Kavanaugh-related Wikipedia articles

[WhoReallyCares]

I watched that Black Friday (1910) FAC unravelling with mounting horror.

Yes, that's well observed.

For the record, SchroCat had an account called The Bounder. He tried slipping this sexy little number through FAC, but Slimmy wasn't having any of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... n/archive1

The nomination was withdrawn.

[Midsize Jake]

The gentleman describes himself as "Wikpedia's best paid editor" and states emphatically that he's a text-file afficionado. I guess he does things this way in order to remain below the radar.

The problem from our standpoint is that nobody who does this can reveal what the article titles are, right? Various paid editors probably have different types of clientele, even if we're only talking about new articles (as opposed to "polishing" existing ones). For all we know, you could be writing about video games, consumer-tech products, biographies of authors/actors/pols/etc., books written by Mark Judge... all of which can get past the new-page patrollers (even in cases of "marginal notability") more easily than the article subjects he's likely to be writing about, things like brick-and-mortar companies, non-consumer industrial products, and those little gas-filled lift cylinders they use in modern office chairs.

What I mean is, a system that works well for one client may not work so well for another, based on the subject matter. But for business/industry subjects at least, I'd have to agree with him - you want to give the new-page patrollers and reviewers as few chances as possible to notice you (though more than one, since a finished article in one edit looks suspicious in itself). They're not all operating under the same standard(s), so the more edits you do at the outset, the greater the chance that one of the more anti-commerce types will pick it up and flag it.

That's the theory, anyway... YMMV, as they say.

[Poetlister]

Hence it was that poor SchroCat, who contributes earnestly to the cause, was zapped by a completely useless loser who's only ever created three shitty little stubs.

SlimVirgin can't avoid at least some blame. Few people in the history of the site have done as much as she has to cause problems for others.

[Cla68]

Back on topic, the Democrat (who recently worked on the staff for Rep Sheila Jason Lee, D-Texas) who tried to get those Republicans and their families harmed by posting their home addresses in Wikipedia has been arrested. I don't see the point in posting his name here as he has been named in the mainstream media. Will he get a WP BLP on him? It would be some poetic justice, wouldn't it? But, he might take it as a point of pride if he considers himself to be a revolutionary and defender of liberty and stuff.

Anyway, looks like the confirmation vote will be this Saturday. Like I said, if he isn't confirmed interest in his WP bio will greatly wane. If he is confirmed, I expect people will edit war over negative information in his BLP for years to come.

[Bezdomni]

Didn't anyone find it weird that the author of the Trump bibliography and the Judge bibliography was also, by happenstance, a big proponent of Euromaidens (though they certainly harassed Gandydancer with not being quick enough...) ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... Sagecandor

[Midsize Jake]

Didn't anyone find it weird that the author of the Trump bibliography and the Judge bibliography was also, by happenstance, a big proponent of Euromaidens...

Do you want me to correct your spelling for you when there's this much potential for confusion?

I think we're all big proponents of European maidens, and Trump obviously likes to marry European women who are not maidens, but back in the 80's Mr. Judge was more interested in young women from suburban Maryland. (As was I, to be honest.)

Personally, I supported the Euromaidan (T-H-L) movement too, but so did Hillary Clinton, so our right-wing friends probably thought it was horrible.

[Bezdomni]

I just had a look at that article. Such neuterality! So eunuch! ^^

eta: I was looking for the inevitable section on the propaganda wars. oddly, I didn't find such a section.

[WhoReallyCares]

Didn't anyone find it weird that the author of the Trump bibliography and the Judge bibliography was also, by happenstance, a big proponent of Euromaidens...

Do you want me to correct your spelling for you when there's this much potential for confusion?

Ha! No offence Mr Sashi, but the error here is very amusing.

For the record, my Euro maiden hailed from Paris. We lived together just south of London for about 5 enjoyable years.

[tarantino]

And an internet lynch mob is forming to go after one person who's used one of the IP addresses before. There are probably hundreds of people that have used 143.231.249.136 (T-C-L) and 143.231.249.130 (T-C-L) to access the internet.

likely very few others used that address in the time frame given, though.

An ex-staffer of Maggie Hassan was caught a couple days ago making an "unauthorized entry into her Capitol Hill office" and was arrested. He's "the suspect who allegedly posted private, identifying information (doxing) about one or more United States Senators to the internet".

[Cla68]

Here is Senator Collins' 43-minute speech from earlier today in which she explains why she is casting the (presumably) deciding vote to appoint Judge Kavanaugh to his lifetime appointment on the SCOTUS. I think you'll find the speech much less polemic than you might expect.

In my opinion, it should go down as one of the greatest and most important speeches in US Senate history. Yes, I think it should have its own Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, because most of the mainstream media was advocating for Judge Kavanaugh NOT to be appointed, I think they will downplay Senator Collins' remarks, so it won't have sufficient notability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRdMh1XhAY

This speech is so well reasoned, I think anyone who is asked why they support Kavanaugh's appointment should just be able to say, "Senator Collins explained it better than I could and I agree with what she said."

By the way, it has been conjectured that because of what Kavanaugh was put through he might be as radicalized as Clarence Thomas was by his nomination ordeal and would likewise let it transform him into an extreme conservative in his court decisions. I suspect that one of the purposes of this speech by Senator Collins was to tell him, publicly, that she understands how unfairly he has been treated by all of this, but that she expects him to keep his word to her and be a moderating influence on the conservative wing of the court.

[Midsize Jake]

In my opinion, it should go down as one of the greatest and most important speeches in US Senate history. Yes, I think it should have its own Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, because most of the mainstream media was advocating for Judge Kavanaugh NOT to be appointed, I think they will downplay Senator Collins' remarks, so it won't have sufficient notability.

They'll also have to hard time figuring out a title for it, which won't be easy because Naomi Wolfe has already used "The End of America (T-H-L)" for one of her books.

[Randy from Boise]

Unfortunately, because most of the mainstream media was advocating for Judge Kavanaugh NOT to be appointed...

And 1000 law professors, but who's counting?

RfB

[greyed.out.fields]

... Euromaidens...

Wagner joke.
Q: How did the Rhinemaidens breathe under water?
A: They used aquanibelungs.

[Cla68]

In my opinion, it should go down as one of the greatest and most important speeches in US Senate history. Yes, I think it should have its own Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, because most of the mainstream media was advocating for Judge Kavanaugh NOT to be appointed, I think they will downplay Senator Collins' remarks, so it won't have sufficient notability.

They'll also have to hard time figuring out a title for it, which won't be easy because Naomi Wolfe has already used "The End of America (T-H-L)" for one of her books.

Senator Collins' speech should serve as a seminal, defining moment in the history of women's rights in the US. Why? Because, facing immense pressure, bullying, and emotional manipulation, including physical intimidation of her staff, public heckling, threats that she would be recalled or have her political opponents' funding increased, etc., she, a woman at the peak of her profession and career in a supposedly "man's world", staked out the moral high ground, publicly stood on it, and powerfully and rationally defended it, in making a decision which will likely decisively affect US socio-political culture for decades to come.

You would think the left, the so-called "champions for women's rights" would be celebrating this moment. In fact, they're doing the opposite, which proves that the left, at least the modern liberal equivalent, really isn't for women's rights. They're really for trying to keep their liberal ideology in power while paying lip service to "women's rights" as a tool to try to perpetuate that power. They'll only champion a woman who bravely and independently defends what she believes to be the moral high ground if it happens to match what they feel to be the moral high ground.

[Poetlister]

An article in THe Economist, scarcely a pro-Marxist publication, argues that Kavanaugh clearly lied under oath when testifying, and is very party political. Both of those points, it argues, disqualify him from the Supreme Court.

In 2015 a prominent jurist told the Catholic University of America: “A good judge, like a good umpire, cannot act as a partisan...If you are playing the Yankees, you don’t want the umpires to show up wearing pinstripes.” The jurist’s name was Brett Kavanaugh.

[Midsize Jake]

Senator Collins' speech should serve as a seminal, defining moment in the history of women's rights in the US. Why? Because, facing immense pressure, bullying, and emotional manipulation, including physical intimidation of her staff, public heckling, threats that she would be recalled or have her political opponents' funding increased, etc., she, a woman at the peak of her profession and career in a supposedly "man's world", staked out the moral high ground, publicly stood on it, and powerfully and rationally defended it, in making a decision which will likely decisively affect US socio-political culture for decades to come.

Did you actually listen to this speech? I can't imagine you did, if you really believe that's what's going on here.

We'll probably know in about 2, 3, maybe 4 years, but this is basically a situation where Kavanaugh met with Collins and said, "Naaah, forget everything I've ever said, done, and written - I'm a moderate! I'm not going to reverse 50 to 100 years of progress in women's rights, I'm not going to eliminate the requirement that health-insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, I'm not going to turn the US into a corporatist theocracy, naaah! None of that stuff! Heck, I'm not even a rapist!" and Collins basically said, "Okay, I believe everything you say, just because you seem like such a nice young man, and as an added bonus, you haven't actually tried to rape me! (Yet!)"

So, in a few years, when the Kavanaugh "Rapist Court" has done all those things, this speech will go down in history as one of the worst examples of legislator malpractice and gullibility in US history. Easily. It could easily be added to the "Examples" section of Wikipedia's Gullibility (T-H-L) article, at the very least. She'll be like the Neville Chamberlain of American jurisprudence.

Then again, maybe Kavanaugh will go against everything he's done in the past and keep his promises to Collins et al to maintain a moderate ideological stance, in which case, sure, this speech of hers could be seen as an effort to "stem the overwhelming tide of partisanship." Just remember though, these people are playing a long game - Collins, and possibly you and I as well, may be long-dead by the time the Republicans finally manage to complete their plans. The historians who actually do interpret this speech of hers, if they bother at all, will be the some ones condemning us for causing their coastal cities to be 10 feet underwater while the interior of every continent is a toxic desert.

[Poetlister]

making a decision which will likely decisively affect US socio-political culture for decades to come.

To defend Charles, that bit is very probably true.

[Cla68]

Senator Collins' speech should serve as a seminal, defining moment in the history of women's rights in the US. Why? Because, facing immense pressure, bullying, and emotional manipulation, including physical intimidation of her staff, public heckling, threats that she would be recalled or have her political opponents' funding increased, etc., she, a woman at the peak of her profession and career in a supposedly "man's world", staked out the moral high ground, publicly stood on it, and powerfully and rationally defended it, in making a decision which will likely decisively affect US socio-political culture for decades to come.

Did you actually listen to this speech? I can't imagine you did, if you really believe that's what's going on here.

We'll probably know in about 2, 3, maybe 4 years, but this is basically a situation where Kavanaugh met with Collins and said, "Naaah, forget everything I've ever said, done, and written - I'm a moderate! I'm not going to reverse 50 to 100 years of progress in women's rights, I'm not going to eliminate the requirement that health-insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, I'm not going to turn the US into a corporatist theocracy, naaah! None of that stuff! Heck, I'm not even a rapist!" and Collins basically said, "Okay, I believe everything you say, just because you seem like such a nice young man, and as an added bonus, you haven't actually tried to rape me! (Yet!)"

So, in a few years, when the Kavanaugh "Rapist Court" has done all those things, this speech will go down in history as one of the worst examples of legislator malpractice and gullibility in US history. Easily. It could easily be added to the "Examples" section of Wikipedia's Gullibility (T-H-L) article, at the very least. She'll be like the Neville Chamberlain of American jurisprudence.

Then again, maybe Kavanaugh will go against everything he's done in the past and keep his promises to Collins et al to maintain a moderate ideological stance, in which case, sure, this speech of hers could be seen as an effort to "stem the overwhelming tide of partisanship." Just remember though, these people are playing a long game - Collins, and possibly you and I as well, may be long-dead by the time the Republicans finally manage to complete their plans. The historians who actually do interpret this speech of hers, if they bother at all, will be the some ones condemning us for causing their coastal cities to be 10 feet underwater while the interior of every continent is a toxic desert.

We don't have any plans, because all we're doing is perpetuating SCIENCE! Biological factors dictate how we human animals act, including the huge differences between women and men. Men and women are 90% alike, but that 10% of difference is very significant. That 10% of difference is why liberalism is so defensive about it, and why they're so willing to give up the moral high ground in desperate gambles to preserve their false narrative. Are you willing to get into a discussion as to why conservative women defend traditional gender roles so strongly while liberal women, usually childless or paired with low-testosterone men, are so strident in tearing them down? Senator Collins represents a rural state, one which believes in traditional gender roles, as does most of America. How about why it was women who have started the hashtag "#SaveOurBoys?"

Here's a loaded question, do scientific studies show that US women, in general, are happier now than they were in the 1950s?

[Midsize Jake]

Here's a loaded question, do scientific studies show that US women, in general, are happier now than they were in the 1950s?

You're completely mental.

[Cullen328]

Cullen is so full of shit it's leaking out his ears onto the ground. Wikipedia has far more secret forums than we do. Apparently Cullen has never been to IRC! or the Mailing lists! or the Secret wiki's, or OTRS! Etc. All of those are locked to "members" only.

As for fearing things, he has already posted who he is in real life so we can't out him, he's retired so no one is going to get him fired, etc. Wikipedia is a far, far, far more toxic place than this forum. What it's really about is image. if Cullen comes here, in his eyes, he gives credibility to the site and he helps give a voice to the banned editors who are here including me, and he despises me. If I were on fire I doubt he would piss in the flames. All he is doing is making excuses.

Cullen, like many Wikipediots, are cowards. They won't engage people in discussion unless they can manipulate and control the narrative. He can't block anyone here or intimidate them or ignore them and his little whimpy supporters can't either so he won't come here and engage at all.

Kumioko, you can engage in falsehoods and ad hominem attacks all you want here on Wikipediocracy. I specialize in the calm assessment of facts. Here are some facts: I do not participate in IRC and I am not on any mailing lists and I know absolutely nothing about secret mailing lists and though I know what OTRS is, I am not a participant. I communicate openly about my Wikipedia editing about 99% of the time unless real issues of confidentiality are involved, and I handle those matters by email. I do participate in Wikipedia Weekly on Facebook and occasionally comment about Wikipedia on my own Facebook page.

I do not despise you, Kumioko. I engaged with you sincerely a few years ago until I concluded that I was wasting my time. If you were on fire, I would do my best to throw several buckets of water on you and I would call 911 and visit you in the hospital. I have zero hostility toward you although your hostility toward me comes through quite clearly in your eccentric commentary. As a matter of fact, I had pretty much forgotten about you until I read this thread.

When it comes to my personal life, you are also incorrect. Yes, I disclose my real world identity (James C. Heaphy III of American Canyon, California) but no, I am not retired as anyone with a modicum of Google-foo would know. I have been self employed for 25 years and still do highly skilled hard physical construction labor most working days. I come home drenched in sweat and covered with construction dust. So, that "retired" stuff is a major factual error on your part. Try doing your homework before attacking people online.

I do not concern myself at all about whether or not my commenting here lends "credibility" to this site. I do not see myself as an arbiter of credibility of Wikipedia criticism websites since it is obvious that I am not neutral on the matter. If discussion here helps illuminate genuine problems with Wikipedia, then that is wonderful and I hope that active Wikipedia editors will implement changes in response to any legitimate exposes.

There is a common style of disrespectful mocking interaction on this site that I find very unpleasant and this thread is an example. I assume that many of you enjoy that mode of discussion but I do not. I also do not consider myself obligated to come to this site to comment when my Wikipedia talk page is open to any editor in good standing who has concerns about any aspects of my participation in the project. I chose to comment today because I consider your remarks especially egregious and false, Kumioko. On the other hand, I have no problems with other editors and administrators in good standing participating here, if they consider it useful. To each their own.

If you believe that I am some kind of "Wikipedia and the WMF is wonderful" sycophant, then I suggest that you have not noticed the occasions when I have taken Jimbo and the WMF bureacracy to task, quite forcefully on occasion.

The only editors I block are the highly disruptive ones. The only editors I intimidate and ignore are nobody. So much for your litany of falsehoods, Kumioko. So now, I will return to trying to improve the encyclopedia, in my own personal way.

[Dysklyver]

Here are some facts: I do not participate in IRC and I am not on any mailing lists and I know absolutely nothing about secret mailing lists and though I know what OTRS is, I am not a participant. I communicate openly about my Wikipedia editing about 99% of the time unless real issues of confidentiality are involved, and I handle those matters by email. I do participate in Wikipedia Weekly on Facebook and occasionally comment about Wikipedia on my own Facebook page.

To be perfectly honest I think that's what people like about you, no cabal wheeling and dealing except some of the obligatory emails which are always respectable.

If you were on fire, I would do my best to throw several buckets of water on you and I would call 911 and visit you in the hospital.

Top tip: If Kumioko is on fire, roll him on the ground or cover the fire with non-flammable blankets, clothing etc and smother the flames, this would work better than water and be quicker if said water bucket isn't available.

[Eric Corbett]

There is a common style of disrespectful mocking interaction on this site that I find very unpleasant and this thread is an example. ... The only editors I intimidate and ignore are nobody ... So now, I will return to trying to improve the encyclopedia, in my own personal way.

I agree with you about the common style, and I too find it distasteful, especially as it's so often rooted in bias, misunderstanding, ignorance and unwarranted assumptions. I would say though that it's now substantially better than it was the last time I contributed here, but you may quite justifiably think that's not saying very much.

I would also like to say that despite what Kumioko claims you are one of the admins I've never had a problem with, so you must be doing something right.

[Kumioko]

Cullen is so full of shit it's leaking out his ears onto the ground. Wikipedia has far more secret forums than we do. Apparently Cullen has never been to IRC! or the Mailing lists! or the Secret wiki's, or OTRS! Etc. All of those are locked to "members" only.

As for fearing things, he has already posted who he is in real life so we can't out him, he's retired so no one is going to get him fired, etc. Wikipedia is a far, far, far more toxic place than this forum. What it's really about is image. if Cullen comes here, in his eyes, he gives credibility to the site and he helps give a voice to the banned editors who are here including me, and he despises me. If I were on fire I doubt he would piss in the flames. All he is doing is making excuses.

Cullen, like many Wikipediots, are cowards. They won't engage people in discussion unless they can manipulate and control the narrative. He can't block anyone here or intimidate them or ignore them and his little whimpy supporters can't either so he won't come here and engage at all.

Kumioko, you can engage in falsehoods and ad hominem attacks all you want here on Wikipediocracy. I specialize in the calm assessment of facts. Here are some facts: I do not participate in IRC and I am not on any mailing lists and I know absolutely nothing about secret mailing lists and though I know what OTRS is, I am not a participant. I communicate openly about my Wikipedia editing about 99% of the time unless real issues of confidentiality are involved, and I handle those matters by email. I do participate in Wikipedia Weekly on Facebook and occasionally comment about Wikipedia on my own Facebook page.

I do not despise you, Kumioko. I engaged with you sincerely a few years ago until I concluded that I was wasting my time. If you were on fire, I would do my best to throw several buckets of water on you and I would call 911 and visit you in the hospital. I have zero hostility toward you although your hostility toward me comes through quite clearly in your eccentric commentary. As a matter of fact, I had pretty much forgotten about you until I read this thread.

When it comes to my personal life, you are also incorrect. Yes, I disclose my real world identity (James C. Heaphy III of American Canyon, California) but no, I am not retired as anyone with a modicum of Google-foo would know. I have been self employed for 25 years and still do highly skilled hard physical construction labor most working days. I come home drenched in sweat and covered with construction dust. So, that "retired" stuff is a major factual error on your part. Try doing your homework before attacking people online.

I do not concern myself at all about whether or not my commenting here lends "credibility" to this site. I do not see myself as an arbiter of credibility of Wikipedia criticism websites since it is obvious that I am not neutral on the matter. If discussion here helps illuminate genuine problems with Wikipedia, then that is wonderful and I hope that active Wikipedia editors will implement changes in response to any legitimate exposes.

There is a common style of disrespectful mocking interaction on this site that I find very unpleasant and this thread is an example. I assume that many of you enjoy that mode of discussion but I do not. I also do not consider myself obligated to come to this site to comment when my Wikipedia talk page is open to any editor in good standing who has concerns about any aspects of my participation in the project. I chose to comment today because I consider your remarks especially egregious and false, Kumioko. On the other hand, I have no problems with other editors and administrators in good standing participating here, if they consider it useful. To each their own.

If you believe that I am some kind of "Wikipedia and the WMF is wonderful" sycophant, then I suggest that you have not noticed the occasions when I have taken Jimbo and the WMF bureacracy to task, quite forcefully on occasion.

The only editors I block are the highly disruptive ones. The only editors I intimidate and ignore are nobody. So much for your litany of falsehoods, Kumioko. So now, I will return to trying to improve the encyclopedia, in my own personal way.

I feel like I should clarify some things here. My comments are not falshehoods, most are opinions for what it's worth and most are based on my experiences with you, which I consider to be fact based. I also never meant to infer that you participated in IRC, mailing lists etc. although honestly you should at least glance at the mailing lists from time to time. Like here, good information appears quite a lot. I was responding to the inferrence you made that they don't exist in Wikipedia and the inference that people who edit here on WPO are somehow more threatening that the activities that go on in Wikipedia. I do not recall any moderators here stalking a female editor but that case actually happened on Wikipedia with two admins stalking one.

Personally I think your a bit nuts for posting who you are in real life and I regret doing so myself. Which is why I removed about 50 editors from my facebook and left only a handful.

As for the comments about intimidation, do I need to link the comments about you supporting my ban with the lies you posted there about me in various discussions? You supported my original ban on bullshit grounds and you supported my last one because I refused to stop fighting a ban that never had any validity. In banning me you have cost Wikipedia tens of thousands of edits to protect a culture of abuse for you and your admin friends. You also didn't seem to have any problem at all with others bullying and harassing me and didn't lift a finger to stop it but when I said something or attempted to fight it you were right there spouting bullshit about who I was a disruption.

I also find it incredulous what you make comments here that you think "There is a common style of disrespectful mocking interaction on this site that I find very unpleasant and this thread is an example" when that is your exact style on Wikipedia. Hell you did it above when talking to me!

So, although my peers on here might respect you and trust you, I do not. I do not! You helped to cost Wikipedia a dedicated and high output editor so you will get no respect from me.

[Ming]

We don't have any plans, because all we're doing is perpetuating SCIENCE! Biological factors dictate how we human animals act, including the huge differences between women and men. Men and women are 90% alike, but that 10% of difference is very significant. That 10% of difference is why liberalism is so defensive about it, and why they're so willing to give up the moral high ground in desperate gambles to preserve their false narrative.

The only differences that are absolute are those that relate to Tab-A/Slot-B procreation; everything else is a matter of averages against which the extreme spread of human variation has to be tested. It's obviously illegitimate to make a decision between an individual man and an individual woman on the basis of these averages, but that is the age-old fallacy. And even then, the expectation is and always has been that a single woman will work, and will work at a disadvantage to single men because of the spurious "supporting a family" canard. There's nothing really scientific about it: it's all about rationalizing a situation which isn't as it is depicted.

[iii]

Here's a loaded question, do scientific studies show that US women, in general, are happier now than they were in the 1950s?

You're completely mental.

True. But unfortunately there are a bunch of other ignorant white men like him who think essentially the same thing. There's one in the White House, in fact. Another just confirmed to the Supreme Court. What a time to be alive!

[Poetlister]

I agree with you about the common style, and I too find it distasteful, especially as it's so often rooted in bias, misunderstanding, ignorance and unwarranted assumptions.

Yes, I too have noticed some of that lately.

[Randy from Boise]

A.

B.

Welcome to WPO, Jim.

See, that really didn't hurt...

tim

[Poetlister]

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine continues to see fallout from her vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with someone changing her Wikipedia page Tuesday to say that she had voted to “put an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court.”

Press Herald

[No Ledge]

Apparently someone from a Capital Hill IP was busy late yesterday adding home addresses and phone numbers for Republican Senators in Wikipedia. This has happened before on Wikipedia. I remember that after the Virginia Tech shooting, someone added the perpetrator's parents' home address to the article.

What is disturbing about it is that when someone does this, it means that they're inviting a mob attack (or a lone radical like the guy who tried to massacre the Republican baseball team) on the person(s) in question. Mob attacks are a form of political or community violence and are supposed to be outside the norm of modern discourse and law and order. I guess it isn't Wikipedia's fault that obsessed people sometimes try to use it to formulate mob action?

The Wikipedian, Wm. Beutler reports that this got @CongressEdits knocked off of Twitter, but CongressEdits lives on, on a much less visible site.