to the paper's final issue on February 22, 1776.

On March 5, 1776, American forces seized control of Dorchester Heights, a hill to the south of Boston, with a commanding view of Boston harbour. Meanwhile, Henry Knox brought the cannon seized from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston. Realizing that taking the hill would be too costly, and that the Americans would soon have cannon in place, the British decided to evacuate the town of all of their forces and the loyalists. The two sides agreed upon an informal cease-fire proposed and negotiated by those in Boston who were staying: the Americans agreed because they feared the British would set fire to Boston as they left, the British agreed because they didn't want to suffer the costs of evacuating Boston under fire. On March 17, 1776, the last troops and loyalists boarded ships in Boston harbour and set sail for Halifax, Nova Scotia. Margaret Draper, John's partner in the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News Letter, is listed as being amongst the loyalists evacuated from Boston to Halifax, and she was accompanied by John Howe. Margaret Draper then moved to England, where she lived on a pension from the British government.

In mid-1776, the British assembled troops on Staten Island. On August 22, they crossed over to Long Island, and on August 27, they engaged and defeated the Americans at the Battle of Long Island. A series of battles continued the New York Campaign, which was concluded with the British victory of Fort Washington on November 16, 1776. On November 26, General Clinton and 6,000 troops were sent to take Newport, RI, which they succeeded in doing on December 1. After this victory, the British offered John Howe the position of Printer for the Provincial Forces. John Howe moved to Newport, RI, along with his fiancée, Martha Minns, and her brother, William Minns. He printed the first issue of the Newport Gazette on January 16, 1777, and he continued printing that newspaper until the final issue of October 6, 1779. During their stay in Newport, John Howe married Martha Minns on June 7, 1778. John Howe was named in the Massachusetts Banishment Act of 1778, possibly as a result of his work as printer for the British forces in Newport, Rhode Island. During this period, John Howe took on John Ryan, a native of Newport, as his apprentice, who later became the printer of the first newspaper in New Brunswick and then the King's Printer in Newfoundland.

On October 26, 1779, the British evacuated their troops and the loyalists from Newport, RI, to New York. On Christmas Day, 1779, John and Martha Howe's first child, Martha Howe, was born in New York. Sometime during 1780, John Howe and his young family, along with his brother-in-law William Minns, quit New York for Halifax, Nova Scotia. John Ryan remained in New York until 1783, becoming a partner with William Lewis in the New-York Mercury and General Advertiser.

Building a life in Halifax
On his return to Halifax, John Howe, published the first issue of the Halifax Journal on December 28, 1780. The paper remained in the Howe family until about 1819 and continued to be printed until about 1870. About half of the Halifax Journal was dedicated to foreign news and essays reprinted from European publications, there was a short Halifax section that covered shipping news and local events, and it reported on issues debated in the Assembly as well as laws and proclamations that were not covered in the Nova Scotia Royal Gazette. John Howe's printing was notable for its quality.

During this period, John Howe's and Martha (Minns) Howe's family grew and suffered losses. On September 2, 1782, their second child, Sarah Howe, was born, but she died at the age of 10 months on June 23, 1783. On September 8, 1784, John Howe, Jr., their third child, was born; in 1786 their fourth child, William Howe, was born; and in 1788, Jane Howe, their fifth child was born. On November 10, 1790, David Howe, John and Martha's sixth child was born, but Martha (Minns) Howe died of complications from the birth on November 25, 1790. On December 25, 1797, John and Martha (Minns) Howe's first child, Martha Howe, married Edward Sentell.

On October 25, 1798, John Howe married his second wife, Mary (Ede) Austen, the widow of Henry Austen. Only a few months later, on January 19, 1799, Martha (Howe) Sentell, the first child of John and Martha (Minns) Howe died in childbirth. But happier events followed with the birth of Sarah Foster Howe in 1800, John Howe's seventh child and his first with Mary (Ede Austen) Howe. On December 4, 1804, his last and best-known child, Joseph Howe, was born.

Meanwhile, after the death of Anthony Henry (printer), John was appointed King's Printer in 1801, responsible for printing the Nova Scotia Royal Gazette and the Debates of the House of Assembly. In the same year, he was also appointed Postmaster of Halifax and "agent manager and director of His Majesty's Packet boats in Halifax," a position that was extended to Deputy Postmaster-General of Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and the Bermudas in 1803. The postmaster positions included expanding and improving delivery routes and establishing way stations as required.

John Howe volunteers as a spy
Note other spying claims regarding a John Howe, denied in Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, "Although he was not, as one writer states, the John Howe who acted as a spy for Lieutenant-General Thomas Gage behind the rebel lines in 1775..."

In 1803, as part of the British blockade of trade with French-controlled ports, which was during the Napoleonic Wars, the Royal Navy searched American ships trading with continental Europe and impressed sailors onboard that were alleged to be British deserters. In June, 1807, HMS Leopard fired several shots on USS Chesapeake (1799) when the latter refused to submit to a search attempt. Fearing that these events presaged war, Sir George Prevost, the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, arranged for a spy to tour the New England states and "observe whatever may be agitating." The man he chose for his spy was John Howe.

Howe traveled through the American seaboard states, arriving in Boston on April 22, 1808, under the guise of visiting family and friends. He travelled from Boston to Washington, Norfolk, and New York. He reported on the political situation, predicted that Madison would be the next President, stated that there were French emissaries throughout the country, commented on the anti-British sentiment of Irish immigrants in New York, and assessed the state of military preparedness. John Howe subsequently made a trip to the United States from November 10, 1808, to January 5, 1809, but this visit was under the more official guise of "bearer of Dispatches to the British Minister", that minister being David Montagu, Baron Erskine of Restormel Castle, the British Envoy at Washington from 1806 to 1810. This mission included accompanying Baron Erskine to interviews with President Thomas Jefferson and President-elect James Madison. John Howe concluded that war with the United States could be avoided if the British blockade and tariff on ships entering French ports (which was having a devastating effect on the American economy) were rescinded, but if they were not, war was probably unavoidable and attacks on the British North American colonies were likely. When Madison declared war on Britain, beginning the War of 1812, he cited the British Orders in Council which established the blockade and tariff, just as John Howe had predicted, and attacks on the British North American colonies (later Canada) did occur.

For these services, Joseph Howe said ruefully, his father "never received a farthing."

John Howe's later years
After his brief stint as a volunteer spy, John returned to his usual work as printer, loyalist writer and postmaster in Halifax. On October 16, 1808, John Howe's eldest son, John Howe, Jr., married Henrietta Hians. In 1810, John Howe was appointed Justice of the Peace and Justice of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas. On October 9, 1813, his sixth and youngest child from his first marriage, David Howe, married Elizabeth M. Gethens. In 1815, John Howe was given a special commission as Justice "for the better and more effective administration of the office of Justice of the Peace and for the establishment of an active, vigorous and effectual Police." John Howe played a role in the establishment of a "House of Correction" and improving the police in Halifax by having "the daily attendance of one Magistrate in some Public Office in Halifax, for managing the Police of the Town." With his growing duties as a Magistrate and possibly due to a minor stroke, John Howe retired from his offices as King's Printer and Postmaster in 1818, appointments that were then awarded to his son, John Howe, Jr.

As mentioned, John Howe was a religious man and a convert to the Sandemanian church. In Halifax, John served as an elder of the Sandemanian church, he served as a lay preacher to the community of 2000 blacks that fled the United States during the War of 1812 and settled in Halifax, and he made regular Sunday visits to the prison to preach to the inmates. He was a practicing pacifist, yet on at least one occasion he knocked together the heads of two young men who were fighting on the Sabbath.

After his retirement from his offices of King's Printer and Postmaster, John Howe continued to be active, serving as a magistrate. In 1822, Sarah Foster Howe, John's seventh child, married Daniel Langshaw, but in 1824, Sarah Foster (Howe) Langshaw died aboard ship on her way from Liverpool, England, to Lima, Peru, where she was planning to move with her husband. In 1826, John Howe's sixth child, David Howe, also died. But another family event followed on February 2, 1828, when Joseph Howe, John Howe's youngest child, married Catherine Susan Ann McNab. After this marriage, John Howe helped to produce his son's, Joseph Howe's, newspaper together with Joseph's wife, particularly when Joseph traveled.

Howe was a serving magistrate when his youngest son, Joseph Howe, was charged with criminal libel for printing an anonymous letter that charged that the police and magistrates had embezzled £30,000 from the people of Halifax. Joseph Howe made it clear that his father was not one of the corrupt magistrates when he argued his own defense. Joseph won an acquittal in the case on March 3, 1835, in a victory that was popularly seen as a triumph of freedom of the press and a blow to the corrupt governance of some of the magistrates. Just over eight months after Joseph won his case, but before Joseph had begun his political career, John Howe died in his sleep on December 27, 1835, at 81 years of age. He is buried in the Old Burying Ground.

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

title: John Howe (loyalist)


text:
Parliament of Catalonia

The Parliament of Catalonia (Parlament de Catalunya, ; Parlamento de Cataluña; Parlament de Catalonha) is the unicameral legislature of the autonomous community of Catalonia. The Parliament is currently made up of 135 members, known as deputies (diputats/deputats/diputados), who are elected for four-year terms or after extraordinary dissolution, chosen by universal suffrage in lists of four constituencies, corresponding to the Catalan provinces. The Parliament building is located in Ciutadella Park, Barcelona.

Established in 1932, after the granting of self-governace to Catalonia by the Second Spanish Republic, it went to exile in 1939 as a consequence of the Nationalist victory in the Spanish Civil War. It was reestablished in 1979 during the transition to democracy. The most recent general election to the Parliament was held on 12 May 2024.

Catalan Courts
The first representative and legislative bodies in Catalonia were the Comital Court (Catalan: Cort Comtal) of Barcelona, modelling after the Frankish curia regis, and the Peace and Truce of God Assemblies (Assemblees de Pau i Treva), of which the earliest record dates from 1027. The last ones were originally ad hoc, local meetings convened by the clergy (Oliba, Bishop of Vic, who died in 1046, was a notable instigator) but progressively became subsumed into the court of the Counts of Barcelona. The first Catalan legal code, the Usatges de Barcelona, was promulgated by Count Ramon Berenguer I based on the decisions of these assemblies.

Although the counts of Barcelona, had greatly extended the territory under their control, their financial and military power was quite limited, due to the impact of the Feudal revolution during the regency of countess Ermesinde of Carcassonne (1018-1044). Their personal resources were particularly insufficient in periods of economic crisis or military expansion, of which they were many from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries. The need to secure troops and revenue led to the steady expansion of the Count's Court (Royal Court after the dynastic union of Barcelona and the Kingdom of Aragon, creating the Crown of Aragon) and a formalisation of its procedures. It came to be referred to as the Cort General de Catalunya or Corts catalanes (General Court of Catalonia or Catalan Courts), and was endowed with formal procedures, effectively written constitutions, by King Peter III of Aragon in 1283, making this institution the policymaking and legislative body of the Principality of Catalonia.

The Corts Catalanes were summoned and presided by the king as count of Barcelona, being composed of Three Estates (Tres Braços), representing the clergy, the feudal nobles and the citizens of Royal towns such as Barcelona or Girona. Inhabitants of feudal towns (such as Cardona) were not represented, except by their overlords. The main function of the Corts was legislative, either in approving laws proposed by the monarch (Constitucions) or at their own initiative (capítols de cort). Although the Catalan Courts met at irregular intervals, it also formally approved the acts of the between the King and their sessions (known as pragmàtiques) and, from 1359, established a permanent delegation to oversee the Crown (the Deputation of the General, forerunner of the Generalitat de Catalunya). The Catalan Courts, as well as the other institutions of the Principality and the administrative use of Catalan language, were abolished by the Nueva Planta decrees in 1716 after the House of Bourbon, supported by the Crown of Castille, defeated the Habsburg pretender to throne, which was backed by the remnants of the Crown of Aragon in the War of the Spanish Succession.

First proposals of a Catalan assembly
There were attempts from late 19th century to restore an autonomous system of representation for Catalonia. The Manresa Bases (1892) proposed the creation of new Catalan Courts, partly modeled on the original ones. On the other hand, republican federalists and left-wing Catalan nationalists made their own proposals of a liberal and democratic Catalan assembly. The first achievement of Catalan nationalism (led at that time by the Regionalist League), the Commonwealth of Catalonia (1914–25), was an institution composed by the provincial councils (diputaciones) of Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, which included a general assembly made up by representatives from the four provinces, but lacking legislative powers. In 1919, the Commonwealth prepared a project of Statute of Autonomy for Catalonia which included a bicameral parliament, however, the bill wasn't implemented. The assembly and the Commonwealth itself were disbanded and outlawed by Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship in 1925.

Republic and Generalitat
Following a brief proclamation of the Catalan Republic on 14 April 1931 and the provisional establishment of the Generalitat as a Catalan government within the new Spanish Republic, the first Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia was approved by the Spanish Parliament in September 1932, recognizing Catalan self-government and establishing a separate Parliament of Catalonia as the legislative body of the Generalitat, being elected on 20 November 1932. This first legislature was control by the Republican Left of Catalonia (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, ERC), which won the absolute majority of seats, while the conservative Regionalist League, almost hegemonic in Catalonia during the reign of Alfonso XIII, reached the second place but far from the Republican Left. Lluís Companys was appointed the first speaker of the Parliament. The Parliament appointed the ERC leader, Francesc Macià, as president of the Generalitat and, right after the election, the institution began to pass progressive legislation in different areas, such as health, culture and civil law, however, the institution was suspended between 1934 and 1936 when the Government of Catalonia attempted to create a Catalan State within a Spanish Federal Republic after, among other reasons, the rightward turn of the Republican government by its inclusion of CEDA ministers, self-proclaimed anti-Marxist and anti-democratic totalitarian traditionalists close to the European fascists, and the rejection by the Republican Court of Constitutional Guarantees (Constitutional Court of that time) of the emancipatory Crop Contracts Law land reform bill passed by the Parliament of Catalonia. The unilateral declaration of sovereignty lasted 10 hours.

The Parliament and the government were restored in February 1936 after the victory of Popular Front in the Spanish election, and abolished by the dictator Francisco Franco at the beginning of the occupation of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. The Parliament of Catalonia, like the rest of the institutions of the Generalitat, went to exile in 1939.

Re-establishment
After the death of Franco in 1975 and the subsequent first years of Spanish transition to democracy, claims by most of Catalan society and political spectrum, from communists to liberals, to restore self-government grew. The Generalitat came back from exile in 1977. In 1979, the new Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia recognized the restoration of the Parliament. The first legislature of the current Parliament of Catalonia was elected on 20 March 1980, 48 years after the first election in 1932. Convergència i Unió (CiU) a center-right Catalan nationalist electoral coalition won the plurality of seats, reaching 48 of 135 seats, and thus giving the presidency of the Generalitat to its leader Jordi Pujol, a position he would hold until 2003. That began a period of hegemony of CiU, which won the election of 1984 with an absolute majority (72 of 135).

Membership
The representatives of the Parliament of Catalonia are elected every four years after the date of its previous election, unless it is dissolved earlier, under a system of party-list proportional representation.

Since 1980, the 135 members of the Parliament of Catalonia are elected using the D'Hondt method and a closed list proportional representation, with a threshold of 3% of valid votes—which includes blank ballots—being applied in each constituency. Seats are allocated to constituencies, corresponding to the provinces of Barcelona, Tarragona, Girona and Lleida, with each being allocated 85, 18, 17 and 15 seats respectively.

In the 1932 election there were 85 seats up to election divided into five constituencies: the city of Barcelona proper and the provinces of Barcelona (excluding the city of Barcelona), Girona, Lleida and Tarragona, with each being allocated 24, 19, 14, 14 and 14 seats respectively. They were elected under the Republican system of plurality block voting or majoritari per districtes, with each voter casting a vote for 75% of its constituency seats. This in practice ensured that the winning bloc would always win three quarters of the votes (68 seats), thus ensuring a majority, with the second biggest bloc being awarded the remainder (17 seats). This system heavily punished minor parties, making it extremely difficult for them to gain representation.

Results of the elections to the Parliament of Catalonia
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:97%;" ! colspan="4" |Deputies in the Parliament of Catalonia since 1932
 * - bgcolor="#CCCCCC"
 * colspan="4" |
 * colspan="4" |

{{legend||USC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||PRA|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||PRDF|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||UC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||PCR|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||LRC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||UDC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||PSA–PA|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||CatSíQueesPot|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||CatComú–Podem|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||ECP–PEC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||PSUC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||CUP|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||PSC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||ERC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||ERC–CatSí|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||SI|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||JxSí|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||JxCat|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||JxCat|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||UCD|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||CiU|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||ICV|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||ICV–EUiA|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Cs|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||CDS|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||PP|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||CP|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||AP|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||AC|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Vox|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}}

! Election ! Distribution ! colspan="2"|President
 * - bgcolor="#CCCCCC"
 * rowspan="4" align=center|1932
 * rowspan="2" |
 * rowspan="1" |Francesc Macià (ERC) (1932-1933†)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * Lluís Companys (ERC) (acting 1933, 1934)
 * style="background:#EEEEEE; text-align:center;"| 1934–1936: Suspension of autonomy. During this interval, all Catalan institutions were abolished.
 * colspan="2" style="background:#EEEEEE;" | Office suspended indefinitely and later suppressed. Replaced by the Governor General of Catalonia
 * rowspan="1" |
 * style="background:#EEEEEE; text-align:center;"| 1934–1936: Suspension of autonomy. During this interval, all Catalan institutions were abolished.
 * colspan="2" style="background:#EEEEEE;" | Office suspended indefinitely and later suppressed. Replaced by the Governor General of Catalonia
 * rowspan="1" |
 * rowspan="1" |

 * Lluís Companys (ERC) (1936-1940†)
 * rowspan="1" style="background:;"|
 * rowspan="3" colspan="2" style="background:#EEEEEE; text-align:center;"| 1939–1977: Francoist dictatorship. During this interval, all Catalan institutions were abolished.
 * rowspan="1" colspan=2" style="background:#EEEEEE;" | Office abolished in Spain and former officeholder executed.
 * Josep Irla (ERC) (in exile 1940–1954)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * Josep Tarradellas (ERC) (in exile 1954–1977, 1977–1980)
 * align=center|1980
 * rowspan="6" |Jordi Pujol (CDC)
 * rowspan="6" style="background:;"|
 * align=center|1984
 * align=center|1988
 * align=center|1992
 * align=center|1995
 * align=center|1999
 * align=center|2003
 * rowspan="1" |Pasqual Maragall (PSC)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * align=center|2006
 * rowspan="1" |José Montilla (PSC)
 * align=center|2010
 * rowspan="2" |Artur Mas (CDC)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * align=center|2012
 * rowspan="3" align=center|2015
 * rowspan="3" |
 * rowspan="2" |Carles Puigdemont (CDC, PDeCAT) (2016-2017)
 * rowspan="1" style="background:;"|
 * rowspan="1" style="background:;"|
 * colspan="2" style="background:#EEEEEE" | Office suspended. Direct rule over Catalonia (2017-2018)
 * rowspan="2" align=center|2017
 * rowspan="2" |
 * rowspan="1" |Quim Torra (Independent) (2018-2020)
 * rowspan="1" style="background:;"|
 * Pere Aragonès (ERC) (acting 2020-2021)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * align=center|2021
 * Pere Aragonès (ERC)
 * align=center|2024
 * TBD
 * }
 * rowspan="2" |Artur Mas (CDC)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * align=center|2012
 * rowspan="3" align=center|2015
 * rowspan="3" |
 * rowspan="2" |Carles Puigdemont (CDC, PDeCAT) (2016-2017)
 * rowspan="1" style="background:;"|
 * rowspan="1" style="background:;"|
 * colspan="2" style="background:#EEEEEE" | Office suspended. Direct rule over Catalonia (2017-2018)
 * rowspan="2" align=center|2017
 * rowspan="2" |
 * rowspan="1" |Quim Torra (Independent) (2018-2020)
 * rowspan="1" style="background:;"|
 * Pere Aragonès (ERC) (acting 2020-2021)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * align=center|2021
 * Pere Aragonès (ERC)
 * align=center|2024
 * TBD
 * }
 * Pere Aragonès (ERC) (acting 2020-2021)
 * rowspan="2" style="background:;"|
 * align=center|2021
 * Pere Aragonès (ERC)
 * align=center|2024
 * TBD
 * }
 * align=center|2024
 * TBD
 * }
 * TBD
 * }

Leadership
The Parliament of Catalonia's Leadership resides in the Bureau of the Parliament comprising a President (Speaker), two Vice Presidents who chair debate when the President is absent, and four Secretaries, elected in the first session of each newly elected Parliament. The Bureau is tasked with managing the Parliament schedule and interpreting its rules of order, including the power to expel members from the sessions.

There is also a second, consultative body, the Spokespersons' Council (Catalan: Junta de Portaveus, Spanish: Junta de Portavoces, Aranese: Conselh de Pòrtavotzes), which is made up of the leaders and spokespersons from each parliamentary group in the Parliament and has the right to be "heard" before the Bureau takes some decisions such as scheduling debates and votes. In the Spanish system, however, ruling parties usually do not hold a tight grip over the Parliament's schedule, nor do they use it to turn down the opposition proposals without debate: they are just voted down in committee or by the full house after the shortest debate allowed by the rules of order. Thus, while control of the Bureau and the Spokespersons' Council is definitely important, it is not a critical matter as it sometimes becomes in other systems.

Functions
The definition and functions of the Parliament of Catalonia are defined by the Title II, Chapter I of the Statute of Autonomy. According to the Statute, the Parliament:

 * Appoints the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya.
 * Pass the Catalan legislation in the business of its competence.
 * Pass the Budget of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia.
 * Controls the action of the Government of Catalonia and the autonomous agencies, public companies and all other bodies answerable to it.
 * Appoints the Síndic de Greuges (ombudsman).
 * Appoints eight senators who represent Catalonia in the Senate of Spain.
 * Elaborates bills to present them to the Bureau of the Congress of Deputies and appoints the representatives of the Parliament in charge of defending them.
 * Requests the adoption of bills from the Government of Spain.
 * Requests to the State the transfer or delegation of powers and the attribution of powers within the framework of article 150 of the Constitution.
 * Appeals of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court and in other constitutional proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court.
 * Carry out other functions attributed to it by the Statute of Autonomy and the laws.

Building
The official home of Parliament is the Palace of the Parliament of Catalonia (Palau del Parlament de Catalunya in Catalan). It is located in the Parc de la Ciutadella of the capital city, Barcelona. The main entrance is at number 1 of Joan Fiveller Square.

The building was designed by the Flemish architect Jorge Próspero de Verboom between 1716 and 1748 to serve as an arsenal, in the fortress of the Citadel that King Philip V had built, shortly after having conquered the city of Barcelona, on 11 September 1714. After the destruction of the Citadel, in 1868, the old arsenal was converted into a palace by the architect Pere Falqués, in order to receive the royal family during the 1888 Barcelona Universal Exposition. In 1900, the building became the Local Museum of Decorative and Archaeological Arts (Museo Municipal de Arte Decorativo y Arqueológico in Spanish).

In 1932, after the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic and the grant of self-government to Catalonia, the building was chosen by the newly created Catalan Parliament. The building was renovated by the decorator Santiago Marco, transforming the throne room into the session chamber, and on the facade the Bourbon coat of arms was replaced by the Blazon of Catalonia. The inaugural session was held on 6 December 1932. After the Civil War, the building became a military barracks and in 1945, the seat of the Museum of Modern Art of Barcelona.

In 1977, during the Spanish transition to democracy, the building temporarily served as the Assembly of Parliamentarians (Catalan: Assemblea de Parlamentaris) until the restitution of Catalan self-government. In 1979 it became the seat of Parliament again and was renovated. Finally, the Museum of Modern Art was transferred in 2004 to the National Palace of Montjuïc, the new headquarters of the National Art Museum of Catalonia. Since then, the palace has been used exclusively for parliamentary purposes.

It is now listed as a Cultural asset of local interest (Bé cultural d'interès local in Catalan) in the Inventory of Catalan Cultural Heritage, with the number 08019/125.

title: Parliament of Catalonia


text:
Peter Petherick

Peter James Petherick (25 September 1942 – 7 June 2015) was a New Zealand cricketer who represented New Zealand in six Test cricket matches between October 1976 and March 1977 as an off-spinner. He is one of two New Zealand bowlers to achieve a hat-trick in Test matches. He is one of only three players, along with Maurice Allom and Damien Fleming, to have taken a hat-trick on Test debut.

Domestic career
Making his first-class debut at 33, he played for Otago from 1975–76 to 1977–78, and for Wellington from 1978–79 to 1980–81. In his fifth match he took 9 for 93 in the first innings against Northern Districts, and he finished the 1975–76 season with 42 wickets at 20.13.

After cricket
After his retirement from cricket, Petherick took up lawn bowls, and skippered a two-man team to the final of the New Zealand national bowls championship in 2006. He died in Perth, Australia, on 7 June 2015.

title: Peter Petherick


text:
File:Meccano Centennial Poster.jpg

Summary
Meccano Centennial poster and stamp issued in 2001 to celebrate one hundred years of Meccano. It shows the famous Meccano blocksetting crane with a portrait of Frank Hornby, Meccano's inventor. It was designed by Michael Adler, founder of the International Society of Meccanomen, with art work by Doug Harris.

 * Source: http://www.internationalmeccanomen.org.uk/GI/Commstamp/commemstamp.html

Fair use for Meccano
The use of this image in the article named above is claimed as Fair use of copyrighted material because:
 * 1) It is a low-resolution copy of an event poster;
 * 2) It is used for informational purposes only;
 * 3) The article named above concerns the event in question;
 * 4) The inclusion of the image in the named article makes a significant contribution to the article because it:
 * 5) identifies the subject of the article;
 * 6) illustrates the event in question;
 * 7) No free version of the image is available that would serve the equivalent purpose;
 * 8) The event took place in 2001, so the inclusion of the image in the named article has no impact on the event or its organisers.

title: File:Meccano Centennial Poster.jpg


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2

To allow us to channel discussion into constructive outcomes, I've created some discussion starters. brenneman (t) (c) 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Snowspinner's response
After reading Snowspinner's thoughts on the matter, I don't think that he understands what the problem is. This isn't an inclusionist vs. deletionist debate. I did add in a last bit on descriptivism in my summary, but that's not what this is about either. I can't really see how this could be sour grapes, as the two AfDs I was involved in that he speedily kept I had voted "keep" on, and I don't really know Snowspinner (haven't had any contact with him up to this point AFAIK) and am sure he's a fine guy. What this RfC is about is whether or not it's O.K. for an admin to delete discussions (in this case, AfDs) right in the middle of them, because he says so. Yes, it is true that notability is not a deletion criteria, in terms of what policy says. But does that make it all right to simply axe debates that has that as a standard? Where does it say that that is decent behavior? Policy contradicts it explicitly: to paraphrase, any page that does not meet a WP:CSD can not be speedied, and must go through AfD or a similar system (IfD, MD, etc.). Is Snowspinner above this?

I'm not trying to have popular consensus trump Wikipedia. I'm not trying to have Snowspinner desysopped, either, although I think that a temporary loss of adminship is appropriate. Sometimes a first offense is a big offense, and sometimes it's not. The disruption caused by voting delete on an AfD based on notability is minor compared to the disruption caused by speedily deleting seventeen pages without discussion or backing policy. Nowhere is it acceptable (or polite) to end a discussion by erasing all opposing points of view. Here, on Wikipedia, it is also a violation of policies. --Blackcap | talk 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Response on invalid "notability" nominations
This is a response to Nickptar's query.

I wrote: The deletion process is broken to the point where some editors feel that it's wrong for someone to speedy a deletion nomination that blatantly contradicts the deletion policy.

Nickptar asked Show me the policy that says "AFD nominations are only valid if:

That isn't the only way to demonstrate that what I say is true. Deletion policy states explicitly that if the only problem with an article is that it's "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" then it's one of the "Problems that don't require deletion". Instead it says that the editor should "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect". After Snowspinner deleted the invalid nominations, the mistaken nominators still had the option to carry out the merges. All that happened was that nominations that violated deletion policy were correctly destroyed. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Minor branch. What about things that aren't branches, but are just non-notable entities that someone feels do not deserve mention at all? N (t/c) 19:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Even your little brother's grunge rock garage band is a branch of rock music, so theoretically, if it was third party verifiable, it could be covered, perhaps in an article titled "Garage bands from _your city_".  Un  focused  19:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Entries for garage bands without a contract can be covered by unverifiability but if verifiable they shouldn't need to be deleted. Remember that our deletion policy requires us, if in doubt, to not delete. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At the risk of encouraging tangential discussion, I saw with interest this AFD Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination) in which Jimmy Wales seems to be advocating for deletion on the grounds of both unverifiability AND non-notability. I realize in this instance he's just one editor out of many, but it is still interesting to me. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have started an informal poll on this issue. N (t/c) 21:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved from main page
For reference next time: if you move endorsements of outside views, please either remove the endorsements from ALL views equally, or simple copy the entire endorsement and comments in reply from each view, but leave a copy of the original endorsements where they were with a note saying that the comments in reply were moved. Otherwise, it appears that you're removing endorsements from some views but not others, introducing bias. Un focused  18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

 * I'm not allowed to actually say anything negative about Snowspinner, but I guess I can still endorse something someone else wrote that's critical of him. Everyking 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as you are endorsing this because you agree with it, not just because it is negative to Snowspinner (and I have no reason to believe it is anything other than the former), then IMHO this is acceptable within the spirit of the outcome of your RfAr. Thryduulf 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course - David Gerard 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Response

 * 1) David Gerard 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) "Sour grapes" is precisely what this is about. And I remember you as a deletionist, railing against those inclusionist feckwits ...
 * May I ask whose sour grapes, and about what? --Blackcap | talk 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by RN

 * Rubbish. No he shouldn't. (Hence striking my endorsement above.) - David Gerard 09:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that when administrators disagree with a procedure they should ignore it? The Land 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say that when people are blatantly doing things that are against policy, that's time for an admin to step in. That it's a bunch of them doing it in concert makes it greater cause for action, not less - David Gerard 15:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have any evidence that the people who nominated those articles on AfD are 'a bunch of people doing things against policy in concert' then please show it. You're sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist to me. The Land 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A bunch of people are trying to push through "notability" as a deletion criterion when it's nothing of the sort, and even bringing a largely bogus RFC against someone for daring to treat policy as valid. What do you want? - David Gerard 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have never seen anyone seriously claim that notability should not be a requirement, or arguments against notability make any headway whatsoever in any debate, regardless of whether it was on AfD, VfD, or anything else. I'm not the most experienced user around, but saying we don't have a policy on notability seems ludicrous to me. The Land 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I heartily disagree that this is a "largely bogus RfC." What's under question here isn't about notability, which, though not a deletion criterion, is held by plenty of people to ought to be one, what's under question is whether or not it's O.K. to simply delete pages that you disgree with, especially on such shaky ground as notability as a deletion criterion. And by the way, if you're going to say "bringing a largely bogus RfC," be honest and say you're questioning my good faith rather than saying two contradictory things. --Blackcap | talk 19:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Bogus" appears to be the correct word for bringing an RFC on an alleged consensus policy that is against the actual policy. What word would you prefer? - David Gerard 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought I had spelled this out, but one last time to make this clear: this RfC is not about notability as a criteria for deletion. What this RfC is about, as I said, is that it is entirely against policy to speedy delete AfD pages in the middle of a debate whether or not they are valid. Show me the WP:CSD that allows that. Some of those AfDs were without keep votes. A speedy keep and unlisting would have been against policy. A speedy keep that actually deletes the AfD page is unacceptable. And note that I didn't say not to call this a bogus RfC. I said to be an honest man and say that you doubt my good faith. --Blackcap | talk 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by David Gerard

 * 1) I completely concur with David on this issue. The entire deletion process on Wikipedia is broken and needs to be replaced, but there will never be a consensus to do so.  I tend to also agree with Tony Sidaway that the problem is self-correcting, however, as AfD will never scale effectively and will eventually become totally irrelevant in the face of ever-larger new article influx.  We should therefore allow AfD addicts to continue to play in their increasingly irrelevant playground until they eventually become bored with it and leave.  Kelly Martin 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. You say "AFD addicts can continue to play", but then endorse the unilateral outside disruption of AFD? Consider: if there will never be a consensus to do something, then maybe we shouln't do it. Your opinion does not justify unilateral action. This is exactly what I meant in my outside view by when I said the only reason this abuse is tolerated is because of the popular anti-AFD viewpoint. N (t/c) 14:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to tolerate letting the AfD addicts continue to play in their little playground. But when their antics disrupt the process of writing an encyclopedia too much, any editor (whether or not an admin) is entitled to swat them out of the way and continue writing the encyclopedia.  Kelly Martin 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. But what I said, in bold, about consensus? N (t/c) 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we won't see consensus on what should be done about AfD, because there is still not yet consensus on whether "notability" is a deletion criterion. However, I think we have at least rough consensus that AfD is not an ideal deletion mechanism: that is, the damn thing is broken, but we don't know what to do about it. Kelly Martin 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But, perhaps the problem is that the two issues are being confused. Leaving aside notability, afd has an important pupose of deleting hoaxes, inherent POV, and unverified articles. (I'd love to know what % of afds do concern notability - perhaps lower than we think). Thus allowing afd to 'wither on the branch' is extremely problematic, and will increase the pressure to widen speedies (which are too subjective and unscrutinised as it stands). On the other hand, seeking to widen afd participation is also problematic. When a silly editor (usually an anon) creates junk in thirsty seconds, how much time of how many reliable editors do we want spent on the deletion process of that article? I think we need to try to find a fix, that leaves notability to one side. Indeed I've tried to make a start here is anyone is interested]] --Doc (?) 20:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This endorsement is here for formal purposes only.  If and when Snowspinner writes a response, I may review again. I have endorsed Snowspinner's response, but want to comment on this outside view.  I completely agree with David's view and Kelly's comment.  The deletion process is broken to the point where some editors feel that it's wrong for someone to speedy a deletion nomination that blatantly contradicts the deletion policy.  Process has triumphed over substance.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  14:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy that says "AFD nominations are only valid if:" N (t/c) 14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to that on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy - if it's not a listed reason, it's a bogus nomination and should never have been put up. Or are you quibbling over the use or nonuse of the words "valid" or "invalid"? - David Gerard 15:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I am. That page says that articles can be AFDed if someone thinks they are "not suitable for Wikipedia". Non-notability is surely a criterion for non-suitability. And some of those AFDs had been heading towards "delete" - I think it's inappropriate for an admin to speedy keep an article for which nobody has said "keep". (This would be an example of the "policy doesn't trump votes" thing Fubar and I have been talking about.) And in any case, deleting the AFDs to completely blow away the discussion was utterly unjustified. N (t/c) 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As a frequent participator in the AfD process (usually as nominator), I'm seeing the same problems that David is describing, and my review of the 'case' leads me to believe that it's clear Snowspinner was operating in good faith. The system is broken, the WP:CSD should be amended to return AfD to something that allows community involvement.  The RFC process is all the protection needed against a theoretical "speedy delete abuse" because the people pulling the trigger are held to a higher standard. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Weather or not it's broken doesn't mean he should violate policy. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 22:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **I agree absolutely, but I endorse this writeup because I WP:AGF Snowspinner's edits. Admins are held to a high standard and can be censured if needed.  This RfC, no matter what the outcome, proves that.  A de-sysoping for something that A:is done in good faith and B:reflects consensus is a "letter of" instead of "spirit of" situation.  WP:Justice is not served by the punishment suggested. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 2 by David Gerard

 * 1) An utterly surreal suggestion in the circumstances. Policy is policy, you don't get deopped for upholding it, no matter how many people may wrongly believe that they have effectively changed policy by disregarding it. Tony Sidaway Talk  20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Completely correct. You don't get desysopped for upholding it, you get desysopped for flagrantly violating it by breaking WP:CSD. --Blackcap | talk 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. RC patrollers violate WP:CSD on a daily basis. They're trusted sysops, we assume they know what they're doing.  Snowspinner is one of the best we've got, he knows what he's doing and, consider this, even understands the deletion policy well enough to enforce it in this way.  Because we trust him.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that the royal "we" or just you and your mates? Because I don't trust Snowspinner and on this issue I'm in very good company. Grace Note 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I would say that speedy deleting seventeen WP namespace discussions is violating WP:POINT and WP:CSD badly enough to say that he is not trustworthy. As far as I know, he still thinks that this was a good move and should be done again (although his endorsement of Unfocused's outside view make me wonder). I don't trust an admin who thinks that he is THAT MUCH outside the rules. This is not just a stretching of a CSD, it's an entirely new CSD of his own invention. I haven't heard Snowspinner even acknowledge that this may cause a problem. I haven't heard him say he won't do it again or that he'll ask for concensus first. If I heard something like that volunteered, then I'd assume that he can at least recognize that these actions have caused a problem, but he hasn't and still seems to think that there's nothing wrong with them. --Blackcap | talk 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner did not breach WP:POINT. That's disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.  Read G Maxwell's explanation of why you're wrong here.  But more to the point, deleting out-of-order AfDs isn't disruptive because it supports the deletion policy rather than (as deletion nominations for obviously merge candidates arguably do) thwart it.
 * I don't think you'll find Snowspinner "acknowledging" that his stretching of CSD is problematic because it patently isn't. Sysops speedily deleted Homa Sayar and Pejman Akbarzadeh and half a dozen other articles without even a shred of support in CSD. Did it cause a problem?  Not a bit of it!  The articles survived.  No administrator has the last word. --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we're just going to disagree here. --Blackcap | talk 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Really truly, it's a jawdroppingly clueless breach of all sanity for you to think this is material for a desysopping. What in God's name led you to the line of thought that it would? - David Gerard 00:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Forgive him, he doesn't know that Snowspinner has carte blanche. He has made the mistake of thinking that we are all equally bound by the rules. As you demonstrate here, we're not, otherwise you'd be blocking yourself for your lack of civility, something you rarely bother with displaying to the hoi polloi. Grace Note 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For an arbitrator, you're really not very good at being civil. I thought that that was what happened to an admin who badly violates a strongly standing policy. If I'm wrong on that, I'm sorry. It seemed pretty reasonable to me: adminship is not a big deal, as they're always saying, and a temporary loss of it for a large violation seemed pretty sensible. If that's too much, I can honestly say that I didn't think so and I must just be "jawdroppingly clueless." --Blackcap | talk 00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There you go again, falsely claiming that Snowspinner violated rather than upheld a longstanding policy. --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please show me the policy. It seems pretty likely to me that we're talking about two diferent things. --Blackcap | talk 22:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Nickptar

 * 1) Breaching AFD process because AFD has problems does not improve AFD, it weakens it still further because it makes people think that "if an admin can breach the AFD process, why can't I?". Sjakkalle  (Check!)  14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If people are blatantly working against policy, that's what an admin stepping in is for. And I don't really see that it matters that it's a bunch of them doing it in concert - David Gerard 15:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dispute that a person nominating an article for deletion is "blatantly working against policy". I do not endorse the "Non-notability is not a criterion for deletion" sentiment, although I am sometimes willing to be quite liberal in deeming things as "notable". If you disagree and believe that anything non-notable (but verifiable) should be kept, the correct way is to cast a "keep"-vote and state your point. Brutally ending the discussion by deleting the AFD debate entirely is disrespectful of others because it declares that your opinion trumps all others, and such a way of doing things leads to a chaotic AFD system which serves nobody. AFD is a very contentious forum on Wikipedia, perhaps the most contentious one after RFAr, and because of that I think the processes there need to be respected and that it is a poor place to ignore all rules.
 * Interest in upholding some law and order in the deletion system is why I fought so hard against the unilateral deletion of Historical persecution by Jews after I closed it as a "keep". The article itself meant absolutely nothing to me, and even if it had there would be nothing preventing me from printing it out several times and using it as wallpaper over my entire house. But I was very upset that another admin would try to subvert the deletion process.
 * Yes, at the page where are deepest philosophical and morals are revealed, I listed myself as "Lawful Neutral". Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As per Sjakkalle above. Process does matter, it is a guarentee of transparency and accoutnability in making key decisions. Ther is a reason why fundamental civil rights are said to be covered by a gurantee of Due process. While wikipedia is not a government, many of the same reasons why process is important apply here. DES (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And when a pile of people work in concert to violate policy, does that successfully steamroller process, or is it an abuse of process to be dealt with? - David Gerard 15:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never had the impression that WP is the place for the iron fist of the law, I always thought that WP was the place for civilized, rational, discourse with the objective of consensus. The fact that many people are violating policy suggests that maybe policy should be looked at, rather that stifling the dissenters. You are advocating process here. Fine. So am I. Speedy deleting AfDs is not process, it is stifling. --Blackcap | talk 00:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by DES

 * 1) Of course! Regardless of what some people are saying, non-notability is a deletion criterion, and it is because the community, by and large, believes it is. N (t/c) 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Most people who state that notability isn't a deletion criterion don't say that non-notable things should be included, they just think determining each article's notability isn't worth the hassle and would be arbitrary anyway, and it's better not to put such a subjective term into policy. The old "nn I've never heard of it" argument, you know. At least that's how I see it. -- grm_wnr Esc  17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) There is an argument that notability is a contentious criterion for deletion, but neutrality/verifiability as a criterion for inclusion alone commands less consensus --TimPope 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean here. Um, you're aware, I hope, that neutrality and verifiability are official policy of Wikipedia? Notability is conspicious by its absence from those policies, and no amount of spin-doctoring will alter that. --Tony Sidaway Talk  18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware of those policies. I have reworded this response on the main page. The definition of what non-notable is is provided at Guide to deletion: "non-notable, nn or vanity mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type." Is this a valid criterion from deletion policy? Deletion policy says: "Problem with page - Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT) → Solution – List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)". Therefore deletion policy says we must look to What Wikipedia is not. It is explicity stated in this policy "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". Articles must be neutral and verifiable, but it is affirming the consequent to say that something which is neutral and verifiable must be an article. Policy currently contradicts that. Therefore, Snowspinner was wrong to speedy the afd nominations. --TimPope 16:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Endorsements
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
 * 1) Un  focused  16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly. -- grm_wnr Esc  16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Snowspinner 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, come to think of it, this is more or less how I feel. Well put. I'd add me as #4 if I could, but I can't.--Blackcap | talk 19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I disagree completely with the bit about AfD, but will take that to the talk page. --Blackcap | talk 19:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) David Gerard 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Of nearly the same importance? They consider them of greater importance. In between driving off non-regulars then claiming they should be participating if they think the system is rotten.
 * That's not really very accurate. What is said is that if the system is rotten, fix it. Go write a proposal that works, get it passed, and bam! we've got a better AfD system. Great, and congratulations to the person who did the job. It happens. But I've never seen anyone "drive off non-regulars" unless they're a sock puppet, and complaining for a better AfD gets us nowhere. --Blackcap | talk 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Nickptar added a comment here. I have moved it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2 and posted my reply.   Un  focused  19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They frequently accuse others of being suspected sockpuppets just for not being AFD groupies. - David Gerard 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I've never seen that. Would you mind showing me where? I've seen plenty of anons and users with less that 10 edits get marked as a sock, but never anyone else, and not just passers-by who are regular contributions to Wikipedia at large. --Blackcap | talk 01:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
For me, the offense is delisting as well as deleting the discussions; although the second is worse than the first, both are highly inappropriate. Regarding "interested minority" and "opposing deletion policy", please see my and Fubar Obfusco's statements at WP:AN/I. N (t/c) 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delisting was bold and likely to be reverted pretty quickly and easily. That would have been disruptive enough.  Deleting was being a dick and inappropriate.  Regarding "consensus creates policy", when you're referring to core policies of Wikipedia, consensus through repeated action creates nothing more than established procedure that has the illusion of being policy.  (I think it's appropriate to move these comments to the discussion page, so I have done so.)   Un  focused  19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Nick, everyone knows about AfD and has the right to vote there. The fact that they don't doesn't make those who do some kind of AfD-obssessed cabal. If they don't (because it's too time-consuming, because it's unpleasant, because it's boring, whatever) then they are freely giving up their vote and have no right to complain. No one is not allowed to vote on AfD, save the blocked, banned, or ArbCommed. They can always write a proposal to change it. People do. Those who don't have that right as well, but they can't gripe about it. As for it being broken, show me something that works better and we'll talk. I don't think that this is a solution, at least not a good one. --Blackcap | talk 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. People who participate in a discussion cannot establish the policy by acting in contradiction to existing policy. Moreover a cursory look at the debates on AfD will reveal that notability is not a criterion unchallenged on AfD. Far from it. If you want to establish a policy, do it properly. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Remember what this RfC is about: a sysop who decided his views beat existing policy on speedy deletion. --Blackcap | talk 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. For every administrator you can get to support you, I'll show you an administrator who has speedied articles against the deletion policy.  If we asked them all to desysop themselves, we would have scarcely any admin left on RC patrol.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe they have. I don't regularly check administrator's deletion logs, so I don't know who they are. If they did, whether or not they deserve an RfC would depend on the articles speedied. My guess would be that there's a lot of stretching of A7 and some others. However, deleting AfDs is a different ballgame, and in this case, I know about it, and can and have done something about it. This is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And anyway, what else could this be about? Notability? Snowspinner didn't violate any notability policy, there isn't a notability policy. He violated WP:CSD, and with gusto. --Blackcap | talk 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and with WP:POINT in boot. Ryan Norton T 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And by the by, who are you talking to? It looks like you're starting a new topic, but your sentence reads like a reply. --Blackcap | talk 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I was directly responding to your misrepresentation of the process by which policy is made on Wikpiedia. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * O.K. Thanks, that wasn't entirely clear. --Blackcap | talk 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Radiant's view

 * Endorsements

 * 1) Radiant_ >|< 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't know if it'll work, but it reveals an ever-refreshing willingness to consider solutions instead of continuing to bicker. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I've been working on something simillar - but it now seems I was re-inventing the wheel. My thoughts are here, if anyone is interested. --Doc (?) 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Disdorsements

 * 1) Useless in 99%. Do you think the original author will sit there and look at this "YourWorkIsGarbageYouMoronTemplate"? (This is how it will be perceived however polite you phrase the text.) mikka (t) 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but 60% of vfd's are uncontested - which means that even the original author can't be bothered commenting. Many orignal authors of nonsense seem to depart the scene quickly. Of course, we'd need to have a process for dealing with 'contested deletions' - see my comments above. --Doc (?) 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I stay partially corrected, by AFD 100 days. However I noticed something fishy there.
 * "AFD outcomes" table gives 60% deletions, while "Article voting patterns" gives 58.2% unanimous deletions. I find it hard to believe that only 1.8% of entries were disputable deletions.
 * for the issue at hand the 58-60% number is skewed, because I believe the overwhelming majority of deleted articles are created by users who have no right to vote yet. mikka (t) 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I do agree with the above unfortunately. Maybe if you have a preset message like "A wikipedian has nominated this page for deletion. Feel free to remove this tag if you disagree.", even then you've got time issues. Plus subst-ing it just makes it harder to remove.... it's subst-cruft!!!! Ryan Norton T 00:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Thryduulf
Endorsements: Disendorsements:
 * 1) Thryduulf 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) mikka (t) 01:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC). I endorse you "speedy kept proposal" However the second clause may still require a reasonable wait time; say 48h: it is fairly easy to astroturf "speedykeeps". (On the other hand, this time-based precaution may be unimportant, since I am not aware of vandal mafia among editors with voting rights.) mikka (t) 01:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 01:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) "Policy exists for a reason" - you mean the one they were breaking with "delete nn"? "even if the nomination does not correlate exactly with policy" - and what if it's 180° from policy? "I can see no situation where the deletion of AfD pages has any benefit to anybody." - When the nomination is so jawdroppingly bogus it's ridiculous to let it stand and perpetuate the illusion that this is actually with policy rather than against - David Gerard 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Really, policy is not all that clear that nominations can only be done for certain reasons. And policy is even less clear that voting a certain way can contradict policy. If that were the case, we wouldn't need AFD, would we? N (t/c) 03:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that where the nomination is "so jawdroppingly bogus" the nomination shouldn't be allowed to stand. However, the AfD page should not be deleted. If it is recorded at Articles for deletion/Isreal that it was speedily kept for being in bad faith (or whatever) this might discourage the clueless and the bored/idle (because you'd have to edit the template to do a /2 or /3) from going head with the nomination. It wouldn't stop a vandal, but then we have lost nothing more than the time it takes to type SPEEDY KEEP. ~ at the top of the page and  at the bottom and press save. There would be no need to edit the article talk page unless you felt it of benefit - in which case presumably you feel it worth your time. Thryduulf 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Gmaxwell
I disagree yet agree. It has gotten off topic, but shouldn't be closed until its resolved. -- Spinboy 01:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to save it, you might consider moving all text not directly related to his actions over to the talk page. Refactoring discussions is sure to upset some people, but ... When I read the page it was very difficult to wade between people who were discussing Snowspinner and people who were discussing the AFD. As a result when someone states their view on Snows actions I can't tell if the view is because they actually think he did or didn't make a mistake or if they think it does/doesn't matter because there is controversy about AFD in general. At this point it looks like there is a lot more talk about AFD than Snowspinner. Part of the challenge in refactoring it is that the focus shift to AFD starts in Snowspinner's reply. :( --Gmaxwell 02:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Offtopic, but this page seems to show a fairly common misunderstanding of what wp:point is about. Taking an action that you think is directly right (even if your judgement is bad) is not WP:POINT. Doing something annoying which you probably disagree with yourself just to show others what extent their argument could be taken to is WP:POINT. For example, If Snow thinks that notability shouldn't be a criteria, closing down AFDs on NN is just his view (although it might be disruptive), a WP:POINT problem would be running around and AFDing the trivia math articles on numbers or niche quantum physics stuff because it's "not notable". Another example, I think notability *is* an important criteria for creating articles (as opposed to just being included in another article), so if I were going to violate WP:POINT, I'd grab the FCC tower database and start a bot making hundreds of thousands of articles "FCC234253 is a radio tower in ...". In short WP point doesn't just require that the the person be disruptive, or that they have a point, but also that they are causing disruption to attempt to prove something. --Gmaxwell 02:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, disruptivity is bad whether you have a point or not. N (t/c) 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I agree there. Many positive things start out, initally, as disruptive. We must endeavor to minimize uneeded disruption, but we shouldn't be afraid of causing a little dust in the name of progress. WP:POINT covers a special case which we are more vulnerable to because we are not (and perhaps can not be) internally consistant with our decision making. When disruption happens we want it to, at least, be because someone is trying to improve things, and not just because they want to make a point. The case of unneeded disruption due to poor judgement is why we have RFCs. --Gmaxwell 12:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There is but one issue...
Snowspinner believes that admins, and specifically himself, are higher class of Wikipedian. Until such time as his friends are no longer members of the ArbCom, or Jimbo himself gets involved, we lesser Wikipedians have no recourse because Snowspinner has no interest in changing. Because Wikipedia neither a "hands-on" leadership level nor a system by which the community can review admins, we're at an impasse. Untimately, these fundamental power structure problems, if unresolved, will result in continued fracturing of the project's community. I wish us all luck. -- Netoholic @ 03:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I may neither agree with Netoholic's assessment of Snowspinner's actions nor believ Snowspinner should be dead minned, but I still agree with this. We don't have an effective way to bring rouge admins into line.  ArbCom takes a l o n g time and there do exist outstanding instances where desys opping should have occured. -  brenneman (t) (c)  03:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hell yes. There absolutely needs to be a process for de-adminship. Although I don't think Snowspinner deserves it for this one incident. N (t/c) 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, Mr. N, there is a process for that already. We just don't use it much. -  brenneman (t) (c)  03:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Where? Requests for de-adminship lists no formal process, just a bunch of failed proposals. N (t/c) 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What a surprise. Now you, Mirv, and Everyking have all weighed in against me. At this rate, I expect to wake up tomorrow and see that the sun rises in the east. Snowspinner 03:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where have I "weighed in against [you]"? My only comments on this whole flap have been to point out that similar attempts to deal with the problems of AfD have already crashed and burned. This time I agree (surprise!) with the goals (though not the methods)—not least because they were not going to solve any of the problems, but were going to set off an enormous shitfight. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't a tribunal, it's an RfC. The point of it isn't to weigh in against people, the point is to hear the opinions of the community regarding a problem. --Blackcap | talk 04:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And certain members of the community's opinions are, shall we say, predictable. Snowspinner 04:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you at least be civil about it, whether or not that's true? I can't see how your saying that their opinions are simply predictable helps anything. It's just bickering and plain uncordiality, and those sorts of comments are extremely frustrating when they're said about one's self, especially when they're made with such sarcasm. --Blackcap | talk 05:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I politely suggest you look at Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3, and User:Mirv/Snowy before making judgments like that. Snowspinner 06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I see what you mean, but I think that reviving that here was not needed. --Blackcap | talk 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner, despite your attempts to poison the well, I think those links are part of a larger body of evidence against you. As I implied in my statement above, you have lots of friends in ArbCom, so I doubt that it comes as any surprise that you get favorable results in cases that you bring against people who speak out opposing your inappropriate admin actions.  I know that it is annoying for people speak negatively about you, so you really have few options. Step down, stop being controversial, or continue acting with smug authority.  I hope that your friends choose to eventually distance themselves from you if you choose to continue. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The opinions of those who think that Snowspinner is a rogue admin are predictable because he never changes! He is supported by the establishment, so he is never caused to change, and lo, here they all are once more backing him when he's pissed off the community. Grace Note 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

An addendum to Blackcap's view
This is what I would like to see out of this RfC, if possible.
 * 1) Some acnowledgement or understanding from Snowspinner that his actions were disruptive to Wikipedia, whatever else they were.
 * 2) Some acnowledgement or understanding from Snowspinner that his actions were in violation of WP:CSD and WP:POINT, regardless of whatever else they were.
 * 3) Some statement from Snowspinner saying that he will not speedy delete/keep ongoing discussions in the future where that is not the consensus, whether or not they are in his eyes valid, that he will first try discussion, or, that he will create a proposal that, if it passes, will allow such speedy deletions/keeps of an AfD if a sysop decides that the AfD is inappropriate.
 * 4) If Snowspinner disagrees that his actions were disruptive or in violation of WP:CSD or WP:POINT, then some statement from him saying why, and showing how he is not with policy. If this occurs, we can proceed from there.
 * 5) Some consensus from the community as to what actions should be taken regarding Snowspinner now, and
 * 6) Some consensus from the community as to what actions should be taken if this occurs again.

This RfC has turned into a discussion over AfD and the deletion policy in general. While that discussion needs to occur, this is not the place for it. Please direct further comments not directly related to Snowspinner to another page where they will be more appropriate, such as the proposal section of the deletion policy. You can find that page here, and I encourage all of you who have ideas on the subject to go there. I hope you find something that works, and works well.

Snowspinner, I think that it would greatly move things along if you would answer or acnowledge these asks individually, maybe in some kind of a list, and then add your comments below your reply. If you reject this for some reason, please understand that this is the reason I created this RfC to begin with, and I'm just trying to actually start the RfC, which is a difficult thing to do in the middle. I'm sorry to ask you to do things in such a structured way, but I'd like to get something accomplished with this RfC rather that have it just be another unneccesary, irrelevant, stupid, deletionist/inclusionist bloodbath. Thank you. --Blackcap | talk 05:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well done! Whatever regard I held you in before, consider it lifted by 8%. Ten points to Slytherin!  brenneman (t) (c)  06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I concur utterly - the point of this RFC isn't AFD good or bad, it's "you can't do that just because you're an admin". N (t/c) 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I too agree completely and appologise for being one of those who strode further into off-topicness with this. Thryduulf 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These all seems like reasonable requests, and a reasonable course of action. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Spot on, Blackcap. Well Snowspinner, when can we expect a response to theses very reasonable questions? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have said to Snowspinner here (at the bottom) that I am (personally) going to let this go. I think that this RfC has done all that it's going to, and to try to keep it going will neither be effective nor work. The de facto concensus is to not do anything now, and I respect that. If anyone else wants to keep it going, I hope you feel free to do so, but I am going to hold my peace unless this happens again. --Blackcap | talk 18:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I haven't changed my mind about anything I've said here, necessarily, but I don't think that my efforts to move this RfC forward are productive anymore. I think that I've done what I wanted, which was to get the community's opinions, and since Snowspinner has (apparently) decided to no longer respond here, I am going to let this go until the next time rather than frustrate myself and achieve no real result. --Blackcap | talk 02:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

On the substantive issue
Snowspinner is accused of breaking only one Wikipedia policy.

Ironically it is precisely the policy which he upheld.

The accusation says:
 * Deletion policy
 * The deletion policy says, under Procedure for deletion: "If a page does not fall into one of the categories listed under Criteria for speedy deletion, then you cannot delete it without it spending five days on Articles for deletion (or the analogous pages for images and media files, categories, templates, redirects, miscellaneous) first." None of these pages fall under a criterion for speedy deletion.
 * Miscellany for deletion clearly states how to delete a non-mainspace article for deletion. The articles deleted were in a non-mainspace, but these procedures were not followed. It also states clearly that (bolding mine): "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy."

As I have noted, the CSD clause is commonly ignored by all sysops involved in RC patrol. *When* challenged, I *shall* provide copious statistics.

The Miscellany for deletion section clearly does not have anything to say to administrators about how they are to clean up the fallout of failure to follow policy. Snowspinner used his discretion, and in the circumstances he acted well. Non-notability is explicitly outruled as a reason for deletion in the deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't get it. The policies you cite are precisely those Snowspinner violated - he deleted non-CSD pages without letting them go on MD - especially bad given that the section you bolded says that even nomination of those pages would have probably been considered disruptive. N (t/c) 22:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's my original bolding, just so you know. --Blackcap | talk 22:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I find this argument, um, incomprehensible? - brenneman (t) (c)  23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner violated no policy, in an attempt to retain information whose deletion would be against the deletion policy, that is not violated daily in removing material whose deletion is against the deletion policy. There was no disruption, only the massed gnashing of teeth of those frustrated by a legitimate move to enforce the deletion policy. I'm looking at the RfC and smiling--at least three active arbitrators explicitly support Snowspinner's actions and the award of an Ed Poor barnstar to Snowspinner. This case ain't going nowhere. Syonara. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony I'm deeply disturbed by the tone of this. Requests for comment is a way for us to gather consensus.  We talk, we ask question and we expect that the participents respect each other.  I point out exactly that is happening at this RfC.  Both your view as this as a "case" and your mention of arbitrators demonstrates a judicial view of mediation.  Your self-congratulatory air is missing some love, too.  brenneman (t) (c)  05:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The table of problems requiring deletion has as its first entry in the List at Articles for Deletion row, "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)". In light of that and WP:NOT section 1.7, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and taking into account that the word notability appears nowhere on Deletion Policy, I'd really like to know how you come to the conclusion that "Non-notability is explicitly outruled as a reason for deletion in the deletion policy," especially as it seems to be implicitly, if not explicitly, included under the "is not suitable" clause. The Literate Engineer 04:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Also: Wikipedia is not only determined by written policies, followed to the letter. The notability criterium, though not explicitely written down, is widely used, and has become a de facto policy. The following text, that I copied from a random user's user page seems appropriate here:
 * ''Wikipedia policy, or, at least, what exists of it in a codified fashion, is exceedingly well written, flexible, and, on some occasions, manages the rare feat of being funny as well. In general, though, official changes to policy are slow to come, and are most effective when they follow from things that are already semi-common practice. In other words, policy is descriptive, not proscriptive, and practice may change before policy.
 * ''There is a school of thought within Wikipedia that there exist policies that are not written down. I am a firm believer in this school of thought. The rules of Wikipedia are not a suicide pact, and attempts to slavishly follow the rules when one of the rules is to ignore all rules is an exercise in absurdism.
 * If you disagree with an unwritten rule, argue against it. Do not just assume the rule does not exist because it is not written down. Eugene van der Pijll 07:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep policy proposal
I have started a formal policy proposal regarding speedy keeps at Articles for deletion/Speedy keep proposal. Thryduulf 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Lorenzo Carcaterra

Lorenzo Carcaterra (born October 16, 1954) is an American writer of Italian descent. Hell’s Kitchen is the setting for his most famous book, Sleepers, which was adapted as a 1996 film of the same name. In April 2009, he joined True/Slant as a blogger. True/Slant ceased operations on July 31, 2010, after only being open for a little less than a year total.

Biography
Carcaterra was born in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, New York. His Italian family was from the island of Ischia, 18 mi off the coast of Naples.

He became a journalist in 1980, when his first articles begin to appear in various newspapers.

Carcaterra's wife, Susan Toepfer, died of lung cancer on December 24, 2013. She was also the mother of Carcaterra's two children, Kate and Nick.

Novels

 * A Safe Place (1993)
 * Sleepers (1995)
 * In the book, Carcaterra writes about himself (played in the film by Jason Patric) and three young friends living in the Hell's Kitchen section of Manhattan in the 1960s. After they stage a street prank that unintentionally leaves a man seriously injured, the book says, the four are sent to an upstate juvenile detention center, where they are brutalized and sexually assaulted by the facility's guards. The Sacred Heart of Jesus Church and School on the West Side of Manhattan, which Carcaterra attended, expressed outrage about Carcaterra's assertions, while the Manhattan District Attorney's office stated that there were no records of a case like the one described in the book. Carcaterra has admitted that he deliberately fictionalized certain details of the story, saying, "You have to change dates, names, places, people. The way they looked; you have to make them look a different way. If it happened here, you have to make it happen there."
 * Apaches (1997)
 * Gangster (2001)
 * Street Boys (2002)
 * Paradise City (2004)
 * Chasers (2007)
 * Midnight Angels (2010)
 * The Wolf (2014)
 * Tin Badges (2019)

Other

 * Introduction to Modern Library Classics unabridged version of The Count of Monte Cristo, a novel which plays an important role in Carcaterra's autobiographical novel Sleepers
 * He has written and produced a number of episodes of Law & Order.
 * He used his knowledge of New York City to contribute to the 2008 video game Alone in the Dark.
 * He has written for other publications, including National Geographic Traveler.

title: Lorenzo Carcaterra


text:
Sparkasse Hagen Tower

The Sparkasse Hagen Tower (Sparkassenhochhaus Hagen, Verwaltungshochhaus/Verwaltungsgebäude der Sparkasse Hagen ), often referenced as Langer Oskar  (Long Oskar) by locals, was a 101 m skyscraper in the city centre of Hagen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The building served as the main office tower and part of the headquarters of the resident Sparkasse, Sparkasse Hagen. Built in the early 1970s it was a regional landmark for nearly three decades until demolition in 2004. It was replaced by a lower building complex, called Sparkassen-Karree Hagen, which was inaugurated in 2006.

Construction
Construction began 1 August 1972 and finished on 29 November 1975. It was inaugurated on 29 November 1975. It was named after the director of the savings bank at that time, Oskar Specht. The architect of the building was Karl-Heinz Zernikow from Hagen.

The cultivated surface amounted to 634 m2 the effective area 12634 m2 (office surface: 7.621 m. The building had 22 storeys, of it 2 basements, the building height over the upper edge of the area was 98 m, the building length of 37 m, the building width approximately 18.5 m.

The front consisted of a pre-hung aluminum construction with a surface of 10300 m2. The converted area amounted to 57000 m3. A characteristic was the constant reinforced concrete slab, which served the balance of the building for the elevator pits: 113 by, and 1.72 m thick.

Water leakage penetrated, and damaged building insulation. Repairs would have required further measures, including improvements to the air conditioning system and installation of a second stairway for fire safety reasons. Repair costs were estimated at €42 million. It was estimated that demolition would cost 5 million euro and construction of a new building would cost €16.8 million. Therefore, it was decided to demolish the current building and construct a new one.

Demolition
The building was explosively imploded at 10:53 on 7 March 2004, in the then-largest and riskiest breakup of a multistoried building in Europe. 1,450 explosive charges weighing 250 kilograms were used in timed sequence to cause 26,000 tons concrete and steel to first fold and then collapse into a predetermined 70 m bed without damaging neighboring structures. The successful breakup is considered as master achievement of the specialty firm from Thuringia and receives an entry in the Guinness World Records.

title: Sparkasse Hagen Tower


text:
User talk:Jake weeeeeeee

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 08:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Jake weeeeeeee


text:
Talk:European Foreign Policy

Alleged copyright infringement
The author of the article has communicated with the Board indicating that he authorized this content to be uploaded to Wikipedia under the GFDL. There is no infringement. Kelly Martin 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:European Foreign Policy


text: File:Green Day - Bullet in a Bible cover.jpg


text:
Stim

Stim may refer to:

 * STIM (Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå), Swedish Performing Rights Society
 * Stimming, repetitive self-stimulating behavior, often observed in autistic people
 * Stim, an autoinjector carrying drugs for emergency use. A common type contains Epinephrine called EpiPen. Other drugs maybe contained for different medical emergencies.

title: Stim