text:
Ferdinand von Bredow

Ferdinand von Bredow (16 May 1884 – 30 June 1934) was a German Generalmajor and head of the Abwehr (the military intelligence service) in the Reich Defence Ministry and deputy defence minister in Kurt von Schleicher's short-lived cabinet. He was killed during the Night of the Long Knives, for alleged involvement in a plot to overthrow Hitler.

Life
He was promoted to captain in November 1918 and saw active service in the First World War. Bredow was among Schleicher's closest associates, being described by the British military historian John Wheeler-Bennett as a man "blindly devoted" to Schleicher. Wheeler-Bennett lived in Berlin between 1927 and 1934 and, as a man well connected to the German ruling class, knew Schleicher and his followers well. Schleicher appointed Bredow as his successor as head of the Ministerial Office in the Defence Ministry, which was the Reichswehr's favorite instrument for exerting influence on politics.

Bredow, along with Schleicher, was involved in attempting to enlist Adolf Hitler's support during Schleicher's time as Chancellor between December 1932 and January 1933. Towards the end of this régime, Bredow, as the leader of Schleicher's personal "information service" was head of a number of coexisting secret service organizations, among them even the SS's Sicherheitsdienst, which was under Reinhard Heydrich's leadership. As a member of the Schleicher faction, Bredow was dismissed by the new Defence Minister, General Werner von Blomberg, who replaced him with General Walter von Reichenau. In the spring of 1934, Bredow was significantly involved in Schleicher's attempt at a political comeback, displaying what Wheeler-Bennett called a "lack of discretion that was terrifying" as he went about casually showing anyone who was interested a proposed new cabinet list. In Bredow's cabinet list, Hitler was to remain Chancellor, Schleicher was to serve as Vice-Chancellor, Ernst Röhm was to become Defence Minister, Gregor Strasser Economics Minister, and Heinrich Brüning Foreign Minister. In the overheated atmosphere of the spring of 1934, when it was an open secret that a rift had emerged between the SA and the Reichswehr, it was easy to misconstrue Bredow's scheming to change the cabinet as a plot to overthrow the Hitler government itself, and both Hermann Göring and Heinrich Himmler, who were plotting against Röhm, transformed Bredow's "irresponsible" intriguing into a gigantic plot to overthrow Hitler, with the additional twist that the alleged conspiracy of Schleicher and Röhm had been organized by the French ambassador André François-Poncet.

Bredow, along with Schleicher, was murdered in Berlin-Lichterfelde by SS men from the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler in the Night of the Long Knives. Bredow was drinking tea on the afternoon of 30 June 1934 at the Hotel Adlon in Berlin, when he heard about the murder of Schleicher that morning on the radio. A foreign military attaché present offered Bredow the safety of his embassy, but Bredow refused, saying "I am going home. They have killed my Chief. What is there left for me?" Later the same day, Bredow answered his door at his house and was shot in the face at point-blank range. As Wheeler-Bennet later noted, "...in a moment he had joined his Chief".

Awards and decorations

 * Iron Cross of 1914, 1st and 2nd class
 * Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern, with Swords

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

title: Ferdinand von Bredow


text:
Pinaglabanan Shrine

Pinaglabanan Memorial Shrine (Pang-alaalang Dambana ng Pinaglabanan) is a Filipino national shrine and park along Pinaglabanan Street in the city of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines. This was built to commemorate the heroism of the Katipuneros who laid siege to Almacen de Polvorín, an armoury belonging to the Spanish Colonial Government, becoming the first battle of the Philippine Revolution against the Spanish Empire.

History
Pinaglabanan Shrine was built in 1976 to commemorate the 1896 Battle of Pinaglabanan in the city, then known as the town of San Juan del Monte. The battle was part of a campaign by Katipunan revolutionaries, led by Andrés Bonifacio, who intended to seize El Deposito, an underground reservoir supplying water to Intramuros, and El Polvorín (the gunpowder depot). Though successful in seizing El Polvorín, the revolutionaries lost the battle, and were unable to reach El Deposito.

After years of dilapidation, a ₱50 million renovation for the park began, headed by the San Juan local government and the Department of Public Works and Highways with consultation from the National Historical Commission of the Philippines.

Administration
The shrine is jointly maintained by the San Juan city government and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines.

Features
The centrepiece of the shrine is the Spirit of Pinaglabanan, a brass sculpture by Eduardo Castrillo that features three figures atop a semicircular base. The National Historical Commission of the Philippines runs two museums within the park, the Museo ng Katipunan (Museum of the pinaglalaban) and the Museo El Deposito (El Deposito Museum). The Spanish-era El Deposito underground reservoir beneath street level has since been restored and is also open to the public.

title: Pinaglabanan Shrine


text:
List of universities in the United Kingdom by enrolment

This article comprises two lists of institutions in the United Kingdom ranked by the number of students enrolled in higher education courses. The first list, based on data from the academic year 2019/20, breaks down student enrollment by level of study, while the second list, from the more recent academic year 2021/22, provides a total student enrollment figure without distinguishing between undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

The statistics in both lists are confined to students studying within the United Kingdom and exclude those engaged in distance-learning or transnational education programs conducted overseas. For reference, in the 2018/19 academic year, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) recorded 666,815 overseas students, with the majority (260,155) enrolled at Oxford Brookes University, primarily studying Association of Chartered Certified Accountants courses. Other universities with significant numbers of overseas students in 2018/19 included the University of London Worldwide (40,675), the Open University (29,610), Coventry (16,785), Nottingham (15,740), Liverpool (14,730), Heriot-Watt (11,955), Staffordshire (11,900), and Middlesex (11,890).

Universities and other higher education providers by size and level of study (2019/20)
The source for the figures is the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) statistics for. The student numbers include full-time and part-time, and are broken down into undergraduate and postgraduate students. Some institutes enrol students in both higher education and further education courses, so student numbers may be higher for such institutes. Numbers are of actual enrollments, not FTEs. The data show that 2.28 million people were enrolled in higher education at the higher education providers reporting statistics to HESA.

Universities and other higher education providers by size (2021/22)
The data source for these statistics is also the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) for the academic year 2021/22. The student figures encompass both full-time and part-time students, without distinction between undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study. Some institutions enroll students in both higher education and further education programs, potentially leading to higher student numbers in such cases. It's important to note that these statistics reflect actual student enrollments and not full-time equivalent (FTE) counts. According to the latest available data from HESA, a total of 2.86 million individuals were enrolled in higher education at the various institutions reporting data to HESA for the academic year 2021/22.


text:
Housing market

Housing market can refer to:

 * The economics of real-estate used for residential purposes; see Real estate economics.
 * Real estate business - buying, selling, or renting real estate (land, buildings, or housing).
 * The problem of assigning indivisible items (such as houses) to people with different preferences such that each person receives a single item; see House allocation problem.

title: Housing market


text:
Bean-nighe

The bean-nighe (Scottish Gaelic for 'washerwoman' or 'laundress'; ) is a female spirit in Scottish folklore, regarded as an omen of death and a messenger from the Otherworld. She is a type of ban-sìth (bean sídhe, anglicized as "banshee") that haunts desolate streams and washes the clothing of those who are about to die. Les Lavandières is the French word under which these "night washerwomen" are perhaps best known. She is also called nigheag, 'the little washer', nigheag na h-ath, 'little washer of the ford', or nigheag bheag a bhroin, 'little washer of the sorrow'.

Legends
The bean-nighe, also known as the Washing Woman or Washer at the Ford, is seen in lonely places beside a stream or pool, washing the blood from the linen and grave-clothes of those who are about to die. Her characteristics vary depending on the locality, and differing traditions ascribe to her the powers of imparting knowledge or the granting of wishes if she is approached with caution. It is said that mnathan-nighe (the plural of bean-nighe) are the spirits of women who died giving birth and are doomed to perform their tasks until the day their lives would have normally ended. It was also believed that this fate could be avoided if all the clothing left by the deceased woman had been washed. Otherwise, she would have to finish this task after death.

On the Isles of Mull and Tiree she was said to have unusually long breasts that interfere with her washing so she throws them over her shoulders and lets them hang down her back. Those who see her must not turn away, but quietly approach from behind so that she is not aware. He should then take hold of one of her breasts, put it in his mouth, and claim to be her foster-child (see Milk kinship). She will then impart to him whatever knowledge he desires. If she says the clothing she is washing belongs to an enemy, then he can allow the washing to continue, but if it belongs to himself or any of his friends, then he can stop her from completing her task and avoid his fate.

On the Isle of Skye the bean-nighe was said to have a squat figure resembling a "small pitiful child". If a person catches her she will reveal to him his ultimate fate. She answers all his questions but he must also truthfully answer hers in return. If however the bean-nighe sees him first then he will lose the use of his limbs.

In Perthshire she was described as small and rotund and dressed in green, and can be caught by getting between her and the stream.

The bean-nighe is sometimes said to sing a mournful dirge as she washes the clothing of someone who is about to meet a sudden death by violence. She is often so absorbed in her washing and singing that she can sometimes be captured. If a person can seize hold of her after a stealthy approach, then she will reveal who is about to die and will also grant three wishes. Hence, when a man would be successful in his work of some phase of his life the people would often say "Mary! The man got the better of the nigheag, and she gave him his three choose desires". She is sometimes described as having various physical defects, including having only one nostril; a large, protruding front tooth; or red webbed feet.

One popular Highland story connected with the washing of death shrouds regards the so-called "Mermaid of Loch Slin". A maiden from Cromarty was walking along a path by the side of this loch one Sabbath morning, and after turning a corner she saw a tall woman standing in the water "knocking claes" (clothes) on a stone with a bludgeon. On a nearby bleaching-green, she observed more than thirty smocks and shirts, all smeared with blood. Shortly following the appearance of this figure, the roof of Fearn Abbey collapsed during worship service, burying the congregation in debris and killing thirty-six people. Historically, the abbey roof did collapse in 1742, with the death toll reckoned at nearly fifty.

One folktale collected by Alexander Carmichael in the Carmina Gadelica, Vol. II, runs as follows:

"In the dead watch of the night, ‘Gille-cas-fliuch’, Wet-foot Man, of Great Clanranald of the Isles, was going home to Dun-buidhe in the upland of Benbecula— ben of the fords. And when he was westering the loch, whom should he see before him in the vista on the ‘clachan’, stepping stones, but the washer woman of the ford, washing and rinsing, moaning and lamenting—

 * “A leineag bheag basis na dorn,
 * A mailaran broin na beul.”

Gille-cas-fliuch went gently and quietly behind ‘nigheag’ and seized her in his hand. “Let me go,” said nigheag, “and give me the freedom of my feet, and that the breeze of reek coming from thy grizzled tawny beard is a-near putting a stop to the breath of my throat. Much more would my nose prefer, and much rather would my heart desire, the air of the fragrant incense of the mist of the mountains.” “I will not allow thee away,” said Gille-cas-fluich, “‘till thou promise my me three choice desires.” “Let me hear them, ill man,” said nigheag. “That thou wilt tell to me for whom thou art washing the shroud and crooning the dirge, that thou wilt give me my choice wife, and that thou wilt keep abundant seaweed in the creek of our townland as long as the earl of Sgeir-Iois shall continue his moaning.” “I am washing the shroud and crooning the dirge for Great Clanranald of the Isles, and he shall never again in his living life of the world go thither nor come hither across the clachan of Dun-buidhe.” Gille-cas-fliuch threw the shroud of death into the loch on the point of his spear, and he flew home hard to the bedside of Clanranald. He told everything that he saw and heard and that befell him. Clanranald leaped his hard round leap on to his feet from the heath-bed, and he ordered a cow to be felled and a little coracle to be made ready. A cow was felled accordingly, and a little coracle was constructed, in which Clanranald went from the island over the loch to the mainland, and he never again returned Dun-buidhe in the upland on Benbecula.’"

Etymology
A bean-nighe ('washerwoman') is a specific type of ban-sìth.

Both the Irish bean sídhe and the Scottish Gaelic ban-sìth (both meaning 'woman of the sídhe', 'fairy woman' or 'woman of peace') are derived from the Old Irish ben síde, 'fairy woman': bean: 'woman', and sídhe: the genitive of 'fairy'.

In Scottish Gaelic, ban-sìth(e) also occurs as bean-shìth(e). Both are correct.

Sìth in Scottish Gaelic (síd in Old Irish, also means 'peace'), and the fairies are referred to as the daoine-sìth (daoine sídhe), the 'people of peace'. Sídhe, in its variant spellings, refers to the sídhe (mounds) where these beings dwell.

The bean-nighe is sometimes known by the diminutives ban-nigheachain ('little washerwoman') or nigheag na h-àtha ('little washer at the ford').

title: Bean-nighe


text:
Oswald, king of the Hwicce

Oswald was a brother of Osric, King of Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Hwicce, a sub-kingdom of Mercia in England.

In a problematic charter, possibly from 679, Oswald and his brother Osric were described as thegns (they are actually referred to as nepotes - usually translated as nephews or grandsons, but here probably meaning step-sons) of Æthelred, King of Mercia.

title: Oswald, king of the Hwicce


text:
User talk:Steveheidt

I have no idea what you are supposed to put in a talk page.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LogoAhlNewHavenBeast.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LogoAhlNewHavenBeast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LogoAhlNewmarketSaints.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:LogoAhlNewmarketSaints.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LogoAhlNewmarketSaints.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:LogoAhlNewmarketSaints.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Steveheidt


text:
Template talk:Led Zeppelin

TfD debate
This template survived a TfD debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 16:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Zoso.svg|120px]]
Don't remove the actual title of Led Zeppelin IV in favor of less correct titles. The word "zoso" is not the title. The four symbols (of which the first one looks like "zoso") are the title. Led Zeppelin IV (the most commonly used name) is where the article can be found. A reader wanting to know more about this will click on the roman numerals "IV" in the template. —  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Coda
Should Coda not be included as a studio album? It was mostly studio material that was recorded in previous sessions but didn't fit on those albums. Jhiner

Coda is not a compilation... just because it wasn't recorded just for that release doesn't make it one. It was all original material, singles were released, etc. If nobody objects I'm going to change it. - MichiganCharms 01:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Compilation See compilation album. This is a comp, as these songs were not recorded at the same time (or even decade) for the same album; they are outtakes and alternates. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nobs
Should The Nobs be in the 'other' section? 70.88.98.121 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

MichiganCharms is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfdrums (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * nope. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yup. your turn. Cfdrums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfdrums (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Jason Bonham
Jason wasn't a member of Led Zeppelin, I'm moving his name to the Related Articles section. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then if he wasn't (past-tense) a member, he is (present-tense) now. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The band is no longer together. So, present tense doesn't apply. Also, the reunion rumors have been shot down (damn!), so he's not a future member either. 99.247.244.120 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Me...

Post-1980 shows
I know that post-1980 Zeppelin history is mentioned on the main Led Zeppelin page, but should they also get mentioned in this template? KingAlanI (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but no There isn't an article for them. If you split Led Zeppelin reunions from Led Zeppelin, then it would make sense. I'm not sure if you can justify an article for four performances, but if you had some setlists and pictures that might do the trick. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Coda is a studio album, not a compilation album
Coda should be categorised as a studio album rather than a compilation album, as indicated by the following sources:
 * Liner notes for the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2, which states that Led Zeppelin released nine studio albums.
 * Label attached to the Complete Studio Recordings boxed set, officially released by Atlantic Records, which states that the set includes "all nine of Led Zeppelin's studio albums"
 * Global Bass magazine interview with John Paul Jones
 * 1993 interview with Jimmy Page in Guitar World magazine
 * Article in the Telegraph newspaper
 * Article in the Mirror newspaper
 * Led Zeppelin expert Dave Lewis, in his publication The Complete Guide to the Music of Led Zeppelin (London: Omnibus Press, 1994 ISBN 0-7119-3528-9) lists Coda as one of the ten Led Zeppelin albums released in its own right (TSRTS being the only live album of the ten). That is, he puts the album in the same bracket as the other nine  albums which preceded it.  All of these albums he distinguishes from later Led Zeppelin compilation albums, such as Led Zeppelin Remasters. Edelmand Edelmand (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Studio versus live The album is included with the studio recordings box set simply because it is not a live album (i.e. The Song Remains the Same was not included in the box.) It is clearly a compilation because it compiles songs from several recording sessions over nine years which were never intended to appear together as an album called Coda. This is a compilation of previously unreleased material. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I've personally always thought of it as a "compilation of unreleased material". But this is Wikipedia and personal opinions mean nothing. I have seen other bands include their "cleaning of the vaults" albums as regular releases right along with the other studio albums in their catalogs. And there are others who don't (I spot a couple of Rolling Stones' 'vault cleaning' discs that have been lumped as compilations) But Edelmand has put forward the better argument for Coda being included with LZ's other studio releases. And for that reason I think it should not be tagged as a comp. The daily back n forth on this thing isn't productive in any way. If 2 = consensus then just let one version stick. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cited seven reliable sources which indicate that Coda is a studio album. Two of these sources derive from Led Zeppelin's official album label, Atlantic Records. The only assertion to the contrary that Coda should be categorised as a compilation album is the argument that the album contains songs from several recording sessions over nine years which were never intended to appear together as an album. However, no reliable sources have been cited to substantiate this assertion. Until this is done (i.e. until it is demonstrated that Atlantic Records is incorrect to categorise the album as a studio album), the album should remain categorised as a studio album. Edelmand (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Compilation versus live Those sources are contrasting studio recordings - which clearly compose Coda - with their live album, not with compilations. No one is arguing that Coda was recorded in-studio, rather, it was never recorded as a single album and is made up of bits and pieces from studio recordings over their entire career. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources listed above explicitly contrast the studio recordings with live albums. The only source which even mentions a live album is Dave Lewis, and as mentioned, he specifically excludes Coda from his list of Led Zeppelin compilation albums. The fact is that all the sources suggest that Coda is a studio album. None of them say it is a compilation album. Unless you can provide reliable sources which say the album is a compilation album, it should remain categorised as a studio album. Edelmand (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure How's All Music Guide? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one reference to seven. And either of the two sources deriving from from Atlantic Records should be taken over AMG. Any others? Edelmand (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, Allmusic no longer characterises Coda as a compilation album Edelmand (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Singles
Just letting everyone know that instead of just listing the A-sides as singles, I included the B-sides as singles and adjusted their pages to reflect that. I used this page and others (including Wikipedia's page on Zeppelin's singles) to confirm this. Hope you guys like it! --Moviemaniacx (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No Stairway to Heaven?
Since it was not released as a single, I can understand why it's not in the "singles" section, but it seems weird that it's not in the nav box template anywhere. What do other editors think? Should it be added? If so, where? 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I have introduced changes to this template. One reason for changing the templates is to improve accessibility for visually impaired users using a screen reader. Whenever a screen reader encounters a dot, it calls out the word "dot". The material presents as a lot of tiny disjointed paragraphs rather than a list. With the new mark-up, the screen reader will announce that a list is coming, and then will proceed to read out the items on the list. Application of the hlist class is about presenting the material as actual lists, which helps not just people with vision issues, but those viewing the site using phones and other non-traditional devices. Search engines also will read lists better. The use of the dots is now deprecated, and have been since August. Each dot requires the application of a template, and templates are expensive, as they increase server load. There are limits as to how many templates can be placed on a page. Application of the latest method, using listclasses and bodyclasses to create the lists, results in a reduction in post-expand include size of 31% and a reduction in template argument size of 41% on this particular template. This is a substantial improvement that will lead to quicker load times for pages and a better experience for our viewing audience. The transition has not been trouble free; some kinks have had to be ironed out, and there may still be a ways to go. However, we have the templates displaying adequately in the two latest versions of the problematic Internet Explorer (IE8 and IE9), and we can't hold back development of Wikipedia for older, buggy browsers. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Tours section
I noticed in the Led Zeppelin tours section that Live Aid, Atlantic 40th, and the Ahmet Ertegun Tribute Concert were counted as tours. These were one-offs, and should be placed in a new Reunions section of the template. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-visiting adding Jason to the template
I was thinking we should finish this discussion, as it seems since the 2007 reunion (Plant actually says on stage "to bring Jason in") Jason is considered a member of the band. Thoughts ? Mlpearc ( powwow ) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin Deluxe Edition
How would the recently released Deluxe Edition albums be added to the template? They are not live (with the exception of Led Zeppelin (Deluxe Edition), which I have already placed), not boxed sets, so would they be studio or compilation?—SP E SH 531 Other  16:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Led Zeppelin


text:
User talk:OmegaWikipedia/Old Comments Part 2

Re: Pop rivalries
Should be fine. Good work. --FuriousFreddy 05:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: List of number-one R&B hits (United States)
Would you mind helping with the rewrite (see the link at the top)? You seem to have access to chart information that I do not have, and it would help to fill in the post-1979 years in the format similar ot the Hot 100 pages. Also, it owuld help you compile the list of artists with the most #1's, etc. (I'm going ot go out on a limb and guess that it will be James Brown). --FuriousFreddy 15:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We already have everything to 1979, so we'd only be missing one decade. Surely that missing decade will pop up somewhere. --FuriousFreddy 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The Hot 100 charts actualy are tables; just without borders. As far as non consecutive runs, list it as many times as it appeared and disappeared from the charts. Here are my examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%26B_number-one_hits_of_1978_%28USA%29; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%26B_number-one_hits_of_1979_%28USA%29. We might need ot remove the last clumn; I nly did it to retain all the info from the original page. --FuriousFreddy 22:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hot 100 Achievements page
Hey Omega, I put a new comment in the Hot 100 talk page, but in case you don't see it, just wanted to show you the Hot 100 achievements page I have been working on: click here. I figured perhaps we could combine our ideas for the page and then remove a lot of the extra junk from the main Hot 100 article. Let me know any ideas you have. Also, let me know if you want any assistance with the #1 R&B lists. Later. -- eo 19:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Templates and infoboxes
Here are some reasons why using template infoboxes is more helpful than using raw syntax directly into the article (click here and here for more information). I already explained some of these at Talk:We Belong Together, but I thought I should go into more detail:
 * 1) To reduce article size.
 * 2) To increase the ease of editing pages. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia article than anyone can edit. Using raw syntax in articles keeps that from happening. The infobox is much easier to use for those not overly familiar with how to use the syntax.
 * 3) To keep a consistent appearance of single articles throughout Wikipedia. If somebody decides to do something different with the syntax in a new article, it would then not match up with any other article that uses that syntax. With infoboxes, you can edit the syntax in one place, and the changes are reflected across Wikipedia.
 * 4) Closely related to the above, to make sure articles obey the WikiProject Music and Song guidelines (as well as Wikipedia's manual of style, which the version you prefer to use (and keep reverting to) does not. The album's title should be on a yellow background with the single's title, "Director" should give a clue as to what the word means, chart positions should be in their own section and be in order of the single's position, and song years in the chronology at the bottom should be in parentheses. Extraordinary Machine 11:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The syntax is confusing: just because you are accustomed to editing it, it doesn't mean that anybody else wants to (compare). And it's better to be able to edit it from one place than go through every single article and make sure they are correct. I have already explained this to you. The specific order of single positions is to prevent edit wars arising from which country should be listed first (I see you've had disagreements with other editors in the recent past about this issue, looking at your edit history). It's a useful policy, whether it was added a week ago or a year ago. Extraordinary Machine 12:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Now tell me: which of the above is shorter? Which is sleeker? Which would be easier to edit if it was to be copied and pasted into another article? I'm not stalking you; edit histories are there for the world to see, so don't complain. Putting USA positions first would be introducing systematic bias in favour of the United States: this is an English language encyclopedia, and is not restricted to the U.S. I've already justified my edits: you're just not listening to my explanations. Extraordinary Machine 12:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that you are preferring to make your edits based on what you think is correct, rather than what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state (e.g. systemic bias, NPOV, citing sources, and many more). Be aware: there are rules here, and you must abide to them. Don't just keep reverting people's edits willy-nilly because you don't agree with them. I've explained and justified my edits as much as possible, and am about to file a request for a third opinion on this matter, but I'm not going to debate much longer with somebody who refuses to adhere to even the most basic WP:MoS guidelines such as enclosing years of songs in parentheses. We're going in circles here. Extraordinary Machine 15:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I was pleasantly surprised by your last comment, and was about to agree to start talking more maturely, but I just noticed your edits to WikiProject Songs. It's unacceptable to do that, especially when you are in the middle of a dispute. You can't edit Wikipedia's guidelines to conform to what you think is correct. Extraordinary Machine 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I contacted Mel Etitis because he edits a lot of music-related articles. I didn't have any alterior motives in approaching him specifically, I assure you. Extraordinary Machine 23:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Question
Are you the person who has been adding all the material to each song section? Winnermario 21:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you are the one adding all the song information to the various artists, I'm just curious to know where you are obtaining your information from, and if you could fill in the song articles about Avril Lavigne. Winnermario 01:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Just the general, like in all of the music artist's sections. The chart performance, song information, etc., etc. Winnermario 01:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Keep up the good work. Winnermario 12:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, thanks for adding the "Sk8er Boi" section. I'd just like to request for when "I'm With You" goes up that the "W" is capital, since "With" is capitalized in songwriting. Thank you for your time. 64.231.65.47 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Shake.jpg
Please do not remove image copyright tags from image description pages. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Canadian positions
I'm using the airplay chart, because whomever previously posted the peak of number four on "Behind These Hazel Eyes" was using the airplay chart. I'm saying it's a Top 40 because it debuted at number twenty-eight, and since there are still two (soon to be one) weeks remaining in the trajectory box, I will just add those positions.

For "Because of You", I'm using the Top 120 because the song debuted at number one-hundred and twelve. Its low debut compared to "BTHE"'s good debut is possibly because it does not have a music video released (although there is one being shot). Is this what you wanted to know? If there is anything more, just ask. Winnermario 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop undoing my edits
Stop undoing my edits. If you continue, a request for comment will be filed against you. Wikipedia is not your personal playground; you cannot revert other editors into submission. You've been blocked for this type of behaviour in the past, so I'd strongly suggest that you stop guarding these articles as if they were yours to do as you please. Extraordinary Machine 21:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Funny how you pick apart my point about the Songs WikiProject, and dismiss every other argument I have made justifying the use of the new single infobox. See above for my four points. As WikiProject Songs states, "This project is not yet fully defined. Feel free to add stuff to make things clearer.", which Moochoogle did. You're not supposed to change the guidelines after somebody has created one, at least not without a discussion first. No other objections have been raised by any other users about Moochoogle edits, and it's pure common sense to deduct that the guideline he introduced is likely to reduce the likelihood of both edit wars and U.S.-centric systemic bias. But, I forgot, you called it "nonsense". Extraordinary Machine 21:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As I already said on Talk:Shake It Off, you are in violation of, among others, Ownership of articles, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AWT, WP:CITE, WP:POINT, Captions and Fancruft (have you read any of these yet?). Of all those, you could only have sufficient ground to accuse me of violating the ownership of articles policy, and your argument probably wouldn't hold much water, since you're the one you started this edit war in the first place. I'd present evidence to you backing up my claims, but I know you'd dismiss my accusations without looking at it. Fortunately, WP:RFC patrollers are more open-minded than that. Extraordinary Machine 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Spice Girls singles
I was just curious to know why you updated all the Spice Girls singles from the Spice album, but not the Spiceworld album? Winnermario 23:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am expecting an answer to my above question. Winnermario 00:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Respect articles
Since the split is staying for now, I might as well point out a few issues with the Respect article.

Aretha Franklin had no part in the writing of the song performed by Otis Redding. In fact they only met casually long after her version was a #1 hit. While I'm okay with you keeping the Aretha version as your "pet project" for now, please do not add incorrect information to the Otis version.

Problems with the Franklin version: 1) "Respect" was anything but a flop for Redding. #4 is not a "moderate hit," but a hit, especially for an underground soul musician at a time when poppy songs (like My Guy, My Girl, or Chapel of Love) were topping that chart. It also was far from a flop at the pop charts, considering who he was and what pop radio was playing (The Beatles, etc.) at the time. You're whole reasoning in this matter lacks perspective and logic, and is just plain incorrect.

2) There is no documentation for the argument that Atlantic Records was concerned about her version of the song becoming a hit, esp. for the reasons stated in your article. The original, had in fact, been a major hit at R&B and one of the few underground soul records at the time to cross over to top 40. Also, with Jerry Wexler behind Franklin's version, Atlantic had nothing to worry about. If you can find a source for this information, then it can stay. Otherwise, it's just plain incorrect and should be removed.

3) It would help if you had concrete references for all of your “new” information, as well.

Volatile 12:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand and respect you trying to reconcile the situation, however, please refrain from making changes from the Redding version. At the time of both the Aretha and Otis versions of the songs, the BILLBOARD HOT 100 was known as the POP CHART and the BILLBOARD HOT R&B/HIP-HOP SINGLES & TRACKS was known as the BLACK CHART. "Hip-Hop" wasn't even around in 1965 (or 67). Thank you. Volatile 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * My last comments regarding the Respect fiasco can be found here. As long as you post no more incorrect information and don't make unnecessary edits to the Redding article, I have no problem. Volatile 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

American music
I have reorganized American popular music, giving it a tighter focus. In doing so, it has become significantly smaller. I would appreciate any additional comments you might have at Featured article candidates/American popular music. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 02:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Apology and reply
My eternal apologies for missing that message you previously sent me. Could you please ask Ultimate... whatever his name is to fix up the Spiceworld singles? Thank you, and sorry!

The Canadian Singles Chart? I've only used the "official" chart for "A Moment Like This" (reaching a position of one), "Miss Independent" (reaching a position of six), "Breakaway" (reaching a position of three), and the infamous position of number two for "Low". The chart positions for "Since U Been Gone" and "Behind These Hazel Eyes" are a bit awkward though. Since neither officially made it onto the sales chart, "Since U Been Gone"'s chart position comes from MuchMusic, and "BTHE"'s chart position comes from the airplay chart. So far "Because of You" has also been coming from an airplay chart—but not the official one, more of a mainstream Canadian radio that only posts the weekly positions (all one-hundred and fifty of them) in the papers. Since this can be met with criticism, I was debating about "BoY"'s chart removal. The rest, as I've mentioned, come from the various above places. Winnermario 14:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We can most certainly use the airplay chart for BTHE if you want to, and with the other two singles? I guess it would be fare to for SYBG, but for some reason I feel reluctant on BoY. Winnermario 21:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "Behind These Hazel Eyes"'s peak of number four is the BDS chart peak. I made a huge error early, my true apologies. The BOY chart trajectory is unofficial—it has not charted on the Canadian Singles Chart or the BDS Chart. And the SUBG chart is MuchMusic—do you want to get the BDS chart for SUBG since it was unable to chart on the Singles Chart? And I'm not sure if there is, for BoY, that is. Winnermario 18:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, from sales, to airplay, to MuchMusic. This "unofficial" chart is just something that is run in my city of Saskatchewan—we do not need to use it, but I only used it because it has yet to chart on any other chart. This is probably due to the fact that its music video hasn't been released yet. Winnermario 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That is correct! And yes, we will do that with BoY. Winnermario 01:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson the African -American
Please do not remind me. I very nearly quit this project altogether because of such foolishness. Just leave it alone (they'll keep changing it to American, just like they always have, and then comes the highly racist suggestion of "I'll add a picture"). The situation, and its inherent racial undertones (you'll never see Italian-American removed from someone's article) have seriously pissed me off. Just let it go, and make sure he's at least in African-American related categories. --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging
All of your images, a list of which can be found here, must be tagged. If you need help doing so, ask on my talk pages. Be hasty, because images marked no source can be deleted in 7 days. Superm401 | Talk 02:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Image:IKWYW copy.jpg has been listed for deletion at WP:IFD because it is an orphan. Superm401 | Talk 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * OmegaWikipedia, it's impossible to claim fair use on an image without specifying its source. Stop tagging images promotional when most of them don't even fit that description, and none of them specify their source and/or copyright holder. Extraordinary Machine 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think you understand...I'm not giving you these instructions just to "make me happy". Wikipedia has a strict policy against copyright violations; you can't just upload copyrighted images and claim they are something they aren't. Promotional images would mean something like this, not just any general photo. Are you sure the copyright holder of Image:WMAWBTMariahCarey.jpg is the World Music Awards organisation? It looks like it was taken on the red carpet after the ceremony to me...anyway, I've tagged it with no source again until this issue has been cleared up. Additionally, I don't think that a cropped screenshot would qualify as "fair use" either, unless there was a good reason for it to be cropped. Extraordinary Machine 15:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Omega, you're right that Image:WMAWBTMariahCarey.jpg shouldn't have been speedied. The criterion says that the image must be in Category:images with unknown source for 7, presumably consecutive, days.  This image was only in the category for 1 day. More importantly, the criterion is meant for uncontroversial cases.  However, in this instance, you did provide a source, though Extraordinary Machine disagreed with its validity.  For disputed images, WP:IFD is better.  So I agree with you.  I'll try to recover your image and then we'll give it a fair shot at WP:IFD. I'm putting a request to get it back at Lost images, the proper spot. Superm401 | Talk 17:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Omega, you asked me whether you have objected to deletion in the right place. You did so properly, but the image is smaller than an identical one and no longer has any links, making it an orphan.  I still support deletion. Superm401 | Talk 17:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you need to be much more specific when claiming promotional. For instance, for Image:FLABHurricaneKatrina.jpg, who released the image, EXACTLY?  Was it the singer, her agent, the record label, the group organizing the concert, the television station where the concert was shown, or maybe the charity it was raising money for?  The promotional tag doesn't tell me that, but you have to.  Also, what were they trying to promote?  Did the charity want to sell a video or DVD of the concert?  Did the singer or her agent want to promote her next album?  Was the television station trying to get people to buy a special music package?  DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS.  We need them.  Also, what media organization was the image released to, Reuters, AP, NY Times, Billboard, or what?  After that, how did you come upon the image?  Did you find it on their web site, the paper, the magazine, or did your friend at Billboard send it to you even though it wasn't published?  We need to know all this information to make a fair use judgement.  Again, ask me if you have questions. Superm401 | Talk 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I added no source to the deleted image and contacted you, assuming that you would be given a full week to supply source and copyright information, as it said on the template and at WP:CSD. I did not realise that it would be deleted on sight. That said, I should have tagged it unknown and listed it at WP:IFD, so I apologise for that. Also, most of the images on my user page are there so that I can keep track of what I uploaded, but I'll trim the extraneous ones and move the others to a subpage. Extraordinary Machine 15:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Just to inform you that Ive answered that questions on My RFA. you can now vote accordingly. Jo urna list |  huh?

Image:Vma3.jpg
Hello. I was wondering if you have a source for this image? If not, then it will have to be deleted soon. Zach (Sound Off) 05:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

re: Song stubs.
In general, song stubs should be redirected to the album they come from. There is no reason to write a stub article on a song, nor is there a reason to write a stub article on every song. I am redirecting "Theme from Mahogany" back to the film it came from, there is no reason to change it. --FuriousFreddy 03:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any well-meaning reason why you keep reverting the merge? Honestly, I'd like a detailed answer. Both the article aon the song and the film mentioned the film's plot and the fact that the song did better than the movie in the same amount of detail; why not merge? It is better ot have one good article rather than two short stubs which repeat information. --FuriousFreddy 05:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

We can most certainly have a calm discussion.
I'd like nothing better.

But this has to be brief (at least tonight's part of it). I have a job to wake up for in five hours. I'll have a proper reply in about five minutes. --FuriousFreddy 05:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

...and that was the longest five minutes in recorded history. Nevertheless...

First of all, note that I am not doing this as any sort of a personal vendetta. This isn't about you. It's about your edits. Don't take anything I do personal, or any comments I make about articles or edits personal. Remember that there is no ownership of articles, and that "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

That being said, I will plainly state my position. I may come off as slightly blunt, but I do not mean to offend.

First…
You (and several others) are going overboard with the song articles. In fact, you could say the life rafts are already in the water. An encyclopedia has a certain scope or focus in that it is to cater primarily to a novice on a subject, or someone unfamiliar with a topic. As such, it must remain accessible for those persons, and easy to read. When articles start getting long, this becomes a problem. I've written some long articles while I've been here, and I'm constantly trying to shorten them, compact them, and send parts of them off to sub articles. There should certainly be an information cut-off, and I honestly don't think that readers need to know every country a single charted in, every position the single held on the hot 100, and every alternate remix or version of the song. Encyclopedias are about presenting you with a general scope on a subject, and then allowing you to take that foundation and build upon it by researching other sources.

In the grand scope of the world, and the encyclopedia, pop singles are primarily trivial; something of interest, but nothing of true importance. The articles (and their length and detail) should therefore reflect that: mention basics and move on. Articles on albums are better places for detailed information, as an album is generally (in the case of modern music) the more concrete form of presentation for a song.

Second…
You have the dubious distinction of being the very first editor to make separate articles for the same song. Most song articles give passing mention to cover versions, unless they truly made an impact; and in that case, the relevant information will be covered in the same article. The Beatles' articles rarely mention cover versions, and although highly notable Beatles covers exist (in perpetuity), there's no point in writing separate articles on them. A number of times, you (or someone else) have even gone on to write articles on songs that were covers without even covering the original version of the song, something that can only be seen as bias or unconcerned writing (even if you didn't know anything about the original version; if you know it exists, that is a starting point in doing research to find out about it. I learned everything I now know about the Gladys Knight "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" by looking for information on the Marvin Gaye one.)

I know it's hard to be unbiased in writing about one of your favorite entertainers (I'm assuming that Mariah Carey is one of our favorites; and contrary to what you may believe, I don't dislike her and never have). I've had to go back and re-edit the article I originated on one of my favorite acts, Dru Hill, several times to remove over-information that I, as a fan, knew and cared about, but would be superfluous to the general person who would read that article. You can always request an uninvolved party to come in and give any article a good copyedit, so that you end up with a balanced article wit ha neutral point of view. You have to understand that an encyclopedia can't show favoritism or include any sort of biased language or formatting.

Third…
As far as listing those articles on AfD, I had actually planned to do that way back when they were first written, but never got around to it (or, at least, was trying to decide what should be done). I only nominated articles that were covers of songs, and covers that were not the most notable version of the song. There's no reason to be mad: no one was doing anything in a deliberate attempt to make anyone mad. You keep telling me to "calm down"; I'm not uncalm. A little annoyed, perhaps, but not angry; believe me, if I was, I'd let you know. There's far too many other things to worry about (job, bills, career, health, etc).

In the past, you've shown tendencies to revert good edits to articles so that they read "your way"; I've seen very long revert wars with Mel Etitis, where he would fix grammar or wording and you would revert. Wikipedia editors are not to revert good changes to articles; only ones that are factually incorrect or vandalism. We are supposed to work together, not do what we want to do how we want to do it, damning everyone else.

In all honesty, I would suggest that you buy some webspace and start up a pop stars fansite of some sort, where you could use the language you want to use and the amount of detail you want to add. Here, we all need to establish a sense of consistency and succinctness. I can't add everything I know on every subject to an article; I have to only include the most relevant information. I have to remember that some clueless person is going to want to pull this up, give it a quick once-over, and learn every thing they want to know as quickly as possible. One day, I'm going to start my own site, where I can do music reviews, something that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

Comapre your work with the featured articles. Does your look like you're including too much? What sort of language are you using? There are scores of project articles in Wikipedia on "how to write the perfect article", and a whole Manual of Style as well. We need consistency. We need to appear as a scholarly, dependable, reliable reference to the outside world, who see Wikipedia generally as a big collection of fan pages or free digital grafitti walls.

There's probably more to say, but that's enough for a start. --FuriousFreddy 05:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no retraction of A(not V anymore) fDs. You submit it, and it has to go through the process. Mariah Carey's personal article fits the notablility guidelines, which do not apply to articles on songs. My actions weren't premature (I could make a nasty joke, but I won't), they were done because the articles did not appear to be notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia as seperate articles. I've merged my own articles at time,s when I realized that they weren't notable enough or were just stubs (although you keep undoing the Mahogany one). Let the other editors say what they have to say about them, and it will be determined what should be done.

 * Again, no one hates you (why are you taking this personally?). Mel Etitis appears to be a stickler for proper English and scholalry wriitng (makes sense, he;s a college professor). He's had a mind to do this same thing for quite some time now. We're not ganging up on you; don't take it all personal, or even feel like you are solely to blame. I don't read user histories to see who wrote an article before I list it on AfD; I just do it. (Now I know that you know that I know you wrote several of those articles--I don;t even know if you wrote them all; I didn't look). But, again, don't feel bad. I'm assuming that you've never touched any of the articles on 50 Cent, but I've spenmt quite some time slashign through and speedily redirecting several of those articles as well.

 * This isn't about choosing sides or ganging up on people. This is about improving and maintaining an encyclopedia. --FuriousFreddy 06:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There's not really anything wrong with nominating an article for deletion, even if proposed guidelines (not policy) may apply. And articles may be renominated for deletion, as long as it is done in good faith.  Tuf-Kat 12:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no clear definition of good faith, but basically it means he nominated it because he seriously thinks it should be deleted and that it has a reasonable chance of there being consensus for it to be deleted. Generally, an article can be renominated multiple times (I believe Gay Niggers Association of America and White Dawg have been nominated multiple times -- you might peruse those previous noms to get an understanding of the situation), as long as the noms are not in immediate succession and the articles are not being nominated to prove a point. Tuf-Kat 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply 1
All that typing, and that was all you gleaned from that? I saw the edit war(s) with my own eyes, and I clearly read who changed and/or unchanged what.

Moving on, there is no intention of bad faith in my nominating the articles for deletion. One of Wikipedia's weaknesses is that it lacks strong rules on issues like this. MY personal ideal is for a team of editors to go in, revise, re-edit, merge, delte, etc. any and all of the articles on these pop stars, Poekmon characters, Star Trek, and anything other such groups of articles, so as to clean up biased language, fix grammatical and sentax errors, format in consistency with the manual of style, and maintain a semblance of a scope and discernment inasfaras what is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and what is not. Something like a team of editors who would have to approve each and every article for consistency, and dedicated themselves to doing nothing else. --FuriousFreddy 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. In reference to your comments on TUF-KAT's page, if the articles survive the vote, Freddy's going to wash his hands of the whole thing. I honestly have better things to do than to educate people on how to write encyclopedia articles, and to attempt to maintain a semblance of scholarly tone and coverage here. "What I want" is for encyclopedic treatment of notable subjects, which (I would hope) is not a lot to ask from editors for the Wikipedia. But if the people decide they want free fansite hosting, then I can show myself out (and discourage the use the Wikipedia as a reliale reference). --FuriousFreddy 01:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It depends upon the type of explosion. It would be great to get articles for every notable R&B/soul act, many of which are sorely lacking, and to get the ones on the notable ones up to a higher standard of coverage. But I would AfD, merge, and redirect overcoverage on any and all R&B/soul artists or categories just like I'm doing now for pop articles. Case in point: "Do You Know Where You're Going To" can easily be mentioned at Mahogany, without the need to create sepertate articles. Even though it was a number one hit, there's not enough information avaiable to write a full-fledged article on the song, and a stub repeats information already mentioned in the article for the movie. There is, and has to be, a cut-off as far as what gets included here, and what doesn't: something like a full Stevie Wonder discography, with an article for every single he's ever recorded, is far beyond the scope of the encyclopedia. As I've said before, most singles aren't notable outside of the fact that they are singles. Why make three articles on three singles that made no impact on society, culture, or otherwise; when they could be just as easily mentioned in an article for the song?

 * If someone writes an article for every Supremes single, most of them are going to get merged or AfD'd. THe same goes for any and every other act. Not even all of Michael Jackson's singles are notable enough for albums of their own.

 * This isn't a bias or jelousy thing; could you please remove personal feelings and such from this, and thing about the encyclopedia as a whole, its standards, its level of writing, its established precedents, and exactly why this is even an issue? --FuriousFreddy 02:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If the articles survive the vote, how does that make Wikipedia unencyclopedic? Because encyclopedias have a certain way of writing, scope, and coverage, that is not seen in those articles. Their very reasons for existence are dubius. Why should I waste my time trying to do scholalry and fact-checked writing when it's okay to just come in and write a glut of biased articles on my favorite muscician? How can I take an encyclopedia seriously when Mariah Carey has more coverage devoted to her than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X combined (let alone any two solo musicians without the last name "Jackson" or that are not young white or partially white females)? --FuriousFreddy 02:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I AfD'd "Do You Know" because I never inteded to write an article on it in the first place (Diana Ross' solo recordings were BrothaTimothy's turf, anyways. When you wrote the article on Mariah Carey's cover (which isn't inherently notable enough for its own article), I added the information on the Diana ROss original instead of nominating it on AfD at that time. You're not understanding, so I'm going to say this one last time: none of this is a personal attack. I didn't nominate any articles for deletion solely because of who wrote them or who sung the song the article is about. Is that clear?

 * I took a visit to the article on "My Heart Will Go On" (which is not a stub, biut just a short article), and then read the page on Titanic. The article itself barely established the song's notablility, but the song's notablility was saved by adding an important fact that the Titanic article mentions, but the song article does not: the record won the Oscar for Best Song of 1997. That's notablility right there, so it should remain seperate. I'd only suggest merging the article on a film's theme song to the film if there isn't enough information available to fill a non-stub article, as is the case for "Do You Know".

 * If the articles were notable enough to exist as they were, I would not have nominated them. Off the top of my head, Mariah Carey should really have no more than twelve to sixteen, possibly twenty, articles for her songs (which would cover all of her major hits that have had an impact on the music industry, leaving others--regaurdless of sales or chart success--as mentions on the article for the album they originate from. Every song I nominated except the Black Eyed Peas one is a cover of a song that is either a standard, or is more notable as a song for someone else. They are written fro ma fan point of view (their very existence shows bias--why not write an article on Roseanne Barr's notorious rendition of the "The Star-Spangled banner", or the Jackson 5's hit version of "Santa Clause is Comin' to Town"? Answer: because they don't involve one of your favorite singers. You don't notice that there is a lack of balance in your coverage versus that of the other artists covered in the encyclopedia? Has it not occured to you that you are, as they say, "overdoing it?"

 * There is no way in heaven or hades that Mariah Carey has 100 singles or even 100 potential singles. Like I said, only less than two dozen of her songs are notable enough for seperate articles of their own--and that's still quite a lot.

 * I "ranted" about it because that is a major problem here: the Wikipedia has weak points, and few people try to fill them in instead of piling more and more detail onto what's already covered. I know all about the systematic bias, but it's honestly ridiculous. As far as "fixing it", a cursory look through my contributions will tell you that I have damn well tried (in fact, most any other editor here will tell you that that has always been my primary goal), but I am only one person, and I don't have time to fix everything that is wrong with the music coverage of the Wikipedia. The very suggestio nthat I haven't done anything ,and instead have been simply complaining is both ludicrous and highly unfounded, and I would suggest that you do not make such blind statemnts in the future.

 * By the way, consider this fair wanring: the articles on the Glitter characters need to be cut down to one paragraph each and merged to the article on the movie, or they are going to be AfD'd for non-notablility. Perhaps you could even keep them as they are (althoug hI'd strongly suggest they be cut down, they are far too long to be about characters from a film that isn't notable enough to warrant such coverage in an encyclopedia) and combine them intoa a Major characters in Glitter (film) article, but seperate articles for each one are far too much. --FuriousFreddy 02:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not jealousy; it's a matter of scope and importance. Yes, King and X should have more coverage, but the point of my comment is that Mariah Carey has (by far) too much coverage. I am not jealous of the articles or the amount of articles; to be quite blunt, the articles are poorly written and filled with fancruft, so there is no grounds for jealousy. By that logic, I most be jealous of the Pokemon articles also. --FuriousFreddy 03:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as "what you do", you, to be honest, need to find better ways to contribute to Wikipedia. There is a lot more you can do to help improve the encyclopedia other than continuing to make articles on nearly every single any artist put out. My comment about the white female artists was incorrect, and I apoligize. Nevertheless, nobody, black, white, or green, needs this many articles. --FuriousFreddy 03:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Nominated", as in "did not win". "My Funny Friend and Me" was nominated or an Oscar, but there is no reason on earth to write an article for it (you likely don't even know what movie it comes from and would have to Google it). The "My Heart" article at least has more facts to include to justify its existence. I'm not slow; you want to try and justify the existence of your Mariah Carey cover version by trying to make sure the Diana Ross version remains a seperate article. The song (as in, the Diana Ross record) is notable enough for an article, and it will get one when someone can write more than two catalogue-based paragraphs on it. Until then, it should remain redirected to the movie.

 * You didn't write the "Star-Spangled banner article"? Fine. I didn't know, didn't check, and didn't (and don't) care. Like I said, it's not about who wrote them; it's the fact that they were written in the first place.

 * Do not, DO NOT, DO NOT write an article on the Jackson 5 version of "Santa Claus". You know better than that. The Jacksons already have all of the song articles they need, thanks to BrothaTimothy.

 * I've written on articles for every artist that I knew about, and could provide factual information on, including much coverage of hip-hop and 1960s/1970s pop music. I've written articles for artists I could hardly call my favorites, and many that I've never heard of before. I don't have to write or edit articles on rock artists, because all the once I know about have articles with some decent form of detail already eclipsing what I would be able to contribute. There were no Mariah articles when you got here because most of them weren't neccessary. And as far as "whining", I'd also ask you to stop whining when people nominated non-neccessary articles you wrote for deletion. You're not the only one who does, though: I once had a user compain that "I should have told them I was listing their article for deletion".

 * Out of courtesy, nothing. To aparaphrase Chuck D, "you don't own no article." If I think it should be deleted, I will nominate it as such without hesitation. I'm telling you before i do it, in the hopes that you will take the initiative to do the merging and redirecting yourself before being made ot do it (you and I both know that articles on characters from Glitter are not going to survive AfD).

 * I'm not jealous of any other articles, especially not yours.

 * All of your contributions are not inherently useless, I wouldn't even say most. We're talking some here. You really should move on, though, and write articles on topics that are needed. Fill in some existing redlinks. Go to the requests for articles, see iif you can write any of them, and do so. You're still missing the point: everything does not need an article; you'd do better writing for Everything2, where they literally write about everything. We don't need seperate articles on Pokemon characters; that's fancruft. And this is not about people or about "not knocking what people do", this is supposed to be a group effort, and editors are supposed to defer to what the group has set out i nan attempt to make something cohesive and balanced. This isn't about what I do or don't like, this is about the quality of encyclopedia coverage. I'm not bashing you specifically for writing articles on pop music, I am crticizing the need for over-coverage of pop songs, seperate articles for pop song covers, biased language, and more. You're thinking that I'm deliberately trying to undermine your work because I don't like you. I don't know you; I just know your edits. You could secretly be one of my best friends for all I know, and I'd still be trying to fix this issue.

 * This is probablly a lost cause. You're obviously not aware that a change needs to be made, nor are you apparently willing to change in the better interests of the encyclopedia. I can talk from now until doomsday, but you're not going to stop. I'd bet if you were banned, you'd find a way to sneak right back and keep on. --FuriousFreddy 03:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, as far as my articles are concerned, if I've ever written an article that was obviously unneccessary, I got rid of it myself. I'd go so far as to say that there's not a single article I've worked on that should be nominated for AfD; if there was, then I've already nominated it myself and it's been deleted. There was too much to write and fix to write unncessary articles. --FuriousFreddy 03:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a waste of time.
 * 1) "One Sweet Day" is notable for other reasons besides an award nomination. You know this.
 * 2) I don't yell at people. I've asked for help, because I don't have time to do all of this myself. And this is supposed to be a collaboartive project, and not a piecemeal thing broken down into assignments. But aksing for help was obviously fruitless, so it's a moot point now.
 * 3) I'm not asking you to stop writing articles on pop music. I'm asking you to stop writing uneccessary articles on singles who have no notablility.
 * 4) We barely need articles on songs themselves, we sure as anything don't need seperate articles on different recordins of the same song. But I'm talking a hole in my head, and I have waisted my entire evening doing so. Since you're obviously not going to change, I'm going to stop trying to ask you to. Talking to you is pointless, and trying to get guidelines and cohesiveness established in the Wikipedia is, I now realize, a stupid idea. Because we have people like you who, desipte protests from more than one user, insist on writing what you want to write and how you want to write it. Reguardless of whether what you do is in the best interest of the rest of the encyclopedia, or even a specific section of it, you're not going to stop, because you're not going to listen.

It is now 12:40 at night. I have wasted almost four hours of my life talking to you, with absolutely no leeway having been made. I also wasted time on a weeknight before work typing a reply that you apparently didn't even fully read, in which I made every attempt to be cordial and nice.

This is the last comment that I will ever write towards you; and I will leave your Glitter articles alone as long as you do not make any comments to me again. And that would include a reply to these comments as well. --FuriousFreddy 04:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mariah
Hi & thanks for telling me about the VFD of other Mariah songs. I hope they'll be kept. The singles chronology is very nice, I'm planning to do the same with singles of other artists as soon as I have time. :-) Alensha 15:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Lakewood Arena

Lakewood Arena was a planned 7,400-seat multi-purpose arena in Bradenton, Florida. While preliminary construction had been done, developer DVA Sports had financial and technical problems preventing the completion of the arena. The arena was to be home to the Gulf Coast Swords ECHL ice hockey team. However, due to the years of delays, including an almost 2-year hiatus in construction, the ECHL terminated the Swords franchise in September 2006. As of November 2008, only 3 walls were standing and the property was foreclosed. DVA Sports managed to have foreclosure auctions postponed twice by making interest payments on their debt until 2009.

New Owners
The uncompleted building was sold April 21, 2009 at foreclosure auction to Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, one of the property's lien holders. SMR, who was the only bidder, paid $100. The current structure was torn down in November 2009.

title: Lakewood Arena


text:
Classics (disambiguation)

Classics is the branch of humanities dealing with the ancient Mediterranean world.

Classics or Classic may also refer to:
 * Classic, outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality
 * Classics may also refer to the study of classical texts of Confucianism, the mainstay of study in ancient China, Korea, and Japan. Particularly the Four Books and Five Classics or the broader Thirteen Classics.

Albums

 * Classics (Ali Project album), 2001
 * Classics (Aphex Twin album), 1994
 * Classics (Joey Beltram album), 1996
 * Classics (Era album), 2009
 * Classics (George Canyon album)
 * Classics (Hybrid album), 2012
 * Classics (Jennifer Rush album)
 * Classics (Kenny Rogers and Dottie West album), 1979
 * Classics (Model 500 album), 1993
 * Classics (Patty Loveless album)
 * Classics (Ratatat album), 2006
 * Classics (Sarah Brightman album)
 * Classics (She & Him album)
 * Classics (Triumph album), 1989
 * Classics, by Susan Werner
 * Styx Classics Volume 15, a 1987 compilation for the band Styx,
 * Classics (Ali Project EP)
 * The Classics (album)

Artists and labels

 * Chronological Classics, a French jazz re-issue label
 * The Classics, a musical group of the 1960s
 * Classixx, an electronic record production and DJ Duo

Publishing imprints

 * Bantam Classic Book Series
 * Barnes & Noble Classics series
 * Everyman Classics
 * Oxford World's Classics
 * Penguin Classics
 * Signet Classics

Sports

 * American Classic Races, a series of three Thoroughbred horse races
 * British Classic Races, five horse races run during the traditional flat racing season
 * Classic cycle races, one-day professional cycling road races in the international calendar
 * Swedish Classic Circuit, a diploma awarded to those who have finished races in cross country skiing, cycling, swimming, and cross country running during a 12-month period

Video games

 * Classics HD, a group of classic PlayStation 2 video games, remastered in high-definition for PlayStation 3
 * PlayStation 2 classics, a group of classic PlayStation 2 video games
 * PSone Classics, a group of classic PlayStation video games

title: Classics (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Speedofdark

Created in 1998 and still in operation to this day, SPEEDOFDARK.COM is the embodiment of a minor internet cult following. Typing "speed of dark" into any major search engine will return several entries from the scientifically proven formula for the speed of dark to a fictional book written by Elizabeth Moon regarding autism in the future.

The original SPEEDOFDARK.COM website is owned and operated by Mark Scott. It serves as his portfolio of his graphic/web design, programming and application development. Incidently he owns and operates the sister site known as SPEEDOFDARK.NET. Other websites powered by the SPEEDOFDARK.COM are HireCourt.com.

HireCourt.com was originally run as a non-profit online employment law review and reporting website with a free job board. Noteable features included the HireCourt Community Forum where anonymous members could post and review their experiences with employers, co-workers, bosses, supervisors. Members could send an electronic "subpeona" review notification requesting comments of their posts. HireCourt.com had a large and comprehensive employment law articles and cases database. During it's run from 2001 to 2005, the original HireCourt.com was visited by approximately 500 users a day, mostly law students and lawyers searching for case transcripts and legal advice. Under development and prehaps never to be completed was an application allowing web users to generate a fictional rendering of what their salary would be if they could assign cent values to various job duties and levels of responsibilities. The main saying for the HireCourt website was, "Take it to the HireCourt.", a play on the phrase "Take it to a higher court." In October 2005 HireCourt.com will undergo a complete reformat and change of venue.

Dark Suckers
Taken from UselessKnowledge.com Defining The Speed Of Dark [Part 1]

By Michael J. Coppi Jan. 22, 2005

I think it was George Carlin who postulated:

"What is the Speed of Dark?"....................

The answer might seem to be very straightforward and logical. It would be all too easy to deduce that light must "push" the dark away at the same speed it approaches. So the speed of dark must also be 186,000 miles per second.

But there are many complicating matters. Darkness is much heavier than light, and therefore much more subject to the laws of gravity. Darkness only has mass within an atmosphere. It doesn't take a black hole to capture dark; the earth's gravity is sufficient.

This is where we get the expression "night fell," and more broadly it accounts for the common reference to "darkness falling." It is also why your eyes feel heavy as one lingers into the nighttime hours (the weight of encroaching darkness is felt in the eyelids, which contain some of the weakest and most sensitive muscles in the body).

Furthermore, when we indicate that we will "sleep on" an idea, we are in fact sleeping *under* the veil of darkness, which tends to impress the thought upon our minds.

If you were to swim just below the surface of a lake, you would encounter ample brightness. However, if you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you reached a sufficient depth, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. That is, in fact, why it is called LIGHT.

As an aside note, always drink water from a *glass*, so that light is able to fully push the darkness out as you drink it. A cup (particularly a covered one) would only serve to hold the darkness in. The introduction of light into the gastrointestinal tract is an important aid in proper digestion.

Consider the introduction of foods labeled "lite." Not only are they more readily digestible from a caloric standpoint, but being "liter" (lighter) in color, they help aid the flow of intestinal matter, as dark materials are "pushed" from the stomach.

A similar effect can be obtained by standing on the equator at 12 noon on the Spring equinox, looking straight up (eyes closed) and holding your mouth open. This is a common and ancient cure among many native tribes for curing chronic constipation, especially after having consumed and accumulated much dark-colored food - such as coffee, beef jerky and chocolate, during the winter months.

Light from the sun (mostly) is constantly "pushing" dark towards the surface of the earth. It is a common myth that atmospheric pressure at sea level is greater due to the weight of the atmosphere alone. And for general purposes, this can be assumed, since darkness is very light.

But fully .000079 of the 14.7 psi at the earth's surface is due to the weight of dark. Since atmospheric pressure is usually only calculated to an accuracy of 3 digits - 14.691 psi, the weight of dark appears to be negligible.

However, even .000079 pounds per square inch would add up over a given period of time, crushing all life beneath it.

One theory holds that this eventually led to the extinction of the dinosaurs: occasional wildfires during Mesozoic and cretaceous periods formed light at the surface of the earth which helped to push the accumulated darkness back into space.

During the Jurassic period though, dinosaurs had thinned plant growth to the point that wildfires were much less prevalent...the weight of dark eventually increased, crushing everything except for small cave-dwelling mammals, and the seeds they stored as food.

Later, humans appeared on the scene and, barely able to hold their eyes open, learned to create fire just before they too were crushed by the darkness buildup.

Of course, with the advent of artificial lighting, the problem is now solved by default.

For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent studies have proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs "Dark Suckers."

The basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers atop parking lot utility poles have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in a household lamp.

As with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the visible dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.

Candles are primitive Dark Suckers. A new candle has a white wick. You will note that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it.

Furthermore, if you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle.

One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range. But with the advent of Dark Storage Units [sometimes referred- to as "ever readies" since they are always available for immediate use], we now have portable Dark Suckers.

In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by the Dark Storage Unit[s]. When the Dark Storage Unit[s] is/are full, it/they must be emptied and replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.

The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers further proves that dark has mass and is heavier than light: Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not prudent to touch an operating Dark Sucker.

Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it is very unwise to touch an operating candle.

The actual *speed* of dark is seldom noticeable, except in certain instances - such as when a light is turned on in a dark room. At such times, the impact of the speedily escaping darkness is felt as painful pressure against the eyeball.

This fact helps to prove that dark is indeed faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

Since Darkness is the absence of light then it should weigh less as the light photons have been subtracted out. This is why when you turn off the light, dark seems so empty, because before the room was "full" of light.

Since darkness has less mass it can move quicker. Have you ever noticed that you cannot sneak up on darkness? You switch on the light and "poof," the darkness is gone.

When light speeds through the universe, what does it find waiting for it when it arrives? Darkness......which already had enough time to get there and rest up for the arrival of the light.

[While it is true that darkness can *accelerate* faster than light, thus being "ahead" of the light pushing it, the actual *velocity* of dark does not exceed that of light. Darkness seems to be "lying in wait" because it was *already there* - at rest. The "anticipation" and corresponding acceleration of dark prevents shock waves from forming whenever there is illumination].

So although speed of dark *seems* to exceed the speed of light, we know that this is only because it is not "full of light waves." Thus, we can eat lunch, watch some dark comedy, and still arrive ahead of the light. Look at the darkness waiting right now in your closet for light to arrive. [It is at rest!]

I hope this sheds a little light on such a dim subject. We will conclude with Part 2 tomorrow, including questions and answers.

About the author: Michael J. Coppi is a freelance writer from Arcadia, California.

title: User talk:Speedofdark


text:
Arab Liberation Front

Arab Liberation Front (ALF; جبهة التحرير العربية Jabhet Al-Tahrir Al-'Arabiyah) is a minor Palestinian political party, previously controlled by the Iraqi-led Ba'ath Party, formed in 1969 by Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr and then headed by Saddam Hussein. ALF is a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

History and background
The ALF was founded in April 1969, as a front of the Iraqi-led faction of the Ba'ath Party, then led by Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr. The ALF has always followed Iraqi government policy on all matters. In line with the pan-Arab ideology of the Ba'ath Party, the ALF was initially opposed to "Palestinization" of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, preferring to argue in terms of the wider Arab world's war with Israel, which it regarded as under the natural leadership of Iraq.

The ALF was the main group active in Iraq's small Palestinian population of approximately 34,000, but a very minor group in all other Palestinian communities. It has maintained a small following in the refugee camps of Lebanon, and has a minuscule presence in the Palestinian territories. Samir Sanunu is the representative of ALF in Lebanon.

The first leader of ALF was its secretary-general, Zeid Heidar. Heidar was born in Syria in the 1930s into a family of Arab nationalists. In 1956 he joined the Ba'ath Party in Syria. In 1968 he went to Iraq after the coup and was a part of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq. In 1969, he was appointed by the government of Iraq secretary-general of the Ba'ath Party in Palestine, the ALF. In June 1969 the ALF became a member of the newly formed PLO, a device for Iraq to be able to influence the PLO and the events in Palestine. In 1974, the ALF joined the Rejectionist Front, initially strongly backed by Iraq, which was formed by hard-line Palestinian factions which rejected what they perceived as the increasing moderation of the PLO.

After the PLO entered into the Oslo Accords with Israel, the ALF opposed the accords, in line with Iraqi Ba'athist government policy. This brought about a split in the ALF in 1993, with a pro-Arafat Oslo faction becoming the Palestinian Arab Front and re-locating to the Palestinian territories; while the remainder of the ALF remaining in the Rejectionist Front.

The ALF gained some significance during the al-Aqsa Intifada, which started in 2000, as a distributor of financial contributions from the Iraqi government to families of "martyrs" with extra grants for the families of suicide bombers.

After the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, the fall of the Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government, and dissolution of the Ba'ath Party, large numbers of the Palestinian refugees who had been living in Iraq were forced to flee Iraq, and many ALF members fled the country for security reasons for Lebanon and the West Bank.

Leadership
Other leaders of ALF have included Munif al-Razzaz, Abd al-Wahhab al-Kayyali and Abdel-Rahim Ahmed. al-Kayyali became secretary-general in at least 1972-74, and served on the PLO Executive Council from January 1973. He was assassinated in Beirut in 1981 by unidentified gunmen. Ahmed was the secretary-general from 1975 (possibly 1974) until his death in 1991, and was a member of PLO Executive Council from 1977. The present secretary-general is Rakad Salem (Abu Mahmoud) who was held in Israeli jail between 2001 and 2006.

Present situation
Today, the secretary-general of ALF continues to be Rakad Salem, who holds Iraqi citizenship. He was imprisoned by Israel in 2001 for distributing Iraqi funds to families of suicide bombers. He was one of 57 Palestinians released in 2006 as a goodwill gesture. The ALF continues to have a seat on the PLO Executive Committee, since 1993 held by Mahmoud Ismael. What the status and position of the ALF is since the 2003 end of Iraqi support is uncertain.

The headquarters of ALF are in Ramallah, West Bank. The ALF published a monthly newspaper, Sawt al-Jamahir (Arabic: Voice of the Masses), which was edited by Rakad Salem. The newspaper was financed by the Iraqi government until 2003, and it is uncertain whether the paper has continued to be published since then.

ALF has not been involved in armed attacks on Israel since at least the early 1990s, and it is no longer believed to possess any significant military capabilities. It is not designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, and is not on the terrorist lists of the UN, the EU or any other country.

title: Arab Liberation Front


text:
SEY

SEY or sey may refer to:

 * Air Seychelles, ICAO airline code
 * Secoya language, by ISO 639-3 code
 * Seoni railway station, Madhya Pradesh, India, by Indian Railways station code
 * Seychelles, IOC country code
 * Seymour railway station, by station code

title: SEY


text:
Free Reformed Churches of South Africa

The Free Reformed Churches in South Africa (Vrye Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid Afrika, VGKSA) is a federation of Protestant Christian churches. It follows Reformed Calvinist theology and has adopted the Dutch "three forms of unity" as its doctrinal standards: Canons of Dordt, Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism and subscribes to the three Ecumenical Creeds: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed and The Athanasian Creed.

Overview
The first church was established in Pretoria on 8 October 1950. Eventually other churches were established; they are, in order of institution:

 * FRC Pretoria, 1950
 * FRC Cape Town, 1952
 * FRC Johannesburg, 1957
 * FRC Bethal, 1995
 * FRC Pretoria-Maranata, 1997
 * FRC Mamelodi, 2002
 * FRC Soshanguve North, 2003

The FRC's Church Order is based on that which was written at the Synod of Dort 1618/19.

The Churches have sister-church relationships with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated), the Canadian and American Reformed Churches, the Presbyterian Church in Korea and the Free Reformed Churches of Australia.

In addition to these contacts the FRC is also a member of the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC)

title: Free Reformed Churches of South Africa


text: User talk:81.227.152.101

title: User talk:81.227.152.101


text:
SYC

SYC may refer to:

Yacht clubs

 * Sayville Yacht Club, in Blue Point, New York, US
 * Sligo Yacht Club, in County Sligo, Ireland
 * Squantum Yacht Club, in Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Youth organizations

 * Scottish Young Conservatives
 * Sierra Youth Coalition, Canada
 * Singapore Youth Choir
 * Somali Youth Club
 * Student-Youth Council, Georgia

Other

 * SYc, Yenko Super Car
 * Seychelles, an archipelago nation in the Indian Ocean
 * Syriac language (ISO 639-3: SYC)
 * Edward Sycamore (1855–1930), British sailing skipper

title: SYC