text:
"
 * 1)  "/* Amenities */ not useful"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Oakwood, London. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

User is continuously edit warring at Oakwood, London and has violated WP:3RR and has been blocked before because of the same reason. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

In response to WP:AIV listing on this, I just re-blocked this editor for 2 weeks to stop the incessant edit warring. This looks like a possible sock here. This IP has only been in use since September 19, but hit the ground running with knowledge of Wikipedia policies to justify some of their edits. Please have a look at their filter log, in addition to their edits. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This IP is a possible sockpuppet of and I am going to investigate if there anymore possible sockpuppets before compiling the final report for a sockpuppet investigation. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Per your request on my talk page, I have removed their talk page access for personal attacks on other editors. It would probably take some drilling down on this. And anyone who sees something familiar in the pattern.  But where another IP has the same pattern, there is a possibility of a sock master somewhere. — Maile  (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I have opened up yet another sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/<IP_ADDRESS> relating to this IP. If you can find anymore possible sockpuppets of this IP then please list them at this sockpuppet investigation. I'm sure there is something fishy going on and I am concerned whether a block user is handling all these IPs. I have been checking and  for the past half hour and I haven't found any evidence but I know if there is a user handling all these accounts and I will watch out for this. Today, I have opened up two sockpuppet investigations so far. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I posted over there as well. — Maile  (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: The <IP_ADDRESS> IP has been blocked two weeks by User:Maile66. <IP_ADDRESS> is blocked 24 hours by User:GB fan.  If this report needs any follow-up, I suggest posting at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/<IP_ADDRESS>. Personally I'm not yet convinced that these two IPs are the same person -- there is overlap only at  World Enough and Time (Doctor Who), and the IPs are from different countries (UK vs. India). The two-week block of <IP_ADDRESS> looks well-justified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:Matttoms (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=801701194

User:Sitush keeps removing genetic information noting that genetic information regarding Indians have no place in wikipedia articles, however listed for every other ethnic group. Genetics are very pertinent to understanding the diverse origins of an ethnic group and are very valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattoms (talk • contribs)
 * You provided no links to Sitush editwarring. When I looked all I saw was two different editors reverting you once each. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Damolat and User:Oluwa2Chainz reported by user:Biografer (Result: Damolat warned)

 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * Page:

Both are violating edit warring/3RR policies. User Damolat got numerous warnings. Continues.--Biografer (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies for breaching the 3RR policy. Damolat seems to be adamant in adding the promotional edit hence my continuous reverts. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That wont be for me to decide, but both of you should take Wikibreak. :) Even though that I am not an admin, the rule clearly states:
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions."--Biografer (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While you didn't broke it yet, its evidently close. So I don't know what would admins think, but from my perspective when the whole recent changes is full of reverts by one user (and they are only a second apart), something is totally wrong.--Biografer (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The use of rollback in this case is inappropriate. Please read over WP:ROLLBACK. Specifically: Editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war. Please be more careful and explain your reversions when it is not obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 23:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This is not promotional material. This is an Encyclopedic discography of the artist, hence provides value as a reference to prove that the artist has truly produced those songs. Also it is legitimate information for users to see the entire discography of the artist. The action by :: appears to be Self appointed toxic gatekeeping and goes against the premise of Wikipedia as an open web and contribution platform. If this is promotional material, then it can be argued that all references to external websites from wikipedia that provides value information is also promotional material. 01:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Point number one: Please sign your posts not only with your timestamp but also your signature, otherwise no one will know that this is you. If your doing it deliberately (like you have something to hide or something), you might get a tiny blog for not providing correct signature. At least, next time, if you don't have time, let the bot do it for you. In order to do it, you put nothing after punctuation mark, and the bot will auto sign it for you. Its called SignBot. Point number two: The material that you provided shouldn't go as a reference but more as external link. Another thing to mention: The list of songs that he wrote is already provided in the Discography section, therefore, no need for a ref there. :)--Biografer (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally, you should've check what kind of link  is inserting and the pattern of his edits before you conclude your case on.
 * In the last 48 hours, added the spam link of his website MyMusic.com.ng in over 40 articles indiscriminately everywhere, like where more reliable citations exist such as this, this one and this one; as well as places where there's claim which was cited in another source but he injected his link like here, thus separating claim with its source.
 * Before started this spamming he created questionable article for his non notable spam link. The article here: MyMusic.com.ng. He made 90% of all its revisions, this can be verified in its history.
 * is obvious spammer. All his edits are on 3 things: 1. Creating and gate keeping article about his website MyMusic.com.ng. 2. Adding the spam link to articles and 3. Reverting whenever his spam was detected and removed. He have near zero edit all over Wikipedia apart from these three above, clear case of WP:SPA.
 * On Wikipedia there's NO rule that cannot be ignored in improving and maintaining Wikipedia; and maintaining here unambiguously include reverting spammers like and his link. User  didn't deserve this hasty accusations of edit war, if he's not praised for his boldness.
 * It will be better for you to assume more good faith and also make thorough checks and look into edits pattern before hasty report of edit war, otherwise you're giving more leverage to spammers and vandals to continue their overt and subtle disruptions and discouraging good editors from confronting them. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For one, I thorough checked additions and yes, I saw him spamming this link to every possible article (hence the reporting). Now, I didn't report  because I have bad faith against him. Please forgive me if it sounded like it. I reported both because both were causing some disruption for the project. One, Damolat was spamming the link, while the other instead of seeking dispute resolution decided to revert all the edits, and therefore possibly breaching 3RR with his boldness. While I do praise bold editors (heck, I do bold edits myself), I don't view Oluwa2Chainz reverts as bold. That doesn't mean that I agree with what Damolat did. And as for otherwise you're giving more leverage to spammers and vandals to continue their overt and subtle disruptions and discouraging good editors from confronting them., didn't you saw that I reported both? I reported both of them, not because I had bad faith against any of them, is because I wasn't sure who is to blame in such situation. And I assumed good faith admins would solve it quicker with my report. I apologize if my bold reporting was worse then bold reverts of user Oluwa2Chainz. :)--Biografer (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Damolat won't stop adding spam links on articles. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Where exactly have you seen him doing it after I reported him? Or is there an anonymous account that I am not aware of?--Biografer (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Good job trying to keep Wikipedia sane and organised. I honestly wasn't aware such edits will be considered as and amounted to spamming. However, lets be careful not to hide under the guise of anonymity to resort to unfair name calling. For example, I will like to know what action warrants being called a Vandal. Cheers. Damolat (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Damolat is warned they can be blocked if they again try to add a link to mymusic.com.ng to any articles, unless they have first got consensus on the talk page that the link is appropriate. We usually describe this pattern of edits as spamming. Another board where you can report this kind of a problem is WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c4:7177:3c00:8dfe:e933:c4a4:af74 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 15:55, 21 September 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff  05:55, 22 September 2017
 * 2) diff 13:14, 24 September 2017 (diff series, much of it deleted for COPYVIO)
 * 3) diff 18:24, 24 September 2017
 * 4) diff 22:32, 24 September 2017
 * 5) diff 23:03, 24 September 2017, edit note Edit warring for what reasons exactly? Have fun.. enjoy.
 * 6) diff 23:51, 24 September 2017  at Epidemiology of suicide doing the same thing there.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gender_differences_in_suicide

Comments:

IP hopper who is committed to providing their own analysis of primary data on suicide by gender by country and by date. Am seeking a block on current IP and semi-protection of article. In addition to edit war warning, see warning for COPYVIO and WP:OR warning here, to which the IP replied with a ramble explaining why they feel justified providing their own analysis and even noting I'm aware my POV is in contrast with the article's. (the "article's" perspective is what secondary sources say, btw).

They have also extended this to a second articleJytdog (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Uh.. I'm not willing to get into this. What do I say? In the last two weeks about, 95% of what I wrote in tens of edits on the cited article (not Epidemiology of suicide, which I began editing a couple of hours ago) is perfectly sourced. I know what edit-wars are about (politics), thus I'm not willing to play with you, a much more acknowledged user owning a username and who knows how many friendly peers (other editors), sorry. This ain't going to be fair without some real objectiveness, which I suppose will be missing because I did partecipate in wikipedia editing in the past years (i'm not a total outsider), and I'm aware such is common practice. 2A00:23C4:7177:3C00:8DFE:E933:C4A4:AF74 (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. The IP doesn't seem to understand the policy about WP:Original research. It is puzzling that they believe that their original research is 'sourced' even while stating that their POV is in contrast with the article's. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:2602:306:ceab:8320:8ea:6076:37ce:5ac8 reported by User:Biografer (Result: Blocked)
The anonym continues to disrupt Alexander I of Russia article by removing old style dates.--Biografer (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Already began doing same thing with Alexander II of Russia. See diff.--Biografer (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User being reported: *
 * diff 1
 * diff 2
 * diff 3--Biografer (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jazzix reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff Their first wholesale reversion of negative content in this run - 20:17, 28 August 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 07:12, 29 August 2017
 * 2) diff 16:22, 24 September 2017
 * 3) diff 23:51, 24 September 2017
 * 4) diff 00:55, 25 September 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Velvet_antler

Comments:

Pure their contribs, pure SPA adding hyped/promotional content to this article. They should get the banhammer per PROMO/NOTHERE but a significant block will do. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They have continued since I filed this. per the talk page, they were at first looking at the pubmed abstract, and even now that they see the actual article, they have continued. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:I Loves WASP reported by User:Chris troutman (Result:indef blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "White Celtic and Germanic Protestant"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 802322952 by Rjensen (talk) White Celtic and Germanic Protestant"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 802319763 by JamesBWatson (talk)"
 * 4)  "White Celtic and Germanic Protestant"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Already warned on their talk page by an admin Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * for purely disruptive editing. Yunshui 雲 水 14:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:Train2104 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  "is it really necessary to cite the reasons for damaged units"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 802191657 by Mtattrain (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 802079409 by Mtattrain (talk)"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

As evidenced by page history and the user's talk page, this user has a long-term habit of edit-warring and WP:OWNing this article. Also see the edit history/talk page of Select Bus Service. Actions include continuing to include excessive detail based purely on fansites, as well as continuing to replace images with his/her own. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * – 2 weeks. When User:El_C left an admin comment last March, they suggested using the article talk page. Since that time neither of you has done so. The question of whether there is too much detail is a pure content issue that could be addressed through WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Dougal18 reported by User:Edwardx (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Mastermind&diff=800025645&oldid=788970741]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Mastermind&diff=802372561&oldid=800025645]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Mastermind&diff=802376165&oldid=802374538]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Mastermind&diff=802456066&oldid=802387501]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Mastermind&diff=802466304&oldid=802464882]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Mastermind&diff=802464882&oldid=802456066]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Mastermind&diff=802464882&oldid=802456066]

Comments:

 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CobraSA reported by User:<IP_ADDRESS> (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 07:22, 10 September 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 07:22, 10 September 2017
 * 2) diff 19:27, 20 September 2017
 * 3) diff 09:24, 25 September 2017

Comments:

User has repeatedly restored a superfluous citation designed to advertise one particular fan forum, after a recent decision made to remove all links to the various M.U.G.E.N. fan forums. Users from site in question specifically seem to have a history of editing this page in order to better promote their site (MUGEN Archive). In particular, starting with this edit made about a year ago, moving the fan forum at the top of the list towards the bottom, so that MUGEN Archive was the top listed site. This kicked off a series of edits of various people rearranging the order the fan forums were listed, ultimately resulting in all fan forum links being removed from the page. The citation that the user in question keeps adding back in appears to be designed to get around this limitation.
 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Sapphorain reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Warned )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 802676315 by ZH8000 (talk)See talk page"
 * 2)  "No, this is not outdated; And it is mentioned in the lead of the German article, which has was labelled as good article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 802665202 by ZH8000 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 802649183 by ZH8000 (talk)That was correct"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 802649183 by ZH8000 (talk)That was correct"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 802649183 by ZH8000 (talk)That was correct"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Not using edit summary on Lausane. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lausanne. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Lausannen"

 * Comments:
 * . I notice that after this report was made, the talk page discussion actually started getting somewhere. Consider this a warning to both and  that repeatedly editing the page without discussion is grounds for either party to receive a temporary block. If the talk page discussion cannot reach a compromise, remember there is WP:30, WP:DRN, and (in this case) the CITY and SWISS WikiProjects that can be asked for input. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Dereck_Camacho reported by User:Eipviongll (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

I need an admin to intervene. This user continuously reverted blindly many changes with reliable sources of 2 users (Trappist the monk AND Eipviongll) within 24 hours. Since page was reverted 4 times within 24 hours, it's obvious violation of Wikipedia rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eipviongll (talk • contribs)

I really need help, the user is still reverting the page, here's another diff:

-- Eipviongll (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) diff

Comments:

The edits of User:Eipviongll may be considered libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material regarding a Biographies of living persons. The issue was already discussed twice in the talk page (about the use of sources in mandarin openned by User:MacPraughan and the use of libelous material). [I my self open the section to discuss it in the talk page]. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument for your violation of Wikipedia rule is vague and weak. All my changes contain reliable sources. As I said, you blindly reverted many changes with reliable sources of 2 users (Trappist the monk AND Eipviongll) within 24 hours. Since page was reverted 4 times within 24 hours, it's obvious violation of Wikipedia rule.Eipviongll (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether is a violation or not would be define by admins, I myself was gonna report you (as I anounce it in the edit summary) but I prefer to open the thread on the talk page as is one of the requirements before denouncing someone here (which you didn't comply, as it is also to warn the person that you place a denounce here, which you didn't do either). And I'm not the only one questioning your sources.--Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your vague arguments don't work. You are an obvious violator of this bright-line Wikipedia rule: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Eipviongll (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You accused everyone who disagrees with you of "vague arguments" (?), you did with User:MacPraughan too, in any case te ones that would decide whether I broke any rule will be the admins, not you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jonnytee45 reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

 * Single-purpose account reverts sourced info critical of article subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:244:0:3DE4:D0BF:988E:630A:9A3F reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: Protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on OMG (Camila Cabello song). (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

User has been edit warring and has reverted edits ten time in a period of 24 hour. IP has broken WP:3RR. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jehannette reported by User:Mr rnddude (Result: Warned)
I need an admin to intervene (without tools) and deliver an explanation (or warning) to Jehannette at William Lane Craig. Alternatively, in order to be unbiased, it entirely plausible that I am the one who needs a warning. I'm at a BLP getting dragged into an edit-war with a new user who, in my view, doesn't fully yet understand BLP, RS, or EW. I don't want them blocked, I don't think they are vandalizing, and I haven't delivered a templated warning to their talk page. I doubt it would be heeded anyway.
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Diffs of reverts
 * 1) Initial revert
 * 2) Second revert
 * 3) Third revert and
 * 4) Fourth revert.

I am at 4RR myself, however, per WP:3RRNO point 7; reverts to BLP's are excluded when dealing with libelous, biased (in this case definitely), unsourced or poorly sourced (in this case rationalwiki is the source) material. Thanks to any admin that intervenes. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning(s): As mentioned, and per the second revert summary, I need an admin to do so. I do not think that I as a lowly editor am being taken seriously at all.
 * Diff of attempt to resolve the dispute: Talk:William Lane Craig.
 * Diff of notification: I don't remember if you normally notify editors about AN/EW discussions, but, in the interest of allowing the involved editor respond, I will leave a notification on their page. Notification
 * At 06:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC) I reformatted the report to meet the standard form. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * All that I am trying to do is to post the following in the "External links" section:

 * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

 * The above website is critical of Dr. Craig's work but is completely reliable. I think that the intelligent readers of Wikipedia can decide for themselves!  Wikipedia is not a Reasonable Faith website nor a Dr. Craig fan club site. Jehannette (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette

 * I have proposed a compromise, that an edit be made to the Wikipedia article on Dr. Craig that provides a link to the following RationalWiki, stating that the latter has an article on Dr. Craig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs)

 * Had I seen this yesterday, a block might have been necessary, but no longer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this matter final? Have the Admins ruled against me on this one?  Or, will the link to RationalWiki be allowed in the article?  How are these matters adjudicated?  Or, is one editor simply favored over another?  Thanks.Jehannette (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
 * User:Jehannette, it does not seem that anyone else supports your inclusion of a link to Rationalwiki. So you should let it go. The question has even been discussed at WP:ELN where you got the same answer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Darkknight2149 (Result: Semi)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

Report

 * Revisions:, , , ,
 * Warnings: ,
 * Attempts at discussion: Talk:Freddy vs. Jason

This user seems very intent adding trivia to Freddy vs. Jason regarding a celebrity that appears in it, which violates WP:WEIGHT and doesn't belong in the lead. Despite multiple reverts, the user continues to persist. They refuse to leave any sort of edit summaries and have been entirely unresponsive to any warnings or discussion. This edit, this edit, and this edit to the celebrity's article, in addition to the edit war, suggest a potential WP:COI problem.  Dark Knight  2149  05:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. Not a 3RR, rather a long-term war. This IP editor never responds on talk, so further attempts at persuasion seem unlikely to work. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Musicfavorite21 reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 802769491 by Hayman30 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 802758027 by Hayman30 (talk) See RIAA&BPI Official website. And Apple Music."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 802742776 by Hayman30 (talk)"
 * 4)  "See RIAA,&BPI Official website. And Apple music."
 * 5)  "Official release date is August 25, Not August 24."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Look What You Made Me Do. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) "Release date: new section"

 * Comments:
 * – User is now discussing the issue on the article talk page and has not continued to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:CobraSA (Result: filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Some user is trying to suppress a valid and perfectly factual source. Supposedly for "political" reasons. Although 3 of the 4 edits were done by a guest, I think it's the same individual.

 * . CobraSA, Calton has edited the article only once AFAICS. Your assumption that the IP edits were also made by him is unproven and in my opinion without merit, since it might well occur to anybody to remove your reference; the link you keep inserting is promotional rather than a source. As people have pointed out, no source for the statement is needed, and a forum wouldn't cut it in any case. You should stop your slow edit warring before you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC).

This is an appeal to the above decision, reason :

You said "the link you keep inserting is promotional rather than a source".

First I am not in any way affiliated to the link. Secondly I have myself cleaned up the article from all promotional links. [|diff] Third, I had to appeal to an admin for the removal of a spam link to an open wiki.

You said "As people have pointed out, no source for the statement is needed".

Please explain how giving a figure does not require a source. If that was the case I could say indifferently thousands, millions, billions, and everyone would have to accept it, that doesn't make any sense.

You said "a forum wouldn't cut it in any case".

The link is not showing a forum despite the misleading url, but a content repository. The article explains thousands content items exist, and the link points to a content repository that displays a counter that backs up this statement and figure.

I think you might not have analyzed the situation accurately, so please either reconsider and protect the page after restoring the valid sources, or kindly point out who I should contact to appeal to your decision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraSA (talk • contribs)

 * You cannot successfully appeal Bishonen's decision not to sanction Calton for edit warring, because Calton clearly wasn't edit warring. Edit warring does not mean "doing something that CobraSA doesn't like". Please read WP:Edit warring to understand what it does mean.  Also, claiming without any evidence whatsoever that the IP's are Calton's just because they all disagree with you is baseless. By the way, if Calton and the IP's "combined" were edit warring, then you were too.  The way to determine what to do is to discuss it on the article talk page.  Since multiple people disagree with you, the link needs to stay out of the article until there is consensus to add it. Finally, on a different subject, please sign your posts with four tildes (~) . --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Bishonen is also right about you calling edits you disagree with "vandalism". Please see WP:Vandalism to understand what this word means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Adamgerber80 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Since I have grabbed your attention now, go to the talk page."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

IP editor has been engaging in an edit war even after consensus was reached by multiple editors. The editor is now resorting to canvassing for support. Other IP's used for edits earlier were <IP_ADDRESS>,<IP_ADDRESS>. Has been given a 4 level warning earlier. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * – 24 hours for personal attacks by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamgerber80 reported by User:<IP_ADDRESS> (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page: Al-Khalid tank, Sukhoi Su-30MKI

 * User being reported:

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Editor is avoiding facts presented on talk page to keep their biased edits up and then threatening with a ban once corrected or an attempt is being made to discuss.

This editor is engaging in biased editing and has a hypocritical history of edits, and protecting certain pages out of personal interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs)

 * Result: Filer blocked 24 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Eipviongll reported by User:Dereck Camacho (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5

Comments:

 * – 24 hours. This is the second report of the same thing within four days. By this time we would expect that the two of you would be making some progress on dispute resolution. If no consensus has been reached you should not both be continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:MarkSewath (Result:Blocked 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * here

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Edit warring stop rollback. MarkSewath (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ny Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Cathry reported by User:Zefr (Result:Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverting because info about possible links to infections was deleted as well as some other with soures"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Research section */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* EGCG vs GTE */ org refs"

 * Comments:

User is a repeat vandal and disruptive editor on numerous articles. Also see EGCG, GMO. User Cathry has been warned by other editors -- see user's Talk page. Zefr (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Actually i described why i revert Zefr's edit. He delete very huge amount of info from Rheumatoid arthritis, and there was not only current issues (discussed at talk page), but valuable data added long time ago by various editors, as far as I understand. He deleted 4,702 bytes . After my revert he deleted this one more time without discussing at talk page  He did similar thing in EGCG first deletion, second deletion. Note, that was not info added by me, but it was added by another user and was previously discussed at talk page Cathry (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cathry is constructive and community consultative. Zefr has been trolling. Repeatedly ignoring the use of Talk pages and sections that were intentionally opened to constructively resolve disagreements. Acting in a hostile and aggressive manner, generally unbecoming of an Administrator. He's also taken to stalking particular users like Cathry around pages and acting in an editing cabal to destroy balanced NPOV and non Anglo-American centric viewpoints. DM. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Zefr's continual deletion of content using dismissive and disrespectful comments like "non-sense" (without discussion), in response to accurately and reliably secondary sourced text from exemplified sources named in policy, really goes against WP's spirit. Zefr's hamfisted approach to multiple users, including Cathry, suggests the admin rights are being abused for bullying. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Cathry is indeed getting problematic in that they are purposely trying to skirt 3RR (and 1RR in GMO topics) while avoiding the brightline, so a close of there weren't more than 3/1 reverts with no action would be inappropriate here. Cathry archived much of their talk page, so see this for the history of problems, edit warring block, etc.

The general trend across multiple articles is that Cathry comes in trying to establish a new version either written themselves or by another by edit warring it back in rather than gaining consensus on the talk page and addressing the reasons provided in initial edit summaries. It's just been pure reverts for the sake of reverts.

This has happened at:
 * Neo-Nazism:
 * Varicocele:Following around reverting editors they've previously been in dispute with.
 * Epigallocatechin gallate: More following around reverts
 * Neonicotinoid: Removed malformed edits from an IP only to have Cathry restore the nonsensical edits.
 * Glyphosate I reverted back to a previous version after edits by another editor; one reason was using an opinion piece of a journalist as a source who's selling also selling a book Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science.. That would have been the time for editors wanting that new edit to come to the talk page. Yet again, Cathry comes in trying to edit war in the new version saying "i don't agree with your version, Kingofaces43, take it at talk page" in clear edit warring behavior and pure WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to blanket revert in policy violating content.

The last two fall under GMO DS where 1RR was imposed with the assurance from arbs that the DS were meant to combat exactly this type of gaming of 1RR so that someone trying

There are also problems with sniping behavior. Cathry has already stated they view editors who disagree with their GMO edits as worse than shills, which is also in violation of a GMO ArbCom principle. When Cathry finally does come to the talk page, they're typically ranting and ignoring issues with sources saying things like You name it "inadequate" because you don't like it. among other sniping.

This editor is actively flouting WP:EW while getting around 3RR, so this does need to be dealt with to prevent further disruption. Otherwise, this is just going to end up at WP:AE soon, but admins can also enforce DS here too if needed in addition to treating the edit warring behavior outside the DS area. It's taking too many editors to try to contain this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 * , the user was edit-warring and adding fringe theories and original research all over the place, was reverted and warned by multiple users in good standing, previously blocked for 48h.Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only seen Cathry on EGCG and RA pages. She was constructive. Never seen her before, yet was accused of 'they' writing content and acting to skirt 3RR, when it has indeed been Admins like Zefr being unconsultative. Cathry undid the removal of two of my edits, that Zefr/Jytdog hadn't explained after I requested them to on Talk. She had consensus. I would still like to know why EGCG content was deleted from Rheumatoid Arthritis, while ignoring active talk sections. The "EGCG vs GTE" section was *NOT* created by Zefr to resolve any dispute with Cathry as he falsely alleges, but by me, to dispute Jytdog and his cabal friend Zefr's edits without explanation, which he never answered, then went on a WP:BRD as cover. Zefr is clearly misleading arbs here.  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Also "they are purposely trying to skirt 3RR" is just so wrong. It's been Zefr & Jytdog continually playing tag team together to skirt 3RR, then doing bulk page/section rewrites or removals when they don't like a sentence or two, but want to cover their waring and 3RR breaches. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Take a look at the Zefr/Jytdog WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT undo, claiming EGCG references on the RA page are about Green Tea, not RA, when EGCG is actually the titles of the reviews. That was an undo by them of my edit. When they didn't want to answer why on Talk, they just deleted most of the entire section as cover. Cathry (responsibly) undid their vandalism. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Respectfully, this is why so many people hate Wikipedia and constructive contributor numbers have fallen through the floor. Too many lying admins running amok now. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Equilibrium103 reported by User:General Ization (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Additional journal citations for header added by request."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 802937232 by Rockypedia (talk) Fears of misuse of verbatum cited information from NBC in no way justfies obfuscation. Please see WP:AGF"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 799821942 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Precisely as due as the adjacent editorial. Please see WP:NPOV"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Discretionary sanctions alert"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

This article is under posted WP:1RR restriction. The editor has not participated in Talk page discussion concerning their edits as requested. The last revert occurred (with addition of additional source, but without discussion) after they were warned that they had already violated 1RR at this article. General Ization Talk   15:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Equilibrium103 tried to add the same contentious content multiple times back in August:

"Added relevant counter-claims to headline"

"re-inserted unduly removed relevant counter-claim"

"Undid revision 798138813 by EvergreenFir (talk) More citations were provided than the example given. Subject is notable and representative of it's politcal alignment. Feel free to add more."

It was brought up on the Talk page where Equilibrium made a comment, but then made the edit again without reaching concensus:

"Undid revision 798153505 by K.e.coffman (talk) Pls see talk."

They are aware that this is to be discussed on the Talk page but have chosen to continue to add the content anyway while making comments in the Edit summaries. The Cause of Death sentence has also been added numerous times by various editors who ignore the Talk page discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Not noticing the change to WP:1RR is my error, however the reporting user is lying about a reversion after warning. The subsequent edit was the insertion of new sources after the first, a pair of articles from National Review, were deemed inadequate despite being the counterpoint to a claim cited by a single editorial that has never been deleted.

 * But more overtly, the user is also lying about lack of talk participation regarding the relevant edits. The last response was my own, and went unanswered for 2 weeks (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Recent_edit), the only apparent objections ultimately rectified by edits deleted arbitrarily by the user.

 * Moreover, the article appears to be subject to edit brigading by a small number of users, deleting contextual, well sourced opinion and information with spurious reasoning and even personal attacks in edit summary, and I would ask that the edit history for the past several weeks be reviewed, and further action to secure the article be fully considered. Equilibrium103 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The editor is not permitted to rely on their comments from two weeks ago, which clearly did not achieve consensus. They were invited to discuss the edits further today after their first reversion today, and declined to do so after they were reverted today and before reinstating them today. The sanctions notice is abundantly clear that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."  That the editor did not see or did not understand the notice is irrelevant, since they have been here long enough to know this is a standard policy with regard to reverted edits. The editor is also reminded that accusing other editors of "lying" is incompatible with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The timestamps tell the tale about whether or not the editor performed a third revert after (nearly 45 minutes after) the 1RR warning.  Restoring the disputed text without discussion counts as a revert, even if in the same edit the editor adds additional citations that they happen to think justify the edit. General Ization  Talk   17:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, the arbitration notice has been in place and advertised on this article's Talk page since August 28 and the 1RR restriction has been clearly spelled out since September 4, so I'm not sure what the editor means by "the change to WP:1RR". General Ization  Talk   17:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It is a bit curious that this user shows up a few hours after the user "TheAaliyahJones" tried to make similar edits, and was blocked at the Enforcement page for doing so. ValarianB (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I blocked them before I saw this; their behavior in the article, after being informed and warned, was clearly over the line. Moreover, the editor's comments here evidence a battleground mentality. BTW, ValarianB, I see no reason to think that this and the other user are socks. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the admin find that information being removed by ValerianB with the edit summary "the alt-right talking point will not be allowed here" and by user WWGB with the justification that quoting a family member from an NBC piece relaying what they were told is unacceptable because they're "not a doctor" evoke such evidence of "battleground mentality"? I'm to wonder what the point is of bringing the topic to bear again when this has been a clearly established pattern of WP:NPOV violation in the article without controversy. Am I to understand that the marshaling of a sufficient number of users to assert themselves and attend the article in identical fashion, along with deleting the New York Times editorial and including only it's opposition, would be found to be merely procedurally uncontroversial consensus? Equilibrium103 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Koncorde reported by User:<IP_ADDRESS> (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Evening. Drive by tagging with CN by anonymous IP. I have directed to WP: CITENEED and asked the user to clarify, instead user continued to revert. Now has taken me to Noticeboard, and finally contributed to talk page. Didn't believe I was being particularly harsh in asking what exactly the user was asking us to cite. Still unclear from Talk Page to be fair, but more than happy to discuss. Koncorde (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * You broke 3RR by reverting 4 times. That's how it works. I have only reverted 3 times. The initial edit is inherently not a revert, for reasons that should (one would hope) be obvious. But apparently not.

 * "Still unclear from Talk Page to be fair".

 * Incredible! <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies I appear to have counted incorrectly due to earlier edit by IP and have redacted. Points otherwise still stand. Koncorde (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Result: Both User:Koncorde and the IP are warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a talk page consensus in their favor. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive351


text:
Talk:School Leaders Licensure Assessment

I'll be paying 30 bucks to find out this Friday (March 1st, 2013) how I did on this test... official results won't be ready until the 5th and I just can't wait that long (been very stressed)... I pray that I will pass this first attempt, but am very nervous that I haven't :( -- will update this post if I pass with my study techniques - no need to share them yet, as they are not proven to be successful yet :)

--I was very happy to pass the horrid hand written, 6 hour 1010 test with a score of 180 on my first attempt!! I did not even get to 2 questions on the first section and the last question at the end. California is the only state still torturing candidates with this form of the exam until they can come up with one of their own. I used the ETS at cost study materials and studied for a few hours just about every day for a little over a month. I never practiced writing out answers in the booklets they provide, just read the materials. The comments in the study materials were so useful to see what they are really looking for in answers. I also have years of experience in education which helped. I would suggest that you get used to writing with bullets and lists because my hand nearly fell off at the end of the session and it hurt until the next day because I wrote so much. Don't worry about grammar and neatness, focus more on cohesive complete answers to all questions that focus on the PROCESS of solving the problems rather than the ultimate correct answer. Depending on so many variables that are not given to you, there can be multiple choices in what actions to take and as long as you express that, you can pass this nightmare. You have to project a little bit: "If ________ is the case after further investigation, here is the action I would take.....". I found that the scenarios are not hard to but the time limits to synthesize complicated situations are the biggest challenge. Bring something soft to sit on like a chair pad unless you enjoy sitting in hard desk seats for over 6 hours. (It was really stupid of me to forget this but I was pretty stressed.) Despite breaks and stretching, my neck and back were a mess for a few days after the test. I am very glad to have this option even though it was torture, and I am very relieved to have passed! :D June, 2010

I took the October 16 exam and studied for about one month, about an hour a day. I knew the study guide inside and out, however, the questions on the last exam were nothing like the study guide. I would recommend to study the standards as much as the study guide. I did pass with a 192, but, I did not feel comfortable doing so.

Passing or Lack Thereof
I passed, I passed, I passed :) - created flash cards and reviewed the information several times a day - I passed... and I don't take tests very well :)

I did not pass the test when I took it, but I think my material here is still very valid. --Jacob Walker 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

–I received my scores back today. I'm happy to say I made a perfect score of 200. This was my first time taking the test. The information on this site was definitely helpful. I did order the School Leadership Series from ETS. There were questions pulled directly from the series. I graduated from the University of Phoenix Online in May of 2009 with a Master's in School Administration. If you follow the information on this site you will do fine. I attended study sessions, gathered information from workshops, and read school leadership books. Also, it helped me to make a list shareholders for each scenario. I'm excited to have completed this deal. I prayed and asked my pastor and friends to join in with me. It worked!!! Tbethea 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Terrie in North Carolina

More Contributors Needed
I would love to see other people contribute to this page, and list more information about how the test works in other states than just California. --Jacob Walker 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken the test again?
Thanks for the page. I am also in California. I have two master's but nothing that qualifies for an admin. credential. I am currently enrolled in CSUSB accellerated program to get the admin. credential in one years time. I recently found out about this test and have scheduled to take it in two weeks. I think the first quarter of the classes I took at CSUSB dealing mainly with leadeership and systems theory will help me a lot. I'm hoping to curcumvent having to finish the program and save myself a lot of time. This is my 30th year as a teacher and looking to move up in the ranks before it's too late. If you have any other test questions - I'd love to see them.Harryp 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The information was very helpful.
I just received my passing score. I think you should know the ETS study guide backward and forward. I studied for about a month(45 min to an hour each day)and recieved a 198 out of 200. I only studied the ETS materials. I have not taken any administrative classes. The study guide is definitely worth the money. Pay attention to the scoring rubrics. They really helped me focus my study and responses. Bryon L.

Read the Study Guide Comments
I looked at this page for general information. But as said earlier, the study guide helped the most. I did not spend near the amount of time as others. I really only read each question and then looked at the answers the day before the test. I paid more attention to the comments that were written about the answers, then to the answers themsleves. What did they like from good answers, what was missing from poor answers. Some things kept popping up.
 * shared decision making. You better say that you met with anyone and everyone involved before you did anything.
 * best interest of the student. There were some that I don't agree with completely, but what I found in reading the comments was that it better be what helps the student most.

Two of the questions were straight from the study guide with altered data.

I think that you have to answer the questions as if it was a perfect world, not one where you have to call the SUPT or the district lawyer. Give the most positive answers, not necessarily the one that would happen where you live.

I was unsure on the areas that dealt with budgets, it is not something I do, but I held to the same general answers, shared decision making, best interest of students.

The best advice I can give is to watch your time. Practice answering a sample question to see how long it takes. There were only 4 people testing with me. Two did not finish the first two sessions; one was only on questions #5 when time was called. In session 1, once you read the question, and process for 1 minute what it says - you only have about 3 minutes to write an answer and go on to the next question. That also happened on session 4. I barely answered the last question - only wrote about 2 lines, I wasn't paying attention to the time.

I scored a 188, so I passes in LA (168 required).

This material helped a lot
I bought the study material months in advance, but did not study until the week before. I dedicated about an hour each night to going over the questions. I followed almost every suggestion on this page.

Using the study guide, I answered the question first then read the rubric to see what I left out. After, doing this a couple of times, I was able to see what they are looking for in an answer. In all my answers, I tried to collaborate, make students centered decision which was related to the vision which and took into consideration all stake holders point of view. Its a lot, but all these points didnt apply to all answers. (I figured three out four should be good)

Again, pay very close attention to the rubic and the comments on the answers, I think I put that I was gonna meet with everyone relevant to the problem I could think of. Too much information is better than too little.

If you follow the all the suggestions above mine, you will do fine. I scored a 188 following only whats on this page and the resource page.

==

Has anyone used the 1011 study guide for the 1010 test?
I am in California and they are only offering one more test before they change it to the CPACE, which I know nothing about. I figure I should take this one, while I have a chance. Anyways, there are no materials, other than the Test at a Glance available for study. Has anyone every used the 1011 study guide to help prepare for the 1010 version? Everyone on here says the materials are worth it, but I don't know what materials they are talking about, as the only option is the 1011 version. Please reply.

Test Prep for the SLLA 1010 test to be administered February 26, 2011
The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) holds a test prep for the SLLA 1010 called ACE Trainings. Each person that registers will receive the SLLA 1010 Study Kit. Trainings are held in Southern, Northern and Central California. Go to www.acsa.org or follow the link here --> SLLA 1010 Test Prep  to register. Space is limited. --RhondaM 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking the test in 4 days!!
I will be taking the test in California for the first time in four days. I can feel the test anxiety coming on, but all of the advice and information on this page has been extremely helpful. Send your positive energy to San Diego on the 26th!!!Rainesilva 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How long?
I took my test computer driven and am awaiting the results. How long did you folks have to wait? update: It took 15 business days to find out by phone on a Friday ($30) or you could wait 17 days until the next Tuesday to get it by computer for free.

School Leaders Licensure Assessment Capstone Project: Has anyone worked on a SLLA Capstone?
I am in need of completing my capstone project for my SLLA college course. Has anyone ever done one before? If so, I could use some direction and assistance please. --Armani29 (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


text:
Aggie (1777 ship)

Aggie (or Agie), was launched in Liverpool in 1777. She traded locally until 1781 when her owners renamed her Spy. She briefly became a privateer, and then a slave ship, engaged in the triangular trade in enslaved people. The French Navy captured her in 1782 in the West Indies as she was arriving to deliver her cargo of slaves on her first slave-trading voyage.

Career
Agie first appeared in Lloyd's Register (LR) in 1778.

Slave trading voyage: Captain John Burrows sailed Spy from Liverpool in July 1781, bound for West Africa.

Fate
On 4 June 1782 two French frigates captured Spy, Burrows, master, and took her into Dominica. She was carrying 250 captives and six tons of ivory.

title: Aggie (1777 ship)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of phase III cancer clinical trials 2014

The result was delete. Salvio 09:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

List of phase III cancer clinical trials 2014

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

group with Articles for deletion/List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2016  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete per comments in the main discussion Spiderone  17:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
What You Should Know About Medicines/Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a disorder of the central nervous system. It is characterized by loss of consciousness and convulsions

Anti-epileptic drugs: Gabapentin and pregbalin are anti-epileptic drugs


text:
Electoral results for the district of Broken Hill

Broken Hill, an electoral district of the Legislative Assembly in the Australian state of New South Wales has had two incarnations, from 1894 to 1913 and from 1968 to 1999.


text:
Roy D. Chapin Jr.

Roy Dikeman Chapin Jr. (September 21, 1915 – August 5, 2001) was the chairman and chief executive officer of American Motors Corporation (AMC). Chapin's father, Roy D. Chapin Sr., was one of the co-founders of the Hudson Motor Car Company; Hudson later merged with Nash-Kelvinator Corporation in 1954 to form American Motors. Roy D. Chapin Jr. was instrumental in introducing many successful lines of cars by American Motors that included the Gremlin, Hornet, and Javelin, as well as the purchase of Kaiser Jeep by the automaker.

Early life
Roy D. Chapin Jr. graduated from the Los Alamos Ranch School in Los Alamos, New Mexico, the Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, Connecticut in 1933, and received his degree in Business Administration with honors from Yale University in 1937. At Yale, he was advertising manager of campus humor magazine The Yale Record (Walter J. Cummings Jr. and James S. Copley served with him on the business staff). He began his automotive career as salesman, test driver, and experimental engineer for Hudson in 1938.

Career
Chapin joined American Motors in 1954 when the corporation was formed with the merger of Nash and Hudson. Later, he served as an assistant treasurer and a director at AMC. By 1964, he held the post of executive vice president in charge of international operations of AMC. Robert B. Evans, chairman of AMC, recognized the talents of Chapin and promoted him from an executive vice president to take his place as chairman of the board. The move was to increase the firm's operational efficiency at the start of a difficult time.

The "dynamic and intelligent" Chapin was appointed to fill the CEO position at AMC following the departure of Roy Abernethy in 1967, along with William V. Luneburg as president. Chapin realized he was taking over at a crucial time; The Wall Street Journal described it as "a dying company." At the time, Chapin said, "We're going to have to show ingenuity." He reflected later that the most difficult period was "... when our president, Bill Luneburg, and I took over. We were out of money and we had to do something to overcome the immediate problems. We had no time to think about long-range problems. Obviously, we managed to solve immediate considerations..."

At the time Chapin took control of the company, AMC's share of U.S. auto sales slipped, from 6.4% in 1960 to a mere 3.2 percent. On top of the loss of US$12.6 million in fiscal 1966, Chapin and new president William V. Luneburg had more bad news for the annual meeting of shareholders by reporting a 10% sales drop from a year earlier (to $257 million) and the company lost another $8,459,917 (US$0 in dollars) in the first quarter of its 1967 fiscal year. The company skipped paying a dividend for the sixth straight quarter, and to control the inventory of unsold cars, AMC closed its factories for ten working days—the second such shutdown in two months. For the entire year AMC "lost an astounding $75.8 million". During an era when relationships were vital to securing corporate financing, Chapin "was a well-known industrialist who inspired great confidence among the leading financiers of his day" to help keep the automaker going.

In just a few weeks in his new post at AMC, Chapin decided to focus on the smallest (and at that time, the least popular) AMC model—the compact Rambler American. His objective was to double Rambler sales to 140,000 cars in 1967 and recapture at least 10% of the compact market that AMC once dominated. He saw a gap between U.S. cars and the inexpensive imports (primarily the Volkswagen Beetle) and positioned the Rambler right into the center of this gap with a new, low price tag to make its total value superior to the imports, as well as superior in both price and range of choice to U.S. compacts. He instituted many changes that lowered production costs and provided the car buyers with more value. Chapin cut the suggested retail price of the basic two-door Rambler American sedan to $1,839 (US$0 in dollars), which was $278 less than its closest U.S. competitor, the $2,117 Plymouth Valiant. This move made the considerably larger and more powerful American only $200 more than the rudimentary Volkswagen. By forgoing the annual styling changeovers that were expected among the domestic firms, AMC could save retooling costs and keep the car's price so low. Helping AMC was the strategic decisions by the competing automakers not to match the price drop.

Within a month of taking their positions, Chapin and Luneburg reversed the automaker's upholding the ban on racing that was instituted by the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA) in 1957. American Motors began race car sponsorship and focused on developing new muscle cars models for consumers looking for performance.

In addition to slashing prices and sponsoring Ramblers in racing to help build a performance image, Chapin was optimistic because the company had cut costs by $27 million a year, hired new executives, and had significant products in the pipeline, including new youth-oriented models. Chapin appeared in print advertisements and he was interviewed by John Bond, publisher of Road & Track and Car Life about product and corporate strategy to assure the success of AMC. Chapin continued making changes for the 1968 model year and also took the bold step to make air conditioning standard on all the Ambassador models at a time when this comfort feature was still an option on the expensive Cadillac and Lincoln brand luxury vehicles. After the disastrous 1967 results, the company's retail sales increased 13% during fiscal-year 1968.

Other changes during 1968 included developing new marketing campaigns with Guy Hadsall Jr. reporting directly to Chapin. These included dropping the roadshows for the introduction of new models in favor of closed-circuit TV, as well as "dynamic meetings" by holding the first automobile sales events in the sky using chartered flights to "mystery" destinations. The automaker's new advertising agency Wells, Rich, and Greene that was headed by Mary Wells Lawrence was also "innovative and daring in its approach." Print and TV advertisements broke with the traditional convention of not attacking the competition, with AMC cars appearing side by side with competing makes. The launch of the two-seat AMC AMX sports car was through a marketing agreement with Playboy.

The 1970 AMC Hornet was launched under Chapin's leadership as a value compact to compete against the "import tide". Chapin worked with Ivan Vassall Sr., who in 1969 established the first black-owned auto dealership in Philadelphia.

Chapin was a promoter of innovation at AMC. In 1967, he announced a joint venture with Gulton Industries for the development of an electric automobile. A three-passenger commuter, the Amitron was an experimental design shown to the public.

While at the head of AMC, Chapin spearheaded the acquisition of Jeep from the Kaiser Motors Division of Kaiser Industries in 1970. According to Chapin: "Perhaps the easiest decision I ever made was the purchase of Jeep from Kaiser in 1970. I tried to buy it when George Romney (later Michigan governor) and Roy Abernethy were running AMC. Romney and Edgar Kaiser couldn't get along. I was running the international operations under Abernethy and I was following Jeep around. When they put up a plant, I followed with a Rambler plant because it worked like a charm. Where Jeep was, there were roads and gasoline. Abernethy didn't go for the idea and the first thing I did when I became chairman and got a little money was to buy Jeep. We got it for a song, about $75 million..." American Motors' engineers and designers quickly overhauled Jeep and expanded its lineup, creating a valuable asset that attracted Renault, Chrysler, and ultimately DaimlerBenz AG.

Chapin was also interested in the Wankel engine and stated "that the rotary engine will play an important role as a powerplant for cars and trucks of the future." An agreement was signed with Curtiss-Wright in February 1973, for AMC to build Wankels for both passenger cars and Jeeps, as well as the right to sell any rotary engines it produces to other companies. American Motors designed the unique AMC Pacer around the engine, but the production cars used AMC's conventional piston engines.

Chapin established a "philosophy of difference" although vaguely defined, "it has meant that AMC sought niches in the auto market where the Big Three were unwilling or unable to move quickly." In 1977, on the 75th anniversary of the "birth" of two organizations, American Motors and Popular Mechanics, Chapin described AMC's "corporate philosophy of difference, under which we strive to offer the American motoring public a wider choice" and stated that "the most significant change we can look to will be the development of alternate sources of power to replace our dependence on fossil fuels."

Chapin was also instrumental in developing collaboration between American Motors and Renault. He was also in favor of Renault investing in AMC, but was distressed by the company's sale to Chrysler.

Retirement
Chapin gave up the CEO title in late 1977, but stayed as chairman until he retired, in October 1978, to his ranch in California. He summed up his career in an interview given upon his retirement: "I love the business and never really considered doing anything else." He remained on AMC's board of directors until 1987, when Chrysler acquired the company.

Chapin served on the board of directors of other companies, including Whirlpool Corporation, American Natural Resources (an energy company engaged in natural gas transmission and storage), Coastal Corporation, and Gould Corporation. He was an avid outdoor enthusiast and his hobbies included hunting, fishing, and ranching, as well as book collecting. He was also involved in the area of conservation and served on the boards of organizations that included the Atlantic Salmon Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and Trout Unlimited.

Roy Chapin died of heart failure on Nantucket Island, off the coast of Massachusetts, at the age of 85. His son, William R. Chapin, was named president of the Automotive Hall of Fame in 2010.

Legacy
Chapin was inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame in 1984.

Although much smaller than the domestic "Big Three" automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler), AMC prospered during the early years when Chapin was in charge, as sales of its compact cars benefited from rising energy prices and the company's international expanded.

Chapin was also known for his persuasion powers with the automaker's investment banks and his Wall Street contacts; winning concessions on many occasions that helped AMC remain afloat. His efforts to integrate Jeep into AMC contributed to the popularity, from the early 1970s onward, of the sports utility vehicle (SUV) market. The ownership of the Jeep brand was crucial to the company's survival until 1987 and Chapin's "legacy was what kept American Motors together instead of being sold off as factories and other pieces" according to Robert Casey, transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum.

To summarize his life, Chapin was considered a true 'gentleman' who grew up in the auto industry and was knowledgeable, warm, and accessible; in short, a patrician with a common touch.

title: Roy D. Chapin Jr.


text:
Spanish/Vos

Vos is a pronoun that was used when the Spanish soldiers arrived to America. In many places it replaces tú and in some of them is complementary with tú. Its verbal forms are those of vosotros, but with some sounds missing. Example: vosotros coméis produces vos comés (Argentina, Central America), vos comes (Bolivia), vos comís or tú comís (Chile), and vos coméi (Venezuela).

title: Spanish/Vos


text:
User:Kianwasd/sandbox

Kian L. Armstrong-Moakes Kian L. Armstrong-moakes is a professional football player, he plays for EFB. He is very handsome

title: User:Kianwasd/sandbox


text:
Physics Study Guide/Physics constants

= Commonly Used Physical Constants =

To Be Merged Into Table
This list is prepared in the format
 * Constant (symbol) : value

 * Coulomb's Law Constant (k) : 1/(4 π ε0) = 9.0 × 109 N·m2/C2
 * Faraday constant (F)          : 96,485 C·mol−1
 * Mass of a neutron (mn) : 1.67495 × 10−27 kg
 * Mass of Earth : 5.98 × 1024 kg
 * Mass of the Moon : 7.35 × 1022 kg
 * Mean radius of Earth : 6.37 × 106 m
 * Mean radius of the Moon : 1.74 × 106 m
 * Dirac's Constant ($$\hbar$$) : $$h/(2\pi)$$ = 1.05457148 × 10−34 J·s
 * Speed of sound in air at STP : 3.31 × 102 m/s
 * Unified Atomic Mass Unit (u) : 1.66 × 10−27 kg

=See Also=

Wiki-links

 * Wikipedia Article

title: Physics Study Guide/Physics constants


text:
Trichoniphona albomarmorata

Trichoniphona albomarmorata is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, and the only species in the genus Trichoniphona. It was described by Stephan von Breuning in 1968.

title: Trichoniphona albomarmorata


text:
Portal:Professions/Selected biography

Systems And Tools Educational Philosophy by Jacob Walker "A major current educational trend is the formation of standards for content areas. These have been created by teachers primarily to standardize what people will learn in an educational system. The Systems and Tools Educational Philosophy is an attempt to give some standardization and framework to how standards should be formed, and further, what content areas should be taught. It forms a "big picture" model to fit all the current content areas, and shows what is missing. By doing this, hopefully it will allow new educational systems to be formed that can do a better job of actually teaching topics that are important to their students and their students' future."

title: Portal:Professions/Selected biography


text:
EA Sports Active NFL Training Camp

EA Sports Active NFL Training Camp is an American football-based fitness video game developed by EA Canada and published by EA Sports for the Nintendo Wii. The game was released on the same day as EA Sports Active 2.

The game has the National Football League license, which allows players to work out with any team and player of their choice in a training camp environment.

Gameplay
In NFL Training Camp, players perform various drills that are commonly performed in the NFL Scouting Combine, such as the 40-yard dash. At the end of every drill, a graph displays how many calories the player burned, as well as the player's median heart rate. Players are rewarded with points and achievements for their performance. The player may also participate in the NFL Combine 60-Day Challenge, which lets players work for four days per week for 60 days in the drills performed in the Combine. Points and achievements earned by the player can be compared to other people who have played on the console, as well as people on the player's friend list. The game also has set up public groups for players to join, and players can contribute their stats to their team.

The game was developed with the collaboration of various NFL strength and conditioning coaches. The game is compatible with the Wii Balance Board. Unlike the past two games, NFL Training Camp has "Total Body Tracking", which uses a heart monitor to measure the player's heart rate during play, along with a wireless motion tracker which goes on the leg, while the heart rate monitor goes on the arm, unlike the other games, which makes use of a leg pouch and the Nunchuck.

The game's online compatibility is used by plugging a USB flash drive into the back of the console, and progress that the player makes in the game is automatically recorded and posted on the player's online profile. EA discontinued the game's online service on April 13, 2012.

Reception
Operation Sports gave the game a 7.5/10, praising the drills, workouts, and equipment, but criticized the feedback and motion problems.

title: EA Sports Active NFL Training Camp


text:
Classical Mechanics/Introduction

Physics - Classical Mechanics

Up Next

Overview: What is classical mechanics
As a prelude to this course, let me describe what classical mechanics is about.

Classical mechanics is a part of physics that deals with the motion of point masses (very small things) and rigid bodies (large things that can rotate as a whole but cannot change their shape). This is very useful in practice, since many objects in real life can be approximately considered to be either point masses or rigid bodies in most situations.

Typical problems solved in classical mechanics are:

Of course, one can consider also much more complicated problems than these. For example:
 * To find the trajectory of a stone thrown into the air with known initial velocity. (The stone is considered to be a point mass.)
 * To predict the motion of a spacecraft approaching some planet, if its initial position and velocity far from the planet are known. (The spacecraft is considered to be a point mass.)
 * To find out how many revolutions per minute a disc will be executing if we know the strength of the engine driving the rotation. (The disc is considered to be a rigid body rotating as a whole.)
 * To find how much energy and how much time is needed to accelerate a small object to a given speed. (Point mass.)
 * To find the frequency of oscillations in a system of point masses connected by springs.
 * A light spinning top stands at an angle on the surface of a heavy cylinder that can roll along a horizontal plane without sliding. Determine the conditions that would allow the top to avoid falling off the cylinder. (Both the cylinder and the top are considered rigid bodies.)
 * A spacecraft launched from the Earth needs to reach the surface of Mars within a certain time. Predict the most appropriate time of year for this mission and determine the least amount of rocket fuel needed. (The spacecraft is considered a point mass moving in the gravitational field of the Sun, the Earth, and Mars.)

Mathematical methods used
Classical mechanics uses ordinary differential equations (ODEs) to describe the properties of bodies mathematically. Thus, coordinates, angles, etc. are numbers that depend on time, e.g. $$x(t),y(t),z(t),\phi(t),\theta(t)$$, and satisfy certain (systems of) ODEs.

One can use several mathematical methods to solve such equations. In some cases, solutions can be found exactly, for instance: $$\ddot{x}(t)+x(t)=0$$ has the general solution $$A\sin(t)+B\cos(t)$$. In other cases, solutions are found only in terms of integrals that one cannot evaluate in closed form. Sometimes, one can solve the equation approximately using some method such as perturbation theory. Finally, any ODE can be solved numerically (using a computer program) up to a certain precision.

Students of mechanics are expected to learn methods of solving certain standard differential equations that are exactly solvable, for instance: multidimensional harmonic oscillators, motion in 1-dimensional force field, motion in 3-dimensional central force field. Numerical methods for solving ODEs are important in practice but are usually not studied as part of classical mechanics because these methods are not specific to mechanics but are equally applicable to every differential equation. Numerical methods for solving various equations are best studied in a dedicated course that involves hands-on computer programming.

Newtonian mechanics
The first successful theory of classical mechanics is contained in Newton's three laws of mechanics that govern the motion of point masses:

 * 1) There exist reference frames where a point mass not interacting with other bodies will move with constant speed in the same direction. (If this is not true in some reference frame, then that reference frame is not inertial. Further laws are formulated in inertial frames.)
 * 2) A point mass interacting with other bodies moves with the acceleration $$\vec{a}$$ found from $$\vec{F}=m\vec{a}$$, where $$\vec{F}$$ is the sum of all forces acting on the body, $$m$$ is the mass of the body, and $$\vec{a}$$ is the acceleration, i.e. the second derivative of the position vector $$\vec{r}$$ with respect to the time.
 * 3) All forces are caused by other point masses, and whenever a point mass 1 exerts a force $$\vec{F}$$ on a point mass 2, the point mass 2  also exerts the force $$-\vec{F}$$ on the point mass 1.

The motion of all point masses is described by differential equations which can be solved directly as long as all relevant forces could be predicted or measured. I assume that you are already familiar with these laws and with typical situations where they apply (e.g. motion of bodies thrown at an angle near Earth) before you start studying theoretical mechanics.

In Newtonian mechanics, a rigid body is simply a collection of point masses connected by "rigid sticks." These sticks are "rigid" because they always produce exactly such forces as to keep constant distances between all points, regardless of any other forces or motions. Thus the motion of rigid bodies can be described without introducing any other special rules. One derives the concept of angular momentum, torque, etc., from Newton's laws without any additional postulates.

From Newtonian mechanics to "theoretical" mechanics
The necessity to consider point masses is certainly inconvenient if one needs to describe liquids and gases, so a special branch of mechanics with its own formalism was developed for that purpose, namely continuum mechanics (mechanics of continuous media). The formalism of continuum mechanics is generalized to field theory where the basic object is not a point mass but a field, i.e. some abstract "substance" that is present at all points in space and shows its influence at every point at once. (Examples are: gravitational field, electric field, and magnetic field.) Such substances may be described by a function of space and time, for example the vector field $$\vec E(t,\vec{r})$$ describes the electric field. The behavior of fields is usually governed by partial differential equations; for example, the electric field $$\vec E(t,\vec x)$$ and the magnetic field $$\vec B(t,\vec x)$$ satisfy Maxwell's equations.

As more and more complicated problems needed to be solved, various mathematical tools were developed to simplify and to generalize the mathematical description of mechanics. Finally, the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian formulations of mechanics were discovered. These two formulations still remain the cornerstones of classical mechanics and field theory, as well as Einstein's theory of relativity, and thus indirectly of all modern theoretical physics. These formulations of mechanics are not based on the assumption of "forces" and are equally applicable to point masses, rigid bodies, fields, and continuous media. The main subject of theoretical mechanics (sometimes also called "analytical mechanics") is the study of these more refined and more general mathematical formulations of classical mechanics.

Overview: what is this "minimal standard course"
Much of theoretical physics is based on concepts from theoretical mechanics, such as the variation of the action, symmetry transformations, or the Hamiltonian. The goal of this course is to introduce the material that you absolutely need to learn if you would like to have a solid foundation for the study of theoretical physics.

In this text, I do not write the words "definition", "theorem", or "proof" like one does in mathematical texts. However, the same structure is present. I show new concepts in boldface within the sentence where they are defined.

Prerequisites

 * You can solve simple algebraic equations, such as $$x-\frac{2}{x}-1=0$$.
 * You can solve simple differential equations such as $$\ddot x(t)+2x(t)=3$$ with initial conditions such as $$x(0)=1,\dot x(0)=2$$.
 * You can manipulate three-dimensional vectors, compute vector sums, scalar products, vector (cross) products, projections on axes, angles between lines.
 * You are familiar with basic linear algebra (matrices, matrix multiplication, eigenvectors, diagonalization of matrices).
 * You can compute (or quickly look up) elementary integrals such as $$\int\limits_3^4 \sqrt{5x^2+8}~dx$$.
 * You are familiar with multivariate calculus, can compute partial derivatives, for example $$\partial_y\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$$.
 * You are familiar with (European) school-level mechanics, including Newton's laws, forces in static configurations, motion in straight lines and in circles, and basic ideas about rotation of rigid bodies and torque.

Core material
The minimal standard course in theoretical mechanics consists of:

 * Initial study of the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian formalisms.
 * A general formulation of mechanics, applicable to all systems, can be achieved using a variation principle (also known as the action principle). All information about a particular mechanical system is encapsulated by its Lagrangian, which is a function $$L(q_i,\dot q_i,t)$$ . We derive the equations of motion in the general case, for an arbitrary mechanical system.
 * You already know how simple mechanical problems can be solved by elementary methods using forces, torques, etc., and now you will see how the same problems are reformulated using Lagrangians. You will see that is rather straightforward to find the Lagrangian for any particular system. Then it becomes apparent that many problems are much easier to solve using these formulations.
 * You need to gain some experience formulating various mechanical problems in terms of Lagrangians. Basically, you should be able to deal with any practical situation involving point masses, springs, sticks, ropes, frictionless rails, pendulums, balls rolling along cylinders rolling along planes, and so on. You need to learn how to best choose the coordinates or how to discover conservation laws in such systems. This comes only with experience solving practice problems.
 * Rotation of rigid bodies presents extra difficulties because of the complicated geometry. You need to learn some methods for dealing with these situations efficiently (tensor of inertia, Euler angles, rotating frames of reference).
 * The Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics is derived from the Lagrangian formulation. (For solving practical problems, the Hamiltonian formalism is less useful than the Lagrangian one, although it is somewhat more elegant mathematically. However, the Hamiltonian formalism is of such extraordinary importance in theoretical physics that it is usually studied early on, within the course of theoretical mechanics.)
 * Special relativity is usually introduced at this point using the formalism of four-dimensional vectors. In the Lagrangian formulation, this is a perfectly ordinary mechanical theory with a somewhat unusual Lagrangian. You need to develop some physical intuition for the various relativistic effects and also become familiar with the four-dimensional description of the world as a spacetime. Without special relativity and the four-dimensional view of the world, the road to much of theoretical physics is essentially closed.
 * Study of the mathematical methods needed to actually solve practical problems.
 * You need to learn how to solve various differential equations and systems of such equations. The typical equation is that of the harmonic oscillator with a driving force, $$\ddot{x}+\omega^2 x=f(t)$$ . Typically, you need to be able to find general solutions as well as particular solutions for given initial conditions. At this point we study only equations that can be solved exactly.
 * You need to gain experience analyzing the behavior of solutions of various types of equations: linear systems, oscillations and resonance, and some simple kinds of solvable nonlinear equations such as the Kepler problem. These are very old problems that occur time and again in physics, so you should become very familiar with the qualitative features of their solutions.
 * You need to learn some basic ideas of the calculus of variations. In particular, you need to understand the concept of a functional, and to learn to compute functional derivatives (i.e. "variations" of functionals). Otherwise you cannot really understand the use of the variational principle, which is very important in all of theoretical physics.

You usually need to solve several practice problems for each mathematical method, so that you can see how these methods work and gain experience.

Extra material
The above topics are considered standard because one cannot continue studying theoretical physics without having mastered them. There are also more advanced topics that build upon the standard ones and lead to other areas of physics:

 * Methods of perturbation theory, nonlinear oscillations, parametric resonance, adiabatic invariants (useful for celestial mechanics, chaos, and other things).
 * Use of quaternions instead of Euler angles to describe the position of rigid bodies (useful for numerical simulations of missile motion).
 * Elements of scattering theory: elastic/inelastic scattering; cross-sections in central potentials (preparation for particle physics).
 * A general definition of "symmetry" and the derivation of conservation laws (Noether's theorem). This is essentially a preparation for gauge field theory, which is the basis for particle physics.
 * Symmetries and oscillations in multi-dimensional systems (e.g. oscillations of molecules).
 * The action-angle variables and questions of integrability (preparation for chaos theory).
 * Canonical transformations, Hamilton-Jacobi equation -- tools to discover integrable systems. (Needed mostly for mathematical physics.)
 * Integral invariants, symplectic structures (tools to discover conservation laws and to explain the structure of the theory more deeply; useful in field theory).
 * Dealing with constrained degenerate systems (preparation for gauge theories).
 * Elements of continuous mechanics; continuity equations, stress-energy tensor, Euler equation. (Useful in hydrodynamics, electrodynamics of media, kinetics, etc.)

Some of these topics are usually included in a theoretical mechanics course at the lecturer's preference. History of theoretical mechanics is usually not studied; rather, students learn the contemporary, very much streamlined and simplified formulation of mechanics.

Suggested books to study
There is an extraordinarily large number of textbooks in theoretical mechanics, because it is a fairly old and well-studied subject. You need any textbook on classical mechanics that you can understand and that talks about "Lagrangians" early on. (Books that only talk about accelerations, forces, and torques may be quite advanced but they do not cover the subject of theoretical mechanics.)

 * H. Goldstein. Classical mechanics. - Has everything standard in it and quite a few advanced topics. An old classic.
 * L.N. Hand, J.D. Finch. Analytical mechanics (Cambridge, 1998). - A fresher, more didactic exposition of mechanics. Standard material.
 * V.I. Arnold. Mathematical methods of classical mechanics. -- Has almost nothing standard in it but is excellent for a more mathematically minded student.

authors: יהודה שמחה ולדמן

title: Classical Mechanics/Introduction


text:
Whipped Cream (DJ)

Caroline Cecil (born December 25, 1992), known professionally as WHIPPED CREAM, is a Canadian DJ and record producer based on Vancouver Island. She is currently signed to Big Beat Records. She released her major label debut EP, Who Is Whipped Cream?, in August 2020 on Big Beat.

Early life and education
Caroline Cecil was born in Toronto, Ontario. She and her family later moved to Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. She began ice skating at age two and was enrolled in professional figure skating lessons by age seven. She became a competitive figure skater at age eight and spent much of her youth traveling throughout Canada and the United States, competing in figure skating competitions. Her success at these events led to aspirations of joining the Canadian Olympic team. When she was 18, however, Cecil suffered a severe broken ankle while practicing triple toe loops. The injury required surgery that resulted in the insertion of a metal plate and six pins in her ankle. Although she was able to recover, she opted to forgo figure skating to pursue a career in music. Cecil is a graduate of Woodlands Secondary School in Nanaimo.

Career
In 2012, Cecil attended the Sasquatch! Music Festival where she watched a performance by Active Child that spurred her to create her own music. Using Ableton Live and a Traktor controller, she learned how to produce tracks over the next two years. She released her first single as Whipped Cream in 2014. In 2015, she released her first EP, Law of Attraction, through Unspeakable Records. She also made her first appearance as a performer at the Shambhala Music Festival in Salmo, British Columbia. In 2016, she premiered several tracks on Skrillex's Nest HQ platform. In early 2017, Whipped Cream released a collaborative EP with Hekler called Mirrors. Throughout 2017, she performed at several festivals, including Life in Color and Hardfest. In September of that year, she released a solo EP, Persistence, through Nest HQ. The lead single off that collection, "Ignorant", has accrued over 7 million streams on Spotify.

In 2018, she released several tracks including "LUV" through Big Beat Records and "Blood" via Deadbeats. She followed that with two early 2019 releases on Diplo's Mad Decent label: "You Wanted It" and "Time" (featuring DeathbyRomy). Whipped Cream made further appearances at music festivals in 2019, including at Ultra, Lollapalooza, Electric Daisy Carnival, Bonnaroo, and others. In November of that year, it was announced that Whipped Cream had been signed to the Atlantic imprint, Big Beat Records. She also released the single, "Told Ya" featuring Lil Xan.

In February 2020, her song, "So Thick" featuring Baby Goth, appeared on the soundtrack for the film, Birds of Prey. She went on to release several other singles that year, including "DUMB SH!T" (featuring Jasiah), "I Do The Most" (featuring Lil Keed), and "I Won't Let You Fall" (featuring Finn Askew). These songs would later appear on Whipped Cream's debut major label EP, Who Is Whipped Cream? (stylized in all caps), which was released in August 2020 through Big Beat and Atlantic. In March of 2023 she released her Monstercat Debut EP, You Can Count On, Which was followed in july of the same year with the Someone You Can Count On (The Remixes) EP, containing remixes of CRY and Rewind.. (But I Love You) by Borgore, hayve and GRAVEDGR.

title: Whipped Cream (DJ)


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/trypurenutrition.com

Links

 * trypurenutrition.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Additions

 * Displayed all 3 additions.


text:
Pat Bishop

Patricia Mary Bishop (13 June 1946 – 28 March 2000) was an Australian actress, born in Belfast, Northern Ireland noted for her performances in theatre, film and television series.

Personal Life
She was married to the renowned Australian actor Bill Hunter in 1976 however, according to writer Bob Ellis, the marriage was short-lived after Hunter ran off with their marriage celebrant.

Career
She received an AACTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role for her representation of Jenny in the 1976 film Don's Party.

Bishop also appeared frequently on television, with credits including: Contrabandits, The Link Men, Homicide, Division 4, Matlock Police, Spyforce, Number 96, A Country Practice, Brides of Christ, Water Rats, Blue Heelers, A Step in the Right Direction and All Saints.

She is probably best known for her role in Prisoner as gangster's wife Antonia McNally in 1979 and also acted in theatre

Death
Bishop died on March 28, 2000 after a battle with cancer.

title: Pat Bishop


text:
Western Laval High School

Western Laval High School was a junior and senior high school in Laval, Quebec, Canada, that was part of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board. It existed for 33 years before its closure in 2005.

History
Western Laval High School opened in 1972, at 5075 Souvenir Road, in the Chomedey district of Laval. During its first decade it operated as an age combined high school, mixing students from grade 7 through 11.

In 1983, its senior classes were moved and amalgamated into Chomedey Polyvalent High School (at the time part of the Laurenval School Board), located over two miles away. At this point the school became exclusively a junior high school, with CPHS as its senior counterpart. By the end of the decade, this was reversed and the Anglophone-instructed student seniors from Chomedey Polyvalent were transferred to Western Laval, making it a combined junior/senior high school once again. CPHS was renamed to its registered French alternate name as École secondaire Chomedey and became a French instruction / French Immersion high school under the Laurenval School Board.

In 1998, it moved to its final campus location at the former Chomedey Polyvalent High School (the original Western Laval High School building was taken over by the newly formed Commission Scolaire De Laval (Francophone school board) and became École Marie-Curie and is currently named École d'éducation internationale de Laval.

In 2005 Western Laval High School was renamed and split into two schools. Students voted for the new school names resulting in the lower secondary levels forming a new school called Laval Junior High School and the upper secondary levels forming the new Laval Liberty High School.

Post Western Laval High School years
Both Laval Junior High and Laval Liberty High were also eventually renamed, when in 2015 Laval Liberty High and Laurier Senior High School (formerly Laval Catholic High School) merged and were made into a new senior high school called Laval Senior Academy. Laval Senior Academy now occupies the former Chomedey Polyvalent High School building, which was founded in 1962, and essentially replaces the defunct schools: Western Laval, Chomedey Polyvalent, Laval Liberty and Laurier Senior (Western Laval's junior high segment, which existed in some form since 1972, had been eliminated).

title: Western Laval High School