text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence

User:Viper_Daimao is a unique user as demonstrated more than enough on his talk page. The sockpuppet witchunt has to stop. It's a distraction, it looks absurd on it's face, and it's just not relevent to the presented pre-RFAr behavior. The sockpuppets have not been used to violate 3rr repeatedly and intentionally, they have not voted. If they do exist, they are harmless. Let it go. Hipocrite - « Talk » 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Amen to that. Even if BD did use sockpuppets, there are far more serious things to consider than just that. --kizzle 19:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree with Kizzle, word for word. Jdavidb (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto.Gator1 20:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree at this point. The back and forth has become more of a distraction than anything else, and I trust the arbitrators to sort everything out on their own. I'm glad editors sought to address the point, but we've probably reached diminishing returns now. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Its the mark of a good troll that they can get people way too mad about things, and leads to overzealous pursuit like the Sockpuppet thing. I think that in the stuff on BD's talk page (just look at any of BD's edits on 10/4) he was actually trying to push people to excesses to support the idea that he was being persecuted. I'm not comfortable putting speculation as 'evidence' though. Windsagio 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, I disagree. And not for a second do I accept that User:Viper_Daimao is a unique user. The sockpuppets have been used to try to create a false sense of consensus on the Coulter page (and now the Workshop page), and that is why I think they're relevant. They're not as ironclad as diffs signed by BD777, but they're a distinct pattern nonetheless. I agree with Kate that "diminishing returns" have been reached. I'm done presenting the evidence, and I trust the administrators to use it or disregard it as they see fit. Eleemosynary 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Something I think we need to emphasize
I think we need to point out somewhere that even after this arbitration came about, he is STILL being belligerent. In other words, he's not trying to temper his words or make any attempt to collaborate with others. it's mentioned in several places, but I think we need to emphasize it somewhere. Most of this altering of posts thing has come after this process started. --Woohookitty 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Face it...
You tried to build a case against me but didn't have squat. Your only theoretical charge - incivility, can be matched post for post by my very accusers who, using obscenity, repeated harassment and false accusations, are easily just as guilty (to any objective observer) if not FAR more so. Ryan repeatedly accused me on Karl Rove of page 'vandalism' (as thoroughly documented by Paul Klenk) but didn't bring it up once here. Why not? You'd think with every burp and belch I've uttered in the last 30 days documented in 'evidence' Ryan would rush to accuse me of vandalizing the Karl Rove page. So why didn't she? Because it was a false charge. She dared not bring it up.

In fact, RyanFreisling's actions in that instance was a textbook example of true 'trollery' as the apparently troll-obsessed Ryan would put it. She edited my reasonable posts without explanation and then accused me of vandalism to provoke hostility. For the record, that's an accurate definition of a troll. I provide this important information since you guys apparently don't have a clue. (From what I can tell, you think a troll is defined as 'any conservative who tries to edit Wikipedia.' Or is that a sockpuppet? I don't know, you're so all over the board, it's hard to keep up with what you mean anymore.)

So, you had no real evidence other than a rehashing of a laundry list of self-evident truths about liberals I posted that Mr.Tibbs who just MAGICALLY appeared out of nowhere when the witch hunt against me commenced (also pointed out by the astute Paul Klenk ) decides is evidence. And of course, this laughable notion that I have not shown a willingness to collaborate with editors of all stripes is easily refuted with evidence I've collected and documented from both the Ann Coulter and Karl Rove page as recently as this evening.

So here we have these accusers, virtually all of them guilty of FAR MORE PROVABLE incidents of incivility, personal attacks and hostile discourse, not to mention Ryan's DOCUMENTED cases of true trollery, who have nothing legit to bring against me other than some vague 'He's mean. He says we're all a bunch of liberals' charge trying to railroad me out of Wikipedia.

So, to beef up the case, you INVENTED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH this myth of sockpuppetry even going so far as accusing Gator1 or being my sockpuppet and vandalizing both of our user pages.

You had me banned for THREE DAYS which is three times too long IF I was guilty but I was not nor ever have been.

Then you implicate and waste countless hours of several OTHER COMPLETELY INNOCENT users forcing them to defend themselves against OUTRAGEOUS PARANOID DELUSIONAL FANTASIES from eelemosynnary that even the script writers at Matlock would have rejected for being too farfetched.

But, that's just the beginning. One of the 'fair' arbitrators got his hands all bloody with this mess listing IN EVIDENCE a completely bogus list of suspected sockpuppets and was later found to be discussing strategy about this case on eelmosynnary's OWN talk page. Now I know what you mean by 'collaborative effort.' (Not to mention Fred's cheap shot that I might be Ann Coulter, which in the hostile liberal culture that is Wikipedia is tantamount to saying I might be Adolf Hitler. Or, did you mean that as a compliment, Fred?)

Then something strange happens...everyone begins to realize a HORRIBLE mistake was made.

I didn't use sockpuppets.

Those guys in Texas and California or wherever were telling the truth. Even if one did work at Haliburton.

And all those other posters you accused me of being IN THE EVIDENCE PAGE no less- Barneygumble, Leonard Watson, PAGANviking - those were all FALSE allegations too. (Sheesh...You'd think at least ONE of you nuclear physicists would figure out I wouldn't use the name PAGANviking - but I'm sure that elemosynnary has a 'conspiracy theory' to explain that too. lol!) I never have ever used anything but my home comcast account (and a public library when on the road) to post here. Never been inside a Haliburton facility or gotten near one of their computers.

The whole thing was a sham.

Then Fred bauder started doing this kabuki dance. All of a sudden, he' backing off the charges. Saying the results are ambiguous and using other weasel words to cover his rear.

But it was too late. The gig was up.

In your frenzied zeal to rid Wikipedia of me, you framed not only me but AT LEAST A HALF DOZEN innocent users, blocking them and their IP's.

Hippocrite was the first to get it. He realized the whole thing would unravel once people figured out these charges were bogus. He tried to warn you this hysterical story of me being at least six different people (a fable which elemosynnary still ascribes to) 'didn't matter.'

As time marched on and it begin to dawn on you that this house of cards built on quicksand was crumbling around you and in the process you completely smeared an innocent man along with several others, you began to try and DIVERT and DISTRACT from what you had just done.

And in the now completely-out-of-touch-with-reality state of mind you've driven yourselves too...all of this is apparently MY fault.

Think I'm kidding? Read this quote from user:

"Its the mark of a good troll that they can get people way too mad about things, and leads to overzealous pursuit like the Sockpuppet thing"

OK, I get it. I drove you to it. lol!!!

Anyway, it's too late now. It's all been documented and no amount of spin can get the stain out.

Try as you might to censor me, the WHOLE WORLD has seen with their very eyes how in your hateful vengeful zeal you were willing to slander, smear and falsely accuse anybody in your path if they got in the way of destroying my reputation.

I was blocked ON SLANDEROUS CHARGES for three days. Others were blocked FOR NO reason for days. And you think you can just pretend this didn't happen and proceed with your witch hunt business as usual?

Too late now.

Every word you use going forward to spin yourself out of this utterly embarrassing FARCE that you brought down on yourselves will ring as hopelessly convoluted, delusional and absurd as eelemosynnarys hyperbolic stories of how I masterfully orchestrated a multi-state sockpuppet conspiracy.

For shame. For shame. For shame. This is truly a sad day in Wikipedia history. And the worst consequences are surely yet to come...Big Daddy 02:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Classic. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You're welcome to load as much pointed trollery at me as you'd like, I'm not playing your game and you won't get your kicks. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Being macho doesn't get you anywhere here. And you aren't going to scare us off or something. All you are doing is adding to your troubles. --Woohookitty 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I made a bet that the FIRST person responding would be the worst offender. I had $100 bucks on Ryanfriesling. Cha Ching! Thanks Ryan! You go girl! Big Daddy 04:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks BD! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And you know what? I don't care if you are using sockpuppets. If you think that's the only solid evidence against you, you are mistaken. --Woohookitty 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have never been incivil to you. You have been incivil to me. Hipocrite - « Talk » 16:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Something the arbitrators need to consider
I think a major point to be made here is that BD is actually getting worse, not better, especially in regards to incorrectly deleting and altering posts on his talk page. And even in arbitration, he's acting in bad faith. His posts here are obviously intended to scare his accusers off. I think it says alot to his inability to work with others that arbitration is up against him and basically all he's done is mock the process. He's said that this is a futile attempt by his liberal enemies to stop his "spreading the word" and all of that. He still isn't really taking this process seriously and I think that should be held against him when the time to come to a decision arrives. I'm about to add his mockings to the evidence... --Woohookitty 04:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I posted them on the evidence page, brain surgeon. Big Daddy 04:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps I apologize for that last crack. I realize now that you're not a brain surgeon. Big Daddy 04:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I completely Agree with Woohookitty. The lenience Wikipedia has thus far shown towards BigDaddy's unconscionable behavior has only served to embolden BigDaddy to make even more vicious personal attacks and to show even less regard for Wikipedia policy. BigDaddy's posts on this very page are proof of this. Mr. Tibbs 05:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention what happened on mine and his talk pages this evening. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, do tell...Big Daddy 06:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Since I added it to the evidence page, she doesn't need to. --Woohookitty 06:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No more sockpuppet evidence
We don't need any more. --Woohookitty 07:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what this user meant to say was "We never had any to begin with." But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I was hugely disappointed to read that eelmosynnary was going to stop posting the result of his investigative work. I don't know about you, but I found it simply engrossing. So, I say carry on. At this point, there's still so many more questions than answers...Big Daddy 08:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Closure
Just wondering how much more evidence we need, in addition to BigDaddy's recent demonstrations of machismo on this page and the return of my personal favorite of BigDaddy's goodie bag of personal attacks, "brain surgeon". This is a textbook case of someone who is consistently violating Civility and WP:AGF; I believe the time for evidence collection is over and an attempt to reach a decision should be expedited. Every day that goes by, a significant amount of attention that could be put towards articles is instead spent on absorbing BigDaddy's vitriol. --kizzle 19:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I continue to wonder regarding the quality of BD's edits considered by themselves. Is there anything actually wrong with them? Fred Bauder 19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding from reading through Karl Rove talk is definitely yes. However, it seems a bit orthogonal to the main complaints of civility and good faith.  Are you requesting that such incidents be added into evidence? Derex @ 19:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I 'met' BD first on the Karl Rove article where his edits were vandalous (i.e. unexplained, persistent and disinformative) blankings of entire paragraphs containing episodes unfavorable to Rove - e.g. the 'self-bugging' incident, the Dixon campaign incident and the McCain 'push poll' incident , each of which led to revert wars and much trolling on BD's part. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, they are good and bad (damn you derex for edit conflict). While I have my own personal reservations as to the neutrality of his edits, I don't think I'm a very good judge of such things considering I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum.  But BD has two fundamental misunderstandings of policy that render many of his edits to be detrimental: the types of sources allowed, and the fact that articles do not serve as "precedents" for each other.

 * BD claims that only impartial sources may be used and cites Jimbo Wales' "edict", as BD refers to it, although the text he refers to does not quote Wales saying as such. He used this example to try and outlaw widespread allegations that Rove was behind the "illegimate black child" push poll against John McCain due to his estimation that Bush's Brain, both a movie and a book, is not impartial (though I cannot see why he believes quoting Karl Rove is an impartial source).  As JamesMLane says it best (like always), we shouldn't take an official stance on the matter and accept it as true, but report the allegations if they come from a notable, verifiable source, and attribute it to such a source as per Wikipedia policy.  Here's where BD's inability to work with his editors comes to play.  We tried to tell him several times that it doesn't matter what he thinks Wales said, he needs to read up on appropriate policy pages such as sourcing, and parts of NPOV.  He, in turn, refuses to listen and instead keeps "quoting" Wales over and over.

 * Most recently, BD proposed the 'Clinton Model', or writing political pages along the same lines as Bill Clinton, of which he intends to apply to many other political pages. He justifies this practice by saying article pages "don't live in a vacuum". We have tried many times to explain to him that no one article sets a precedent for another, yet once again, he stubbornly refuses to dialog in the matter or show us where in policy that one page should set a precedent for another.

 * Thus, the main problems with BD's edits are that he makes them without concensus and that they are often based upon fundamental misunderstandings of policy. Most importantly, he attacks those who disagree with him as "liberal POV warriors".  Also, keep in mind, Fred, NPOV is not the only policy here.  WP:AGF and WP:NPA are two official policies that he consistently violates without remorse. --kizzle 20:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I would add to this that the only reason why he isn't making bad faith evidence to articles right now is because he's been distracted by the stuff on his user page. It doesn't take away from what he's done. And I don't believe that we can just ignore the talk page stuff either. What he's done in that realm violates policy as much as what he's done in edits. And it all ties into his inability to collaborate with others, except for fellow conservatives with the same goals that he has. And I would echo kizzle's comments about his continued violations of AGF and NPA as well. And please take this "reform" stuff with a grain of salt. We've been down this road several times. The stuff I mentioned involving him moving posts I made from his talk page to mine was AFTER this so-called "truce". --Woohookitty 02:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Fred's question, BigDaddy's edit's are generally POV, and part of an edit war against the consensus, He certainly isn't above the occassional bit of vandalism either. Ryan pointed out some other examples of BigDaddy's vandalism. Sometimes he'll even sneak an insult in the edit summary about the "ann haters". Here are a few more examples:. Here's one more unexplained paragraph deletion:. Here's one with a threat in the edit summary:. Here's one where he vandalistically deletes an entire section and then calls Someone Else a vandal:. I'm sure there's a lot more evidence about BigDaddy's article edits that could be presented, but do we really need to, Fred? Mr. Tibbs 03:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I added your comments to the evidence page under my name, Mr. Tibbs. You can move it to under your name if you'd like, but Fred is right...we need that stuff on the evidence page. --Woohookitty 05:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And yes, we need to post evidence of his misbehaving in edits to the evidence page as well. It can't just be his behavior towards editors. --Woohookitty 06:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I've gone through and catalogued all of BigDaddy's article edits, see the evidence page. It was actually a lot easier than my attempts at catalogueing all of BigDaddy's personal attacks because of the lesser amount, see BigDaddy's edit count in my section. I found the summaries of these edit war pieces by BigDaddy humorous. .  -  Mr. Tibbs 23:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking over things, I think theres more than enough evidence now to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these allegations are true. Now can we start moving towards a decision here? - Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a Summary
A conservative came in a month ago trying to remove POV from conservative commentators articles. He was immediatly subjected to a barrage of personal attacks beginning with liberal Kizzle's declaration that he was a 'troll' and progressively devolving to the 'highly respected'liberal JamesMLane's outright anti-Semetic Jew-baiting.

He was falsely accused of being AT LEAST six different people and blocked for something he never did.

When he declares a truce against personal attacks, the attacks grow more vicious and really start flying fast and furiously. When he attempts to make a meaningful intelligent well-thought out edit, he is immediately gang-reverted multiple times. This action is defended by two separate administratiors .

That about right?

Ps Thanks. This will be helpful to me down the road :) Big Daddy 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a Summary
A conservative came in a month ago trying to remove POV from conservative commentators articles. He was immediatly subjected to a barrage of personal attacks beginning with liberal Kizzle's declaration that he was a 'troll' and progressively devolving to the 'highly respected'liberal JamesMLane's outright anti-Semetic Jew-baiting.

He was falsely accused of being AT LEAST six different people and blocked for something he never did.

When he declares a truce against personal attacks, the attacks grow more vicious and really start flying fast and furiously. When he attempts to make a meaningful intelligent well-thought out edit, he is immediately gang-reverted multiple times. This action is defended by two separate administratiors .

That about right?

Ps Thanks. This will be helpful to me down the road :) Big Daddy 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious now
Who's been at fault in all of this all along. I've established that they MADE UP the whole sockpuppet thing which has resulted in the vast majority back pedalling away from those charges with lightning speed.

Fred has CORRECTLY observed that there's NOTHING wrong with my edits. They are all about REMOVING POV primarily by deleting unsubsantiated smears supported primarily from what Jimmy Wales calls 'bad' impartial sources and occasionally balancing a cheap shot against a conservative with their (or their supporters) response. IOW, at this stage of the game, I really don't have my focus on adding material but rather deleting blatantly biased material.

So, there was ZERO sockpuppetry. And all good faith edits. (Again, I'm excluding the first few days I was here before I even knew what a Talk Page was.) There was also the quickly resolved matter of me labelling Eric Alterman 'far left.' I was asked to remove that tag. I countered that the expression 'far right' is frequently used to tag conservatives. It was pointed out that neither tag is correct, so I removed the 'far left' tag from Altermann and the 'far right' tag from the Clinton page. No muss. No fuss. It was handled both professionaly and with aplomb

And, as Fred has said, my edits are fine.

Now, the only thing that remains is these allegations of personal attacks.

But seriously, what could possibly be more of a personal attack then FALSELY accusing me of being a sockpuppet to the point of actually getting me banned for TRIPLE the amount of time as normal? Is that not a personal attack? Is the suggestion that I was pretending to be someone else so I can 'trick' wikipedia not a personal attack since it's now been proven false? Have I ever falsely accused a poster of using sockpupperts? Have I concocted a scenario out of whole cloth that suggested that a user was actually six different posters? The answer is no because I don't traffic in such personal attacks.

But my accusers (at least quite a few of them) do traffic in such outrageous charges. And there's no locker room name calling that comes EVEN CLOSE to the level of animus in the personal attacks that have been brought against me here in this very page regarding sockpuppetry.

BTW, if there's still the SLIGHTEST SHRED OF lingering doubt about my innocence in this sockpuppet scandal, my accusers should feel free to go to the ends of the earth to try and prove these charge using any and all methods possible for as long as they like.)

And, in the less than 24 hours since I called for a truce, how have these folks responded? Well someone again has falsely claimed I used a sockpuppet (this was just posted today.) Someone named qwerty spammed my talk page and I've been the subject of a FLURRY of deeply insulting personal attacks including the fabrication that I changed something on someone's talk page after my truce was proposed. That's simply not true. I posted that truce minutes before I took off for a wedding and have not posted a SINGLE THING up until now.

These deeply personal and outright lies that ALL were posted AFTER I declared a truce include suggestions that I 'vandalized' pages, false claims of policy 'misunderstandings', false claims that I am unable to collaborate, and so on. IOW, the usual venom. And this was AFTER I declared a truce.

Therefore it should be clear that I am not guilty of making personal attacks. Rather I am the subject, as can clearly be seen from the tone and tenor of the posts right here in this section, of a BARRAGE non-stop  personal attacks. My so-called 'personal attacks' were only in self-defense to respond. And now I've even called a truce against that.

But, keep in mind, I'm not Jackie Robinson and will not continue to be subjected to these unrelenting dishonest attacks. But for the time being I will simply catalog and allow you Fred and the other arbs to see the personal attacks coming against me even when I don't respond.

I will be continuing to do 2 things:

1) Protecting my user page from unwanted or uninvited posts and or posters that are determined, at my sole discretion, to be trying to cause trouble. I have not nor ever will allow that to happen to my user page.

2) Immediately resume my edits to the Karl Rove talk page as well as Ann Coulter etc. I will apply a FAIR standard, looking at how Bill Clinton, and other controversial democrats are treated and INSISTING the conservatives be accorded the same fairness. Fred and the other arbs are free to look at my conduct on these article talk pages and in fact I would point you to my most recent discussion on the Ann Coulter page as the first of many examples of how I do my business in here.

This case should be immediately dismissed without prejudice with the focus now shifting to finding out how to stop these people from gang-attacking someone because they disagree with them politically (as should now be abundantly clear from their posts here in this section.)

The full weight of Wikipedia authority MUST come down on experienced users like RyanFreisling and elemonsynnary who both either outright accused or were very supportive of the accusations of sockpuppetry by me with NO evidence to back them up and were ultimately proven false even by people that are generally in agreement with them.

We have no claim to say Wikipedia is a CIVIL community if we allow these persistent horrifically unfair and untrue charges to go unpunished. It created a short term McCarthy-like chilling effect in Wikipedia where, once someone was accused of being a sockpuppet of me, NO EVIDENCE was good enough to dissuade the accuser and Admin FVW ILLEGALLY banned me on the basis of this charge with ADMITTEDLY no evidence. This has been a VERY DARK AND SAD EPISODE in Wikipedia history.

To let this go unpunished means we have no community.

I'll go on editing, and I invite all arbs to SCRUTINIZE both my methods and my reasoning for the changes I'll be proposing and ultimately making to the Karl Rove, Ann Coulter page. And I ESPECIALLY invite scrutiny of how those opposing my efforts to eliminate bias argue, respond and, most importantly <I>act</i>, in return.

I know now that a consensus isn't always necessary for making changes. So long as sound judgement and a fair and reasonable explanation is given that I will gladly submit to the arbs for review on the article's talk page, I'm confident that the changes I make, be there consensus or not, will be seen for exactly what they are - A sincere passionate effort to make Wikipedia the most trusted encyclopedia ever by the relentless and ruthless removal of bias and POV that currently belies our most cherished claim to credibility - That Wikipedia is a neutral resource for information. For the short while ahead, when I edit, the whole world will be watching. And that's <I>just the way I want it...Big Daddy 04:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Um. Fred didn't say that there was nothing wrong with your edits. He was wondering if there was actually anything wrong with them. That's 2 totally different things. He was questioning the lack of stuff on your edits on the evidence page. And would you please stop the all caps. It's considered rude to use it that much. --Woohookitty 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And by the way...you don't own your user page! Look here and here. Quote: "Deleting your User Talk page or removing text from your User Talk page. Talk pages are part of the historical record in Wikipedia, and your User Talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be very careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it makes it look as though you're trying to hide criticism.". So basically, you are declaring yourself "reformed" but at the same time saying that you will continue to violate the norms of Wikipedia by removing and/or altering comments on your talk page. Can't have it both ways. This is not a blog, nor is it a journal or a mirror or anything else. You don't own your user page or your talk page. You have no say over who posts on it and why.

 * And...the sockpuppet accusations are just one of many, many, many that people have against you. You seem to pick up on one area of discussion and ignore everything else. What? The sockpuppet accusations cancel out all of the...removing posts on talk pages...moving posts to other people's talk pages...reverting valid changes for no reason...removing paragraphs for no given reason and with no explanation in the talk page, etc, etc. I really wish you'd take responsibility for your actions. Even in your attempts to "reconcile", you still don't take responsibility for what you've done. As I said on my talk page, you act like we just made all of this up just to "get" you. As for the sockpuppetry, you opened up that can of worms yourself by threatening to use them. You haven't exactly earned the trust of anyone here. --Woohookitty 05:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

<I>"Fred didn't say that there was nothing wrong with your edits. He was wondering if there was actually anything wrong with them. That's 2 totally different things" "As for the sockpuppetry, you opened up that can of worms yourself..."</i>

Wow! Like I said, some people just won't let it go. No matter how hard you try to make peace...Big Daddy 13:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hate to see a war if that is peace Fred Bauder 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Amen. Well, it may look like war but there's only one side fighting. I never filed an rfa. I never asked an admin to have another user blocked on false charges, I never falsely accused a half dozen people of being sockpuppets, I never filed an injunction to limit people's access to their <I>own</i> user pages and I <I>certainly</i> never attempted to conspire with my fellow Wikipedians to avoid any dialog with a particular editor and <B>blind revert</b> any edits he makes to controversial articles. Those were all acts of war cloaked in the cover that people were just 'concerned. Despite this avalanche of attacks, I unilaterally made the call to declare a truce in the realm of tit for tat insults. That was the ONLY aspect of my posts that an objective observer could have found to be mildly inappropriate. <B>I've noticed that nearly 2 days have come and gone since I called for this truce with not a single one of my attackers offering to join me in this goodwill effort. To the contrary, almost as soon as it was issued, I was immediately jumped with even more desperate sounding attacks. </b> That in itself speaks volumes. I have unambiguously (and unapologetically) stated from the beginning that these attacks have come ONLY because I'm a conservative who wants to remove POV from controversial articles. This has now been confirmed when the usually very careful parser, RyanFreisling, made a huge cataclysmic blunder in her above post. If you read it carefully, what she's really saying is that I'm a vandal because <I>I'm a conservative.</i> I think her Orwellian term for conservative is "disinformative." So I thank Ryan. I couldn't have made that point better if I hired a professional ghostwriter. It just makes what really animates their efforts</i> all the more clearer.Big Daddy 17:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If there was any logic in your above post, I'd respond accordingly. It is 'disinformative' is when you delete an entire episode because it doesn't favor your POV, irrespective of notability. Enjoy your Sunday! -- RyanFreisling @ 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Please. I wish you'd stop making this into a spy thriller with you as the protagonist (or wait, aren't you Nelson Mandela?), and just recognize that your behavior here has been overly aggressive towards other users, and that you need to read up on Wikpedia policies such as the types of sources allowed, among other things. --kizzle 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The lack of taking responsibility for his actions is my main problem with BD. it's always everyone else's fault. --Woohookitty 03:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I wrote above that my points were made better than if I hired "a professional ghostwriter." Well, I still haven't hired anybody, but I did find these <B>very enlightening quotes</b> for free on Wikipedia.

1)From Paul Klenk: <I>"Ryan has already admitted to misapplying the word "vandalism" to characterize edits with which she disagrees, as an excuse to revert them."</I>

2) From KateFan: <I> "Capriciously calling an edit you disagree with that was made in good faith vandalism borders on a personal attack."</i>

It should be crystal clear that some of my attackers just don't want to compete in the marketplace of ideas. While I'm willing to research, reason and then write, it seems others will not even consider a certain viewpoint. They instantly tag it as 'vandalism' and revert it as fast as they can type. I don't understand this mindset. Can someone explain what my critics are just so <I>afraid</i> of? Thanks, Big Daddy 13:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Now, as before, I stand by my comments. Your insistence on repetitive POV-based blankings despite a complete lack of consensus is vandalism. I have not changed my outlook at all, whatever Paul Klenk says. Kate's point is correct. It does border on a personal attack - but in my opinion and in my intent it isn't one, since I'm not calling YOU a vandal. Others have called you a vandal repeatedly, however. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where consensus rules. If you disagree with the consensus, you need to work with others to help rebuild the consensus. That's how this works. That's why these "group reverts" are just enforcing consensus. --Woohookitty 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows
BigDaddy777 has been blocked indefinitely. And now's spewing sockpuppetes. Edith mykok is the first. I'm pretty sure he was the Qwertys as well. It can't be a coincidence. No way. And we have Edith mynok as well. This doesn't prove that he used all of the other sockpuppets. Anyway, we will probably need help in stopping him. here is his last major post. I think even Gator and Paul klenk will be shocked. By the way, hopefully his supporters won't let him use their usernames or else we'll stop that too. This is over. --Woohookitty 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Does anyone have a clue what these "funding sources" are he's supposedly going after? Just curious. Derex @ 01:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Derex, as far as I know Wikipedia is funded by private donations. And no, I don't think BigDaddy is capable of actually tracking down the donors and convincing them that Wikipedia is unworthy of donations. Probably all his bluster will amount to is some angry posts on other message boards. But that doesn't change the fact that he threatened Wikipedia itself. - Mr. Tibbs 01:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock him. I welcome conservative editors, but the stuff he was doing was not anything I could recognize as conservative Fred Bauder 01:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't terribly reckognize it as editing, so I guess we have all our bases covered there (--64.12.116.197 01:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So Fred, what happens to this case? If nothing else I would like an Arb Com edict to ban on sight any suspected BigDaddy sockpuppets, like the Yuber case got. Or maybe an Arb Com vote to reaffirm RedWolf's decision? - Mr. Tibbs 01:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There's still a process to go through. As it stands, any admin can undo this decision.  I'm not totally comfortable with the idea of indefinite blocks - I would much prefer the ArbComm to rule on this matter.  Guettarda 02:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * As would I. This has been a lot of work, maintaining and presenting the evidence. It's important this process come to a correct and full resolution. For example, the 3RR report I filed has seen no response by admins as of yet - the indefinite block notwithstanding, there should be an above-board approach to 'wrapping all this up'. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd agree with that. We need some sort of final resolution. I mean, I don't want to be on "red alert" forever for this. --Woohookitty 02:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If this entire process can be undone by ONE admin making the decision than what is the point of having any processes at all? I'd like to think that an admin would defer to the committee instead of just taking it away from them like this. Very disappointing. I say remove the block and continue the process (you can't fairly continue the process when the subject can't respond). Just my OP, please don't bombard my talk page.Gator1 12:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As any one of hundreds of administrators can unblock him, our practice is to just leave a righteous block in place and close the case until someone unblocks them or they resurface as another user. The theory being that if not one of hundreds of administrators will unblock them there is community consensus on the point. Fred Bauder 14:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While I do agree with you that this is community concensus, I believe this sets an undesired precedent that might make people skip the dispute resolution process altogether and find an admin who will simply block the user. We should finish this up regardless based upon the evidence so that the dispute resolution process itself is respected and upheld. --kizzle 17:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Moreover, should the block ever be lifted, and the abuse continue on, this RfA should not have been a waste of time... -- RyanFreisling @ 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well this will never happen unless we get an admin to lift the block....the process cannot fairly continue unless BD has the ability to defend himself.Gator1 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * BigDaddy had plenty of opportunity to defend himself up until RedWolf's ban. Instead of presenting evidence and acting civilly, he continued personally attacking other users on this very talk page. He even went after Fred Bauder: "One of the 'fair' arbitrators got his hands all bloody with this mess listing IN EVIDENCE a completely bogus list of suspected sockpuppets and was later found to be discussing strategy about this case on eelmosynnary's OWN talk page. Can you say compomised? (Not to mention his cheap shot that I might be Ann Coulter, which in the liberal culture of Wikipedia is akin to saying I might be Adolf Hitler.)" . I would however like to see the Arbitration Committee make some decision in this case. Even if it's only a vote saying whether or not RedWolf made the right call. - Mr. Tibbs 20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We will vote to close the case, but after a short delay to see if there is anyone who unblocks. We have a great deal of other work to do. Fred Bauder 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That is fair. Without being allowed to defend himself it would PATENTLY unfair for the process to continue no matter what anyone says or no matter how horrible a person BD is.Gator1 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Fred, I appreciate that you have a lot of work to do besides this case, but what makes me want to go through arbitration again if I can just find a sympathetic admin to ban who I disagree with? --kizzle 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is NOT what kizzle said. kizzle's point is that what happens if BD finds a sympathetic admin and gets unblocked? We want to end this once and for all. I don't believe kizzle was defending BD here. --Woohookitty 23:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't responidng to Kizz I was responding to Fred and Kizz put his comment in between (I fixed it). Just sos you know.Gator1 14:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Then I'll say it. It looked like you solicited a friend to block BigDaddy for you. Your friend then complied with a draconian series of blocks. Why was all that necessary? Anyway I assume BigDaddy could get one of several admins to unblock him if he wanted. I've seen worse people get unblocked to finish their arbitrations. In that sense its his decision not to continue defending himself. 67124etc 04:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And I'll say you haven't "looked" carefully. Redwolf24 gave BD a temporary block for disruption.  That was clearly justified in my opinion; BD had gone far beyond the norms of civility that last day.  I was outraged at the smears and very personal attacks he was making against people here.  He was virtually begging for another block ... and if you read his latest email and talk page you'll see that, indeed, that was explicitly his intent.  Nonetheless, that block could have been lifted or lowered by any other admin, if it was seen as unfair.  Now, as to the "draconian" indefinite block, that has not a thing to do with the matter brought to arbitration ... civility.  That is an explicit threat to attack Wikipedia through its funding, apparently a very sincere threat.  If that isn't deserving of an indefinite block, then what in god's name might be?  That's why no other admin has lifted it.  So, to characterize this as a hatchet job by Woohookitty's buddy is untrue, insulting, thoughtless, and ignorant of the history of this case.  That's just my opinion of course. Derex @ 14:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No one was "solicited". Redwolf asked me why my Wikimood was set at "I quit/I need a vacation" and I answered. The block wasn't solicited. Redwolf did it because he was an outsider and to him, BD needed to be blocked. --Woohookitty 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I will venture no opinion as to the propriety of the block, my only point is just that you can't continue a process like this without allowing the subject to speak for himself (no matter how much you might SPECULATE that he wouldn't even if he could...etc.). Fred has it right, it must be closed, but cannot just continue in abstentia. Anyone who thinks that is fair (no matter how much you think BD deserves it) might enjoy a little trip to Gitmo. From what I've heard, they have a similar sense of justice there as well. Fred, you're on the right track.Gator1 14:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I concur with this. My understanding is that BD has been de facto banned permanently for threatening wikipedia, with self-evidently sincere intent.  That is completely beyond the scope of this proceeding.  Since the proceeding is essentially moot now, I see no problem with it being closed without prejudice.  Should BD for some reason return, either through a lift of the block or under a new name, re-open it and finish it off.  It's not fair to try him in absentia, but there's no reason to let him back in order to have a trial either ... he's gone and for far worse stuff than the basis for this arbitration.  Of course, I only speak for myself, and not for anyone else who brought the case. Derex @ 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That's fine I guess, I'm just wondering why the f I did all that work for arbitration in the first place if I just had to find a sympathetic admin. Next time I'll just bypass the whole arbitration step completely. --kizzle 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the thing is, I don't think that an indefinite block of BD would have stood just based on the evidence presented. A sympathetic admin will only get you so far; all BD had to do was email a few admins complaining about a permablock — it almost surely would have been reduced to a week or so.  I also doubt that arbcom would have issued a permanent one either, based on what I've seen in the past.  Maybe I'm wrong.  My view is that BD took it to a whole different level by threatening Wikipedia as a whole.  That's why no one has lifted the block, and probably no one will.  So, he did to himself what arbitration probably wouldn't have done.    The work wasn't wasted, however, because it stands in support of the block ... no one's going to write it off as a one-time incident.  Also, BD probably would not have self-destructed without this process.  He knew he was going down, and decided to make as big a production as possible out of it.  So, I for one thank all of you who did the heavy lifting in putting this case together.  Derex @ 03:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets BD is using
So far, we've had Edith Mykok, Edith Mynok and now 68.201.249.35. Watch out for any IPs starting with 68. Others are better at this than I am, but BD has never been subtle. --Woohookitty 09:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And isn't it amazing? BD announces he doesn't use sockpuppets in emails to kizzle and I and poof...no more anons and disruptive users posting on our user pages. Amazing! --Woohookitty 04:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * actually I suspect Eleemosynary there. Note the anon picking on Gator again for example. 67124etc 05:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)..

 * LOL. Wow... someone's still smarting from being exposed as a sockpuppet.--Eleemosynary 06:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We need to get this arbcom finished now
BD emailed this to me. I know it's not normal to post emails here, but in this case, I think it's appropriate.

"What was so frustrating with BD is that if he behaved, I know he could get done alot of what he wanted to get done."

Don't worry my little liberal weenie friend.

I'm JUST STARTING to get 'done alot of what I wanted to get done.'

Remember, the whole world is watching. Well, at least the conservative and non-liberal donors from the donor list are!

Your pal,

Big Daddy

Ps In case you and your delusional buddies are wondering. No, I NEVER used any sockpuppets. And No, I haven't and will not be using any in PHASE II. (PHASE II is going after the money until things change.) So, tell your little friends in arbcom to take off their head-to-toe Star Wars Jedi Counsel costumes, and call their mom cause it's time to do your homework.

Do you know that redwolf guy who blocked me is 15 years old and currently under his own 'dungeons and dragons moot court for failed law students' aka arbitration himself? LOL!

And as much fun as I've had, I have a feeling PHASE II will be a lot more fun...and fruitful! Who knows, maybe the conservatives I contact will divert the funds they were GOING to donate to Wik and send it to the 700 Club or Focus on the Family. So get ready for even longer stretches of Wik server downtimes. And please think of me in only the nicest possible ways when you do. After all, my work in Wikipedia has just begun. And this time it'll be GROWNUPS makind the decisions (with their pursestrings) and not a bunch of bohemian-beer-bonging bozos with a sinclair 64 on their lap... BD

 * Sigh.... --kizzle 03:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * what's a "sinclair 64"? ... i like to at least understand insults tossed my way.  now beer bongs i've met, in my teens. Derex @ 03:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I just used one of those last night :) --kizzle 06:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * What I find amusing is that Redwolf is infinitely more mature than BD will ever be. --Woohookitty 07:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

my wonderful email
LOL!

A Tad bit defensive on me busting JamesMLane on his anti-Semetic Jew-baiting, huh?

Ouch! That's gonna cost Wikipedia...big time.

Gotta love the history tab. It will be entered into evidence.

And not into some dufas 'dungeons and dragons play court for failed pre-law students' that you nuclear physicists call 'arbitration' either.

I hope you don't think I took any of the seriously. PHASE II (go after the money) was in place and just waiting for the final chunk of proof I could take to the donors.

This time EVERYONE will know Wikipedia's dirty little secret.

Especially the donors. And they won't buy your kooky nonsensical spin.

For Shizzle!

Big Daddy

Ps I want to encourage you brain surgeons to keep tilting at windmills and  tracking down all 'my' sockpuppets. It literally provides us with HOURS of LOL entertainment!

 * Such a nice man. --Woohookitty 04:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't worry. The world is watching after all. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Heads up to everyone
BD used an IP address of to get around his banishment. he's used it before. I went ahead and blocked it and I let Fred and the arbies know about it. Just giving you guys a heads up. --Woohookitty 05:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Pampero (wind)

"Pampero" rum
Bold textIt is necessary to separate Pampero of its reference as a Venezuelan Rum producer.

 * Done, though the result is a red link. Ron Pampero keeps the format of many others in the list of producers, though as a whole it is a bit messy. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Need of a disambiguation page for "Pampero"
Dear wikipedians, I feel that a disambiguation page for "Pampero" would be necessary now as I've counted at least 4 articles related to this term: this one, the one on the "Pampero MRL", the one about a "fictitious clipper" (mentioned in this one), and the one mentioned in this talk page (didn't verified its existance). I'm aware of more potential articles that can be created related to this term (eg: it was a shoe brand in Argentina; and also an aerostatic baloon used by Eduardo Newbery, an argentinian aviation pioneer), so the usefulness of the disambiguation should be clear. If nobody opposes, I'll create the disambiguation page (once I learn how to do that!). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Pampero (wind)


text:
Circuit design

The process of circuit design can cover systems ranging from complex electronic systems down to the individual transistors within an integrated circuit. One person can often do the design process without needing a planned or structured design process for simple circuits. Still, teams of designers following a systematic approach with intelligently guided computer simulation are becoming increasingly common for more complex designs. In integrated circuit design automation, the term "circuit design" often refers to the step of the design cycle which outputs the schematics of the integrated circuit. Typically this is the step between logic design and physical design.

Process
Traditional circuit design usually involves several stages. Sometimes, a design specification is written after liaising with the customer. A technical proposal may be written to meet the requirements of the customer specification. The next stage involves synthesising on paper a schematic circuit diagram, an abstract electrical or electronic circuit that will meet the specifications. A calculation of the component values to meet the operating specifications under specified conditions should be made. Simulations may be performed to verify the correctness of the design.

A breadboard or other prototype version of the design for testing against specification may be built. It may involve making any alterations to the circuit to achieve compliance. A choice as to a method of construction and all the parts and materials to be used must be made. There is a presentation of component and layout information to draughtspersons and layout and mechanical engineers for prototype production. This is followed by the testing or type-testing several prototypes to ensure compliance with customer requirements. Usually, there is a signing and approval of the final manufacturing drawings, and there may be post-design services (obsolescence of components, etc.).

Specification

The process of circuit design begins with the specification, which states the functionality that the finished design must provide but does not indicate how it is to be achieved. The initial specification is a technically detailed description of what the customer wants the finished circuit to achieve and can include a variety of electrical requirements, such as what signals the circuit will receive, what signals it must output, what power supplies are available and how much power it is permitted to consume. The specification can (and normally does) also set some of the physical parameters that the design must meet, such as size, weight, moisture resistance, temperature range, thermal output, vibration tolerance, and acceleration tolerance.

As the design process progresses, the designer(s) will frequently return to the specification and alter it to take account of the progress of the design. This can involve tightening specifications that the customer has supplied and adding tests that the circuit must pass to be accepted. These additional specifications will often be used in the verification of a design. Changes that conflict with or modify the customer's original specifications will almost always have to be approved by the customer before they can be acted upon.

Correctly identifying the customer needs can avoid a condition known as 'design creep', which occurs in the absence of realistic initial expectations, and later by failing to communicate fully with the client during the design process. It can be defined in terms of its results; "at one extreme is a circuit with more functionality than necessary, and at the other is a circuit having an incorrect functionality". Nevertheless, some changes can be expected. It is good practice to keep options open for as long as possible because it's easier to remove spare elements from the circuit later on than it is to put them in.

Design
The design process involves moving from the specification at the start to a plan that contains all the information needed to be physically constructed at the end; this happens typically by passing through several stages, although in the straightforward circuit, it may be done in a single step. The process usually begins with the conversion of the specification into a block diagram of the various functions that the circuit must perform, at this stage the contents of each block are not considered, only what each block must do, this is sometimes referred to as a "black box" design. This approach allows the possibly highly complex task to be broken into smaller tasks either by tackled in sequence or divided amongst members of a design team.

Each block is then considered in more detail, still at an abstract stage, but with a lot more focus on the details of the electrical functions to be provided. At this or later stages, it is common to require a large amount of research or mathematical modeling into what is and is not feasible to achieve. The results of this research may be fed back into earlier stages of the design process, for example if it turns out one of the blocks cannot be designed within the parameters set for it, it may be necessary to alter other blocks instead. At this point, it is also common to start considering both how to demonstrate that the design does meet the specifications, and how it is to be tested ( which can include self diagnostic tools ). Finally, the individual circuit components are chosen to carry out each function in the overall design; at this stage, the physical layout and electrical connections of each component are also decided, this layout commonly taking the form of artwork for the production of a printed circuit board or Integrated circuit. This stage is typically highly time-consuming because of the vast array of choices available. A practical constraint on the design at this stage is standardization;. At the same time, a certain value of a component may be calculated for use in some location in a circuit; if that value cannot be purchased from a supplier, then the problem has still not been solved. To avoid this, a certain amount of 'catalog engineering' can be applied to solve the more mundane tasks within an overall design.

One area of rapid technology development is in the field of nanoelectronic circuit design.

Costs
Generally, the cost of designing circuits is directly tied to the final circuits' complexity. The greater the complexity (quantity of components and design novelty), the more hours of a skilled engineer's time will be necessary to create a functional product. The process can be tedious, as minute details or features could take any amount of time, materials and manpower to create. Like taking into account the effects of modifying transistor sizes or codecs. In the world of flexible electronics, replacing the, widely used, polyimide substrates with materials like PEN or PET to produce flexible electronics, could reduce costs by factors of 5-10.

Costs for designing a circuit are almost always far higher than production costs per unit, as the cost of production and function of the circuit depends greatly on the design of the circuit.

Although the typical PCB production methods involve subtractive manufacturing, there are methods that use an additive manufacturing process, such as using a 3D printer to "print" a PCB. This method is thought to cost less than additive manufacturing and eliminates the need for waste management altogether.

Verification and testing
Once a circuit has been designed, it must be both verified and tested. Verification is the process of going through each stage of a design and ensuring that it will do what the specification requires it to do. This is frequently a highly mathematical process and can involve large-scale computer simulations of the design. In any complicated design, it is very likely that problems will be found at this stage and may affect a large amount of the design work to be redone to fix them.

Testing is the real-world counterpart to verification; testing involves physically building at least a prototype of the design and then (in combination with the test procedures in the specification or added to it) checking the circuit does what it was designed to.

Design Software
In the Software of the visual DSD, the Logic Circuit of complement circuit is implemented by the compiling program code. These types of software programs are creating cheaper more efficient circuits for all types of circuits. We have implemented functional simulations to verify logic functions corresponding to logic expressions in our proposed circuits. The proposed architectures are modeled in VHDL language. Using this language will create more efficient circuits that will not only be cheaper but last longer. These are only two of many design software that help individuals plan there circuits for production.

Prototyping
Prototyping plays a significant role in the complex process of circuit design. This iterative process involves continuous refinement and correction of errors. The task of circuit design is demanding and requires meticulous attention to detail to avoid errors. Circuit designers are required to conduct multiple tests to ensure the efficiency and safety of their designs before they are deemed suitable for consumer use.

Prototyping is an integral part of electrical work due to its precise and meticulous nature. The absence of prototyping could potentially lead to errors in the final product. Circuit designers, who are compensated for their expertise in creating electrical circuits, bear the responsibility of ensuring the safety of consumers who purchase and use these circuits at home.

The risks associated with neglecting the prototyping process and releasing a flawed electrical circuit are significant. These risks include the potential for fires and overheated wires, which could result in burns or severe injuries to unsuspecting individuals.

Results
Every electrical circuit starts with a circuit board simulator of how the things will be put together at the end of the day and show how the circuit will work virtually. A blueprint is the drawing of the technical design and final product. After all, this is done, and you use the blueprint to put the circuit together, you will get the results of electrical circuits that are quite memorable. The circuit will run anything from a vacuum to a big TV in a movie theater. All of these take a long time and a certain skill not everyone can acquire. The electrical circuit is something most things we need in our everyday lives.

Documentation
Any commercial design will normally also include an element of documentation; the precise nature of this documentation will vary according to the size and complexity of the circuit and the country in which it is to be used. As a bare minimum, the documentation will normally include at least the specification and testing procedures for the design and a statement of compliance with current regulations. In the EU this last item will normally take the form of a CE Declaration listing the European directives complied with and naming an individual responsible for compliance.

Software

 * Altium Designer
 * EasyEDA
 * gEDA
 * KiCad
 * OrCAD
 * NI Multisim
 * SPICE

title: Circuit design


text:
Canis (disambiguation)

Canis is a genus which includes dogs, wolves and jackals.

Canis may also refer to:

People with the surname

 * Cornelius Canis (between 1500 and 1510–1561), Franco-Flemish composer of the Renaissance

Astronomy

 * Canis Major, the 'big dog' constellation
 * Canis Minor, the 'small dog' constellation
 * Canes Venatici, the hunting dogs
 * Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy
 * Tau Canis Majoris Cluster, an open cluster of stars

Places

 * Canis District in the Ancash Region, Peru
 * Canis Resort, the world's first luxury dog hotel located in Freising, Germany

Other

 * Stercus canis officinale, the dung of dogs or hyenas that has become white through exposure to air used in dressing leather

title: Canis (disambiguation)


text:
Belinda Balaski

Belinda Balaski (born December 8, 1947, in Inglewood, California) is an American actress. She is perhaps best known for her role as Terri Fisher in Joe Dante's The Howling (1981), and has appeared in most of Dante's other films, including Piranha, Gremlins, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, Matinee and Small Soldiers, as well as two segments that Dante directed for Amazon Women on the Moon. She also co-starred in The Food of the Gods and Bobbie Jo and the Outlaw, both featuring Marjoe Gortner, and in Cannonball! as a navigator in a cross-country car race.

Among many TV show appearances, she performed in two Baywatch episodes: Sharks Cove, 1992 Season 2 as a worried mother and Sail Away, 1996 Season 6 as Cleo Jennings.

title: Belinda Balaski


text: User talk:24.104.86.34

title: User talk:24.104.86.34


text:
Siege of Ochakov

Siege of Ochakov may refer to:

 * Siege of Ochakov (1737), the first siege during the Russo-Turkish War of 1735–1739
 * Siege of Ochakov (1788), the second siege during the Russo-Turkish War of 1787–1792
 * Naval actions at the siege of Ochakov (1788)

title: Siege of Ochakov


text:
The Fuccons

The Fuccons, known as Oh! Mikey (オー！マイキー) in Japan, is a Japanese sketch comedy series created by Yoshimasa Ishibashi. It features the Fuccons, a family of American expatriates living in Japan, with characters played by mannequins filmed at various locations in real-time.

The Fuccons first aired as recurring sketches titled The Fuccon Family (フーコン・ファミリー) on the Japanese sketch comedy series Vermilion Pleasure Night in 2000, which was also produced by Ishibashi. In January 2002, the series moved to its own late-night time slot and was broadcast until 2005 for a total of eight seasons. Throughout its broadcast, a 2003 film titled ''Wah! Mikey Returns'' was released in theaters. Following its release, four more series was released direct-to-video as well as the 2007 theatrical film ''Oh! Mikey Fever''.

Both The Fuccon Family and The Fuccons were screened at various film festivals overseas, where news of the series was spread on the Internet through word-of-mouth, gaining a cult following. ADV Films licensed the first four seasons for North American distribution with an English dub, which was later broadcast on Anime Network and G4 as part of G4's Late Night Peepshow.

Overview
The Fuccons is centered on Mikey Fuccon, an American expatriate who has moved to Japan after his father's job transfer. All the characters are depicted as mannequins filmed in various locations in real-time, while dressed up in post-World War II fashion. The mannequins' movements are minimal, limiting movement to uncomplicated actions, and their poses change off-camera. Voice acting and camera angles are used to convey the story.

The episodes feature non sequitur dialogue and occasionally include surreal humor, with every episode ending with all characters laughing. The characters usually face conflict in bizarre, outlandish situations in non-continuous storylines. The original Fuccon Family sketches on Vermilion Pleasure Night were described as James and Barbara constantly arguing and threatening to kill each other with "giant smiles" on their faces, while bonding over sex and tormenting Mikey. Mikey encounters problems of his own such as being neglected by his parents, being kidnapped, or being possessed by a demon, to varying degrees of absurdity. Each episode is approximately 3 minutes.

Main characters

 * Michael "Mikey" Fuccon
 * Mikey is a 3rd-grade elementary school student with an innocent and naive personality. He is 8 years old. He attends an international school in Japan, and while he enjoys soccer, he cannot swim. Mikey often ends up in bizarre situations, to where he is mostly portrayed as a comedic victim to various plots in the show, in part due to his gullible nature. He has a cheerful personality, which makes him popular with his friends.
 * Mikey is a 3rd-grade elementary school student with an innocent and naive personality. He is 8 years old. He attends an international school in Japan, and while he enjoys soccer, he cannot swim. Mikey often ends up in bizarre situations, to where he is mostly portrayed as a comedic victim to various plots in the show, in part due to his gullible nature. He has a cheerful personality, which makes him popular with his friends.

 * James Fuccon
 * James is Mikey's father and a salaryman whose job transfer to Tokyo caused the family to relocate. He is 40 years old. James is very supportive of Mikey but often suggests outlandish ideas for the family, and he has taken a 50-year loan on his house. He has a cheerful, carefree personality and laughs to evade situations. While James is happily married to Barbara, he is not above having extramarital affairs, one notably being with a Japanese secretary. In the original Fuccon Family sketches, James often argues with Barbara but bonds with her over sex and neglecting Mikey.
 * James is Mikey's father and a salaryman whose job transfer to Tokyo caused the family to relocate. He is 40 years old. James is very supportive of Mikey but often suggests outlandish ideas for the family, and he has taken a 50-year loan on his house. He has a cheerful, carefree personality and laughs to evade situations. While James is happily married to Barbara, he is not above having extramarital affairs, one notably being with a Japanese secretary. In the original Fuccon Family sketches, James often argues with Barbara but bonds with her over sex and neglecting Mikey.

 * Barbara Fuccon
 * Barbara is Mikey's mother. She is 34 or 36 years old. Most of her dialogue consists of her bossing Mikey around, though she is more practical than James. She believes the world is centered on her and laughs to evade situations. While Barbara is happily married to James, she is not above having extramarital affairs and has done so twice. In the original Fuccon Family sketches, Barbara often argues with James but bonds with him over sex and neglecting Mikey.
 * Barbara is Mikey's mother. She is 34 or 36 years old. Most of her dialogue consists of her bossing Mikey around, though she is more practical than James. She believes the world is centered on her and laughs to evade situations. While Barbara is happily married to James, she is not above having extramarital affairs and has done so twice. In the original Fuccon Family sketches, Barbara often argues with James but bonds with him over sex and neglecting Mikey.

Recurring characters

 * Laura
 * Laura is Mikey's manipulative cousin from the United States who is approaching her "rebellious period." She is never pleased with the events around her and often amuses herself at someone's expense to sate her own boredom, She often plays pranks on Mikey, but she later realizes she is in love with him and refuses to leave Japan in order to stay by his side. Whenever she is upset with him, she often threatens to return to the United States. Despite only being 12 years old, Laura speaks maturely and is also up-to-date on new cafes opening. Her mother is James' sister, Mary.
 * Laura is Mikey's manipulative cousin from the United States who is approaching her "rebellious period." She is never pleased with the events around her and often amuses herself at someone's expense to sate her own boredom, She often plays pranks on Mikey, but she later realizes she is in love with him and refuses to leave Japan in order to stay by his side. Whenever she is upset with him, she often threatens to return to the United States. Despite only being 12 years old, Laura speaks maturely and is also up-to-date on new cafes opening. Her mother is James' sister, Mary.

 * Emily
 * Emily is Mikey's girlfriend. She has a strong sense of justice and is the most popular girl in Mikey's class. Emily is also the class president and is known to be the prettiest girl in his class. While Emily is friendly to Mikey, their relationship is always disrupted. She also manipulates Mikey out of her own selfishness at times, just to test his feelings for her. She is 8 years old.
 * Emily is Mikey's girlfriend. She has a strong sense of justice and is the most popular girl in Mikey's class. Emily is also the class president and is known to be the prettiest girl in his class. While Emily is friendly to Mikey, their relationship is always disrupted. She also manipulates Mikey out of her own selfishness at times, just to test his feelings for her. She is 8 years old.

 * Tony and Charles
 * Tony and Charles are British identical twin brothers and Mikey's classmates. At 8 years old, Tony is the older twin, while Charles is the younger twin. Tony and Charles repeat each other's words, until one of them contradicts the other, which results in an argument between them. Tony and Charles' mother, Elena, has a twin sister named Helena, and they also communicate in the same ways as Tony and Charles.
 * Tony and Charles are British identical twin brothers and Mikey's classmates. At 8 years old, Tony is the older twin, while Charles is the younger twin. Tony and Charles repeat each other's words, until one of them contradicts the other, which results in an argument between them. Tony and Charles' mother, Elena, has a twin sister named Helena, and they also communicate in the same ways as Tony and Charles.

 * Teacher Bob
 * Teacher Bob is Mikey's 28-year-old homeroom teacher, who is so shy he often communicates by whispering in his mother's ears and having her interpret for him. Because of his close relationship with his mother, he is a mama's boy. Teacher Bob enjoys Chinese noodles and is unwilling to compromise on them.
 * Teacher Bob is Mikey's 28-year-old homeroom teacher, who is so shy he often communicates by whispering in his mother's ears and having her interpret for him. Because of his close relationship with his mother, he is a mama's boy. Teacher Bob enjoys Chinese noodles and is unwilling to compromise on them.

 * Bob-Mama
 * Bob-Mama is Teacher Bob's mother, who always accompanies him to interpret his speech, even when she is having a conversation with him.
 * Bob-Mama is Teacher Bob's mother, who always accompanies him to interpret his speech, even when she is having a conversation with him.

 * Brown
 * Brown is Emily's older brother and is 15 years old, who plans on becoming a film director when he gets older. Because of his close relationship with Emily, he often participates in her schemes to manipulate Mikey.
 * Brown is Emily's older brother and is 15 years old, who plans on becoming a film director when he gets older. Because of his close relationship with Emily, he often participates in her schemes to manipulate Mikey.

 * Tracy
 * Tracy (also spelled "Tracey" in ADV Films' releases) is Mikey's 25-year-old private tutor, who is sexually attractive and draws attention from others with her appearance. Her dialogue is suggestive and seductive. Throughout the series, Tracy gives Mikey life lessons in love.
 * Tracy (also spelled "Tracey" in ADV Films' releases) is Mikey's 25-year-old private tutor, who is sexually attractive and draws attention from others with her appearance. Her dialogue is suggestive and seductive. Throughout the series, Tracy gives Mikey life lessons in love.

 * Satoru Kawakita (川北 覚)
 * Satoru is an 8-year-old boy from Kyoto whose family relocated to Mikey's town. His family is poor, and while they cannot afford the toys he wants, he has a forward and honest personality. His parents are often neglectful of him, and his family holds nihilistic views.
 * Satoru is an 8-year-old boy from Kyoto whose family relocated to Mikey's town. His family is poor, and while they cannot afford the toys he wants, he has a forward and honest personality. His parents are often neglectful of him, and his family holds nihilistic views.

 * Mamoru Kawakita (川北 守)
 * Mamoru is Satoru's 40-year-old father. Mamoru is a skilled chef, but he is currently unemployed because he is addicted to alcohol.
 * Mamoru is Satoru's 40-year-old father. Mamoru is a skilled chef, but he is currently unemployed because he is addicted to alcohol.

 * Nobuyo Kawakita (川北 信代)
 * Nobuyo is Satoru's 34-year-old mother. Prior to marriage, she worked at an izakaya as a signboard girl to attract customers. Because the Kawakitas are poor, she tries to manage their budget.
 * Nobuyo is Satoru's 34-year-old mother. Prior to marriage, she worked at an izakaya as a signboard girl to attract customers. Because the Kawakitas are poor, she tries to manage their budget.

Minor characters

 * Christina
 * Christina is a 40-year-old woman who attended Virginia High School in South Carolina with James. Both of them have known each other since they were children and consider each other their childhood sweethearts. She is Emily's mother.
 * Christina is a 40-year-old woman who attended Virginia High School in South Carolina with James. Both of them have known each other since they were children and consider each other their childhood sweethearts. She is Emily's mother.

 * The Blueberry King
 * The Blueberry King is the reigning sovereign of the Blueberry Kingdom, a wealthy country that produces oil and has a gold mountain range. He offers to betroth Mikey to his daughter, Isabella, and make him the prince of the Blueberry Kingdom for helping him.
 * The Blueberry King is the reigning sovereign of the Blueberry Kingdom, a wealthy country that produces oil and has a gold mountain range. He offers to betroth Mikey to his daughter, Isabella, and make him the prince of the Blueberry Kingdom for helping him.

 * Isabella
 * Isabella is the princess of the Blueberry Kingdom and the Blueberry King's daughter, who is featured in a story arc in which Mikey becomes engaged to marry her. She later breaks off their engagement under the impression Mikey is cheating on her.
 * Isabella is the princess of the Blueberry Kingdom and the Blueberry King's daughter, who is featured in a story arc in which Mikey becomes engaged to marry her. She later breaks off their engagement under the impression Mikey is cheating on her.

 * Time Boy (タイム君)
 * Time Boy is a transfer student in Mikey's class who is obsessed with following a schedule. His father runs a clock shop and his mother was a former timekeeper.
 * Time Boy is a transfer student in Mikey's class who is obsessed with following a schedule. His father runs a clock shop and his mother was a former timekeeper.

 * Why (ナンデ君)
 * Why, whose real name is Nande (南出), is a transfer student in Mikey's class who keeps asking questions about everything.
 * Why, whose real name is Nande (南出), is a transfer student in Mikey's class who keeps asking questions about everything.

 * Grandpa and Grandma
 * Grandpa and Grandma are Mikey's paternal grandparents. The two are forgetful and have been that way since James was born, making it difficult to hold conversations with them.
 * Grandpa and Grandma are Mikey's paternal grandparents. The two are forgetful and have been that way since James was born, making it difficult to hold conversations with them.

 * Romeo
 * Romeo is Emily and Brown's little brother who is studying abroad in Italy. He is hostile towards women but loves men and is aggressive in his romantic pursuits. As a result, he falls in love with Mikey and James.
 * Romeo is Emily and Brown's little brother who is studying abroad in Italy. He is hostile towards women but loves men and is aggressive in his romantic pursuits. As a result, he falls in love with Mikey and James.

 * Clare
 * Clare is a transfer student in Mikey's class. While she has a quiet and unassuming demeanor, she has a habit of stalking others. She falls in love with Mikey and fiercely pursues him in spite of him having Emily as his girlfriend.
 * Clare is a transfer student in Mikey's class. While she has a quiet and unassuming demeanor, she has a habit of stalking others. She falls in love with Mikey and fiercely pursues him in spite of him having Emily as his girlfriend.

 * Nick
 * Nick is a transfer student in Mikey's class who views him as a rival and competes against him in everything. His competitive behavior also extends to his parents, who compete against James and Barbara in everything as well.
 * Nick is a transfer student in Mikey's class who views him as a rival and competes against him in everything. His competitive behavior also extends to his parents, who compete against James and Barbara in everything as well.

 * Shut-in (ヒッキーくん)
 * Shut-in is Emily and Brown's cousin. Since his birth, he has never shown his face in public. To travel outside, he rides in a car.
 * Shut-in is Emily and Brown's cousin. Since his birth, he has never shown his face in public. To travel outside, he rides in a car.

 * Saori (さおり)
 * Saori is a woman who offers Mikey a ride when he hitchhikes. She is still heartbroken over her break-up with her ex-lover, Mitsuo.
 * Saori is a woman who offers Mikey a ride when he hitchhikes. She is still heartbroken over her break-up with her ex-lover, Mitsuo.

 * Mikey the Starmen
 * The Starmen are seven alien brothers who have come to Earth to explore human life, and they have all taken on Mikey's appearance. They speak in unintelligible babbles.
 * The Starmen are seven alien brothers who have come to Earth to explore human life, and they have all taken on Mikey's appearance. They speak in unintelligible babbles.

Production
Yoshimasa Ishibashi was inspired to create The Fuccons after seeing an advertisement where guests at a party had frozen facial expressions, recalling that they were "so fake they made [him] laugh." Ishibashi opted to use mannequins because he did not want audiences to dismiss the series as a "TV parody" and because the series' content would feel "too grotesque" if real actors were used. In addition, he did not want the actors' personalities to influence how the characters were portrayed and wanted the characters to be "completely depersonalized."

Recreating a retro family setting similar to Bewitched, Ishibashi sourced the mannequins from a friend's warehouse, which originated from Yoshichu Mannequin. He picked fair-skinned, blue-eyed mannequins because the Japanese-looking mannequins had facial expressions that seemed too serious. Before filming, the mannequins would be styled by Ishibashi's make-up and hairstylist teams while he chose the outfits himself. He claimed that working with mannequins was "weird at first" but later decided that they were "not all that different from live actors."

Ishibashi chose the name "Fuccons" because he thought it sounded funny and said that the name did not mean anything in Japanese. He also denied claims of The Fuccons being a Japanese commentary on Americans and their stereotypes, insisting that the show was meant to be "art." Keishiro Tamura, a colleague of Ishibashi's from Kyoto Computer Gakuin, assisted him in filming the series. The series was filmed in full screen format, and it was shot in various locations in Kyoto, Japan. The story's script consists of repetitive lines, which Ishibashi intended to show that they were manufactured conversations instead of real ones.

Release and distribution
The series first appeared as a recurring segment titled The Fuccon Family (フーコン・ファミリー) in the 2000 sketch comedy show Vermilion Pleasure Night, which aired on TV Tokyo and was also produced by Ishibashi. After the first part ended, it was then followed up by The Fuccon Family Part 2 (フーコン・ファミリー　パート２) and New Fuccon Family (新フーコン・ファミリー). A film titled The Color of Life compiling skits from Vermilion Pleasure Night was released in 2001, which also contained alternate cuts and endings to The Fuccon Family. In the same year, The Fuccon Family premiered in the United States at the New Directors/New Films Festival, where news was rapidly spread on the Internet through word-of-mouth, with viewers discussing the "manga-like freeze frames" and the morbid storylines. The Fuccon Family won the Ground-Breaker Award at the 6th Fantasia International Film Festival, Honorable Mention at the 3rd Kyoto Film Festival, and the Jury Special Prize at the Cinema Tout Ecran 7th Geneva International Film Festival. It won Best Series at the International D Cinema Festival in Paris, France. It was also screened at the 54th Locarno International Film Festival. A DVD compiling The Fuccon Family was later released on January 24, 2004, under the title The Fuccon Family: Special Edition.

Beginning January 6, 2002, the series received its own late-night time slot on TV Tokyo under the title ''Oh! Mikey''. The series was broadcast for eight seasons from 2002 to 2005. 21 of the episodes were screened in Ebisu, Tokyo in 2002 and were later released on VHS under the title ''Oh! Mikey: Special Edition 2002''. The home releases were initially distributed under Avex Trax, before moving to their own label, "The Fuccon Family." Afterward, several direct-to-DVDs were released containing sketches that were not broadcast on television, beginning with ''Oh! Mikey Hard Core'' on August 26, 2005. ''Oh! Mikey Extra'' was then released on August 25, 2006. ''Oh! Mikey Romance'' was released on December 3, 2010, to celebrate the series' 10th anniversary. All home releases were given Region 2 DVDs with an English language subtitle option.

On August 13 and August 21, 2010, Cartoon Network Japan broadcast an hour-long special on the series. In 2011, TV Tokyo began distributing all eight televised seasons through their online streaming service, AniTele Theater (currently known as Animeteleto), as well as Nicovideo, for domestic Japanese residents only.

English version
In 2004, three episodes were dubbed in English and screened at the 54th Berlin International Film Festival under the titles The Fuccons and The Fuccons: Special Edition. It was also screened at the 28th Hong Kong International Film Festival, Melbourne International Film Festival 2004, the 8th Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival, the 24th Hawaii International Film Festival, 33rd Festival du nouveau cinéma.

In the same year, in addition to licensing Vermilion Pleasure Night, ADV Films also licensed the first four seasons for North American distribution with a new English dub produced, releasing the series under the title The Fuccons. The English dub was broadcast on Anime Network, as well as a recurring segment on G4's Late Night Peepshow on G4. ADV Films released the first 8 episodes as The Fuccons Vol. 0: Meet the Fuccons on December 20, 2005, as a preview of the series. 17 episodes were later released as ''The Fuccons Vol. 1: OH! Mikey'' on February 28, 2006. 18 episodes were released as The Fuccons Vol. 2: It's a Fuccon World! on April 25, 2006. 17 episodes were released as ''The Fuccons Vol. 3: Fuccon! Fuccon! Fuccon!'' on July 11, 2006. A compilation of vols. 1-3 was released as The Fuccons: The Whole Fuccon Show! on December 9, 2008. After the closure of ADV Films, The Fuccons is being distributed by Sentai Filmworks through the online streaming service Hidive.

Films
''Wah! Mikey Returns!'' was released in 2003. Another limited screening took place in various theaters in Tokyo, Osaka, Kanagawa, and Nagoya in July 2004. ''Oh! Mikey Fever'', a film containing new original sketches, held limited theater screenings in Tokyo and Osaka on December 1, 2007.

Legacy
The Fuccons gained a cult following throughout its broadcast. By 2010, The Fuccons gained 60,000 followers on their Mixi page. A New Years' television special titled ''Oh! Mikey New Years Special'' was broadcast beginning December 20, 2007, and was hosted by the comedy duo Fujisaki Market. The popularity of The Fuccons inspired themed restaurants. In December 2010, Nescafé held a collaboration cafe with The Fuccons called "Mikey's Cafe" to celebrate the franchise's 10th anniversary, with comedian Shingo Tano making a one-day appearance.

An art exhibit titled Mikey's Attack! took place at Kirin Plaza Osaka from December 11, 2004, to January 30, 2005. Footage from the event was later released as an episode on ''Oh! Mikey Extra'' on August 25, 2006. Another art exhibit titled ''Oh! Mikey Romance: 10 Years of Oh! Mikey'' was displayed at the Kyoto International Manga Museum from December 2010 to February 2011 to celebrate the series' 10th anniversary. ''Oh! Mikey: Special Edition 2002'' was screened at Parasophia: Kyoto International Festival of Contemporary Culture 2015 at the Museum of Kyoto as part of Ishibashi's general art exhibit.

The Fuccons have also appeared in commercials for Vodafone, LG Telecom, Furniture Dome, Ettusais, NTT Docomo, Sapporo Beer, and Mouse Computer. Model Matt Kuwata starred in the collaboration episodes with Mouse Computer as Mikey's older brother, with eight episodes released online. The characters were also used as promotional models for Parco and Daihatsu. A pictorial photoshoot featuring the characters was shot for Vogue Hommes International.

Critical response
In North America, The Fuccons received a mixed reception. Many critics compared the visual styling of The Fuccons to 1950s sitcoms such as Leave It to Beaver and It's a Wonderful Life. Other comparisons were drawn to The Simpsons for originating from a sketch comedy series and later receiving its own show. The Fuccons were also compared to "Summer Holidays", a series of photos of mannequins created by photographer Bernard Faucon in 1978. Several critics explored the possibility of The Fuccons as being a Japanese commentary on Americans and their stereotypes in Japan, though the majority expressed otherwise. In spite of the speculation, Ishibashi himself has stated that The Fuccons was not intended to be a cross-cultural commentary and that it was meant to be "art."

Jake L. Godek from THEM Anime Reviews gave the series a 1-star rating, claiming that the episodes have no "continuous ideas." Similarly, Chris Tibbey from DVD Talk did not find the series funny but praised ADV Films for taking a risk and licensing live-action series. At the same time, Don Houston from DVD Talk described the series as a "wacky, weird ride" but warned that "not everyone thinks this is funny or creative." Bamboo Dong from Anime News Network called the humor "quirky", but also noted that viewers who were not ready to overlook the mannequin concept were less likely to enjoy the series. Writing for Amazon's editorial, Charles Solomon described the vocal performance as "over-the-top", claiming that while the show may bring up discussions about Japanese attitudes towards Americans and the series' "we're-so-dumb-we're-hip charms", he considered it a "pointless waste of time."

On the other hand, Kaori Shoji from The New York Times' International Herald Tribune credited Ishibashi's art style to his Kyoto upbringing, and described The Fuccon Family segments as "darkly funny" with an "over-the-top caricatured view." Gail Nakada from Wired describes the series as "perverse and riotous", with "adultery, childhood antics, and a mother's perfectionism." The Austin Chronicle describes The Fuccons as having "witty" dialogue that was "filled with non-sequiturs and static humor", praising the series for parodying the sitcom genre with its "absurdity." Zack Parsons from Something Awful gave the first season a score of 41/50, citing its strengths to be its characters and surreal humor. In his review of the second season, Parsons gave the same score, praising the first half of the season while stating the second half of the season was where the series went to "uncharted territories." Jamie S. Rich from DVD Talk stated that the humor of the series is better accepted through its absurdity and not through its depiction of stereotypes, expressing that, while the introductory episodes fell flat, the increasingly outlandish situations the Fuccons are placed in draw hilarity. Film Threat expressed that in spite of The Fuccons having an "unusual format and hallucinatory subject matter", it provides as many "good laughs" as confusing moments.

title: The Fuccons


text: User talk:216.125.163.46

title: User talk:216.125.163.46


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Irish people/archive1

Irish people
Hello. I have made extensive revisions to this article, and would like to submit it for the consideration of my fellow wikipedians for their thoughts, and hopefully helpful revisions of their own. Looking forward to hearing from you. Fergananim 18:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Not being Irish myself, I nevertheless respect you folks a great deal. A COMPLETE article on Irish People would probably have to be a thousand pages long. However, some of your choices in the article in question are, well, odd. For instance, you have a list of folks of Irish descent who lived and worked outside Ireland and earned some recognition, also outside Ireland. The list includes Cyril Connoly, but makes no mention of George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde. It contains the name James Duane, but, try hard as I would, I couldn't find O.Henry on it, or any of the Kennedys. And what is it so precious that Stephen King has but William Faulkner and Jack London don't? You see my point. Impressionist October 6, 2005

 * Thanks for the reply. The heading under which those people were listed was "Noted people descended from Irish immigrants"; GBS and Oscar were not descended from Irish immigrants - they were Irish. Faulker, Henry and London I did not include as I was not aware they had Irish roots. The Kennedys I left out as they are very well known. The point of the others was to avoid rehashing all the old familiar people of Irish descent and throw some light on new ones (especially Ali, Jimi, Ella and Juan). Hope that clarifys matters. Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Fergananim 17:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In that case, I suggest you state clearly, and perhaps in so many words, too, that the purpose of the list is "to avoid rehashing all the old familiar people of Irish descent and throw some light on new ones (especially Ali, Jimi, Ella and Juan)". Besides, your article is an encyclopedia entry, not an essay with an agenda. Listing names, no matter how familiar, isn't "rehashing" in this case but just doing your job. The article on the United States, for instance, mentions that it's a country as well as a republic, although I'm sure even President Bush knows that. Impressionist October 7, 2005

 * Thanks for those pointers. Will include JFK and the others on that basis. Fergananim 19:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there is too much repitition between this article and "Irish Diaspora". There is no need for two articles on this so I think one should be merged into the other. "Irish People" has 49 links to it, while "Irish diaspora" has 40 - so I suppose the diaspora article should be merged into this article. Seabhcán 13:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no objection to the merger, but what shall be the title of the new article? Fergananim 19:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose "Irish people" seeing that there are more links to that name. We can make "Irish diaspora" into a redirect. Seabhcán 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought the figure of 5.9million Irish people in Ireland sounded high, so I checked the CIA Factbook and it gave a population of just over 4m. Unless the article's referring to the peak population of Ireland, in which case the figure sounds a little low.  Is 5.9m a typo or do you have another source? Thought you might have included N.Ireland in that figure, but even then it seems too high. CTOAGN 23:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Northern Ireland has a population of 1.66 m and the Republic or Ireland has a population of 4.1m, so the combined population of the island should be about 5.7 or 5.8 m. Seabhcán 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, but I don't think you can assume that they're all of Irish ethnicity. Leaving aside recent immigration, that figure must include hundreds of thousands of N.Irish people who consider themselves British.  Wouldn't it be more accurate to just count those who are of Irish descent? CTOAGN 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If you mean the Unionist population in Northern Ireland, I don't believe that they think themselves non-Irish. They see themselves as Unionist, Protestant and often as British, and as different from the people in the south, but they consider their identity to be very much an Irish identity also. I think they see them selves as being British and Irish, in the same way as Scottish Unionists are both Scottish and British. Seabhcán 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The 5.7m is correct. The division into Northern Ireland and the Republic is only 80 odd years old, so talking about "Irish People" as solely those from the Southern 26 counties is essentially meaningless when you're talking about Irish People going back hundreds of years. Bandraoi 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Is this going for a featured list or a featured article? Ryan Norton T 21:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:206.253.95.5

title: User talk:206.253.95.5


text: File:Over My Shoulder single.jpg

title: File:Over My Shoulder single.jpg


text:
File:Jubilee (Doctor Who).jpg

Summary
Big Finish Doctor Who 40 cover by Clayton Hickman.

Fair use in Jubilee (Doctor Who audio)
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a CD/album cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD/album in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist.

Source

 * 1) Derived from a digital capture (scan/photo) of the album/CD cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the record company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless.

title: File:Jubilee (Doctor Who).jpg


text:
User talk:Valentinsuteu

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Discover the Mekong Delta, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22189-960973,00.html. As a copyright violation, Discover the Mekong Delta appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Discover the Mekong Delta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Discover the Mekong Delta. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Discover the Mekong Delta, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

File permission problem with File:Toum004.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Toum004.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valentinsuteu


text:
User:Teenwriter

Bold text Bold text Bold text

title: User:Teenwriter


text: User talk:80.44.242.209

title: User talk:80.44.242.209


text: User talk:82.209.173.50

title: User talk:82.209.173.50