Document stringlengths 87 1.67M | Source stringclasses 5 values |
|---|---|
0
I am using Auto Assign Role Module to allow users to choose their role during registration. Block to choose role appears as first block, before the default fields (username, email and password).
Is there a way to move AAR block to the bottom, after the default fields?
2
Yes. You can reorder any Drupal form elements by altering its #weight property. To make the auto assign element appear above the other account registration elements just adjust its weight lighter.
This can be done in hook_form_user_register_form_alter() invocation:
/**
* Implements hook_form_ID_alter().
*/
function MYMODULE_form_user_register_form_alter(&$form, &$form_state, $form_id) {
// Set the autoassignrole_user element 1 unit lighter than account form element
$form['autoassignrole_user']['#weight'] = $form['account']['#weight'] - 1;
}
Your Answer
By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
OpenVPN and redirect-gateway def1
• Hi!
What do i want to achieve…
I live in a country where it is sometimes difficult to reach all websites. Because of this i want to have one of my wireless networks at home always connected to a VPN provider in the US (SwitchVPN).
My internet connection sucks and from time to time different VPN servers gets blocked so i want to have 3 different OpenVPN connections up and running with fallback between them (this should be possible to do with Gateway groups).
pfsense release: 2.0.1-RELEASE (i386) (i have tried with the snapshot from 20121110-1842 too)
Basic configuration script (client side) - this one works but "redirect-gateway def1" sucks
auth-user-pass /conf/auth.conf;fast-io;reneg-sec 0;tun-mtu 1500;mssfix 1450;fragment 1500;verb 5;persist-key;redirect-gateway def1;
This results in the following routes…
As you can see the 0.0.0.0/1 makes everything more difficult.
If i check the PUSH_Reply message it looks like this…
'PUSH_REPLY,dhcp-option DNS 208.67.222.222,dhcp-option DNS 208.67.220.220,redirect-gateway,route-metric 1,route-gateway 10.10.0.1,route-gateway 10.10.0.1,topology subnet,ping 10,ping-restart 60,ifconfig 10.10.0.242 255.255.255.0'
In this thread (http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,24436.msg126273.html)i found a way to bypass the
redirect-gateway with route-nopull and/or route-noexec. in the PUSH_REPLY there is also the
ifconfig that change the routes so i found at openvpn.net that i could use "ifcong-noexec" so that the routing
tables are "clean".
The logfile for OpenVPN looks like this….
If i try to add my own routes (I am not an expert in this area…) i have tried to use... (in the OpenVPN Advanced Configuration)
route 10.10.0.1
route 10.10.0.1 255.255.255.0
etc
but none of these can change the routing table.
I must be doing something wrong here and i can't figure out what... (lack of know how when it comes to routing tables is my first guess)
Someone that can help me with this problem?
//Micke
• The redirect-gateway def1 does not only add the 0.0.0.0/1 it also adds the 128.0.0.0/1 plus the x.x.x.74/32 pointing to your local gateway.
The route commands are to be used in a peer-to-peer connection and not in a PKI.
From your description i don't really see what your goal is.
If it is to simply have multiple VPN tunnels up and use failover pools between them:
In such a setup your routing table isn't relevant anyway.
You define gateways and traffic is forced to them directly, bypassing the routing table.
Log in to reply
| ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Kopanaya 2-ya
Kopanaya 2-ya (Копаная 2-я) is a rural locality (a sloboda) in Kopanyanskoye Rural Settlement, Olkhovatsky District, Voronezh Oblast, Russia. The population was 90 as of 2010. There are 2 streets. | WIKI |
Page:Early western travels, 1748-1846 (1907 Volume 6).djvu/240
one, but the captain judging that she bore too far south, made her a signal to return. Mr. Aikin not finding less than four fathoms, we followed him and advanced between the breakers, with a favorable wind, so that we passed the boat on our starboard, within pistol-shot. We made signs to her to return on board, but she could not accomplish it; the ebb tide carried her with such rapidity that in a few minutes we had lost sight of her amidst the tremendous breakers that surrounded us. It was near nightfall, the wind began to give way, and the water was so low with the ebb, that we struck six or seven times with violence: the breakers broke over the ship and threatened to submerge her. At last we passed from two and three quarters fathoms of water to seven, where we were obliged to drop anchor, the wind having entirely failed us. We were far, however, from being out of danger, and the darkness came to add to the horror of our situation: our vessel, though at anchor, threatened to be carried away every moment by the tide; the best bower was {90} let go, and it kept two men at the wheel to hold her head in the right direction. However, Providence came to our succor: the flood succeeded to the ebb, and the wind rising out of the offing, we weighed both anchors, in spite of the obscurity of the night, and succeeded in gaining a little bay or cove, formed at the entrance of the river by Cape Disappointment, and called Baker's Bay, where we found a good anchorage.[38] It was about midnight, and all retired to take a little rest: the crew, above all, had great need of | WIKI |
Talk:voyl
RFV discussion: December 2023–May 2024
Strangely spelled alt-form Fond of sanddunes (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
* RFV-failed Denazz (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC) | WIKI |
Template:Did you know nominations/Hairdresser
Hairdresser
* ... that Marie Antoinette's favorite hairdresser, Leonard, designed a hairstyle called the loge d'opera that towered five feet upon the wearer's head?
* Reviewed: Ascog House
Created/expanded by SarahStierch (talk). Self nom at 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
* Can you please link the discussion where this article - a redirect to Barber - was discussed to be a separate article? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
* Talk:Hairdresser Kaldari (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC) | WIKI |
Ericka Huggins
Ericka Huggins ( Jenkins; born January 5, 1948) is an American activist, writer, and educator. She is a former leading member of the political organization, Black Panther Party (BPP). She was married to fellow BPP member John Huggins in 1968.
Early life and education
Born Ericka Jenkins in Washington, D.C., Huggins was the middle child of three. After graduating high school in 1966, Huggins attended Cheyney State College (now Cheyney University of Pennsylvania). She then attended Lincoln University, an historically black school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There she studied education, and eventually met John Huggins, who she would later marry in 1968. Although Lincoln University's Black Student Congress was opposed to female leaders, Huggins engaged in the group despite the opposition.
She holds a Master of Arts in sociology from California State University, East Bay. Her thesis focused on an education model which proposed "student-centered, community-based tuition-free education for students to minimize the multigenerational race and gender trauma of American".
Career
In 1972, she moved to California and became an elected member of the Berkeley Community Development Council. Later, in 1976, she was elected to the Alameda County Board of Education. She was both the first Black person, as well as the first Black woman to have a seat on the Board. From 2008 to 2015, Huggins worked in the Peralta Community College District as a professor of sociology, African American studies, and women studies. She taught sociology at both Laney College and at Berkeley City College, as well as women's studies at California State University. In addition, for more than 30 years, she has lectured at Stanford University, Cornell University, and University of California, Los Angeles where she has spoken about education, spirituality, feminism, prison reform, and queer people of color homelessness.
In relation to her work with spirituality, Huggins did work for 15 years at the Siddha Yoga Prison Project where she led hatha yoga and meditation to groups such as incarcerated people, public school children, and college students. At the Mind/Body Medical Institute, which works with Harvard medical school, she continued sharing her spirituality and its practices for 5 years.
Involvement with the Black Panther Party
While at Lincoln University, Both Ericka and her husband were inspired to leave school and join the Black Panther Party. Her motivation came from a Ramparts magazine article she read that discussed the cruel treatment of Huey P. Newton while incarcerated. A picture in the article depicted Newton shirtless, with a bullet wound in his stomach, strapped to a hospital gurney. In 1967, the couple arrived in Los Angeles and joined the Black Panther Party.
Eventually, her husband John Huggins, became leader of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Black Panther Party. While at home with her three week old daughter, her husband was assassinated on January 17, 1969, on the UCLA campus due to a feud between the Black Panther Party and a Black Nationalist group, US Organization, that was fueled by the FBI's COINTELPRO program. After his death, Ericka attended his burial in his birthplace of New Haven, Connecticut. Following his funeral, she decided to move there and open up a new Black Panther Party branch. She led this new chapter along two other women, Kathleen Neal Cleaver and Elaine Brown.
While involved with the Black Panthers, Huggins held several positions: both an editor and writer for the Black Panther Intercommunal News Service, director of the party's Oakland Community School from 1973 to 1981, and a member of the party's Central Committee. After spending two years in prison, Huggins decided to leave the Black Panthers, after being a member for 14 years, which is the longest membership for any woman involved with it.
New Haven Black Panther trials
In 1969, members of the New Haven Black Panthers tortured and murdered Alex Rackley, whom they suspected of being an informant. Along with Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale, Huggins was charged with murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy. Huggins was heard speaking on a tape recording of Rackley's interrogation that was played during the trial. The trial sparked protests across the country about whether the Panthers would receive a fair trial and the jury selection would become the longest in state history. In May 1971 the jury deadlocked 10 to 2 for Huggins' acquittal, and she was not retried.
Writing and poetry
While awaiting trial from 1969 to 1972, Huggins spent her time writing in the Prison Niantic State Farm for Women. Writing about the poor social conditions herself and her community endured, she viewed storytelling as a form of self-defense, personal agency, and educational activism. Her work is defined by themes such as love and hate, time and space, sexism and feminism, spirituality, racism, and nationalism. After being released from prison and all charges being requited, Insights and Poems, a book of poetry, co-written by Huggins and Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party, was released in 1975.
Personal life
Ericka Huggins married John Huggins in 1968. Ericka gave birth to their daughter, Mai Huggins, at the age of 20. Within three months of their daughter's birth, Ericka became a widow when John Huggins was killed on the UCLA campus in January 1969.
Huggins has two sons. One of her sons is Rasa Sun Mott, whom she had with James Mott, lead singer of the Lumpen, the Black Panthers singing group. | WIKI |
Do you know the plastic waste footprint generated by your prescription medications?
Cabinet® Health is the first plastic-free pharmacy. Learn how you can reduce your plastic footprint, consume fewer micro-plastics, and get a free personalized and refillable-for-life glass prescription bottle.
1
110
How old are you?
Please enter your age and number of prescriptions you take.
See if Your Prescriptions Qualify for Cabinet®!
See if your prescriptions qualify, and start loving your pharmacy. Search for one of your prescriptions below to find out whether you can transfer to Cabinet® for: A free personalized, refillable-for-life glass bottle (no more orange plastic!), a medicine travel carrier, plus a bottle of 24 Hr Allergy Relief (Zyrtec®) free. If eligible, our pharmacists handle an easy transfer from your current pharmacy, & refills are handled for you with your prescriber!
The P10 pill is a widely used medication that provides relief for a variety of conditions. Understanding its basics, medical use, potential side effects, and precautions is essential for those considering its use. In this article, we will explore these aspects in detail to equip you with the necessary knowledge about the P10 pill.
Understanding the P10 Pill
The Basics of P10 Pill
The P10 pill, also known as Pill P10, is a prescription medication that falls under the category of analgesics or pain relievers. It is primarily used to alleviate pain of various origins, including musculoskeletal pain, headaches, dental pain, and postoperative pain.
When it comes to managing pain, the P10 pill has been a trusted choice for healthcare professionals and patients alike. Its effectiveness in providing relief has made it a popular option for those in need of immediate pain management.
This medication belongs to a class of drugs called nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs work by reducing the production of certain chemicals in the body that cause inflammation, pain, and fever.
By targeting the root cause of pain and inflammation, the P10 pill offers a comprehensive approach to pain management. It not only provides relief but also helps in reducing the swelling and discomfort associated with various conditions.
The Medical Use of P10 Pill
Aside from its pain-relieving properties, the P10 pill is also commonly used for reducing inflammation and fever. Many patients find relief from conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and menstrual cramps through the use of P10.
Living with chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis can be challenging, as it often involves managing pain and inflammation on a daily basis. The P10 pill has been a valuable tool in the management of these conditions, offering patients a chance to regain control over their lives.
Furthermore, P10 has shown promising results in reducing fever, making it a reliable choice for individuals experiencing elevated body temperature due to various factors such as infections or inflammatory responses.
It's important to note that while the P10 pill can provide temporary relief, it does not treat the underlying condition. Therefore, it is recommended to consult with a healthcare professional to determine the appropriate treatment plan for your specific condition.
When considering the use of the P10 pill, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of your condition and its underlying causes. Consulting with a healthcare professional will not only help in determining the right dosage but also provide valuable insights into managing your condition effectively.
Additionally, it is essential to follow the prescribed dosage and adhere to the recommended guidelines provided by your healthcare provider. This will ensure optimal results and minimize the risk of potential side effects.
Overall, the P10 pill has proven to be a valuable asset in the field of pain management and inflammation reduction. Its multifaceted approach to addressing pain, inflammation, and fever has made it a go-to choice for many individuals seeking relief from various conditions.
The Science Behind the P10 Pill
Active Ingredients in P10 Pill
The active ingredient in the P10 pill is a compound called ibuprofen. Ibuprofen works by inhibiting the production of prostaglandins, which are chemicals responsible for pain, inflammation, and fever. By blocking the production of these chemicals, ibuprofen helps reduce discomfort and swelling.
How the P10 Pill Works
The P10 pill works by targeting the enzymes responsible for the synthesis of prostaglandins in the body. By inhibiting these enzymes, the production of prostaglandins is reduced, leading to a decrease in pain, inflammation, and fever.
It's important to follow the recommended dosage and use the P10 pill for the specified duration to ensure its optimal effectiveness. If your symptoms persist or worsen, it is advisable to consult with your healthcare provider for further guidance.
Potential Side Effects of the P10 Pill
Common Side Effects
Like any medication, the P10 pill can have potential side effects. Some common side effects that may occur include gastrointestinal discomfort such as nausea, heartburn, and stomach pain. In some cases, individuals may also experience dizziness, drowsiness, or a mild rash. These side effects are generally mild and go away on their own as your body adjusts to the medication.
Serious Side Effects
While uncommon, there are certain serious side effects associated with the P10 pill. These include severe stomach pain, black or bloody stools, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and allergic reactions. If you experience any of these symptoms, it is important to seek immediate medical attention.
It's worth noting that everyone's response to medication can vary, and it's important to weigh the potential benefits against the possible risks. Consulting with your healthcare provider can help you make an informed decision about whether the P10 pill is the right choice for you.
Precautions and Warnings for P10 Pill Use
Who Should Avoid the P10 Pill
While the P10 pill is generally safe for most individuals, there are certain groups who should avoid its use or take it with caution. These include individuals with a history of stomach ulcers, gastrointestinal bleeding, liver or kidney disease, or asthma. Pregnant women, especially during the third trimester, should also exercise caution and consult with their healthcare provider before taking the P10 pill.
Interactions with Other Medications
The P10 pill can interact with certain medications, including blood thinners, other NSAIDs, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). It is important to inform your healthcare provider about all the medications, supplements, and herbal remedies you are taking to avoid any potential interactions.
It's also crucial to follow the recommended dosage and not exceed the prescribed amount of the P10 pill. Taking higher doses or using it for a prolonged period without medical supervision can increase the risk of side effects and complications.
TryYour Name!Directions: Actualdirections will reflect your prescription once transfered.ESCITALOPRAM 20mgRX# 105114PRESCRIBED BYDOCTOR
Never throw out a pill bottle again. See how your name looks on a personalized, refillable glass prescription bottle.
Frequently Asked Questions About the P10 Pill
Dosage and Administration
The dosage of the P10 pill varies based on the individual's condition, age, and other factors. It is important to follow the instructions provided by your healthcare provider or the medication label. Taking the P10 pill with food or milk can help reduce the risk of gastrointestinal side effects. If you have any concerns or questions regarding the dosage or administration of the P10 pill, it is best to consult with your healthcare provider.
What to Do in Case of Overdose
In the event of an overdose of the P10 pill, it is crucial to seek immediate medical attention. Overdosing on ibuprofen can lead to serious complications, such as stomach bleeding, kidney damage, and even life-threatening conditions. Prompt medical intervention is essential to ensure appropriate treatment and minimize the potential risks associated with an overdose.
In conclusion, the P10 pill is a commonly used medication that provides effective relief for various conditions. Understanding its basics, medical use, potential side effects, and precautions is crucial for safe and informed usage. By following the advice of your healthcare provider and adhering to the recommended dosage, you can maximize the benefits of the P10 pill while minimizing the risk of potential complications. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Auchinblae distillery
Auchenblae distillery was a Highland single malt Scotch whisky distillery in Auchenblae, Kincardine, Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
History
The distillery was created in 1895 in the former buildings of a spinning mill (itself built in 1795) beside Luther Water. The design of the new distillery facilities was carried out by Charles C. Doig. This included the building of a damn across the Luther Water, the fitting of a water-driven turbine generator for electricity and a new iron bridge to enable horse-drawn carts to reach the distillery. The distillery went into liquidation in 1916 and was acquired by Macdonlad Greenlees, Williams Ltd, before finally closing in 1930.
While many of the distillery buildings have been demolished, the hydroelectric turbine remains as does a pagoda roof building in the village centre on Burnett Street. | WIKI |
Mangalam Dangalam
Mangalam Dangalam is an Indian Hindi serial based on the quarrels between a man and his father-in-law. Its broadcast began on 13 November 2018 on SAB TV. Karanvir Sharma, Manoj Joshi and Manisha Saxena played the main characters in the series.
Plot
This story is about the love and struggling relationship of a father-in-law and his son-in-law, resulting from an intercaste marriage. A rich businessman hailing from Indore, Sanjeev daughter, Rumi and Arjun, a malayali lawyer fall in love each other. When Rumi and Arjun reveal about their love to their families, all are happy except for Rumi's father and Arjun's mother. However, after a lot of difficulties both of them get married, but Sanjeev plays a heart attack drama. Arjun's mother learns about Sanjeev's conspiracy, takes a drastic step and comes to live in Sanjeev's house with her family. In the end, everything sorts out well between Sanjeev and Arjun. The whole family decides to get Arjun and Rumi get remarried and it is revealed that Lalitha (Aparna Mishra) and Sahil (Pravisht Mishra) have developed feelings for each other.
Characters
* Manoj Joshi - Sanjeev Sanklecha:Mrs Sanklecha's son; Sangeeta's husband; Rumi and Sahil's father
* Karanvir Sharma - Nagarjuna "Arjun" Kutty:Venkatesh and Charulata's son; Lalita's brother;Rumi's husband
* Manisha Rawat - Rumi Sanklecha Kutty : Sanjeev and Sangeeta's daughter; Mrs Sanklecha's granddaughter; Arjun's wife, Sahil's sister
* Anjali Gupta - Sangeeta Sanklecha:Sanjeev's wife;Rumi and Sahil's mother
* [[Anita Kulkarni - Charulata Kutty: Venkatesh's wife; Arjun and Lalita's mother
* Abhay Kulkarni]] - Venkatesh Kutty:Charulata's husband; Arjun and Lalita's father
* Shubha Khote -Mrs Sanklecha:Sanjeev's mother; Rumi and Sahil's grandmother
* Kritika Sharma/ Aparna Mishra - Lalita Kutty: Venkatesh and Charulata's daughter; Arjun's sister, Sahil's Love Interest
* Pravisht Mishra - Sahil Sanklecha: Sanjeev and Sangeeta's son; Mrs Sanklecha's grandson; Rumi's brother, Lalita's Love Interest | WIKI |
Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 12.djvu/403
10 s. XIL OCT. 23, im] NOTES AND QUERIES.
331
Two large vessels one from San Sebastian, the other a ship of Flanders entered Mai Bay, co. Clare. The first stranded at Doonbeg, the second near Tromra Castle : a finely carved table recovered is still at Dromoland Castle. Boetius MacClancy, Sheriff of Clare, executed all the survivors. Their graves are at Spanish Point, near Miltown (Mai Bay).
Falco Blanco (mediano), Davillaun, near Boffin.
El Gran Grin (Don Pedro de Mendoza), Clare Island.
Unknown ship in Clew Bay : Tourglass in Currawn Peninsula is the probable spot.
Duquesa Santa Ana, one of whose guns is on an island in Kiltooris Lake, went down in Loughros More Bay, Donegal.
Unknown ship, Inver in Broadhaven. All the treasure salved by the Government officials.
Unknown in Ballycastle, or Lackan Bay ; the survivors, handed over to George Bing- ham, brother of the Governor of Con- naught, wore executed.
Labia, Streedagh Strand. Some rocks near by are called Carrig na Spagna to this day- Unknown ship lost off Killybegs, 5 Sept., 1588, and a second sank in the harbour there. North of Arranmore is another ** Carrig na Spagna " : an unknown barque sank here. This is thought to have been the Juliana. In 1596 a few Spaniards were still in the district. Guns have been recovered, and some years ago salvage operations were undertaken, without much success.
Authorities.
Green's ' Wrecks on the Irish Coast.' Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, May, 1906.
' La Armada Invencible ' (Capt. Duro). Carew Papers.
Laugh ton's ' Spanish Armada.' State Papers (Venetian), 1588. State Papers (Ireland), 1588-92.
* Relacion de Marcos de Aramburu.'
Hume in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. ii.
Pall Mall Magazine (Duke of Argyll), vol. xxxvi. No. 149, p. 372.
Hardiman's ' History of Galway.' Hill's * Macdonriels of Antrim.'
* Harleian Miscellany,' vol. i. p. 140.
Allingham's ' Capt. Cuellar's Adventures in Con- nacht and Ulster.' Byrne's * Ireland under Elizabeth.' Barrow's * Life of Drake,'
Any further information it is in my power to give I shall be pleased to supply.
BERNARD LORD M'QUILLIN.
Liberal Club, Leicester.
I have often seen the old cannon at Portencross Castle, Ayrshire, regarding which the tradition is that it was recovered from the wreck of one of the ships of the Spanish Armada. This tradition is, as usual, accom- panied by the legend that some of the Spaniards who were wrecked settled at Portencross, and it is said that traces of their presence can still be seen among some of the inhabitants. The old gun is a solid fact, while no doubt some of the neighbouring folk are of dark complexion. Beyond this, however, I am not aware of any evidence, contemporary or otherwise, that any vessel of the Armada was wrecked off the Ayrshire coast.
Some years ago a paper on * The Wrecks of the Spanish Armada on the Coast of Ire- land was read before the Royal Geographical Society, by Mr. Spotswood Green, Chief Inspector of Irish Fisheries, in which the whole subject was dealt with in an exhaus- tive manner. In the discussion which fol- lowed the reading of this paper Mr. Martin Hume, Professor Laughton, and Mr. Julian Corbett too* part. T. F. D.
(10 S. xii. 167, 251). Some two years before the completion of the Ninth Series, I spoke to the lamented Joseph Knight as to the possibility of a consolidated Index at the close of the Tenth Series. He told me that the matter was not quite so simple as I thought (I had suggested a mechanical amalgamation of the ten Indexes), since the Indexes to the First and Second Series (if not the Third also) were so incomplete that the work must be done ab initio, if it was to have any real value. It is obvious that such work is rather costly, as compared with the x lexicographical amalgamation of later Indexes. Seeing that Indexes to the Sixth and later Series are available for any purchaser, I beg to suggest that the present generation of readers should not burden itself for the benefit of its successors and incidentally destroy the value of the stock of Indexes still in hand but that a sufficient memorial would be produced by re-indexing Series I III, and amalgamating with th$ result the existing Indexes to Series IV. and V. ROBT. J. WHITWELL.
* NOTES AND QUERIES ' COMMEMORATION
Oxford.
CARLYLE AND LADY BANNERMAN (10 S. vii. 210). Mr. John Lane has recently published a book which, besides answering MR. BULLOCK'S query about Lady Banner- man, touches on Governor Walter Patterson | WIKI |
Puppet HTTP API: File Bucket File
Included in Puppet Enterprise 2017.1.
File Bucket File
The file_bucket_file endpoint manages the contents of files in the file bucket. All access to files is managed with the md5 checksum of the file contents, represented as :md5. Where used, :filename means the full absolute path of the file on the client system. This is usually optional and used as an error check to make sure correct file is retrieved. The environment is required in all requests but ignored, as the file bucket does not distinguish between environments.
Find
Retrieve the contents of a file.
GET /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/:md5?environment=:environment
GET /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/:md5/:original_path?environment=:environment
This will return the contents of the file if it’s present. If :original_path is provided then the contents will only be sent if the file was uploaded with the same path at some point.
Check if a file is present in the filebucket
HEAD /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/:md5?environment=:environment
HEAD /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/:md5/:original_path?environment=:environment
This behaves identically to find, only returning headers.
Save
Save a file to the filebucket
PUT /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/:md5?environment=:environment
PUT /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/:md5/:original_path?environment=:environment
The body should contain the file contents. This saves the file using the md5 sum of the file contents. If :original_path is provided, it adds the path to a list for the given file. If the md5 sum in the request is incorrect, the file will be instead saved under the correct checksum.
Supported HTTP Methods
GET, HEAD, PUT
Supported Response Formats
binary or application/octet-stream (a string of the raw file contents)
Parameters
None
Examples
Saving a file
> PUT /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/md5/eb61eead90e3b899c6bcbe27ac581660//home/user/myfile.txt?environment=production HTTP/1.1
> Content-Type: application/octet-stream
> Content-Length: 24
> This is the file content
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Retrieving a file
> GET /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/md5/4949e56d376cc80ce5387e8e89a75396//home/user/myfile.txt?environment=production HTTP/1.1
> Accept: binary
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Content-Length: 24
< This is the file content
Wrong file name
> GET /puppet/v3/file_bucket_file/md5/4949e56d376cc80ce5387e8e89a75396//home/user/wrong_name?environment=production HTTP/1.1
> Accept: binary
< HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
<
< Not Found: Could not find file_bucket_file md5/4949e56d376cc80ce5387e8e89a75396/home/user/wrong_name
Schema
A file_bucket_file response body is not structured data according to any standard scheme such as json/yaml, so no schema is applicable.
↑ Back to top | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Page:The Tourist's California by Wood, Ruth Kedzie.djvu/149
SAN FRANCISCO 119 wooed and left her. The stone which commemo- rates Don Luis, first-born of California's famous sons, divides interest with the ornate monument of a gangster and assassin whom the Vigilantes of the Second Committee brought to boot. The San Francisco Evening Bulletin, edited by James King, affirmed in its edition of May 14, 1856, that the hoodlum leader known as James Casey had been an inmate of Sing Sing prison, and that during certain recent elections, he had " stuffed himself through the ballot-box as elected to the Board of Supervisors from a district where it is said he was not even a candidate." The word hoodlum, be it known, was originally contrived to describe the California rough or bully. Hoodlumism in San Francisco had reached its apogee when these words left King's pen. By this measure can one gauge the quality of his citizenship. A day had not passed following the appearance of his brave, nay, rash editorial, when he met Casey near the corner of Washington and Montgomery Streets. Cast- ing off his cloak and levelling a navy revolver, the latter sent a shot through the editor's breast. The militia were called to quell the riot of those who would have lynched Casey, though his victim was not yet dead. Armed citizens met on the plaza and were dispersed, according to the ac- count of the Alia California of May 15th, by the | WIKI |
Page:The letters of Martin Luther.djvu/264
===CCXXV=== TO PHILIP MELANCHTHON
One of those remarkable letters by which Luther tried to cheer his friend.
June 27, 1530.
Grace and peace in Christ! In Christ, I say, and not in the world. Amen! As to the Apologia being the cause of your silence, of that I shall speak again, dear Philip.
From the bottom of my heart I am inimical to those worrying cares which are taking the very heart out of you and gaining the upper hand. It is not the magnitude of the cause, but the weakness of our faith which is at fault; for things were much worse in John Huss’s days than in ours. And even were the gospel in as great danger now as then, is not He who has begun the good work greater than the work itself, for it is not our affair? Why then make a martyr of yourself? If the cause be not a righteous one, then let us repudiate it; but if it be, why make God a liar in not believing His wonderful promises, when He commands us to be of good cheer and cast all our care upon Him, for He shall sustain us? “The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon Him,” etc. Do you think He throws such words to the winds? It is your philosophy, not your theology, which is such a torment to you, and it torments your friend Joachim in the very same way, just as if by your useless forebodings you could achieve anything. What more can the devil do than slay us? I plead with you, for God’s sake, to fight against yourself, for you are your own greatest enemy, and furnish the devil with weapons against yourself.
Christ has died for sin once for all, but for righteousness and truth He will not die, but will live and reign. Why then worry, seeing He is at the helm?
He who has been our Father will also be the Father of our children.
I pray earnestly for you, but am only sorry that you should court sorrow as eagerly as the leech does blood, | WIKI |
metabolize alcohol
Drinking too much – on a single occasion or over time – can take a serious toll on your health. Here’s how alcohol can affect your body:
Brain:
Alcohol interferes with the brain’s communication pathways, and can affect the way the brain looks and works. These disruptions can change mood and behavior, and make it harder to think clearly and move with coordination.
Heart:
Drinking a lot over a long time or too much on a single occasion can damage the heart, causing problems including:
• Cardiomyopathy – Stretching and drooping of heart muscle
• Arrhythmias – Irregular heart beat
• Stroke
• High blood pressure
Liver:
Heavy drinking takes a toll on the liver, and can lead to a variety of problems and liver inflammations including:
• Steatosis, or fatty liver
• Alcoholic hepatitis
• Fibrosis
• Cirrhosis
Pancreas:
Alcohol causes the pancreas to produce toxic substances that can eventually lead to pancreatitis, a dangerous inflammation and swelling of the blood vessels in the pancreas that prevents proper digestion.
Cancer:
According to the National Cancer Institute: "There is a strong scientific consensus that alcohol drinking can cause several types of cancer. In its Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services lists consumption of alcoholic beverages as a known human carcinogen.
"The evidence indicates that the more alcohol a person drinks–particularly the more alcohol a person drinks regularly over time–the higher his or her risk of developing an alcohol-associated cancer. Even those who have no more than one drink per day and people who binge drink (those who consume 4 or more drinks for women and 5 or more drinks for men in one sitting) have a modestly increased risk of some cancers. Based on data from 2009, an estimated 3.5% of cancer deaths in the United States (about 19,500 deaths were alcohol related."
Clear patterns have emerged between alcohol consumption and increased risks of certain types of cancer:
• Head and neck cancer, including oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx cancers.
• Esophageal cancer, particularly esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. In addition, people who inherit a deficiency in an enzyme that metabolizes alcohol have been found to have substantially increased risks of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma if they consume alcohol.
• Liver cancer.
• Breast cancer: Studies have consistently found an increased risk of breast cancer in women with increasing alcohol intake. Women who consume about 1 drink per day have a 5 to 9 percent higher chance of developing breast cancer than women who do not drink at all.
• Colorectal cancer.
For more information about alcohol and cancer, please visit the National Cancer Institute's webpage "Alcohol and Cancer Risk" (last accessed October 21, 2021).
Immune System:
Drinking too much can weaken your immune system, making your body a much easier target for disease. Chronic drinkers are more liable to contract diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis than people who do not drink too much. Drinking a lot on a single occasion slows your body’s ability to ward off infections – even up to 24 hours after getting drunk.
For more information about alcohol's effects on the body, please visit the Interactive Body feature on NIAAA's College Drinking Prevention website. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Do Food Cravings Reflect Your Feelings?
How to overcome emotional eating
Medically Reviewed by Charlotte E. Grayson Mathis, MD on June 16, 2003
5 min read
The boss snaps at you, and you feel like biting their head off. Instead, you grab some chips from the vending machine and CA-RUNCH! Or your kids are on an overnight, you've got no one to talk to, and you feel sort of hollow inside -- doesn't a cupcake or bowl of ice cream sound delish?
This is emotional eating, says Linda Spangle, RN, MA, a Denver weight-loss specialist and author of Life is Hard, Food is Easy: The 5-Step Plan to Overcome Emotional Eating and Lose Weight on Any Diet.
It's yesterday's news that people don't eat just when they are physically hungry. In fact, we're such a generally well-nourished nation that Jane Jakubczak, RD, LD, student health center dietitian at the University of Maryland in College Park, estimates that emotional eating accounts for 75% of all noshing. People eat for all sorts of reasons besides physical hunger; stress, boredom, and depression are just a few.
"We are trained at a young age to use food for comfort and reward," Jakubczak says.
What is new is Spangle's theory -- observed over 16 years as a weight-loss coach -- that people's food choices tend to correlate to the type of emotions they're experiencing. If you look at the foods you crave, Spangle maintains, you can tell what you're feeling.
One form of emotional eating stems from what Spangle calls "head hunger": an urge to eat stemming from intellectual sources such as stress, anger, frustration, an upcoming deadline, or being misunderstood. If the food you crave is chewy or crunchy, "something you smash your teeth down on," Spangle says, you're experiencing head hunger.
"I teach people with head hunger to look at what they really want to chew on in life," Spangle says. After they have identified what they would actually like to crush between their teeth, Spangle asks them, "Will that chip really change the situation -- will it do the trick?"
Here are some highly textured foods that signal head hunger, according to Spangle: Chewy cookies or bars, M&Ms, steak or chewy meats, granola, trail mix, fried foods, chips, nuts, popcorn, crackers, french fries, hot dogs, pizza, and chocolate.
No stranger herself to emotional eating, Spangle recalls working alone all day when her husband was out of town, then starting to make a big salad for dinner. "I was chopping when a idea came into my mind," she says. "You know, maybe I should go out. I have been alone all day. Maybe that little pasta place ... pasta would be so good."
The minute Spangle thought "pasta," she stopped herself: "Instead, I asked myself, 'Why am I feeling sad and empty?'" Of course, it was because she had been alone all day.
Spangle defines this kind of "heart hunger" as a response to the "empty" emotions, such as loneliness, depression, boredom, and that feeling that something is missing. If you seek comforting foods such as ice cream, pasta, cinnamon rolls, cheese, eggs, meatloaf, mashed potatoes, biscuits, cake (especially cheesecake), alcohol, candy, and other foods that have a fond spot in your memory (say, Mom's favorite recipe), you're likely experiencing "heart hunger."
Here's another clue. "If you are hungry and don't know what you want, this is usually heart hunger," Spangle says. That phrase "I don't know what I want" is the tip-off. That's when you should ask yourself: "What am I missing?"
In the case of her lonely evening, instead of going out for pasta, Spangle finished making the salad, put it in a special bowl, and went to the prettiest spot in her house to nibble on it. She also put on some favorite music and delved into a course she had been working on. Later, she made some lunch dates and vowed to go to some networking events. The evening passed swiftly, along with her hunger.
Not everyone believes emotional eating can be so easily categorized.
"I find that some people like salty, crunchy foods and some like sweets," Jakubczak says. "When they eat for reasons other than hunger, they pick their preferred food. I have not seen a connection between selection and the type of emotional eating."
Jakubczak agrees, though, that people should get more in touch with the reasons they're eating.
"I have my clients keep a food journal and rate their hunger from one to 10 every time they eat something," she says. "One is 'Starving, can barely crawl to the refrigerator' and 10 is 'Thanksgiving-stuffed.'" Before starting a journal, she says, most have no idea of how often they're eating without really being hungry.
Neither Spangle nor Jakubczak recommends that people try to simply ignore their cravings when they recognize they're eating out of emotional hunger.
"I would never pull food away from someone without giving a replacement," Jakubczak says. "It would be like pulling the carpet out from under their feet."
Instead, they suggest substituting some non-food activities to fill the void. Here are some ideas:
• Get moving: run upstairs, go down the hall and talk to a co-worker.
• Put on some music.
• Get outside and take a walk around the block.
• Read a non-work-related, entertaining magazine for 20 minutes.
• Take seven slow deep breaths.
• Play with the dog.
Or, Jakubczak says, try substituting a healthier food for whatever it is you're craving -- yogurt for ice cream, for example. (By the way, she says, substituting carrot sticks for potato chips does not work! You might try baked chips instead.)
The conventional wisdom used to be that if you craved something, your body needed a nutrient found in that particular food.
With the possible exception of chocolate, which contains the feel-good brain chemical called serotonin, Spangle disdains this explanation. "Many people would rather blame their physiology instead of doing the work of sorting out their emotions and taking care of those needs," she says.
If eating carbs makes you crave more carbs, Spangle says, this may be partly due to your physiological makeup. But to stop eating the extra carbs, you need to examine the reason for the emotional eating.
So take a look at the food you're holding in your hand, and ask: "Who do I want to chew out?" "What's missing in my life?" Or just: "Why am I eating this?"
The answer could help you stop eating when you're not hungry -- and put you on the road to dealing with your feelings in a more productive way. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Page:The leopard's spots - a romance of the white man's burden-1865-1900 (IA leopardsspotsrom00dixo).pdf/128
"Look here, Camp, we ain't got no hard feelin's agin you, but there's agoin' to be trouble for every rebel in this county who don't git on our side and do it quick."
"I'm used to trouble pardner," replied Tom.
"You've got a nice little cabin home and ten acres of land. Fight us, and we will give this house and lot to a nigger."
"I don't believe it," cried Tom.
"Come, come," said Perkins, "you're not fool enough to fight us when we've got a dead sure thing, a majority fixed before the voting begins, Congress and the whole army back of us?"
"I ain't er nigger!" said Tom, doggedly.
"What's the use to be a fool Camp," cried Haley. "We are just using the nigger to stick the votes in the box. He thinks he's goin' to heaven, but we'll ride him all the way up to the gate and hitch him on the outside. Will you come in with us?"
"Don't like your complexion!" he answered rising and going toward the door.
"Then we'll turn you out into the road in less than two years," said Haley as they left.
"All right!" laughed the old soldier,
"I slept on the ground four years, boys."
When he came back into the room he met his wife with tears in her eyes. "Oh! Tom, I'm afraid they'll do what they say."
"To tell you the truth, ole woman, I'm afraid so too. But we're in the hands of the Lord. This is His house. If He wants to take it away from me now when I'm crippled and helpless, He knows what's best."
"I wish you didn't have to go agin 'em."
"I ain't er nigger, ole gal, and I don't flock with niggers. If God Almighty had meant me to be one He'd have made my skin black." | WIKI |
User:Arslgotnochill/sandbox
Slime Drink (Perfect energy drink for children)
Are you familiar with slime drinks? These distinctive and trendy beverages have taken social media by storm, captivating individuals of all ages as they experiment with various recipes and showcase their concoctions online. But what exactly constitutes a slime drink ?
To put it simply, a slime drink is a beverage with a thick and gooey texture, reminiscent of the popular children's toy known as slime. It is crafted using a blend of ingredients, including flavored syrups, gelatin, fruit juices, and milk, all harmoniously combined to produce a smooth and stretchy drink.
These beverages come in an array of vibrant colors and flavors, making them a delightful and thrilling treat for both children and adults alike. Moreover, they can be tailored to accommodate diverse dietary preferences, including gluten-free options.
In this blog post, we will delve into the most up-to-date information about slime drinks, exploring their history, benefits, and how to prepare them in the comfort of your own home. We will also provide some popular recipes and valuable tips for crafting your very own distinctive slime drinks. So, prepare yourself to partake in this enjoyable and delectable beverage trend!
Benefits and some potential Side effects of Slime Drink
Certainly, here are the potential benefits and side effects of consuming slime drinks:
Benefits.
* 1. Novelty and Enjoyment. Slime drinks offer a unique and enjoyable drinking experience due to their thick and gooey texture, making them appealing to those seeking unconventional beverages.
* 2 Customizability: These drinks can be customized to suit various flavor preferences, allowing individuals to create their own unique combinations.
* 3. Creative Expression. Making and decorating slime drinks can be a creative and fun activity for both kids and adults, fostering imagination and artistic expression.
* 4. Entertainment. Slime drinks have gained popularity on social media platforms, providing entertainment and inspiration for those interested in culinary experimentation.
* 5. Potential for Nutritional Value: Depending on the ingredients used, slime drinks may contain vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants from fruits and other wholesome components.
Side Effects.
* 1. High Sugar Content: Many slime drink recipes include sugary syrups and sweeteners, which can contribute to excessive sugar intake if consumed frequently. This can lead to weight gain, dental issues, and an increased risk of chronic diseases like diabetes.
* 2. Gelatin Allergies: Some individuals are allergic to gelatin, a common ingredient in slime drinks. Consuming gelatin-containing drinks can lead to allergic reactions, including hives, itching, and digestive discomfort.
* 3. Caloric Intake: Slime drinks can be calorie-dense, particularly if made with full-fat dairy and sugary additives. Excessive consumption may contribute to weight management challenges.
* 4. Texture Sensitivity: The thick and gooey texture of slime drinks may not be suitable for everyone. Some individuals may find the texture unappealing or even uncomfortable to drink.
* 5. Potential for Overindulgence: The playful and visually appealing nature of slime drinks may encourage overconsumption, leading to excessive calorie intake and potential digestive discomfort. | WIKI |
Roger Buckley
Roger Norman Buckley (1937 – July 15, 2020) was an American academic who served as Professor of History and founding director of the Asian American Studies Institute at the University of Connecticut. He authored many scholarly monographs and journal articles, along with several novels.
Biography
Buckley was born in New York City in 1937 and grew up in Queens. His mother, Elaine, was from Trinidad with Cuban and South Asian heritage. His father, Ralph Buckley, was from Jamaica with Irish heritage. In 1940, his father worked as a shipping clerk and his mother as a factory worker.
Buckley earned his bachelor's degree from St. John's University, his master's degree from Hunter College, and his doctorate in history from McGill University in 1975. Prior to pursuing his doctorate, he taught high school and community college and ran summer youth enrichment programs in New York. After earning his doctorate, he remained in Canada to become a professor and chair of the social studies program at Vanier College in Montreal. In 1980, Buckley returned to the United States, joining the University of Hartford as director of the African American Studies program.
In 1984, Buckley joined the University of Connecticut to lead the Center for Academic Programs and teach in the history department. From 1993 to 2008, Buckley served as founding director of the Asian American Studies Institute. During his tenure, the Institute achieved a national profile and "pioneered the creation of an anti-racist, transnational, and interdisciplinary curriculum." Under his leadership, the Asian American Institute offered specialized courses in Asian American studies, including history, literature and the arts, and political science. It hosted seminars and conferences, including a high-profile Filipino American studies conference and a pivotal gathering of the East of California group of Asian Americanists. The Institute co-founded the Nazrul Endowment Program to fund lectures, arts programs, and human rights initiatives in honor of Kazi Nazrul Islam. The Roger N. Buckley Award Endowment Fund provides scholarships to undergraduates interested in Asian history or Asian American studies. Buckley also facilitated the acquisition of Fred Ho's papers, held in the University of Connecticut's Archives and Special Collections.
Buckley described himself as a historian of war and society. Rather than focusing on battlefield conflict, his works explored social, cultural, and racial dimensions of war and military service. Between 1997 and 2016, he wrote a historical fiction trilogy, "Accommodation and Resistance: Three Who Chose Rebellion," in which he unpacked issues of race, culture, nationality, and politics in the British Army of the nineteenth century through fictionalized portrayals of three British soldiers, each a real-life historical figure: a Black African, an Indian Hindu, and an Irish Catholic.
Buckley also penned mystery-thriller novels featuring fictional McGill University history professor and ladies' man Relph Coggins. Kirkus Reviews reviewed and praised one of these novels.
Buckley received fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, American Council of Learned Societies, John Carter Brown Library at Brown University, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Sir William Osler Medical Library at McGill, and the University of Connecticut.
Buckley was a resident of Coventry, Connecticut. He was a frequent guest speaker at Windham High School. He died on July 25, 2020.
Scholarly books
* Slaves in Red Coats: The British West India Regiments, 1795-1815 (Yale University Press, 1979)
* Editor, The Haitian Journal of Lieutenant Howard, York Hussars, 1796-1798 (University of Tennessee Press, 1985)
* Editor, The Napoleonic War Journal of Captain Thomas Henry Browne, 1807-1816 (Bodley Head for the British Army Records Society, 1987)
* The British Army in the West Indies: Society and the Military in the Revolutionary Age (University Press of Florida, 1998)
* Co-editor with Tamara Roberts, Yellow Power, Yellow Soul: The Radical Art of Fred Ho (University of Illinois Press, 2013)
Novels
* Congo Jack (Pinto Press, 1997)
* I, Hanuman (Writers Workshop, Kolkata, India, 2003)
* Fort Gorges, Maine: A Relph Coggins Mystery (University Press of the South, 2008)
* Gandhi Forever: A Relph Coggins Mystery (University Press of the South, 2012)
* Sepoy O’Connor (Writers Workshop, Kolkata, India, 2016)
Articles and book chapters
* "Slave or Freedman: The Question of the Legal Status of the British West India Soldier, 1795–1807," Caribbean Studies, 17, nos. 3-4 (1977–1978), 83–113
* “The Destruction of the British Army in the West Indies, 1793-1815: A Medical History," Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 56, no. 226 (1978), 79–94
* "'Black Man' — The Mutiny of the 8th (British) West India Regiment: A Microcosm of War and Slavery in the Caribbean," Jamaican Historical Review, 12 (1980), 52–74
* “The Frontier in the Jamaican Caricatures of Abraham James,” Yale University Library Gazette, 58, nos. 3-4 (1984), 152–162
* “The Admission of Slave Testimony at British Military Courts in the West Indies, 1801–1809,” in Gaspar and Geggus, eds., A Turbulent Time: The French Revolution in the Greater Caribbean (Indiana University Press, 1997), 226–250 | WIKI |
How To Replace the Rear Speakers in a New Camaro
Are you looking to upgrade or replace your Camaro’s factory rear speakers? The process can be a bit tricky, but if you have speakers and a bit of patience, follow these easy steps to ensure you do it the correct way without breaking anything in the process.
Tools Required
• Socket wrench
• 7mm socket
• T50 torx bit
• Flathead screwdriver
Removal Procedure
1. Remove the rocker panels on both sides.
2. Once the rocker panels are removed, begin taking out the back seat by lifting up the bottom seat cushion and pulling it towards the front seat.
3. To remove the seat back, fold it down and locate the hinge of the seat. You will notice a silver tab with a yellow line on both sides of the back seat. The tab must be pushed back at the same time on both sides, and then the seat will lift up and out.
4. Once the seat it removed, remove the lower trim on the side of the seat.
5. Remove the trim surrounding the back window.
Notice: a black clip will need to be removed once the window trim is taken off. Be careful not to break it when removing the trim.
6. Remove the side window trim. Locate and remove the two placement screws. One is located underneath the airbag section above the front seat’s seat belt that will require your T50 torx bit, and the other near the back window.
7. Locate and remove the four push tabs located on the front of the speaker deck.
8. Once removed, locate the four blue pushpins underneath the speaker deck. They can be reached from the trunk. Once located, use your hands to push them up.
Notice: the pushpins take a bit of pressure to come out.
Notice: do not remove the Styrofoam pieces located next to each rear speaker.
9. Remove the speaker from the deck.
Installation Procedure
1. Install the new speaker to the speaker deck, and reposition the speaker deck.
2. Reposition the side and rear window trim.
3. Once all of the window trim is installed, connect the lower side trim.
4. Put the rear seat back in, and reapply the rocker panel.
That’s it. You’re all done. Not so bad, right? Now you can cruise the open road and hear your music clearly over the note of your exhaust. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
List of automotive light bulb types
Light bulbs for automobiles are made in several standardized series. Bulbs used for headlamps, turn signals and brake lamps may be required to comply with international and national regulations governing the types of lamps used. Other automotive lighting applications such as auxiliary lamps or interior lighting may not be regulated, but common types are used by many automotive manufacturers.
International
The World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (ECE Regulations) develops and maintains international-consensus UN Regulations on light sources acceptable for use in lamps on vehicles and trailers type-approved for use in countries that recognise the UN Regulations. These include Regulation 37, which contains specifications for filament lamps, and Regulation 99 and its addenda which covers light sources for high-intensity discharge headlamps. Some UN-approved bulb types are also permitted by some other regulations, such as those of the United States or of Japan, though Japan has begun supplanting the former Japanese national regulations with the international UN regulations.
Filament lamps
UN Regulation 37 covers motor vehicle filament lamps. These are categorized in three groups: those without general restriction that can be used in any application, those acceptable only for signalling lights (not for road illumination lamps), and those no longer allowable as light sources for new type approvals but still permitted for production as replacement parts.
Gas discharge lamps
UN Regulation 99 covers gas discharge light sources for use in vehicle headlamps. All light sources acceptable under Regulation 99 are also acceptable under US regulations.
Germany
There is a German national regulation for vehicle bulbs, now superseded by international ECE regulations. Bulbs according to the old German regulation are still manufactured. The German regulation is contained in §22a, Subsection 1, No. 18 of the Straßenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO, Road Traffic Approval Regulation). Per the Fahrzeugteileverordnung (FzTV, Vehicle Parts Regulation), such light bulbs must bear an approval mark consisting of a sine wave and the letter 'K'. The technical requirements themselves are established by standards produced by DIN.
United States and Canada
In the United States, entry 49 CFR 564 in the Code of Federal Regulations requires manufacturers of headlight bulbs, officially known as "replaceable light sources", to furnish the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with product specifications at least 60 days prior to first use. The specifications supplied by the manufacturer, on approval by NHTSA, are entered in Federal docket NHTSA-1998-3397. From then on, any light source made and certified by any manufacturer as conforming to the specifications is legal for use in headlamps certified as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Light sources for vehicle lamps other than headlamps are not Federally regulated.
In Canada, vehicle headlamps may use light sources (bulbs) conforming to either the US or the international ECE regulations. | WIKI |
Welcome to Headwind MDM Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
Please do not post bug reports, missing feature requests, or demo inquiries. If you have such an inquiry, submit a contact form.
0 votes
When using push messages to start a specific activity within an app,
{pkg: "my.app", action: "my.app.SecondActivity"}
does start the application, but not "SecondActivity".
android:exported is set to true.
What am I missing?
by (210 points)
1 Answer
0 votes
The "action" attribute contains the Action, not the Activity. Your activity should declare in AndroidManifest.xml that it handles a specific Action. See more details here: https://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filters
by (25.9k points)
Thank you for your response.
Declaring this in AndroidManifest.xml:
<activity
android:name="my.test.project.activity"
android:exported="true">
<intent-filter>
<action android:name="my.test.project.DOACTION" />
</intent-filter>
</activity>
And sending a push message of type runApp with this payload:
{"pkg": "my.test.project", "action": "my.test.project.DOACTION"}
It still only starts the App, not the declared action.
Perhaps you need to add a category as suggested here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10921451/start-activity-using-custom-action Also, consider reviewing Headwind MDM launcher code in app/src/main/java/com/hmdm/launcher/worker/PushNotificationProcessor.java#runApplication(), perhaps there's a bug.
Adding
<category android:name="android.intent.category.DEFAULT" />
sadly doesn't fix it.
... | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Command-line usage
Invocation
Nox is normally invoked on the command line:
nox
You can also invoke Nox via the Python interpreter:
python3 -m nox
Listing available sessions
To list all available sessions, including parametrized sessions:
nox -l
nox --list
nox --list-sessions
If you’d like to use the output in later processing, you can add --json to get json output for the selected session. Fields include session (pretty name), name, description, python (null if not specified), tags, and call_spec (for parametrized sessions).
Running all sessions
You can run every session by just executing nox without any arguments:
nox
The order that sessions are executed is the order that they appear in the Noxfile.
Specifying one or more sessions
By default Nox will run all sessions defined in the Noxfile. However, you can choose to run a particular set of them using --session, -s, or -e:
nox --session tests
nox -s lint tests
nox -e lint
Nox will run these sessions in the same order they are specified.
If you have a configured session’s virtualenv, you can choose to run only sessions with given Python versions:
nox --python 3.8
nox -p 3.7 3.8
You can also use pytest-style keywords using -k or --keywords, and tags using -t or --tags to filter test sessions:
nox -k "not lint"
nox -k "tests and not lint"
nox -k "not my_tag"
nox -t "my_tag" "my_other_tag"
Specifying parametrized sessions
If you have a parametrized session such as:
@nox.parametrize('django', ['1.9', '2.0'])
def tests(session, django):
...
Then running nox --session tests will actually run all parametrized versions of the session. If you want the run the session with a particular set of parametrized arguments, you can specify them with the session name:
nox --session "tests(django='1.9')"
nox --session "tests(django='2.0')"
Changing the sessions default backend
By default Nox uses virtualenv as the virtual environment backend for the sessions, but it also supports uv, conda, mamba, micromamba, and venv as well as no backend (passthrough to whatever python environment Nox is running on). You can change the default behaviour by using -db <backend> or --default-venv-backend <backend>. Supported names are ('none', 'uv', 'virtualenv', 'conda', 'mamba', 'venv').
nox -db conda
nox --default-venv-backend conda
Note
The uv, conda, mamba, and micromamba backends require their respective programs be pre-installed. uv is distributed as a Python package and can be installed with the nox[uv] extra.
You can also set this option with the NOX_DEFAULT_VENV_BACKEND environment variable, or in the Noxfile with nox.options.default_venv_backend. In case more than one is provided, the command line argument overrides the environment variable, which in turn overrides the Noxfile configuration.
Note that using this option does not change the backend for sessions where venv_backend is explicitly set.
Warning
The uv backend does not install anything by default, including pip, as uv pip is used to install programs instead. If you need to manually interact with pip, you should install it with session.install("pip").
Backends that could be missing (uv, conda, mamba, and micromamba) can have a fallback using |, such as uv|virtualenv or micromamba|mamba|conda. This will use the first item that is available on the users system.
If you need to check to see which backend was selected, you can access it via session.venv_backend in your noxfile.
Forcing the sessions backend
You might work in a different environment than a project’s default continuous integration settings, and might wish to get a quick way to execute the same tasks but on a different venv backend. For this purpose, you can temporarily force the backend used by all sessions in the current Nox execution by using -fb <backend> or --force-venv-backend <backend>. No exceptions are made, the backend will be forced for all sessions run whatever the other options values and Noxfile configuration. Supported names are ('none', 'uv', 'virtualenv', 'conda', 'mamba', 'micromamba', 'venv').
nox -fb conda
nox --force-venv-backend conda
You can also set this option in the Noxfile with nox.options.force_venv_backend. In case both are provided, the commandline argument takes precedence.
Finally note that the --no-venv flag is a shortcut for --force-venv-backend none and allows to temporarily run all selected sessions on the current python interpreter (the one running Nox).
nox --no-venv
Re-using virtualenvs
By default, Nox deletes and recreates virtualenvs every time it is run. This is usually fine for most projects and continuous integration environments as pip’s caching makes re-install rather quick. However, there are some situations where it is advantageous to reuse the virtualenvs between runs. Use -r or --reuse-existing-virtualenvs or for fine-grained control use --reuse-venv=yes|no|always|never:
nox -r
nox --reuse-existing-virtualenvs
nox --reuse-venv=yes # preferred
If the Noxfile sets nox.options.reuse_existing_virtualenvs, you can override the Noxfile setting from the command line by using --no-reuse-existing-virtualenvs. Similarly you can override nox.options.reuse_venvs from the Noxfile via the command line by using --reuse-venv=yes|no|always|never.
Note
--reuse-existing-virtualenvs is a alias for --reuse-venv=yes and --no-reuse-existing-virtualenvs is an alias for --reuse-venv=no.
Additionally, you can skip the re-installation of packages when a virtualenv is reused. Use -R or --reuse-existing-virtualenvs --no-install or --reuse-venv=yes --no-install:
nox -R
nox --reuse-existing-virtualenvs --no-install
nox --reuse-venv=yes --no-install
The --no-install option causes the following session methods to return early:
The never and always options in --reuse-venv gives you more fine-grained control as it ignores when a @nox.session has reuse_venv=True|False defined.
These options have no effect if the virtualenv is not being reused.
Running additional Python versions
In addition to Nox supporting executing single sessions, it also supports running Python versions that aren’t specified using --extra-pythons.
nox --extra-pythons 3.8 3.9 3.10
This will, in addition to specified Python versions in the Noxfile, also create sessions for the specified versions.
This option can be combined with --python to replace, instead of appending, the Python interpreter for a given session:
nox --python 3.11 --extra-python 3.11 -s lint
Instead of passing both options, you can use the --force-python shorthand:
nox --force-python 3.11 -s lint
Also, you can specify python in place of a specific version. This will run the session using the python specified for the current PATH:
nox --force-python python -s lint
Stopping if any session fails
By default Nox will continue to run all sessions even if one fails. You can use --stop-on-first-error to make Nox abort as soon as the first session fails:
nox --stop-on-first-error
If the Noxfile sets nox.options.stop_on_first_error, you can override the Noxfile setting from the command line by using --no-stop-on-first-error.
Failing sessions when the interpreter is missing
By default, when not on CI, Nox will skip sessions where the Python interpreter can’t be found. If you want Nox to mark these sessions as failed, you can use --error-on-missing-interpreters:
nox --error-on-missing-interpreters
If the Noxfile sets nox.options.error_on_missing_interpreters, you can override the Noxfile setting from the command line by using --no-error-on-missing-interpreters.
If being run on Continuous Integration (CI) systems, Nox will treat missing interpreters as errors by default to avoid sessions silently passing when the requested python interpreter is not installed. Nox does this by looking for an environment variable called CI which is a convention used by most CI providers.
Disallowing external programs
By default Nox will warn but ultimately allow you to run programs not installed in the session’s virtualenv. You can use --error-on-external-run to make Nox fail the session if it uses any external program without explicitly passing external=True into session.run:
nox --error-on-external-run
If the Noxfile sets nox.options.error_on_external_run, you can override the Noxfile setting from the command line by using --no-error-on-external-run.
Specifying a different configuration file
If for some reason your Noxfile is not named noxfile.py, you can use --noxfile or -f:
nox --noxfile something.py
nox -f something.py
Storing virtualenvs in a different directory
By default Nox stores virtualenvs in ./.nox, however, you can change this using --envdir:
nox --envdir /tmp/envs
Skipping everything but install commands
There are a couple of cases where it makes sense to have Nox only run install commands, such as preparing an environment for offline testing or re-creating the same virtualenvs used for testing. You can use --install-only to skip run commands.
For example, given this Noxfile:
@nox.session
def tests(session):
session.install("pytest")
session.install(".")
session.run("pytest")
Running:
nox --install-only
Would run both install commands, but skip the run command:
nox > Running session tests
nox > Creating virtualenv using python3.7 in ./.nox/tests
nox > python -m pip install pytest
nox > python -m pip install .
nox > Skipping pytest run, as --install-only is set.
nox > Session tests was successful.
Forcing non-interactive behavior
session.interactive can be used to tell if Nox is being run from an interactive terminal (such as an actual human running it on their computer) vs run in a non-interactive terminal (such as a continuous integration system).
@nox.session
def docs(session):
...
if session.interactive:
nox.run("sphinx-autobuild", ...)
else:
nox.run("sphinx-build", ...)
Sometimes it’s useful to force Nox to see the session as non-interactive. You can use the --non-interactive argument to do this:
nox --non-interactive
This will cause session.interactive to always return False.
Controlling color output
By default, Nox will output colorful logs if you’re using in an interactive terminal. However, if you are redirecting stderr to a file or otherwise not using an interactive terminal, or the environment variable NO_COLOR is set, Nox will output in plaintext. If this is not set, and FORCE_COLOR is present, color will be forced.
You can manually control Nox’s output using the --nocolor and --forcecolor flags.
For example, this will always output colorful logs:
nox --forcecolor
However, this will never output colorful logs:
nox --nocolor
Controlling commands verbosity
By default, Nox will only show output of commands that fail, or, when the commands get passed silent=False. By passing --verbose to Nox, all output of all commands run is shown, regardless of the silent argument.
Outputting a machine-readable report
You can output a report in json format by specifying --report:
nox --report status.json
Converting from tox
Nox has experimental support for converting tox.ini files into noxfile.py files. This doesn’t support every feature of tox and is intended to just do most of the mechanical work of converting over- you’ll likely still need to make a few changes to the converted noxfile.py.
To use the converter, install nox with the tox_to_nox extra:
pip install --upgrade nox[tox_to_nox]
Then, just run tox-to-nox in the directory where your tox.ini resides:
tox-to-nox
This will create a noxfile.py based on the environments in your tox.ini. Some things to note:
• Generative environments work, but will be converted as individual environments. tox-to-nox isn’t quite smart enough to turn these into parametrized sessions, but it should be straightforward to manually pull out common configuration for parametrization.
• Due to the way tox parses its configuration, all substitutions are baked in when converting. This means you’ll need to replace the static strings in the noxfile.py with appropriate variables.
• Several non-common tox options aren’t implemented, but it’s possible to do so. Please file a feature request if you run into one you think will be useful.
Shell Completion
Add the appropriate command to your shell’s config file so that it is run on startup. You will likely have to restart or re-login for the autocompletion to start working.
bash
eval "$(register-python-argcomplete nox)"
zsh
# To activate completions for zsh you need to have
# bashcompinit enabled in zsh:
autoload -U bashcompinit
bashcompinit
# Afterwards you can enable completion for Nox:
eval "$(register-python-argcomplete nox)"
tcsh
eval `register-python-argcomplete --shell tcsh nox`
fish
register-python-argcomplete --shell fish nox | . | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
List of Philadelphia placename etymologies
This is a list of the sources of some of the place names in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: | WIKI |
Template:Did you know nominations/1st SAS Brigade
1st SAS Brigade
* ... that the 1st SAS Brigade, a World War II military unit, never actually existed?
* Reviewed: She's a Mess
Created/expanded by ErrantX (talk). Self nom at 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* Pictogram voting keep.svg Interesting hook supported by an offline hook. Article meets all other requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC) | WIKI |
Page:Old ninety-nine's cave.djvu/199
*ily, and gave a brief sketch of "Old Ninety-Nine's" cave and the mine.
"Strange that they found nothing besides the mine!" Miss Kurtz mused. "Do you think that the old man taken there exaggerated?"
"No," replied Jack, "some one had undoubtedly been in the cave recently, my father thinks, and that the money and jewels were probably carried off by the finder. All the other rare things seen by Benny must have long ago disappeared."
"It sounds like one of Aladdin's tales," she said, deeply interested.
"We thought it such until the discovery," Jack replied, "but since then I am inclined to think that many of the legends of which that valley is so full may deserve investigation. The Delawares were a noble tribe, unjustly treated, and degraded by the whites who had only themselves to blame for the atrocities that occurred in the early history of the Rondout Valley. The Delaware tongue is the most beautiful of any in the Indian | WIKI |
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 106 Part 4.djvu/709
PUBLIC LAW 102-526—OCT. 26, 1992 106 STAT. 3445 John F. Kennedy and the Commission on Central Intelligence Agency Activities in the United States; and (E) any other executive branch office or agency, and any independent agency. (6) "Identification aid" means the Mrritten description prepared for each record as required in section 4. (7) 'T^ational Archives means the National Archives and Records Administration and all components thereof, including Presidential archival depositories established under section 2112 of title 44, United States Code. (8) "Officisd investigation" means the reviews of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy conducted by any Presidential commission, any authorized congressional committee, and any Government agency either independently, at the request of any Presidential commission or congressional committee, or at the request of any Government official. (9) "Originating body" means the Executive agency, government commission, congressional committee, or other governmental entity l^at created a record or particular information within a record. (10) "Public interest" means the compelling interest in the prompt public disclosure of assassination records for historical and governmental purposes and for the purpose of fully informing the American people about the history siurounding the assassination of I'resident John F. Kennedy. (11) "Record" includes a book, paper, map, photograph, soimd or video recording, machine readable material, computerized, digitized, or electronic information, regardless of the medium on which it is stored, or other documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics. (12) "Review Board" means the Assassination Records Review Board established by section 7. (13) "Third agency" means a Government agency that originated an assassination record that is in the possession of another agency. SEC. 4. PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COL- 44 USC 2107 LECnON AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS "ote. ADMINISTRATION. (a) IN GENERAL. —(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Archives and Records Administration shall commence establishment of a collection of records to be known as the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection. In so doing, the Archivist shall ensure the physical integrity and original provenance of all records. The Collection shall consist of record copies of all Government records relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which shall be transmitted to the National Archives in accordance with section 2107 of title 44, United States Code. The Archivist shall Printing, prepare and publish a subject guidebook and index to the collection. (2) The Collection shall include— (A) all assassination records— (i) that have been transmitted to the National Archives or disclosed to the public in an imredacted form prior to the date of enactment of this Act; (ii) that are required to be transmitted to the National Archives; or
� | WIKI |
« ÎnapoiContinuă »
and "moral,” supply the differential words, and read the full contrast thus:
"Not high scholarly' or oratorical' endowments, but 'high INTELLECTUAL and MORAL' endowments.""
Next are stated "the qualities which produce conviction," and each quality is a distinct, positive idea, and must have its own falling slide to individuate it; as, "Clearness, force', and earnestness are the qualities which produce conviction."
If pupils persist in running these three ideas together without letting the voice fall on each, the best way to secure the right reading is to ask a separate question for each; as, "What is the first quality?" "Clearness." "The second?" "Force." "The third?" "Earnestness."
"True eloquence, indeed, does not consist in speech'. It can not be brought from far'" "True" is here distinguished from false eloquence, and "speech" and "far" are emphatic negative ideas (to be read with the rising slide), made distinctive in the strongest way by contrast with the positive ideas (to be read with the falling slide) that follow, in which true eloquence must exist, viz., in the "man," in the "subject," and in the "occasion."
The analysis should be studied until the selection can be read correctly without the aid of elocutionary marks. Pupils will thus acquire a better discipline for independent reading, than if aided too much by the mechanical signs of emphasis and expression.
DIRECTIONS TO PUPILS.
This work of analysis (studying the meaning and reading of the separate parts) is to perfect synthesis (the rendering of the whole).
First, then, read the selection to be analyzed. Second, read and study the analysis of the same. Third, re-read the selection as a whole, in accordance with the analysis.
This process should be repeated until the pupils master the double lesson of reasoning and reading.
XV. THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS.
1. Harold was crowned king of England on the very day of the Confessor's funeral. He had good need to be quick about it. When the news reached Norman William, hunting in his park at Rouen, he dropped his bow, returned to his palace, called his nobles to council, and presently sent ambassadors to Harold, calling on him to keep his oath and resign the crown. Harold would do no such thing. The barons of France leagued together round Duke William for the invasion of England. Duke William promised freely to distribute English wealth and English lands among them. Some writers tell us that Edward the Confessor had made a will, appointing Duke William of Normandy his successor. It is not unlikely, as William was his kinsman, being the grandson of that Richard of Normandy, the Confessor's uncle, who had received long ago, with such kindness, his nephews and their mother, when they fled from England to escape the cruel Danes.
2. King Harold had a rebel brother in Flanders, who was a vassal of Harold Hardrada, king of Norway. This brother and this Norwegian king, joining their forces against England, with Duke William's help, won a fight, in which the English were commanded by two nobles, and then besieged York. Harold, who was wait
ing for the Normans on the coast at Hastings, with his army, marched to Stamford Bridge, upon the river Derwent, to give them instant battle.
3. He found them drawn up in a hollow circle, marked out by their shining spears. Riding round this circle at a distance, to survey it, he saw a brave figure on horseback, in a blue mantle and a bright helmet, whose horse suddenly stumbled and threw him.
4. "Who is that man who has fallen?" Harold asked of one of his captains.
"The king of Norway," he replied.
“He is a tall and stately king," said Harold; "but his end is near."
5. He added, in a little while, "Go yonder to my brother, and tell him if he withdraw his troops he shall be earl of Northumberland, and rich and powerful in England."
The captain rode away and gave the message.
6. "What will he give to my friend, the king of Norway?" asked the brother.
"Seven feet of earth for a grave," replied the cap
"No more?" returned the brother, with a smile.
"The king of Norway being a tall man, perhaps a little more," replied the captain.
"Ride back," said the brother, "and tell King Harold to make ready for the fight."
7. He did so very soon. And such a fight King Harold led against that force, that his brother, the Norwegian king, and every chief of note in all their host, except the Norwegian king's son Olave, to whom he gave honorable dismissal, were left dead upon the field.
The victorious army marched to York. As King Harold sat there at the feast, in the midst of all his company, a stir was heard at the doors, and messengers, all covered with mire from riding far and fast through broken ground, came hurrying in to report that the Normans had landed in England.
8. The intelligence was true. They had been tossed about by contrary winds, and some of their ships had been wrecked. A part of their own shore, to which they had been driven back, was strewn with Norman bodies. But they had once more made sail, led by the duke's own galley, a present from his wife, upon the prow whereof the figure of a golden boy stood pointing toward England. By day, the banner of the three lions of Normandy, the divers-colored sails, the gilded vanes, the many decorations of this gorgeous ship, had glit tered in the sun and sunny water; by night, a light had sparkled like a star at her masthead; and now, encamped near Hastings, with their leader lying in the old Roman castle of Pevensey, the English retiring in all directions, the land for miles around scorched and smoking, fired and pillaged, was the whole Norman power, hopeful and strong on English ground.
9. Harold broke up the feast and hurried to London. Within a week his army was ready. He sent out spies to ascertain the Norman strength.
William took them, caused them to be led through his whole camp, and then dismissed.
"The Normans," said these spies to Harold, "are not bearded on the upper lip as we English are, but are shorn. They are priests."
"My men," replied Harold, with a laugh, "will find those priests good soldiers."
10. "The Saxons," reported Duke William's outposts of Norman soldiers, who were instructed to retire as King Harold's army advanced, "rush on us through their pillaged country with the fury of madmen.”
"Let them come, and come soon," said Duke William.
11. Some proposals for reconciliation were made, but were soon abandoned. In the middle of the month of October, in the "ear one thousand and sixty-six, the Normans and the English came front to front. All night the armies lay encamped before each other in a part of the country then called Senlac, now called (in remembrance of them) Battle. With the first dawn of day they arose.
12. There, in the faint light, were the English on a hill; a wood behind them; in their midst the royal banner, representing a fighting warrior woven in gold thread, adorned with precious stones; beneath the banner, as it rustled in the wind, stood King Harold on foot, with two of his remaining brothers by his side; around them, still and silent as the dead, clustered the whole English army -every soldier covered by his shield, and bearing in his hand his dreaded English battle-ax.
13. On an opposite hill, in three lines-archers, foot soldiers, horsemen-was the Norman force. Of a sudden, a great battle cry, "God help us!" burst from the Norman lines. The English answered with their own battle cry, "God's rood! holy rood!" The Normans then came sweeping down the hill to attack the English.
14. There was one tall Norman knight who rode before the Norman army on a prancing horse, throwing up his heavy sword and catching it, and singing of the bravery of his countrymen. An English knight, who rode out from the English force to meet him, fell by this | FINEWEB-EDU |
GameStop Announces Appointment of Daniel A. DeMatteo as Interim Chief Executive Officer and Resignation of Michael K. Mauler
GRAPEVINE, Texas, May 11, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GameStop Corp. (NYSE:GME), today announced that the company’s Board of Directors has appointed Daniel A. DeMatteo as interim chief executive officer following the resignation of Michael K. Mauler for personal reasons, effective immediately. Mr. DeMatteo, one of the company’s co-founders, will continue to serve as executive chairman and director. In the past, Mr. DeMatteo has served as the company’s chief executive officer and in a variety of board and executive roles since November 1996.
Mr. DeMatteo stated, “Given my tenure and familiarity with the company and our associates, it’s a natural step for me to assume this role and guide the business at this time while the board searches for a permanent CEO. I’m happy to have Rob Lloyd, our CFO, and his 22 years of experience with GameStop alongside me as we work towards executing against our 2018 objectives. We continue to believe in GameStop and the many passionate associates that drive our business and are encouraged by the opportunities ahead of us.”
Robert A. Lloyd has been with GameStop since 1996 and has held various financial and leadership roles of increasing responsibility prior to being named chief financial officer in 2010.
About GameStop
GameStop Corp., a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Grapevine, Texas, is a global, multichannel video game, consumer electronics and wireless services retailer. GameStop operates over 7,200 stores across 14 countries. The company's consumer product network also includes www.gamestop.com ; Game Informer® magazine, the world's leading print and digital video game publication; and ThinkGeek, www.thinkgeek.com , the premier retailer for the global geek community featuring exclusive and unique video game and pop culture products. Our Technology Brands segment includes nearly 1,400 Spring Mobile AT&T and Simply Mac stores. Spring Mobile, www.springmobile.com , sells all of AT&T’s products and services, including DIRECTV, devices and related accessories in select markets in the U.S. Simply Mac, www.simplymac.com , sells the full line of Apple products, including laptops, tablets, and smartphones and offers Apple certified warranty and repair services.
General information about GameStop Corp. can be obtained at the company’s corporate website. Follow @GameStop and @GameStopCorp on Twitter and find GameStop on Facebook at www.facebook.com/GameStop .
Safe Harbor
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are based upon management’s current beliefs, views, estimates and expectations, including as to the Company’s industry, business strategy, goals and expectations concerning its market position, future operations, margins, profitability, capital expenditures, liquidity and capital resources and other financial and operating information. Such statements include without limitation those about the Company’s outlook for fiscal 2018, future financial and operating results, projections, expectations and other statements that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements are subject to significant risks and uncertainties and actual results may differ materially from those reflected or described in the forward-looking statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ from those reflected or described in the forward-looking statements: our inability to obtain sufficient quantities of product to meet consumer demand; the timing of release and consumer demand for new and pre-owned products; our ability to continue to expand, and successfully open and operate new stores for our collectibles and technology brands businesses; risks associated with achievement of anticipated financial and operating results from acquisitions; our ability to sustain and grow our console digital video game sales; the impact of goodwill and intangible asset impairments; cost reduction initiatives, including store closing costs; risks related to changes in, and our continued retention of, executive officers and other key personnel; changes in consumer preferences and economic conditions; increased operating costs, including wages; cyber security events and related costs; risks associated with international operations; changes to our wireless industry partnerships and operations; increased competition and changing technology in the video game industry; changes in domestic or foreign laws and regulations that reduce consumer demand for, or increase prices of, our products or otherwise adversely affect our business; our effective tax rate and the factors affecting our effective tax rate, including changes in international, federal or state tax, trade and other laws and regulations; the costs and outcomes of legal proceedings and tax audits. Additional factors that could cause our results to differ materially from those reflected or described in the forward-looking statements can be found in GameStop's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2018 filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's Internet site at http://www.sec.gov or http://investor.GameStop.com . Forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date of this release. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required by any applicable securities laws.
INVESTOR & MEDIA RELATIONS CONTACTS: Mike Loftus Vice President, Global Controller and Investor Relations investorrelations@gamestop.com Joey Mooring Senior Director, Corporate Communications joeymooring@gamestop.com
Source:Gamestop Corporation | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -w use RADIUS::Dictionary; use RADIUS::Packet; use Net::Inet; use Net::UDP; use Fcntl; use strict; # This is a VERY simple RADIUS authentication server which responds # to Access-Request packets with Access-Accept. This allows anyone # to log in. my $secret = "mysecret"; # Shared secret on the term server # Parse the RADIUS dictionary file (must have dictionary in current dir) my $dict = new RADIUS::Dictionary "dictionary" or die "Couldn't read dictionary: $!"; # Set up the network socket (must have radius in /etc/services) my $s = new Net::UDP { thisservice => "radius" } or die $!; $s->bind or die "Couldn't bind: $!"; $s->fcntl(F_SETFL, $s->fcntl(F_GETFL,0) | O_NONBLOCK) or die "Couldn't make socket non-blocking: $!"; # Loop forever, recieving packets and replying to them while (1) { my ($rec, $whence); # Wait for a packet my $nfound = $s->select(1, 0, 1, undef); if ($nfound > 0) { # Get the data $rec = $s->recv(undef, undef, $whence); # Unpack it my $p = new RADIUS::Packet $dict, $rec; if ($p->code eq 'Access-Request') { # Print some details about the incoming request (try ->dump here) print $p->attr('User-Name'), " logging in with password ", $p->password($secret), "\n"; # Create a response packet my $rp = new RADIUS::Packet $dict; $rp->set_code('Access-Accept'); $rp->set_identifier($p->identifier); $rp->set_authenticator($p->authenticator); # (No attributes are needed.. but you could set IP addr, etc. here) # Authenticate with the secret and send to the server. $s->sendto(auth_resp($rp->pack, $secret), $whence); } else { # It's not an Access-Request print "Unexpected packet type recieved."; $p->dump; } } } | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
User:Alsteeg/Alan Leslie Steeg
Two days before Christmas in the early morning of December 23,1966... Alan Leslie Steeg was born. Raised in Sioux City, Iowa A.L.S. was influenced from several generes of music. Perhaps the first kind of music he was influenced by was Country music, in which he literally would wake up to it every morning from the radio that was always playing in the kitchen. If he wasn't listening to the legendary artists on the radio, he would be listening to the legends on television. Everything from The Grand Ol' Opry to Lawrence Welk, Hee Haw and Elvis-Aloha From Hawaii Via Satellite. These artists were great inspirations. When asked what kind of music do you like? Alan's response was always the same, "Anything that sounds good and makes sense, if it sounds good but doesn't make sense..it's meaningless, if it makes sense but doesn't sound good... it's meaningless, a song has to sound good AND make sense." Around eight years of age, Alan picked up a trumpet that his step-dad bought from a farm auction and played by ear, The Battle Hymm of the Republic. His mother and step-dad were impressed and enrolled him into music class in elementary school. By the time he reached 8th grade, his step-daddy bought him his first guitar. Although it was used and it came from a farm auction as well, Alan learned to play it by ear. This was perhaps the first time he was able to put his true feelings into his music. At this point and time, that trumpet gave way to the guitar and as A.L.S. puts it..."It's kinda hard to play a trumpet and sing at the same time". Plagued by family problems, he dropped unwillingly out of school in the 9th grade. Everything was put on hold, including the music. Life was coming at him fast. With no place to go and wearing out his welcome staying with some friends, he decided maybe it was just time to move on. And move on he did. He caught a Greyhound bus directly to Memphis,TN. Pretty much feeling deserted and outcast and at the end of the road, he longed to see this place they call Memphis-The Birthplace of Rock n Roll. It was here where all these legendary artists got their start from like: Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison Etc. Right there at that little building called Memphis Recording Service, better known as Sun Records. It was here that in 1987, A.L.S. would record as well. Nothing professional, just two songs, with only guitar and vocal. One called "Amazing Grace" and the second song called "Forget Me Never". It was also during this same time he entered a talent contest for 56 WHBQ. Having never entered any talent contest before and not sure of which song to send to get airplay, he decided to just send two songs ("For the Good Times"/"Precious Lord Take My Hand") and let the DJ decide which one he wanted to play. As it turns out, unbeknown to Alan at the time, both songs got air play. The following day Alan went to pick up the other studio track "Where Could I Go?" he cut at Sun the previous day when he ran across Gary Hardy, owner/operations manager of Sun Studio at the time. Not knowing they (56 WHBQ) even played his music, Gary Hardy told him "Hey Alan, i heard you on the radio last night, alot of people called in asking who that was and liked ya so much, they played both songs you sent in. You ought to come back on in here and record another one,see if you can win the grand prize (One year recording contract) Gary didn't realize A.L.S. already DID record one-"Where Could I Go?"( But To The Lord) Nervous and scared, Alan never did. "Probably should have, but didn't. Just wasn't really ready at that time and point in life" Alan said. Life's little detours came along and Alan moved further and further away from music. The music got traded in for 18 wheels. He continued to sing during these 13 years of driving tractor-trailers, but only behind the wheel to help keep him awake and at home. He never really left music, it's always been a big part of him, music just took back seat for the moment. But now, the tractor-trailer is taking a back seat to the music. When asked why now after 13 years?, Alan's response was "Theres no Life in driving a truck-It'll ruin a person if your around it long enough. Everything your trying to gain financially, isn't worth what your losing personally and by that i mean, your house is falling apart,your car is falling apart, your family is falling apart, your credit is falling apart,your resume' is falling apart. And worse, your health starts falling apart because of all the stress and the lifestyle of it all. I've always said, if the stress doesn't do me in, the truck will." Theres an old saying, "Do what you love to do, and you'll never have to work another day again. Music is something i love to do whether i get paid for it or not. It's through music that i can sincerely express myself and my feelings. It's who i am" | WIKI |
Li Wenliang
Li Wenliang (October 12, 1986-February 7, 2020), born in Beizhen, Liaoning, was a Chinese ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital. He was known as one of the first whistleblowers to attempt to warn the public of the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. He died of the coronavirus infection on 7 February.
Quotes
* I believe that a healthy society should not have only one voice.
* His last interview with Caixin
Quotes about Li Wenliang
* We are deeply saddened by the passing of Dr Li Wenliang. We all need to celebrate work that he did on 2019 nCoV.
* The World Health Organization's comment on Li Wenliang's death | WIKI |
User:Nachtstrom
Hi, my name is Michael (Bill) Willoughby, welcome to my page.
I am a BI Manager specialising in Cognos.
My interests include:
* Starfall Drama
* Live Roleplay
* Writing
* Reading | WIKI |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brice Dickson
The result was keep. Shereth 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Brice Dickson
* ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
Non-notable academic. No evidence is presented that this academic rises above others of his discipline or specialty, aside from his short stint as head of a a human rights commission. Relevant Google hits are few, with the only one that wasn't a listing of his books being a BBC article about a politician urging him to resign his HRC post Fails WP:PROF. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
* Delete Co-sign deleter. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
* Keep. Notable as a human rights official. See this Google News archive search for abundant coverage by reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
* Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
* Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
* Keep per Eastmain's Google News discovery. The gentleman was clearly an important actor in a prominent area of NI governmental affairs, as reliable sources attest. Townlake (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
* Keep per Eastmain's GoogleNews results. The subject may not be notable under WP:PROF but he is notable under WP:BIO for his role as the NIHRC chairman. It'd be good to add some references regarding his NIHRC activities to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
* Delete for same reasons as Alison Mawhinney. Mr. Dickson's notability comes from the same reasons and the same type of accomplishments and interests as Ms. Mawhinney. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
* So why then did you vote Keep for Mawhinney and Delete for Dickson? In any event, Dickson appears a lot more notable than Mawhinney to me. He was a major human rights official who received a great deal of coverage in the mass media. She is just an academic specializing in human rights research. The two aren't really comparable, so logically it should be Keep for Dickson and Delete for Mawhinney, not the other way around. Nsk92 (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
* NO: I voted as I believed was the logical consequence of pointing out that Mawhinney and Dickson are equals as far as I am concerned, and what's good for the gander is good for the goose. Also, I have updated Mawhinney's page in case anyone wants to take a look to reconsider their opinions. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
* I still don't get you. If you think that their notabilities are equal, then why did you vote differently in the two AfDs? Are you making a WP:POINT here? Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
* Keep because of the Commission. DGG (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
* Keep due to his position on the commission and the many news stories relating to that found by Eastmain. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
| WIKI |
System.Data.SQLite
Artifact [88d4930a2b]
Not logged in
Artifact 88d4930a2b2bc12bf0aab913330d0b0bd3c31b30:
###############################################################################
#
# safe.eagle --
#
# Extensible Adaptable Generalized Logic Engine (Eagle)
# Safe Interpreter Initialization File
#
# Copyright (c) 2007-2012 by Joe Mistachkin. All rights reserved.
#
# See the file "license.terms" for information on usage and redistribution of
# this file, and for a DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES.
#
# RCS: @(#) $Id: $
#
###############################################################################
#
# NOTE: Use our own namespace here because even though we do not directly
# support namespaces ourselves, we do not want to pollute the global
# namespace if this script actually ends up being evaluated in Tcl.
#
namespace eval ::Eagle {
#
# NOTE: This is the procedure that detects whether or not we are
# running in Eagle (otherwise, we are running in vanilla Tcl).
# This procedure must function correctly in both Tcl and Eagle
# and must return non-zero only when running in Eagle.
#
proc isEagle {} {
#
# NOTE: Nothing too fancy or expensive should be done in here. In
# theory, use of this routine should be rare; however, in
# practice, this routine is actually used quite a bit (e.g.
# by the test suite).
#
return [expr {[info exists ::tcl_platform(engine)] && \
[string compare -nocase eagle $::tcl_platform(engine)] == 0}]
}
if {[isEagle]} then {
###########################################################################
############################ BEGIN Eagle ONLY #############################
###########################################################################
proc unknown { name args } {
#
# NOTE: This is a stub unknown procedure that simply produces an
# appropriate error message.
#
# TODO: Add support for auto-loading packages here in the future?
#
return -code error "invalid command name \"$name\""
}
#
# TODO: Revise or remove this procedure when full [namespace] support has
# been added.
#
proc ::tcl::tm::UnknownHandler { original name args } {
#
# NOTE: Do nothing except call the original handler.
#
uplevel 1 $original [::linsert $args 0 $name]
}
proc tclPkgUnknown { name args } {
#
# NOTE: Do nothing since this is [most likely] a safe
# interpreter.
#
return
}
###########################################################################
############################# END Eagle ONLY ##############################
###########################################################################
}
#
# NOTE: Provide the Eagle "safe" package to the interpreter.
#
package provide Eagle.Safe \
[expr {[isEagle] ? [info engine PatchLevel] : "1.0"}]
} | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Talk:Charles III/Archive 14
Requested move 23 July 2023
The result of the move request was: not moved. Significant opposition to this proposal. I will note that there is a parallel requested move started yesterday which includes multiple monarchs including Charles III. Unless there is significant support of that proposal and it passes, I do not see it overruling the 70% opposition here, but regardless it should probably be discussed at that venue closer to its scheduled closing time. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
– Second try after the previous failed discussion at Talk:Charles_III/Archive_6.
* Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom
* Charles III (disambiguation) → Charles III
There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Charles III". There are many other very notable monarchs at Charles III (disambiguation) and having the British monarch at the base name is a violation of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW. We shouldn't show bias for a monarch from an English-speaking country when other monarchs from other countries are equally notable, if not more. Furthermore, the current title doesn't follow the naming convention at WP:NCROY, which was created in part to avoid this kind of problem with ambiguous titles.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is determined by looking at two aspects: usage and long-term significance. In terms of usage, the British monarch gets significantly more page views than any other monarch with the same name. Per |Charles_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor|Charles_III_of_Spain|Charles_XIV_John|Charles_III,_Prince_of_Monaco|Charles_III,_Duke_of_Parma|Charles_I_of_Austria|Charles_the_Fat|Charles_the_Simple|Charles,_Count_of_Valois, the British monarch gets around 75% of the total views. However, that is not the full list of monarchs at Charles III (disambiguation), pageviews only allows to compare up to 10 articles. So the percentage would be even lower. The pageviews are indeed higher, but the difference is not overwhelming. For comparison, the fruit is the primary topic for "apple", even though the company gets more than 80% of the views (|Apple_Inc.).
However, the main reason to move the article is that the long-term significance of the British monarch pales in comparison with other monarchs. He is merely a ceremonial figure and he is not a ruler as such. He doesn't govern or make any important decisions and he doesn't have any real military role (he commands no troops). Compare that to Charles III of Spain for example. He ruled as an absolute monarch over the biggest empire at the time, which spanned five continents (Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa). He commanded the troops that conquered Naples and Sicily from Austria (Charles_III_of_Spain). As the intro of the article puts it: As king of Spain, Charles III made far-reaching reforms to increase the flow of funds to the crown and defend against foreign incursions on the empire. He facilitated trade and commerce, modernized agriculture and land tenure, and promoted science and university research. He implemented regalist policies to increase the power of the state regarding the church. During his reign, he expelled the Jesuits from the Spanish Empire[2] and fostered the Enlightenment in Spain. He strengthened the Spanish army and navy. Although he did not achieve complete control over Spain's finances, and was sometimes obliged to borrow to meet expenses, most of his reforms proved successful in providing increased revenue to the crown and expanding state power, leaving a lasting legacy.
And that is just one monarch of the list, although he is arguably the most notable. But there is also Charles the Fat, the last last Carolingian emperor, or Charles III John of Norway, French commander in the Napoleonic army who somehow became king of Sweden and Norway, to name just two others.
With so many other notable monarchs named Charles III, the British monarch has a very weak claim to be the primary topic and we should make Charles III a disambiguation page.
Some would say he is the monarch of the whole Commonwealth Realm, not just Britain. That is true, but he is mostly known as a British monarch. Even in Australia, where he is also a monarch, the media refer to the British throne, not the Australian or Commonwealth throne. There are also plenty of other examples where only one of the kingdoms is mentioned in the title, like Charles I of England, also king of Scotland, and Ireland, or Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, also king of Spain.
Finally, I want to preemptively try to refute some possible opposition arguments:
* "We'll need to change so many links." True, but there are tools that make the task relatively easy.
* "Other British monarchs like Elizabeth II or George VI don't mention "the UK", so we should keep the current title to be consisten." That ignores all the above arguments about primary topic and it plays down the importance of the other monarchs mentioned above. The main point of discussion is whether the British monarch is the primary topic. The title of other British monarchs articles is irrelevant, what matters is the notability of other monarchs with the same name.
Vpab15 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Why are you doing a "second try" for a proposal that already failed? The decision last time was emphatically against, and endorsed at move review. Nominating again, with no indication that anything has changed, is not productive. Suggest speedy close. — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Consensus can change, the previous discussion was almost a year ago during the whole succession frenzy. A more calm dicussion can happen now. Vpab15 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per NCRAN. We should go back to the "NAME, ORDINAL of COUNTRY" format. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support clear example of systemic bias in favour of the English-speaking countries. He has only been king for less than a year, he could drop dead tomorrow, will he really have much greater long-term significance than e.g. Charles III of Spain? (At his age his reign could well be a relatively short one.) PatGallacher (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* WP:Systematic bias is about bias in content coverage. Our naming and disambiguation guidelines however are deliberately based upon English usage. CMD (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Worth noting that similar cases exist for non-English speaking monarchs. Cleopatra, which is among the 100 all-time most viewed pages on Wikipedia (as is Charles III), is not titled 'Cleopatra VII of Egypt', even though there are more than a dozen Cleopatra's of Egypt, Syria, Syra, Macedon and Pontus, among others. Despite all of the fascinating histories of various Greek queens, most people are looking for that Cleopatra. Similarly, Ahmed I (the Ottoman sultan) receives far more views than any of the other monarchs at Ahmad I (disambiguation), even though I'm sure someone could argue that the Moroccan sultan is just as historically significant. For now and the foreseeable future, most users are looking for the British Charles III, and I don't think we should frustrate a majority of readers just because we think that the Spanish is king as actually more important than the British one. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Cleopatra VII is by far the best known Cleopatra, with long-term historical significance, thanks to e.g. Shakespeare, Shaw and Elizabeth Taylor. The possibility of moving Ahmad I should be considered on its merits, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PatGallacher (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* That ignores the fact that Cleopatra and Charles III are fairly comparable in terms of sheer number of pagesviews. In both cases, one topic makes up the vast majority of views for a given search term. These are both exceptionally high traffic articles, perhaps for different reasons, but the end result (i.e. that an overwhelming majority of users are looking for one particular Cleopatra or Charles III) is the same. By citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that we should permit Charles III to go without 'of the UK' in his article title because 'look at article X'; my specific point is that the 'Anglo-centric bias' accusation in this discussion ignores the fact that the title format prescribed by WP:NCROY is also ignored in similar non-English cases where one monarch is likely to make up the majority of user searches by an entire order of magnitude. I think that the alleged 'systemic bias in favour of Anglophone countries' isn't actually at the root of this issue, and the accusations don't engage with the substance of whether Charles III (of the UK) is the primary topic. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support. As was pointed out above, there are a number of monarchs with the name Charles III. COGNOMEN would seem to have us title him as Charles III of the United Kingdom. Векочел (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support - per WP:NCROY. While the British sovereign almost certainly meets WP:PT1, it's too soon to tell whether or not he'll meet WP:PT2. This RM is certainly a step in the right direction, as articles like Elizabeth II or George III should be the exception, not the standard. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT. The British monarch is most certainly the primary topic here. This is the English Wikipedia, and the vast majority of our readers who search for "Charles III" will be looking for this article. That makes it the primary topic. The current title is also the most common name as well as the most concise. And it is consistent with the other modern British monarch article titles: Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, Queen Victoria, William IV, George IV, and George III. As for the guideline at WP:NCROY, guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, and the consensus for over a decade has been that the modern British monarchs do not need the "of the United Kingdom" in the article titles. WP:NCROY is therefore grossly out of date and should be updated to reflect the current consensus that has been well established through multiple RM discussions over many years. WP:NCROY is also just a guideline, which cannot override policies such as WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCROY even says this by stating that "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it". "Charles III" is the overwhelmingly common name, so according to WP:NCROY we should use it as the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* COMMONNAME doesn't mean anything here. In context, the shorter version of anything would be the common name. If you really wanted the common name, "King Charles" or "the King" would be better than "Charles III", but they're obviously not suitable article titles. And I'm not sure why you'd pick consistency either: more English/British monarchs use the natural disambiguator; see this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Only 3 British monarchs use a natural disambiguator (Anne, George I, and George II). All the rest from George III onward do not use it. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* @Rreagan007 - Not to be an irritant, but I did write "English/British. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, I know you did. And in my original post that you were replying to I had written "British". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* . Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* I'll take that to mean you are missing my point, so let's try an analogy. Person 1: “Most sharks give birth to live young”. Person 2: “I don’t know why you would say that since most fish/sharks lay eggs”. Person 1: “Because of the 500 species of sharks, only 100 lay eggs”. Person 2: “I said 'fish/sharks', not 'sharks'”. Person 1: "I know you did, but I originally said 'sharks', not 'fish/sharks'". Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* I'll try a different analogy:
* Person 1: The UK is one of the most unstable countries in the world. In 2022, they had four chancellors, three prime ministers and two monarchs.
* Person 2: I don't know why you would say that given that in every year since 1964, the prime minister had always served at least a year, the previous monarch lasted 70 years, and the first chancellor of 2022, Rishi Sunak, lasted two years.
* Person 1: Liz Truss only lasted 49 days.
* Person 2: I said "since 1964".
* Person 1: I know you did, but I said "in 2022".
* See how you can justify a point of view by only covering a very small portion of a topic? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Neither one of the examples are much good, but yours is worse than his. England is not Britain. Rreagan007 was talking about British monarchs, you brought up English monarchs and considered British monarchs to be English monarchs. While British monarchs are also monarchs of England, that is only because they are monarchs of Britain, not the other way around, and it is not in their titles; they are monarchs of England because England is in Britain. It's not about "since a certain year, such-and-such is true", its about "since the foundation of this political entity, such-and-such is true". JM2023 (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Comment This could be partly because the names used by recent British monarchs haven't been commonly used in other monarchies. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Reply This is indeed the English-language Wikipedia, but it is not the Wikipedia of the English-speaking countries. I entirely accept that most of the monarchs of the UK for some time are the primary topic, although I have some doubts about William IV. (Some of them are the only monarch of this name, so the question of primary topic doesn't arise.) We could have a problem when Princess Victoria of Sweden becomes monarch, may be soon as her father is 77. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* George V is another potential example where the issue of primary topics could come up, given people like George V of Hanover and George V of Georgia. 2601:249:9301:D570:909A:F52B:67C2:D58 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* We can deal with that when it happens, we don't have to anticipate it now. Richard75 (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Comment Looking at William IV, the article was moved there in 2020 unanimously without much discussion. Might be worth taking another look at that, with more discussion this time. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support, as convinced by nom's arguments. I am very much opposed to systemic bias. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Per WP:CRITERIA the current name clearly wins out on consistency (cf. Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, Queen Victoria) and concision. It is natural and recognisable and also geographically neutral (the proposal is systemically biased against the other Commonwealth realms). The OP dismisses these points far too easily in my view - they are very important here. With respect to precision, this is where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC comes in. This article is clearly the primary topic. This article regularly gets 20000 views a day, which is around 15-20 times more than all the other Charles III's put together. Charles III of Spain gets around 750-1000 views a day - not nothing, but many times fewer than this article. And this is not a short term trend. If we look at pageview statistics for George VI (died 70 years ago) or Edward VIII (abdicated 87 years ago after 11 months), they still routinely get more than 10000 views a day - ten times what Charles III of Spain gets. Forcing a disambiguation now would do a disservice to our readers who - overwhelmingly - are looking for Charles III. Kahastok talk 16:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* |Charles_III_of_Spain|Charles_III_of_Navarre|Charles_III,_Prince_of_Monaco|Charles_III,_Duke_of_Parma|Charles_III_of_Naples|George_VI|Charles_III_of_Bohemia|Charles_III,_Holy_Roman_Emperor|Edward_VIII Page view stats for 2023. Note the log scale (used because otherwise everything is drowned out by the coronation in May). Kahastok talk 17:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* The guideline says "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal." For Charles, this is the UK. Would you instead suggest "Charles III of the Commonwealth realms"? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support - As I've always favoured going back to the "Name # of country" style, for monarch bios. That country (for this bio) would be the UK, rather then Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, or Saint Lucia, or New Zealand, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support. Arguments for it are many, quite strong and have already been given above and at many discussions at WP:NCROY. There is no consensus giving British monarchs some privileged position. Just poor arguments. And in this case in particular, rather ridiculous. Charles III of Spain far and away has more long term significance. Walrasiad (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* The consensus for having British monarchs located at the base name as the primary topic has developed over the last 12 years across multile RM discussions. WP:NCROY is outdated in this partiular area and should be updated to reflect the consensus on British monarch titles, but unfortunately the small number of people who bother to comment on the WP:NCROY talk page refuse to accept that reality. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Heh. Practically all French monarchs from Louis XIII onwards don't have "of France" in their title, you may or may not agree with this, but no need to turn it into a rigid guideline at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, and this is clearly the wp:primary topic for "Charles III" in the English-speaking world. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, it's the English Wikipedia, but it isn't "England's Wikipedia". We should be countering systematic bias, not fostering it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* No, that's not the issue here. He's not only king in England, he's king of over a dozen countries in the English-speaking world. The name "Charles III" is usually translated in other languages anyway, so most Spanish speakers won't know their Charles III by his English name, but rather as Carlos III. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* There's a difference between translating a name and titling an article Anglocentrically. Spain having "Carlos III" isn't greatly relevant; what matters is "is the article titled Charles III of Spain? In which case, what is this Charles III king of?" Following the guideline, it would be the UK. Whilst relevant, the other Commonwealth realms shouldn't be in the title. If we were striving for inclusivity, we'd have to have, for example, Queen-Empress Victoria or William II of Scotland and III of England. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* The current title is perfectly fine. He's the overwhelming wp:primary topic and that's evidently demonstrable, for instance by pageviews. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Practically every British monarch will be the primary topic for their respective name and ordinal. Edward I and George II aren't going to lose the country from their titles any time soon; Charles III should have his as well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* WP:OTHERCONTENT. Charles III is unique in that he is king of more than one country. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Further reply "Charles III is unique in that he is king of more than one country." Eh? Nonsense! There are umpteen other examples, including oddly enough Charles III of Spain, who was also King of Naples and Sicily. So do we re-name him, and if so what to? This is why WP:NCROY has sovereigns point 3. Also, the Spanish Wikipedia calls him "Carlos III del Reino Unido", they do not treat him as primary topic, neither does the French Wikipedia, although the German does. PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* I was referring to Charles' uniqueness against the specific examples of Edward I and George II, not against every possible example. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Technically, speaking Charles III of Spain wasn't King of Naples and Sicily at the same time he was King of Spain (expect for a brief two month window). Upon succeeding to the Spanish throne, he had to abdicate the other thrones in favor of his younger son. Other points still stand though. 2601:249:9301:D570:909A:F52B:67C2:D58 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* To pile on the examples, Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor (King of West Francia, East Francia, Aquitaine, Italy, and Alemannia), Charles III of West Francia (King of West Francia and Lotharingia), and Charles III of Naples (King of Naples, Hungary, Croatia, and nominally Jerusalem). Even excluding Charles III of Spain we have three other Charles III's who ruled multiple Kingdoms. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* It makes sense that other Wikipedias who have their own Charles IIIs would not regard Charles III as the primary topic, given the references in their own-language reliable sources are likely to be more weighted towards their own past monarchs, and on English Wikipedia, per policy, we do not need to be consistent with other Wikipedia's article titling policies ([WP:CONSISTENT]: The English Wikipedia is also under no obligation to use consistent titles with other language versions of Wikipedia).
* If a Francophone was looking for Charles III of France, they would probably type 'Charles III', while if they were looking for Charles III, they would be more likely specify 'Charles III Angleterre'. An Anglophone would probably not try to find Charles III of France or Spain by simply searching 'Charles III', unless they were unaware of there being other monarchs with that name, but would be very likely to just search 'Charles III' (or even just 'King Charles' or 'the King') to find one of the only reigning monarchs in the Anglophone world (the others being the King of Eswatini and the various monarchs of Malaysia). Jèrriais janne (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support. When considering through the lens of long term significance there appears to be no primary topic. It's possible that this Charles will have a comparable influence on the world to monarchs like Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor (the last emperor of a unified Carolingian Empire) and Charles III of Spain (ruled one of the world's largest empires, and was its final king before it began its decline under his successor), but he hasn't yet and per WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't be predicting whether he will or won't. Further, per WP:RECENTISM, we shouldn't be given preference to him because he is recent. BilledMammal (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose notably per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT... Nothing has changed since the previous RFC. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* WP:COMMONNAME isn't relevant when deciding whether to disambiguate, WP:CONCISE can be argued for both sides (Charles III of the United Kingdom is less concise than Charles III, but Charles III is more concise than Charles III (disambiguation)), and the proposed title is consistent with other articles on British monarchs who aren't the primary topic for their name (eg. Anne, Queen of Great Britain, George I of Great Britain, and George II of Great Britain). BilledMammal (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* But Charles III is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, but there are other arguments beside his being the PRITOP. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* All of which are incredibly weak compared to all the arguments in favor of the status quo. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT. Other than the fact that he's clearly the primary topic in this case (the page views attest to that), the format is consistent with that of his predecessors (Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, William IV, George IV, George III, Elizabeth I, Edward VI, Henry VIII). Users also bring up the issue of bias but seem to forget that he's not just "King of the United Kingdom". He is also "King of Canada", "King of New Zealand", etc. Why should the United Kingdom be given a preferential treatment in this instance? Keivan.f Talk 23:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per WP:NCRAN. This individual is clearly not the long-term primary topic for this title, especially when compared with Charles III of Spain (also King of Naples and Sicily), who spent 29 years on the Spanish throne and separately 24 years on the throne of Naples and Sicily. The British monarchs are not special—they ought not take precedence over leaders who have far more long-term significance than them—and moving Charles III of the United Kingdom to have his article in line with the explicit naming convention seems most reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support While putting this idea into consideration, I contemplated 2 items that would be put into question whilst doing this. 1) Time; is it truly the right time to make this change? 2) Relevance; perhaps it might not be important in regards to his duty as King of the United Kingdom? My decision is that I support it. It is time to do so. There have been multiple Charles IIIs of different monarchies around the world as you can see the list here. Dukes, kings, other Charles IIIs in-question. I sought it relevant considering his duty as a monarch. Once he passes, and people search up Charles III after his death, maybe months after, they may not be looking for the King of the United Kingdom, which is perfectly why it is in regards to it. People search Charles III to broaden their searches for different persons of the same name that were royals and nobles, not just of the United Kingdom, so it should be. I'm hoping more people support it, BillClinternet (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* This is WP:CRYSTALing at its finest. You're speculating about what people might be searching for years after his death, which could be decades away. But what article are people likely to be searching for RIGHT NOW when they search for "Charles III"? They are overwhelmingly likely to be searching for this article, and you know that. And that is why this article is the primary topic and should remain so. Now if that ever changes, like at some time after his death as you are speculating about, then the article can always be moved at that point in the future, but it should definitely not be moved now. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose, there is absolutely no reason for this to succeed given nothing has changed since the prior failed request. Charles III is the primary topic as already highlighted, and this is consistent with the naming of recent past British monarchs. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per nom. I can't see the current King as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Seeing how many other Charles IIIs there's been it does feel like it's a case of WP:RECENTISM Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* The main point to consider is who the majority of readers are likely to be looking for when they search for "Charles III" today. Page views tell us that the vast majority are looking for the only living Charles III. The hatnote is there to help the minority who aren't. It may be, depending on how long and notable his reign is, that at some point after his death he might cease to be the primary topic for Charles III. But that'll be a decision for future generations of editors to take... Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support Clear case of recentism.★Trekker (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Of all our readers who might search for 'Charles III', the majority will be looking for this guy. Also, consistency with other British monarchs: Elizabeth II, George VI, etc. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* This is almost totally wrong. Many other people may be looking for other Charles IIIs who have a more historical background.
* BillClinternet (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Your claim that Many other people may be looking for other Charles IIIs who have a more historical background is not supported by page-view statistics. This Charles III has received a significant majority of the page views (roughly 75% among the top 10 most viewed pages). It is also likely that some of the views for the other Charles IIIs were people who originally looked for the current King of the United Kingdom and were curious about the others with this name, so the 75% is probably a slightly low estimate of true traffic to this Charles. Frank Anchor 15:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose This was already covered previously, Charles III as well has been the standard for the several British monarchs proceeding him, as well he is the monarch of several other commonwealth realms, so he is not just "of the United Kingdom". To simplify it to that is extremely simplistic and not a correct style to put. As well it is very important to note that nearly every reader who puts "Charles III" into wikipedia is looking for the British King, not any of the other Charles IIIs. I would argue that the idea of "Well they are named Charles III too" would also not really pan out in relation to the article Elizabeth II in relation to Elisabeth II, Abbess of Quedlinburg or Isabella II of Spain who is referred to as the "Spanish equivalent of Elizabeth II". CIN I&II (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. He is, unfortunately, also the king of Australia. His predecessors were Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V etc. His article should be labelled the same way. WWGB (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per OP's main reason Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per description. This was clearly a result of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NATIONALISM. --ReyHahn (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support. Like i said in the previous request, i agree. He is not the only Charles III and all monarchs should be treated the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRichic (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose on Wikipedia principle. I hated that last discussion and it's outcome so much, so many terrible arguments. I see some of them are even cropping up in this discussion too... But no, you shouldn't redo a whole discussion like this. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 07:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support on balance. Primary topic is probably the strongest argument for the opposers. I don't see his other realms as an argument to oppose (Charles II of England?) I think what swings it to Support for me is convenience for the reader. When I came back to the article after the accession, just after it was renamed, I had to check the opening of the lead to make sure I got the right Charles III. I shouldn't have had to do that. I think adding "of the United Kingdom" does no harm but does a service to our readers confirming they have indeed landed where they expected to without further "effort" from them. Linking it to policy, I think for WP:CRITERIA, this comes under the Recognisability requirement. (I think the other UK monarchs should follow the same approach for the same reason.) DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Per previous discussion. Readers typing in "Charles III" are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the present king. In the last 20 days 380,000 views for Charles III vs 18,300 for Charles III of Spain. A factor of x20 difference seems to me pretty clear-cut evidence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jheald (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* The factor is a very modest x3 at most if all other monarchs with the same name are considered. Vpab15 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I haven't confirmed your numbers, but if this article has 3 times as many views as all the other 18 Charles III monarch articles combined, then "modest" is a gross understatement. That's an overwhelming amount and is clear evidence of this article's primary topic status. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Not sure how you calculate x3. Since the beginning of this month, the current Charles III has over 15x more than all other Charles IIIs combined, and over 20x more than Charles III of Spain. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I gave the link in the nomination (|Charles_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor|Charles_III_of_Spain|Charles_XIV_John|Charles_III,_Prince_of_Monaco|Charles_III,_Duke_of_Parma|Charles_I_of_Austria|Charles_the_Fat|Charles_the_Simple|Charles,_Count_of_Valois). 17,718 out of 23,670 is 75%, or 3 times more than the others combined. The results can vary depending on which other Charles III articles are selected and which dates. There is a huge peak caused by the coronation for example. Vpab15 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose A man in my position at Category:Commonwealth Wikipedians and with my stake in the Robinson Treaties cannot afford to look foolish in front of this nominally foreign Crown. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. This is the primary topic per page views. Desertarun (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Agree with the previous discussion and the many well-reasoned points in opposition in this discussion. BCorr | Брайен 07:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose – As Jheald comments (four above this), it is overwhelmingly probable that people typing in "Charles III" are looking for this one. If, in due course, that ever ceases to be true we can considerer moving to a longer title, but there is no case for doing so now, particularly as the man is king of several other important countries at present. Tim riley talk 07:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Of course there have been lots of Charles III's but most are only known by historians, whereas this one is known by millions worldwide and is clearly the primary topic. The number of views overwhelmingly reinforces that. Bermicourt (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The proposed replacement of "Charles III of the United Kingdom" also fails WP:WORLDVIEW, as Charles is not just also king of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* But also British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, independently and side-by-each (except the last two, kinda). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* And I think New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia too? — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Plus Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, of course... He must be a very busy king!! — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* There's no Monarchy in Queensland like there is Monarchy in Alberta (and so on). I think it has something to do with a lot of things. Could be mistaken. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per OP's main reason. Doomsday28 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per the overwhelming readership stats detailed by above. As it is already apparent that there's no consensus for the move and its repetitious nature makes it vexatious, the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SNOW. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose for the same reasons as Andrew above. Richard75 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per reasoning above including WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. IlkkaP (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose I'll give the same reason as I gave before. He isn't just King of one country but King of 15 independent and equal countries, whose monarchies are legally separate from each other. You're suggestion would only work if each of the 14 other Commonwealth Realms were to become republics, which I don't see happening in the majority of them. I agree with all other editors in opposition to this and hopefully this is the last time this comes up. GandalfXLD (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Procedural close and oppose: this is the same proposal that just achieved consensus to not move the article. Despite supporting that one, I accept the consensus. This is not the way to contest a close. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - nothing has changed since the previous proposal. The current primary topic clearly remains the most-read on that title. Long term significance will see his entire life, not just the bit at the end where he is King of many countries. Arguably, if the crystal ball shows several of them dump the monarchy and become republics during his reign, his significance as monarch will increase. --Scott Davis Talk 08:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. I am not persuaded by the arguments about bias. That the article is a Good Article while none of the articles about other Charles IIIs are any better than B class is an example of systemic bias, but the page name is not. Page view stats indicate it is the primary topic. Nurg (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - as many have stated, nothing seems to have really changed since the last RM, plenty others have stated good reasons why not to move but additionally, comparison to apple doesn't work here since all the Charles III are monarchs and Charles III of Spain isn't a differnt kind of object commonly thought about. Pageviews are still relevant for establishing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC despite Spanish Charles' obejctive relevance to history. We don't normally name other historical pages based on impact or relevance either. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose – We consider all five criteria of WP:CRITERIA when determining article names. Charles III wins out over Charles III of the United Kingdom on four of the criteria. The one on which is may not is precision; the discussion rests on whether King Charles is the primary topic for Charles III. The outgoing pageviews at (WikiNav) show that a large plurality (48.3% in June 2023) of outgoing pageviews for the disambiguation article are currently to the regining British monarch. Observation of |Charles_III_(disambiguation)|Charles_III_of_Spain(PageViews) shows that in the last month, Charles III received inordinately more pageviews than Charles III of Spain or Charles III disambiguation. Charles of Spain receiveds just 4.7% of the daily pageviews of the present article. My previous search of Google Books and a similar search of Google News also serves to demonstrate that the present monarch is the primary topic for the search term "Charles III". The demonstrate that Charles is the primary topic in terms of usage without a doubt. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says that While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. Charles III is a current monarch and we cannot determine – and it is not for Wikipedia to do so, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL – the relative long-term significance of different persons with the title Charles III. While you say that "the long-term significance of the British monarch pales in comparison with other monarchs", we do not know this and merely having a ceremonial role over a political one is not determinative of significance. WP:PT2 is based on notability and educational value not how many soldiers one commands or how many decrees one makes (which technically King Charles does command an army & make decrees anyway, even if his actual political power is constitutionally limited). It is as easy to argue that King Charles will be more notable to future readers after his reign as it is to argue the opposite. WP:RECENTISM is an explanatory guideline which describes both the positive and negatives of recentism, as similarly is WP:WORLDVIEW – it cannot be violated, it is not a policy (not that Wikipedia policies can be violated anyway – WP:IGNORE (ignore all rules)). Nonetheless, as recommended in WP:WORLDVIEW, we can look at reliable, English-language news sources to incorporate a Global South perspective: (all indicating Charles III = this article's topic) (indicating a mixture of "King Charles III" and "Britain's King Charles III". Finallly, although I dispute its policy relevance here, WP:NPOV says that If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. Jèrriais janne (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Move to King Charles III, for consistency with Queen Camilla and the fact he's generally referred to as "The King"/"King Charles" so WP:COMMONNAME applies. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 09:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* "King Charles III" violates WP:SOVEREIGN. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Technically, WP:SOVEREIGN says that "Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent", it doesn't say they never are. And clearly there are exceptions, such as Queen Victoria (used as a form of natural disambiguation). But I see no good reason for an exception to the general rule here, as "Charles III" is the best title for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Are you going to meaninglessly oppose everything I say or are you going to even pretend to make a comment that isn't needlessly self-redundant? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I apologize. I can see how that reply could have rubbed you the wrong way, especially in light of our interactions thus far in this discussion. But I was not trying to antagonize you. I was just having an autistic moment. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* @Rreagan007 Sorry man. Was in a bad mood when I typed that. All good. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* No worries. I know these RM discussions can get very passionate sometimes, and both sides just want the article title to be what they think is the best title. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose as nothing significant has changed since the recent identical move request was closed. This name is still the best for this article per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and each of the five points from WP:CRITERIA: recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. Narrowing its scope to just the United Kingdom would be ridiculous and break several of the name criteria given that the majority of his subjects are citizens of his other 14 realms. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - strange to bring this up again, repeatedly when this has been discussed, and under strange covers of evidence, the status quo remains, Charles III to the vast majority refers to the King of the UK and the other realms AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - He is the primary topic, and there is no need to reopen this discussion again. Furthermore, Charles III being monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. and head of the Commonwealth is more significant than also being monarch of "Naples and Sicily". In the case of Charles III, calling him "of the UK" is problematic because of the significance of his other realms and that his status in many are no longer libked to his status in the UK (after long fought reforms in many countries). The OP ignores this. Suggestions that the situation is analogous to the situation and significance of Naples and Sicily several hundred years ago misses the point entirely.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, it is very different. Charles III of Spain personally conquered and ruled over Naples and Sicily and a huge global empire as an absolute monarch. The British monarch is just a figurehead with no real power. Vpab15 (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Modern British, Canadian, Australian monarchs have more influence and impact than lesser known absolute monarchs of a few hundred years ago. Sicily and Naples were minor possessions compared to the modern realms/countries of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. But one of the better reasons that Charles III should refer to the modern one, is that Carlos III of Spain wasn't even known as Charles III in Spain, and even if we allow for the translation of the name he was Charles I in Parma and Piacenza, Charles VII in Naples, and Charles V in Sicily. The modern Charles III is known as Charles III in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* This sort of argument is why the arguments about the opposition to this proposal being WP:RECENTISM and inadvertent WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS against non-anglosphere countries are so convincing. The Kingdom of Naples was a significant power in Europe, and for Charles III of Spain it was his second most consequential possession after Spain itself; in terms of relative power, I suspect Naples had more than Australia or Canada does in the modern world. Even prior to his ascension to the Spanish throne his rule of this Kingdom, given his absolutist control over it, gave him vastly more influence and impact than Charles III of the United Kingdom gains from his rule over the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong oppose. It would be simple opposition if it were just pointing out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially in light of readership statistics, but given that this is a rehash of a recently-closed requested move with nothing changing in the interim...this is a dead horse that need not be beaten. —C.Fred (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. The opening paragraph of the argument does it for me - trying to argue that there are other equally notable Charles IIIs out there. There are other Charles IIIs but they are definitely not equally notable. Also if this has already been rejected why is there a second try? The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Every possible reason to oppose this has already been listed here. Is there no rule against repeated failed requests like this? The first one was barely 8 months ago. There is consensus against the move, and I don't think that is going to change for as long as Charles is alive. --jonas (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. This is the Charles III being searched the most here in the Anglosphere. No one would be confused to have this as the title. We should be strive consise when possible, no? The Savage Norwegian 11:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. All the monarchs from the last 260 years have their names written like Charles. I also agree that he is the main topic and is monarch of other Commonwealth nations. Bakir123 (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the vast majority of our readers who search for "Charles III" are looking for this article. A quick check of the |Charles_III_of_Spain|Charles_III_University_of_Madrid|Charles_III_William,_Margrave_of_Baden-Durlach|Charles_III_of_Navarre|Charles_III,_Holy_Roman_Emperor|Charles_III,_Duke_of_Bourbon|Charles_III,_Duke_of_Lorraine|Charles_III,_Prince_of_Gu%C3%A9m%C3%A9n%C3%A9|Charles_III_of_Hungary Page View Analysis for this article and some of the other Charles III pages, it clearly show 10s of thousands more hits for the UK Charles III than any other article Charles III article every single day! It is also WP:CONSISTENT with the other modern British monarch article titles: Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII, Queen Victoria, William IV, George IV, and George III. Additionally as per WP:COMMONNAME, he is called Charles III in English, if writing about or discussing any other Charles III from history, that person is labelled to distinguish him from the current UK monarch, not the other way around. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 11:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong oppose, I agree with C.Fred that this is a dead horse. People forget how notable Charles III of the UK is, for example he is the head of state of Belize. Sahaib (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - the dab page receives 65 views per day on average; even if we assume that every single one of them came after landing on Charles III first, that doesn't put the smallest of dents in the traffic that this article gets, at well over 18k per day. The idea that this article is not the PRIMARYTOPIC is ludicrous on its face. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong support per C.Fred; absolutely nothing more notable about this guy than the others. Although I can understand non-historians being blinded by bling. In fact, that goes for almost all modern constitutional monarchs: they will never have made the same impact as any of their predecessors... because they cannot. Albeit, the point about Belize above made me chuckle, thanks :) SN54129
* Oppose page views show a vast majority of hits for any of the Charles IIIs point to this Charles III (75% among the top ten persons who go by that name, and the other Charleses probably got a boost in traffic by people looking up this Charles III and natural curiosity of others with this name). Frank Anchor 12:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is overwhelmingly likely that a reader from an English-speaking background who types in "Charles III" is looking for the subject of this article. The other candidates are far less well known. Charles III of Spain is probably the most prominent alternate candidate, but while he was a prominent figure in 18th century history he isn't widely known in the English-speaking world, and his article gets an average of fewer than 1000 hits a day, as opposed to this article which gets 15-30,000. This isn't recentism, as the subject of this article will continue to be the primary search term for a very long time, the last British monarch who isn't the primary search term for their name is George II of Great Britain (died 1760). While the current Charles III might not be the primary search term on the a timescale of 3-400 years, that's not a reasonable consideration to use when deciding the article title now. Hut 8.5 12:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support - but this isnt going to happen, because the body of editors who decide these things, and the group of editors who instituted the move to begin with and then reversed the burden of consensus to move it elsewhere, are dominated by those who view this person of little power or importance even to his subjects (giggles) as being the only conceivable target for Charles III. But the nomination is policy based on all counts, this cant possibly be the primary topic as Charles III of England has existed for approximately 0% (slight rounding error but you get the point) of the time people have been writing about Charles III of Spain. It is simply hubris to claim that this Charles III will undoubtedly be the primary topic for Charles III for any length of time. In fact, I was planning on seizing power in Egypt and then expanding my empire to its former glory and giving myself the regal name of Charles III. nableezy - 13:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose The living Charles III is quite obviously the primary topic that the vast majority of readers are accessing, and to send them to a dab page is a disservice. As this is a living encyclopedia, I do not think it's "hubris" to say Charles III will be the primary topic for at least the short term, as we can always move the page if Nableezy's coup is successful. Reywas92Talk 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support systemic bias and recentism (guising in the cloak of "consistency") are going to win this one, but in my opinion those are biases to be eliminated. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Comment. One of the main arguments by opposers is that the current title is WP:CONSISTENT with the articles of other British monarchs. However, it is not consistent with WP:NCROY ({Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}), like Charles III of Spain. They claim British monarchs shouldn't follow the same naming convention as monarchs from other countries, and that they should occupy the base name and be the primary topic automatically, regardless of the notability of other monarchs of the same name. If that is not blatant bias I don't know what is. Vpab15 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Your argument is that following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "biased". I suppose that's trivially true, but that "bias" is how we always decide which articles will occupy the base name and which will use some form of disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I disagree that is it bias. It is not taking any particular stance on a controversial issue (King Charles' common name or official titles, one of which is Charles III of the United Kingdom and His Other Realms and Territories etc., is not a controversial issue), just reflecting the relative importance afforded to the various figures in English-language sources. Of course, English-language sources will generally reflect an Anglospheric world view, but as I have demonstrated in my primary comment, non-Anglosphere, English-language sources also seem to regard the reigning Charles III as the primary topic. Nonetheless, the relevant Wikipedia policy (WP:POVNAMING) states explicitly that If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased, so it doesn't actually matter whether it is biased or not. Jèrriais janne (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Im sorry but that simply is not true. Yes, when discussing the present tense, as news sources reporting the news, or more likely gossip in this case, Charles III will obviously refer to the current Charles III. Like if somebody were to, during George W Bush's presidency, refer to President Bush, that would be referring to the person who was currently known by that title. Not the even at the time still living person who was previously known by the same title. Whether or not that remains true when this person dies is something that is to be determined, and it remains hubris to assume that it obviously will. But it is not true that most sources are showing the relative importance of one subject to another, they are using the name for the current living person because they are the current living person. nableezy - 15:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* In reliable, secondary, English-language sources (not just news), as you say, "Charles III" will obviously refer to this Charles III - exactly why Wikipedia's article title does and should reflect that. Wikipedia does not try to predict the future, including how people will refer to particular historical figures in the future. We don't know that yet, because we don't know how notable Charles will still be in 100+ years, but that is not relevant at the current time. What we do know he is the most notable person in the present to hold that title and the topic English speakers are most likely looking for when they search "Charles III". Moreover, it is possible that, even after he does die, English-language sources may still refer to him as 'King Charles III' without further disambiguation for decades after - we can see evidence of this from past monarchs; for instance, if you run a Google Books search on "Charles II", the first page's results refer to Charles II of England with no extra disambiguation. The one result for Charles II of Spain specifies that it is he who is being referred to. Jèrriais janne (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* That would be true if this were a news and gossip website. We however take in to account all the reliable sources, not just the ones from the past year. And one of the first results I get in google books is actually this. nableezy - 18:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Point of clarity: what specifically in what I said would be true if this were a news and gossip website?
* Yes, we take into account all reliable, English-language sources to determine an article title. Simple tests for that, such as a Google Books search, demonstrate that this King Charles is the primary topic for the disambiguated "Charles III" in English-language books. As I already said, that result for Charles III of Spain specifies the "of Spain", which only reiterates the point that in English-language sources, Charles III on its own does not refer to non-Commonwealth monarchs. Meanwhile, my first page of results which relate to this Charles use "(King) Charles III". In addition to books, we can also look at other reliable, English-language sources international, reliable newspapers, none of which feel the need to disambiguate from Charles III of Spain . Jèrriais janne (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* That wed only be concerned with the current news and gossip sources usage. And what about the say JSTOR results for "charles iii" (Wikipedia Library search link). How many of those refer to this Charles III over all the other Charles IIIs? Again, yes, sources discussing the present tense in the present tense will refer to the current Charles III. Just like they referred to the current President Bush and not his father, the other President Bush. Showing me news sources does not refute the point, it enforces it. nableezy - 20:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* As stated at the policy WP:NAMECHANGE, Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources written after the name change. That isn't to say disregard JSTOR and pre-2022 sources, as of course no Wikipedia rule is made not to be broken, but clearly books written before 2022 aren't going to refer to Charles III as Charles III, but as Prince Charles. JSTOR also features a lot of journal articles and academic books. While this makes it a good, reliable source for Wikipedia, it does not necessarily show present usage of terms among Wikipedia readers, which should determine which is the primary topic, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* And broadsheet newspapers are reliable sources of information for Wikipedia and are recommended for determining a primary topic at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, e.g. by searching Google News, which incidentally an incognito mode search of also confirms that Charles III is the primary topic: https://news.google.com/search?q=Charles%20III. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* The idea of judging historical figures by their appearence on the news is quite ridiculous frankly. I'll just say that the longest section of this article is "Personal interests". The section about his reign is four paragraphs of mostly nothingness. Vpab15 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* @Vpab15 The relative length of the sections about his reign & personal interests is not relevant. In fact, if the section on his reign was any longer, that would be a clear case of WP:RECENTISM as it's only 9 months of his 73 year life.
* And, yes, we shouldn't judge historical figures by their presence in the news. But the question at stake here is what the primary topic that Anglophone Wikipedia readers in the 2020s are looking for when they search 'Charles III' is or what they would expect an article called 'Charles III' to be about. Of course, alive Charles III is going to appear more in the news than dead Charles III of Spain, but the important thing is that the news refers to him without clarifying that they're not talking about a different Charles III, demonstrating that people expect 'Charles III' to refer to this article's topic unless explicitly stated otherwise. Jèrriais janne (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Umm, thats talking about not immediately changing an article name after some official change in name. Sort of like the opposite that happened here a year ago. nableezy - 22:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC and most of the other arguments above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. PRIMARYTOPIC is a two-pronged test. The living Charles III very clearly meets the first prong of views/what readers are looking for. Some metrics cited in this discussion range from 3x to 20x in this regard. Given this, the other Charles III would need to have an equivalent imbalance in the other direction. While the others probably will have greater long-term effects on the territories they ruled, it isn't sufficient to overshadow the huge difference in pageviews. Given that most readers are looking for the current British king, searching Charles III shows the other leading contenders, and the presence of the hatnote to the DAB page, keeping it as it is is fine. Also, having this at the current title avoids the question of how to deal with the fact that the "British" Crown isn't solely British anymore, and that Charles III is also King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. all of which are independent, co-equal countries which have valid claims to be included in any article title. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose – Charles III is plainly correct, in line with all previous British monarchs since 1901, and given his shared role across all the Commonwealth Realms it is also by far the best way to cover all of them. Moonraker (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Actually, it's in line with all British monarchs article titles since 1727. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Actually 1901 is correct, as “Queen Victoria” is not just titled “Victoria” (as that is a DAB page for the name). Frank Anchor 01:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Charles III (of the United Kingdom—I use the term here to avoid confusion in a discussion about various persons called "Charles III") sweeps the field in terms of page views and is the primary topic by common sense; in English-speaking countries he is the only one with whom most people will be familiar. This is not a case of recentism, like it would be if most people searching for "Mona Lisa" were expecting a film star or a hit revival of the Nat "King" Cole song, that might be expected to displace the painting in page views only briefly; none of the other articles that might potentially be titled "Charles III" have a realistic chance of displacing this one in the foreseeable future (perhaps if Wikipedia is still around in 2223). There are certainly figures in the list on the disambiguation page who will presumably have more long-term significance after the time of Charles III of the United Kingdom. But most of them are already distinguished by natural disambiguation (Charles the Fat, Charles the Simple) or are only called "Charles III" in certain contexts (Charles XIV John, Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles III of Naples). The strongest argument for any other person being primary would be Charles III of Spain, since this is what he was called in English from 1759 to 1788 (previously having been Charles I, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, Charles VII of Naples, and Charles V of Sicily). The title "Charles III" was previously used for a disambiguation page, which means that none of the others was deemed the primary topic before. As a result, this proposal would return the title to a disambiguation page—and that makes this move seem motivated primarily by spite: "I don't care that there's no other primary topic, as long as this one isn't!" And that's a darned poor reason for a page move. P Aculeius (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, it must be spite. Who in their right mind would want to learn about major historical figures who are already dead? I am much more interested in finding out if the great Commenwealth King takes his own toilet seat on his trips . Vpab15 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I think you just made my point for me. Those supporting the move aren't interested in someone else being the primary topic, but in ensuring that a topic they don't think is important about a person they don't respect isn't regarded as primary, even though it's what the overwhelming majority of people searching for the term will be looking for, now and for the foreseeable future. Perhaps some of the commenters genuinely have other reasons for supporting this proposal—but just skimming through the comments it's pretty obvious that the primary motivation is to deny primary status to an article about someone the commenters deem "unworthy". P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I have clearly explain my reasons in the nomination comment. Agree or disagree with them, but do not make up reasons that I have not expressed. Your inability to assume WP:GOODFAITH is getting tiring. Vpab15 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - I completely agree with User:Jèrriais janne's assessment of the data, page traffic and available sources. This is one of the highest traffic pages on Wikipedia, tied for 40th position on the all-time top 100 list and having appeared in the Top 25 Report 24 times and the Top 50 Report in 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022. We would do a disservice to a significant majority of readers if we ignore the clear and overwhelming data that most users are looking for the British monarch versus any other Charles III. CoatGuy2 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Further comment: The last time this move was proposed I reviewed the all-time pageview stats and found that 'Charles, Prince of Wales' (the former title of this article) had 61,850,725 pageviews as of 7 Sept 2022. At that time, the combined pageviews for all the other Charles III articles listed on Charles III (disambiguation) totalled 24,672,659. At the time of the previous move request, the British monarch accounted for 71.5% of pageviews for pages on the Charles III disambiguation page. I've done the math again, comparing pageviews between the close of the last move request on 9 Sept. 2022 and 23 July 2023. In that interval, the page for Charles III (of the UK) had 22,000,259 pageviews and all other pages on the disambiguation page total 3,853,251, meaning that the British monarch accounted for 85.1% of pageviews for pages on the Charles III disambiguation page. Bear in mind that Charles III featured in several international news stories (the funeral of Elizabeth II and the coronation) during that period, but move-nominator Vpab15's characterisation of this page's share of views as 'very modest' seems misleading. In fact, Charles III (of the UK)'s share of pageviews seems to have significantly increased since the last move request discussion.
* I think it's also worth noting that page traffic for British monarchs tends to be quite high, in general. Even Edward VII, a short reigning, politically powerless king who died 113 years ago had 28,448,162 pageviews in the same period that all of this Charles III pages had a combined 24,672,659 pageviews. I think it's safe to assume that Charles III (of the UK) will remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in 10 or 20 years, which should lay concerns about WP:RECENTISM to rest. CoatGuy2 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* A number of pageviews of x3 is modest in comparison of other numbers floating around, which I assume are based in the inflated pageviews in September during the succession or in May during the coronation. Outside of those two peaks, the numbers are much less impressive. Vpab15 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* @Vpab15: Again 'much less impressive' isn't really useful because it's not backed up by data or sources. I decided to compare Charles III's pageviews during a random one-month stretch in one of the data valleys to see if your claim has merit. |Charles_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor|Charles_III_of_Spain|Charles_XIV_John|Charles_III,_Prince_of_Monaco|Charles_I_of_Austria|Charles_the_Fat|Charles_the_Simple|Charles,_Count_of_Valois|Charles_Edward_Stuart Between 16 Dec. 2022 and 15 Jan. 2023, the British king accounted for approximately 80% of page visits when combined with the other nine most-visited pages from the disambiguation page. I would guess that if we added in all of the other pages as well, the British monarch would get between 2 out of 3 and 3 out of 4 visitors, which comfortably satisfies the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC consideration that A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. CoatGuy2 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* FTR if you assume my figures "are based in the inflated pageviews in September during the succession or in May" then you assume wrongly. I gave the source for my figures and it was the baseline for all of 2023. The difference between our figures is primarily that I don't think it's a given that all of the page views for Charles I of Austria, for example, are people who think of him as Charles III of Bohemia. Nor, for that matter, that all the page views for Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor are from pro-Alliance partisans from the early eighteenth century. In reality, most of the articles in your search are on people who are not primarily called Charles III, and as such I think your numbers dramatically understate how likely it is that an individual looking for Charles III is looking for this article. Kahastok talk 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - This would be an error to make this change. Charles III is the monarch of fifteen countries; while he may be symbolic, he is absolutely the primary topic here. If the average Wikipedia user or person is looking for a "Charles III", I would imagine 99 times out of 100 that they are looking for this Charles III. We should not be basing decisions on how Wikipedia users will be viewing the history centuries into the future. - Yeehaw45 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support in principle, although I think the status quo is acceptable in practice. I don't find the argument that "of the United Kingdom" is somehow misleading because it excludes all the other realms convincing. For instance, George II of Great Britain was also the king of Ireland, but no one's seriously insisting that his article be renamed George II of Great Britain and Ireland.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose – This is English Wikipedia, and Charles III is currently the King of... England (and a bunch of other English-speaking places). As User:Tim riley and others have said, the bulk of users searching for "Charles III" on the English Wikipedia will be looking for this living king, rather than historical kings from non-English-speaking places. After Charles dies or is no longer king, it may be worth reconsidering at that time, but not now. BTW, I'm an American, so he's not my king, but I (and lots of other WP users!) have searched for this WP page a lot of times since he became king, and the user stats confirm this. It's not a Worldview issue, it's just a question of convenience for our users. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Oroborvs (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per WP:COMMONNAME, NCROY and PRIMARYTOPIC. Charles III of Spain was one of the most influential European absolute monarchs in history during nearly his 30-year reign, while the incumbent British king is a newcomer in a largely ceremonial role. --Plumber (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* You actually think that "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a more common name for the subject of this article than "Charles III"? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - Per @Keivan.f and @Rreagan007. DDMS123 (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose This was considered previously and the reasoning to have it Charles III still holds. Whatever the Spaniard's merits, this Charles gets overwhelmingly more clicks. "Charles III" should go where the reader expects it to go, not to a disambiguation page, especially since of course the Spaniard's name was Carlos and Charles is just a rendering..--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Are you saying "Charles III of Spain" should be moved to Carlos III? If not, I am afraid I don't understand your comment. Vpab15 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I think the point is that Charles III of Spain is "Carlos III" in Spanish, as opposed to say a Charles of France, whose name would have been "Charles" in both English and French and would ceteris paribus have a stronger argument against the current target being primary. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* What matters is if the Spanish monarch is known as Charles III in English sources. The answer is yes, that's why the article is at Charles III of Spain. His name in Spanish is Carlos III, but that is as relevant to the discussion as his name in Finnish (Kaarle III). Vpab15 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support, per the excessive number of holders of this name: ten direct titles, and another seven plausible ones, and against WP:RECENTISM. The current "Charles III" is not more important than all the rest combined. BD2412 T 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Nobody in this discussion is arguing that Charles III will have more long-term significance than any of the others (although you never know what might happen between now and the end of his reign). Several other people in the list are significant historical figures. But nearly all of them are either better known by other names—"Charles the Fat", "Charles the Simple", Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor"—or are relatively minor figures of whom most non-historians have never heard—Charles III, Duke of Lorraine, Charles III, Prince of Guéméné. The only relatively important one who's usually called "Charles III" is Charles III of Spain, and while he's fairly significant, most people—even many historians—have never heard of him, or know him only as a name on a list; and he's only called that in English; the Spanish-speaking world knows him as "Carlos". People searching for "Charles III" on Wikipedia will nearly all be searching for Charles III of the United Kingdom; scholars or people like you and me may be happy to read about Charles III of Spain, but the overwhelming majority of all searches for this title will be for this article. Is that "recentism?" Well, it's recent—if only because he's only been king since September—but that's not going to change any time soon. Basing the decision entirely on long-term significance risks ignoring one of the most basic principles of an encyclopedia—getting people the information they're looking for. That's not how primary topics are determined: based solely on long-term significance, "Madonna" would redirect to "Mary, mother of Jesus", instead of the singer—but that's not what most people will be looking for when they search for "Madonna" on English Wikipedia. And there's no substantial probability that "Charles III" will be redirected to any of the historically-significant figures irrespective of the outcome of this proposed move; if it succeeds then it will simply go to a disambiguation page. Then will the argument be that the current king needs to go at the bottom, since the list is in chronological order, so that the most likely topic for readers to search for by this name will be buried beneath an avalanche of persons better known by other names, or minor- to middling-nobility of the medieval and early modern period?
* How much of the support for this proposal is really based on getting people to the topic they want to read about, and how much of it is simply people not wanting King Charles to have the "honour" of being the primary topic for his own name? Given that nobody outside of Wikipedia even knows what a "primary topic" is, that doesn't seem like a persuasive reason to move this article. P Aculeius (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support per nom. There is nothing whatsoever that Charles Windsor could ever do that would make him more consequential than Charles Bourbon without causing some sort of revolution. He's a figurehead whose only advantage over the Spaniard is that he was born 200 years closer to the founding of Wikipedia. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong support as per nom. Elme12 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. "Of the United Kingdom" is not part of his WP:COMMONNAME, and it disregards all of the other realms for which he is monarch. In any case, this Charles is overwhelmingly likely to be the Charles that people are searching for, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strongly Oppose per 's reasoning. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support The assumption that the most recent monarch is "the default" is clear recent bias and British bias. "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a clear article title that is easy for people to find. There appears to be a common belief that because this is the "English speaking wikipedia", that we should have English speaking biases. We should aim to avoid any kind of bias and having the assumption that the British King is the "default" is such a bias we should avoid. "consistency" in the past does not mean we should steamroll over the other monarchs who have gone by the name Charles III. El Dubs (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Opppose per standard naming conventions (of the United Kingdom is not), and WP:PRIMARY Topic and WP:COMMONNAME. The monarch of the UK is not commonly known as King Charles of the United Kingdom. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk ) — 22:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong Support "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is a clear article and easy to find. Because if you don't say what he's the "third of", then no-one will understand who he is. It makes perfect sense to add "of the United Kingdom" to his name. RicLightning (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* He is also refered to as Charles III (or Charles, the third) in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* So what does that mean, exactly? RicLightning (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* That he's not just "of the United Kingdom". He's the king is several independent and equal countries and in all of them he's known as "Charles III". Keivan.f Talk 02:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Exactly. I am saying that he is equally Charles III of Canada, Charles III of Australia and Charles III of New Zealand... so its not like we have to use the title "Charles III of the United Kingdom" in order to make clear "what he's the third of". People will know, just like they know what Elizabeth II refers to without that being in the title of that article. Further as has already been pointed out, refering only to the UK, ignores that Charles III is also King of 15 co-equal realms and problematicly suggests that they are not equal, or that his status in the other fourteen is only due to his status as "British Monarch".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* The format [Name] of [Place] does not refer to the place they are Monarch of. It refers to the place the person is from. El Dubs (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose Per Rreagen007's argument. And WP:Commonname, we went over this shortly after the Queen's death. --Peralien (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose who else would Charles III be he is obviously the primary topic Sebbog13 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Is this suppose to be a question you're asking? You know the who else would Charles III be bit. RicLightning (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Weak support per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and everything from the prior attempt. Comparatively very few readers will be looking for any other “Charles III” besides that of the current one. The Kip (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Also adding, @P Aculeius' arguments throughout this request also hold considerable weight here. The Kip (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* "Charles III" is not his common name, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Then what is? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* "King Charles" is probably his most common name, but it would be very hard to argue that he is the primary topic for all King Charleses (see: Charlemagne, Charles I of England etc.) and it completely fails on WP:PRECISE. It would also not be consistent with every other reigning monarch article (e.g. QEII's common name, even outside her realms, was and probably is just "the Queen", but using "the Queen" as her article title would be ludicrous). Jèrriais janne (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Charles III of the United Kingdom certainly isn't either, considering he's both the sovereign of multiple other nations and the default Charles III to the bulk of the world's population. The Kip (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose and favor speedy closure. There's no reason to think that consensus has changed. I'm not British, and I don't care about the royals, but it's just a sky-is-blue fact about the language that the recent British monarchs are the primary meaning of their respective designations in contemporary English. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per the very clear result last time, and per Amakuru etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support changing my vote from the last RM per nom's arguments; Charles III of the United Kingdom is an easily accessible title for readers to find and would make sense to anyone trying to find the article on the current king. Yeoutie (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose We went over this exact issue less than a year ago, and the clear decision was to keep the article as "Charles III". I would like to lay out first some facts, then some arguments:
* There are four relevant guidelines I would like to bring up: WP:NCROY, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:RECENTISM
* WP:NCROY would suggest that this article be named "Charles III of the United Kingdom."
* However, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this would be unwise and we should, in fact, keep this article as-is. This particular Charles III is, undoubtedly, the primary topic: he is by far the most searched Charles III, making him what people are looking for when they come to Wikipedia asking about a Charles III. If someone happens to come to Wikipedia looking for a different Charles III (perhaps the Fat or of Spain), then the link to the disambiguation page is already provided at the top of the page. I would also suggest that perhaps anyone looking for a different Charles III would already be aware of which one they are looking for and would search accordingly.
* WP:COMMONNAME would also suggest that we keep this article as-is: no British monarch since George II has been referred to by their realm on Wikipedia, and that includes the likes of William IV and George III, of which there are other notable monarchs with the same name. George II was the last British monarch to rule over the Kingdom of Great Britain, and George III the first to rule over the United Kingdom: there is simply so precedent for titling articles regarding recent British monarchs as "Monarch N of the United Kingdom." It would be an inaccurate title and one rarely used by the general population.
* A common argument is that titling this article "Charles III" would be in violation of WP:RECENTISM, and to that I vehemently disagree: Charles III is the primary topic, and he is who most people are looking for. Is he more relevant than other monarchs sharing his name? At this moment, yes. Less than one year after this was first decided is not the time to be rehashing this: we can come back in five or ten years (pr perhaps even more wisely, years into his successor's reign) to decide whether this Charles III is still the primary topic, and is still the one people are most likely to be searching for when they type "Charles III" into the search bar. Theologus (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* I would add for point 5 about WP:RECENTISM that it should not weigh on how we determine a primary topic. If we did, United Kingdom would redirect to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which has a much greater long-term significance (due to the British Empire), Germany would probably redirect to Nazi or pre-Weimar Germany, which again have much more long-term significance right now than the state which has only existed for the last 30-odd years; same for Austria, Russia, Greece, probably Egypt and Israel too. Jèrriais janne (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support I agree with Tim O'Doherty above. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose -- (1) I do not see how the circumstances are any different from the previous discussion in September; (2) I do not see any hope for a consensus to develop to changethe status quo; (3) as in the previous discussion, it is clear what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is for this title; (4) there is still the issue of the other Commonwealth Realms being disregarded if "of the United Kingdom" is included. Let's just leave well alone. --RFBailey (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Eh. I think given normal PTOPIC practice this is a fairly straightforward move, but it was never really going to pass. And I sympathise with the opposers probably the most – if someone searches up Charles III, they shouldn't really be surprised to end up here. And as it is it's a nicer title to have, IMO. J947 † edits 05:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose: Mostly per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. Ever since Charles' accession, he has been the primary topic for "Charles III" in English-language RS by far and the current usage is what matters the most. Also, the nominator's reasoning based on their own view on the subject's relative significance is not based on any policy regarding article titles and should be discarded. It does not matter what powers, accomplishments, or territories any of the other Charles IIIs in history had as feudal or absolute monarchs compared to this article's subject. None of that is relevant. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose The previous Kings and Queens did not include Of the United Kingdom, so why include it if readers of articles around the world already know that Charles III refers to the King of England Baqotun0023 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Weak support. He is not the only notable Charles III in history, on the contrary, there have been quite many. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for the United Kingdom, so he is by no means the "default" for the term "Charles III". I had a look at every "Charles" page from I to XVI and the clear majority of them were either disambiguation pages or redirects to a name containing the "of" part. So why should this be any different? For consistency and clarity, I myself prefer to include the "of" part every time I mention a royal for the first time. J I P | Talk 10:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. I opposed the original move and, sorry, but "Second try after the previous failed discussion" is ridiculous, just because the vote didn't go your way. Thurlow0391 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose I disagree, this is the primary topic for Charles III. Calls to ignore recentism are a red herring; we don't pretend like people alive right now, reading this right now, are not thinking of this right now. Recentism is about ephemeral ideas not taking precedence over more permanent ones. This is not ephemeral. -- Jayron 32 17:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* We don't know if his reign will be ephemeral or not. Until we know, we should judge it by its own merits. And the list of his merits as king is pretty underwhelming compared to the other monarchs. Vpab15 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose - As per my previous comments: He is a living and notable monarch linked to a notable event (PRIMARYTOPIC). His reign extends beyond the United Kingdom and therefore the suffix would be incorrecy. Nothing has changed in this regard since the last discussion. Mat Jarosz (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose the current Charles III is clearly the primary topic people would be searching for. I am not sure why this is still, or ever was a discussion.Stanley Bannerman (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose Nothing has changed since the extensive discussion and review less than 12 months ago. Shadow007 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose This article constitutes ~95% of the current traffic across all related disambiguated pages. It is clearly the primary topic for searches. One proposal should have been enough. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong Oppose Unnecessary, all other Charles IIIs can be placed under Charles III (disambiguation). Thank you very much. 2001:8003:900C:5301:6D42:D85:B2AB:41FE (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per existing consensus and WP:PRIMARY TOPIC: The current PT is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. We can't yet assess long-term significance, but there's no evidence that it will differ from current usage during the lifetime of Wikipedia. Maybe revisit in a few decades when the current king has joined the other topics in the history books. If we must move, "Charles III of the United Kingdom" is not a valid title per arguments above about other realms. Certes (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose: WP:PRIMARY TOPIC has to be evaluated in the context of the present. The argument that this violates WP:RECENTISM doesn't hold if the topic is bound to be the primary topic for years, even decades. That doubled with the issue that the King is not just king of the UK but 15 countries (hence making "...of the United Kingdom" only partial correct), makes this an easy Oppose. The WP:NPOV argument seems to be way overblown. --Inops (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose As I said in the last discussion about this: "Maybe in 50 years he will be a historical figure and this decision can be made based on the standards for historical figures. At that point there may again be some doubt whether Charles III means the British one or the Spanish one or the Austrian one." For now, most readers searching for Charles III clearly mean to find this page, and we should give it to them. The Principle of least astonishment is not a Wikipedia policy but it clearly underpins what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says on this subject, and we should follow it in this instance. The Land (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strongly Oppose - Primary topic. ntnon (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Further comment I accept that there is a legitimate debate about whether he is the primary topic. However it can get annoying when people keep repeating arguments that have already been replied to, particularly the one about him being the monarch of 15 countries, since it has been pointed out that we have plenty other monarchs who ruled over more than one country. Attempts by "oppose" supporters to argue that there is something "sui generis" about him have run into problems. Take the argument that with Charles III of Spain we can treat his rule over Naples and Sicily as unimportant. Take James II of England, who was also king of Scotland and Ireland, it would not go down well to say that these countries are unimportant. Take also Henry III of France, who was also king of Poland, not an unimportant country. Actually, in at least some of these cases Charles is monarch because he is monarch of the UK, e.g. I think the constitution of Australia does say that the monarch of Australia is the monarch of the UK. It could create big problems to say in primary topic discussions that "We have to treat So-and-so as the primary topic, because we can't think of anything sensible to call him if we don't treat him as the primary topic". Consistency is important but doesn't automatically take priority over other factors. For example, all 13 French monarchs from Louis XIII onwards are treated as the primary topic, it does not follow that his father Henry IV of France is the primary topic of "Henry IV". PatGallacher (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* There are plenty of bad arguments going around. What this really comes down to is this: when readers type "Charles III" into a search bar, what are they expecting to find? Simply comparing page views isn't a great way to evaluate this, since probably the vast majority will come by way of internal links from other articles; the better measure is to look at traffic at the dab page. If it was receiving heavy traffic on a daily basis, we would have good evidence that a significant number of readers are looking for another topic when they type "Charles III" in. But as I pointed out above, the dab page gets around 65 views per day, which is a trivial amount. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* There is something "sui generis" about Commonwealth monarchs, and the evolution of former colonies and dominions into fully independent states/realms. The claim that Charles III (Windsor, obviously) is only King of Australia, Canada and New Zealand because he is King of the United Kingdom, ignores the fact that the realms all voluntarily agreed to change their local succession laws in 2012 to ensure that would be the case. Canada passed the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. New Zealand passed the Royal Succession Act 2013. Australia passed the Succession to the Crown Act 2015, and each of the states passed their own legislation. Some of the Caribbean and Pacific realms took the position that their constitutions did not require domestic legislation, but their governments nonetheless consented via the Perth Agreement. Understandably, some get their backs up when folks suggest that the Commonwealth realms aren't "equal", since it misrepresents the role of their monarch and the long transition from colony to independent country. In the examples you refer to Naples and Sicily (circa. 1734), Scotland and Ireland (circa. 1685), and Poland (circa 1573) would hardly be considered fully independent of their Monarch's other realm(s). It is kind of odd to consider in any event given the powers those Monarchs had over their realms. The situation of modern Commonwealth Monarchs is just different, ie sui generis.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Sorry, but some of these kingdoms were independent. When the Poles elected the future Henry III of France as their king they did it as a fully independent country, he was not even king of France at the time. Henry IV of France was king of Navarre for 17 years before becoming king of France. When James II of England was deposed by the Scottish Convention of the Estates (1689) they did this as a separate country, it did not automatically follow from his deposition in England. PatGallacher (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, Scotland and England were so independent of each other that Scotland followed the lead of the English in removing James II of England a few months later, and then within twenty years had formally united with England in the Acts of Union. The Kingdom of Navarre and France were closely linked also, with much of Navarre being merged into the Kingdom of France in 1620 (during the rein of Henry IV of France's successor, Louis XIII). Henry III of France's short rule in Poland was characterized by a "clash of cultures" and the Polish dumping him after two years, when he failed to return from France. You can hardly say that Henry III of France's was equally of Poland and France.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* The Stuart period is a complex one, but basically Ireland was an English puppet state but Scotland did have some genuine independence. If you read Convention of Estates (1689) you will see that the deposition of James VII did not follow automatically from his deposition in England. Only 40 years earlier, when the English parliament beheaded Charles I, the Scots parliament proclaimed Charles II as king of Great Britain. PatGallacher (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Mainly for the reason that it's what I would naturally search for since this is the English Wikipedia (even though it is intended for all English speakers worldwide). Also, there's the matter of consistency with royalty predecessors. "Charles III" doesn't need qualifying - he's the only one in English-speaking history. SpookiePuppy (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Are him and his two predecessors the only King Charleses in the history of the English-speaking countries? The French had already claimed part of Canada during the reign of Charles IX of France. Some early French kings ruled over the Channel Islands, so he's really Charles IV in these islands. PatGallacher (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Picky, picky. But those areas were probably not truly English speaking at the time. Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* It's good to be precise. I respect that. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* As someone from the Channel Islands, no-one in the Islands would consider Charles him to be anything other than Charles III. He is the 'King in right of Jersey' by right of his no longer used title of the Duke of Normandy, and there has never been a Charles III, Duke of Normandy. Jersey in particular has a strong attachment to the previous two Charleses and was one of the first places to proclaim Charles II as "the King, our Duke", as we say. I attended the proclamation ceremony in Jersey which afforded Charles his regal title (can be viewed online, I believe) and can confirm that he was proclaimed as Charles III. Jèrriais janne (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose As I commented on the last thread, King Charles is the most prominent monarch in the English-speaking world and is the reigning monarch in all but about two of the majority English-speaking countries in the world, as such Charles III is perfectly appropriate for the title of his English Wikipedia page. I see no reason to deviate from the consensus reached the last time this was proposed, and I honestly consider this second attempt to be frivolous. MrJ567 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. I was actually a support vote on the last discussion but at this time we're far away enough from the coronation that looking at page views just clearly demonstrates there's no question of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (|Charles_III_of_Spain|Charles_the_Fat|Charles_III_(disambiguation)). Over the last month this page has more than an order of magnitude more views than any other Charles III. The disambiguation page is viewed 3 times for every 1000 times this page is viewed, suggesting that around 99.7% of the people who wind up here intended to. And I agree with Theologus's argument against the recentism concerns; realistically if the vast majority of people looking for Charles III are looking for this one it's reasonable to treat it as the primary topic. The strange argument that Charles III of the United Kingdom is an invalid title is wrong, but Charles III (still) makes the most sense here. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* As you say, Charles III of the United Kingdom is not an invalid name, but then for exactly the same reason Charles III of the Solomon Islands would be just as valid. A bit weird though, and I think it is best avoided. Bazonka (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* If there were a need to disambiguate this Charles III from others, I believe Charles III of the United Kingdom would be the most appropriate alternate title. I don't think it's an argument against disambiguation. It's moot though; I also don't think disambiguation is necessary in this case. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support. I agree that there is no primary topic, and the very notable historical monarchs are at least just as notable as the person who has been known as Prince Charles for almost his entire life, and probably more notable. The historical monarchs also held vastly more political power than the figurehead monarch of the UK today. One example is Charles III of Spain, who of course wasn't just king of Spain as we know it today, but of the vast, global Spanish Empire – over which he held real political power – as well as Naples/Sicily. If anyone had a claim to being the primary topic, it would be Charles III of Spain. The current title is UK-centric to an absurd degree. --Sveinkros (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* But primary topic is not based on "degree of notability" or "historical importance". Nobody has asserted that Charles III (of the United Kingdom) is going to wield more power over more people than Charles III of Spain (a.k.a. Carlos III) did (although at least in theory, he's king of a pretty huge part of the world), or that he's accomplished more significant things, or is expected to (barring some kind of earth-shaking catastrophe in which he emerges as the world's leader). Primary topics are intended mainly to bring readers to the articles they're most likely to be looking for when they search for a particular title, or something like it. By degree of notability, Charles the Fat is probably the most important Charles III—but he's usually called "Charles the Fat" in English. And while he's important to history, most people (perhaps regrettably) have never heard of him, and only historians would guess you might mean him if you said "Charles III". And of course unless your context were clear, they'd also probably wonder if you meant "Charles the Simple" or "Charles III of Spain". But for the vast majority of the English-speaking world, including the United States (for which you might go as far as to say he's our "adopted" monarch), "Charles III" refers to Charles III of the United Kingdom unless the context clearly demonstrates otherwise. That's simply the effect of him being the current king, and none of the others having reigned in living memory. It says nothing positive or negative about him—except of course that he's very widely known, but that's the same as it was for Elizabeth II or will be for William V (if and when he ascends the throne under that name), irrespective of whether other notable monarchs in the past bore those names. Whoever occupies the British throne is nearly always going to be the primary topic for his or her regnal name for the duration of his or her reign, and probably several generations thereafter. Once monarchs recede into history to the point at which references to their names become ambiguous between them and other notable persons, then it is time to discuss which articles should be the "primary topics" again—but in this case that probably won't be before 2300, as most British monarchs from the eighteenth century onward are by far the best-known persons by their regnal names, irrespective of whether they were the most important persons by those names in history. Oddly enough, "Victoria" is not, solely because she has no "number" (being the only one) and is therefore called "Queen Victoria" instead of "Victoria I" in English; without "Queen" the name itself is ambiguous, even though Queen Victoria is probably by far the most notable and important person—besides the goddess Nike—by that name in history. Which goes to show that primary topics are not determined solely by notability or importance, but by recognizability of the title: "Victoria" is ambiguous—"Queen Victoria" is not. P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Others have given reasons for opposition and I agree. Additionally the question has already been asked and answered. This is not "best out of three". Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong support. There is absolutely not a single reason not to use of the United Kingdom here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* There's actually quite a lot, mainly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. The Kip (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* COMMONNAME has already been demonstrated to be moot, and PRIMARYTOPIC shouldn't have a bearing on sovereigns' article titles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* PRIMARYTOPIC is the basis for this entire discussion—if it shouldn't have a bearing on the title of this article, then the proposed move should fail. P Aculeius (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* Has it, or have you just convinced yourself it has? There’s clearly a great many editors, dare I say a majority, that disagree with your take. The Kip (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* WP:TITLEDAB (part of our article titles policy) recommends giving the article an unqualified name such as Charles III if and only if its topic is primary. That makes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the key issue in this discussion. The proposal is credible only if the current UK king is not the primary topic for the term "Charles III". Certes (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* If we went by COMMONNAME, he should be moved back to Prince Charles, his well-established COMMONNAME over more than 70(!) years, and far more widely used than "Charles III" ever has been. Wikipedia didn't move Chelsea Manning to her new name immediately because her former name was supposedly her COMMONNAME, so the same principle would apply to Prince Charles. On the other hand we have the well-known historical monarchs who ruled for decades, such as the best known Charles III. --Sveinkros (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* No, that's incorrect. Per WP:NAMECHANGES: Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well. Show me some reliable sources that continue to call him "Prince Charles" after he became king. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* I have one: the BBC refers to "Prince Charles" there. At the point the article was published, the Queen was already dead. Pedantic for sure. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* The way that article is written, the Queen was still clearly alive at the time. "The Queen is under medical supervision...Following further evaluation this morning, the Queen's doctors are concerned for Her Majesty's health...The Queen is 'comfortable'". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* No, the reporting was delayed by a few hours. The RF missed the boat. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* But the article is clearly written as though the Queen is still alive. So it wouldn't make sense to call him anything other than "Prince Charles". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Another: ABC News reporting at 6 o'clock British time; the Queen was certainly dead by then. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Again, it's written as though the Queen is still alive. These sources are not helpful. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* "Show me some reliable sources that continue to call him 'Prince Charles' after he became king" is what I read in your comment, and it's what I've done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Come on, you know what I meant. You can't seriously believe that these sources written presumably before the Queen's death but published a few hours after are evidence that his common name is still "Prince Charles". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, I was (mostly) joking. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Fair enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strong support per OP's main reason and because of extreme presentism and Anglo-centric bias. Zero reasons not to add "of the United Kingdom". Additionally, it happens to be that several of the other Charles III have a very high historical relevance, so basically "hiding them" with a Charles III article strenously covering a present-day monarch who has only been in power by a short time doesn't help users or readers who might be interested in those great historical figures of the past. MaeseLeon (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
* This argument that keeps coming up regarding "bias" is so bizzar to me. This is the English Wikipedia, and on the English Wikipedia it's pretty logical that the current monarch of many of the world's English-speaking countries would be the primary topic that our readers are searching for when the type "Charles III" into the search box. Is that "biased"? I suppose you can look at it that way, but it's like saying that having the English Wikipedia being written exclusively in the English language is biased, so I guess we should write all our articles in multiple different languages to avoid being biased in favor of the English language. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* @MaeseLeon This article is not "strenously covering a present-day monarch who has only been in power by a short time". It is an article about a person who has held one of the highest positions in British public life – and now & perhaps for a long time coming the highest. It covers the 73+ years of his life, not just the last 11 months.
* Furthermore, as exemplified elsewhere, those "interested in those great historical figures of the past" are far fewer in number than those interested in the person who frequently appears in both UK & international English-speaking media and is therefore relevant to most English speakers' lives in some way or another. Jèrriais janne (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support Charles III is more well known today, but as close as he is towards being what people are thinking of since 2022, he is still not the primary topic overall, as there are a lot of more Charles III's that has their place in European history. We should not be Anglocentric. That's my thoughts regarding this. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose Charles III is equally the monarch of multiple independent countries that, unlike in the past, are all held to be equal in statehood and sovereignty. This makes this situation different to other cases that users have brought up, as there was always an obvious primary state that the ruler ruled over. Charles III doesn't even rule, he only reigns. --Spekkios (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* The king lives in the UK and spends most of the time there. According to List of official overseas trips made by Charles III he hasn't even visited any other country in the Commonwealth realm as king. And he has never visited Tuvalu or Belize in his life, and has only been to Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines or St. Lucia once in his life, before he was king. You might think all the countries are equally important, but the king clearly disagrees. Vpab15 (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* It doesn't matter if he has visited the countries he is king of or thinks a certain country is more important than another. All the countries that he is king of are held to be equally as sovereign as the others. --Spekkios (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support Clear case of presentism and anglocentrism.--RR (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Comment several recent replies raise the concepts of "presentism" and Anglocentrism. "Presentism" the wrong term, as that guideline is about describing past subjects using current standards, irrespective of their appropriateness. It is not about "giving undue weight to the present". The concept these editors are actually referring to is "recentism", not "presentism". However, that concept also does not apply, because it is about "an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view". It describes how articles are written, not the relative importance of different articles; and it is intended to address viewpoints that are likely to change relatively quickly over time. But that would not affect this subject: if Charles III's reign ended tomorrow, he would still be an important topic for many years to come. Anglocentrism also does not apply here. Charles III isn't being deemed the primary topic for his name merely because he's English, but because he's by far the best-known person by that name. Of course that has a great deal to do with the fact that he is presently reigning, but that's not "recentism", that's a reflection of recent events being much better known than those of the distant past. For example, our article on King Felipe VI of Spain gets an average of about 5,000 page views over the last ninety days. Charles III of Spain gets a little over 900 during the same period. The latter was undoubtedly a more important historical figure, but because he died more than 200 years ago, readers aren't searching for him at nearly the same rate as the present king. Charles III (of the United Kingdom) is one of the most-viewed articles on Wikipedia, with an average of just under 48,000 page views over the last ninety days. That's nearly 10,000 more than Queen Victoria, whose reign ended over 120 years ago. Time makes a difference to reader interest, and that interest isn't transient when it concerns people who have been well known for decades, and will continue to be well known for decades to come. King Charles isn't the primary topic because he's English, but because he's king of most of the English-speaking world—even countries that no longer belong to the British crown feel some degree of affinity for it due to their former association. I'm not sure that the same is true of the Spanish-speaking world—but most people there would be looking for "Carlos III" in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, and even then he gets 40% fewer page views than the current King of Spain, and less than a quarter the page views of "Carlos III del Reino Unido". And while in Spanish Wikipedia, the two Charles III's have page views on the same order of magnitude, Charles III of Spain still isn't the primary topic. In English Wikipedia this article receives 50 times the daily page views that Charles III of Spain does. So it is far and away the primary topic—that has nothing to do with editorial bias. P Aculeius (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose as Charles is king of 14 other countries and not just the UK. cookie monster 755 16:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. With all due respect to past Charles III's of other realms, the current monarch of the UK and the Commonwealth is CLEARLY the primary topic for this title at present. That's the beauty of being a living encyclopedia. Primary topic can change, and we can adapt when it does. But I sure am looking forward to repeated attempts to move this article every few months for the next couple years until the inevitably pointless arbcom case. Resolute
* Oppose at this despite the fact that Wikipedia itself in my first language does not have it as a main Topic, but I launch a casual note for a hypothetical future: if ever a disambiguation is needed in the title and there is no consensus on "from the United Kingdom", why not use birth and death dates? I've never seen it suggested, and would like to know if there's a specific region. It would be an exception in the case of a royal, but it seems that exceptions, especially for British monarchs, are quite common. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Per WP:CRITERIA. Charles III is the proper reginal name of a Monarch ruling over a dozen primarily English speaking territories. It is primarily concise, recognizable, and natural. The other cited rulers had negligible numbers of English speaking subjects and even less impact on history in predominantly English speaking territories. The use of "Charles III" to refer to them is a translation of their names and titles, "Carlos" in the case of the Spanish monarch, and "Carolus"/"KAROLVS" for the Holy Roman Emperor. Speculation that Charles III may not live long, or is primarily a figurehead neglects that the last two British monarchs or emperors were hugely consequential in world history. It's worth mentioning that Charles III also controls vast wealth and power outside of his political standing. It's notable also that common reporting in English language does not refer to any particular country of origin - an American media company feels no need to clarify which country or countries he rules. I'm not thrilled to have this conversation reiterated over WP:RECENCY just because the first time around his ascension was actually recent. There were a great many good points in that vote and it wasn't just about people wanting to feel good about a new King. Jz4p (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support. There are lots and lots of people referred to as Charles III, and it's just recency bias to say that the current king of the UK is more of the primary topic than Charles III of Spain. Remes (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* Is it recency bias that we have Anne Hathaway the actress as the primary topic when Shakespeare's wife was the best known Anne Hathaway for hundreds of years before the actress was even born? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* No, that's a recognition that the primary topic can change in the light of events, e.g. the actress winning an Oscar. However, as the article on Shakespeare's wife comments, "Very little is known about her life beyond a few references in legal documents", hardly comparable to e.g. Charles III of Spain. PatGallacher (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* Indeed, Charles III of Spain is much-better documented than Anne Hathaway Shakespeare. But Prince Charles was far better known than Charles III of Spain, simply because he's someone people in all walks of life heard about regularly—or at least from time to time—and that's only increased now that he's king. What's changed, of course, is his name—and as all reputable sources now refer to him as "Charles III", that means he's now by far the best-known person by that name. It's not that Charles III of Spain is unimportant—it's just that you don't hear about him every day—most people don't ever hear about him, unless they're studying Spanish history, in the same way that people don't hear about George II. And that's no slight against either of them—it's just that you don't make the news very often when you've been dead for 235 years. Only a fraction as many people are aware of Charles III of Spain as are aware of Charles III of the United Kingdom, and that's why this article is the primary topic for the name. P Aculeius (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support Charles III of England isn't even the most famous Charles III, Charles III should be a disambiguation page for all monarchs of the name.Scu ba (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* Really? He's not the most famous Charles III? How many news articles have been written in the past year on any other Charles III than this one? How many TV shows or media personalities have talked about any other Charles III than this one? If you asked a thousand random people on the street to name a Charles III, how many would name any other one besides this one? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
* If they did one of those old talk show segments where they ask random people on the street who Charles III is, most people would have no idea, and the rest would almost invariably say something like "the King of England" JM2023 (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Comment I don't have a strong opinion, but i want to note that Charles III is the monarch not just of the UK, but also of 14 other English-speaking nations, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state that has Charles III as its monarch and head of state... All the realms are equal with and independent of the others, though one person, resident in the United Kingdom, acts as monarch of each." JM2023 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose, in agreement with previous statements in opposition to the proposed change ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Comment See Personal union, there are loads of examples on monarchs ruling more than one country. I recognise that a lot of cases this was a fiction, with people ruling over puppet/satellite states, but you could find that a significant number did rule over states with largely equal status. PatGallacher (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support. Per GoodDay. I believe that monarchs ought to return to the format “[Name] of [Country].” Yes, His Majesty is the monarch of other Commonwealth realms but as well as Oscar I of Sweden who was also King of Norway, as well as Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, Mary II of England, William III of England, who were also monarchs of Scotland, and Anne, Queen of Great Britain, who was also Queen of Ireland. If the reason is because they are known as monarchs of England more than the other realms, then Charles III is more known as King of the United Kingdom more than he is known as King of Australia, etc. AKTC3 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* I don't think any of those examples are comparable with British monarchs from the past ~200 years. Pageviews for most English and British monarchs until the 18th century tend to be lower to the point that, for example, Mary II of England isn't necessarily the primary topic for 'Mary II' compared with the Queen Mary 2; the same holds true for Oscar I, where the class of Russian submarine actually gets more traffic than the Swedish and Norwegian monarch. The highest traffic example on your list is Charles II of England, only getting x2.5 times more pageviews than Charles II of Spain. Compare that with Charles III getting x43 more pageviews than Charles III of Spain. Far more users are interested in the UK monarch to the point that I don't believe we're justified in having overly long article titles and burdening the vast majority of users with unnecessary hurdles. CoatGuy2 (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Support and comment - I concur with the nominator's rationale. Policies and objective considerations, not opinions, should take precedence when naming articles. And while we're on this subject, I invite all editors that have participated here to give their input on a concurrent and similar discussion on Elizabeth II's talk page regarding the appropriateness of omitting the realms that all of Charles III's predecessors since 1707 have reigned over. Also, just in case my request got lost on the other page, could an administrator please combine the this discussion with mine on Elizabeth II's talk page, given the similarity of our grievances? Hurricane Andrew (444) 18:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* I hear ya, pal. RicLightning (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC, Cuerden etc. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Note - There is now a related move discussion attempting to put through similar moves for all previous Monarchs of the Commonwealth Realms.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Note - Since we are apparently going to have a discussion about all the other British monarch titles, I have opened a a related move discussion for George I and George II. Since we are all currently thinking about the other British monarch titles, it makes sense to also consider these two at the same time. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Strongly Oppose "Charles III of the United Kingdom" makes about as much sense for the title of this article as "Charles III of Canada". Charles is the sovereign of 15 independent Commonwealth realms, of which the United Kingdom is but one. Including "Of the United Kingdom" is problematic for two reasons: 1) It insubordinates the monarchies of the other Realms to the monarchy the UK, which is inaccurate, and 2) It propogates a British-centric and not a worldwide view of the person and his role. Not acceptable on Wikipedia. Király-Seth (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose. Clearly the primary topic. Wanderin' Wolf (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose As a person of dual citizenship in both the UK and NZ, it is obviously wrong to favour one realm over another. The neutrality, simplicity and consistency of the current title makes the most sense. E James Bowman (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose Charles is sovereign of 15 distinctly and legally separate countries, so It would be grossly inappropriate to change the article lead to the suggested. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
* "Grossly inappropriate"? I think not. There's no harm in this. RicLightning (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
* I think so. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Notification
* Note: I have informed all the participants of the previous RM discussion about this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I'm not sure that was appropriate; notifying 129 editors through talk page messages (presumably using some automated tool, given the rate of notification?) of an RM seems to verge on spamming; as that guideline says, More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember that the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* No automated tool was used. I sent all the messages myself. And Canvassing clearly says: "An editor...can place a message...On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include...Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic." Rreagan007 (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* WP:APPNOTE also says Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. I'm not going to argue this, but I would strongly suggest you never issue notifications like this again, at least not without some prior discussion to determine whether such an act would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I think that I followed the guidelines at Canvassing to the letter. The guidelines say that you can inform participants of a previous discussion on their talk pages if it is "Limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan, and Open". I limited it to just the participants of the previous discussion, and my message was neutral, nonpartisan, and open. In addition, my message was "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" as required by the guideline. It would have been impossible to only inform some of the participants of the previous discussion, as that would have violated the section which says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." Rreagan007 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* As I said, I’m not going to argue it; I’ll just recommend that if you believe it is beneficial to notify such a large number of editors of a discussion in the future you do so using pings as it is less intrusive - that method is sometimes seen for RfC’s with broad impact, although I’ve never seen such wide notification for an RM.
* It would have been impossible to only inform some of the participants of the previous discussion FYI, I think you inadvertently did so; the closer said 240 took part in the previous RM but you only notified 130; even excluding the editors who have already contributed you’re still about 100 short; I think whatever method you used to populate your list was flawed. I wouldn’t be too worried about correcting that though; as long as the ratio of !support to !oppose editors is proportionate it isn’t an issue.
* BilledMammal (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I did try to avoid sending notifications to users who had already contributed to this current discussion, as well as avoiding sending to users who were banned for sockpuppetry and some IP addresses. I tried my best to send a notification to everyone else who participated in the previous discussion regardless of their position, but if I missed anyone it was inadvertent. Rreagan007 (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* That seems right and proper - there was only a large number of notifications because there was an unusually high participation last time. Indeed, I would say that the perspectivess of those who participated last time could be particularly illuminating (though not carrying any special weight) if any had changed their views over time, one way or the other. Davidships (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* And that is the argument for why we need to do this whole discussion all over again, that consensus may have changed, i.e. that people may have changed their minds in the last few months. And the only way to know if people have changed their minds is to ask them. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I don’t see anything inappropriate in their notice (I was one of the recepients), nor do I see anyone who explicitly asked not to receive such a message. Thus, I don’t see how what you cite here applies.Tvx1 09:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* x 3 I didn't receive a message (I didn't take part in the previous discussion), but I don't see a problem in having left a message for those who previously commented on the same RM topic. There was certainly not anything "inappropriate" in the messages or the execution of them in this instance. Either a message or a ping are perfectly acceptable ways of doing it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I did not see anything inappropriate in the message I was sent. Thank you @Rreagan007 for bringing this discussion to my attention. Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I received one of his messages and I'm quite thankful that he did. GandalfXLD (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I received a notification and am glad of it. I participated in the previous discussion and no longer have Charles III watchlisted, though I probably would have noticed the discussion as I check in on it every now and then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I do not feel that Rreagan007 did anything improper, and I am grateful that you took the time to manually notify so many past discussion participants. CoatGuy2 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Thanks. I'm surprised that wasn't done earlier, given the short period of time since the previous identical move request was closed. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Thank you for sending the notification. I believe this type of notification is entirely appropriate as long it is sent to all involved (outside of IP's, banned users, etc) so as to avoid the appearance of canvassing. This mass-notification was sent to almost all previous participants regardless of previous vote, so it is perfectly acceptable. Frank Anchor 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I concur. There was no canvassing here and the notification was entirely appropriate, especially given that this is basically a repeat of a fairly recently failed proposed move. On which note, while acknowledging that consensus can change, it is customary to allow a little breathing room before reviving failed proposals. We don't want to get into a situation along the lines of "the voting shall continue until the correct result is obtained." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I don't see any issues with the notification, as long as it was sent to people on both sides of the previous discussion, and the only criteria for not notifying people were reasonable (already commented, banned, anonymous, etc.). If I didn't want to participate, I could simply have ignored the notice. P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* I too received the notification from Rreagan007, as I participated in the last major attempt to move the page shortly after Elizabeth's death. His notification was neutral and informed me that there's a new conversation, but it not once urged me to vote. This is what I received: "There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)" I don't think this is biased, or that Rreagan had any ill intent. --Peralien (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* So, what is it you're saying, exactly? RicLightning (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* That Rreagan has done nothing wrong. I think my message made that clear. Peralien (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
* Should have been discussed here first. Seems inappropriate and a little suspect, IMO. Particularly given the cascade of "opposes" that came right after. It seems an attempt to tilt the result, or at least to reproduce the prior voting pattern. Walrasiad (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* I have seen many repeat RM discussions where all the participants from the prior discussions have been notified (either with a ping or a talk page message) and never once have I seen anyone discuss first whether or not to do so. It appears to be pretty standard procedure to just do it, with the understanding that past participants of a discussion are very likely to want to know about a new discussion on the same matter. It seems inappropriate and a little suspect to me that anyone would oppose doing so. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* I have only seen it as an immediate follow-up to an unresolved portion of an RM (e.g. an additional proposal or variation of a proposal that has just closed or been withdrawn). I have never ever seen a mass mailing of all prior discussants from a year earlier. What you did here is unprecedented in my experience. You claim it is "standard procedure", could you cite an example? I'd like to know where. You take umbrage at my suspicion. Very well, might I ask why you did so then? Certainly not to improve discussion. Discussion was not scanty here, but quite active, so it was certainly not stalled nor in need of additional input. Nor does it seem to be about alerting participants who thought this important - those who think it important are already watching. And I'd expect you to notify WikiProjects which might rate this page as important. It seems you just went and contacted every drive-by voter who had an opinion last year to come flood this discussion again. It seems your intention was just to manufacture the same result. If that was not your intention, then it certainly seems like it. It would be a lot less suspect if you had brought it up here first. Walrasiad (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* My intent was simply to let the people who contributed to the previous discussion a few months ago know that there was the exact same proposal (which I did in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Canvassing) because I thought they would want to know about it. And based on the reaction of people I let know, they did indeed want to know about it. And based on my reading of Wikipedia:Canvassing it would have been inappropriate to simply let some of the past contributors know. If you let one know, then you have to let them all know. And I also personally think they have a right to know on principle. And I also don't like your characterization of previous contributors as "drive-by voters". Just because some Wikipedia contributors don't hang out at WP:RM constantly doesn't make their opinions on title changes any less valid. Now, what is your reason for wanting to hide the current discussion from the contributors of the previous discussion? The only reason I can think of that someone would not want to let previous contributors know about a new discussion is in the hopes that the past contributors simply wouldn't notice so that the title change could be quietly slipped through without a thorough discussion that accurately gauges what the true community consensus is on such a change. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Because I've never seen it done. Ever. In any RM discussion. And I participate in many of them. Never have I seen an editor do what you did here. So claiming this is "standard procedure" is disingenuous. I asked for examples, and am still waiting. Just because you haven't seen it done before seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for opposing it being done. And it doesn't mean that it can't be done or that it shouldn't be done, as it is clearly allowed by the rules. As far as examples, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I know I've seen users who participated in previous discussions being alerted when there is a new discussion on the same topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Moreover, I know you participate in many RM discussions too, and I have never seen you do it before (not to my knowledge anyway). So your motivation here is obviously different than elsewhere. Or do other RMs not deserve to have past participants notified? Walrasiad (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* I think I may have done it before, but I can't remember the specific example. Regardless, I think what motivated me was that I was thunderstruck by how completely inappropriate it was for this to be renominated for a requested move after the first one was so overwhelmingly rejected less than a year ago that it was closed in less than 28 hours. And that result was overwhelmingly endorsed by a move review. The only legitimate argument for another discussion is that consensus may have changed. Well fine, maybe it has. But the only way to know for sure if consensus has changed is to ask the people who contributed to the discussion last time if they have changed their minds. So that's exactly what I did. And I can see no legitimate reason for not letting the contributors of the previous discussion know about this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* It seems appropriate to me (as a recipient). When someone chooses to reopen a proposal that was very clearly rejected a matter of months ago, they should expect this. And yes, it may well "reproduce the prior voting pattern"; this is entirely to be expected after such a short delay, with nothing new in the nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* I was notified of this discussion by User:Rreagan007 and feel that being informed in this way was in no way inappropriate. --RFBailey (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* Seconding this. The Kip (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* I have no problem with this notification or how it was issued. As for the actual RM discussion, it is clearly headed towards some form of "not done", so no need for me to actually participate. I do agree the nom should probably wait longer before trying again. If we see a third try in as many years, that would feel excessive, so my advice would be to hold off until 2025 (at the very least). Perhaps even best to wait until after Charles death before revisiting this issue. CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
* What's going on? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* One or two of the people here don't think that Rreagan007 should have notified all of the editors who participated in the previous discussion about the title of this article who hadn't already weighed in on this new proposal, and were still active on Wikipedia. Although concerns were raised about canvassing, those seem to have been laid to rest since the notice was neutrally worded and sent to editors irrespective of their opinions in the previous discussion. Otherwise it's just an argument about whether it was procedurally appropriate to notify so many people. Most people who've commented on the issue don't seem concerned about the notice. P Aculeius (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thoughts
I think one thing to consider is how many of the potential Charles IIIs are regularly called that. So let's review, just in the simplest terms, which of these even show as "Charles III" when you click on them. I've crossed out any that don't sit at Charles III [of something]
* Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor (839–888) Charles the Fat
* Charles III of West Francia (879–929) Charles the Simple
* Charles III of Anjou (1290–1325) Charles, Count of Valois
* Charles III of Alençon (1337–1375) ''Charles III, Count of Alençon
* Charles III of Naples (1345–1386) Yes, but he's also Charles II and Charles the Short
* Charles III of Navarre (1361–1425 Yes, also Charles the Noble
* Charles III, Duke of Savoy (1486–1553) Yes, also Charles the Good
* Charles III, Duke of Bourbon (1490–1527) Yes, also the Constable of Bourbon
* Charles III, Duke of Lorraine (1543–1608) Yes, also Charles the Great
* Charles III, Prince of Guéméné (1655–1727) Checks out. Not sure how major he is.
* Charles III Philip, Elector Palatine (1661–1742) The "Philip" is part of the name
* Charles III of Hungary (1685–1740) Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor
* Charles III of Spain (1716–1788) ''Yes, also Duke Charles I of Parma and Piacenza, Charles VII of Naples, and Charles V of Sicily. Some confusion as to who's Charles III of Spain, due to Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor briefly claiming that title, which makes putting him as the undisambiguated "Charles III" even more confusing.
* Charles III John of Norway (1763–1844) "John" is part of the name
* Charles III, Prince of Monaco (1818–1889) Yes, not much of an article, though.
* Charles III, Duke of Parma (1823–1854) Yes
* Charles III of Bohemia (1887–1922) Charles I of Austria
* Charles Edward Stuart (1720–1788), Stuart pretender who styled himself Charles III
* King Charles III (play), a 2014 play by Mike Bartlett, about the British king (released when he was Prince of Wales) "King" is part of the title
* King Charles III (film), a 2017 adaptation of the play Ditto
* Charles III (album), by organist Charles Earland
I think this is somewhat of a problem for the original suggestion. The Charles III of Spain mentioned is not known as Charles III of Spain; he's Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor. Charles III John of Norway is Charles III John of Norway; He can't be listed as Charles III, only Charles III John. Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor is Charles the Fat.
There is some merit to the suggestion, but it's clear that most of the most significant Charles IIIs aren't solely, often not even mostly known as Charles III. And sweeping that under the rug isn't helping things. If we're looking at Kings alone, we have Charles III of Spain - which is the most confused; Charles III of Naples who's also Charles II of Hungary; and Charles III of Navarre, who's also called Charles the Noble, but we're at least looking at one regnal number for him.
It feels like the current Charles III has, at least, the advantage of clarity. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 01:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Yes, that's what I was getting at—there's not much risk of confusion between the current King Charles III and any of the previous Charles III's. Most of them are either better known by other names, or not well known outside academic circles. Charles III of Spain is the only one who might have a good claim to be the primary topic for this title, but while I think we would all concede that he's an important historical figure—and perhaps two hundred years from now will again be regarded as the clear primary topic—the proportion of readers who are aware of him compared with the current king is relatively small, and it's likely to stay that way for a long time to come. P Aculeius (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Excellent work! I might add, as I said last time I think, that it should really be Carlos III of Spain. Around 1800 seems to be the current cut-off between eg Philip II of Spain and Felipe VI of Spain, which I believe reflects English RS, but Carlos is close enough. Anything to stop these endless debates. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Sorry Charles III of Spain and Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor are completely different people, whose lives barely overlapped, and the latter I think never setting foot in Spain. The Austrian claimed the title, but lost the war and is never counted. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Oops, got confused about which King was being talked about above, because the list makes Charles III of Spain look like a much less important person by sandwiching him between two versions of Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI (HRE Charles VI as Charles III of Hungary, and HRE Charles VI as Charles III of Spain). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 07:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* What do you mean, advantage? I'm very curious. RicLightning (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Of the ones that have a decent claim for it, like Charles the Fat or Charles III of Spain, they all have other titles they are at least somewhat well-known under. For example, Charles III of Spain is also known as I, VII, and V, etc. Charles III of the United Kingdom (barring future events) is only known as Charles III (in the regnal sense, anyway), and - in the definitional sense of "Is he Charles III?" - is universally accepted as, and recognised by the name Charles III. That's something he has other contenders for being put at Charles III don't. The earlier Kings tend to be a bit better known by sobriquet - Charles the Simple, etc - and the later kings tend to have a bunch of other titles. Charles III of the United Kingdom is one of a very few names on this list without any substantial sobriquets or alternate regnal numbers. That's not to say he must be here, but it's an advantage to choosing him. Meanwhile, the disambiguation page is by necessity confusing, with a number of borderline cases. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 07:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Charles III of the United Kingdom was known as "Prince Charles" for the vast majority of his life, so there is that too. Vpab15 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Agreed, but that feels different. Of course, it'll depend how long his actual reign is. Though, given how awful the disambiguation page is to navigate, I'd kind of be inclined to lean towards traffic-determined decisions. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 08:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Even eliminating those known as something else, that still leaves us with several Charles III's, including a few kings, and including one major historical figure. Charles III of the UK isn't really Charles III of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, since these places only came under British rule after the death of Charles II. I also quote the start of this article "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms", which indicates that his rule of the UK is primary. PatGallacher (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Technically, yes, but Elizabeth II was never referred to as Elizabeth I in Scotland, so the technicality seems to be one everyone's happy to ignore. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 16:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Regnal numbers in the UK, by semi-official tradition, the monarch always takes the higher of the two numbers that they would have had in either realm; thus a putative future King James would be James VIII, as the highest numbered James previously was James VII of Scotland. Furthermore, regnal names and numbers are purely a matter of royal prerogative, and parliament and the people have no say on the matter. If Prince William wanted to call himself "King Willie the 69th", no one can really stop him. -- Jayron 32 16:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* Actually, that was a very contentious issue in Scotland at the time. Churchill's suggestion is that whenever there is a monarch whose name would lead to different numbering in England and Scotland, that the numeral used would always be the higher one. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
* It's certainly something I heard plenty of people bring up here in Edinburgh, but I think any name or numbering that wouldn't appear in the first paragraph can be ignored for a basic-level discussion like this one. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 16:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I have promoted "Thoughts" to a section, to enable people to more easily find the bottom of the rename debate. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. | WIKI |
Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 11.djvu/556
548
INDEX.
Notes and Queries, July 25, 1903.
The as part of title, 16
Theobald (R. M.) on Bacon- Shakespeare question, 215 This'n and shis'n, use of the words, 89, 158 Thomas (N. W.) on "Whipping the cat," 353 Thomas (R.) on William and Robert Bent, 356 Thompson (F. D.) on D'Arcy family, 325 Thompson (W.) on St. Mary Overy, 308 Thomson (A.) on gallant, 269 Thornbury (W.), his ' Old and New London,' 224 Thornhill (Lady Joanna), epitaph in Wye Church, 445 Thornton (Sir E.), diplomatist, 1766-1852, 48 Thornton (R. H.) on crossing sweeper, 27
San Diego, 129
Thoughtsome, use of the word, 387 Three Dukes, origin of the children's game, 390 Tide, use of the word in sixteenth-century English, 209 Tim Bobbin, the origin of the sign, 68, 297 Tintagel Church, its dedicatory title, 9, 93 Toad : as awkward as a ground-toad, 509 ; toad on a
shovel, 509 ; toad dressed in muslin, 509 Tobit, the Book of, and the 'Arabian Nights,' 481 Tomes (T. P.) on Reynolds portrait, 347 Tomlinson (W. W.) on John Blenkinsop, 407 Tomohrit, a lofty mountain in Albania, 500 Tongue-pricks, use of word in French proverb, 447 Tongue-twisters, collected examples, 269, 455, 493 Tooley (G. W.) on Eyre, 328 Tooth, single, in ' Annals of Japan,' 488 Toque = bonnet, definition of the word, 366 Totnesse is turned Frenche, 333 Tottenham is turn'd French, 185, 333 Toulon, the battle off, in 1744, and Lord Hawke, 386 Tower of London, inscriptions on walls of the, 5, 115 Townshend (D.) on fireback dated 1610, 30, 332 Tradesmen's cards and advertisements, 287 Tradesmen's tokens between 1787 and 1880, 188, 298 Traherne (Thomas), Welsh poet, 405 Transcendant, spelling of the word, 15, 71 Translation, 481
Trapeza, use of the word in Russian, 230, 298, 454 Tree on fire, historic, at Grafton Regis, 346 Trevelyan legend, 247 Trillion, significance of the term, 362 Trinity Sunday folk-lore, 224, 298 Truelock (Samson) and the Court of Charles II., 248 Tucker (Abraham), his MSS., 29, 92 Turnbull (A.) on origin of the Turnbulls, 109 Turnbulls, origin of the, 109, 233, 329, 498 Tumour (Hon. George), d. 1813, his biography, 372 Twyning, charity founded by Lord of Manor of, 346 Tyburn, last execution at, 48, 135, 196 Typulator, use of the word in 1558-9, 72, 176 Tyrone on Irish historical genealogy, 208 Udal ( J. S.)on ' An Englishwoman's Love- Letters,' 504
Arms of married women, 114
Barnes (William), 497
Cockade of George I., 93
Heraldic shields, their origin, 513
Kit-Cat portraits, 91
Mug-houses, 67
Uncessantness, use of the word, 387 " Uncle Tom," the supposed original, 445, 512 United Empire Loyalists and ' N. & Q.,' 48 Unram, use of the word, 188, 230, 277 CJnwarrant, use of the word as verb, 387 Upham (R.) on John Reynolds of the Mint, 168
Upper Ossory (Earl of), his lord-lieutenancy of Bed- fordshire, 449, 515 Upright burial, instances of, 465, 514 Urban on goes = portions of liquor, 346
Suburbanite, 86
Uther and Arthur, etymology of the names, 327, 496 V. (Q.) on hagioscope or oriel, 491
Henslowe's 'Diary,' 169
Hognel or hognayle money, 138
Interview, 9
" Passagium Beati Johannis," 509
Sandwich, 214
Seneschal, 354
Yeoman, 113
Vallde, his ' Bibliographic des Bibliographies,' 368, 410 Valtyne on phrase in poem wanted, 289
Popular myths, 348 Valtyre on " But this I know," 449
"How do I love thee," 49
Van der Neer (Artus), painter, date of his birth, 128 Vane (C. S.) on Senancour, 429 Vane (G. H. F.) on auction by inch of candle, 353
Church briefs, 291
Marshalsea, 116
Vanity Fair, earliest use of the term, 234 Vaughan (Dean), hymn by, 308, 473 Vaughan (H.) on Hadrian I., 288 Veritas on Charles II. and the episcopate, 489 Verses ascribed to Longfellow and others, 208, 257, 408 Vestments, Greek and Russian ecclesiastical, 191 Viad on chapels to St. Clare, 228 Vicar, on fees for searching parish registers, 453 Vicereine, use of the title, 430 Vildeson, place-name in Crakanthorp's ' Defensio
Ecclesiae Anglicanae,' 469, 498 Village library, suitable bindings for, 8, 91, 196 Villon, pronunciation of the name, 293, 451 Violet Crown, City of the, origin of the name, 108,
177, 295, 433
Virgin, Blessed, association of blue with, 388, 496, 511 Voltaire, sketch by Thomas Orde, Lord Bolton, 184 ;
" L'Anatomie vivante," 187 W. (A.) on Pope self-condemned for heresy, 67 W. (A. E.) on coast waiters' office, 169 W. (C.) on shell of a coffin, 68 W. (E.) on Tennyson's 'Lord of Burleigh,' 194 W. (E.), translator of ' Theodore ; or, the Peruvians,' 509 W. (F. C.) on Ineen Dubh, 509
St. Agnes, Haddington, 509 W. (G.) on Canute and the tide, 189
Church bells, 268
Henry II. and Lincoln, 368
Proverbs relating to Lincoln, 229
Springs and wells, 469 W. (G. C.) on King's Weigh House, 390
Mordaunt College, 155 W. (G. H.) on Jewish charm, 208
Nothing, 166 W. (H.) on Lacaux, 452
Latin quotations, 466
W. (J. B.) on Purcell's 'Life of Manning,' 86 W. (R, D.) on laced savory, 67 W. (T. H.) on English accentuation, 408 Walk, meaning of the word as used by Hogg, 249 Wainewright (Jeremiah), M.D., his biography, 129 Wainewright (J. B.) on blue and the Virgin, 496 | WIKI |
thyroid hormone
Definitions
• WordNet 3.6
• n thyroid hormone any of several closely related compounds that are produced by the thyroid gland and are active metabolically
• ***
Usage
In news:
The Effect of Herbal Medications on Thyroid Hormone Economy and Estrogen -Sensitive Hepatic Proteins in a Patient With Prostate Cancer.
Flame retardant linked to altered thyroid hormone levels during pregnancy.
Despite its small size, the thyroid gland has a huge job: to produce hormones that regulate metabolism, or the rate at which cells convert food and other substances into energy.
Hyperthyroidism is a condition in which the thyroid makes extra hormone, often raising metabolism and heart rate.
In a series of studies, hyperthyroid cats were fed iodine-restricted diets and their thyroid hormone levels monitored.
Thyroid hormones control energy metabolism, body temperature, reproduction, and growth.
Progesterone stimulates production of thyroid hormone, important to every aspect of life.
Monocarboxylate transporter 8 (MCT8) is a thyroid hormone transporter, the gene of which is located on the X chromosome.
Primary hypothyroidism is a thyroid hormone deficiency resulting from impaired function of the thyroid gland .
A chemical found in many common products, including plastic bottles and canned food linings, is linked in a new study to thyroid hormone changes in pregnant women and baby boys.
BPA linked to thyroid hormone changes, study says.
BPA linked to thyroid hormone changes in pregnant women and newborn boys.
The Effect of Herbal Medications on Thyroid Hormone Economy and Estrogen-Sensitive Hepatic Proteins in a Patient With Prostate Cancer.
Monocarboxylate transporter 8 (MCT8) is a thyroid hormone transporter , the gene of which is located on the X chromosome.
The findings raise concerns because thyroid hormones play a crucial role in growth and brain development in young children, health experts note.
*** | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 15
Template:WikiProject Oregon collapsing section top (open)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Unused template. Now redundant to WikiProject Oregon collapsing section top after I added an open option. --Trialpears (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* WikiProject Oregon collapsing section top (open)
* No strong opinion (as creator, 12+ years ago), I haven't looked into the details but I take you at your word that you've addressed any practical needs that might be impacted. Thanks for the housecleaning. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
* Delete, redundant to a better template. BLAIXX
Template:Box-header-blank
The result of the discussion was delete. czar 10:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Alternative box header template redundant to Box-header. Only one transclusion in the Portal:India specific version of this template, Portal:Current events/India/box-header-blank. There are other weird box headers that probably should be deleted/merged/modified as well, but none of them as bad as this one. --Trialpears (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* Box-header-blank
* Portal:Current events/India/box-header-blank
* Delete - per nom.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Javascript in categories
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Very niche template used only twice 8 years ago. I believe this problem doesn't exsist now anyway since main other should prevent cleanup categories from being applied on js pages. --Trialpears (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* Javascript in categories
* This would probably be substed by most editors. And while the meta-templates I built for cleanup are namespace sensitive, this is for the case where a piece of javascript contains explicit code including a category such as
value= text.replace(//,'')
* All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
* It was indeed substituted by you in both cases I found using this search. --Trialpears (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* delete, not actively used. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Peer review/header
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 August 24. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
* Peer_review/header
* Peer_review/heading
Denver RTD s-line templates
The result of the discussion was Delete - F ASTILY 00:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
* RTD color
* RTD lines
* RTD stations
* S-line/RTD left/A
* S-line/RTD left/B
* S-line/RTD left/C
* S-line/RTD left/D
* S-line/RTD left/E
* S-line/RTD left/F
* S-line/RTD left/G
* S-line/RTD left/H
* S-line/RTD left/L
* S-line/RTD left/N
* S-line/RTD left/R
* S-line/RTD left/W
* S-line/RTD right/A
* S-line/RTD right/B
* S-line/RTD right/C
* S-line/RTD right/D
* S-line/RTD right/E
* S-line/RTD right/F
* S-line/RTD right/G
* S-line/RTD right/H
* S-line/RTD right/L
* S-line/RTD right/N
* S-line/RTD right/R
* S-line/RTD right/W
templates for Denver's Regional Transportation District. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/RTD. All transclusions replaced. There are 24 dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* Delete, now redundant to a better implementation. B<b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 13:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Hunan Television Dramas
The result of the discussion was delete. czar 10:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC) WP:NOTVGUIDE The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* Hunan Television Dramas
* delete, too large to be useful, better to use list articles and categories. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Those Mockingbirds
The result of the discussion was delete. czar 10:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Contains links to only 3 articles, all of which navigate to and from each other without the need of this navbox. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 05:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* Those Mockingbirds
* delete, insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:2019 Netherlands Women's Quadrangular Series
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 August 23. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
* 2019_Netherlands_Women's_Quadrangular_Series
Template:Northline
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Unused fork of. They may have varied when the northern extension of the Red Line was under construction but there's complete overlap now. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
* Northline
* Delete per nom, duplicate of another template. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX
| WIKI |
Jean-Jacques Grasset
Jean-Jacques Grasset (c.1769 – 25 August 1839) was a French classical violinist.
He was born in Paris about 1769, and was a pupil of Isidore Bertheaume. After several years' obligatory service in the army, he soon became well-known on his return. On the death of Pierre Gaviniès in 1800 he was appointed professor of the violin at the Conservatoire de Paris. Soon afterwards he succeeded Antonio Bartolomeo Bruni as chef d'orchestre at the Italian Opera, holding the post until 1829, when he retired from public life. He died in Paris in 1839.
He published three Concertos for the Violin, five books of Violin-Duos, and a Sonata for Piano and Violin. | WIKI |
User:Ppattershawaii
Patrick Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of History at Honolulu Community College. Specialist in Modern Asian History, especially popular culture. | WIKI |
Working with dates in PHP is one of those things that you either have a good handle on, you’re working on understanding, or you’re stuck in the rabbit hole of the documentation that’s in the manual.
Difference in Dates Using PHP: The PHP Manual
If you’re working with WordPress, though, the chance that you’re going to need to work with dates is quite high. Nearly everything that we publish has at least one date associated with it.
This includes post, pages, custom post types, revisions, drafts, and so on.
Furthermore, there’s a chance that custom work that you need to develop with require that you find the difference in two dates using PHP. And though there are multiple ways of doing this, there’s a process that I’ve been following for something.
The Difference in Dates Using PHP
Before I walk through my example, it will help to give a bit of context. After all, whatever you’re working on is likely going to be a bit different than what I’m doing.
Difference in Dates Using PHP: A Function For Doing So
The general idea might still be the same so the gist of what you’re doing can still be extrapolated from the code below. But let me give a concrete example from my own work:
1. I have a custom post type representing an event and the event as a post date.
2. I need to know when the event starts. To do this, I define the date format using the n/j/Y format as supported by PHP and then convert this to a date using PHP’s date function.
3. Next, I take today’s date (as an easy way to determine the difference in dates using PHP for this example) and convert it into a date using the same function and n/j/Y format.
4. After that, I instantiate two DateTime objects and compute the difference.
If that’s not straightforward, I do recommend clicking on the above links. Otherwise, here’s the code.
Notice in the code above I’m only interested in retrieving the difference in years. You may opt to choose something different. If that’s the case, the API offered by PHP makes it easy to do that by examining the properties of the DateTime object.
But given two dates, this is a straightforward way to find the difference in dates using PHP in the context of WordPress.
Share:
Leave a Reply | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Page:The Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets, Volume 3.djvu/258
254 favours which he had received, and probably yet more with those which he was promised: he considered himself now as a favourite of the Queen, and did not doubt but a few annual poems would establish him in some profitable employment.
He therefore assumed the title of "Volunteer Laureat," not without some reprehensions from Cibber, who informed him, that the title of "Laureat" was a mark of honour conferred by the King, from whom all honour is derived, and which therefore no man has a right to bestow upon himself; and added, that he might, with equal propriety, style himself a Volunteer Lord, or Volunteer Baronet. It cannot be denied that the remark was just; but Savage did not think any title, which was conferred upon Mr. Cibber, so honourable as that the usurpation of it could be imputed to him as an instance of very exorbitant vanity, and therefore continued to write under the same title, and received every year the same reward.
He did not appear to consider these encomiums as tests of his abilities, or as any thing more than annual hints to the Queen of her promise, or acts of ceremony, by the perform- Rh | WIKI |
Physical exercise and cardiovascular risk factors in obese women in the postmenopausal period
Eduardo Federighi Baisi Chagas Mariana Rotta Bonfim Nair Cristina Magarido Brondino Henrique Luiz Monteiro About the authors
INTRODUCTION:
physical exercise has been recommended as a non-pharmacological, therapeutic strategy in the treatment of important cardiovascular risk factors.
OBJECTIVE:
to analyze the impact of an exercise program, tailored to the reality of the Family Health Units (FHU), on body composition, cardiovascular risk factors and Framingham score in obese postmenopausal.
METHODS:
70 women between 50 and 79 years, sedentary, obese and without menstruating for at least twelve months, were randomly assigned to a trained group (TG) (n = 35) and an untrained (GnT) (n = 35). The GT took 20 weeks of a physical exercise program with three weekly sessions, consisting of monitoring activities and heating (10 minutes), 25 minutes of exercise flexibility and strength, 50 minute walk with intensity between 50-65% of VO2max and 5-minute cool-down. The GnT was instructed to maintain their normal activities.
RESULTS:
TG showed significant reductions in body mass index (30,1+3,7 vs. 29,3+3,7; p=0,0001), waist circumference (93,3+10,3 vs. 89,1+10,4; p=0,0001), percentage of fat (54,2+2,9 vs. 53,2+3,3; p=0,0001), systolic blood pressure (128,0+14,6 vs. 119,2+10,3; p=0,0001), triglycerides (148,4+66,1 vs. 122,8+40,7; p=0,006), VLDL cholesterol (29,7+13,2 vs. 24,5+8,0; p=0,005) and Framingham score (13,08+4,0 vs. 11,77+4,1; p=0,010). In the untrained group were observed significant increases in the percentage of fat (55,0+4,0 vs. 57,0+3,8; p=0,0001), systolic blood pressure (128,6+10,5 vs. 133,7+12,0; p=0,001), fasting glucose (95,2+18,4 vs. 113,7+28,8; p=0,001) and Framingham score (12,82+3,2 vs. 13,91+4,0; p=0,043), but also decreases levels of HDL cholesterol (55,1+10,5 vs. 51,7+11,0; p=0,017).
CONCLUSION:
the exercise program, adapted to the conditions of FHU, was effective in reducing cardiovascular risk factors in obese postmenopausal women served by the SUS program.
women; postmenopausal; obesity; risk factors; cardiovascular disease
Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina do Exercício e do Esporte Av. Brigadeiro Luís Antônio, 278, 6º and., 01318-901 São Paulo SP, Tel.: +55 11 3106-7544, Fax: +55 11 3106-8611 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: atharbme@uol.com.br | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Peabody Energy's (BTU) Q4 Earnings & Revenues Beat Estimates
Peabody Energy Corp.BTU announced fourth-quarter 2018 earnings of 88 cents per share, which surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 68 cents by 29.4%.
Revenues
Quarterly revenues of $1,397.1 million fell 7.9% from $1,517.1 million in the year-ago quarter, primarily due to 43% lower metallurgical volumes, lack of production from North Goonyella, and 6% decline in U.S. thermal volumes.
However, the reported revenues beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1,384 million by 0.9%.
Peabody Energy Corporation Price, Consensus and EPS Surprise
Peabody Energy Corporation Price, Consensus and EPS Surprise | Peabody Energy Corporation Quote
Operational Update
The company's total sales volume was 46.2 million tons, down from 49.8 million tons registered in the year-ago quarter. Sales volume during the quarter was impacted by lower mining operations in the United States.
Operating costs and expenses incurred in the reported quarter decreased 5.9% to $1,021 million from $1,085.7 million in the prior-year period.
Revenues per ton in the United States inched down 1.9% year over year to $18.03 and cost per ton also dropped 0.8% to $14.36.
Operating profit in fourth-quarter 2018 was $126.8 million compared with $301.7 million in the year-ago period.
During the quarter, the company completed the acquisition of Shoal Creek Mine, which is reflected in its seaborne metallurgical mining results.
Financial Update
As of Dec 31, 2018, cash and cash equivalents amounted to $981.9 million compared with $1,012.1 million in the corresponding period of 2017.
Long-term debt of the company was $1,330.5 million as of Dec 31, 2018, down from the 2017-end level of $1,418.7 million.
Free cash flow in the reported quarter was $164.5 million compared with $441.2 million in the year-ago period.
Peabody Energy repurchased $135 million stock in the fourth quarter and subsequently bought back an additional $75 million shares in January 2019. Since August 2017, the company repurchased a total of $1.09 billion under its expanded $1.5-billion share repurchase program.
Guidance
Peabody Energy expects 2019 total U.S. sales volume within 133.5-145.5 million short tons and export thermal coal in the range of 11.5-12.5 million short tons.
The company expects capital expenditure in the range of $375-$425 million for 2019.
Zacks Rank
Currently, Peabody Energy carries a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
Another Coal Release
Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. ARLP reported fourth-quarter 2018 operating earnings of 69 cents per unit, which missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 74 cents by 6.8%.
Upcoming Coal Releases
Arch Coal Inc. ARCH is scheduled to release fourth-quarter 2018 operating earnings on Feb 14, 2019. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the quarter is pegged at $3.28 per share.
Hallador Energy Company HNRG is scheduled to release fourth-quarter 2018 operating earnings on Mar 11, 2019. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the quarter to be reported is pegged at 10 cents per share.
Zacks' Top 10 Stocks for 2019
In addition to the stocks discussed above, wouldn't you like to know about our 10 finest buy-and-holds for the year?
From more than 4,000 companies covered by the Zacks Rank, these 10 were picked by a process that consistently beats the market. Even during 2018 while the market dropped -5.2%, our Top 10s were up well into double-digits. And during bullish 2012 - 2017, they soared far above the market's +126.3%, reaching +181.9%.
This year, the portfolio features a player that thrives on volatility, an AI comer, and a dynamic tech company that helps doctors deliver better patient outcomes at lower costs.
See Stocks Today >>
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
Arch Coal Inc. (ARCH): Get Free Report
Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. (ARLP): Free Stock Analysis Report
Hallador Energy Company (HNRG): Free Stock Analysis Report
Peabody Energy Corporation (BTU): Get Free Report
To read this article on Zacks.com click here.
Zacks Investment Research
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Lady Flash
Lady Flash was an American trio of singers whose members were Reparata Mazzola, Monica Pege (stage name: Monica Burruss), and Debra Byrd. They were the featured backup group for Barry Manilow from 1974–1979 and released one hit of their own, 1976's "Street Singin'". The tune, which was written and arranged by Manilow, reached #27 on the Billboard Hot 100 record chart. The song came from their album, Beauties In The Night which was also produced by Manilow.
Originally called The Flashy Ladies, a reference to a song on Manilow's first album, the trio (with Ramona Brooks, whom Pege replaced in 1976) sang backing vocals for Manilow in live performance and on his first seven multiple platinum albums. Their first recorded appearance was in 1975 on Soundstage. They later appeared with Manilow on his Emmy-award-winning first special and on numerous TV shows including Don Kirshner's Rock Concert, The Midnight Special, American Bandstand and Donahue. They performed with Manilow on his first European tour in 1978 with concerts at the Olympia in Paris, The Palladium and Royal Albert Hall in London, and the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam.
Because Pege and Byrd were African-American, and Reparata, in the middle position, was Caucasian, Manilow often jokingly referred to them as "The Oreos."
Since its inception, Debra Byrd was the vocal coach for contestants on American Idol for 11 years, later joining as coach for The Voice. In addition to singing on sessions in Los Angeles, including the Oscars, she is currently the vocal chair for the Musicians Institute in Los Angeles. Byrd passed away in Los Angeles on March 5, 2024 at age 72.
Monica Pege sang with Barry Manilow again from 2004 to 2010 in Las Vegas at the Hilton and his Colosseum shows. In 1984, Pege was crowned the Female Vocalist grand champion on the debut season of Star Search.
Reparata Mazzola was previously a member of Reparata and the Delrons under the name Lorraine Mazzola. She changed her legal name to Reparata after losing a case against Mary O'Leary over the right to the stage name. Currently, Mazzola is a screenwriter and lives in Los Angeles. | WIKI |
Page:Condor3(6).djvu/44
Nov., 19Ol. I THE CONDOR i81 long distance up the mountain. (See JVidologist, IV, p. 79). On June 14, 1898 I had the good fortune to discover a nest opposite the station at Fyffe, it being built at the end of a small limb of yellow pine 45 feet up. The nest was located by searching at random and contained four eggs about one-fourth incubated. This set was described at length in The ,4ok (XVI, PI. r56-I6t). A half-tone of the nest and eggs is shown herewith. While walking through the timber at Fyffe on June 8, 1899 Mr. H. W. Cartiger came upon a nest of this species but 2 feet up in a cedar sapling. It contained four eggs, advanced in incubation. (See CO)OR I, pp. 59-6o). A nest containing young about four days old found by by Mr. Price's assistant at Fyffe on June it, I87, was placed twelve feet up near the top of a small cedar, next to the trunk and well concealed. Thus it is probable that Fyffe has afforded more nesting records of this species than has any other part of the state. In 19oo Mr. Taylor picked up a warbler's nest at the foot of a large fir tree from which it had evidently fallen. It undoubtedly belonged to this species, having the distinctive composition noted in all the nests observed. This is shown very well in the illustration, the inner lining of cedar bark and soap-root ilber being always present. Young birds but a few days out of the nest were observed on several occasions, they being of a light gray color, with two white wing bands. [I have not found the hermit warbler where I thought it breeding above 6oo feet, but [ have collected specimens both on Mr. Tallac and Pyramid Peak as high as 90oo feet. The adults are very rare during June and July in the neigh- borhood of my camp at Silver Creek, but late in July and early in August a mi- gration of the young birds of the year takes place and the species is very abun- dant everywhere in the tamaracks from about 60o0 feet to 800o feet. A hundred or more may be counted in an hour's walk at my camp, 70o0 feet, on Silver Creek. They are very silent, uttering now and then a "cheep," and always busy searching among the leaves and cones for insects. Among some fifty collected in the first week in August, i856, there were only two or three adults. The young males have the most coloring, but they in no way approach adult plumage. These great flights of the hernfit warbler are intermingled with other species, Hammond fly- catcher, Calaveras and lutescent warblers, Cassin vireo, and sometimes Louisiana tanagers and red-breasted nuthatches. Each year the flight has been noted, it comes without warning of storm or wind, and after a few days disappears to be seen no more. W.W.P.] Geathlypis tolmiei. Macgillivray Warbler. Found commonly about Fyffe and as far up as Echo, always frequenting the brushy hillsides where grows the sev- eral species of CeaJtot/us. At Fyffe the species seemed very common in what is known as the "burnt district,"--an area which was swept by a forest fire some years ago and which has since grown up thickly to deer-brush and cedars. On June 9, 897 a brood of young were travelling about in the brush with their parents. A day later Mr. Beck took a nest and four fresh eggs one foot up in a small cedar. On June 4, t9ot [ collected two male birds near Echo where they were found-in the prickly Ceanol/zus cordulatus, in which they no doubt nest. On the whole Macgillivray warbler occupies territory of the same nature as does the Calaveras warhler in this region, the two often being found together in the brush. [Rather common up to 80o0 feet in both the Silver Creek region and on Mr. Tallac. W.W.P.] Geothlypis trichas occidentalis. Western Yellowthroat. [I have seen a yellow- | WIKI |
Gary Hardgrave
Gary Douglas Hardgrave (born 5 January 1960) is an Australian former politician who served in the House of Representatives from 1996 to 2007, representing the Liberal Party. He was a minister in the Howard government from 2001 to 2007, and later served as Administrator of Norfolk Island from 2014 to 2017.
Early life
Hardgrave was born in Sydney, New South Wales, and was educated at Griffith University, Queensland. In the 1970s he began his career as a radio broadcaster, and a TV reporter firstly with the Australian children's television show Wombat between 1979 and 1982. Between 1982 and 1986, he reported for award-winning Queensland TV programme State Affair, in 1987 for ABC TV's The 7.30 Report before returning to BTQ 7 in 1988 as a senior reporter for Carroll at Seven. In 1989, he was the founding news director for SEA-FM Gold Coast and later worked as a media adviser to Liberal politicians, before entering politics.
Politics
Hardgrave initially ran for election to the Queensland state seat of Sunnybank in the 1992 election, but lost. He contested the Division of Moreton successfully at the 1996 federal election against Labor incumbent Garrie Gibson, going on to retain the seat in 1998, 2001 and 2004.
Hardgrave served as Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs from 2001 to 2004, Minister for Vocational and Technical Education between October 2004 to early 2007 and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister from 7 October 2003 to 30 January 2007. On 23 January 2007, Hardgrave was axed from the ministry and returned to the backbench. He lost his seat to Graham Perrett in the 2007 election.
Career after politics
In March 2008, Hardgrave returned to media and corporate activities. From January 2011, he hosted talk-back in Brisbane.
Since leaving Parliament, Hardgrave graduated from the Australian Institute of Company Directors' course and served on a variety of company and community boards including Brisbane Airport Corporation and TAFE Queensland. In January 2014, he left full-time radio but commenced a weekly column in the Queensland Sunday Mail newspaper before resigning media and corporate activities in June 2014.
On the advice of the Abbott government, Australian Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove appointed Hardgrave as the 37th Administrator of the Australian External Territory of Norfolk Island. His term commenced on 1 July 2014, and he was Administrator when Norfolk Island lost its self-governing status.
He later went on to host a ‘Sky After Dark’ political opinion show on conservative television station Sky News Australia, where he is a regular critic of among other things, Labor Party MPs and action on climate change. | WIKI |
Parbig
Parbig (Парбиг) is a river in Tomsk Oblast, Russia. It gives origin to the Chaya river.
Course
It has its sources in the Vasyugan Swamp. It flows roughly in a northeastern direction across Bakcharsky district into Chainsky district, where it meets the ; the two flow into one another and become the Chaya, a tributary of the Ob.
Tributaries
Its main tributary is the 232 km long Andarma on the right. Listed by distance from the river's mouth, other tributaries are:
* 18 km:
* 34 km:
* 64 km:
* 68 km:
* 97 km:
* 105 km:
* 116 km:
* 138 km:
* 143 km: Spirtovka
* 152 km:
* 180 km:
* 184 km:
* 210 km: (unnamed river)
* 212 km:
* 218 km:
* 231 km:
* 251 km: (unnamed river)
* 252 km:
* 278 km:
* 279 km: | WIKI |
Argued and submitted November 8, 2005,
affirmed March 15,
petition for review denied June 13,2006 (341 Or 80)
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND, an Oregon non-profit corporation; Stone Castle Homes, Inc., an Oregon corporation; and Matrix Development Corporation, an Oregon corporation, Appellants, v. CITY OF WEST LINN, an Oregon municipal corporation, Respondent.
CCV0207049; A123168
131 P3d 805
Edward H. Trompke argued the cause for appellants. With him on the opening brief were E. Andrew Jordan and Jordan Schrader PC. On the reply brief was E. Andrew Jordan.
Peggy Hennessy argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Reeves, Kahn & Hennessy.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
ROSENBLUM, J.
ROSENBLUM, J.
Petitioners in this writ of review action are developers and a developers’ association. They initiated this action after respondent, the City of West Linn, adopted a resolution that increased the system development charge (SDC) that the city imposes on new development to pay for parks and recreation facilities. Petitioners asserted, among other things, that the SDC does not conform to statutory and other legal requirements and is not supported by substantial evidence. The trial court ultimately rejected petitioners’ challenges. On appeal, petitioners renew a number of their challenges in six assignments of error. We affirm.
Before we recite the pertinent facts of this case, a brief explanation of some of the legal principles at issue is helpful. A system development charge is a one-time fee imposed by a governmental unit in response to the increased burden on public facilities created by new development. Oregon law authorizes governmental units to pass resolutions imposing SDCs to offset the cost of providing, among other things, parks and recreation facilities. ORS 223.297 - 223.314. SDCs may take one (or both) of two forms, depending on the capacity of existing facilities to satisfy present and future needs. If, for example, a local government concludes, as a matter of policy, that its parks and recreation system is more than adequate to meet the needs of the existing population — in other words, the system has excess capacity — the government may charge new residents a “reimbursement fee,” which essentially allows new users to buy into the existing system. ORS 223.299(3).
If, on the other hand, the local government concludes that the system is adequate only to meet the needs of the existing population — that is, it has no excess capacity — the government may charge new residents an “improvement fee,” essentially requiring new users to pay for increasing the capacity of the system to accommodate the new users. ORS 223.299(2). Improvement fees, in other words, are intended to stop the addition of new users from diluting the level of service enjoyed by the existing population. However, improvement fees must be calculated so that new users bear only the burden of maintaining that level of service — that is, the costs attributable to development; they may not be calculated or used to increase the level of service for the existing population. ORS 223.304(2)(a).
Turning to the facts of this case, we review the record that was before the West Linn City Council, the body whose decision is the subject of this writ of review. Constant Velocity Corp. v. City of Aurora, 136 Or App 81, 85, 901 P2d 258 (1995). The material facts are largely procedural and, except as noted, are not in dispute. The City of West Linn has imposed a parks and recreation SDC since 1991. The city evaluates the level of service of its system in terms of the number of acres of parks and “open space” per 1,000 residents. It has determined, as a matter of policy, that its parks and recreation system offers an acceptable level of service if it has between 10.39 and 13.7 acres of park space and between 4 and 6 acres of open space per 1,000 residents.
In 2000, the city reevaluated its system to determine its adequacy with respect to projected population growth. It concluded that its current inventory of parks and open space had no excess capacity to accommodate growth. It also determined that, by the year 2015, the population would have grown from 22,835 to 31,626, an increase of 8,791 people. Pursuant to ORS 223.309, the city developed a capital improvement plan (CIP), a list of projects intended to increase the capacity of the system. Based on the CIP, the city determined that maintaining the level of service would require purchasing and developing 49.29 acres of park space and 43 acres of open space — a total of92.29 acres — at a cost of $1,540 for each new resident. The city therefore passed a resolution that required developers to pay an improvement fee SDC of $4,082 for each new single-family dwelling built and $2,886 for each unit in a new multi-family dwelling.
In 2002, after reviewing the work of consultants and extensive written and oral testimony from members of the public, including petitioners, the city revised the CIP and adopted a new resolution that increased the amount of the SDC. According to the city, the resolution increased the SDC to account for (1) an increase in the city’s projected population growth, (2) increases in the projected costs of various projects included on the 2000 CIP, and (3) costs that had not been included on the 2000 CIP because they were not known at the time. When the resolution was adopted, West Linn’s population had grown to 23,380 and was projected to reach 31,723 by 2015 — 97 more people than the earlier projection, but an increase of8,343 people over the 2002 population. The 2002 CIP called for the acquisition of86.07 acres of parks and 43.0 acres of open space. The resulting improvement fee SDC was $8,228 per single family dwelling and $5,817 per unit in multi-family dwellings.
In response to the increased SDC, petitioners initiated this writ of review action on July 1, 2002. Before the trial court, petitioners raised a number of objections to the substantive and procedural legality of the new SDC, some of which are pertinent to this appeal; we describe petitioners’ arguments in detail below. For the moment, it suffices to say that the trial court rejected all of petitioners’ objections except for one: petitioners asserted that the city is authorized to charge an SDC to pay for parks and recreation space, but not necessarily “open space.” The trial court could not discern from the record whether some or all of the open space that the city proposed to fund with the SDC qualified as parks or recreation space. It therefore entered a judgment remanding the case and directing the city to make findings determining whether all of the open spaces that it considered in calculating the SDC were assets or facilities used for parks and recreation. The judgment stated that the court would retain jurisdiction over the matter to determine the legality of any modifications made by the city.
On remand, the city found that some, but not all, of the open space in its inventory qualified as parks or recreation space; it eliminated 22.8 acres that had previously been included. The adjustment meant that the level of service was lower than had previously been calculated, so the city concluded that, to maintain the level of service, it did not need to acquire as much open space as the 2002 CIP called for. Accordingly, it revised the CIP, reducing the open space figure from 43 acres to 32.6. On March 3, 2004, the city adopted a new resolution reducing the SDC by $199 for single family dwellings and $140 per unit for multi-family dwellings.
The trial court entered a supplemental judgment affirming the new resolution. Petitioners appeal from both the original, final judgment and the supplemental judgment.
In their first assignment of error, petitioners make two primary arguments. First, they assert that the trial court erred by remanding the case to the city, arguing that the trial court lacked statutory authority to do so. Second, they contend that the city lacked authority to modify its resolution on remand. We begin with the first argument. Petitioners contend that, in remanding the case to the city, the trial court erroneously relied on ORS 34.100, which describes the authority of a trial court in a writ of review action. That statute provides:
“Upon the review, the court shall have power to affirm, modify, reverse or annul the decision or determination reviewed, and if necessary, to award restitution to the plaintiff, or to direct the inferior court, officer, or tribunal to proceed in the matter reviewed according to its decision. From the judgment of the circuit court on review, an appeal may be taken in like manner and with like effect as from a judgment of a circuit court in an action.”
(Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the emphasized phrase does not authorize a remand but, rather, an affirmance. Petitioners interpret the word “its” in the statute to refer to “the inferior court, officer or tribunal,” and argue that the emphasized language therefore authorizes the reviewing court to direct an inferior court, officer, or tribunal to proceed according to “its” decision — that is, the decision of the inferior court, officer, or tribunal. Both the Supreme Court and this court have previously concluded, without explanation or analysis, that the trial court does have the authority to remand. See Alt v. City of Salem, 306 Or 80, 84, 756 P2d 637 (1988) (trial court has authority to remand under ORS 34.100); Lyford v. Bd. of Comm’rs for Benton County, 59 Or App 585, 591, 651 P2d 1355 (1982), rev den, 294 Or 460 (1983) (same); Bayer v. Goldschmidt, 17 Or App 334, 340, 521 P2d 1084 (1974) (interpreting the word “its” in ORS 34.100 to mean “the court’s”). Those cases did not engage in the statutory interpretation analysis prescribed by PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), or, indeed, in any analysis at all. We do so now.
To determine the legislature’s intent, we look to the text of the statute in context and, if necessary, to legislative history and other interpretive aids. Id. at 610-12. In examining the text in context, we consider rules of construction that bear directly on how to read the text, id. at 610-11, including “common grammatical rules,” State v. Webb, 324 Or 380, 389, 927 P2d 79 (1996). Another rule is found in ORS 174.010, which directs that, “where there are several provisions or particulars[,] such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.” See Carlson v. Myers, 327 Or 213, 232-33, 959 P2d 31 (1998) (noting that the rule in ORS 174.010 applies at the first level of the PGE analysis).
Applying that framework, we reject petitioners’ argument that the word “its” unambiguously refers to “the inferior court, officer or tribunal.” According to petitioners, “its” must refer to “the inferior court, officer, or tribunal” because that is the nearest antecedent noun. Although petitioners are correct that, according to common grammatical rules, one way to resolve an ambiguous pronoun is to conclude that the pronorm refers to the nearest antecedent noun, an equally valid resolution is to conclude that it (again, the pronoun) refers to the most prominent noun in the sentence: the subject. See Landswick v. Lane, 49 Or 408, 412, 90 P 490 (1907) (discussing how “the law of prominence” and “the law of proximity” can each be used to resolve pronoun ambiguity). In this case, “the lower court officer or tribunal” is the nearest antecedent noun to the ambiguous pronoun at issue, but the subject of and most prominent noun in ORS 34.100 is “the court.” In short, the rules of prominence and proximity yield equally plausible results. Petitioners offer no reason to believe that the law of proximity is preferable in this instance, and we can discern no reason. It follows that that “common grammatical rule” does not indicate that our previous interpretation of ORS 34.100 was plainly wrong. At most, it indicates that the statute is ambiguous.
The rule of construction in ORS 174.010 — that we must give effect, if possible, to all provisions in a statute— both resolves that ambiguity and confirms that our previous interpretation was, in fact, correct. As noted, petitioners argue that the provision in ORS 34.100 authorizing a reviewing court to direct an inferior court, officer, or tribunal to proceed according to “its” decision means, essentially, that the reviewing court may affirm the inferior body’s decision. But affirmance is expressly authorized in the first clause of the statute. If petitioners’ interpretation were correct, the statute would be redundant. See State v. Young, 196 Or App 708, 713, 103 P3d 1180 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 583 (2005) (‘Well-worn principles of statutory construction counsel us to avoid, if possible, interpretations that render portions of a statute redundant.”). In contrast, our earlier interpretation — that the statute authorizes the reviewing court to direct the inferior body to proceed according to the reviewing court’s decision — would give separate effect to all provisions in the statute. We therefore adhere to that construction and hold that ORS 34.100 authorizes a reviewing court to remand to an inferior court, officer, or tribunal and direct the inferior body to proceed according to the reviewing court’s decision. It follows that the trial court did not err in remanding this matter to the city.
We turn to petitioners’ second argument. They argue that the city lacked authority to modify its resolution on remand because petitioners had already filed a notice of appeal. According to petitioners, ORS 19.270 (2003) barred the city from proceeding on remand after a notice of appeal had been filed because that statute vested exclusive jurisdiction over the case in this court.
We disagree. ORS 19.270 had no bearing on the city’s ability to proceed according to the trial court’s decision. That statute governs the effect that filing a notice of appeal has on the jurisdiction of the trial court and the appellate courts. The ability of a party to proceed according to the trial court’s decision after a notice of appeal has been filed is governed by ORS 19.330, which provides, “The filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically stay the judgment that is the subject of the appeal. A party may seek to stay a judgment in the manner provided by ORS 19.335, 19.340, or 19.350, or as provided by other law.” Petitioners did not seek to stay the trial court’s judgment in this case. Thus, the city was not barred from proceeding according to that judgment. We reject petitioners’ first assignment of error.
In their second and third assignments of error, petitioners assert that the trial court erred in concluding that the city’s SDC methodology complies with various legal requirements. Because their arguments are related, we consider them together. In the second assignment, petitioners contend that, when the city determined its future needs, it violated the SDC statutes by failing to include in its inventory parks not owned by the city but available to West Linn residents. In the third assignment, petitioners assert that the city was required by its comprehensive plan to include those parks in its inventory.
As petitioners note, the city’s parks SDC is the result of a formula that determines the need for park land based on a desired level of service — the “adopted LOS.” When it develops a capital improvement plan and establishes an SDC, the city determines how much land it will need to meet the adopted LOS based on population projections. If the amount needed to meet the adopted LOS exceeds the amount of land currently in the inventory — the “existing LOS” — the city must acquire more park land and may charge an improvement fee to SDC to pay for it. If, on the other hand, the existing LOS exceeds the amount needed to meet the adopted LOS, the city has excess capacity and need not acquire any additional land; therefore, no improvement fee is justified.
Petitioners contend that, when the city calculated its existing LOS in 2002, it failed to count in its inventory, among other lands, the 128 acres in Mary S. Young State Park, even though the park is available for use by West Linn residents, and even though the city’s comprehensive plan stated in 2000 that the existing LOS included the park. According to petitioners, if the city had included the park in its inventory, it would have seen that it had an existing level of service of more than 22 acres per 1,000 residents — more than enough to accommodate the needs of future West Linn residents, given that the city’s adopted LOS is 10.39 to 13.7 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Thus, petitioners argue, the city should not have imposed an SDC to buy more park space.
The city responds that it took Mary S. Young State Park and other area facilities into account both when it determined its existing LOS in 2002 and when it made its adopted LOS policy determination. The city also argues that nothing in the SDC statutes or in the comprehensive plan requires the city to express the existing LOS for SDC purposes in the same way that it was expressed in the comprehensive plan.
We agree with the city. When it established its adopted LOS, it determined that the level of service that actually existed at the time was adequate to meet the needs of current West Linn residents but that it had no excess capacity to accommodate population growth. The city decided, as a matter of policy, that it would maintain that level of service. In other words, the existing LOS at that time became the minimum adopted LOS. In deciding how to measure the LOS for purposes of determining future needs, the city concluded that, for various policy reasons, it would inventory only city-owned parks. The city recognized that that measurement would result in an LOS that appeared to be low relative to national standards and other nearby jurisdictions. It concluded that the seemingly low level was acceptable given that West Linn residents actually had access to other, non-city-owned parks.
ORS 223.304(2)(a) (2001) provided that improvement fees shall:
“(A) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that considers the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related.
“(B) Be calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need for available system capacity for future users.”
Although the statute requires a city to establish its fees by use of a “methodology,” nothing in the statute requires it to use any particular formula. Similarly, and contrary to petitioners’ argument, nothing in the comprehensive plan requires the city to use any particular formula in calculating its projected need. Thus, the city was not precluded from adopting the actual level of service that existed at the time the decision was made as its “adopted LOS.” Nor was the city precluded from measuring the adopted LOS as the inventoried city-owned parks plus other area facilities not formally included in the inventory; that is what the city effectively did. As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2).
Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of adoption — regardless of the measurement method that the city chose to use. The parks that existed and were available to West Linn residents included Mary S. Young State Park and other facilities in the area. There can be no doubt that the city intended to maintain that LOS: It determined that, even with the existence of Mary S. Young State Park and other nearby non-city-owned facilities, it could not accommodate any future population growth without adding more park space.
Petitioners’ position also ignores a simple reality: Given that the city did not include Mary S. Young State Park and other non-city-owned parks in its inventory when it established its adopted LOS, if it included them in the inventory now in order to determine its future needs, the actual level of service would deteriorate substantially as the population increases. Many more residents would compete to use the same amount of space. ORS 223.304(2) authorizes the city to impose SDCs to prevent that from happening.
Petitioners contend that there is no substantial evidence in the record showing that the city had already taken Mary S. Young State Park into consideration when it determined its need for additional parks. We disagree. “In a writ of review proceeding, substantial evidence in the record exists to support a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Associated Builders and Contractors v. Tri-Met, 170 Or App 271, 285, 12 P3d 62 (2000). The city’s parks director, Ken Worcester, stated that the city set a relatively low adopted LOS because it took into account the fact that other parks in the area are available for West Linn residents to use. His statement constitutes substantial evidence.
In short, the trial court correctly concluded that the city properly considered Mary S. Young State Park and other area facilities when it determined how much additional land would be needed in order to provide the adopted LOS as the population grows. We reject petitioners’ second and third assignments of error.
In their fourth assignment of error, petitioners challenge the trial court’s conclusion that the amount of the SDC is supported by substantial evidence. They raise several arguments in that regard, each of which we address in turn. Petitioners first contend that the city’s 2002 SDC methodology (1) showed that the city anticipated only 97 more residents than it had anticipated in its 2000 methodology, but (2) provided for 129.07 additional acres of parks and open space land. According to petitioners, those numbers result in a ratio of more than one acre of new land for each additional resident. The city responds that the 2002 CIP did not provide for 129.07 acres of additional land — when compared with the 2000 CIP — because it included many projects that were also part of the previous CIP. Furthermore, the city contends, the new park land will not serve a mere 97 new residents, but will serve 8,343 people — all of the new residents anticipated to move to West Linn between 2002 and 2015.
We agree with the city. Petitioners argue from a faulty premise because they misapprehend the material facts underlying the city’s 2002 CIP and SDC. The 2002 CIP was not developed merely to address the increase of 97 people over the present population estimates; nor did the city conclude that it needed 129.07 acres in addition to the projects planned in the 2000 CIP. The city concluded that, to serve the needs of the 8,343 new residents expected to move to West Linn after 2002, it needed 129.07 acres of new parks and open space in addition to its existing inventory.
Those determinations are supported by substantial evidence. As noted, the city has determined that its parks and recreation system offers an acceptable level of service if it has between 10.39 acres and 13.7 acres of city-owned park space and between four and six acres of open space per 1,000 residents. In 2002, the city’s existing inventory included 10.85 acres of city-owned parks and 5.14 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. The city thus concluded that the needs of its current residents were being met but that it had no excess capacity. In other words, it determined that any increase in West Linn’s population would create a need to expand the capacity of the system. The city determined that, by the end of the planning period — in 2015 — the population will have increased by 8,343 people.
To meet the anticipated need, the city developed a CIP that called for adding 86.07 acres of new parks and 43 acres of open space — 129.07 acres total. (After the trial court remanded the matter to the city, the city revised the open space figure to 32.6 acres.) Put another way, for every thousand new residents, the city will add 10.32 acres of parks and 3.91 acres of open space. Those additions will result in a parks and recreation system with 10.61 acres of parks and 4.10 acres of open space per 1,000 residents in 2015. Thus, the new CIP will maintain an acceptable level of service, albeit at a slightly lower level than that enjoyed in 2002.
Petitioners next argue that the city’s determination of its future needs is not supported by substantial evidence because the city failed to account for lands that will become part of the parks inventory by other means. First, petitioners contend that the city failed to consider future dedications and exactions that will provide land to the city. According to petitioners, if the city accounted for such acquisitions, the total need on which the SDC is based would be lower. The city responds that developers are eligible to receive SDC credits for such dedications, meaning that the amount of SDC funds collected by the city would be reduced. Accordingly, the city asserts, it would have fewer funds with which to acquire additional park land. It argues that the amount of land needed would therefore not be overstated.
Again, we agree with the city. ORS 223.304(3) provides that an SDC ordinance or resolution “that establishes or modifies an improvement fee shall also provide for a credit against such fee for the construction of a qualified public improvement.” Under that statute, a developer may dedicate land for parks or open space in lieu of paying the SDC, the funds from which the city would have used to purchase such land. A reduction in the amount of SDC funds received necessarily means that there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of land that the city can acquire. Thus, because the city must provide SDC credits for dedications and exactions, those acquisitions will not increase the total amount of land that the city will ultimately acquire for parks and recreation. Accordingly, such acquisitions do not reduce the total need.
Petitioners also contend that the city failed to account for “donations” of land to the city and for “many fees and taxes,” such as park and recreation user fees, which, according to petitioners, are an “important source of revenue” and should reduce the SDC. There is no evidence in the record that the city can anticipate donations. Furthermore, petitioners cite no authority for the proposition that user fees or any other “fees and taxes” must be applied to the acquisition and development of capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of parks and recreation systems to accommodate new users, and we are aware of no such authority. To the contrary, the statutes governing SDCs, ORS 223.297 to 223.314, authorize a governmental unit to fund such improvements exclusively through SDCs.
Petitioners next argue that the city overestimated the amount of park space that it needs because it intends to acquire residential lands for parks. According to petitioners, because there will be less residential land available, the population will not grow as much as the city anticipated, and, therefore, less park space will be needed to maintain the level of service. The city responds that SDCs are imposed as development occurs. If population growth is limited because some of the inventory of residential land is converted to parks, the city argues, there will be a corresponding reduction in the total amount of SDC funds received. Thus, according to the city, it will not acquire more park space than is needed. Petitioners reply that, even if park development is reduced, builders will already have paid artificially high SDC rates.
Again, petitioners’ argument betrays a misapprehension of how an SDC is calculated. An improvement fee SDC for parks and recreation is based on the amount of land that must be acquired and developed in order to provide each new resident with the same level of service enjoyed by existing residents. The rate charged is the same whether the city ultimately adds one thousand new residents or one million. If population growth is artificially limited because the city reduces the amount of buildable land available, then the amount of park space will be commensurately limited: If the population grows by only half as much as the city anticipated, then the total amount of SDC funds available to the city will be reduced by half and, consequently, the amount of parks and open space added to the system will also be reduced by half. It may ultimately come to be that the city will not need as much new park space as anticipated in developing the 2002 CIP and calculating the SDC. But new residents will not have paid “artificially high rates.” They will have paid the amount necessary to expand the system to provide for their needs.
Viewing the whole record, a reasonable person could conclude that the 2002 SDC was justified. It follows that the SDC is supported by substantial evidence. We reject the fourth assignment of error.
In their fifth assignment of error, petitioners assert that the trial court erred in allowing the city to charge SDCs for acquisition of open space. Petitioners do not contend that SDC funds can never be used to acquire open space. They concede that open space that serves a park or recreation function can be included in an SDC. They note, however, that some land defined as open space in the city’s charter and comprehensive plan does not qualify as park or recreation land. They contend that the city did not create any record that showed that all nonqualifying open space had been removed from the city’s inventory for purposes of determining the existing level of service. Accordingly, petitioners argue, there is no way to calculate what the SDC should be.
We disagree with petitioners’ assertion that the city failed to create a record showing that nonqualifying open space had been removed from the inventory. Ken Worcester, the city’s parks director, submitted an affidavit in which he stated that the city had “reevaluated all open space previously included in its Parks Assets and Facilities calculations and determined that approximately 22.8 acres should be excluded.” He explained that the city concluded that it had to remove those lands because they were “not generally available to the public as a park or recreation asset or facility.” Based on Worcester’s affidavit, a reasonable person could conclude that the remaining lands are available as park or recreation assets or facilities. It follows that Worcester’s affidavit constitutes substantial evidence. Because it supports the conclusion that the city properly calculated the SDC, the trial court did not err.
In their sixth and final assignment of error, petitioners contend that the SDC effects a taking in violation of Article I, section 18, and Article XI, section 4, of the Oregon Constitution as well as the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioners concede that this court has rejected the same arguments in earlier cases, see Homebuilders Assn. v. Tualatin Hills Park & Rec., 185 Or App 729, 735, 62 P3d 404 (2003); Rogers Machinery, Inc. v. Washington County, 181 Or App 369, 400, 45 P3d 966, rev den, 334 Or 492 (2002), cert den, 538 US 906 (2003), but they urge us to reconsider and overrule those decisions. We are not persuaded that our decisions were incorrect and therefore decline to overrule them.
Affirmed.
We set out the text of the pertinent statutes below.
The SDC was based on the assumption that each single-family dwelling and multi-family unit houses an average of 2.65 and 1.87 persons, respectively.
The city’s determination in 2000 that adding 92.29 acres would maintain the existing level of service was, in fact, incorrect. Based on the anticipated population increase of 8,791 people, the projects on the 2000 CIP would have added a total of only 10.49 acres of parks and open space per 1,000 new residents. Consequently, the city added new projects to the 2002 CIP. As we explain below, the projects on the current CIP will provide a total of 14.23 acres of parks and open space per 1,000 new residents.
Former ORS 223.304(6) (2001), renumbered as ORS 223.304(7)(b) (2003), provided that a “person shall request judicial review of the methodology used for calculating a system development charge only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100,” the statutes governing writ of review proceedings.
ORS 19.270 was amended by Oregon Laws 2005, chapter 568, section 25c. Both judgments in this case were entered before the effective date of the 2005 amendment, so the amendment does not affect our decision.
The city noted that its LOS was lower than “National Standards, which suggest an LOS of 15.0 per 1,000” and considerably lower than nearby Portland’s 18.0 per 1,000 population.
The 2003 Legislative Assembly amended ORS 223.304(2). Or Laws 2003, ch 765, § 4a. The current version provides that improvement fees must:
“(a) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is available for public inspection and demonstrates consideration of:
“(A) The projected cost of the capital improvements identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 that are needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related; and
“(B) The need for increased capacity in the system to which the fee is related that will be required to serve the demands placed on the system by future users.
“(b) Be calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need for available system capacity for future users.”
The current version of the statute became effective after the city adopted the 2002 SDC but before it adopted the 2004 resolution modifying the CIP and SDC. The parties do not suggest that the differences between the two versions of the statute are material to our decision.
Petitioners note that, in 2003, the city entered into an agreement to lease Mary S. Young State Park from the state. They contend that, because the city now controls the park, it should be treated as a city-owned park and therefore be included in the formal inventory. The city responds, in part, that the 2003 agreement is not within the scope of our review because it was neither part of the original record brought to the trial court nor within the scope of that court’s remand order. We agree. Like the trial court, we are limited to reviewing the record created before the “inferior court, officer, or tribunal” — in this case, the city; the reviewing courts cannot take new evidence. See Alt v. City of Salem, 306 Or 80, 84-85, 756 P2d 637 (1988) (“The only possible justification for the continued existence of writs of review is that the procedure is fast and simple. Allowing evidence outside the record would change the nature of the proceeding and expand the scope of a writ of review beyond the statutory authorization.”).
Former ORS 223.304(3) (2001), renumbered as ORS 223.304(4) (2003), defined “qualified public improvement” as
“a capital improvement that is required as a condition of development approval, identified in the plan adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either:
“(a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or
“(b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related.”
As petitioners note, section 46(c) of the city charter defines “open space” to include city-owned real estate identified as “green space,” “wetland,” “drainage-way,” “wildlife habitat,” and “stream corridor.” The comprehensive plan defines the term to encompass “parks, forests, and farm land,” as well as “playgrounds [and] watershed preserves.”
Petitioners also appear to argue that, because the city charter and comprehensive plan define open space to include more than land used for parks and recreation, there is no assurance that SDC funds will not be used to acquire open space that does not qualify. If that is in fact petitioners’ position, it does not present a justiciable controversy. Until the city determines what land it will acquire as open space, there is no reason to believe that it will spend SDC funds inappropriately, and, thus, there is no justiciable controversy. See ORS 223.302(2) (providing for administrative and judicial review of expenditures of SDC funds).
| CASELAW |
Talk:Polar Park (animal park)
Requested move 27 November 2017
The result of the move request was: Moved.Solely for the rationale(s) of the nom and Sam. Winged Blades Godric 06:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Polar Zoo → Polar Park – The official name for this zoo is Polar Park, not Polar Zoo. Carsten R D (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Survey
* Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with or , then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support move to Polar Park, no sources found supporting "Polar Zoo". A case like this, Carsten, seems uncontroversial, so instead of creating a redirect from Polar Park to here and opening a RM, simply moving Polar Zoo → Polar Park would likely have been met with no objections. Sam Sailor 22:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
* Support As someone who works closely with this business, having it referred to as a Zoo is harming it's reputation. It is a wildlife sanctuary where animals are cared for and given large enclosures to roam in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleTroll (talk • contribs) 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
| WIKI |
John Philip Kemble
John Philip Kemble ("J. P.") Kemble (February 1, 1757 – February 26, 1823) was an English actor. He was born into a theatrical family as the eldest son of Roger Kemble, actor-manager of a touring troupe. His elder sister Sarah Siddons achieved fame with him on the stage of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane.
Quotes
* Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, But—why did you kick me down stairs?
* The Panel, Act i, Scene 1, reported in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919). Altered from Isaac Bickerstaff's "'T is Well 't is no Worse"; also found in Debrett's "Asylum for Fugitive Pieces", vol. i., p. 15.
* When you read the sacred Scriptures, or any other book, never think how you read, but what you read.
* Reported in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert, Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers (1895), p. 40. | WIKI |
User:Spacealigned
Hello random visitor!
My bizarre nickname is something I came up with randomly, I don't know if there can be such thing as 'aligned space' - it's not on Wikipedia so I guess it can't? Anyway, I'm currently doing my best with reviews and little ugly things that need fixing, but I intend to extend my contributions in the near future.
Peace! :) | WIKI |
Page:Montesquieu - The spirit of laws.djvu/236
184 as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.
It was these associations that contributed so long to the prosperity of Greece. By these the Romans attacked the universe, and by these alone the universe withstood them: for when Rome was arrived to her highest pitch of grandeur, it was the associations behind the Danube and the Rhine, associations formed by the terror of her arms, that enabled the Barbarians to resist her.
From hence it proceeds that Holland, Germany, and the Swiss Cantons, are considered in Europe as perpetual republics.
The associations of cities were formerly more necessary than in our times. A weak defenceless town was exposed to greater dangers. By conquest it was deprived not only of the executive and legislative power, as at present, but moreover of all human property.
A republic of this kind able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruption; the form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniencies.
If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great an influence over one, this would alarm the rest; were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free, might oppose him with forces independent of those which he Rh | WIKI |
Ludwig Hörmann
Ludwig Hörmann (6 September 1918 – 19 June 2001) was a German cyclist. He won the German National Road Race in 1951 and 1952.
Major results
* 1939
* 1st MaillotAlemania.PNG Road race, National Amateur Road Championships
* 1942
* 1st MaillotAlemania.PNG Road race, National Amateur Road Championships
* 1946
* 3rd Road race, National Road Championships
* 1950
* 3rd Road race, National Road Championships
* 1951
* 1st MaillotAlemania.PNG Road race, National Road Championships
* 1st Stage 14 Deutschland Tour
* 1952
* 1st MaillotAlemania.PNG Road race, National Road Championships
* 3rd Bronze medal blank.svg Road race, UCI Road World Championships
* 1953
* 1st Stage 4 Tour du Sud-Est
* 3rd Grand Prix de Suisse (ITT) | WIKI |
Mary of the Divine Heart
Mary of the Divine Heart (Münster, 8 September 1863 – Porto, 8 June 1899), born Maria Droste zu Vischering, was a German noblewoman and religious sister of the Catholic Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd. She is best known for having influenced Pope Leo XIII to consecrate the world to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Pope Leo XIII called the solemn consecration "the greatest act of my pontificate".
She was beatified by Pope Paul VI in St. Peter's Square on 1 November 1975.
Birth
Maria Anna Johanna Franziska Theresia Antonia Huberta Droste zu Vischering was born with her twin brother Max (Maximilian Droste zu Vischering) on 8 September 1863, the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Erbdrostenhof Palace, in Münster, the capital city of Westphalia, Germany. She was a daughter of a wealthy, noble German family, which distinguished itself by its fidelity to the Catholic Church during the persecution of the Kulturkampf. Her parents were Klemens Heidenreich Franz Hubertus Eusebius Maria, the count Droste zu Vischering, and Helene Clementine Maria Anna Sybille Huberta Antonia, the countess of Galen. Because of the fragility of her health, Vischering was baptized immediately at birth.
Early years
Maria Droste zu Vischering spent her childhood with her family in the Castle of Darfeld, in Rosendahl near Münster, and was a child full of life. Vischering was taught at home by governesses. On 25 April 1875, Maria and her brother Max received their First Communion. In April 1879, Vischering continued her education at the boarding school of the Sacré-Coeur Sisters in Riedenburg, Bavaria. While there, she heard a homily on Psalm 45: "Listen, my daughter, and understand; pay me careful heed. Forget your people and your father’s house, that the king might desire your beauty". Vischering decided that she should become a religious.
While at school, she contracted pneumonia and, shortly before her 18th birthday, returned home to recover. In 1883, at the chapel of the Castle of Darfeld, she is said to have had a vision of Jesus Christ who told her: "Thou shalt be the wife of my heart". On 5 August of that same year, on the Silver Jubilee of her parents' marriage, Maria told them of her desire to become a religious.
Religious life
In 1888, she visited with her mother the Hospital of Darfeld, founded by her father, and there found a girl who had given scandal. Maria Droste zu Vischering reached out to the unfortunate. That episode can be considered her first contact with the charism of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. In the parish church, a short time later, she heard again the voice of Jesus, who told her: "You must enter in the convent of the Good Shepherd". On 21 November 1888, at the age of 25, she joined that congregation. When she received the religious habit, she received the religious name Mary of the Divine Heart. Her initial duties were to attend to visitors as doorkeeper.
For Sister Mary, the devotion to the Heart of Christ always merged with the devotion to the Blessed Sacrament: "I could never separate the devotion to the Heart of Jesus from the devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, and I will never be able to explain how and how much the Sacred Heart of Jesus deigned to favour me in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist."
In 1891, she devoted herself to the girls sent to the Good Shepherd Sisters in Münster for rehabilitation and care. With an ardent love for youth ministry, she maintained that "the most needy, the most miserable, the most forsaken are the children I love best."
Mary of the Divine Heart spent only five years in Münster because she was called by obedience to a special mission. In 1894, at the age of 31, she was sent to Portugal, where she was initially sent as assistant to the mother superior of the convent in Lisbon. From February to May 1894, Sister Mary remained in the Portuguese capital but then was appointed to the office of the Mother Superior of the convent in Porto. The house sheltered over 100 girls, most of whom came from poor families and were living on the streets. Around this time, she began to develop symptoms of myelitis.
Consecration of the World to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
In Porto, Sister Mary reported several messages from Jesus Christ in which she was asked to contact the pope to request the consecration of the world to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
On 10 June 1898, her confessor at the Good Shepherd monastery wrote to Pope Leo XIII to state that Mary of the Divine Heart had received a message from Christ requesting the Pope to consecrate the entire world to the Sacred Heart. The Pope initially did not believe her and took no action. However, on 6 January 1899, she wrote another letter asking that in addition to the consecration, the first Fridays of the month be observed in honour of the Sacred Heart. In the letter, she also referred to the recent illness of the Pope and stated that Christ had assured her that Pope Leo XIII would live until he had performed the consecration to the Sacred Heart. The theologian Laurent Volken states that this had an emotional impact on Leo XIII, despite the theological issues concerning the consecration of non-Christians.
Pope Leo XIII commissioned an inquiry on the basis of her revelation and Church tradition. In his 1899 encyclical letter Annum sacrum, he decreed that the consecration of the entire human race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus should take place on 11 June 1899. In the encyclical, he referred to the illness about which Vischering had written: "There is one further reason that urges us to realize our design: We do not want it to pass by unnoticed. It is personal in nature but just as important: God the author of all Good has saved us by healing us recently from a dangerous disease."
Pope Leo XIII also composed the Prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart and included it in the encyclical. Pope Pius X later decreed for the consecration of the human race, performed by Pope Leo XIII, to be renewed each year.
Death
In July 1896, Sister Mary of the Divine Heart was diagnosed with tuberculosis of the spine. She died on Thursday 8 June 1899, the eve of the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus), three days before the world consecration that Pope Leo XIII had scheduled for the following Sunday.
Veneration
Vischering's spiritual writings were approved by theologians on 16 July 1941, and her cause was formally opened on 28 November 1941, granting her the title of Servant of God. In 1964, she was declared venerable by the Catholic Church. On 1 November 1975 she was beatified by Pope Paul VI. Waldery Hilgeman is the postulator of the cause of canonisation.
Vischering's incorrupt body is exposed for public veneration in the Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in Ermesinde, in northern Portugal. The church is adjacent to the Convent of the Good Shepherd Sisters. There is also a relic of her body exposed for public veneration at the Sanctuary of Christ the King in Almada, near Lisbon, Portugal.
Promises of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
In his revelations to Mary of the Divine Heart, Jesus is said to have revealed to her two promises:
Promise of obtaining graces through the intercession of Sister Mary of the Divine Heart
"Know this, My daughter, that by the charity of My Heart I desire to pour out floods of graces through your heart over the hearts of others. This is why people will get close to you with confidence. … No one, even the most hardened sinner, will leave your presence without having received, in one way or another, consolation, relief, or a special grace."
Promise of obtaining graces in the Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Ermesinde
"For a long time, as you know, I have wanted to build a church on the Good Shepherd property. Uncertain as to whom this church should be dedicated, I have prayed and consulted many people without reaching a decision. On the First Friday of this month, I asked Our Lord to enlighten me. After the Holy Communion, He said to me: 'I desire that the church be consecrated to My Heart. You must erect here a place of reparation; from My part I will make it a place of graces. I will distribute copiously graces to all who live in this house [the Convent], those who live here now, those who will live here after, and even to the people of their relations'. Then He told me that He wished this church, above all, to be a place of reparation for sacrileges and to obtain graces for the clergy." | WIKI |
Talk:Rainer Schöpp
Date of birth
The German Wikipedia article has a different year of birth. I am not sure if it is correct, but our article should have a source for the year of birth so I have removed it. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | WIKI |
Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/New York State Route 152
{"type":"FeatureCollection","features":[{"type":"Feature","geometry":{"type":"LineString","coordinates":[[-73.69424,42.65475,0],[-73.69407,42.65468,0],[-73.69368,42.65451,0],[-73.69268,42.65408,0],[-73.69226,42.6539,0],[-73.69218,42.65386,0],[-73.69182,42.65372,0],[-73.69107,42.6534,0],[-73.69131,42.65310,0],[-73.6914,42.65298,0],[-73.69149,42.65283,0],[-73.69155,42.65272,0],[-73.69159,42.65264,0],[-73.69162,42.65254,0],[-73.69165,42.65244,0],[-73.69168,42.65234,0],[-73.6917,42.6522,0],[-73.69171,42.65213,0],[-73.69171,42.65202,0],[-73.69171,42.65194,0],[-73.6917,42.65185,0],[-73.69168,42.65172,0],[-73.69165,42.65159,0],[-73.69162,42.65151,0],[-73.6916,42.65144,0],[-73.69157,42.65137,0],[-73.69151,42.65125,0],[-73.69145,42.65114,0],[-73.6914,42.65106,0],[-73.69133,42.65096,0],[-73.69125,42.65087,0],[-73.69121,42.65082,0],[-73.69114,42.65075,0],[-73.69104,42.65064,0],[-73.69089,42.65052,0],[-73.69076,42.65042,0],[-73.69038,42.65020,0],[-73.69024,42.65013,0],[-73.69011,42.65006,0],[-73.68995,42.64997,0],[-73.68972,42.64983,0],[-73.68954,42.64969,0],[-73.6891,42.64936,0],[-73.68867,42.64903,0],[-73.68839,42.64879,0],[-73.6882,42.64863,0],[-73.68796,42.64843,0],[-73.68702,42.64762,0],[-73.68682,42.64744,0],[-73.68648,42.64715,0],[-73.68593,42.64668,0],[-73.68569,42.64648,0],[-73.68542,42.64627,0],[-73.68528,42.64616,0],[-73.68407,42.64521,0],[-73.6839,42.64507,0],[-73.68378,42.64496,0],[-73.68369,42.64486,0],[-73.68355,42.64471,0],[-73.68339,42.64451,0],[-73.68308,42.64412,0],[-73.68259,42.6435,0],[-73.68224,42.64306,0],[-73.68208,42.64287,0],[-73.68192,42.64267,0],[-73.68173,42.64243,0],[-73.6816,42.64228,0],[-73.68142,42.64207,0],[-73.68132,42.64197,0],[-73.68125,42.64191,0],[-73.68116,42.64182,0],[-73.68107,42.64175,0],[-73.68089,42.64162,0],[-73.6804,42.64129,0],[-73.6794,42.64064,0],[-73.67873,42.6402,0],[-73.67834,42.63994,0],[-73.67805,42.63973,0],[-73.67785,42.63958,0],[-73.67665,42.63869,0],[-73.6759,42.63811,0],[-73.67552,42.6378,0],[-73.67526,42.63758,0],[-73.675,42.63736,0],[-73.67471,42.6371,0],[-73.6745,42.63694,0],[-73.67428,42.63675,0],[-73.67383,42.63638,0],[-73.67334,42.63598,0],[-73.67302,42.63572,0],[-73.67244,42.63525,0],[-73.67193,42.63485,0],[-73.67151,42.63452,0],[-73.67123,42.63429,0],[-73.67103,42.63411,0],[-73.67076,42.63387,0],[-73.67046,42.63359,0],[-73.66961,42.63282,0],[-73.66934,42.63258,0],[-73.66901,42.63226,0],[-73.66879,42.63208,0],[-73.6686,42.63195,0],[-73.66818,42.63173,0],[-73.66661,42.63102,0],[-73.66595,42.6307,0],[-73.66565,42.63058,0],[-73.66539,42.63048,0],[-73.66522,42.63044,0],[-73.66502,42.6304,0],[-73.66438,42.63032,0],[-73.66369,42.63023,0],[-73.66337,42.63018,0],[-73.66321,42.63015,0],[-73.66303,42.63011,0],[-73.66282,42.63006,0],[-73.66262,42.63,0],[-73.66145,42.6296,0],[-73.6612,42.62949,0],[-73.66107,42.62942,0],[-73.66096,42.62936,0],[-73.66087,42.62929,0],[-73.6608,42.62923,0],[-73.66071,42.62915,0],[-73.66065,42.62907,0],[-73.66059,42.62898,0],[-73.66054,42.62888,0],[-73.66049,42.62876,0],[-73.66043,42.62858,0],[-73.66024,42.62776,0],[-73.65975,42.62572,0],[-73.65944,42.62444,0],[-73.65935,42.6241,0],[-73.65929,42.62387,0],[-73.65921,42.62369,0],[-73.65913,42.62353,0],[-73.65904,42.62337,0],[-73.65897,42.62327,0],[-73.65889,42.62315,0],[-73.65875,42.62298,0],[-73.65849,42.62274,0],[-73.6575,42.62193,0],[-73.65727,42.62174,0],[-73.65696,42.62148,0],[-73.65662,42.62121,0],[-73.65647,42.62111,0],[-73.65628,42.62101,0],[-73.65613,42.62095,0],[-73.65575,42.6208,0],[-73.65533,42.62062,0],[-73.65508,42.6205,0],[-73.6547,42.62028,0],[-73.65461,42.62024,0],[-73.65444,42.62015,0],[-73.65424,42.62007,0],[-73.65403,42.61999,0],[-73.65383,42.61992,0],[-73.65365,42.61987,0],[-73.65348,42.61982,0],[-73.65335,42.61979,0],[-73.65321,42.61975,0],[-73.65306,42.61971,0],[-73.65281,42.61965,0],[-73.65249,42.61958,0],[-73.65206,42.61947,0],[-73.65154,42.61934,0],[-73.65096,42.6192,0],[-73.65027,42.61904,0],[-73.64982,42.61894,0],[-73.64975,42.61892,0],[-73.64961,42.61891,0],[-73.64937,42.61888,0],[-73.649,42.61883,0],[-73.6483,42.61873,0],[-73.64765,42.61864,0],[-73.64727,42.61857,0],[-73.6469,42.61851,0],[-73.64668,42.61847,0],[-73.64652,42.61843,0],[-73.64641,42.61841,0],[-73.64631,42.61838,0],[-73.6462,42.61835,0],[-73.64584,42.61824,0],[-73.64548,42.61811,0],[-73.64523,42.61802,0],[-73.64444,42.61774,0],[-73.64368,42.61747,0],[-73.64315,42.61727,0],[-73.64235,42.61698,0],[-73.64169,42.61675,0],[-73.64082,42.61644,0],[-73.64054,42.61634,0],[-73.63996,42.61613,0],[-73.63965,42.61603,0],[-73.63941,42.61595,0],[-73.63925,42.61591,0],[-73.63906,42.61587,0],[-73.63897,42.61585,0],[-73.63891,42.61584,0],[-73.63867,42.6158,0],[-73.63853,42.61577,0],[-73.63834,42.61575,0],[-73.63794,42.6157,0],[-73.63766,42.61565,0],[-73.63751,42.61562,0],[-73.63734,42.61557,0],[-73.637,42.61547,0],[-73.63668,42.61538,0],[-73.63647,42.61532,0],[-73.63621,42.61524,0],[-73.63598,42.61518,0],[-73.63573,42.61512,0],[-73.63552,42.61507,0],[-73.63525,42.61501,0],[-73.6351,42.61499,0],[-73.63493,42.61496,0],[-73.63451,42.6149,0],[-73.63401,42.61483,0],[-73.63354,42.61478,0],[-73.6333,42.61474,0],[-73.63318,42.61472,0],[-73.63309,42.6147,0],[-73.63294,42.61467,0],[-73.63275,42.61463,0],[-73.63262,42.61459,0],[-73.63236,42.61451,0],[-73.63222,42.61446,0],[-73.63203,42.61438,0],[-73.63185,42.6143,0],[-73.63172,42.61423,0],[-73.63157,42.61415,0],[-73.63147,42.61409,0],[-73.63131,42.61398,0],[-73.6312,42.61391,0],[-73.63103,42.61377,0],[-73.6309,42.61366,0],[-73.63074,42.61351,0],[-73.63067,42.61346,0],[-73.63061,42.61342,0],[-73.63049,42.61333,0],[-73.63042,42.61328,0],[-73.63034,42.61324,0],[-73.63021,42.61317,0],[-73.6301,42.61311,0],[-73.63001,42.61307,0],[-73.6299,42.61302,0],[-73.62979,42.61298,0],[-73.62969,42.61294,0],[-73.62962,42.61292,0],[-73.62949,42.61288,0],[-73.62936,42.61284,0],[-73.62904,42.61277,0],[-73.62888,42.61272,0],[-73.62876,42.61269,0],[-73.62868,42.61266,0],[-73.62861,42.61264,0],[-73.62853,42.61261,0],[-73.62848,42.61259,0],[-73.62842,42.61256,0],[-73.62838,42.61254,0],[-73.62824,42.61247,0],[-73.62807,42.61237,0],[-73.62779,42.61220,0],[-73.62755,42.61206,0],[-73.62712,42.6118,0],[-73.62682,42.61162,0],[-73.62642,42.61138,0],[-73.62613,42.61122,0],[-73.62604,42.61117,0],[-73.62585,42.61108,0],[-73.62571,42.61102,0],[-73.62552,42.61094,0],[-73.62543,42.6109,0],[-73.62531,42.61086,0],[-73.62522,42.61083,0],[-73.62503,42.61077,0],[-73.62489,42.61072,0],[-73.62444,42.61060,0],[-73.62391,42.61045,0],[-73.62312,42.61023,0],[-73.62282,42.61015,0],[-73.62269,42.61011,0],[-73.62238,42.61001,0],[-73.62216,42.60993,0],[-73.62201,42.60987,0],[-73.62188,42.60982,0],[-73.6217,42.60974,0],[-73.62155,42.60967,0],[-73.62143,42.60961,0],[-73.62125,42.60951,0],[-73.62115,42.60945,0],[-73.62094,42.60934,0],[-73.62079,42.60926,0],[-73.62061,42.60916,0],[-73.62047,42.60908,0],[-73.62031,42.60899,0],[-73.6202,42.60894,0],[-73.62013,42.60891,0],[-73.62003,42.60887,0],[-73.61993,42.60882,0],[-73.61985,42.60879,0],[-73.6197,42.60873,0],[-73.61952,42.60867,0],[-73.61939,42.60862,0],[-73.61927,42.60858,0],[-73.61909,42.60853,0],[-73.6189,42.60848,0],[-73.61877,42.60845,0],[-73.61861,42.60841,0],[-73.61842,42.60836,0],[-73.61829,42.60833,0],[-73.61806,42.60827,0],[-73.61717,42.60805,0],[-73.61705,42.60801,0],[-73.6169,42.60797,0],[-73.61678,42.60792,0],[-73.61663,42.60786,0],[-73.6165,42.6078,0],[-73.61639,42.60776,0],[-73.61629,42.60771,0],[-73.61618,42.60765,0],[-73.61607,42.60759,0],[-73.61585,42.60747,0],[-73.61576,42.60743,0],[-73.61566,42.60738,0],[-73.61555,42.60733,0],[-73.61546,42.60728,0],[-73.61535,42.60724,0],[-73.61524,42.60719,0],[-73.61501,42.6071,0],[-73.61486,42.60705,0],[-73.61477,42.60703,0],[-73.6146,42.60698,0],[-73.61445,42.60694,0],[-73.61436,42.60692,0],[-73.61423,42.60689,0],[-73.61414,42.60687,0],[-73.61402,42.60685,0],[-73.61389,42.60683,0],[-73.61384,42.60683,0],[-73.61365,42.60681,0],[-73.61352,42.60679,0],[-73.61321,42.60677,0],[-73.6128,42.60674,0],[-73.61253,42.60672,0],[-73.61242,42.60671,0],[-73.61227,42.60669,0],[-73.61213,42.60667,0],[-73.61192,42.60664,0],[-73.6117,42.6066,0],[-73.61122,42.6065,0],[-73.61089,42.60643,0],[-73.61036,42.60632,0],[-73.60906,42.60606,0],[-73.6087,42.60599,0],[-73.60853,42.60596,0],[-73.60828,42.6059,0],[-73.60815,42.60587,0],[-73.60801,42.60583,0],[-73.60782,42.60577,0],[-73.60773,42.60574,0],[-73.60763,42.6057,0],[-73.60747,42.60564,0],[-73.60731,42.60557,0],[-73.60714,42.60549,0],[-73.60702,42.60543,0],[-73.60688,42.60536,0],[-73.60678,42.60531,0],[-73.60667,42.60524,0],[-73.60643,42.60509,0],[-73.60622,42.60494,0]]},"properties":{"name":"New York State Route 152","styleUrl":"#line-1267FF-51","styleHash":"-54848485","styleMapHash":{"normal":"#line-1267FF-5","highlight":"#line-1267FF-50"},"stroke":"#cc0000","stroke-opacity":1,"stroke-width":3}}]} | WIKI |
GET
/
organizations
/
{organization_name}
/
projects
/
{project_name}
/
containers
curl --request GET \
--url https://api.salad.com/api/public/organizations/{organization_name}/projects/{project_name}/containers \
--header 'Salad-Api-Key: <api-key>'
{
"items": [
{
"id": "500dec9c-aaf3-4a0b-aa7f-de6483d0b9b1",
"name": "sim1",
"display_name": "Simulation 1",
"container": {
"image": "acme-corp/anvil-drop-simulator:v65535",
"resources": {
"cpu": 1,
"memory": 2048
},
"command": [],
"size": 1024,
"hash": 1311768467294899700
},
"restart_policy": "always",
"replicas": 1,
"current_state": {
"status": "stopped",
"start_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"finish_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"instance_status_counts": {
"allocating_count": 1,
"creating_count": 1,
"running_count": 1,
"stopping_count": 1
}
},
"create_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"update_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"version": 1
},
{
"id": "b697f678-b987-4992-bbbf-d6dda171b34a",
"name": "sim2",
"display_name": "Simulation 2",
"container": {
"image": "acme-corp/anvil-drop-simulator:v65536",
"resources": {
"cpu": 1,
"memory": 2048
},
"command": [],
"size": 1024,
"hash": 1311768467294899700
},
"autostart_policy": true,
"restart_policy": "always",
"replicas": 1,
"current_state": {
"status": "stopped",
"start_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"finish_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"instance_status_counts": {
"allocating_count": 1,
"creating_count": 1,
"running_count": 1,
"stopping_count": 1
}
},
"create_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"update_time": "2020-07-04T19:00:00Z",
"version": 2
}
]
}
Authorizations
Salad-Api-Key
string
headerrequired
Path Parameters
organization_name
string
required
The unique organization name
project_name
string
required
The unique project name
Response
200 - application/json
items
object[]
required | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Evaluate Weigh the pros and cons of technologies, products and projects you are considering.
This article is part of our Buyer's Guide: A complete guide to buying data discovery software
Choosing the right data discovery platform for the enterprise
Obviously, cost and scalability factor into data discovery platform buying decisions, but other features, like visualizations and data support, should carry significant weight.
Business goals determine the best data discovery platform. That's true of any company. At a high level, data discovery tools help organizations glean insight and value from data. Through visualizations, analytics and other basic capabilities, these products ensure business intelligence initiative success.
But decision-makers must consider key criteria as part of the evaluation process. Here are some of the most important factors to consider when looking at data discovery tools.
Types of analytics/visualizations
How do the tools present analytics? That's a main function of data discovery tools. So a key question to ask is what sort of analytics and visualization does the product support?
For example, does the data discovery platform enable advanced or predictive analytics and machine learning capabilities to enhance insight for business users?
With predictive analytics, organizations can analyze current and historical trends or activities to make predictions about future events. This includes how well a particular product or service will sell in a specific market. It identifies patterns from historical and transactional data to identify opportunities or risks. Predictive models can detect relationships between multiple factors, enabling business analysts to make informed decisions.
Many industries, including financial services, insurance, marketing, retail, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, use predictive analytics. Some data discovery products have self-learning mechanisms that deliver recommendations and predictions with insight based on data culled from multiple sources.
Other analytics tools pull data from social media sites, providing insight into hot topics in particular markets and sentiment information, such as if people share positive or negative thoughts about a company or product. This provides valuable knowledge for marketing and sales efforts.
Organizations can also use analytics to measure and manage application, team and individual performance in order to improve the customer experience and uncover new market opportunities.
Organizations that need to address complex and time-sensitive scenarios should consider whether the data discovery tools support in-memory analytics. This approach to querying data takes place in a computer's random access memory rather than on a physical disk. In-memory analytics shortens query response times, enabling BI and analytics applications to support faster business decisions.
Before buying a data discovery platform, learn how well it serves compliance initiatives, like GDPR compliance.
Data discovery tools aid GDPR compliance by finding personal customer data in far-flung corners of the enterprise.
Exactly how data discovery tools visualize data, both for IT and business users, is a key buying consideration. Charts, maps, tables and other representations can make complex information much easier to understand and digest.
But perhaps business users prefer something more advanced. Interactive visualization options include geospatial, which has a geographical or spatial aspect; pivot tables, which summarize data from other tables for sorting, averaging and totaling figures; and heat maps, which graphically represent data within a color matrix.
IT management factors
People at multiple organizational levels and locations might use data discovery tools, including far-flung regional offices around the world. This opens the company up to risk that it must consider when evaluating the options.
The first consideration is data governance. The data discovery platform should provide a way to oversee and manage potentially tens of thousands of users, including management by job roles and permissions. Do the data discovery tools enable automated, centralized governance? What data preparation and data quality features do the tools include?
Ensuring data security and privacy is a huge aspect of governance. What user authentication and access controls does the data discovery platform provide? Businesses need to protect data not only against external threats, like hackers and cybercriminals, but also against internal threats, such as user negligence.
Version control is another IT management consideration. Managing different versions of documents and models is vital to ensuring that data and visualizations deliver the maximum value to the organization.
Data features
There's relevant data everywhere, from both internal and external sources. This data might come from customer interactions, websites, social media, mobile apps and research reports.
Data discovery tools, to be effective, must support a variety of internal and external sources. How easily and efficiently the tool ingests data from these sources, and how it handles different data structures, is a big consideration.
Can the data discovery platform connect to and extract data from key systems? And how smooth is the process? Does it support structured, semi-structured and unstructured data, as well as data from cloud and on-premises systems?
Some tools can help organizations sort through data sources, cutting through the noise to find the most relevant info for a particular project or to better meet goals. Good data is key to useful insight. Not all sources of data are useful, and some might even be harmful.
Data mashup capabilities are something else to consider. Organizations might want to blend data from multiple sources into a single report or workflow. This can include internal data and data from outside sources.
Features for regulatory compliance
Data discovery tools can also help organizations comply with government and industry regulations, like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which took effect on May 25, 2018.
GDPR is a set of rules created by the European Parliament, European Council and European Commission to provide data protection to citizens of the European Union. Many companies are using data discovery to find customer data tucked away in emails, presentations and other random corners.
So additional considerations for data discovery tools include how well the tools provide data identification, classification, monitoring, tracking and tracing, as well as full text search and other functions related to compliance. In addition, you must ask what sort of metadata management capabilities the tools have. Metadata can be a key enabler of regulatory compliance.
These are just a few considerations for organizations evaluating data discovery tools. Others include the fairly obvious, such as the total cost, scalability and how well it integrates with existing platforms. Mobile platform support and cloud vs. on premises are other factors to consider.
Depending on a company's specific needs and goals for data discovery, the various factors in the selection process carry different levels of urgency. It's a good practice to have all the key stakeholders weigh in. This ensures the data discovery platform delivers its full value.
This was last published in June 2018
Join the conversation
1 comment
Send me notifications when other members comment.
Please create a username to comment.
What sort of data discovery visualizations best serve your BI needs?
Cancel
-ADS BY GOOGLE
SearchDataManagement
SearchAWS
SearchContentManagement
SearchCRM
SearchOracle
SearchSAP
SearchSQLServer
SearchSalesforce
Close | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Page:Pekinese Rhymes (G. Vitale, 1896).djvu/103
These words are sung by children to imitate the perambulating vendors in the street. 一副筐 i1 fu4 k'uang1 a pair of baskets hanging from the pole called 扁擔 pien3 tan. 八根兒繩 pa1 ken1'r sheng2, eight strings. As every basket is attached to an end of the pole by four strings, so eight strings comes to mean a porter's pole and more generally every sort of small Chinese industry practiced by vendors furnished with such a pole. 九城 chiu3 ch'eng2, the nine cities, the city of Peking. 靑茶 ch'ing1 ts'ai4 every sort of green vegetable. After speaking of the vendors of vegetables the song comes to speak of a curious sort of small industry practiced in Peking. Two men go together. One marches forward and beats a little drum, the other bearing | WIKI |
@article{Nakatsuji_Fujiwara_Toda_Sawada_Zheng_Hendler_2014, title={Semantic Data Representation for Improving Tensor Factorization}, volume={28}, url={https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/8991}, DOI={10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8991}, abstractNote={ <p> Predicting human activities is important for improving recommender systems or analyzing social relationships among users. Those human activities are usually repre- sented as multi-object relationships (e.g. user’s tagging activities for items or user’s tweeting activities at some locations). Since multi-object relationships are naturally represented as a tensor, tensor factorization is becom- ing more important for predicting users’ possible ac- tivities. However, its prediction accuracy is weak for ambiguous and/or sparsely observed objects. Our so- lution, Semantic data Representation for Tensor Fac- torization (SRTF), tackles these problems by incorpo- rating semantics into tensor factorization based on the following ideas: (1) It first links objects to vocabu- laries/taxonomies and resolves the ambiguity caused by objects that can be used for multiple purposes. (2) It next links objects to composite classes that merge classes in different kinds of vocabularies/taxonomies (e.g. classes in vocabularies for movie genres and those for directors) to avoid low prediction accuracy caused by rough-grained semantics. (3) It then lifts sparsely observed objects into their classes to solve the sparsity problem for rarely observed objects. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that leverages seman- tics to inject expert knowledge into tensor factorization. Experiments show that SRTF achieves up to 10% higher accuracy than state-of-the-art methods. </p> }, number={1}, journal={Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, author={Nakatsuji, Makoto and Fujiwara, Yasuhiro and Toda, Hiroyuki and Sawada, Hiroshi and Zheng, Jin and Hendler, James}, year={2014}, month={Jun.} } | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Wijmo的CompositeChart控件允许您使用一个Chart来分析和展现复杂的数据。相同的数据可以使用不同的可视化效果，不同的图表类型展现在一个图表内，使得用户可以从不同的角度，了解分析这组数据所表达的内容 。
本文将介绍如何使用Wijmo的CompositeChart控件，制作一个复合图表。CompositeChart 的API：http://wijmo.com/wiki/index.php/Compositechart，Wijmo 的CompositeChart 化繁为简，将传统 Excel like图表中的三大区域: Plot Area, Legend Area, Label Area, 分离成为更为简单的API: SeriesList, Legend, Axis, Hint, 使得开发者更加容易的理解和使用。
Wijmo的CompositeChart 依赖于下面的这5个核心的JavaScript库:
raphael.js
globalize.min.js
jquery.ui.widget.js
jquery.wijmo.raphael.js
jquery.wijmo.wijchartcore.js
如果需要加入别的类型的Chart，需要再引入其它Chart类型的JavaScript库，这样可以使得开发者可以灵活定制并裁剪出适合自己用例的 JavaScript库。例如本实例使用了 PieChart, BarChart, LineChart, 引入的JavaScript库如下：
jquery-1.7.1.min.js
jquery-ui-1.8.18.custom.min.js
globalize.min.js
raphael-min.js
jquery.wijmo.raphael.js
jquery.wijmo.wijchartcore.js
jquery.wijmo.wijbarchart.js
jquery.wijmo.wijpiechart.js
jquery.wijmo.wijlinechart.js
jquery.wijmo.wijcompositechart.js
写点代码，设置一下Chart :
$(document).ready(function () {
$("#wijcompositechart").wijcompositechart({
axis: {
y: {
text: "Total Hardware"
},
x: {
text: ""
}
},
stacked: false,
hint: {
content: function () {
return this.label + '\n ' + this.y + '';
}
},
header: {
text: "Hardware Distribution"
},
seriesList: [{
type: "column",
label: "West",
legendEntry: true,
data: { x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'], y: [5, 3, 4, 7, 2] }
}, {
type: "column",
label: "Central",
legendEntry: true,
data: { x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'], y: [2, 2, 3, 2, 1] }
}, {
type: "column",
label: "East",
legendEntry: true,
data: { x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'], y: [3, 4, 4, 2, 5] }
}, {
type: "pie",
label: "asdfdsfdsf",
legendEntry: true,
center: { x: 150, y: 150 },
radius: 60,
data: [{
label: "MacBook Pro",
legendEntry: true,
data: 46.78,
offset: 15
}, {
label: "iMac",
legendEntry: true,
data: 23.18,
offset: 0
}, {
label: "MacBook",
legendEntry: true,
data: 20.25,
offset: 0
}]
}, {
type: "line",
label: "Steam1",
legendEntry: true,
data: {
x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'],
y: [3, 6, 2, 9, 5]
},
markers: {
visible: true,
type: "circle"
}
}, {
type: "line",
label: "Steam2",
legendEntry: true,
data: {
x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'],
y: [1, 3, 4, 7, 2]
},
markers: {
visible: true,
type: "tri"
}
}
]
});
});
复制代码
代码不多，很好分析：
--
axis: {
y: {
text: "Total Hardware"
},
x: {
text: ""
}
--
设置X，Y 轴。
---
stacked: false
---
设置Bar 为非stacked.
---
hint: {
content: function () {
return this.label + '\n ' + this.y + '';
}
},
---
设置鼠标 Tooltip.
---
header: {
text: "Hardware Distribution"
},
---
设置图表头.
----
seriesList: [{
type: "column",
label: "West",
legendEntry: true,
data: { x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'], y: [5, 3, 4, 7, 2] }
}, {
type: "column",
label: "Central",
legendEntry: true,
data: { x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'], y: [2, 2, 3, 2, 1] }
}, {
type: "column",
label: "East",
legendEntry: true,
data: { x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'], y: [3, 4, 4, 2, 5] }
}, {
type: "pie",
label: "asdfdsfdsf",
legendEntry: true,
center: { x: 150, y: 150 },
radius: 60,
data: [{
label: "MacBook Pro",
legendEntry: true,
data: 46.78,
offset: 15
}, {
label: "iMac",
legendEntry: true,
data: 23.18,
offset: 0
}, {
label: "MacBook",
legendEntry: true,
data: 20.25,
offset: 0
}]
}, {
type: "line",
label: "Steam1",
legendEntry: true,
data: {
x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'],
y: [3, 6, 2, 9, 5]
},
markers: {
visible: true,
type: "circle"
}
}, {
type: "line",
label: "Steam2",
legendEntry: true,
data: {
x: ['Desktops', 'Notebooks', 'AIO', 'Tablets', 'Phones'],
y: [1, 3, 4, 7, 2]
},
markers: {
visible: true,
type: "tri"
}
}
]
----
复制代码
设置 SeriesList，每个Series 可以设置其type, label, legendEntry, data, 等等属性。 Series可以设置 SeriesStyles, 和 SeriesHoverStyles, 如:
seriesStyles: [{
fill: "#8ede43", stroke: "#7fc73c", opacity: 0.8
}],
seriesHoverStyles: [{
"stroke-width": "1.5", opacity: 1
}]
复制代码
经过上面的设置，这个CompositeChart就设置好了。也可以使用Server返回的 Json 数据动态绑定生成Chart。
点击这里下载，本文实例代码。
11992817831101.zip (289.63 K, 下载次数:265) | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Image Compression: Modeling (cont.)
So far, our output has been as expected. Ariadne's models, however, are quite coarse and it is often useful to investigate a match further using AVE's query facilities. In this case, because we know that the resulting compressed image was too small, we are suspicious that erroneous, extra MERGE events are occurring. To check this, we want to determine the number of elements executing MERGE events in each COMPRESSLEVEL. So, we define an additional attribute, MERGELTS, for MERGE nodes and display the number of merges at each compress level.
with BIC foreach Merge compute MergeElts = Elemid(U_PCXX_user_event3);
with BIC foreach NoMerge compute NoMergeElts = Elemid(U_PCXX_user_event2);
with BIC foreach CompressLevel compute MergeSet = MergeElts(Merge);
with BIC foreach CompressLevel compute NoMergeSet = NoMergeElts(NoMerge);
with BIC foreach CompressLevel compute NumMerges = sizeof(MergeSet(CompressLevel));
with BIC show NumMerges(CompressLevel) wrt CompressLevel;
These plots are not as expected. At each level in the bintree, only those nodes that were successfully merged at the previous level are available for merger; thus, the number of successful merges at any level should be no more than half the number from the previous step. We see a problem. 32 events were compressed at the third level but this is more than half of the 63 that had been compressed at the second level. There were too many MERGEs on the third level. We next investigate the possibility that some of the mergers were invalid because one of the siblings represented a subtree where compression had already failed at a lower level. This would result in a NOMERGE event being followed by a subsequent MERGE event on the same element. To check this, we first compute
with BIC foreach CompressLevel compute MergeFlag = disjoint(MergeSet(CompressLevel), NoMergeSet(left(CompressLevel)));
with BIC show MergeFlag(CompressLevel) wrt CompressLevel;
where LEFT refers to the immediately preceding COMPRESSLEVEL event (that is, its left sibling in the match tree). This query produces output showing that the sets on the third level were not disjoint, as they should have been. (We know this because the output value for the third level was ``0'', indicating that the DISJOINT predicate was false.) Thus some element on level three did a compression on a subtree that had not been compressed at level two.
[Next] | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix
Statement by Ched
per Inevitable, User:Neelix has created multiple redirects which the community feels are improper. There are also concerns about about use of tools, and long-term actions. This situation is familiar to many, as well as many of the Arbcom members. I will also note that while it is not "on" wiki as far as "en-wiki" .. I am seeing unusual activity on commons. Such as moving files from the category of "men" to "men looking at viewer". I ask the committee to review this situation. — Ched : ? 06:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* @ Arbcom. Please don't drag this out for months. Many of you have your own views on this (and other) situations. Just put up what you're going to inevitably put up, vote on it, and be done with it. Personally? I have some understanding of what may have been the root of this. But you folks are the last line of resolution on this website. Most of you decide how you're going to come down on things within a few days of a situation. Stop. Just Stop with the months long bullshit. If ever there was a "drama monger" on wiki .. it is Arbcom. The way people get emotionally dragged through bullshit in arb cases is absurd. We know that Arbs are not accountable to the community - that's already been established. Take the admin bit away per community consensus, and decide what style of topic bans apply. Let the kid have his say, and tell him flat-out what he can and can not do. — Ched : ? 17:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* I tried to pick a name that was as neutral as possible. Arbcom typically "names" their cases; but I had to choose something to open with. — Ched : ? 10:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Just a pro forma statement: obviously, given my disquisitions below, I would have preferred that this be dealt with by motion, but since the Committee has decided not to do that, I formally urge them to accept the case. I have no evidence to offer as such -- nothing that isn't already available elsewhere -- and do not believe that I will be participating in the case, but I do request that the Arbitrators take the ArbCom equivalent of "judicial notice" of the AN/I thread in which the issue was raised, and of the comments connected to the original motion. I would suggest that, if possible, both be incorporated into the record of the case.Finally, I would not be human, or true to my own feelings, if I didn't express how profoundly I am disappointed in the Committee's collective failure to take decisive and necessary action to deal with what seems to me to be a clear-cut case of the community's loss of trust in Neelix. I continue to see little value in a full case, when the evidence available now is more than sufficient to justify an immediate desysop.I would also like to express my thanks to GorillaWarfare, Courcelles, LFaraone, and Thryduff for having the good sense to agree with me that a motion was sufficient. BMK (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* I don't quite understand. There was a motion, and you voted to have a case. Now that there's a case request, you voted to accept it and deal with it by motion. ?? BMK (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* I also don't understand why you weren't aware of the relevant statement in WP:ADMIN which Iridescent and Lugnut cited, considering that I quoted it, in bold, in both the AN/I thread and in the comments about the motion. BMK (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I just want to point out the irony that many of the Arbs who voted against taking care of this problem by motion cited letting Neelix have his say, his "day in court", yet we have a report here that Neelix has told ArbCom that he will not be participating in the case should it be accepted. Assuming that is true, what you're going to get in a case is a reiteration of the same evidence that everyone's been chewing over on AN/I and in the motion comments, plus whatever new stuff gets uncovered in the meantime, none of which is likely to reflect well on Neelix. BMK (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tom (LT)
I also want to express, as above, my profound disappointment with the committee for not de-sysopping an admin who is clearly unfit and has clearly lost the trust of the community. Even a quick review of his edits demonstrates this. Desysopping should at the very least be an interim measure while the case is discussed. With regard to the case, it may allow for a more thorough examination of the problem edits here, however I am not sure what benefit an Arbcom case would give above the existing AN/I examination --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Jbhunley
Misuse of admin tools - the events are over a year old but they are very recent administrative actions due to 's very low activity as an admin.
* He has performed a WP:INVOLVED block. In his second to last block made was a clearly involved block of to protect articles he created.
* [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok_Girl&diff=605950787&oldid=605920197 Neelix reverts Xxxxxf's edit] on Bangkok Girl which he had created and while in a dispute with the editor.
* Xxxxxf also edited Let Me Be a Woman which Neelix reverts . Neelix created this article as well.
* places full page protection on Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Neelix&page=+Sci-Fi+Dine-In+Theater+Restaurant&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=], an article he has created, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sci-Fi_Dine-In_Theater_Restaurant&offset=20150325235006&action=history] and while in a content dispute. It was later reverted by as a violation of WP:INVOLVED.
This behavior, combined with his very low activity as an admin points to him considering the admin bit more as a weapon than as a toolbox. J bh Talk 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Reply to comment by Neelix has not been helping clean up his mess in any meaningful way. As of this time his deletion log [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?action=view&user=Neelix&type=delete] shows he has cleaned up redirects to one article. The redirects consist of "(Thirteen headed, Thirteen-headed, Thirteenheaded, Thirteen heads, Thirteen-heads, Thirteenheads, Thirteen head, Thirteen-head, Thirteenhead all the way up, using the same variations - plus hyphen variations for numbers above 20 - to Twenty-eight-head)" He did this four days ago at a very consistent six edits per minute. Why he chose thirteen as the cut off for useful redirects to Polycephaly remains a mystery since he left //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Polycephaly&limit=500] [[Dozenhead on down. This does not show that he has figured out good vs silly vs bad redirects but that he either is unwilling to help or unable to distinguish his good redirects from his bad except in the most extreme case. Additional material: Neelix's redirect creation has had effects that reach beyond Wikipedia.
* Redirects causing swamping-out of results in a Google search
* I also urge the committee to take note of the advocacy/obsession with Tara Teng and the walled garden he set up around her and her stance against Human trafficking. A list of many of the articles can be found at //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neelix/deletions. While some may indeed be notable most were written simply as stars in the Tara Teng universe. One of the saddest is :
* Iris Thomsen "These four women spent five weeks together at the competition, during which they bonded in their hotel. Teng invited Thompson, Baldachino, and Orešnik to visit her in Canada for a week.[6] All three accepted Teng's invitation and visited Teng in Vancouver, British Columbia in February 2013... and they also visited some of Teng's other favourite charitable organizations, including Deborah's Gate, a safe house operated by The Salvation Army". This is about half of the text in the article.
There is this whole walled garden he created around Ms. Teng, the play She Has a Name [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=She+Has+a+Name&namespace=0 what links there]. It would be best if Neelix were not able to continue with his 'intense interest' in Tara Teng and anything even tangentially related to her. If the committee does not intent to address this issue they should say so to allow the community to handle the matter since nothing will happen while the scope of the case is not defined.
Statement by NE Ent
Everyone should wait for Neelix to make a statement before proceeding. Basic human decency. The fact that these redirects existed for months and years would indicating no one noticed, or cared enough to complain, should be indicative that haste is not required. NE Ent 12:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* I'll remind the committee of its wise and brilliant 2014 precedent of simply accepting and suspending the case per path of least drama. NE Ent 13:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kelly
* Note to - Neelix has stated on Commons that he has been in contact with ArbCom by e-mail and apparently doesn't intend to participate here. Kelly hi! 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* Comment - there also seems to be an issue of advocacy here; there's a whole walled garden of articles related to Canadian beauty pageant winner Tara Teng, events she has participated in, causes she espouses and people tangentially associated with her. I've started nominating several of them for deletion as failing the notability guidelines but a lot more work is needed. Kelly hi! 14:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* Just as an example, he seems to have written the BLP Iris Thomsen to coatrack in some material about Teng, and to written the BLP Darren Storsley just so he could include this laudatory quote, which I've now removed. An intelligent IP editor tried to remove it last year but got reverted by . I've nominated a slew of Teng-related articles for deletion and removed a bunch of inappropriate references to her in multiple places. Kelly hi! 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* Comment - Neelix has a declared alternative account, . I'm not sure how we include that here. Kelly hi! 19:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* , here's another instance of Neelix going to the press and presenting himself as a representative of Wikipedia, this time in the context of advocacy. Kelly hi! 11:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MLauba
If you're looking for a slightly more creative remedy, I'd suggest asking Neelix to stand a reconfirmation RFA within one month. If they don't, they are desysopped. One month, on the other hand, allows for more light than heat in the proceeding. Clerks, no need to add me to the messaging list. MLauba (Talk) 13:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by LjL
This is an evidence-backed recap and timeline of the negative events as I am aware of them, which I had previously provided in a request to block the user: This shows that misbehavior and poor judgement is a long-term and ongoing problem, and involves both admin-specific and editor-specific circumstances. Evidence shows he is not furthering Wikipedia's goals, and despite quite laconic "apologies", he isn't showing an understanding of the issues at hand and what he should fix. LjL (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* He was blocked in 2010 for making inappropriate redirects; however, he resumed that behavior.
* He has additionally misused admin tools by, at least, blocking editors when he was involved.
* He has come to Wikipediocracy's attention as having furthered his own agenda, possibly including the aforementioned misuse of tools.
* After that event, he ostensibly "retired" from Wikipedia, but in reality simply moved his dubious redirect-creation activity to Wikimedia Commons and turned it into dubious categorization (are things like "topless women with snakes" desirable categories to have?).
* He came back to Wikipedia, to make this further large batch of unacceptable redirects, including things like (I shall remind) Tumorous boobies, A trip down mammary lane or Run-or-rape games.
* Once asked to give up his admin privileges and delete his bogus redirects, he did neither thing, except for a proportionally small number of redirects; instead, he went back to Commons to do more automated-looking edits.
Statement by SSTflyer
The use of automated tools to mass-create redirects is not disallowed, and WP:MASSCREATION only applies to articles in categories. However, these redirect creations still need to meet guidelines, and many of Neelix's problematic redirect creations meet WP:RFD. There is also the Tara Teng fiasco, and the inappropriate use of admin tools in WP:INVOLVED situations. This looks like a WP:CIR problem here. I think Neelix has lost the community's trust. sst✈discuss 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Lugnuts
Quite simply, WP:ADMINACCT has to be applied. "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed." Previously blocked for similar activity and doing something that would leave any non-admin indef'd from further editing. I'm failing to see how the creation of thousands of redirects that fall into the categories of pointless, offensive and just plain daft add any value to the project. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Biblioworm
In my opinion, these redirects were immature and grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If this were a new user, we all know that such behavior would be treated as vandalism and the user would be indef blocked for vandalism. (And the blocking admin would probably think the user was a kid.) I don't see why we should treat such actions by admins any differently. In fact, I might have very well blocked the user for vandalism if I had been an admin at the time (I just became one yesterday) when these silly redirects were being created. I think the user in question should be desysopped or at the very least banned from creating any redirects. -- Biblio worm 18:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC), edited @ 18:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Iridescent
@Salvio, regarding Unfortunately, desysops for "loss of trust" are not a thing, you might want to actually read what the policy actually says ("Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed" if you want chapter-and-verse.) ‑ iridescent 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish
You should accept this case, and it does not have to take a long time to decide it. The community should not confound the decision to take a case with a failure to act in a timely manner. There is nothing wrong with giving the accused an opportunity to respond in full. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Davey2010
Seeing as desysopping at Motion didn't work I believe this should be accepted, As I've said a million times - If an editor (or even a troll/vandal) created thousands upon thousands of offensive, immature and plain right stupid redirects they'd get blocked indef in the blink of an eye, He was blocked in 2010 for the exact same thing and has even decided to create "lovely" categories on Commons (Yes I know Commons is another website in some respects but still it's all the same behaviour at the end of the day), I've also said elsewhere I honestly feel once all this dies down he'd just go back to creating the redirects again, I'm all for AGF but it only goes so far!. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Opabinia regalis
Why are we here? Yes, you can accept and deal with this by motion, but you already had a motion... Please do not drag this out for a month and then some. This is a matter of a fairly young identifiable person caught doing something excruciatingly stupid and embarrassing in public. Desysopping is obvious; topic bans can be handled at ANI; the matter of all the POV-ish articles is (finally) being handled by the community; the business on Commons (which is actually worse IMO) is Commons' business and while it should be taken into consideration here, we obviously can't do anything about it. Holding a case in order to "let Neelix have his say" is, given the facts and his comments on Commons, not a kindness to him. Also, the fits-and-starts approach to handling a fairly obvious case of "conduct unbecoming" makes the project look inept. It's not a problem of speed; it's a problem of process. Jumping around from ANI to a motion to "oh no, this doesn't look like the Level 2A.b subsection J procedure" to voting to accept a case and handle it by motion and on and on, in response to a situation that is a very effective illustration of how unwelcoming and alienating the environment here can be to women participants*, just looks really stupid. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC) * Dare I say it, a much more substantive one than another matter currently under the committee's consideration...
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Seems Neelix didn't get that these redirects would not be acceptable and/or useful - they clearly get it now. Many of the redirects they have created have been unexceptional. The incident way way back in 2010 might have been a clue, but they might see this as completely different. The block then was as much for concern over a compromised account as anything. Creating redirects is not an abuse of admin tools, having made an unwise choice of nomenclature is a learning opportunity. I see no reason to de-sysop Neelix, it is not protecting the Wiki. Given that, the community is quite capable of topic banning Neelix from mass creation of redirects for a year, or forever, should they wish. Therefore there is no grounds for an Arb case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC).
Statement by Wikimandia
For the most part I have not felt any issues with being a female Wikipedian, but I am shocked to see people claim he was trying to improve Wikipedia, both here and on the ANI board. What you have here appears to be some sort of compulsive behavior related to a fetish of the female breast. I truly believe the only conceivable way he thought anyone would ever search for these terms would be if said person had a serious breast fetish. That there is even more obsessive categorization at Commons is not surprising (look how many subcategories he created for "Nude or partially nude women with necklaces in cleavage", because "Nude women with necklaces" was not a specific enough breakdown) and shows this will not easily stop. It cannot be argued this kind of individual is helping the project. I wouldn't surprised if this pops up on Gawker showing a Wikipedia admin named Neelix made 25,000 "hidden articles" about "Nipple-feeders" and "booby fuckers" and that other admins said that Neelix surely thought he was being helpful and useful (as though that's the kind of thing a reasonable male admin finds helpful around here). Ask yourself - if Neelix had created 30,000 "innocent" redirects of all plausible combinations of the N-word, K-word, White Power slogans and lines from Hitler speeches, I wonder how many of you would be so quick to say "awww he didn't know what he was doing wasn't right and now he's all embarrassed. He was trying to be helpful!" (Be helpful and useful to whom, exactly?) I mean, if words are just words, and words shouldn't be labeled "puerile" and WP:NOTCENSORED, then your understanding of his motives would be no different if he made all those redirects, right? —Мандичка YO 😜 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Viriditas
DGG, with the greatest respect, the majority of the criticism against arbcom has to do with the fact that you don't do serious things and let problems get worse. If this criticism forms the surprising basis for arbcom, then how does the community go about disbanding it? If what you say is true, then arbcom is acting against the best interests of the community. In other words, we want serious action, and if you can't do that, then please dissolve the committee. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies
says it pretty good: conduct unbecoming of an admin. I've made more extensive remarks in the now-defunct motion. While I said there or at the ANI thread that I don't think there's a rush, I don't see the reason for a full case. No need to drag it out--no one, including Neelix, will benefit from that. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Worm That Turned
I just want to take a moment to thank the committee to make sure this happened properly. Being on Arbcom is a tough job and remaining objective in the face of outrage is one of the hardest parts. Desysopping Neelix for this by motion so quickly would have been wrong. He stopped, he apologised - taking a moment to decide whether the facts of the case were clear cut is the right thing to do. It's clear that the committee are agreed a case is needed here, and I absolutely agree. Can I suggest that opening the case and suspending it pending Neelix's return is the best thing to do. If he does not return within X period (say, 3 months?), he should be automatically desysopped (that's less than the Toddst1, because he is still editing at commons). Of course, that does depend on Neelix's email (which I haven't seen). If the committee thinks it prudent, open the case and have an expedited timetable - no workshop needed (per another case). Simply evidence, proposed decision. I'd recommend against dealing by motion as I believe there's possibly a little more to this case. WormTT(talk) 08:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* , I'm happy with your suggested expedited case, I appreciate the committee has a lot on its plate, but striking the balance between instant desysop and a dragged out case is important. I would still say that suspending the case should be seriously considered - in the interests of fairness, I like people to be there to defend themselves. If they choose not to, then presenting evidence against them seems... unfair. If they're not willing to face the music, don't force it upon them and simply enforce the consequence. Hence, 3 months and desysop. We're far more likely to keep Neelix as an editor through the suspended case method - and with 169k edits, I don't think anyone can say he's not been a valuable contributor. WormTT(talk) 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* Thanks Euryalus. This comment sums up my point. It is always difficult for the target of cases and of ANI and so on. Some will fight to the bitter end, others will quit forever. If we can get the right outcome, without the pain, then that's a good thing. WormTT(talk) 10:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Callinus
Just to note, the fact that he was blocked in 2010, but continued his behaviour (esp on Commons) and gave interviews to the press big-noting his edit count means that his position as an admin is untenable. 09:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Carrite
While the record will show that the overwhelming majority of redirects created by this Administrator are helpful and made in good faith, a disturbing number will be shown to be fetishistic and unhelpful. Additional POV editing may also come to light in a case. There is a fundamental loss of community trust to be addressed and consideration must be given as to whether this individual should retain tools in the wake of revelations about past editing behavior. As ArbCom is the only mechanism remaining for removal of tools, I urge acceptance of this case. Carrite (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* @ - Where are you getting the 30,000 number? Did you just make that up for dramatic effect or have you counted? In this context, a propagandistic overcount is uncalled for. Of course, I can only state that I've looked at the first 10,000 of an 80,000 a 50,000 redirect body of "work" and there may be an insane proportion of unacceptable redirects surfacing in the 70,000 40,000 examples I have not seen. Still, I doubt very much that the count of problematic redirects is anywhere near the number you cite. Carrite (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Ivanvector
I encourage the Committee to accept this case, and applaud the Committee for declining to desysop Neelix by motion by the light of the flaming pitchforks. I don't think that I need to repeat the evidence that others have already provided here (see LjL's statement in particular) but clearly there is a much wider issue here than simply the mass-creation of redirects of questionable utility. And there is very little evidence of Neelix abusing administrative tools; if a desysop by WP:LEVEL2 would not have been appropriate then I question whether doing so by motion would have been appropriate, either. On the issue of the redirects specifically, I have repeatedly argued that Neelix, like the many other users who we've seen mass-creating useless marginally useful redirects recently, may simply have not understood that they should not be created. We have no guidance about why not to create redirects at the moment, which is something that some users at WT:REDIRECT have only just recently started to address. The problem of now cleaning up this mass of redirects is not one solely of Neelix's creation although he is a significant contributor to that mess, and he has begun to use his administrative tools to help clean it up. That's not a net positive, but it could be worse. The wider issue is that highlighted by the Wikipediocracy article, and the issues brought to light in that opinion piece deserve a full case, to determine whether Neelix should be allowed to edit at all. But that's still not an issue of administrative abuse, but certainly a loss-of-trust issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC) just so you know, ping doesn't work unless you sign your edit. I realize Neelix's effort to clean up the mess has been at best weak; it's worth mentioning that it's better than nothing, but not by very much. I only knew that he had deleted two (nude pelvis, naked pelvis) which came up at Rfd; the ones you pointed out represent an additional 140-ish deletions. I'm not an administrator and I don't know how much work is involved in deleting an article but that seems like an ok start. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by DD2K
When all of this could have been handled by passing the motion to desysop Neelix and topic ban him from creating redirects and Tara Teng, with some common sense and maturity, sorely lacking here. Forcing editors to bring evidence(that is patently obvious for anyone to see), humiliate Neelix because he is too oblivious to simply resign and understand the problems he has caused, is beyond hubris. Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Dave Dial (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* 1) ANI -30,521 words(and counting) - 176,201 characters(and counting)
* 1) Arb Motion Request - 15,690 words(and counting) - 90,820 characters(and counting)
* 1) ArbCom case request - 5,694 words(and counting) - 33,481(and counting)
* 1) Numerous Talk pages(Neelix's plus other involved parties) -- who knows.
* 1) Total over 60,000 words(and counting) and 300,000 characters(and counting)
Statement by Softlavender
I would like to ask Ched and ArbCom why this case is called "Improper redirects" rather than "Neelix"? The Neelix issue and problem and case goes far far beyond "improper redirects", and the entire case and whole longterm system of actions and behavior is going to have to be looked at, particularly since he is an admin. Not only has Neelix been pushing a longterm agenda and abusing his status as an admin while doing so, he has also abused the tools to do so, including the block tool. Coupled with that agenda regarding prostitution and the like, he has evidenced a seemingly uncontrollable and puerile obsession with sexuality, nudity, scatology, and body parts. The mass creation (80,000) of redirects on En-Wiki (and on Commons too) also serves many self-serving purposes. Here are just a few: (1) It effectively obscures and hides any substantive edits he makes, and also hides the articles he has created. (2) It makes him a "Wikipedia Spokesperson" and "Wikipedia Ambassador" (both of which he has been interviewed by the press as on several occasions) because of his astronomical edit count,. (3) It provides an outlet for his puerile obsession with sexuality and the like. None of these behaviors are conduct becoming of an admin. Combined, they create a composite of someone who is a net negative for Wikipedia at this point. He's already been blocked for a similar reason once (creating mass scatological redirects), promised not to continue as the condition of his unblock, and yet obviously could not and did not stop. Mass creation of redirects in general does harm the project in innumerable other ways, and needs to be recognized and actionable as WP:DE. But my primary question remains: considering his agenda-pushing, his behavioral and psychological issues, and the fact that he is an admin, Why is this case titled "Improper redirects" and not "Neelix"? Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Motion: Neelix desysoped
Original discussion
For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely the mass creation of inappropriate redirects, is desysoped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
* Support
* 1) As proposer. There is currently an ANI discussion about this, and I'm confident that the community can place any blocks, topic bans, or other restrictions if they decide they are necessary. However, it is the Arbitration Committee's responsibility to examine whether this behavior rises to the level where a desysop is needed. In my opinion, it clearly does. Redirects like "Run-or-rape video game" (to Sex and nudity in video games) and "Titty tumour" (to Breast cancer) are useless and downright offensive. Redirects like "Booby magnetic resonance imaging" (to Breast MRI), "Tittoos" (to Nipple tattoo), and "Boobypumper" (to Breast pump) are useless and just immature. Any editor should know better than to create multitudes of useless and offensive redirects, and this is nowhere near the level of good judgment and maturity I would expect of an administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* 2) While I would not support a block without further creations, this is such a sustained pattern of bad judgment a new RFA needs to happen if Neelix wants to keep the tools. Courcelles (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* A clear loss of good judgement. L Faraone 05:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* It's clear that Neelix has lost the community's trust in his good judgement as an administrator, and (whatever the merits of a community desysopping procedure) we are at present the only people who can deal with this issue. Neelix has responded at ANI and the issues are clear, so a case would be a waste of everyone's time. This motion is without prejudice to the ongoing community discussion about editing or other restrictions on Neelix or on any action that results from that discussion, and that Neelix can regain his adminship by passing RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* A great deal more evidence has been posted while I was away over the weekend, and I have not yet had time to read it all but the matter is no longer as clear as it was, so I'm removing my support from this motion. If it remains open when I have read everything (although this is looking unlikely) I may reinstate it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* Oppose
* 1) I appreciate this will be an unpopular vote - a virtue of retiring in two months is the chance to occasionally take a more contrary view. Many of Neelix's redirects are stupid, some are offensive, most are unnecessary. It's conduct unbecoming an editor, and it should be addressed with respect to editing rights: Neelix should go back and delete almost all of his redirects, if he fails to do so or creates more he should be blocked for disruption, and there should be community consideration of a topic ban from redirect creation given he seems unable to understand why there's a problem with the ones he made. But on balance I'm not seeing how this relates to his ability to do admin janitorial tasks. He has not abused admin tools; nor has he attempted to abuse admin "status" to win disputes or irritate others. He has made an embarrassing series of edits; let him undo those, and lets indefinitely remove him from that editing area. And then let's move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Note that the above relates to a desysop for the reasons outlined in the motion. If there's additional allegations against Neelix, they should be written up and/or included in the motion itself, and considered as a case request instead of summary decision. As is/was standard practice with similar claims of admin unsuitability over this year. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* In case it is not clear in the above, there is enough evidence of other conduct questions that I support a full case. But I remain opposed to a desysop by motion on solely the redirect grounds. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* 1) I do not oppose the idea of desysoping, but I would like to have a full case. I was apprehensive about doing this on the list when I marked myself as inactive last night. (I don't have internet in my apartment yet.) This morning when I have internet and can look everything over, I am still apprehensive of taking up some of the methods of WP:PITCHFORKS. We are the Senate of Wikipedia; at tiny bit away from the sways of popular opinion on the drama boards on a given day and more deliberative. I beg my colleagues to do the right thing and to examine this fully with our process; maybe another restriction is in order as well. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* 2) I don't like doing this by motion either, if at all. The redirects were certainly ill-considered in most cases. But we're not looking at a "bright line" type violation here, nor a question of clear tool abuse, but rather a question of poor judgment. I think we need to take the time and consider whether that judgment was poor enough to warrant a desysopping. In the meantime, the issue can be controlled with by the various proposed solutions by the community, such as topic bans, rate limiting, or required vetting of proposed new redirects. This just isn't a situation that requires emergency-speed intervention, and if we can deliberate more carefully on it, we should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* 3) A case is needed. We might possibly decide to resolve the case by a motion, but this deserves a proper hearing, not a rush to action. I note that by now the admin seems to be cooperating. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* 4) I also support a case. I don't think I can add to the reasons given above. Doug Weller (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* 5) Since the case is a little more nuanced than I originally thought, I'd say we should let this motion fail, so that if anyone thinks our intervention is necessary, they can file a case at RFAR. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* 6) We are the communities elected representatives, and I fully respect that. Currently we've gone from a suggestion on ANI to a Level II Desysop. I disagree that proceedurally, this was the correct thing to do in the first place. Futhermore, drama always bites hard at the time of the incident. For me, as a community representative of ALL members (not just who have noticed the incident), I would prefer we hear a statement from Neelix publicly in evidence and allow questions by arbitrators to be asked. Simply going on the community's (non-unanimous) word that they want the bit stripped, brings reminders of a religious context (if you believe in any of that, not saying I do either way). The idea of administrative recall would be a better step to see the full community colors. This is not a decision that needs to be made overnight, and I would prefer to hear evidence of past issues also concerning Neelix. There are also additional remedies that stop the issue at hand without being punitive (unlike some blocks proposed on ANI). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* 7) Moving to oppose. While I believe that, as a blanket rule, requiring L1/L2 procedures or a case request possibly-resolved-by-motion goes against WP:NOTBUREAU, in this specific instance there's enough complexity here to make deciding on this without a case imprudent. L Faraone 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* Abstain
* Recuse
Discussion by arbitrators (Neelix desysoped)
Noting that I am including AGK, Roger Davies, and DeltaQuad in the inactive count (as they are marked inactive at Arbitration Committee) and Guerillero per a mailing list comment. Please adjust this if you're active on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I agree with you re blocks and bans being in the community's power; I also think this is what the community should impose. And I agree there is strong (but not unanimous) community support for a desysop. I predict there will be strong (but not unanimous) Arbcom support for it too. But as you say, Arbcom is elected to offer its own judgement on desysops, in addition to considering community consensus. Otherwise we could dispense with the committee entirely and just have desysop votes on ANI. In my judgement a desysop is not the appropriate penalty for the creation of stupid redirects. Its a minority view, but one made having had regard for community comments both for and against the idea. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Neelix is technically not inactive as an Admin, but he's virtually inactive. I'd like to give him time to decide if he will resign his tools before we vote further. Or to explain why it's important to the communityh for him to keep them. Doug Weller (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* This is a Level 2 desysop. He's been notified on his talk page and hopefully by email (I'm checking that). There's no emergency here and I've made it clear to my colleagues he should be given time to respond. A desysop may be appropriate but I agree we need to follow procedure. We aren't always good at that. As an aside, I think that Admins should have some sort of activity requirement similar to those who have CU and OS - maybe a minimum number of Admin actions each year combined with a minimum in any 2 quarters, which is slightly different from the OS and CU requirements. Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
As soon as I get GMO done and posted I'll comment here. I do want to wait for comment, this isn't a super urgent issue. NativeForeigner Talk 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
We discussed a level two desysop on the mailing list, but a couple of us said that we preferred to hold the voting in public—I personally don't see any reasons that would require this to happen off-wiki. If there was more significant appetite for an entire arbitration case, I wouldn't be opposed to having an official case request, but no arbitrators had indicated they felt this needed an entire case. Is it codified somewhere that we must go through the entire case request process just to post a motion, when we think a simple motion would suffice? Also, we have confirmed that Neelix is aware of this motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I will be active for this motion. Right now, I do have an opinion that has not fully formed, and neither do I wish to post it at this time, as my reasoning is not set. The one thing I hope my fellow arbitrators realize is that this doesn't need to be done overnight. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* is right, in US terms we are more of a (somewhat limited) Supreme Court, not part of the legislative system - that's basically the community -- they make the policies and guidelines, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Community comments (Neelix desysoped)
* Yes. Conduct completely unbecoming of an admin, and by that I also mean the non-answer answers in the ANI thread and the refusal to make even the slightest effort to clean up the mess: Neelix had plenty of opportunity to make a token effort. I've deleted well over 300 of these offensive terms tonight; looking at the list is like looking at a list of phrases Google would block in a SafeSearch. But worse than the conduct is the complete lack of judgment and common sense, which is even more important for an administrator. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* , the redirects for Breast pump have been culled from eighty mostly offensive ones to sixteen mostly moderately dumb ones. I do not have any more deletions in me tonight. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* It just gets worse and worse. An admin creates this? Please look at the sourcing for the "Barechestedness" section, which includes a reference by Charlie from a prank collective. How can this person judge behavior and edits based on our guidelines? I note that the article wasn't created on 1 April. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Aside from the bad references, the Putin photo is a little too much for my stomach at this time of the day. Liz Read! Talk!</b> 18:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I believe that this (sadly) is necessary. See my statement here. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Support. Today's situation is a repeat of this, greatly expanded. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* This seems like a dramatic overreaction. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Support. This type of behavior indicates a user not worthy of the mop. If this behavior had been brought up during an RFA discussion, Neelix would never have been made an admin in the first place. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Support. This behavior is just stratosphericly incomprehensible (except to possibly obscure his substantive edits) and disruptive. Should also face a topic ban or indef block. In addition, Neelix has for years been abusing his privileges as an admin to promote his Salvationist ideology by writing and promoting (often to FA) excessively long and largely unwarranted screeds against prostitution, on Wikipedia. (There's a WO article on it somewhere that can be Googled [I have now posted it a few posts below].) Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC); edited 05:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I have suggested in the ANI thread that this could be an honest mistake on Neelix' part, and that desysopping (particularly emergency desysopping) is unwarranted. Neelix has expressed a rationale for creation of these redirects in the ANI thread; his rationale is clearly not compatible with WP:POFR but it seems like good-faith misinterpretation, and clearly not intended to be disruptive. He has not abused the admin tools. Indeed, had Neelix stepped in to eliminate these redirects after the ANI thread opened, we might just as well be proposing desysopping for violation of WP:INVOLVED and trying to bury his transgressions. Aside from the creation of a massive number of inappropriate redirects, Neelix has been a valuable contributor for many years. Removing his admin bit will not stop the flood of redirects - any confirmed user can create them. These creations have been going on for years with nobody raising any objection at all, prior to crossing into the territory of human female anatomy roughly two months ago. I would like the Committee to consider whether desysopping is really of any benefit to the project in this case. However, I recognize (and the Committee should also consider) that my opinion is deeply in the minority here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* A minor point, but this is not an emergency desysop. I don't believe a full case is necessary here, so I proposed a desysop by motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* If I may, Ivanvector's glowing encomium prompted me to actually find the article which details Neelix's agenda: . I don't think he should have been made an admin in the first place, but somehow he was, and now his unsuitability for the post is becoming increasingly obvious with this latest redirect scandal. Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Now, this provides context. I thought the creation of these redirects might've been pure SEO silliness, but this is serious. Alakzi (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* All I get from that article is that someone's got a hate on for Neelix and . Don't mistake my comments for an endorsement of his actions, what he's done here is obviously wrong. But I don't see how desysopping is the solution, or anything more than just retribution. From hanging out at WP:RFD I see good-faith misunderstandings of the usefulness of redirects all the time from users who should know better; this looks like an extremely bad case of that, but nothing more. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* (after ec) But if we're going to allege a serious pattern of intentional biased editing and advocacy on Neelix' part, then nothing short of a full case is warranted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* The permalink provided by NeilN above is of great concern, but more worrying is that I can only see two responses to that situation: ANI on profanity-related redirects and removal of block discussion and Neelix's contributions at that time. It does not matter whether a mistake is "honest" as noted above—the point is that an admin must be known to have generally good judgment, whereas evidence seems to show the reverse. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* A quick Google search for "tittoos" shows a number of hits including to a NSFW article in a UK tabloid; So I think that was a valid and plausible redirect. Most of the others I looked at weren't needed, many slight variations on themes are things that search would probably now pick up. But Pink trumpet tree redirects from a common name to a plant article that mentions that common name in the lead - unless there are other trees called "Pink trumpet tree" then that seems a perfectly plausible redirect to me. It seems we have two issues here, creation of puerile redirects and mass creation of minor permutations that search should now pick up. I'd be happy to see Neelix restrict himself to only creating redirects where an alternate name is already mentioned in an article. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 06:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* (ec)I agree on this. Tittoo is clearly a thing. It might not be a valid WP:NEO (though, evidence might be growing), but that's why there are redirects. Similarly for "Run-or-rape," which does have google hits in the context specified, would be difficult to say is truly an intentionally malicious redirect. Anyway, I have an issue with the idea of "offensive" even being used in conjunction with these—especially when it comes to anatomy. Our job is to report the facts and get people to them, so there's a modicum of translation involved when it comes to things that, let's face it, people learn as jargon and slang before they learn the proper name for them. I think most people learned "pee pee" before "urine" or "penis," for example, and that's just one thing. Our job is not to filter things out that we find offensive. "Useless" versus "useful" should be where the discussion is, but realistically that's more for WP:RFD. -- slakr \ talk / 06:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Shows what I know about "tittoos" I guess... Either way, my concern is with the massive number of completely implausible redirects—I have no issue with mass-creation of redirects (even if they're distasteful) if they are likely to be useful, but I worded the motion specifically to indicate that it was the inappropriate redirects that are an issue. I realize this is a bit of an overloaded term; I did not mean "inappropriate" in the sense that they are vulgar, but rather that they are not suitable for the project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I don't know about "tittoos" (I'm even more innocent than GorrilaW, because I'm older and predate the internet), but "run or rape", Slakr, does not strike me as a very valid redirect: I browsed around some and found nothing reliable, as I noted elsewhere. Anyone is free to restart that discussion or recreate them, of course. But I do object to us choosing the lowest possible terminology to construct our redirects. Having selected and deleted almost 400 of those redirects yesterday (I stopped at over 300, but then I think I did another batch), I have lost all respect for the editor. And I agree with GW's phrasing. Many were offensive and inappropriate for that reason, but many others were simply inappropriate in terms of suitability. The more general point, as far as I'm concerned, is the blatant sexism on display in the sheer overwhelming number of them. It is very, very hard for me not to see this is publicizing a fetish and using Wikipedia as a platform. I am not saying that Neelix is of the same caliber, but I am reminded of the guy who kept posting pictures of his cock all over Commons and inserted them in articles here: at some point the amount of material so outranks usefulness that it becomes ...what's the word... pathological. Spoke the amateur psychologist. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Pink trumpet tree is a common name for multiple plants. There are problems with Neelix's organism related redirects and dabs. The fact that he created I. maxima as a redirect on the same day he created L. maxima as a dab makes me seriously question his judgement. There are multiple I. maximas in the universe of scientific names, so that will eventually need to be a dab page, even if we have only one I. maxima on Wikipedia at present. Other editors have created a lot of abbreviated scientific name redirects that need disambiguation (or, as I would prefer, deletion), and Neelix has done some work making these into dab pages. I don't understand why he would create the I. maxima redirect, when it should be obvious from the work he's done that these abbreviations are almost always going to need disambiguation, not redirection. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Hi Plantdrew. It's perfectly fine to create a redirect, disambiguation page, or stub at a particular title, even if that title may latter change. Perfect is the enemy of the done. We can always move pages and change titles to redirect or not redirect in the future as necessary. This is a wiki, after all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* For me, the core of this is the question of judgment. As WP:ADMIN says, good judgment is expected from admins, and repeated incidents of bad judgment can lead to sanctions. In this case, the poor judgment shown by Neelix has been going on for years, and has resulted in, I am told, 80K of inappropriate redirects, some of which could be profoundly disturbing and insulting to Wikipedia editors, and the general public, and others of which are simply high-schoolish disruption that we would not tolerate in an IP or an unknown account. Such egegiously poor judgment is not commensurate with being an admin, and if Neelix doesn't resign the bit himself -- under a cloud -- then ArbCom needs to act. BMK (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* @Euryalus: The community does not require ArbCom to block or topic ban Neelix - those discussions are ongoing on AN/I, and I'm sure a consensus, one way or the other, will develop; if not, it may bounce back to ArbCom. But at this moment the question before ArbCom is the one that the community cannot deal with, because it does not have the power to do so, and that is whether Neelix should be desysopped.In the normal case dealt with by ArbCom, the community has not been able to come to a consensus, and it's ArbCom's remit to find the solution to the problem. That's not the case here. The community cannot desysop Neelix, only ArbCom, but the community nonetheless has strong opinions concerning whether Neelix should be desysopped or not, and in that situation, it behooves the Arbs, as our elected representative, to pay close attention to the views of the community, and not only to their own opinions. That is not to say that Arbs shouldn't bring their own intelligence and experience to the table, but it needs to be acknowledged that this question has come before ArbCom not because the community is divided, but simply because the community doesn't have the necessary authority. In this circumstances, I think you, and the other Arbitrators, would be better advised to give more weight to the community's opinion than might perhaps normally be the case. BMK (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Of course Arbs must bring their own judgment to the table when considering this, what I'm suggesting is that they not overthink it. Admins are supposed to show good judgment, Neelix has not, writ large; admins are supposed to have the trust of the community, the consensus is clearly that he no longer does; therefore Neelix needs to be desysopped, and the community cannot do it, so ArbCom must. It's pretty cut-and-dried, and the process issue are entirely beside the point: just invoke WP:IAR and fix the procedures before the next time -- that's what IAR is there for, so the correct result doesn't get swamped under procedural minutia. BMK (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I'd draw something of a parallel between the community's relationship to ArbCom in this instance, and ArbCom's relationship to bureaucrats in desysopping cases. ArbCom determines that an admin should be desysopped, but turns matters over to the bureaucrats for the actual removal of the bit. The bureaucrats bring their own judgment to the table, but in the absence of an extremely compelling reason not to do so, will follow ArbCom's decision.In this case, I believe that the community consensus (no, not unanimity, consensus) is that Nelix should be desysopped, but we have to turn to ArbCom for the final decision, because there is no community-based desysopping procedure (as there should be). I believe that if ArbCom reviews the community discussion, and finds -- as I think they will -- that there is a consensus for taking the bit away from Neelix, then, just like the bureaucrats considering an ArbCom desysop, in the absence of an extremely compelling reason not do so, the Committee should formalize the community's decision.I realize that such a relationship is very different from how ArbCom normally operates, because, normally, there is no community consensus, which is why that case is at ArbCom in the first place. In spite of that, I think this is the correct way for the Committee to perceive its role in the potential desysopping of Neelix - not as a rubber-stamp, but as the body that confirms that consensus does indeed exist in the community, and then formalizes it. If, however, they were to find upon examination of the communty discussion that there is no consensus, then we're back at square one, and the motion should be evaluated in exactly the same way ArbCom normally operates, to find a solution when there is no community consensus for one. BMK (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Support desysops; allow for an immediate re-RfA – let the community decide on Admin suitability in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* In response to ' comments: If we were just talking about stupid redirects - like the many minor variations on titles - this would be an annoying non-issue. The problem is the subset of stupid redirects that are offensive. I don't want to "punish" Neelix and would be happy to see an explanation, but the comments at ANI were insufficient to provide insight into how anyone might sincerely believe boobymilked and sucking situation would be plausible searches for breast milk and breastfeeding by people legitimately looking for information. Or look at the ones for medical terms, which are really the worst of the lot: has any actual human looking for information about abnormal breast development ever searched for hypoplastic boobies→micromastia? Looking for age-related breast atrophy, you'd try shrunk tit? I just can't get into the head of someone who doesn't see that these look like mockery of the conditions they link to. It makes the project look insensitive and unserious. Most of the time we take ourselves too seriously around here, but we can take ourselves a little more seriously than tumorous titty. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Oh. It dawns upon my thick head to at least ask, was the editor, in some bored then eager loop, hoping to snare Google searches of "another kind" for such words and "helpfully" mislead them to "more staid" en.WP articles? Meanwhile, have there been meaningful botches with the bit itself? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* What we need is a community method of desysoping... I'd much prefer that Arbcom were desysopping with a case than by straight motion. Hearing from Neelix before desysopping. For heaven's sake Arbcom is meant to be a slow process where cooler heads prevail! <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Although I don't oppose the creation of a mechanism for community desysopping, I see no reason why this needs to be a full case, and the community can't currently desysop on its own. What would a case look like - him trying to explain why on earth he thought tumorous titty and thousands of others were appropriate redirects, an evidence page consisting of a ton of people saying what the hell, and an eventual decision to desysop him and a finding of fact that "tumorous titty is not an apppropriate redirect"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* If that's all it ends up as, yes. More importantly the time period between action and desysopping for a non-emergency should allow cooler heads to prevail. We're at the end of the year, Arbcom is a lame duck, many arbs are leaving and so less active. Forcing through a desysop in a non-emergency in those circumstances is just not the right way of doing things. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Neelix has responded at the ANI request. I'm not sure what further input is needed here, and I disagree that a full case is necessary (or prudent). GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Well, the best thing to do would have been to email Neelix and talk to him about whether or not he needs the admin bit and recommending that he resign it. Pulling a desysop motion out in public when he hadn't publicly commented on being desysopped - for actions which were non admin actions, so it's basically a "lost community faith desysop" shouldn't be a something that happens by simple motion of 11 people. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Perhaps not, and maybe this will be an impetus for a community-based desysop procedure, but this is all we have right now, and I'm not particularly willing to allow Neelix to slide between the cracks because we don't have a community-desysop protocol in place, The easiest thing would be for Neelix to give up the bit voluntarily (under a cloud), but a number of people have suggested that and we've had no response from him, so proceeding with the only other desysyoping mechanism we have in place, via ArbCom, seems a reasonable response tp his extended bad judgment and misbehavior. BMK (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I'm not saying a desysop for loss of community trust is wrong. I'm saying a desysop for loss of community trust by motion is wrong. There's a large number of reasons this should be a case, even if it's a simple one. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Agreed that a private conversation preceding a public motion would have been a good idea. (Or maybe there was communication we're not aware of.) But if the eventual aim is to put down the torches and pitchforks and encourage a long-term volunteer to stick to his areas of competence, leave the (ahem) titillating redirects alone, and ideally quietly resign the bit he's barely using in any case, I don't think a month-long arb case in which all and sundry can post "evidence" in which they speculate about his motivations, off-wiki affiliations, religious beliefs, mental health (see ANI), etc etc etc. is an improvement on what we're currently doing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* He created redirect a trip down mammary lane!? (LOL! An Administrator! An Ambassador! Such good vetting! Hilarious!) Desysop him. If he does again, even once, indef him. DUH. IHTS (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Having been heavily involved in the ANI discussion, including mass deletion of a number of these redirects and issuing a final warning, I initially called for de-sysop when I thought the account was compromised. Turns out it isn't. It seems like Neelix has been doing this for a number of years, and was previously blocked for it in 2010. Now the matter has been brought to the community's wider attention I doubt it will happen again, and there has been no abuse of tools. Therefore I oppose any de-sysop. GiantSnowman 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Missing the point The issue here isn't the "admin" block - protect - revdel - et. al. tool set, it's autopatrolled (bundled with admin). Had Neelix's contributions been appearing on the patrol list the problem would have been detected and addressed much sooner. That said, per WTT this motion is out of order -- and desysoping is not an IAR circumstance and I encourage the committee to decline for that reason. This is not an emergency, someone will file a case later if the committee's services are required. NE Ent 12:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Yes, you generally are in favor of process for its own sake, as opposed to getting right result. BMK (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* He has performed a WP:INVOLVED block. In his second to last block made was a clearly involved block of to protect articles he created.
* [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok_Girl&diff=605950787&oldid=605920197 Neelix reverts Xxxxxf's edit] on Bangkok Girl which he had created.
* Xxxxxf also edited Let Me Be a Woman which Neelix reverts . Neelix created this article as well. So his tool use is not clean either. J bh Talk 13:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* More misuse of admin tools. places full page protection on Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Neelix&page=+Sci-Fi+Dine-In+Theater+Restaurant&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=], an article he has created, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sci-Fi_Dine-In_Theater_Restaurant&offset=20150325235006&action=history]. It was later reverted by as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. J bh Talk 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Yes, good point. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I believe desysop is appropriate here considering the amount of disruption caused, If he wants the tools again he should go to RFA. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Yes to de-sysopping. The sheer number of ridiculous and offensive redirects is mind boggling but that an Admin has done this for so long is beyond comprehension. What else has he been doing that is very unbecoming of a mop-bearer? The disruption alone is de-sysop worthy, in my opinion. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* There are problems with Neelix's organism related redirects (and dabs). The fact that he created the redirect I. maxima and the dab page L. maxima on the same day
Bypassing Arbcom's own procedures
I've got to say, I'm really uncomfortable with this motion. Arbcom has procedures set in place for removal of permissions, and this motion appears to be bypassing them. As far as I'm concerned, removal of permissions can happen through 3 methods: Now, this desysop doesn't fit with any of those - but it's very close to the criteria for Arbcom's Level 2 procedures. So why in the hell are you not following Level 2 procedures? Have you contacted Neelix to discuss the matter - with the understanding that his administrator userright is on the line? And given him a reasonable chance to respond? He's been asked at ANI why he created a number of redirects as an editor not as an admin. There's a big difference and if Arbcom are considering a desysop, they owe the admin the courtesy of following their own procedures. It's not hard. Most importantly is the line "If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances." Straight desysop by motion is not appropriate here. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Level 1 procedures - emergency for example due to compromised accounts, as we had a few days ago.
* Level 2 procedures - Loss of trust with no satisfactory explanation.
* As a result of a case.
* As an armchair Arbcom observer since 2012, I agree that this will set an interesting precedent. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I feel that this escalation to ArbCom is appropriate. The community clearly has concerns, consensus is our most powerful tool and it can override guidelines in good faith, and if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Totally agree with Worm that Turned, this isn't deserving of a desysop. Rephrasing to make it clearer: I agree with Worm that turned said. I further believe that Neelix doesn't deserve to have his bit removed over this. Sorry for the mis-wording, I realize you weren't saying Neelix didn't deserve to be desysoped! Kosh Vorlon 12:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Not what I said KoshVorlon. I've not made up my mind on whether there should be a desysop in this case. I'm saying that the way that the committee is going about the desysop is not right. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I have to agree; feeling very uneasy with how this is being handled. Sam Walton (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Fully agree with much of the original concept Dave (WTT) had expressed here. — Ched : ? 12:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC) (edited) aside: Perhaps the next time there are oppose votes at RfA over maturity concerns, they will be given more consideration. — Ched : ? 21:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I oppose all of this as an absurd level of over-reach. There is a process for these things: first we warn. So far as I can tell, Neelix stopped after the first warning, so punitive measures should end there. bd2412 T 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Neelix was warned in 2010 for exactly this kind of creation of redirect and blocked. Despite the warning that a subsequent creation might result in a block I do not advocate a block in this case. I would be troubled about discussion of the sysop if there were no evidence of prior warning, but there is. The strongly worded warning in the block didn't seem to send the message. While he appears to have stopped after the current warning it was not the first warning.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I was not aware of that, although it is five years old and somewhat distinguishable. I still think moving to desysop is jumping the gun by a mile, here. bd2412 T 16:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Query: Has anyone noticed the "new" 2601 account being so quick to notify everyone about the sins involved? I am far from certain about who was the actual culprit, though since the account is no longer misbehaving, I wonder if we are barking at the wrong tree? Proper course would be to email a known account for Neelix, and to lock this account until this is sorted out. "Desysopping" here seems a bit like locking the barn door. Collect (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Pinging since I think, based on their conversation, that he knows who the IP is and that they have been editing for 'years'. The original report was on Drmies talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#An_orgy_of_redirects]. J bh Talk 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* , the IP is a notorious hopper--he just can't settle down. He's been here for years, slumming as an IP, and his edits are above board. You can go through my talk page archives looking for "99", which is how he has come to be known (before he got a smartphone, I suppose). Others can vouch for him as well but I want to respect their privacy. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Thanks (as probably one of the "others"). I vouch for the IP as well. They actually have more sense and make better edits than many registered accounts. In any event, it's irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is about Neelix, not about the person who reported the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* In short he or she either is or is not a person with a registered username on Wikipedia? If so they have no reasonable expectation that the registered username will not be revealed. Collect (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Surely if the IP-to-account correspondence is only known by a few people, they have every reasonable expectation not to be outed. LjL (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* If ,for an example, an IP was repeatedly harassing (2600:1000:b010:3bff:f9c5:d8f1:2a36:d8c5) an editor - any admin would be acting properly in denying that anyone might know who the IP really was? Or if an IP whose identity was specifically known to an admin decides to weigh in on a controversial topic - that the IP should be protected from being "outed" as a known editor? We are not talking "real life identities" here - we would be talking about a registered editor using an IP in order to hide who he is, in such a case. Collect (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Then tell me why WP:Checkuser is almost never used to compare a registered editor to an IP address, or at least the results are not made public. And those are generally cases where people are definitely acting maliciously (i.e. sockpuppeting). In this case, it's only you so far who are suggesting malice on the part of this "whistle-blower". LjL (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* It's clear that Neelix has lost the community's trust in his good judgement as an administrator ... No, Neelix has not lost the community's trust; he might've lost yours, but you don't represent the community. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Hey, you still refuse to believe that JackTheVicar is ColonelHenry, so your own judgment is rather suspect. In any event, I'm pretty darn certIn that your fringe beliefs don't represent those of the community. BMK (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* I'm seeing a community supermajority WP:CONSENSUS of 2:1, so I'd say that Thryduulf's statement is correct. Softlavender (talk)
* This alleged supermajority is of the self-selected group of people who post to the hell-hole that is AN/I, right? I strongly agree with Worm That Turned, Sam Walton, bd2412, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I agree totally. Worm That Turned, BD2412, Sam Walton, et al. are right, and people who want Neelix's head based on an editing issue—rather than an admin issue—are suggesting solutions that are not supported by any policy whatsoever. A topic ban, a block, or even a warning? Fine. A desysopping? "His unacceptable conduct as an administrator" does not have to be punished based on a silly editing rampage about [censored]. It must be prevented. The way we can prevent that is by a topic ban. epic genius (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* From WP:ADMIN: "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... Repeated or consistent poor judgment. ... Administrators are expected to lead by example ... Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status." So no more talk, please, about how he hasn't violated any policy. Besides which, if you actually read this thread and the AN/I, you'll find a number of incidents where Neelix used the tools to protect his version of articles, thus violating WP:INVOLVED. BMK (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I read the entire thing. Yes, Neelix has wheel-warred in the past. That was, what, 18 months ago? If he was still wheel-warring just a few days ago, he should have been blocked and desysopped immediately. Otherwise, we are just punishing him.Just admonishing him would be a good remedy. epic genius (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* No, we're just stopping him from doing it again. The redirects show lack of good judgement, and the other past events show that this lack of good judgement concretized in misuse of admin tools. And we've shown we're all perfectly capable of not realizing that something like ~80000 bogus/abusive redirects are being created over the course of 5 years. Do we want to be at this point again in 2020? LjL (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* I agree with WTT in part. This is an entirely new process, one which, as far as I can see, is nowhere to be found in policy or precedent; then again, this process certainly has advatages over level 1 and 2 desysops, in that we allow the community to voice their opinions before the fact, rather than after. On the other hand, as far as I can see, we haven't heard from Neelix yet (except for his comments on ANI) and, so, I'm not going to cast my vote at this time. At the same time, had this case been filed at RFAR, we could have dealt with it by motion and that would have been perfectly fine procedure-wise; so, in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO, I'm not sure there would be much point in closing this discussion, only to move everything to RFAR... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Except that if it was at RFAR, things would have played differently. Statements would have been heard. Holding comments requesting more statements would appear from arbs. No arb (I hope) would have proposed a motion to desysop, let alone voted on said motion, without a statement from Neelix in a reasonable time frame. Arbcom is set up to act in a certain manner for good reason. I would certainly agree to changing to L2 desysop procedure to include community comments before the desysop happens, but not on the fly during a L2 procedure! <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* As I said, I agree in part; this should have been filed as a case as RFAR from the beginning, that would have been the proper way to go about it. However, my point is, now that we have a bunch of statements anyway, is there really the need to move this discussion over to RFAR all the same? Or can we adapt this procedure, just for this once, for instance holding off on voting until we hear from Neelix? Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* That's got to be your choice as a committee. However, I will point out that things have changed since the motion was first posted. GW has already stated that her issue was with the implausibility of the redirects, rather than the puerility of the terms - yet the motion sticks with the word "inappropriate", which is distinctly vague and overreaching. There's a statement above that Neelix may have used tools while involved in the past. However, in this arena, we're stuck between "desysop or not", we don't get to consider other options, we don't get to look into the facts of the case. Are the facts quite so clear cut? I'm afraid I'm seeing mob rule here and it's getting my back up. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* If I may, "inappropriate" applies both to implausible redirects and to puerile ones. Neither are appropriate, though of course for different reasons. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I don't really see how this is any different to a motion that was proposed at RFAR in lieu of a case, and a case isn't necessary—there's only one party, and the facts have been established. I would, though, emphasise that there is no rush; unless Neelix resumes his activities, we can wait to hear from him and have a "cool-down period"—there's no need to have this open and shut immediately. Nonetheless, an explanation for some of these redirects would have to be compelling. I expect administrators to have the judgement to know that "a trip down mammary lane" is not an appropriate redirect, and administrators serve as ambassadors and representatives of this project and should therefore not be party to juvenile nonsense like this which embarrasses themselves and the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Why is "a trip down mammary lane" an inappropriate redirect in a WP:NOTCENSORED encyclopedia where it is reported in the article (and not by the editor under review) that this is a synonym for the sex act to which the article pertains? bd2412 T 15:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Frankly it's not inappropriate in terms of censorship, but probably inappropriate as something readers are unlikely to search for. Does including that information in the article actually add anything other than trivia, or is it merely added for shock value? Either way, Neelix did not add it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Support: Admins should not behave like this. Sometimes when editor becomes very experienced that time he/she thinks that no one will oppose them whatever they do. Though we have some liberty for choosing name of redirects still creation these kind of redirects does not suit admins. These are not search terms. I don't know deep history of Neelix, but I saw this matter is going on ANI and elsewhere so wanted to comment here. As I see on his userpage, Neelix has done good work too, I wonder how such experienced editor and admin can do such things? Maybe his/her account is operated by 2 people, other person who operates his account is very immature.-- Human 3015 TALK 15:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I am finding at least some misuse of tools, see above. There are also a lot of lists where he has "moved protection" - maybe moved the article and protected, I really do not understand the notation so I do not know is this is protecting a favored name or is within policy. Someone who is more familiar than I should look at his protection log. It looks like there might be a lot of POV pushing going on but that is based on the above linked WO article. If that is true we need to move this to a full case because he needs to be banned outright and he deserves the chance to explain himself that a full case would give. J bh Talk 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I have a question. How are the creation of these redirects in any way related to misuse of administrator tools? Does the creation of female body part redirects somehow require admin tools only? I am not saying that Neelix is wrong, but I think desysopping is punitive because if an admin wanted to get Neelix to stop, he/she could just have blocked him. This does not fit under any desysopping procedures, whether Level 1 or Level 2. epic genius (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Desysopping does not require a misuse of the tools. It can also take place in response to a long-term pattern of poor judgement or other (mis)behavior, sufficient to bring into question the presumption that an admin retains the trust of the community. Neelix's behavior here likely clears that bar. That said, NE Ent correctly notes above that as part of the admin user rights bundle Neelix gets the autopatrolled user right. For editors with this right, any new articles – including redirects – they create are automatically identified as "reviewed" or "patrolled" on Special:NewPagesFeed and Special:NewPages. There's a fair argument to be made that if Neelix hadn't enjoyed autopatrolled rights, his history of creating thousands of useless and offensive redirects would have come to the community's attention much sooner. There's no way to remove the autopatrolled right from Neelix without desysopping him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Apparently, if he didn't have the "autopatrolled" bit, which is implicitly part of the "admin" bit, all these thousands redirects would have been reviewed by someone in the, you know, years they've been happening. LjL (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Oh, I see now. These comments make a lot more sense (basically, behavior unbecoming an admin, rather than explicit admin misuse). Thanks for the clarifications, guys. epic genius (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* @LjL Autopatrolled does mean his redirects were automatically marked as patrolled, but even if they weren't both Special:NewPagesFeed and Special:NewPages default to not showing redirects. On the basis that redirects are cheap and usually harmless we focus our newpage patrolling at articles. So I'm not sure being autopatrolled will have made that much difference. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 19:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Separately from all of this, though, it does make me wonder if "Autopatrolled" should be part of the "rights bundle" granted to Admins – I think I could make a pretty good argument that Autopatrolled should be a completely distinct right, granted separately, and not included in the Admin bundle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* The English Wikipedia has users with the autopatrolled explicitly granted. WP:Autopatrolled is one of those rights (along with rollbacker, reviewer and template editor) that's been unbundled so the bar for trusting editors to have this right is lower than administrator... Wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* But that's not the point, the point is that if you are administrator, conversely, then you automatically have that right. In this case, Neelix being an administrator automatically grants him something that (as an editor) he probably should not have. In fact, there are people who argue against desysopping because the "crime" was committed as an editor, not as an admin and not by using admin tools, and yet, being an admin may well have been what ultimately allowed him to continue doing this for so long, unnoticed and/or unstopped. LjL (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Except as Liz pointed out, it's irrelevant. Redirects don't show up in WP:NPP anyway, so whether or not Neelix had that right wouldn't have mattered. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I'm not just talking about that bit, I'm talking about being an administrator in general. Because if Wikipedia can collectively miss 80000 "troll" redirects by an administrator, that's pretty bad, but at least we'd have the excuse that we didn't check because we assumed an administrator wouldn't be doing smoething like that. And they were blocked for it before. LjL (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Whether redirects appear or not is a option the viewer selects: New pages with redirects -- so this idea that "redirects don't appear on new pages" is false (if you're boolean minded) or at best only partially true (if you're more of a Bayesian). NE Ent 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* My point is, unless I'm missing something, Admins shouldn't need the Autopatrolled right to carry out their duties – Autopatrolled is about being able to create (good) articles, but there are plenty of Admins (incl. several recent successful RfA candidates, and several more RfA candidates who while they failed were credible Admin prospects) who either had no articles created or who had only a few articles created at the time of their RfA. I'm personally not comfortable giving Autopatrolled to Admins who intend to primarily be Vandal fighters or article deleters, etc. and whose primary focus isn't article creation. To my mind, Autopatrolled should be a separate "thing" that's not a standard part of the "bit" and that's granted purely on "good article creation" grounds... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* The problem is that admins are supposed to be trustworthy, that's one of the points of having to pass through a vetting process. The autopatrolled right is intended for trustworthy editors as well, only with a level of trustworthiness that's less than that for admins (which is less than that for functionaries etc.), so there's no logical reason to unbundle the autopatrolled right, especially considering there's no real history of admin abuse of the right. I'm afraid your suggestion is a non-starter. BMK (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* I just gave you a "logical" reason, and this current circumstance provides another. And we continue with the canard that passing an RfA confers "trustworthness" (apparently in all things!!), despite the fact that 1) that proposition is questionable at best, and 2) RfA's are not specifically checking for article writing skills (and a significant number of those who pass RfA's don't have them). (Yes, some voters insist on high-level article writing skills, but they are definite minority of RfA voters.) So, no, I find your dismissal of the idea to be virtually a non sequitur. (Now, if you had said the Admin corps will likely object to removing Autopatrolled from the bit, then you might have had a point...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* The autopatrolled right doesn't mean that the person is able to create high quality articles, it just means that they can be trusted to create articles which don't need to be checked by NP patrollers. This saves NP patrol time by ensuring that patrollers' efforts can be concentrated in areas where it is actually necessary. NP patrol is largely about identifying articles which are obvious candidates for deletion. If someone isn't capable writing an article which doesn't qualify for speedy deletion then they should not be an administrator, not least because that person doesn't understand our deletion processes, but this has very little to do with high level article writing skills. Hut 8.5 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* So clearly Neelix should not be an administrator. LjL (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* This may be a subtle difference, but I interpret that differently – that Admins won't create articles that would otherwise be "speedied" (i.e. that we trust they won't), not that they necessarily know how to not create non-"speediable" articles. But, again, not everyone who becomes an Admin is necessarily interested in doing CSD, and even those can simply read the criteria carefully before doing CSD work. This still doesn't mean that they necessarily know how to create "good" articles (or are even interested in doing so...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* I'm not really sure I understand your point: if admins either know how to create acceptable articles, don't create articles or have the sense to read up on what constitutes an acceptable new article before creating one... why shouldn't they have the autopatrolled right? Bear in mind that creating a non-speediable article is pretty easy for anyone who knows and complies with fundamental policy: if the article has comprehensible content, is neutrally written, cites reliable sources and isn't a copyvio then it is very unlikely to be speedied. (And if someone doesn't understand neutrality, verifiability or copyright then they really should not be an administrator.) Hut 8.5 23:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
As I said over at ANI, Neelix is level-headed in person, and I never imagined that I'd see this. However, I didn't know about the 2010 block for pretty much the same thing—and a response that is eerily similar to those he's giving today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Worth noting, for the record, that Neelix has been deleting some of the inappropriate redirects since this conversation began. Most of the offensive ones were already cleaned up yesterday, but the ones he's chosen to delete are certainly in the category of "useless". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* (ec)On the plus side, Neelix is cleaning up old redirects. On the negative side, it looks like the problem goes beyond breast-related redirects.
* I know I've said this already but this is the fourth case of excessive redirects ANI saw within a week. I think that the page creation of redirects is not overseen by the new page patrol and there is nothing preventing an editor from creating 40 or 50 or 100 implausible redirects to the same article. Perhaps redirect guidelines should be tightened up? Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* I posted earlier today a proposal to add a "what not to create" section at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. It needs work and could use the input of editors here. This was something I had been thinking about for a while and wasn't motivated by this case in particular, though obviously it helped. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
we're not looking at a "bright line" type violation here ← I'm not really sure which line could be brighter than an estimated eigthy thousand redirects the vast majority of which have been deemed positively vulgar/puerile/trolly. Other editors would be blocked forever, but this is an admin, and you're not even sure whether he should stay an admin, nevermind blocking, because you know, he's an admin after all. LjL (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
* Hi LjL. "Vast majority" is pretty strong language and not supported by evidence. In looking at an editor's wiki contributions to the project, maybe it helps to also note that Neelix has several featured articles and good articles, according to his user page. I don't think it's appropriate to demonize him. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Redirects aren't articles. I said "vast majority" of redirects. And the ANI thread showed more. Who's claiming all his contributions are negative? Certainly not me. But it really doesn't take showing that to demonstrate that he's not fit to be an admin from even just a fraction of the rest of the stuff. LjL (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Actually the loopy breast and shirtlessness redirects have received all of the attention but having looked at Anomie's list, it looks like about 50-70% of the redirects concern various species of frogs. There are tens of thousands of frog redirects. Now who would like to take on that job of reviewing them? Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* The puerile redirects were bad and I doubt most commenting here, who are not admins, are aware of just how inappropriate they were and the massive lack of judgement creating them showed. Here are some of them via the deletion logs of two admins who worked hard to delete them . While this was going on Neelix did absolutely nothing to help . Even after all of this discussion all he has done is clean up about 100 extremely stupid redirects to, I assume, Polycephaly . I—just—do—not—get—it. J bh Talk 02:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* What, exactly, is the rush to clean up? One of the best things to do in a situation like this is to not make hasty decisions such as going on a deletion spree. It's also a lot easier to say "this is how you should respond when the mob shows up" than it is to actually act that way when there's a mob after you.
* If you look at the redirects that Neelix has created that don't involve the word "boobies" or "titties", you can see that he simply has a different understanding of what's appropriate for a redirect. Here's an example: Categorically, Categorizations, Categorizes, Categorized, Categorisations, Categorises, Categorised, Categorising, Categorizational, Categorisational, Categorizationally, Categorisationally, Categorizer, Categorizers, Categoriser, Categorisers.
* Someone who creates this many permutations of redirects is obviously going to do the same with "titties" or "boobies" and many, many other topics. Thousands of redirects worth of topics, it turns out. Maybe I'm just really naïve, but I've yet to see compelling evidence that Neelix was acting in bad faith. It takes a lot of time and dedication (we're taking about many years) to create this many redirects. I think a lot of people are being overly harsh and critical here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* No,, I disagree. If this was done more or less indiscriminately there'd be more body parts than just women's breasts (and perhaps folks without pants on). I'm not saying they were created out of bad faith, but even without psychologizing too much on can say that they were done possibly out of an obsession. Sure, there's dedication, but it's not a very proper dedication. The rush to clean up, well, I don't care about tree frogs, lovely creatures though they may be--I'm concerned with the incredibly inappropriate ones, which are offensive and insulting in so many ways for so many people, including Mrs. Drmies and my mother, and thus for me also. I hadn't yet seen the ones Iridescent cleaned up, or maybe I had reached my maximum capacity. We simply cannot have this if we want to take ourselves seriously. I don't see the need for some speedy desysop; I couldn't care less if it were done tomorrow or in two weeks, and I don't need to see a block (yet). (So I have no opinion whether this needs RFAR or not; I don't care, and I do hope they will weigh in--but so far they haven't, and not because they haven't been online.) Neelix's edits are under a microscope, so I see no imminent danger of future edits or involved administrative action, but the stuff that and I deleted, that stuff had to go, the sooner the better. That's the rush, or that was the rush. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* This obsession seems to have been going on for quite a while. Neelix created the page Titty all the way back in 2008. Kelly hi! 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Perhaps. But is anyone seriously suggesting there was something wrong or puerile with that edit? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* I fully support handling this by motion. For whatever reason a large number of active editors don't like the idea of community desysop; now that arbcom is stepping in, people are demanding that every non-emergency desysop be accompanied by a case? Adminship needs to be easier to gain and much easier to lose. Making desysopping a more involved and difficult process would (rightly) make people more even nervous about supporting at RfA, which doesn't help at all. wctaiwan (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
List of most (all?) redirects created
Just in case it's needed, here's a list Anomie created of redirect Neelix created. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* For those not watching ANI, there is another version at earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html that is hopefully easier to work with. — Earwig talk 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* I wasn't watching ANI but am a regular at RfD. Is it possible to make a list only where the redirects are not in any category? This might (or might not) pare it down a bit, for one thing the speedily-created redirects have in common is that they are never categorised (I suppose that would take too long). Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* I didn't get your ping for some reason. We do have earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html now (not what you asked for, but hopefully an easier way to work through them). I'm not sure if building a list of just the uncategorized redirects would be very useful. — Earwig talk 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* yeah, that's nice, thanks. Any chance the links on that page could be made to go to the redirect rather than the target (i.e. "&redirect=no" in the URL)? Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* Done. — Earwig talk 05:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* Thanks. We're plodding through some of the less clear-cut over at RfD, but whole swathes can be safely deleted. In particular, it's useful that if another editor has changed the R it's not listed. My way of plodding through these will be to look at this list first, rcat those I think are useful, so that they then will come off the list (I presume) before being mass deleted or mass listed at RfD. There's a good bit of collaboration going on here, which is so nice to see. (To be clear, I am not an admin.) Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Second reason
I've been doing this Wikipedia dispute resolution stuff for a long time now (Too long, perhaps) -- I'd be surprised if there's any endgame here which includes Neelix having a sysop bit. There's another reason this out of process motion is problematic; it has denied him the opportunity to simply resign under a cloud and now his name, per the banal crushing arbcom bureaucracy, must be recorded in some archive (passed motions, denied motions) rather than being lumped in the other 903 pages of ANI archives (which, per The Purloined Letter is pretty close to hidden). Guerillero has incorrectly stated arbcom is like a Senate -- given that's where Caesar was assassinated ... In any event: No, arbcom is not supposed to a govcom "legislature," ya'll are supposed to the wiki-equivalent of a Supreme Court: "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve." As we were still talking at WP:CESSPIT, er, Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents -- go work on the way overdue e-cig decision or deny today's batch of banned editor email appeals -- when ya'll are needed someone will fill out the appropriate overly long and complicated template. We don't need ya'll to be Judge Dredds, we need Solomons and Judge Judy's, and cowboy arbitrating is as bad as, or worse than, cowboy admining. NE Ent 00:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Is it really so tragic that his name is now forever recorded on this page? His behavior created a huge ruckus, and when I said on ANI that you all should very quickly hide this under the rug before the press noticed, I didn't really mean it. I'd say his name showing up on a list of motion is, by far, the least he could incur. And sure, give him the opportunity to "resign his bit under a cloud", but I believe that opportunity has been mentioned a number of times and in the meanwhile Neelix has continued to make inconspicuous edits that did not include giving up the bit. If you're pretty sure the end result is that his bit will be removed, then beating around the bush with bureaucracy is just annoying, and a press-magnet. LjL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* The contention that the current method of dealing with the problem prevents Neelix from voluntarily giving up the bit is total balderdash. He can do it any time he wants to, regardless of whether ArcCom had opened a case or is dealing with it by motion. In fact, he could have -- and should have -- done so when the extent of the misbehavior became clear at An/I, before it ever got to ArbCom. A number of editors counseled him to do so, and we heard nothing whatsoever from him. The notion that the "proper procedure" would have given him more opportunity to resign has no relationship with reality -- and frankly, at this point I don't care, nor do most of the Wikipedia editors who have called for the desysop. Only a handful of people care about the "inside baseball" aspects of this, the rest of us just want the problem resolved with a desysop and a topic ban. We are a social system in which the result is always more important than the process.. All this hand-wringing is completely unnecessary: just solve the problem. BMK (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* A case? I'm all for taking your time and not rushing to decisions, but if any outside person looked at the amount of time that has been spend at ANI, User Talk pages and here, I think they would begin to understand the biggest problem that Wikipedia is facing these days is bureaucracy. How many frickin words, statements, paragraphs, suggestions, need to be written and heard on what should be an open and shut motion. Whichever way one is thinking, it should be easy. I wasn't for a desysop, but the excuses and the block from 2010 lead me to believe there should only be one outcome. The continued explanations and haranguing is impossible to understand. Dave Dial (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* +1. Thank you, . A responsible non-profit organization respects its real-life volunteers, and enforces social norms in a way that is comparable to what happens in a real-life collaborative situation. Prolonged struggle sessions are not necessary here. --Djembayz (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
De-sysopping might well be appropriate, but a case is needed. As Seraphimblade said, this is a case of poor judgement, and does not need emergency-speed intervention. -- The Anome (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Actually, it's also about a loss of confidence in this Admin by the community – determining that shouldn't require a full case. Really, this doesn't require a full ArbCom case. And, if it does, it really does emphasize the fact that a non-ArbCom, community-based way to remove Admins is a necessity. A full case of this seems like a waste of ArbCom's (and everybody else's) time. This case, and Yngvadottir's, really beg for quick desysopses, followed by the opportunity for an immediate re-RfA: just let the community decide. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
What the hell? No, guys, you don't need a full case; what possible purpose would it serve? You've already got the evidence you need, and there are only a few remedies that make sense, so holding a month-long case does nothing other than to continue humiliating an identifiable person and to make the project look even more indecisive and ridiculous than it already does. ("Hmm, so we have this problem of women not finding our community a welcoming place. Meanwhile, what do we do about an admin who thinks it's appropriate to refer to breast cancer as 'tit tumors'?") Never mind the merits of the procedural decisions up to this point; now that we're here, just desysop him and get it over with. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Maybe women complaining about breast cancer being referred to in that way are just exhibiting bitchingness... (yup, that's one of his redirects). LjL (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* But not bitchitude and the many possible variations. Bitchitudinousness, bitchitudinality, bitchitudinalitousness, bitchificationistically.... I see another 300 redirects coming, to help the hapless user's search for the right article, no doubt. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Not just here, at Commons too
At first I was trying to think of an innocuous reason for all these strange redirects - was this just a way of grinding his edit count higher, like a score in a video game? Under his real name, David Mark Purdy (it's at the top of his user page), Neelix has given interviews to the press as one of Wikipedia's "top 50 editors" and highlighted his edit count of 130,000 (were a majority of those silly and puerile redirects?) Was he just wanting attention and accolades and thought a high edit count would do that?
After I saw this thread, I also went to look at his Commons contribs. Apparently back in January, Neelix retired for a couple months after he came to the attention of offline forums, including Wikipediocracy, for the creepy shrinelike nature of Tara Teng and related articles. While he was inactive here, he went to Commons. His contribs there had been previously limited and routine, but in January he began to create hundreds, if not thousands, of odd categories involving nudity. The list is here, just keep scrolling. His first one in this vein was "Blue pasties", soon progressing to "Topless women wearing panties", "Topless women with nipple piercings", "Topless women with closed eyes and opened mouth", "Nude women drinking", "Nude women with pianos", "Men touching nude women's breasts"....it just goes on and on and on continuing up to this month.
There's something very wrong here. Neelix made a small effort to start cleanup and seems to have abandoned the whole thing. I frankly would not be surprised if we have seen the last of him here. But I'm thinking the bit should probably be removed soonest in any case. Kelly hi! 14:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Thanks for mentioning edit counts. That had occurred to me and prompted me to wonder if we should stop reporting edit counts beyond some level. I wrote up some thoughts at the idea lab-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* The precedent -- a very good one -- is for the committee to suspend the case until such time as a) the editor returns, or b) they are desyopped for inactivity. Arbitration Committees are at their best when they are slow, thoughtful, and deliberate -- we already have a WP:PITCHFORKS. Short cuts make long delays. J.R.R. Tolkien This notion that procedure can be skipped when a) the result is obvious and/or b) the ends justify the means inevitability backfire because more time is spent discussing why you're not having the prescribed discussion than the prescribed discussion would have taken. NE Ent 17:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
* Only if people who reason your way "inevitably" spend too much time discussing why the so-called "prescribed" (except WP:BURO) discussion did not take place. LjL (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Freeze the case and leave it to the next coming Arbcom team
Trying to speed-up the process by an arbitrator motion doesn't seem to work. This mostly occurs because time is part of the curation process. It needs time for the rank and file editor discovers that a non yet dead woman suffering of breast cancer is in fact some kind of living person (you know, the LP of the famous BLP mantra).
On the other hand, some admins have already started to clean part of the mess... becoming involved, according to the rules. And it will take some time for some other admins to recover from what appears as a kind of "tools lack-of-response syndrom". Perhaps some column in some newspaper (Pacific Review, Gibraltar Globe, what else) is needed. Perhaps, this is only the well known fact that surgery should not occur too late, but also not too early: pus collection, reaction of the organism, etc. all of this are part of what a surgeon should watch.
In any case, Arbcom should not react as a first line defense: Arbcom is the last defense line.
Moreover, the current Arbcom team, has already a large workload for spending their 12 people times two months remaining womanpower: no less than five open cases ! It would be a great idea to clean the place before leaving, and wait for the next coming Arbcom team to deal with these thousands of offensive redirects. Only freeze the situation for the next coming two months by restricting Neelix from doing anything in the article space except from cleaning the mess he created. Pldx1 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom needs to recognize that they are not one thing only
I work as a stage manager in the theatre, and as such I am responsible to a number of people. To the producer who employs me, I must see that the production gets mounted, reporting problems and helping to alleviate them; to the director, I am responsible for seeing that the artistic choices they make are properly carried out; to the actors, and as a member of the actors' union, I am the first line in making sure that all the union's rules and regulations are followed. These divided responsibilities mean that it is frequently the case that I must balance between them, playing different roles if necessary, but always working to the best of my ability for the betterment of the production.
ArbCom needs to realize that they, too, have divided responsibilities, and are not always one thing only.
Most of the time, they are a deliberative quasi-judicial body, similar to a court of last resort, which must act to decide between various elements of the community which cannot agree on what should be done. In this role, moving slowly and with great consideration is the proper thing to do, as they are the last step in a process which will certainly make some portion of the community unhappy.
There are times, however, where ArbCom must realize that they are our only elected representatives, and their role is not to act slowly and with great deliberation, but to act quickly and with great decisiveness to put an end to a problem. These situations come about when the community is essentially not divided, and there is a general consensus about what should be done, but has no power to put it into effect. In those circumstances, ArbCom must act as the elected representatives of the community and formalize what the people want to happen.
In rejecting dealing with the Neelix situation by motion -- which appears to be where the Committee is heading -- ArbCom has confused its roles. The consensus of the community seems clear, and is not going to get any clearer by holding a full case, nor are the facts going to get any better for Neelix -- although they could potentially get worse. In that circumstance, ArbCom must act as the people's elected representatives, examine the discussions to confirm that there is a consensus, and put that consensus into effect. Their role in this situation is not the normal one, there is not need of their normal slow methodical deliberation, because if there is a consensus in the community about what to do, it is not ArbCom's place to overrule that consensus. Indeed, one might say that if there is a consensus, and ArbCom overrules it, they have drastically overstepped their bonds.
ArbCom has showed that it can act quickly and decisively in cases where they see an immediate need to, passing emergency desysops by motion on a number of occasions. The fact that the Committee is so obviously reticent to do the same when it is the community, rather than ArbCom, which has identified the problem, is something of a slap in the face to the editors of Wikipedia. It would behoove the Committee to rectify that by continuing to deal with the Neelix situation by motion, and to confirm the community's consensus that his long term behavior is not worthy of his continuing to be an admin. BMK (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
RFAR opened
— Ched : ? 04:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Not desysopping Neelix here is a pretty severe mistake
* Y'all, this is not a level two desysop, this is a desysop by motion. If you want to be policy wonks about it, I feel the need to point out that even though it has not previously been done AFAIK, there's nothing in arbcom policy that prohibits a desysop by motion. You've heard from Neelix, and you've heard from the community - actually, you've heard from the community a lot more than you do on many workshop and evidence pages, and the overwhelming thing you've heard is that this incident alone means that this incident alone has been sufficient to make the community lose faith in Neelix's ability to adequately use the admin toolset, like blocking people, having unremovable autopatrolled, and viewing deleted revisions (which is of especial concern to me because it's not logged.) The discoveries of Neelix's prior misuse of the explicit admin toolset are irrelevant here; this incident alone has made it clear that a huge part of the community has lost trust in Neelix - and on an individual level most of you have also. Strip his damn bit, and allow him to immediately RFA again if he wants - his instances of tool misuse will be brought up by the community in any future RFA. You have way too many full cases on your plate. This one won't get handled quickly if it's not handled by motion. The admin toolset includes tools that cannot be monitored for abuse. Stripping his bit by motion is perfectly within arbcom policy, and is the appropriate step to take. If you think it shouldn't be within arbcom policy, rewrite your damn policy! Not stripping his bit by motion here is making it less likely that Neelix will be a productive editor in any area - because it's making it way more likely he'll be blocked or have huge community sanctions put on him. You're extending drama you could make shorter, do the right, procedure compliant, drama minimizing thing, and strip his bit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* An additional and possibly more important point is that dragging the issue out and producing more pages of criticism of the user is extremely unhelpful to Neelix (with a real name on their user page) from a personal point of view. Dancing all over the guy in order to get the s and s correct is unkind and destructive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* It probably goes without saying that I agree fully. with Kevin and Johnuniq. BMK (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* Well, it's done, so we're just whistling Dixie here. But yeah, do we really need to spell out, again, what all was wrong here? Does that do our editor and soon-to-be-former admin any good? Drmies (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* The initial motion was to desysop on the basis of an indeterminate number of silly/offensive redirects, without waiting for Neelix to respond. This seemed a little unfair given Neelix' longstanding contributions to WP. Given there was no emergency, it also seemed outside the usual process. Then evidence was presented of other issues including the use of tools while WP:INVOLVED, and a past history of other offensive redirects. There was enough here for a case request at the least, and a majority of the Committee has now voted to accept it.
* I am a little surprised at the argument that a case is insensitive to Neelix's feelings but an arbitrary desysop without opportunity to respond is not. I'm also surprised that some of the people who rightly criticised Arbcom for making up new procedures over the last year, now object to Arbcom following existing procedures to the letter. Either way, I suspect it won't take long to resolve. There's a body of evidence against Neelix, an opportunity for him to respond, and no reason to rush an outcome ahead of proper consideration. And yes, I am a real life bureaucrat. But due process is not always a bad thing. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* wikt:you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. NE Ent 10:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
* After reviewing thousands of his "contributions" and seeing news reports he solicited about his involvement on Wikipedia I believe he ran up his edit count for personal fame, and went way off the deep end. In addition he breached BLP policy and showed creepy stalker tendencies building and defending Tara Teng. Allowing him to continue as an Auto patrolled editor is crazy, and the only way to end that is strip Admin tools. If this behavior is ok, who will accept that their behavior is not ok here? Legacypac (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment by User:Müdigkeit
There might be involvement of other adminstrators( using adminstrative actions) in this case, as discussed in an ANI thread | here. You might want to add some accounts to the case parties.--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | WIKI |
Why climate change is a defining issue for 2020
Climate change is playing a larger — and more polarizing — role than ever before in a presidential election. Why it matters: In the past, the topic barely registered with voters and candidates were less polarized. Today, all Democratic candidates are treating it as a crisis, with detailed plans and funding sources to address it, while President Trump ignores the problem and bashes those plans. Driving the news: In the Nov. 20 Democratic presidential debate, Joe Biden called climate change "the" existential threat to humanity while Pete Buttigieg championed the notion of a "carbon-negative" farm. Billionaire Tom Steyer said if elected he would call a state of emergency on his first day in office over climate change. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who officially announced his candidacy on Sunday, has spent $500 million in recent years on global climate-related efforts and in June committed another $500 million for a Beyond Carbon initiative. The big picture: The impacts of climate change, like more intense wildfires and more severe flooding, are increasing in frequency. Meanwhile, ways to solve the problem, like renewable energy, are becoming more affordable, even while the science increasingly says the problem is growing more dire. These developments taken together are making climate change a tangible issue for broader swaths of the population than in the past — so it’s permeating our politics in newly forceful ways. Between the lines: Multiple surveys of public opinion show Americans' growing concern about climate change being driven almost entirely by Democrats. Democrats are looking to clamp down significantly on fossil fuels and enact ever-more aggressive and expensive plans, embodied around the Green New Deal rhetoric. Where it stands: Trump mocks and rejects mainstream climate-change science and is repealing virtually everything predecessor Barack Obama's administration did on the matter. Trump will bash the ultimate Democratic nominee's climate change plan as radical, while that person will bash the president for denying science. Don’t expect an inch of common ground. Flashback: Here’s a brief run down memory lane. In the 2016 and 2012 presidential contests, climate change didn’t register much with either the candidates or voters. In 2008, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama both acknowledged climate change as a problem and put forward aggressive policies. The topic rarely came up in presidential contests before that, largely because it was just beginning to emerge as a public issue. More traditional environmental problems were paramount. Climate change has received far more attention among Democratic candidates than it ever has in the past. Although the topic is still not a top focus in the Democratic primary debates, CNN and MSNBC both hosted forums for the candidates to discuss climate change. Several current, former or potential candidates have made the topic a top priority for them, including Steyer and former candidate Jay Inslee. These men have never been likely nominees, but their attention on the topic has created pressure on the entire field to respond in kind with similarly aggressive policies. The other side: Congressional Republicans, who have mostly ignored climate change for the last decade, are looking to respond to what is a growing public opinion trend of young people more worried about climate change than older people. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy told The Washington Examiner recently that his conference will be introducing a series of bills aimed at responding to the Green New Deal. “Let’s have that debate instead of everybody saying we’re just deniers,” McCarthy said. Trump campaign spokeswoman Sarah Matthews criticized the Green New Deal and Democrats' plans to significantly curtail — or even eliminate altogether — fossil fuels. "In contrast, President Trump continues to advance realistic solutions to reduce emissions while unleashing American energy like never before," Matthews said. Reality check: Emissions are going back up under Trump, but expect this talking point in any case. But, but, but: Climate change is unlikely to be the top issue for most voters in 2020. The complexity and decades-long nature of this problem makes it uniquely ill-suited for politics operating on two to six-year cycles and makes it unlikely to ever be the top priority for any sizable portion of the population. More imminent concerns, like health care and the economy, will almost always win out with most voters. The bottom line: That all said, we’re entering a new high water mark for climate change and its political saliency. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Abstract
There is currently both considerable interest in the physics of ELM transport in the scrape-off layer (SOL) and concern over the impact of the ELM power and particle loads on the divertor targets of future fusion reactors. This paper describes some experimental observations of the reaction of target floating potentials and currents during ELMS in TCV, relying principally on fast measurements of these parameters using tile embedded Langmuir probe arrays. Clear evidence is presented for rapid modifications in the local target floating potentials occurring long before the characteristic rise of hydrogenic excitation emission due to local recycling provoked by the arrival at the target of the ELM ion flux. This precursor activity appears to be synchronous with the growth of MHD modes in the main chamber. Simple conditional averaging is used to derive a 'coherent ELM' and thus generate the radial distribution of the current to probes held at the target potential. At some locations, the coherent ELM can also be used to estimate the time evolution of the local target electron temperature, density and power flux, even though these quantities are not directly measured. The time delays between the reactions of currents, floating potentials and derived temperature are consistent with the expections of recently published kinetic simulations of ELM energy transport down a one-dimensional SOL plasma. The strong potential variations observed during the ELM are the result of current flows at the targets. These currents are generally of opposite sign at inner and outer divertors and are thus consistent, at least in part, with a thermoelectric origin in which the driven current is produced by an in/out divertor temperature asymmetry near the strike point of nearly a factor 2, probably due to the generation of divertor asymmetries by the ELM heat pulse. Such asymmetries are commonly observed in low to medium density L-modes for the particular TCV magnetic equilibrium studied in this paper. The total current balance during the ELM is satisfied only to within a factor 2, so that, whilst some of the driven current flows parallel to field lines in the SOL, there is an apparent additional negative current to the inner divertor during the ELM whose origin remains unexplained. It might, however, be due, in part, to increased plasma-wall interaction in the main chamber during the ELM event.
Details
Actions | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Storage
Managing and protecting all enterprise data
cutimage - Fotolia
Manage Learn to apply best practices and optimize your operations.
When simple enterprise storage systems aren't so simple
Enterprise storage system simplicity starts with the tangible benefits that data storage efficiency can deliver.
Delivering value through innovation is the goal of many of today's technology development firms. Enterprise storage systems are no different. While each new storage product seeks to deliver substantial benefits, some are more tangible than others. One specific feature, so-called "simplicity," commonly finds itself on the wrong end of the tangibility spectrum -- too often delivering vague or even immaterial benefits to customers.
The use of the term "simple" in storage product marketing is so pervasive, its effectiveness has been weakened. In fact, I've yet to see an enterprise storage system (traditional storage arrays, mission-critical tier-one storage monoliths, or even open-source storage software) that isn't marketed as "simple." For a simplicity claim to be truly effective, a product needs to deliver a measurable financial benefit to businesses. Translating simplicity claims into business impacts is often a challenge, however. So I am proposing a different way of thinking about simplicity.
Two simple ways to think of simplicity
Look past the user interface: Most IT systems should have at least some form of graphical user interface, and that interface should endeavor to make it easy to digest all necessary information, while reducing the number of steps required to use the product effectively. For the vast majority of enterprise storage systems, graphical interface design has hit the law of diminishing returns, though. In addition, the definition of a simple interface is relative to the user. Reducing the number of steps from five to two, for example, should improve the ease of use, but not if the user is already adept at those five steps. And, for IT organizations that use scripting, these simplicity innovations can provide little to no benefit in everyday use. For these environments, consistency is usually more critical.
Efficiency is the new simplicity: Without improving efficiency, notions of simplicity are meaningless. Reducing the number of storage elements to be managed, deployed or supported delivers far more tangible and impactful benefits to the bottom line than simply reducing the number of steps in an interface. Greater efficiency offers obvious benefits to capital costs, as less equipment translates directly to reduced capital expenses. Here, I focus on operational expenditures, which can often be reduced in one of two ways.
The first method is to reduce the number of storage elements to manage (e.g., managing one large data pool instead of dozens of small ones). The second method reduces the number of physical components or systems that need to be deployed and supported, such as deploying a single all-flash array to replace the performance of dozens of shelves of spinning drive media. Fortunately, the storage industry is rife with efficiency-augmenting innovations. The following are several examples of newer storage technologies that deliver tangible simplicity benefits through more efficient designs.
• Hyper-convergence: The ability to consolidate multiple servers, switches and enterprise storage systems into only a few hyper-converged platforms reduces not only the number of components IT is required to manage, it decreases the number of physical systems as well. In this way, hyper-converged vendors, such as Atlantis HyperScale, Nutanix and SimpliVity, simplify IT infrastructure to deliver measurable savings.
• Solid-state storage: For transactional workloads, achieving high performance with spinning media requires large quantities of spindles, increasing the number of storage elements required to manage, deploy and protect. The performance density of solid-state greatly reduces the amount of equipment required, and therefore simplifies infrastructure deployment and design. The net result is a reduction in the cost of operations.
In addition to this performance density advantage, multiple flash storage vendors offer additional efficiency capabilities. All-flash enterprise storage systems, such as EMC's XtremIO, NetApp's SolidFire and now Nimble's Adaptive Flash, provide scale-out architectures that reduce the number of management elements. While not scale-out, Pure Storage, meanwhile, offers a modular array that allows IT to expand performance across hardware generations, reducing the demand for incremental deployments.
• Scale-out file or object storage: For high-capacity workloads, scale-out file and object storage systems deliver a single, massively scalable pool of storage, reducing the number of storage elements to manage. Products from vendors such as Caringo, IBM/Cleversafe, Cloudian, EMC, HGST, Qumulo and Scality can significantly reduce the number of file systems that organizations manage. In addition, some of these products offer automatic multisite resiliency, eliminating the need to manage dozens of replication processes.
• Software-defined storage (SDS): Abstracting storage functionality from the underlying hardware can provide greater deployment flexibility and management consolidation for multiple heterogeneous storage elements. Either of these features can allow for a more efficient infrastructure design to improve simplicity and reduce operational costs.
Some SDS offerings enable organizations to further reduce the amount of storage infrastructure required. DataCore with its Parallel I/O technology, for example, claims to effectively leverage parallel processing to deliver greater performance from existing components, further extending gains from efficiency.
Two simple questions worth asking
These are just a few examples of storage innovations that are reducing operational costs by delivering greater efficiency and simplicity. Ultimately, when a storage vendor says its product is simple, look past the interface and ask two questions:
1. Does the technology reduce the number of storage elements you have to manage? If yes, then it will help reduce Opex.
2. Does it reduce the number of physical storage components needed to be deployed and supported? If yes, savings will likely be even greater.
Article 7 of 8
Next Steps
Develop a winning enterprise storage strategy
Expert predictions for enterprise data storage in 2016
Look at how far enterprise storage has come since 2000
Dig Deeper on Data storage strategy
Join the conversation
1 comment
Send me notifications when other members comment.
Please create a username to comment.
How can enterprise storage systems achieve greater simplicity?
Cancel
Get More Storage
Access to all of our back issues View All
SearchDisasterRecovery
SearchDataBackup
SearchConvergedInfrastructure
Close | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Research Article
Anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic activity of the methanolic extract from Annona sylvatica (Annonaceae)
Published: September 30, 2020
Genet. Mol. Res. 19(3): GMR18661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr18661
Cite this Article:
(2020). Anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic activity of the methanolic extract from Annona sylvatica (Annonaceae). Genet. Mol. Res. 19(3): GMR18661. https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr18661
1,956 views
Abstract
Annona sylvatica (Annonaceae) is a common medicinal plant used in folk medicine for fever and cough; it is found in several Brazilian states, including Mato Grosso do Sul. The local population uses A. sylvatica leaves for treating fever and cough; however, how this medicinal plant affects the patients is little understood. We evaluated the anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic properties of a methanolic extract of A. sylvatica (MEAS) leaves in mouse models of inflammation and allergy. The study employed male C57bL/6 mice for allergy models and male Swiss mice for the inflammation study. Oral treatments with MEAS (30 to 150 mg/kg) significantly inhibited the carrageenan-induced leukocyte migration and protein extravasation to the cavity in an air pouch model. In the allergic animal models, oral treatment with MEAS (150 mg/kg) significantly reduced histamine- and ovalbumin (OVA)-induced paw edema. Moreover, in the OVA-induced allergic lung inflammation model, oral treatment with MEAS (150 mg/kg) significantly inhibited neutrophil, eosinophil, and mononuclear cells migration to the lung. Pretreatment of neutrophils with MEAS (3, 150, 300 µg/mL) significantly reduced neutrophil chemotaxis induced by N-Formyl-Met-Leu-Ph (fMLP) and complement 5a (C5a, in a concentration-dependent manner. We conclude that A. sylvatica has anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic properties. Flavonoids and acetogenins, compounds found in the MEAS, could be responsible for these anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic effects.
Download: | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Shunryū Suzuki
Shunryu Suzuki (鈴木 俊隆 Suzuki Shunryū, dharma name Shōgaku Shunryū 祥岳俊隆, often called Suzuki Roshi; May 18, 1904 – December 4, 1971) was a Sōtō Zen monk and teacher who helped popularize Zen Buddhism in the United States, and is renowned for founding the first Zen Buddhist monastery outside Asia (Tassajara Zen Mountain Center). Suzuki founded San Francisco Zen Center which, along with its affiliate temples, comprises one of the most influential Zen organizations in the United States. A book of his teachings, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, is one of the most popular books on Zen and Buddhism in the West.
Childhood
Shunryu Suzuki was born May 18, 1904, in Kanagawa Prefecture southwest of Tokyo, Japan. His father, Butsumon Sogaku Suzuki, was the abbot of the village Soto Zen temple. His mother, Yone, was the daughter of a priest and had been divorced from her first husband for being too independent. Shunryu grew up with an older half-brother from his mother's first marriage and two younger sisters. As an adult he was about 4 ft tall.
His father's temple, Shōgan-ji, was located near Hiratsuka, a city on Sagami Bay about fifty miles southwest of Tokyo. The temple income was small and the family had to be very thrifty.
Suzuki became aware of his family's financial plight when he began school. Suzuki was kind and sensitive, but prone to quick outbursts of anger. He was ridiculed by the other boys because of his shaved head and because he was the son of a priest. He preferred to spend his time in the classroom rather than on the schoolyard and was always at the top of his class. The teacher told him he would become a great man if he left Kanagawa Prefecture and studied hard.
Apprenticeship
In 1916, 12-year-old Suzuki decided to train with a disciple of his father, Gyokujun So-on Suzuki. So-on was Sogaku's adopted son and abbot of Sogaku's former temple Zoun-in. His parents initially thought he was too young to live far from home but eventually allowed it.
Zoun-in is in a small village called Mori, Shizuoka in Japan. Suzuki arrived during a 100-day practice period at the temple and was the youngest student there. Zoun-in was a larger temple than Shōgan-ji.
At 4:00 each morning he arose for zazen. Next he would chant sutras and begin cleaning the temple with the others. They would work throughout the day and then, in the evenings, they all would resume zazen. Suzuki idolized his teacher, who was a strong disciplinarian. So-on often was rough on Suzuki but gave him some latitude for being so young.
When Suzuki turned 13, on May 18, 1917, So-on ordained him as a novice monk (unsui). He was given the Buddhist name Shogaku Shunryu, yet So-on nicknamed him Crooked Cucumber for his forgetful and unpredictable nature.
Shunryu began again attending upper-elementary school in Mori, but So-on did not supply proper clothes for him. He was the subject of ridicule. In spite of his misfortune he didn't complain. Instead he doubled his efforts back at the temple.
When Shunryu had first come to Zoun-in, eight other boys were studying there. By 1918, he was the only one who stayed. This made his life a bit tougher with So-on, who had more time to scrutinize him. During this period Suzuki wanted to leave Zoun-in but equally didn't want to give up.
In 1918 So-on was made head of a second temple, on the rim of Yaizu, called Rinso-in. Shunryu followed him there and helped whip the place back in order. Soon, families began sending their sons there and the temple began to come to life. Suzuki had failed an admissions test at the nearby school, so So-on began teaching the boys how to read and write Chinese.
So-on soon sent his students to train with a Rinzai master for a while. Here Shunryu studied a very different kind of Zen, one that promoted the attainment of satori through the concentration on koans through zazen. Suzuki had problems sitting with his koan. Meanwhile, all the other boys passed theirs, and he felt isolated. Just before the ceremony marking their departure Suzuki went to the Rinzai teacher and blurted out his answer. The master passed Suzuki; later Shunryu believed he had done it simply to be kind.
In 1919, at age 15, Suzuki was brought back home by his parents, who suspected mistreatment by So-on. Shunryu helped out with the temple while there and entered middle school. Yet, when summer vacation came, he was back at Rinso-in and Zoun-in with So-on to train and help out. He didn't want to stop training.
In school Suzuki took English and did quite well. A local doctor, Dr. Yoshikawa, hired him to tutor his two sons in English. Yoshikawa treated Suzuki well, giving him a wage and occasional advice.
Higher education
In 1924 Shunryu enrolled in a Soto preparatory school in Tokyo not far from Shogan-ji, where he lived on the school grounds in the dorm. From 1925 to 1926 Suzuki did Zen training with Dojun Kato in Shizuoka at Kenko-in. He continued his schooling during this period. Here Shunryu became head monk for a 100-day retreat, after which he was no longer merely considered a novice. He had completed his training as a head monk.
In 1925 Shunryu graduated from preparatory school and entered Komazawa University, the Soto Zen university in Tokyo. During this period he continued his connections with So-on in Zoun-in, going back and forth whenever possible.
Some of his teachers here were discussing how Soto Zen might reach a bigger audience with students and, while Shunryu couldn't comprehend how Western cultures could ever understand Zen, he was intrigued.
On August 26, 1926, So-on gave Dharma transmission to Suzuki. He was 22. Shunryu's father also retired as abbot at Shogan-ji this same year, and moved the family onto the grounds of Zoun-in where he served as inkyo (retired abbot).
Later that year Suzuki spent a short time in the hospital with tuberculosis, but soon recovered. In 1927 an important chapter in Suzuki's life was turned. He went to visit a teacher of English he had at Komazawa named Miss Nona Ransom, a woman who had taught English to such people as the last emperor of China, Pu-yi, and more so his wife, the last empress of China, Jigoro Kano (the Founder of Judo), the children of Chinese president Li Yuanhong, and some members of the Japanese royal family. She hired him that day to be a translator and to help with errands. Through this period he realized she was very ignorant of Japanese culture and the religion of Buddhism. She respected it very little and saw it as idol worship. But one day, when there were no chores to be done, the two had a conversation on Buddhism that changed her mind. She even let Suzuki teach her zazen meditation. This experience is significant in that Suzuki realized that Western ignorance of Buddhism could be transformed.
On January 22, 1929, So-on retired as abbot of Zoun-in and installed Shunryu as its 28th abbot. Sogaku would run the temple for Shunryu. In January 1930 a ten'e ceremony was held at Zoun-in for Shunryu. This ceremony acknowledged So-on's Dharma transmission to Shunryu, and served as a formal way for the Soto heads to grant Shunryu permission to teach as a priest. On April 10, 1930, at age 25, Suzuki graduated from Komazawa Daigakurin with a major in Zen and Buddhist philosophy, and a minor in English.
Suzuki mentioned to So-on during this period that he might be interested in going to America to teach Zen Buddhism. So-on was adamantly opposed to the idea. Suzuki realized that his teacher felt very close to him and that he would take such a departure as an insult. He did not mention it to him again.
Eihei-ji and Sōji-ji
Upon graduation from Komazawa, So-on wanted Shunryu to continue his training at the well known Soto Zen temple Eihei-ji in Fukui Prefecture. In September 1930 Suzuki entered the training temple and underwent the Zen initiation known as tangaryo. His mother and father stayed on at Zoun-in to care for his temple in his absence.
Eihei-ji is one of the largest Zen training facilities in Japan, and the abbot at this time was Gempo Kitano-roshi. Prior to coming to Japan, Kitano was head of Soto Zen in Korea. He also was one of the founders of Zenshuji, a Soto Zen temple located in Los Angeles, California. Suzuki's father and Kitano had a tense history between them. Sogaku had trained with Kitano in his early Zen training and felt that he was such a high priest due to familial status and connections. Shunryu did not see this in Kitano, however. He saw a humble man who gave clear instruction, and Shunryu realized that his father was very wrong in his assessment.
Often monks were assigned duties at the monastery to serve certain masters. Shunryu was assigned to Ian Kishizawa-roshi, a well known teacher at the time who had previously studied under two great Japanese teachers: Sōtan Oka and Bokusan Nishiari. He was a renowned scholar on Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, and was also an acquaintance of his father from childhood.
Kishizawa was strict but not abusive, treating Suzuki well. Suzuki learned much from him, and Kishizawa saw a lot of potential in him. Through him Suzuki came to appreciate the importance of bowing in Zen practice through example. In December Suzuki sat his first true sesshin for 7 days, an ordeal that was challenging initially but proved rewarding toward the end. This concluded his first practice period at Eihei-ji.
In September 1931, after one more practice period and sesshin at Eihei-ji, So-on arranged for Suzuki to train in Yokohama at Sōji-ji. Sōji-ji was the other main Soto temple of Japan, and again Suzuki underwent the harsh tangaryo initiation. Sojiji was founded by the great Zen master Keizan and had a more relaxed atmosphere than Eihei-ji. At Sōji-ji Suzuki travelled back to Zoun-in frequently to attend to his temple.
In 1932 So-on came to Sōji-ji to visit with Shunryu and, after hearing of Suzuki's contentment at the temple, advised him to leave it. In April of that year Suzuki left Sōji-ji with some regret and moved back into Zoun-in, living with his family there. In May he visited with Ian Kishizawa from Eiheiji and, with So-on's blessing, asked to continue studies under him. He went to Gyokuden-in for his instruction, where Kishizawa trained him hard in zazen and conducted personal interviews with him.
Sometime during this period Suzuki married a woman who contracted tuberculosis. The date and name of the woman is unknown, but the marriage was soon annulled. She went back to live with her family while he focused on his duties at Zoun-in.
Suzuki reportedly was involved with some anti-war activities during World War II, but according to David Chadwick, the record is confusing and, at most, his actions were low-key. However, considering the wholesale enthusiastic support for the war expressed by the entire religious establishment in Japan at the time, this fact is significant in showing something of the character of the man.
San Francisco Zen Center
On May 23, 1959, Shunryu Suzuki arrived in San Francisco to attend to Soko-ji, at that time the sole Soto Zen temple in San Francisco. He was 55. Suzuki took over for the interim priest, Wako Kazumitsu Kato. Suzuki was taken aback by the Americanized and watered-down Buddhism practiced at the temple, mostly by older immigrant Japanese. He found American culture interesting and not too difficult to adjust to, even commenting once that "if I knew it would be like this, I would have come here sooner!" He was surprised to see that Sokoji was previously a Jewish synagogue (at 1881 Bush Street, now a historic landmark). His sleeping quarters were located upstairs, a windowless room with an adjoining office.
At the time of Suzuki's arrival, Zen had become a hot topic amongst some groups in the United States, especially beatniks. Particularly influential were several books on Zen and Buddhism by Alan Watts. Word began to spread about Suzuki among the beatniks through places like the San Francisco Art Institute and the American Academy of Asian Studies, where Alan Watts was once director. Kato had done some presentations at the academy and asked Suzuki to come join a class he was giving there on Buddhism. This sparked Suzuki's long-held desire to teach Zen to Westerners.
The class was filled with people wanting to learn more about Buddhism, and the presence of a Zen master was inspiring for them. Suzuki had the class do zazen for 20 minutes, sitting on the floor without a zafu and staring forward at the white wall. In closing, Suzuki invited everyone to stop in at Sokoji for morning zazen. Little by little, more people showed up each week to sit zazen for 40 minutes with Suzuki on mornings. The students were improvising, using cushions borrowed from wherever they could find them.
The group that sat with Suzuki eventually formed the San Francisco Zen Center with Suzuki. The Zen Center flourished so that in 1966, at the behest and guidance of Suzuki, Zentatsu Richard Baker helped seal the purchase of Tassajara Hot Springs in Los Padres National Forest, which they called Tassajara Zen Mountain Center. In the fall of 1969, they bought a building at 300 Page Street near San Francisco's Lower Haight neighborhood and turned it into a Zen temple. Suzuki left his post at Sokoji to become the first abbot of one of the first Buddhist training monasteries outside Asia. Suzuki's departure from Sokoji was thought to be inspired by his dissatisfaction with the superficial Buddhist practice of the Japanese immigrant community and his preference for the American students who were more seriously interested in Zen meditation, but it was more at the insistence of the Sokoji board, which asked him to choose one or the other (he had tried to keep both roles). Although Suzuki thought there was much to learn from the study of Zen in Japan, he said that it had grown moss on its branches, and he saw his American students as a means to reform Zen and return it to its pure zazen- (meditation) and practice-centered roots.
Suzuki died on December 4, 1971, presumably from cancer.
Publications
A collection of his teishos (Zen talks) was published in 1970 in the book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind during Suzuki's lifetime. His lectures on the Sandokai are collected in Branching Streams Flow in the Darkness, edited by Mel Weitsman and Michael Wenger and published in 1999. Edward Espe Brown edited Not Always So: Practicing the True Spirit of Zen which was published in 2002.
A biography of Suzuki, titled Crooked Cucumber, was written by David Chadwick in 1999.
Quotations
* "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few."
Books
* Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. Ed. Trudy Dixon. Weatherhill, 1970. ISBN 0-834-80079-9
* Branching Streams Flow in the Darkness: Zen Talks on the Sandokai 1st ed. Eds. Mel Weitsman and Michael Wenger. University of California Press, 1999. ISBN 0-520-21982-1
* Not Always So: Practicing the True Spirit of Zen. Ed. Edward Espe Brown. HarperCollins, 2002. ISBN 0-060-95754-9
* Zen is Right Here. Shambhala, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59030-491-4
* Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. Shambhala, 2011. ISBN 978-1-59030-849-3
* "To Shine One Corner of the World: moments with Shunryu Suzuki / the students of Shunryu Suzuki". Ed. David Chadwick. Broadway Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7679-0651-9 (Out of print - same as Zen is Right Here)
* Zen Is Right Now: More Teaching Stories and Anecdotes of Shunryu Suzuki. Ed. David Chadwick. Shambhala, 2021. ISBN 978-1-611809-14-5
* Crooked Cucumber: the Life and Zen Teaching of Shunryu Suzuki. by David Chadwick. Harmony, 2000. ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>055 | WIKI |
Bleaching
Tooth color is unique to the person just like eye color or hair color. The ratio of the elements in the tooth, the thickness of the enamel layer, and the density of the dentine layer all determine the color of the tooth. As the mineral composition of the tooth changes with advanced age, the tooth color may get darker. Excessive use of coloring materials such as tea, coffee, and cigarettes can also lead to long-term external coloration.
For bleaching to be effective, a clean tooth surface is needed; for this, tartar cleaning should be done before bleaching. After tartar removal, bleaching can be done by two methods or a combination of these two.
Office Bleaching:
After the isolation of the gums, a highly concentrated bleaching agent applied to the tooth surface is activated by a laser or light source. Fast and effective bleaching is provided after about one hour.
Home Bleaching:
This is applied with bleaching plates specially prepared for the patient by the dentist. A certain amount of bleaching gel is put into this plate and it is used for 4-6 hours a day for 1-3 weeks.
Tooth color may get darker in the long-term in teeth that have lost their vitality and have undergone root canal treatment. In such cases, the bleaching agent is placed into the tooth after isolation. This is repeated every two days until the desired color is achieved.
It is necessary to avoid coloring drinks and foods for a while afterwards for the continuity of bleaching.
Contrary to the general belief, bleaching under dentist's control does not cause any harm to the teeth and surrounding tissues.
To choose the bleaching option most suitable for you, first the cause of the coloring should be determined by your dentist and a treatment plan should be made according to you. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
bastard ironwood
Noun
* , a coastal tree native to New Zealand and Norfolk Island (Australia), in New Zealand also called the tawapou; its leathery leaves have prominently raised primary nerves/veins, and branches exude a milky fluid if cut.
Translations
* Maori: tawāpou
* Niuean: kalaka
* Tongan: kalaka | WIKI |
Cloud Data Reliability Features
While the security features in impair storage change based on the seller, they are essential to ensure your data’s security. Cloud-based safe-keeping and providers must be designed with encryption to prevent any unauthorized access to the data. Cloud-based storage and services should also be secured from immediate client get. Direct client access to cloud-based storage should be prevented by either a broker who has total access to the storage or maybe a proxy just who only features access to the broker’s network.
A recent analyze by Oracle and KPMG has found that 72% of organizations view the cloud since more secure than on-premises storage. The reason for this kind of perception is the fact cloud architectures allow protection controls to get consistent around multiple levels, minimizing the surface area of vulnerability. By eliminating the need to install and maintain separate software and hardware, cloud storage area is the only solution. Furthermore, impair storage solutions reduce the administrative burden into it departments. Furthermore, reputable cloud service providers incorporate their reliability features using their services, which reduces all their workload by simply removing the advantages of constant protection and setup.
One of the major considerations with impair data secureness is the site of data. Info stored about public atmosphere can be stored anywhere https://infoiyt.online/why-is-my-paypal-money-on-hold/ in the world, and perhaps they are frequently changed around, sometimes between continents. This positions privacy risks under GDPR and HIPAA regulations. Whether or not you’re by using a cloud carrier with a great EU-US privateness shield, really still possible to obtain data transferred around continents. Further more, cloud services may not have capacity to level as the needs of a company alter. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Page:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu/169
Environmental Impact of the Oil Industry been a rapid increase in the number of people living in the area just as there has been in the rest of the country.
15.3.2 BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NIGER DELTA
In judging the significance of the impact of the oil industry upon the Niger Delta we must first appreciate the background environment. In other words what would environmental conditions be like in the Niger Delta without the oil industry? There are four issues here, all of which have been discussed in detail in earlier chapters. In summary they are as follows.
In the first place it is absolutely essential to understand the human ecological history of the area. That is the socio/economic history (the culture) of the area and how it evolved in relation to the environment, and how, in dynamic relationship, the environment has been shaped by the culture and by outside influences. Here, it is also important to have a sense of time and to cast off any pre-conceptions which our own culture, education and political views may have given us as environmental assessors. For instance it is easy for outsiders to assume that the cultured forests of the Niger Delta are in their natural state or that all cleared areas are of recent origin. Equally difficult, at times, for local people to accept that their own culture may be as flawed in some aspects as may be the culture of the outsider.
Nigeria as a whole has a high human population growth rate, probably in the region of 3% per annum giving a doubling rate of less than 25 years. This means that according to the 1991 census figures, Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa will have a combined population of about 13 million people by 2015, giving an overall density of 3-4 persons per hectare: very high given the limited areas of dry land.
High human populations and population growth both locally, nationally and globally puts pressure on all the natural resources of the Niger Delta in addition to its oil. Local people need clean water, farmland, fish and forest resources but so do people outside the region. Effectively the demand for the natural resources of the Niger Delta are infinite: for instance every bit of timber that could be felled would find a market. In the near future pressure will intensify for developing the agricultural potential of the Niger Delta, for oil palm and for rice for export. These agricultural activities could have an even more profound influence on the local ecosystems than does oil industry.
Already, as a result of the pressure for food and other agricultural products, most of the forest in the Lowland Equatorial Monsoon ecozone has been cleared and the degradation of agricultural land is a real problem faced by most farmers. All the same, the oil industry has contributed directly to this degradation because the wealth generated by the industry has encouraged government to ignore the need to invest in the development of the national Renewable Natural Resource (RNR) sector of the economy, particularly agriculture. As a result, for instance, the maintenance of fertility by the use of fertilisers is practically unknown in the Niger Delta. 167 | WIKI |
1 overview
Run a single Java file as an executable JAR using the JAR that comes with the JDK and Java. It can also be done using an IDE. Maven requires only a simple package, but a single file doesn’t have to be so “brutal”.
2 Create a new test file
The famous Hello World:
public class Main { public static void main(String [] args) { System.out.println("Hello world."); }}
3 to compile
It is recommended to create a temporary folder to store the class files first.
mkdir test && mv Main.java test && cd test;
javac Main.java
4 pack
jar --create --verbose --file Main.jar --main-class Main *.class
Explain the parameters:
• --create: create a jar
• --verbose: Output is produced when packaging
• --file: The packaged JAR filename
• --main-class: Specifies the entry class
• *.class: Package all class files, where the acceptable parameters can be*, package all the files in the directory, or can be the directory name, package all the files in the specified directory
The default package is used here, or if a custom package is used
--main-class com.xxx.xxx.Main
Can.
Note that some tutorials on the web use shorthand when packaging:
jar -cvf Main.jar *.class
This is packable, but when run directly it will prompt:
no main manifest attribute, in Main.jar
You can add the –main-class parameter or update the MANIFEST.MF file directly after packaging by adding:
Main-Class: Main
Of course, it is recommended to use the above method to package in one step.
5 run
java -jar Main.jar | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/247
Ch. 14. did decend from king Edward the ixth to queen Mary, and from her to queen Elizabeth, who were repectively of the half blood to each other. For, the royal pedigree being always a matter of ufficient notoriety, there is no occaion to call in the aid of this preumptive rule of evidence, to render probable the decent from the royal tock; which was formerly king William the Norman, and is now (by act of parliament ) the princes Sophia of Hanover. Hence alo it is, that in etates-tail, where the pedigree from the firt donee mut be trictly proved, half blood is no impediment to the decent : becaue, when the lineage is clearly made out, there is no need of this auxiliary proof. How far it might be deirable for the legilature to give relief, by amending the law of decents in this ingle intance, and ordaining that the half blood might inherit, where the etate notoriouly decended from it's own proper ancetor, but not otherwie; or how far a private inconvenience hould be ubmitted to, rather than a long etablihed rule hould be haken; it is not for me to determine.
rule then, together with it's illutration, amounts to this: that, in order to keep the etate of John Stiles as nearly as poible in the line of his purchaing ancetor, it mut decend to the iue of the nearet couple of ancetors that have left decendants behind them; becaue the decendants of one ancetor only are not o likely to be in the line of that purchaing ancetor, as thoe who are decended from two.
here another difficulty aries. In the econd, third, fourth, and every uperior degree, every man has many couples of ancetors, increaing according to the ditance in a geometrical progreion upwards, the decendants of all which repective couples are (repreentatively) related to him in the ame degree. Thus in the econd degree, the iue of George and Cecilia Stiles and of Andrew and Ether Baker, the two grandires and grand- Rh | WIKI |
Invasive Species Compendium
Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide
Abstract
Effects of cohabitation on the population performance and survivorship of the invasive mosquito Aedes albopictus and the resident mosquito Aedes notoscriptus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Australia.
Abstract
The presence of Aedes albopictus (Skuse) in the Torres Strait of northern Australia increases the potential for colonization and establishment on the mainland. However, there is a possibility that native species that occupy the same habitats may influence the population performance of Ae. albopictus, potentially affecting the establishment of this species in Australia. Cohabitation experiments were performed with the endemic Aedes notoscriptus (Skuse), which has been found occupying the same larval habitats as Ae. albopictus in the Torres Strait and is the most widespread container-inhabiting Aedes species in Australia. The influence of environmental factors and cohabitation between the two species was examined using different climates, food resource levels, food resource types, and species densities. Survivorship proportions and a population performance index (λ') were calculated and compared. The consequences of increased Ae. notoscriptus densities were reduced survivorship and λ' for Ae. albopictus. Despite this, the mean λ' of Ae. albopictus and Ae. notoscriptus was consistently ≥1.06, indicating both species could increase under all conditions, potentially due to increasing conspecific densities negatively affecting Ae. notoscriptus. The outcomes from this study suggest that the preexisting presence of Ae. notoscriptus may not prevent the establishment of Ae. albopictus in Australia. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Nigeria: Delta emergency landing leaves five injured
(CNN)At least five people were injured after Delta passengers used emergency slides to evacuate a flight that had returned to the airport in Lagos, Nigeria, the airline said Tuesday. The Airbus A330-200 had an issue with one of its two engines, Delta said. Flight 55 landed safely but five passengers suffered minor injuries during the evacuation while the plane was on the runway. The passengers evacuated the plane using escape slides -- an unusual occurrence that shows the seriousness of the incident. The flight was headed to Atlanta. Delta's website indicates an Airbus A330-200 has 234 seats. It has two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 turbofan engines. The engine's manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney, said in a statement that it's working with "authorities to assess the situation." CNN's Jon Ostrower contributed to this report. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Category:Colony of Barbados
Colony of Barbados (1625–1966). The Colony of Barbados was part of the British Windward Islands from 1833–85 and was part of the West Indies Federation from 1958–62. | WIKI |
Pac-12 power ratings: The South race is USC's to lose after that improbable comeback – The Denver Post
Trending: Clarity has come to the South division race, if there is a division race. USC has emerged as the heavy favorite, if the Trojans finish their season. One week in, and Pac-12 football is on fragile ground as COVID-19 cases rise, quarantines take hold and cancellations surface. But Trojans are in charge of the South after four brilliant minutes on Saturday morning stunned Arizona State and tipped the race in their favor. Let's dive in … USC's one-game lead over ASU is actually a two-game lead because of the head-to-head result, which would be decisive in the event of a tie. And it's a two-game lead with only five games to play not much time for the Sun Devils to make up the ground. The Trojans caught a significant break in unfortunate fashion with what initially appeared to be a tricky trip in a letdown situation to Tucson. But the cancellation of Arizona's opener at Utah means the Wildcats will be playing for the first time when they take the field against USC, a significant advantage for the game-tested visitors. Another potential contender, Utah, has encountered significant COVID-19 issues. In addition to canceling their opener, the Utes might not play this week at UCLA. And if they do, a slew of starters could be absent. That increases the likelihood Utah will 1) lose this week, or 2) experience some form of competitive disadvantage when the Trojans come to town in Week 3. That could be the season opener for the Utes as a team, or for key starters. Although more impressive than expected in Week 1, Colorado seemingly lacks the defensive talent to mount any serious pursuit of the division. The Buffaloes allowed 42 points and 478 yards to an opponent, UCLA, that had four possessions truncated by turnovers. The final advantage for the Trojans within the division: UCLA appears to be UCLA. And so in the spirit of calling a race when it looks too early but really isn't, USC is our unofficial South champion. To the power ratings (all times Pacific) … Result: Beat Arizona State 28-27Next up: at Arizona (12:30 p.m., FOX)Comment: The final minutes were a tour de force in playmaking, but let's talk about an important development from the first 56: The Trojans were outplayed decisively at the line of scrimmage; if that's not resolved, they won't produce the dominant 7-0 season needed to make the playoff selection committee's short list. Result: Lost at USC 28-27Next up: vs. Cal (7:30 p.m., ESPN2)Comment: One way to view the loss: Had you told the Hotline ahead of time that the Sun Devils would be without receiver Frank Darby and have no semblance of a downfield passing game we wouldn't have given them an iota of a morsel of a chance. And yet, there they were. Result: Beat Stanford 35-14Next up: at Washington State (4 p.m., FOX)Comment: Hard to tell exactly where the Ducks stand given that Stanford was without quarterback Davis Mills. But Tyler Shough's mobility adds a dimension to the offense that was lacking last year, when keeping Justin Herbert healthy seemed to dictate much of the playcalling. Result: DNPNext up: at Arizona State (7:30 p.m., ESPN2)Comment: If they can play, the Bears are facing a significant disadvantage with their first game coming on the road against an opponent that had 60 minutes of high-level competition to work out the kinks. Result: DNPNext up: at UCLA (7:30 p.m., FOX)Comment: For some idea what the Utes are dealing with: The 7-day positive rate across the state is over 20%; and on campus, it's even worse: a 28% increase. Within the conference footprint, Arizona is next with a statewide positive rate of 12.8%, per Johns Hopkins data. Result: Won at Oregon State 38-28Next up: vs. Oregon (4 p.m., FOX)Comment: So now that we have some clarity on that Nick Rolovich whopper from Saturday night, it's clear that the vast majority of the 32 missing players and perhaps all but one were out for non-COVID-19 reasons. But in the current environment, a post-game bomb of that nature, absent any context from Rolovich, will naturally create virus-related speculation. Result: DNPNext up: vs. Oregon State (8 p.m., FS1)Comment: Assuming the Huskies play Saturday night, Jimmy Lake will have gone 348 days from the point he was named head coach to his first game as head coach. (It only feels like 3,448.) That just might be some sort of deeply unfortunate record. Result: Beat UCLA 48-42Next up: at Stanford (12:30 p.m., ESPN2)Comment: Difficult to overstate the significance of the victory to CU's postseason math: The Pac-12 is requiring teams to finish .500 or better to go bowling, and the Buffs now have a reasonable chance with Stanford and Arizona on the schedule. Result: Lost at Oregon 35-14Next up: vs. Colorado (12:30 p.m., ESPN2)Comment: The ripple effect of Davis Mills' absence began with the passing game, extended to the Red Zone efficiency and eventually reached the defense, which wore down. The field goal situation was baffling, on multiple levels. Result: Lost at ColoradoNext up: vs. Utah (7:30 p.m., FOX)Comment: If you don't change defensive coordinators, it's difficult to materially change the defense. Result: Lost to Washington State 38-28Next up: at Washington (8 p.m., FS1)Comment: The Beavers played like they had never seen WSU's run-and-shoot and they hadn't. But they faced Nick Rolovich's run-and-shoot last year when he was at Hawaii. And it produced 488 yards and 31 points with lesser talent than WSU. So that should have been our first clue. Result: DNPNext up: vs. USC (12:30 p.m., FOX)Comment: As much as our focus turns to the impacted teams when cancellations occur (i.e., Utah and Cal), let's not forget the disappointment felt by opposing players, especially when the news comes on the Friday of game week after they have waited months to play. Support the Hotline: Several Hotline articles will remain free each month (as will the newsletter), but for access to all content, you'll need to subscribe. I've secured a rate of $1 per week for a full year or just 99 cents for the first month, with the option to cancel anytime. Click here. And thanks for your loyalty. *** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716 *** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline *** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference. Sign up for Newsletters and Alerts | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Become a Rails Association Pro: Replicating has_many with Pure Ruby
Gokul
4 min readMay 6, 2023
Understanding the has_many Association
In Ruby on Rails, the has_many association is used to define a one-to-many relationship between two models. It allows us to easily access a collection of associated records for a particular record. This association is one of the most commonly used in Rails applications.
To understand how the has_many association works, let's consider an example of a blog application with two models: Post and Comment. Each post can have many comments, so we'll define a has_many association between them.
In the Post model, we'll add the following line of code:
class Post < ApplicationRecord
has_many :comments
end
This line of code tells Rails that a post has many comments associated with it. It also generates several methods that we can use to access and manipulate the associated comments:
• comments: This method returns a collection of comments associated with the post.
• comments.create: This method creates a new comment associated with the post.
• comments.build: This method returns a new comment associated with the post (but does not save it to the database).
• comments.destroy_all: This method destroys all comments associated with the post.
We can also define options for the has_many association. For example, we might want to order the comments by creation date:
class Post < ApplicationRecord
has_many :comments, -> { order(created_at: :desc) }
end
This will order the comments associated with a post in descending order of creation date.
In the Comment model, we'll add the following line of code:
class Comment < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :post
end
This line of code tells Rails that a comment belongs to a post. It also generates several methods that we can use to access and manipulate the associated post:
• post: This method returns the post associated with the comment.
We can also define options for the belongs_to association. For example, we might want to validate that a comment always has a post associated with it:
class Comment < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :post, required: true
end
This will raise an error if we try to save a comment without associating it with a post.
In addition to the has_many association, Rails also provides several other types of associations, including belongs_to, has_one, has_many_through, and has_and_belongs_to_many. These associations allow us to define more complex relationships between models in our application.
How?
To replicate the has_many association with pure Ruby code, we can create a Post class and a Comment class, and define a one-to-many relationship between them.
Here’s an example implementation:
class Post
attr_reader :id, :title, :comments
def initialize(id, title)
@id = id
@title = title
@comments = {}
end
def add_comment(comment)
@comments[comment.id] = comment
end
def remove_comment(comment)
@comments.delete(comment.id)
end
def find_comment(comment_id)
@comments[comment_id]
end
end
class Comment
attr_reader :id, :body, :post_id
def initialize(id, body, post_id)
@id = id
@body = body
@post_id = post_id
end
end
In this code, the Post class has a comments attribute that stores a hash of comments. The add_comment method is used to add a comment to the post's comments hash. The remove_comment method is used to remove a comment from the post's comments hash. The find_comment method is used to find a comment by its ID.
The Comment class has an id attribute and a body attribute. The id attribute is used to uniquely identify each comment.
To use this implementation, we can create a new Post object and add comments to it like this:
post = Post.new(1, "My First Post")
comment1 = Comment.new(1, "This is a great post!", post.id)
comment2 = Comment.new(2, "I disagree with your points.", post.id)
post.add_comment(comment1)
post.add_comment(comment2)
We can then retrieve comments from the post like this:
post.comments
# => {
1=>#<Comment:0x00007fbd128b6c28 @id=1, @body="This is a great post!", @post_id=1>,
2=>#<Comment:0x00007fbd128b6c00 @id=2, @body="I disagree with your points.", @post_id=1>
}
post.find_comment(1)
# => #<Comment:0x00007fbd128b6c28 @id=1, @body="This is a great post!", @post_id=1>
We can then retrieve the post from the comment like this:
Comment.last.post
#<Post:0x00007fbd428d6c32 @id=1, @title="My First Post", @comments={
1=>#<Comment:0x00007fbd128b6c28 @id=1, @body="This is a great post!", @post_id=1>,
2=>#<Comment:0x00007fbd128b6c00 @id=2, @body="I disagree with your points.", @post_id=1>
}>
We’ve created a new post and a new comment, along with the retrieve options. We’ve then associated the two objects by setting the post’s comments to the post object and the inverse.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this. Please follow me on Medium and subscribe to receive access to exclusive content in order to keep in touch and continue the discussion. Happy Reading!!!
--
--
Gokul
Consultant | Freelancer | Ruby on Rails | ReactJS | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Making of a Death Mask
Making of a Death Mask
Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 21:20:55 (UTC)
* Reason:great historic image from 1908 showing how death masks are made. It has great EV. I, for one, did not know how they are made. How is the dead body handled? Do they apply plaster on the body as it's lying down? etc. The high res of this image, the historical significance, and the fact that it's the only image in the article showing how death masks are made are the top reasons why this should be a featured pic
* Articles in which this image appears:Death mask
* FP category for this image:Culture, entertainment and lifestyle
* Creator:Bain News Service, uploaded by Howcheng
Comments on the edits, please. This appears to have enough supports for something to get promoted, although it's not clear what (5 general supports and 1 support for edit 3). Makeemlighter (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
* Support as nominator --AutoGyro (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
* Support Sufficiently eyecatching to get readers to stop, stare & click. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
* Comment: A few thoughts. Firstly, what's the reason to have a historical shot- why not have a higher quality current one? Secondly, this photo could benefit from some cleanup. Thirdly, some more details would be nice- I assume that's the actual body? Where was this taken? Why is a death mask being created? J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)\
* On the first count, I'm pretty sure that death masks are more or less archaic now as there is little utility for them (cameras are used to document the dead). On the third count, it is most likely a body and the WP article states that death masks were often used to create portraits, to serve as mementos or in forensic investigations. Cowtowner (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
* Yes, but in this case in particular. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
* I think you are focusing too hard on the “creating a death mask” part of this. If that’s all it was, why not—as you say—show a photo of the very finest and latest technology for doing so? But the subject here is “creating a death mask historically.” I find the way these practitioners dressed to be interesting. How one dressed a hundred years ago was important signaling of social hierarchy and it is quite easy to see who was the assistant here in this picture and who was the proprietor. Sometimes historical images, like this image of an old surgery, are interesting because they are old and help us to realize how things have changed. Perhaps all this caption needs is a tweak to emphasis the historical nature of it. Greg L (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
* You can talk about "social hierarchy" and such all you like, but unless it's of importance to the article, it's irrelevant. If I was to nominate a picture of a mushroom obscured by moss and leaves, I couldn't babble on about the interesting moss and the pretty leaves in order to suggest it's better than a picture than one where the mushroom is clear. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
* Now you’re just howling at the moon to listen to your own echo. The article says death masks are made of wax or plaster. This one shows a plaster death mask being made so it obviously illustrates how its done. Do you think they now use CAD software to robot-apply plaster? Or maybe you think the technique no longer works unless there is an iPhone sticking out of a Raiders jacket? The fact that it shows the face of a deceased individual is unusual. That it is historical is eye-catching. If you don’t like it, vote “oppose”. I can’t take any more of your rants today. Bye… Greg L (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
* Rants? What's ranty here? If anyone has been ranty recently... What I said was completely valid, and it really reveals the strength of your position when you reply like that. We wouldn't accept a low quality image of an animal purely because it's "historical", even if it did show a few irrelevant historical aspects, so why accept this? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
* Support Per Greg. Although, I'm shocked by how horrific the behavior is. (Although those two guys seem to be digging it; defiantly not the third, though.) Gut Monk (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
* Oppose per my comments above. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
* Support Very striking and interesting image. High EV in historical context. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
* Comment: Even if we ignore the EV/contextual issues, promoting this, when the image itself is in such dire need of restoration, would be utterly ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
* We would be throwing high hurdles at ourselves and our nominators if we required that image editing and restoration had to be performed on old pictures that suffered in minor ways from the ravages of time. Sometimes, as when I jumped in and volunteered on the Edward Teller FPC, we can get these images cleaned up. But doing a good job on some of these images requires specialized skills and sometimes people are too busy to volunteer. This nomination is a clean and proper scan of an old artifact. Accepting it as such doesn’t strike me as “ridiculous”; it’s purely an aesthetic issue as to whether we may treat the image like the Mona Lisa (the colors of which have yellowed and dulled with time) without trying to make the image here look better than the actual artifact. I hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects until you pointed it out that it should be considered a flaw. To me, this image is properly representative of what it is: an old historical photo. Greg L (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
* We don't need a "proper scan of an old artifact", we need a solid illustration of the making of a death mask. FPC is about the best images, so, yes, we do have to expect that older images in a poor state are given restoration work. The in-image labelling is also rather distracting. If you didn't notice the scratches, I question whether you've actually looked close enough at this picture to be qualified to judge it... J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
* I question whether you've actually looked close enough at this picture to be qualified to judge it... Are you serious? What an unwise thing to write. Gee, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I was in the shadow of One Of The Qualified Ones®™© who has special powers to click on an image and inspect it closely. Methinks thee should dismount from one’s high horse, as you blocketh the sunlight down here. Good grief. Greg L (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
* Methinks thee should actually look at images before voting on them. That's the point I'm fricking making. If you didn't see the appalling quality of the image, what the hell did you look at? The thumbnail, very quickly? I'm not suggesting I'm some kind of expert while you're not, I'm suggesting that if you want to have an opinion on it, you fricking look at it. And congratulations on picking up on the really important part of my comment to discuss, rather than, y'know, the bit actually pertinent to the image. J Milburn (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
* Ohhhhhh You mean, “Look at the picture up close!” (silly me) Did I forget to do that? Let me check… nope. As I wrote above (but you seem pleased to ignore) is I have no problem with a fine scan of an aged original, just like I have no problem with fine scans of cracked or yellowed oil pantings. You wrote we do have to expect that older images in a poor state are given restoration work. I suspect you used the majestic plural-form of “we” there; what is clear is you think volunteers here must do image restoration on scans of aged originals. I don’t. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You know: celebrate diversity and all that. Greg L (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* If you "look[ed] at the picture up close" but "hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects", I feel for your optician. The point is that this picture is not being used to illustrate the photo (if it was, I'm sure we could have a very interesting discussion about this) it's being used to illustate the making of a death mask. So, is this a good picture of the picture? Yes, it shows the state it's in and everything. Is this a good picture of the making of a death mask? Nope, the original picture is in a poor state and has things written all over it. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* What is wrong with your ability to understand English? How many times and how many ways do I have to write that I did see all the age-related flaws and don’t have a problem with them? How many times do I have to write that I think the flaws are akin to a proper scan of an aged original, like the Mona Lisa? Don’t you get it? Or are you deliberately trying to be provocative here? I will no longer deal with you on this nomination because you are behaving too oddly for me to possibly handle. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* You said "I hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects". In the English I speak, that means you didn't see them. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
* It means precisely as I wrote it: I hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects until you pointed it out that it should be considered a flaw. I had zoomed in and looked intently at what the scene was showing—the information being portrayed. The scratches and other age-related flaws didn’t bother me in the slightest or even get any of my attention. Your comment above (If you didn't notice the scratches, I question whether you've actually looked close enough at this picture to be qualified to judge it is just arrogance because it assumes that if someone looks closely at the image, the age-related defects must to be something that jumps out to the forefront of one’s mind and overcomes the rest of the image. I could just as easily have said that “Anyone who looked at a zoom and wasn’t captivated by all the interesting things in the image like the clothing of the owner and his employee and was instead distracted by silly things like scratches in the emulsion of a picture from 1908 is someone I question is qualified to judge the image.” But I didn’t, because I don’t wouldn’t want to be so obstreperous. I like the image. You don’t. I’m fine with that. You aren’t. To bad; that is something you’re going to have to deal with. Greg L (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
* Comment I did some light restoration work on the photo and uploaded it as Edit 1. You can decide which version you like better. --AutoGyro (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
* Oppose: the words "Making Death Mask 305.1" need removed from the image: That wasn't painted on, that was scratched into the emulsion, probably by ancient LoC curators. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Support Edit 3 Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
* Why exactly is that a problem? It's not like it's written on any important part of the image. It's a historical artifact. --AutoGyro (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
* That doesn't suddenly mean it's OK. We're not using this to illustrate historical photograph cataloging methods; it adds nothing to the image but does take a lot away. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
* That's what I don't understand, though. What exactly is it taking away? --AutoGyro (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* It detracts from the picture. Good photos don't have text all over them... J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* Comment At any rate, I removed the text from the image. See Edit 2.--AutoGyro (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* Compare edit two to the first one side by side, it's lost the colour, sharpness and detail the original had. One step forward, two steps back. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* Comment See Edit 3 for a new restoration of the original--AutoGyro (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* Also, since this nomination ends tomorrow, I assume that the supporters still support the original and none of the edits?--AutoGyro (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
* My support vote applies to whichever one is closest to a consensus, or all of them. I don’t mind the age-related flaws. And I don’t mind the cleaned-uped versions either. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
* Support interesting subject. I don't mind the text in the original, I thought the photo quality in that one was the best but whichever the closer decides... -- I'ḏ ♥ One 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
* If we have to promote one, edit 3 is the best, but it's still not as good as it could be. Not the best restoration work I have seen. (I couldn't do better, in case someone wants to pretend to be ten years old, but I've still got a right to expect a high standard at FPC...) J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
* I feel there's serious quality loss in Edit 3 from the original, compare the hair in both of the man on your left. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
* Like I said, it's not as good as it could be, but at least it doesn't have the horrendous problems the first does. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
* Any more discussions on this? I think Edit 3 is the best choice out of all options. --AutoGyro (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
* Yes. The edit really does lose quite a bit of detail. A restoration should not have less detail than the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
* What do you think of Edit 4--AutoGyro (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
* Much better. Still not perfect, but much better. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
* Agreed, much better than Edit3. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
* Oppose. Why doesn't someone try a full restoration from the Library of Congress TIFF (download from ) instead of the one I uploaded from Shorpy? howcheng {chat} 17:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
* Outstanding idea/research, Howcheng. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
--Makeemlighter (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
* Consensus never developed here on which, if any, version to promote. The edits added late in the game may be worthy of promotion, but they received very few comments. Moreover, Howcheng's suggestion of restoration from the original presents the possibility of an even better version. At the very least, a larger version could be uploaded. None of that would be necessary for a re-nomination, but the re-nominator would need to select the best of the edits to nominate (along with the original, probably). There's no need to wait to re-nominate if anyone feels one of the versions worthy; we just need a new nomination with 9 days of attention up top to sort this mess out. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC) | WIKI |
General Kozlov
General Kozlov may refer to:
* Dmitry Timofeyevich Kozlov (1896–1967), Soviet Army lieutenant general
* Oleg Kozlov (born 1963), Russian Army major general
* Vasily Kozlov (politician) (1903–1967), Soviet Army major general | WIKI |
User:Guava6007/sandbox
Ansh Sharma is a professional Gamer, Hacker and a Youtuber. He has a YouTube channel named Dr.DiamondBack.
Instagram Link - | WIKI |
Even a Cyberattack Couldn't Derail Clorox's New and Improved Products
You've likely bought one of Clorox's (NYSE: CLX) many products, which range from bleach to salad dressing to charcoal. But the truth is that you bought that product from a store, not from Clorox itself. And that's an important nuance that a recent cyberattack at the company brought to the fore. Here's what you need to know.
Clorox is a partner to retailers
Consumer staples companies like Clorox are often viewed as backing the brands they sell in a sort of direct relationship with the consumer. After all, Clorox runs ads that push consumers into stores to buy its products. But the connection isn't direct at all. Clorox is actually selling its products to a retailer and the retailer sells them to consumers. This distinction is more significant than you may think.
Image source: Getty Images.
Clorox definitely wants to make sure its products are attractive to consumers. But the consumer staples maker also has to make sure its brands are attractive to retailers, too. Providing broad-based advertising is one way it does this. Having a strong distribution network is another. But one of the biggest ways to be a good partner to retailers is to constantly invest in innovation.
It seems like nothing gets consumers more excited than the words "new" and "improved." You can't simply slap those words on a box, however; you really need to invest in the research and development to create new products and improve existing ones. It is the backbone of a consumer staples maker's toolkit.
You can't stop this innovation train
This is an interesting issue today for Clorox because it recently got hit by a cyberattack. It was bad, forcing the company to basically go back to the Stone Age of paper and pencil to track its business. It has been all hands on deck to work through the problem -- except for Clorox's research and development team.
In the company's prepared fiscal first-quarter 2024 earnings comments, CEO Linda Rendle highlighted product innovation as a key focus:
The activation of our plans on consumer-centric innovation remains on track. Investment in bigger, stickier innovation platforms focused on value superiority is core to how we drive growth, and we continue to expect launches across all our major brands this fiscal year.
During the Q&A session with analysts, management was asked about this focus and how it was maintained during the cyberattack. The answer was simple: The research and development group was "walled off" from the rest of the company so it could continue its efforts unfettered by the technology issue. The same thing was done amid the supply chain upheavals during the coronavirus pandemic. That's how important it is to ensure that innovation continues.
Some of the potentially bigger, stickier innovations that are going on today concern a continuous spray disinfectant mist from the Clorox brand. In 2022, the bottle and scented products were released. In 2023, that platform was built upon with a fragrance- and dye-free offering. In 2024, there's another iteration planned, but the company isn't talking about what it is just yet. The big story is that Clorox built a new platform on which it can iterate with "improved" variations.
The same basic thing is happening with the company's Glad trash bags. First, in 2022, it produced a bag that offered Clorox disinfecting powers. In 2023, that was expanded to include a Pine-Sol scent. This innovation will be extended again in 2024 and beyond.
Hiving off the research and development team during the pandemic is what allowed for these platforms to be created. And protecting the same group is what will allow for product improvements going forward in the face of another major business disruption (the cyberattack). Clorox is well aware of how important it is to keep innovating, and it has no plans to stop just because of an adverse event.
Getting the "simple" things right
While it wouldn't be correct to suggest that research and development is simple, it is still a key part of a simple business plan. Clorox is struggling financially as it works through the setback of the cyberattack, but it hasn't lost its way when it comes to executing on the most important basics of its business model.
Shareholders should be pleased to see that, and potential investors might take that as a sign that the historically high 3.6% dividend yield here is an opportunity to buy a company that knows what needs to be done to excel over the long term.
10 stocks we like better than Clorox
When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*
They just revealed what they believe are the ten best stocks for investors to buy right now... and Clorox wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.
See the 10 stocks
*Stock Advisor returns as of November 6, 2023
Reuben Gregg Brewer has positions in Clorox. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. | NEWS-MULTISOURCE |
Consistent errors in first strand cDNA due to random hexamer mispriming
Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan wetenschappelijk tijdschrift/periodieke uitgaveArtikelWetenschappelijkpeer review
317 Downloads (Pure)
Samenvatting
Priming of random hexamers in cDNA synthesis is known to show sequence bias, but in addition it has been suggested recently that mismatches in random hexamer priming could be a cause of mismatches between the original RNA fragment and observed sequence reads. To explore random hexamer mispriming as a potential source of these errors, we analyzed two independently generated RNA-seq datasets of synthetic ERCC spikes for which the reference is known. First strand cDNA synthesized by random hexamer priming on RNA showed consistent position and nucleotide-specific mismatch errors in the first seven nucleotides. The mismatch errors found in both datasets are consistent in distribution and thermodynamically stable mismatches are more common. This strongly indicates that RNA-DNA mispriming of specific random hexamers causes these errors. Due to their consistency and specificity, mispriming errors can have profound implications for downstream applications if not dealt with properly.
Originele taal-2Engels
Artikelnummere85583
TijdschriftPLoS One
Volume8
Nummer van het tijdschrift12
DOI's
StatusGepubliceerd - 2013
Vingerafdruk
Duik in de onderzoeksthema's van 'Consistent errors in first strand cDNA due to random hexamer mispriming'. Samen vormen ze een unieke vingerafdruk.
Citeer dit | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Ochse
Ochse can refer to the Ochsen, a mountain in Switzerland
Ochse is a German language surname. It stem from the German word Ochse for "ox" and was probably used as a nickname for a strong or lumbering individual. Notable people with the name include:
* Arthur Edward Ochse (1870–1918), South African cricketer
* Arthur Lennox Ochse (1899–1949), South African cricketer
* Chum Ochse (1925–1996), South African rugby union wing
* Fernand Ochsé (1879–1944), French Jewish designer, dandy, author, composer and painter
* Hildegard Ochse (1935–1997), German photographer
* Jacob Jonas Ochse (1892–1970), Dutch botanist
* Louise Ochsé (1884–1944), Franco-Belgian sculptor
* Weston Ochse (1965), American author and educator | WIKI |
urllib.parse — Parse URLs into components in Python
This module provides a standard interface to break Uniform Resource Locator (URL) strings in components or to combine the components back into a URL string. It also has functions to convert a "relative URL" to an absolute URL given a "base URL."
This module supports the following URL schemes -
• file
• ftp
• gopher
• hdl
• http
• https
• imap
• mailto
• mms
• news
• nntp
• prospero
• rsync
• rtsp
• rtspu
• sftp
• shttp
• sip
• sips
• snews
• svn
• svn+ssh
• telnet
• wais
• ws
• wss
urlparse()
This function parses a URL into six components, returning a 6-tuple. This corresponds to the general structure of a URL. Each tuple item is a string. The components are not broken up in smaller parts (for example, the network location is a single string), and % escapes are not expanded. The return value is an instance of a subclass of tuple made up of following attributes:
AttributeIndexValueValue if not present
scheme0URL scheme specifierscheme parameter
netloc1Network location partscheme parameter
path2Hierarchical pathempty string
params3Parameters for last path elementempty string
query4Query componentempty string
fragment5Fragment identifierempty string
username
User nameNone
password
PasswordNone
hostname
Host name (lower case)None
port
Port number as integer, if presentNone
Example
>>> from urllib.parse import urlparse
>>> url = 'https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab = rm#inbox'
>>> t = urlparse(url)
ParseResult(scheme = 'https', netloc = 'mail.google.com', path = '/mail/u/0/', params = '', query = 'tab = rm', fragment = 'inbox')
urlunparse(parts)
This function constructs a URL from a tuple as returned by urlparse(). The parts argument can be any six-item iterable.
>>> from urllib.parse import urlunparse
>>> urlunparse(t)
'https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab = rm#inbox'
urlsplit(urlstring, scheme = '', allow_fragments = True):
This is similar to urlparse(), but does not split the params from the URL. This function returns a 5-tuple: (addressing scheme, network location, path, query, fragment identifier).
>>> from urllib.parse import urlsplit
>>> urlsplit(url)
SplitResult(scheme = 'https', netloc = 'mail.google.com', path = '/mail/u/0/', query = 'tab = rm', fragment = 'inbox')
urlunsplit(parts)
This function combines the elements of a tuple as returned by urlsplit() into a complete URL as a string.
The URL quoting functions focus on taking program data and making it safe for use as URL components by quoting special characters and appropriately encoding non-ASCII text.
quote()
This function replaces special characters in string using the %xx escape. Letters, digits, and the characters '_.-~' are never quoted.
>>> from urllib.parse import quote
>>> q = quote(url)
'https%3A//mail.google.com/mail/u/0/%3Ftab%3Drm%23inbox'
quote_plus():
Like quote(), but also replace spaces by plus signs, as required for quoting HTML form values when building up a query string to go into a URL.
unquote()
This function replaces %xx escapes by their single-character equivalent.
>>> from urllib.parse import unquote
>>> unquote(q)
'https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab = rm#inbox'
urlencode()
This function converts a mapping object or a sequence of two-element tuples,to a percent-encoded ASCII text string. The resulting string is a series of key = value pairs separated by '&' characters.
>>> from urllib.parse import urlencode
>>> qry = {"name":"Rajeev", "salary":20000}
>>> urlencode(qry)
'name = Rajeev&salary = 20000'
Advertisements | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Day 11 Flashcards Preview
Spinal Anatomy Test 2 > Day 11 > Flashcards
Flashcards in Day 11 Deck (29)
Loading flashcards...
1
How many joint surfaces are present on the vertebral body of the first sacral segment?
five
2
What joint classifications will be observed at the first sacral vertebral body?
cartilaginous (amphiarthrosis) symphysis and fibrous (amphiarthrosis) syndesmosis
3
What muscle(s) may attach to the first sacral vertebral body
psoas major
4
What is the position of the sacral zygapophysis in children?
the zygapophysis lies in the coronal plane for L5/S1
5
What is the orientation of the first sacral superior articular facet?
backward, upward, medial (BUM); typically concave
6
From the anterior view, the intervertebral discs of sacrum will be replaced by what feature?
transverse ridges
7
What forms the median sacral crest?
fused spinous processes and their spinous tubercles
8
What forms the intermediate sacral crest?
fused articular processes and their facets
9
What features may be identified along the intermediate sacral crest?
the mammillary process of S1 and the sacral cornu of S5
10
What is the sacral hiatus?
the inferior opening of the sacral spinal canal
11
An imaginary line drawn from the transverse process of S1 to the inferior lateral sacral angle will form what feature?
the lateral sacral crest
12
What is the sacral tuberosity?
the enlarged transverse tubercle of S2
13
What is the name of the joint formed by the sacral tuberosity?
the accessory sacra-iliac joint
14
What feature is associated with the transverse tubercle of S5?
the inferior and lateral (inferolateral) sacral angle
15
What feature is identified on the lateral surface of S1-S3?
auricular surface
16
What is the sacral promontory?
the bulging anterior surface of the superior epiphyseal rim of S1
17
How many synovial joints are typically present at sacrum?
four
18
What joint classifications are typically present at sacrum?
fibrous (amphiarthrosis) syndesmosis, cartilagionous (amphiarthrosis) symphysis and synovial plane (diarthrosis arthrodia)
19
What is the homolog for the superior articular process and facet at Co1?
coccygeal cornu
20
What is the number of coccygeal somites?
ten
21
What is the typical number of segments which unite to form the adult coccyx?
4 segments
22
When is ossification of coccyx completed?
about age 30
23
What is the direction of fusion of coccygeal segments?
from caudal to cranial, the last segments to fuse together are Co1 and Co2
24
What is the direction of the coccygeal curve?
posterior (kyphotic)
25
What is the major motion and range of motion for coccyx?
flexion - extension, 5-20 degrees
26
How many coccygeal nerves are present in the fetus?
typically 5 pairs of coccygeal nerves are present
27
What forms the coccygeal nerve plexus
S4, S5, and Co1 nerves
28
What is the ganglion impair?
a midline sympathetic ganglion
29
What is the coccygeal gloms or coccygeal body?
an enlarged encapsulated arteriovenous anastomosis located near the last segment of coccyx | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
6
I've a question for experienced API testers, especially those who work in large organisations. I've been tasked to identify any industry standards for documentation of API test plans. So far, I've found that IEEE 829 Standard and ISO 29119 could be used to inform software testing in general.
However, are there any best practices, guidelines or standards that exist for documenting API test plans specifically that you could recommend from your experience?
1
• 1 - There are no "best practices", only good practices in context. 2 - What are your goals with this test plan document? Who are your target readers and what information do you want to expose to them? Sep 17, 2020 at 20:09
1 Answer 1
2
My personal take:
At a high level
Test the API Endpoints, Status Codes and Data with Smoke, Happy and Sad Tests
At a detailed level one needs to ask the following questions.
The answers will guide what and how to test.
• What documentation exists ?
• What functionality it provide ?
• Does it support concurrency ?
• What are the API endpoints ?
• Is the API internal or external ?
• Which endpoints are idempotent ?
• Are endpoints stateless or stateful ?
• Do any workflows*1 vary by client ?
• Are there performance requirements ?
• Do API endpoints make up a workflow ?
• What validations are expected for data ?
• What system or library is behind the API ?
• Do we need to mock dependent services ?
• Does it constrain traffic aka Rate Limiting ?
• What (if any) versioning approach is used ?
• Does the API support Multiple Languages ?
• If already using SOAPui, how is it integrated ?
• Is the API be restricted to a country or region ?
• Does it provide client stubs in specific languages ?
• What status codes are expected for given endpoints ?
• What domain format and structure exists for the data ?
• Does the API use HATEOS*2 for self documentation ?
• What kind of data validation/ testing can be performed ?
• What API is supported by the test framework I’m using ?
• What actions are performed, e.g. GET, PUT, POST etc ?
• Do we need to prepare dependent test data or services ?
• What non-API approaches will be needed to verify data ?
• Are there existing API definitions e.g. WADL, WSDL, Thrift ?
• What non-API approaches will be needed to prepare data ?
• What (if any) Authorization (‘what’) mechanism will be used ?
• What (if any) Authentication (‘who’) mechanism will be used ?
• Who will use it, external programmers or another internal module ?
• What format(s): SOAP, REST, GraphQL, Thrift, ProtoBuffer, Other ?
*1 Workflows often require multiple API calls and may have dependencies between them
*2 HATEOS – Hypertext As The Engine Of Application State, which allows self-discovery of an API
Your Answer
By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Hui Zou
Hui Zou is currently a professor of statistics at the University of Minnesota.
Honors and awards
* Fellow of the American Statistical Association, 2019
* Highly Cited Researcher in Mathematics, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
* Fellow, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2015.
* Institute of Mathematical Statistics Tweedie New Researcher Award, 2011
* National Science Foundation CAREER Award, 2009
* New Hot Paper in Mathematics, 2008
* Fast Breaking Paper in Mathematics, 2006 | WIKI |
Page:O Douglas - Olivia in India.djvu/153
Rh arrived just in time to see the deed, and rushed swiftly, with fists and feet, to avenge her fate.
Well, we set off every morning on our pilgrimage, Jean calling herself "Mrs. Jones," and walking primly till we reach what we pretend is the seashore, where she forgets her dignity and rolls about in the sand. A certain kind of tree that Dr. Russel has planted round about the bungalow makes a noise exactly like waves, so it is easy to pretend about the sea. We meet many pilgrims on their way to some holy place, and we create quite a sensation in the little clusters of huts—they could hardly be called villages—that we pass through. The inhabitants crowd around us, saying "Johar," which I take it is Santali for "Salaam," and we repeat "Johar" and grin broadly in reply; and the pie dogs sniff round us in a friendly way. The other day we met a boy who, on beholding me, stood stock still, threw back his head, and shouted with laughter. I never heard more whole-hearted merriment. I had to join in. Whether it was that he had never seen anyone with fair hair before, or whether there is something particularly droll in my appearance, I don't know, but he evidently found me the funniest thing he had met with for a long time. It is generally Topsy who is the centre | WIKI |
It's a blog
Guzzle 6 retry middleware
Recently I switched from using Guzzle 5 to Guzzle 6 in my mediawiki-api-base PHP library. Everything went very smoothly except for there being no compatible version of the retry-subscriber that I had previously used. The subscriber has been replaced by retry middleware of which I was provided an extracted example. In this post I cover my implementation for the mediawiki-api-base library.
Guzzle 5
With Guzzle 5 you would create a retry subscriber with a filter and then attach it to the event emitter for the guzzle client. A full example can be seen below where RetrySubscriber::createStatusFilter can be seen here.
// Retry 500 and 503 responses
$retry = new RetrySubscriber([
'filter' => RetrySubscriber::createStatusFilter(),
'delay' => function ($number, $event) { return 1; },
'max' => 3,
]);
$client = new GuzzleHttp\Client();
$client->getEmitter()->attach($retry);
Guzzle 6
Guzzle 6 got rid of its event system and switched to the afore mentioned middleware system.
Middleware is added to a handler stack upon Client construction as seen below:
$handlerStack = HandlerStack::create( new CurlHandler() );
$handlerStack->push( Middleware::retry( retryDecider(), retryDelay() ) );
$client = new Client( array( 'handler' => $handlerStack ) );
The retry middleware takes two parameters, the first is the callable function that decides if a request / response should be retried and the last deciding how long to wait before retrying (similar to in Guzzle 6). Each can be seen below.
function retryDecider() {
return function (
$retries,
Request $request,
Response $response = null,
RequestException $exception = null
) {
// Limit the number of retries to 5
if ( $retries >= 5 ) {
return false;
}
// Retry connection exceptions
if( $exception instanceof ConnectException ) {
return true;
}
if( $response ) {
// Retry on server errors
if( $response->getStatusCode() >= 500 ) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
};
}
function retryDelay() {
return function( $numberOfRetries ) {
return 1000 * $numberOfRetries;
};
}
When implementing this for the mediawiki-api-base library I actually ended up creating a MiddlewareFactory which can be seen at on github here which is fully tested here.
This implementation includes a more complex retry decider including logging.
Enjoy!
9 Comments
1. Shubham Gupta
is there a provision of setting timeout with guzzle retry middleware? I want the retry attempt to be made upon expiration of pre-defined timeout interval
• addshore
Sounds like it should be possible
2. COil
Thanks for the hint. The retry middleware is really a must when having to deal with an API that isn’t 100% reliable.
3. jasonjudge
I’m curious, is this where OAuth token refreshes would be performed, or is that something which would have to be down further back up the chain?
• addshore
I have not really worked with OAuth & Guzzle yet so can’t give you the ‘right’ answer. It definitely sounds possible though.
4. Misbah
I’ve been following your example & making multiple asynchronous requests with Promise/any() functions.
When retry middleware is not used & some of the api end-points are down, this is working fine. But when adding retry middleware while some end-points are down, the request gets slow. It seems that, though other end-points are up, but the failing points are blocking and retrying.
trait RetriesRequest {
public function getRetryHandler()
{
$handlerStack = HandlerStack::create(new CurlHandler());
$handlerStack->push(Middleware::retry($this->retryDecider(), $this->retryDelay()));
return $handlerStack;
}
public function retryDecider()
{
return function (
$retries,
Request $request,
Response $response = null,
RequestException $exception = null
)
{
// Limit the number of retries to 5
if ($retries >= 5)
{
return false;
}
// Retry connection exceptions
if ($exception instanceof ConnectException)
{
return true;
}
if($exception instanceof AggregateException)
{
return true;
}
if ($response)
{
// Retry on server errors
if ($response->getStatusCode() >= 500 )
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
};
}
/**
* delay 1s 2s 3s 4s 5s
*
* @return Closure
*/
public function retryDelay()
{
return function ($numberOfRetries)
{
return 2000;
// return 1000 * $numberOfRetries;
};
}
}
Request Call Code:
trait SearchesFlights
{
use ParsesJason, RetriesRequest;
private $endPoints = [
'v1'=> '127.0.0.1:5354', //post request, body.date
'v2' => '127.0.0.1:5939', //post request, body.date
'v3' => '127.0.0.1:4949', //post request, body.date
'v4' => '127.0.0.1:5051', //get request, no body
'v5' => '127.0.0.1:5052', //get request, no body
];
private $postDate = '02/04/2018';
public function searchByDate()
{
$client = new Client(array('handler' => $this->getRetryHandler()));
/* $client = new Client();*/
$promises = $this->getPromiseArray($client);
$promise = Promise\any($promises)->then(
function (PsrResponse $response){
return $this->getAll(json_decode($response->getBody()));
},
function ($reason) {
return $reason;
}
);
$result = $promise->wait();
return $result;
}
/*Returns Promise Array with post requests*/
private function getPromiseArray($client)
{
$options = ['form_params' => ['date' => $this->postDate]];
return $promises = [
'server1' => $client->requestAsync('POST', $this->endPoints['v1']),
'server2' => $client->requestAsync('POST', $this->endPoints['v2']),
'server3' => $client->requestAsync('POST', $this->endPoints['v3'], $options),
];
}
}
5. Leo S
Should Line 20 be \GuzzleHttp\Exception\ConnectException?
I am getting following error.
Argument 4 passed to guzzelRetryClient::{closure}() must be an instance of GuzzleHttp\Psr7\RequestException, instance of GuzzleHttp\Exception\ConnectException given
6. Edvinas Gurevičius
Great article 😉 thank you sooo much!
Leave a Comment
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
© 2021 Addshore
Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑
%d bloggers like this: | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Quasiturbine with carriages.jpg
* The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.
The result was to delete the image.
Disputed fair use
It's all very well to say that it's replaceable, but what with?
The only way to produce a replacement would be to redraw this one, or to redraw a similar image from the promotional literature produced by the inventors of this device. Redrawing (unlike rephrasing) is still a form of copying, and strictly speaking, still won't produce an image that is licensable under the GFDL. Andrewa 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
* That's not true. Information itself can't be copyrighted, only the presentation of said information. I can't copy a Rand McNally map and sell it, but I can make my own map of the same area and sell that. A newly-drawn diagram containing of this turbine would absolutely be able to be licensed under the CC or GFDL. —— Chowbok ☠ 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
* It's true what you say about information and presentation, but I think there may be a problem even so. You can make your own map of an area, and it's not necessarily a copy of any other map. Even if it were drawn using only one particular copyrighted map, that's not necessarily a problem. But if it were done from one particular copyrighted map, and presented exactly the same information as the original map, that would be a problem, even if the new map had been drawn freehand rather than traced, say. Do you follow the parallel here?
* So yes, I can easily draw a new image presenting this information. But it seems to me that this will then present a far worse copyright problem than the one posed by this non-free image. Interested in other views of course. Andrewa 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
* If that were the case, then if I wrote an article with only one source, it would also be a copyright violation. — Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
* No, that's exactly the point... there's a difference between the way text and images are treated under copyright law. That's part of the reason we can (and do) treat images differently to text when it comes to copyright. Lists are treated differently again... if you copied a list, even if you rephrased each and every entry, that could still be a copyright violation.
* This may not seem very logical, and IANAL, but as I understand it that's the way it works. Arguing that images should be treated like text is irrelevant of course, the question is how they are treated, and they are treated quite differently. Andrewa 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
* I'm pretty sure you're wrong. This is a diagram, after all. If your interpretation was correct, the first person who graphed, say, the price of candy bars from 1950–2000, would own the copyright, and nobody else would ever be able to make a graphical representation of that data. That's just not the case. — Chowbok ☠ 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
* No, that doesn't follow. But, if you come across say a pie chart of the price range of candy bars in 1950, you can't just redraw that chart and say it's now your original work.
* There are some fuzzy lines here, that's the whole problem. How original is original? You'd probably get away with the pie chart, because nobody can prove you copied it. If the presentation is an obvious thing to do (as is your example of the graph, I think) then it's certainly not copyrightable. If the presentation is original, then it is.
* Take a step backwards. We're not discussing whether Wikipedia could be successfully sued for using this pie chart (or the Quasiturbine diagram); It's hypothetical, as it's highly unlikely in either case that anyone will even try. What we're after is, how do we make Wikipedia most useful, for free, under the GFDL.
* The case for deleting this image rests on the assertion that it can be easily replaced. It's useful, encyclopedic content. You are claiming that a redrawn diagram would be a suitable replacement.
* In that nobody else has bought into this discussion, I'm inclined to have a go at redrawing the diagram on the strength of your opinion. But I think this discussion should be preserved so that we don't need to reinvent the wheel if (as I predict) the redrawn diagram turns out to be even more of a problem.
* What parameters do you think I need to keep constant in the redrawing? The shape of the rotor segment faces is critical to the operation of the machine, according to the inventors, and this shape is documented nowhere else that I have seen. I don't know whether the wheel sizes are critical or not. Lots to decide. On the one hand, we are losing content and even introducing error if I change too much; On the other hand, we violate copyright if I change too little. A can of worms. But let's have a go, if you say it's so easy. Andrewa 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
A new image could be created and released under a free license. Therefore this image is replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
* ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. | WIKI |
// Deploying Rails Book
Starting a Rails Console with Capistrano 3
When deploying with Capistrano 3, it's often useful to be able to start a rails console without having to ssh into the target host and set it up manually. This can be particularly challenging if you're using rbenv as you have to ensure that rails console is called with suitable environment variables set set to ensure that the rbenv Ruby is used not the system Ruby.
The below snippet works with Capistrano 3 and will attempt to use rbenv_ruby if it is configured in Capistrano, otherwise it will fall back to the default system Ruby.
namespace :rails do
desc "Start a rails console, for now just with the primary server"
task :c do
on roles(:app), primary: true do |role|
rails_env = fetch(:rails_env)
execute_remote_command_with_input "#{bundle_cmd_with_rbenv} #{current_path}/script/rails console #{rails_env}"
end
end
def execute_remote_command_with_input(command)
port = fetch(:port) || 22
puts "opening a console on: #{host}...."
cmd = "ssh -l #{fetch(:deploy_user)} #{host} -p #{port} -t 'cd #{deploy_to}/current && #{command}'"
exec cmd
end
def bundle_cmd_with_rbenv
if fetch(:rbenv_ruby)
"RBENV_VERSION=#{fetch(:rbenv_ruby)} RBENV_ROOT=#{fetch(:rbenv_path)} #{File.join(fetch(:rbenv_path), '/bin/rbenv')} exec bundle exec"
else
"ruby "
end
end
end | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
How to print from Python
#1
I would like to explore the use of the makeblock python libraries for Codey. Many of the examples use “print” statements and if I attempt to use Putty on the Windows PC computer to the coms port it is already occupied. How can I see the output of the print statement. The Makeblock IDE does not support a serial terminal or monitor.
#2
Hi dsrc34,
I’m programming in Python with Codey and I haven’t encountered any limits yet. The Terminal or monitor is located at number 1 and you can delete it with number 2.
The Print () instruction in Python is a programmer’s best friend who wants to debug. By adding print () in your Python program, the display will be redirected to your screen (IDE mBlock). Me, it works in upload mode and plug in with a USB cable.
I hope that the answer, meets your need?
Here is an example :
#3
Hello Crackel
thanks for the reply. What you said is what I expected but it is not happening. I was able to display print statements by disconnecting mblock from Codey and then opening up a separate serial monitor on my Windows PC such as Putty and could see the results there. I do not understand why mBlock does not allow me to see codey’s print results directly. I replicated this problem on two separate Window PCs wit the same result and updated codey’s firmware.
#4
Hi dsrc34,
sorry for the misunderstanding i am really null in english.
So, I get the result you expect from the mBlock program. Consequently it is possible and it is even the minimum to work in Python.
I think I have found the source of the problem. He’s in the mLink. The PC version of mBlock is functional but the version which requires mLink does not work. The same code but the behavior is different.
Personally, Makeblock seems to favor the Web version with mLink, they must look at this problem because of python programming without the print () instruction to inspect the content of our variables, it is too difficult.
I hope Makeblock will answer you on this problem. | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
User:DevineInformation
Thomas Adam Hayes (born July 22, 1986) is an Irish musician, producer, writer, engineer, and performer. He has worked as assistant engineer and later as house recording engineer at studio facility, Westland Studios from 2004-2009. While working as an engineer, Thomas was lead guitarist, writer and backing vocalist in Irish Rock outfit, Million Dollar Shoes. Through connections made in such a fast paced environment, Thomas was given the opportunity to work with RTE Television Network as a session musician. Some notable artists that Thomas has worked with both in studio and live performances are Dropkick Murphys, Bell x1, The Brilliant Things, Laura Izibor, Gemma Hayes, Westlife, Ben Mills and Finbar Furey.
Childhood & Youth.
Thomas hails from Rosslare Strand, Wexford in Ireland. Having a keen interest in music from an early age led to an inevitable exploration of it. Obvious to his parents the love which he had for the subject, they encouraged his development throughout his formative years by getting him guitar lessons in the town centre and keeping him equipped with the essential gear and some. In his teenage years, Thomas played in Wexford rock band, Burnout. The band toured across Ireland and played various showcases. As the years went on the members changed, the band name changed, but Thomas was always present and was the driving force in the band. Soon the band was to become known as “Million Dollar Shoes.”
Career Beginnings 2004-2009
Once completed in school, Thomas began immediately pursing a career as a recording engineer while still putting time into Million Dollar Shoes’s development. Upon his move to Dublin, he worked in Westland Studios as a runner. Soon enough he climbed to the position of assistant engineer, and then later house engineer. Some of the most helpful influences in his early development as an artist and engineer were: Deirdre and Tom Costello, Greg French, David Geraghty and Long Beard sound engineer, Tim Martin. In 2006, Thomas began working on numerous television shows as a session musician with RTE Television, most known appearances on The Late Late Show, and also on talent show, You’re a Star.
Producing, Songwriting and Recognition 2007-present
Thomas is currently working on his own “pitch tracks” with the goal of placing songs with major label artists. Also, Thomas is co-writing and producing songs with female vocalist and pianist Heather Friedman. He’s also co-writing and producing a forthcoming single for rap artist Matthew Chandler (also known as C-style) Aside from his current works, he’s co-produced a number of tracks with his mentor, Greg French. Some of the artists Tommy has worked with either as a performer, engineer, co-writer, writer or Producer are : David Geraghty, X Factor, The Brilliant Things, Dropkick Murphys, Laura Izibor, Jimmy Faulkner, Gemma Hayes, Finbar Furey, Bell x1, Nick Seymour or Crowded House fame, members of Dépêche Mode, Ben Mills, Million Dollar Shoes, Shayne Ward, Boyzone, Damien Leath, Westlife, Leon Jackson, Don Baker, Kevin Sharkey, Heather Friedman and Matthew Chandler. Thomas worked with (as assistant engineer and engineer) David Geraghty who was nominated for three awards in the Irish music industry : Best Irish Male 2007 and Best Irish Album 2007 from the Meteor Awards, and Best Irish Album from choice Music prize. Another he worked with, Laura Izibor’s album, let the truth be told was a choice music prize nomination. | WIKI |
United States v. Eckford
APPEAL from the Court of Claims, the case being thus:
An act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1797, § 3, provides that where a suit is instituted against any person indebted to the United States, the court shall, on motion, grant judgment at the return term, unless the defendant shall, in open court, make oath or affirmation that he is equitably entitled to credits which had been, previous to the commencement of the suit, submitted to the consideration of the accounting officers of the treasury and rejected, specifying each particular claim so rejected in the affidavit. The same act provides, § 4, that in such suits no claim for a credit shall be admitted upon trial but such as shall appear to have been submitted to the accounting officers of the treasury for their examination and by them been disallowed, unless it shall appear that the defendant, at the time of trial, is in possession of vouchers, not before in his power to procure, and that he was prevented from exhibiting a claim for such credit at the treasury by absence from the United States, or some unavoidable accident.
With this act in force, the United States sued the executors of Eckford, who had been collector of New York, on his official bond, in the District Court for Southern New York. Among other pleas was that of set-off. The jury sustained the plea, and certified that there was due from the United States to the defendants, $20,545. On this verdict a judgment was entered, 'that the United States take nothing by their bill, and that the defendants go thereof without day; and that the said executors are entitled to be paid the said balance so certified,' &c.
The claim not being paid, the executors brought suit against the United States in the Court of Claims, and offered the record of the Circuit Court in evidence. It was objected to by the counsel of the United States; but the objection was overruled and the record read, and judgment accordingly. The United States appealed; and, divested of its special form below, the question now here was, whether, when the United States sued a person indebted to it, and a set-off to a greater amount than the claim was pleaded and proved, a judgment could be given against the United States for the excess.
By statutes of New York, in case of such pleas, 'if there be found a balance due from the plaintiff in the action to the defendant, judgment shall be rendered to the defendant for the amount.'
Mr. E. P. Norton, for the United States, appellant, relied, as concluding all argument, on De Groot v. United States, where this court says:
'When the United States is plaintiff in one of the Federal courts, and the defendant has pleaded a set-off, which the acts of Congress have authorized him to rely on, no judgment can be rendered against the government, although it may be judicially ascertained tha on striking a balance of just demands the government is indebted to the defendant in an ascertained amount.'
Reeside v. Walker, was cited to a similar effect.
Mr. S. E. Lyon, contra, argued that the ruling below was supported by United States v. Wilkins, where Story, J., for the court, in construing the act under which the set-off was offered and proved, says: | WIKI |
loading
Bicy light was a crazy idea I had while ago when I was bike touring in Peloponnese and I was passing by garbage after garbage on the side of the roads. Right then, I was so frustrated with the sight of endless plastic flooding every magical place I've encountered, that I knew I had to think of something useful from this polluting material. After hours of daydreaming I had the basic concept in my head. A bicycle light made out of plastic bottles. I wanted it to be very small, waterproof, bright, tough and as efficient as possible so it wont eat batteries like candies. But even with the idea completely formed in my mind, in reality it seemed like an impossible task. After many frustrating months of thinking, sketching, trying things (and a precious helping hand from my friend 'Gearloose ' FIlippos) and battling with the urge to quit, I've come up with the basic design that seemed to be working. After some more days I had the prototype. I was so happy I can't describe it. And all that for a tiny bike light that I could find on ebay for 1$. But mine is made out of garbage that I found on the streets and it's much better than anything else!
What we are going to need:
• Reed switch
• Plastic bottle
• 20 oz style Plastic bottle caps (2)
• Rust-proof wire - An old, plastic-coated coat hanger might look nicer
• 1-watt LED Solid core cable
• (1) Small piece of wooden branch
• Inner tube
• Soda can
• Small magnet.At least 8x2 mm. You can find these in old, broken headphones (or buy on ebay)
• Zip ties
• Coin-cell battery
• Speaker wire
• 10 ohm resistor
Video from an older version of the light (less bright):
And how it performs (this version):
Step 1: Prepare the Casing
• First, scavenge two bottles (ideally from the same brand) from the trash. It doesn't matter if the bottle is dirty, crushed, or destroyed as long as the part near the cap is intact.
• Use a good razor to cut away most of the bottle and leave the part near the cap. Remember to leave enough so when later are fitting the cap, the part near the top should go inside the cavity of the cap (as it happens when you screw a cap on the bottle).
• Then put the cap on a piece of paper and draw a circle around it. That's the circumference of the cap. Use that as a reference for your bottle so you know how much you should cut. You'll want the cap to fit snugly, so regularly check to make sure the cap fits on the open part of the bottle you just cut.
Step 2: Fit the Cap on the Bottle
• If the new cap fits, but it doesn't sit perfectly, use a butter knife to open it. Then, with the razor, carefully remove some more plastic from the bottle and try again. It should make some nice clicking sounds as you press them more and more together.
• When you have it ready, take the cap that's not screwed on the bottle, and using your razor open a big hole on it. The hole should be as big as the size of the cavity (that means you shouldn't destroy the cavity inside - See the photo).
• Cut off the plastic ring in the middle. We need this part to be transparent plastic so the light can be seen from 360 degrees.
Step 3: The Transparent Front Cover
• Using again the body of the bottle, cut out a circular piece of plastic big enough to fit snuggly on the cap you just made a hole on. As you push it with your finger inside the cap, it should make click sounds until it touches the edges of the cavity. For better insulation, put some silicone glue around the cavity where the circular piece is going to sit on.
Step 4: Cut a Plastic Frame to Hold the Electronics
• I have many designs for this skeleton, but I am going to mention here the easiest.
• Cut again a circular plastic piece from the bottle body slightly bigger than the front cover (3-5 mm).
• With a pair of scissors cut a cross without cutting the center. This is where the led is going to sit on. Please have a look at the sketch and the photos to understand the concept.
• Seat the LED on the base facing the cap (so it's upside down). Use a pair
of needle nose pliers to straighten and then bend its little metal ears downward. Then, place it on the hole so its lens protrudes from the other side and make the metal ears go through the holes to the other side.
Step 5: Connect the Electronics
Flip the base over so you can see the metal ears. Use needle-nose pliers to connect the resistor to the negative side (you can see a little minus) and a piece of cable to the other one. Take a look at the pics for an example.
Step 6: Prepare and Place the Battery
• From an aluminum can, cut out two discs the size of the cap. Use sandpaper or a Dremel to scrap off the plastic layer from the side of the disc (just one side).
• Sketch with a pencil the shape of the plastic skeleton and drill four holes just outside it (see picture). Run a naked piece of cable through, like in the pic, and connect it with the end of the resistor by twisting them together. The twisted parts should be placed in the space outside the plastic skeleton, but inside the cap. The exposed cable on circular aluminum should face the battery that will be placed above.
• Lay the coin cell on top of the disc. Make an identical aluminum disc that goes above the battery. Cut off a small piece on the edge of the disc for the cable that runs out from the bottom.
Step 7: Run the Wires and Test It
• Cut out a circular piece of inner tube that will fit snug above the aluminum disc.
• Connect those two cables (green) with the two ends of another piece of wire (white) that will go through the cap. Just twist the ends together and add some tape. To test if your circuit works, touch the two ends of the cable together — the LED should light up.
Step 8: Complete the Casing
• Make a hole in the middle of the back cap. If possible, make it as big as the cable and similarly shaped. Run the cable through it.
• Screw the cap tightly. Then, open it and see where the cable has marks from bending. Now, cut a small piece of inner tube (shape shown in the pic), stretch its smaller edge, and wrap it very tightly (clockwise, so when you screw in the cap it will tighten it more) around the cable 1 cm away from the bending mark and hold it there with your finger. Then take the cap and slide it over the inner tube part. This shape of the tube makes it slide more easily through the hole, and as you pull the cable the back part sticks in the hole, giving a waterproof seal.
• Before you screw in the cap, you want to turn it counterclockwise one and a half rotations so the cables inside won’t twist so much!
Step 9: Build the Sensor
• Leave the light aside for a moment to start making the sensor.
• First, cut a piece of a stick. Its width depends on the distance between your sensor and your magnet. If you want to put it on the fork, the distance is small so you need a thinner stick. If you want to place it on the back triangle the distance is greater, so you need a thicker stick.
• When you find one, cut it a few centimeters longer than your reed switch. Then, drill a hole (big enough so the twisted cable can go through) all the way through the stick, lengthwise, somewhat near the edge.
• Now, we will use a big piece of the cable (from the same stock we used to go through the cap) . This will connect the light with the sensor. Use needle nose pliers to hold the reed switch so you can twist its end together with one end of the cables (without pliers you will break it instantly). Slide it through the hole in the stick until it comes out the other end. When it does, twist it together with the other end of your cable. For extra security, you can use some tape to stick the two cable inside the holes.P
• lace the magnet close to the wood. When the wires are connected, the LED should light up.
Step 10: Light Mounting Mechanism, Part 1
• Take the wire and make a set of loops. Again, needle nose pliers are an essential tool for shaping the wire, especially if it's a rustproof one. Notice the two pieces of wire that hold together the loops. Also an additional bended piece of wire is there for the hook (check the last photos).
• This step is a bit tricky if the wire is rustproof. But it't not that hard. You can experiment and come up with a better inner tube holder.
• NOTE: The wire loops shouldn’t extend beyond the height of the cap as I did in the pics. Also, when you complete this step, try the light on the seatpost and bend the loops slightly if the light doesn’t sit nicely. Cut a strip from an inner tube and run it through the loops like a belt. We do it this way so we can adjust it later if we want to strap it on bigger or thinner tubes.
Step 11: Light Mounting Mechanism, Part 2
Make a hook with the wire and strap it on the end of the inner tube
strip. Bend a piece of wire on the folded end and press very hard until the hook is secure
Step 12: Connect the Light to the Sensor
Connect the wire ends with Tamiya connectors (or any other connectors
you like — there are smaller and better-looking connectors on the market than the ones I used) . This connector is your on/off switch for when you don't need the light (i.e. during the day).
Step 13: Install
• For the sensor to close the circuit every time the wheel spins, we have to put a magnet close to it. I chose a simple, discreet, and effective installation, but if you find a better one, let me know in the comments.
• Cut a small piece of inner tube and roll the magnet up. Find the point where two spokes meet and wrap the tube and magnet around. Take a small piece of wire and bend it around the tube and two spokes. Turn it around until it's comfortable for you to work on and clamp it down with pliers (as we did for the strap hook). Use scissors to cut off the remaining inner tube. Finally, turn it around until the magnet faces the sensor, and push it down until it is secure.
• Now, cut a piece of the inner tube and put your sensor inside it. Then fold the excess rubber and put it on the fork or triangle. Use some zip ties (ideally reusable) to hold it in place. Use some more zip ties (don’t use many, just a few on places where the cable changes direction) to route the cable all the way to the seat post. Make sure the cable is discreet: under and behind the frame.
• Now, strap the light on the seatpost. It’s very easy to hook and unhook it with your nail/finger.
<p>Fantastic project! One of the best innovations here is the automatic switch. Great, smart way to simply make cycling safer.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot! It's really, a good looking efficient little light :))</p>
About This Instructable
2,577views
25favorites
License:
Bio: Crazy about bicycles, outdoors and diy projects
More by bicyclosis:The proper way to patch a puncture on the base of the tube's valve Heavy Duty Bicycle Basket From Broomsticks and Rope! DIY Bicycle Pegs
Add instructable to: | ESSENTIALAI-STEM |
Template:Balletdecade/doc
Usage
No parameters are needed.
It also automatically adds all four relevant head categories to the category. | WIKI |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.