text:
User talk:Harris7

Hello There
Hello there Harris7, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. MB 20:47 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mbecker, just curious: was the above manually or automatically generated? Harris7 20:54 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * It's done manually, originally by mav but now by whoever notices the new user first. There's a template we copy-and-paste from. —Paul A 01:32 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

re: the spelling of "mediæval" in C. S. Lewis:

The short answer is that I wasn't really thinking about it. It was a knee-jerk reaction: "Lewis was English, so 'medieval' is wrong. Revert." I didn't pay any real attention to the capitalisation, or to any instances of the word other than those changed in that particular edit. There may be someone who has a clear and systematic view of which instances should be spelled which way, but it isn't me. —Paul A 01:23 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey!

You wrote in the Protestantism page: "Catholics honor saints, and worship God alone".

Theologigally this is correct... But what the official theology forsees often is in contrast with what common people believe in. I live in Italy and I can assure you that the worship of Mary and of Saints is more popular than worship of God Itself!

Writing that Protestants venerate only Jesus Christ I just wanted to state that Protestants don't believe (or honoor, if you prefere) in anyone located between MAN and GOD. - 30th June 2003 Giorgio

 * Hi Giorgio. I don't think I would want to try to guess what common people believe in, in all the many different world religions.  I have stated Catholic doctrine:  we worship God, and honor Saints.    I believe there is some confusion here also, regarding the difference between "worship", "venerate", "adore", and "honor" - which I'm not particularly well qualified to address.  I'm curious:  you state the Protestants do not honor anyone between man and God;  certainly Protestants DO honor their father and mother?! Harris7 21:05 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

repost from kt2's talkpage

Hi KT, I noticed the extensive work you're doing in the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and Catholic popes, looks great! One question about John Chrysostom - the first paragraph ends with a statement about him being honored as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox church. He is also considered a Saint in the Catholic church, as well as a "Doctor of the Church". Being new here at Wikipedia, I wasn't sure if I should go ahead and add this information, and whether I need to cite references, such as: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm and http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/DOCTORS.HTM ? Harris7 13:37 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanx for your kind words. Anyway it's okay to add those informations of JC, which, I think, are considered rather trivial. Those references can be listed under External Links. I often either find a public domain source or produce materials that would be copyrighted under other sources. Verbatim copy-and-paste is an absolute "no" unless the source is not copyrighted or an authorization is granted. Here are some links you may find useful: Public domain resources -- Boilerplate request for permission -- Public domain image resources -- Copyrights kt2 04:27 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well done on Catholicism. It is frustrating on wiki when someone comes onto a page and adds in seriously flawed POV stuff. I've been amused to find myself turned sometimes into a defender of catholicism, given that I am not a practising catholic. Maybe I could be called a cultural catholic, aware though personal experience of catholicism of the need for sensitivity towards the faith and its adherents while not being blind to the Church's flaws.

BTW, I saw the mention of mediæval above. I spell it that way! Personally I would like if wiki opted to use the local form of english for the relevant article; British english for British articles, American english for american topics. But the best we can do is to say that whichever form of english is used by the first writer should be what is used in the article. So we have British spelling and dates in some American articles, American spelling and dates in British articles, etc. And a small minority of us using mediæval! wikilove. FearÉIREANN 06:14 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a rewrite of the opening of the Catholicism page. The opening paragraphs were almost incomprehensible, not to mention monumentally wrong, and some new user came along and made them worse by far. It is hard anyone could do an article on Catholicism and not mention things like Apostolic Succession, the Vatican, etc. It is a bit like doing a history of the USSR and forgetting Stalin. Have a look at the rewrite and see what you think; you certainly appear to know about the topic so your opinions would be particularly welcome. I think it reads far far better and is far more accurate. FearÉIREANN 00:44 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Check out Nanobug's compact table of contents for list of legal topics. It is an improvement over the regular TOC generated version. You might want put that on your condensed of religious topics list. Alex756 06:30, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Alex! Done as suggested.  Harris7 09:36, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

VfD
Hi Harris7, I have removed your request from VfD and added a new note at the top of the page to explain why. Redirects are very rarely deleted as people outside of Wikipedia might be linking to them. The one you listed has existed for some months and as a result is accessible via Google, so needs to be kept so we don't break links. We keep redirects unless there is a very good reason reason not to keep them. If you are interested, there is a lot of information on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects and related pages which are linked to at the top of that page. Hope that helps. Angela 20:45, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On Amazing Grace and the reference to Uncle Tom's Cabin -- yes, somehow the 'l' did get deleted from novel, but pied is correct. The verb is usually given as pi, and it means to jumble or confuse. I changed that back. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I see you have come across our Traditional Catholic fan! :-) FearÉIREANN 19:41, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just for your interest, I have answered your message in my talk page. Pfortuny 21:16, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I do not master English as to make a good version of Vatican's bio for the Canonization, but maybe you could try? Facts are what matter here, so one should take out quite a few sentences... TIA. Pfortuny 14:20, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to nag, I have been granted (e-mail) free use of the Founder's bio at [www.opusdei.org] so you might consider using it as well. Pfortuny 14:33, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've called a vote on Talk:Mother Teresa to clarify once and for all what people think about the current article and what we should do about it. Please express your opinion. lol FearÉIREANN 23:07, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to send you my Christmas Greetings. By the way, thanks for your help when I was a complete newbie. Pfortuny 23 Dec. 2003

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Austin Wikipedia Meetup
I have proposed an Austin meetup group for Wikipedians. Please join me at Mozart's on 2005-04-11. Bovlb 05:55, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Synergetics
May I draw your attention to this article, now in AfD at Articles for deletion/Synergetics, thanks. Alf melmac 20:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Baptism of Jesus article
Hi,

I've made some edits -- some shallow, some deeper -- to the Baptism of Jesus article to which you contributed. I'd like to get consensus on them.

Thanks, --jrcagle 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

Thanks! --evrik 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Comments
I hope you burn in hell, you liberal loving ass clown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.207.236 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * What is an ass clown?  Whatever it is, I suspect you meant to say "truth-loving ass clown."  As for burning in hell, there's only one way to find out. - Harris7 (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Rivers Pitt
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is William Rivers Pitt. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/William Rivers Pitt (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

UNECE Population Activities Unit
Please don't copy and paste one article into a new name. The page must be moved to the new name to keep the history intact. See Help:Moving a page. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 01:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Me, a vandal?
Now this is interesting. I noticed the recent vandalism by 128.240.229.7 to several articles, most of which had been promptly reverted except for one article: Negative_Dialectics, where this user deleted one sentence without explanation. I reverted this vandalism but my edit was promptly reverted by Polisher_of_Cobwebs with the euphemistic Assume Good Faith tag. So I'm the vandal now?! :-) Harris7 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite
Go Hokies (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Seldom Sene) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Seldom Sene, Harris7!

Wikipedia editor Gaioa just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"See no problem here."

To reply, leave a comment on Gaioa's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 14:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Most Unknown (film)
I just found your draft, User:Harris7/sandbox/The Most Unknown (2018 film), whiled checking for redirects to The Most Unknown (film). Sorry I missed it when I started the draft earlier this month! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lago del Valle (June 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lago del Valle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Lago_del_Valle Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lago_del_Valle reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lago del Valle
Hello, Harris7. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lago del Valle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Harris7


text:
User:Vasantha~enwiki

"my name is W. B. Vasantha Kandasamy and my address is Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Chennai – 600036, India, my email is vasantha@iitm.ac.in and my web site is http://mat.iitm.ac.in/~wbv. I co-authored a book about neutrosophics and their connections with fuzzy logic and sets."

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

title: User:Vasantha~enwiki


text:
Camarilla (disambiguation)

A camarilla is a group of courtiers or favourites who surround a king or ruler.

Camarilla may also refer to:

 * Camarilla, a fictional sect from the Vampire: The Masquerade books and role-playing games
 * Camarilla, a 2003 play by Van Badham

title: Camarilla (disambiguation)


text:
Cabiria

Cabiria is a 1914 Italian epic silent film, directed by Giovanni Pastrone and shot in Turin. The film is set in ancient Sicily, Carthage, and Cirta during the period of the Second Punic War (218–202 BC). It follows a melodramatic main plot about an abducted little girl, Cabiria, and features an eruption of Mount Etna, heinous religious rituals in Carthage, the alpine trek of Hannibal, Archimedes' defeat of the Roman fleet at the Siege of Syracuse and Scipio maneuvering in North Africa. Apart from being a classic on its own terms, the film is also notable for being the first film in which the long-running film character Maciste makes his debut. According to Martin Scorsese, in this work Pastrone invented the epic movie and deserves credit for many of the innovations often attributed to D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille. Among those was the extensive use of a moving camera, thus freeing the feature-length narrative film from "static gaze".

The historical background and characters in the story are taken from Livy's Ab Urbe Condita (written ca. 27–25 BC). In addition, the script of Cabiria was partially based on Gustave Flaubert's 1862 novel Salammbô and Emilio Salgari's 1908 novel Cartagine in fiamme (Carthage in Flames). It was the first film shown at the White House, having been viewed on the South Lawn, by the President, First Lady, Vice President, his wife, members of the Cabinet and their wives, due to the summer heat in June 1914.

First episode
Batto and his young daughter, Cabiria, live in a lavish estate in the shadow of Mount Etna, at Catania, on the island of Sicily. Cabiria plays with dolls with her nurse, Croessa. When the volcanic Etna erupts violently, Batto prays to the god Pluto for deliverance but receives only a brief respite before his home and gardens are destroyed. While attempting to escape, servants discover a secret stairway leading underground. Taking advantage of the chaos and plundering Batto's hidden underground treasure, the servants, along with Croessa and Cabiria, flee to the countryside. Batto and his wife mourn the loss of Cabiria, as they believe her to be buried beneath the rubble.

Second episode
The fugitive servants divide up the treasure (Croessa gets a ring) and make for the sea but soon run afoul of Phoenician pirates who take Croessa and Cabiria to Carthage, where the little girl is sold to Karthalo, the High Priest. He intends to sacrifice her to the great god Moloch. Also in Carthage are two Roman spies: Fulvius Axilla, a Roman patrician, and Maciste, his huge, muscular slave. The innkeeper, Bodastoret, welcomes Fulvius and Maciste to his Inn of the Striped Monkey. Croessa tries to prevent the sacrifice of Cabiria by pretending that the child is ill, but Croessa is whipped for her deception. Later, she chances upon Fulvius and Maciste. Recognizing them as fellow countrymen, she implores them to assist her.

The entrance to the huge Temple of Moloch is a gigantic three-eyed head, with the mouth as portal. One hundred young children are to perish as offerings. Inside the temple are frenzied devotees, and the colossal seated statue of the winged god Moloch is a hollow bronze furnace. The great chest opens for each victim, and when a youngster is slid into the inferno, the door closes and the open mouth belches flame. Croessa, Fulvius, and Maciste sneak into the temple, and the slave boldly snatches Cabiria away from the priest. Pursued by a frenzied mob, they make their way up to the roof, down the gargantuan façade, and back to the inn. However, Croessa pays a fatal price for the rescue.

Third episode
Meanwhile, Hannibal and his troops make their way across the snow-laden Alps towards Rome. Soldiers, elephants and other animals pick their way through the passes. Learning of the military events, Fulvius resolves to flee back to Rome after further intimidating the innkeeper to ensure silence. Numidian King Massinissa is visiting Carthage, and Hasdrubal, brother of Hannibal, promises him his beautiful daughter, Sophonisba, in marriage. In a great audience hall with two huge elephantine columns, Massinissa dispatches gifts and a message to meet secretly to Sophonisba, who, on receiving them, is giddy with anticipation.

Bodastoret, the innkeeper, sneaks into the Temple of Moloch and for a reward betrays the Romans' whereabouts and intentions. Fulvius, Maciste, and Cabiria are ambushed by the Priest's henchmen as they attempt to flee the city the next morning, but Fulvius escapes by leaping spectacularly from a high precipice and swimming away. Maciste and Cabiria flee with henchmen hard on their heels to the cedar garden of Hasdrubal and encounter Massinissa and Sophonisba just as their secret tryst is commencing. Maciste implores the aristocratic couple, who have both concealed their true identities, to rescue Cabiria. Amid the chaos, Sophonisba, Cabiria, and a servant run away while Massinissa falsely denies to the Priest's men that he has seen any little girl. Maciste, however, is captured, tortured and chained to a great millstone, which he must turn, but he can still manage to intimidate everyone around him.

Fourth episode
The Roman navy has besieged Syracuse, a Greek ally of Carthage, and Fulvius is now participating in the fighting. The Romans, however, are frustrated by a giant array of mirrors, producing a heat ray, which is deployed by the great inventor Archimedes to set fire to the ships' sails. The Roman fleet is spectacularly destroyed.

Fulvius, still bearing the ring Croessa had given him, is cast adrift and soon rescued. Although his rescuers rob the unconscious Fulvius, one of them recognizes the ring on his finger, and he is carried to Batto's house, which has been rebuilt. The parents are overjoyed to learn that Cabiria is still alive, at least when he last saw her. As he takes his leave, Fulvius vows to seek Cabiria if he should ever return to Carthage.

Fifth episode
An intertitle relates that Syphax, King of Cirta, a rival desert kingdom, has deposed Massinissa and caused him to disappear into the desert. Hasdrubal now gives Sophonisba to the victor instead to strengthen his new alliance against Rome. Sophonisba is distinctly unhappy, and when she appears in her finery at the betrothal ceremony, she swoons and breaks the ceremonial vessel.

Already in possession of much of North Africa, the Roman general and consul Scipio strategizes with his new ally, Massinissa. They dispatch the resourceful Fulvius again as a spy in Carthage to observe its defenses. Stealthily deploying an impressive human pyramid of Roman soldiers, Fulvius successfully breaches the city walls.

In the elephantine hall, Hasdrubal dispatches the High Priest Karthalo on a mission to persuade Syphax to attack the Romans directly. Karthalo's camel caravan traverses the vast dunescape. Meanwhile, Fulvius finds time to look for Maciste and Cabiria, now prisoners for 10 years. With a combination of intimidation and bribery, he extracts information from Bodastoret. With Fulvius disguised as a freedman, they secretly observe Maciste still in chains and harnessed to his millstone. That night, Fulvius returns to wake the sleeping strongman who is overwhelmed with happiness at again seeing his beloved master. Back at their hideout at the inn, Bodastoret is overcome with shock at seeing Maciste and dies. Fulvius and Maciste escape down the city walls.

In Cirta, before a palace with two huge feline columns, Syphax is given a formal sendoff by Sophonisba and Karthalo, the latter of whom has an eye for the former's lovely slave, "Elissa". While the military maneuvers continue, Fulvius and Maciste have fallen into dire straits, exhausted and thirsty in the desert wilderness. Maciste catches sight of a fire in the distance, as Syphax's encampment has been torched by his enemies. The two Romans are soon captured by the mounted Cirtans.

While outside the city, King Syphax has been captured, Maciste and Fulvius are swept up with other prisoners within Cirta's city walls. "Elissa", who is really Cabiria, takes pity on the imprisoned pair and passes water to them without recognizing who they are. Cirta is under siege by Massinissa's forces. Soldiers scale ladders outside the walls while boulders, spears, arrows, and boiling oil rain down on them.

Sophonisba dreams of triple-eyed Moloch. Unnerved, she interprets her dream as an omen that Cabiria/Elissa will somehow spell the doom of the city and confesses to Karthalo what happened in the cedar garden so many years ago.

Maciste, who has forced open the iron bars of his prison cell with his enormous strength, determines to exact revenge upon Karthalo. He intrudes through a window just in time to save Elissa, whom he now recognizes as Cabiria, from being raped by the priest. Fulvius soon joins the fray, but in the chaos of flight, they lose control of Cabiria and are forced to barricade themselves in a store room. Fulvius is appalled to learn that the girl is none other than Cabiria.

Just outside the city walls is another appalling sight: King Syphax is in chains taunted by the victorious King Massinissa, who is now dressed in Roman military regalia. The Cirtans have had enough and surrender. In the hall of the gigantic feline columns, Sophonisba grandiloquently surrenders and abases herself before her former fiancé and present husband's captor, Massinissa. He, in turn, demurs and, just as elaborately, pledges himself to her. In a ceremonial hall with indigenous deities, the pair further ritualize their solidarity. Sophonisba marries Massinissa, and it is resolved that she will not be subjected to being paraded in a Roman triumph.

Fulvius and Maciste enjoy the ample provisions of the store room until the besieging guards attempt to smoke them out. Massinissa learns of the circumstances of the two "heroes" and, apparently ambivalent about such former Roman comrades, determines to spare them. Fulvius takes the opportunity to implore Sophonisba on Cabiria's behalf, but in a fit of pique, she tells the distraught Roman that Cabiria is dead.

Scipio and his lieutenant, Lelius, camp near Cirta. Lelius, whose forces have preceded Scipio's, tells his commander of the royals' treachery. At first, Massinissa arrogantly defies Scipio, dashing the Roman general's message tablet to pieces but later wilts in the face of Rome's majesty. He implores Scipio, however, to spare Sophonisba the humiliation of being paraded in Rome. Scipio will not relent.

In desperation, Massinissa persuades Fulvius, in reciprocation for having spared him earlier and in anticipation of an unspoken future favor, to lend him his slave Maciste. The slave receives a bracelet, inscribed with a message, and takes it to Queen Sophonisba. Receiving it, the Queen reads the message and understands that she is to poison herself with the powder in the hollow gift. Drinking the dissolved poison, Sophonisba divests herself of her jewelry with great flourishes. Fulvius arrives and, too late, they realize the purpose of Massinissa's request. Sophonisba, writhing in agony, reveals that Cabiria still lives and, as repayment for the gift of death, she will be spared a second time from the fate of living sacrifice. Cabiria is retrieved from her prison cell and arrives in time to see the moribund Queen expire.

Fulvius and Cabiria cross the sea on the way to Rome. As Maciste plays the panpipes in the bowsprit, Fulvius pledges his love to Cabiria and festive sea sprites encircle the boat in a giant, diaphanous garland.

Cast and characters

 * Historical figures denoted by an asterisk (*).

 * Carolina Catena ... Cabiria, as a Child
 * Émile Vardannes ... Batto, father of Cabiria
 * Gina Marangoni ... Croessa, nurse of Cabiria
 * Lidia Quaranta ... Cabiria, as an adult
 * Dante Testa ... Karthalo, the High Priest of Carthage
 * Umberto Mozzato ... Fulvio (Fulvius) Axilla, Roman patrician and spy
 * Bartolomeo Pagano ... Maciste, slave of Axilla
 * Raffaele di Napoli ... Bodastoret, an Innkeeper
 * Émile Vardannes ... Hannibal*, Carthaginian general

 * Edoardo Davesnes ... Hasdrubal*, Carthaginian general; brother of Hannibal
 * Italia Almirante-Manzini ... Sofonisba* (Sophonisba), daughter of Hasdrubal
 * Alessandro Bernard ... Siface* (Syphax), King of Cirta
 * Luigi Chellini ... Scipione* (Scipio), Roman consul and general
 * ?????????? ... Lelius* (Gaius Laelius), friend and sub-commander of Scipio
 * Vitale Di Stefano ... Massinissa* (Masinissa), King of Numidia
 * Enrico Gemelli ... Archimede* (Archimedes), Greek engineer and philosopher
 * Ignazio Lupi ... Arbace

Production
Italian author Gabriele d'Annunzio contributed to the screenplay, writing all of the intertitles, naming the characters and the movie itself. The film was noted as being the first popular film to use the tracking shot – the camera is mounted on a dolly allowing it to both follow action and move within a film set or location. The tracking shot in itself was nothing new. "Panorama" effects (lateral and vertical) had been used frequently in film since 1896, but Cabiria, with the new freedom provided by the dolly, is innovative in introducing "zoom" movement, towards and away from the scene, which for years afterwards was referred to by both cameramen and directors as a "Cabiria" shot. This movement was such an innovation at the time that other film makers quickly incorporated it. The film was a major influence on D.W. Griffith's Intolerance (1916) but he never uses "Cabiria" shots; the famous crane shot moving down and into the festival in Babylon is a "panorama" effect.

The elephants used in several scenes in the film are Indian elephants, rather than the much smaller and less intimidating North African elephant (which, though used in Hannibal's invasion, was long extinct at time of filming) or the African elephant (which is undomesticable).

Film critic Roger Ebert has said that Griffith "moves the camera with greater freedom and has a headlong narrative and an exciting use of cross-cutting that Pastrone does not approach", but never seeks to exploit possibilities of the genuinely mobile camera created by the "Cabiria" shot, although such camera movement can very occasionally be seen used to dramatic effect in other US films at this time, notably Allan Dwan's David Harum (1915). The film also marked the debut of the Maciste character, who went on to have a long career in Italian sword and sandal films.

Music
The pastiche film score was composed largely by Manlio Mazza, who reworked the music of several composers including Mozart, Mendelssohn, Spontini, Donizetti and Gluck. But the film also contained an original composition by Mazza's former teacher Ildebrando Pizzetti, which was composed on d'Annunzio's recommendation: the ten-minute Sinfonia del fuoco. The piece was written to accompany the Invocation to Moloch, in the pivotal Second Episode of the film, when one hundred naked children are sacrificed to the god of Carthage. Scored for a large orchestra, including six first and six second violas, baritone, and a mixed chorus of more than five parts, the Sinfonia del fuoco was performed once only, on the evening of the film's première, conducted by Mazza, at the Teatro Vittorio Emanuele in Turin, on 18 April 1914. Contemporary reviews indicate that on this occasion the work was performed as an Overture at the start of the film.

The size of the forces involved, coupled with Pizzetti's refusal to allow others to conduct the work, and the fact that he himself never included it in his own concerts, meant that no further performances took place until 1988, when the 1914 version of the film was presented, with live orchestral accompaniment of the complete score, at the Orto Botanico, Rome. The Sinfonia del fuoco has since been recorded by Naxos Records in 1997.

Distribution, remake and restorations
Cabiria was released in Italy on April 18, 1914.

In June 1914, Cabiria became the first motion picture to be screened at the White House, when a screening on the lawn was viewed by President Wilson and his family from the porch and lawn chairs. (The Birth of a Nation was the first movie shown in the White House, in the East Room.)

A restored version of Cabiria was screened on 27 May 2006 at the Cannes Film Festival, featuring a filmed introduction by director Martin Scorsese.

title: Cabiria


text:
User talk:Vasantha~enwiki

Hi Vasantha - I added the introduction you wrote on yourself to your user page, because people like to know who they're talking to :) Wikipedia welcomes careful editors :) Martin 20:53 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Vasantha. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Vasantha~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vasantha~enwiki


text:
Talk:Rhythm and blues

name change context
''In 1948, RCA Victor was marketing black music under the name "Blues and Rhythm". ...In 1949, the term "Rhythm and Blues" replaced the Billboard category Harlem Hit Parade.''

don't have a source but it goes sth like this: term "Blues and Rhythm" was coined in 1948 by RCA to replace "race records". In 1949 Jerry Wexler of Atlantic Records switched it to Rhythm and Blues and thought it sounded better. Atlantic was by far the biggest producer of records for blacks, RCA was behind them and a dozen indie labels that made records for black people, like King and Specialty and Chess and Federal and DeLuxe and Decca and sooo many others. They all grouped together and used the Atlantic Records term, and forgot RCA term, and in June of 1949 Billboard changed their list name. everybody thought RCA was for squares (whites) anyway. If a source could be found it would be great.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what is in the article is adequately sourced, but yes, if you want to add this other stuff it needs a good source. Picardie & Wade's "Atlantic and the Godfathers of Rock and Roll" will not be the one. Carptrash (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary and Regular
Is there a difference between this and Contemporary R&B? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Contemporary "R&B" is a smooth, syrupy type of electronic pop that isn't bluesy at all. I don't know how it came to be called R&B, because there seems to be no relationship between the two styles. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Should Jewish Influence section be deleted?
Someone did so today... does everyone agree?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Some drive-by editor dropping in out of the blue and flinging accusations of "antisemitism" (in edit summary left on Doo-wop page) and white supremacism is no reason to remove well-sourced information that cites mostly Jewish academics. I'm sure all my Jewish clients would be astonished to learn that I and the American Jewish Committee are accused (however incoherently) of antisemitism. There seems to be some projection going on with this person, as what black performers themselves thought of the Jewish record company owners they dealt with seems to be of no account to them, and it was Jewish writers describing these matters. Carlstak (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be deleted. But, it does take up over 10% of the article (I haven't measured exactly) - which may be overstating its significance.  I don't think that expanding the rest of the article - to make an even longer article - would be the right solution.   Also, I'm not sure about the section heading - the section deals with the production and selling of R&B music, but most of the rest of the article is about the musical style itself, and its development.  They don't seem to knit together very well - but part of the reason for that is that the rest of the article is not really very good - there's perhaps an undue emphasis on chart performance, for example.   I'm not necessarily making any suggestions - just throwing those thoughts out for discussion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify things, the IP editor who deleted the section has left a gracious note on my talk page thanking me for letting their final revision stand and withdrawing their objection to the material. They did ask me to consider how a layperson might engage with that content and the impact of those words on the audience reading them, which I think is a completely reasonable request. Sometimes one needs to stand back from his work and try to imagine how others could perceive it, as the IP suggests.
 * I wrote this section for the Doo-wop article initially because it seemed unconscionable that the very important role that Jewish people played in the production and distribution of the music wasn't mentioned. After all, most white people probably would never have heard doo-wop if the Jewish-owned labels hadn't recorded and distributed it nationally and regionally. I announced my intention to write the section on the doo-wop talk page months in advance, and never heard a peep from other editors. So I read up on the subject and wrote about it, becoming aware in the process that it was mostly Jewish academics writing about it, which seemed appropriate to me, and I thought this would help defuse potential objections.
 * The fact is that Jewish-owned record labels made an essential contribution to the development of rhythm and blues (of which doo-wop is a part) as well, and it seems neglectful not to discuss it. I don't think it's antisemitic or undue emphasis to acknowledge that Jews specifically had a huge role in rhythm and blues, anymore than it's such to admit that they, considered as a people, have had an outsize role in literature, the arts, the sciences, and entertainment relative to their numbers in the general population. I also think it's disgraceful not to give them credit for all they've done for the human race, which is the only real race, anyway.
 * I intend to spin this section off as a separate article, unless someone has a better idea. I don't want to shorten it, because it seems the explication is necessary to avoid its being misinterpreted. Carlstak (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Soul music 2
Isn't soul music a subgenre of R&B? GogoLion (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YourGuyJY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emevangelisto.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kalebbscott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

British bands in the lead paragraphs
I've removed mentions in the lead paragraphs of UK bands like Jimmy James and the Vagabonds, Geno Washington, Carl Douglas, and Hot Chocolate - although they all had some importance in the UK, it was relatively minor in the overall scheme of things, and Douglas and Hot Chocolate were primarily seen as pop musicians rather than R&B in any case. I've also removed mention of how the Who were promoted as "Maximum R&B" - again, it's an almost trivial fact in the context of R&B music as a whole. I'm still uncomfortable about the only bands being named in the lead being (white) British ones - they could and probably should be removed as well, but I'll wait and see if there are any more comments here first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I completely agree. Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the article. If we mention musicians in the lead, it should be the ones who get the most coverage in the article. That would be Louis Jordan, Fats Domino, maybe Bo Diddley, Johnny Otis, Ruth Brown, Little Richard and some of the others who get at least a paragraph in the History section. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-reading that paragraph, it seemed bizarre (and arguably racist) that we should be naming any of those 60s British bands in the lead, when we do not give similar prominence there to any of the US performers who created and defined the genre. I've removed them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In the lede we find
"It referred to music styles that developed from and incorporated electric blues, as well as gospel and soul music." and I am not really comfortable with Soul music being here. R&B was pretty well going along when soul arrives and although there is a lot of overlap to state that R&R "developed from" soul is, in my opinion, misleading. Carptrash (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Afrikaans
R&b music when it first began 41.116.44.251 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ESL Workshop
— Assignment last updated by Zzuochengw (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music
— Assignment last updated by Isha0323 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rhythm and blues


text:
User talk:195.92.67.69

Attention: This IP address, , is registered to Energis UK and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact Energis UK to report abuse.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. However, you will still be unable to edit Wikipedia while the IP you are using is blocked.

Deletion discussion about International Communist Current
Hello, 195.92.67.69, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Articles for deletion/International Communist Current whether the article International Communist Current should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving International Communist Current, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Esoteric astrology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Esoteric astrology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Esoteric astrology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Internationalist Communist Tendency for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Internationalist Communist Tendency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Internationalist Communist Tendency until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toa Nidhiki05 21:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The Bride (Kill Bill) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Bride (Kill Bill) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Bride (Kill Bill) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Popcornfud (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:195.92.67.69


text:
User talk:Schewek

Hello there Schewek, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. MB 21:02 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Schewek


text:
Masquerade

Masquerade or Masquerades may refer to:

Books

 * Masquerade (book), a 1979 children's book by Kit Williams that sparked a worldwide treasure hunt
 * Masquerades (novel), a 1995 Forgotten Realms novel by Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb
 * Masquerade, a 2007 Blue Bloods novel by Melissa de la Cruz

Theatre

 * The Masquerade (play), a 1719 play by Charles Johnson
 * Mascarade, a 1724 comedy play by Ludvig Holberg
 * Masquerade (play), an 1835 Russian play by Mikhail Lermontov
 * Masquerade (theatre group), an English theatre group in Chennai, India, since 1994

Films

 * The Masquerade, a 1913 animated film by Émile Cohl
 * Masquerade (1929 film), an American drama film
 * Masquerade, a 1931 film starring Vivienne Osborne
 * Masquerade (1941 film), a Soviet film
 * Masquerade (1965 film), a British spy spoof starring Cliff Robertson and Jack Hawkins
 * Masquerade (1988 film), an American thriller starring Rob Lowe and Meg Tilly
 * The Masquerade, a 2007 American thriller starring Brianne Davis and Christopher Masterson
 * Masquerades (film), a 2008 film
 * Masquerade (2012 film), or Gwanghae, South Korean film
 * Masquerade (2021 film), an American thriller
 * Masquerade (2022 film), a French comedy-drama

Shows

 * Masquerade (TV series), a 1983 American espionage series
 * Masquerade (Bakugan Battle Brawlers), a masked character in the anime Bakugan Battle Brawlers
 * Masquerade, the international title for Kasou Taishou, a Japanese semi-annual amateur skit show

Episodes

 * "Masquerade" (Alias)
 * "Masquerade" (Baywatch)
 * "Masquerade" (Benson)
 * "Masquerade" (The Bill)
 * "Masquerade" (Dallas)
 * "Masquerade" (Dynasty)
 * "Masquerade" (ER)
 * "Masquerade" (The Flash)
 * "Masquerade" (The Fugitive)
 * "Masquerade" (Hazbin Hotel)
 * "Masquerade" (Iron Man: Armored Adventures)
 * "Masquerade" (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)
 * "Masquerade" (Law & Order: UK)
 * "Masquerade" (NCIS)
 * "Masquerade" (The Real Ghostbusters)
 * "Masquerade" (Six Degrees)
 * "Masquerade" (The Transformers)
 * "Masquerade" (Trauma)
 * "Masquerade" (Person of Interest)
 * "Masquerade" (The Vampire Diaries)

Music

 * The Masquerade (Atlanta), a concert venue in Atlanta, Georgia

Classical music

 * Mascherata (English: Masquerade), an Italian dance from the sixteenth century
 * Masquerade, lute piece by Robert de Visée (c. 1655 – 1732/1733)
 * Masquerade (Khachaturian), incidental music by Aram Khachaturian
 * Masquerade (Clyne), a 2013 orchestral composition by Anna Clyne

Bands

 * Masquerade (Finnish band), a Finnish post-punk band
 * Masquerade (German band), a band with Drafi Deutscher that had a hit in 1984 with the song "Guardian Angel"
 * Masquerade (Swedish band), a Swedish rock band

Albums

 * Masquerade (Bananarama album), or the title song, 2022
 * Masquerade (Eric Saade album), or the title song, 2010
 * Masquerade (Golden Dawn album), 2003
 * Masquerade (The Legendary Tigerman album), or the title song, 2006
 * Masquerade (Running Wild album), 1995
 * Masquerade (Wyclef Jean album), 2002
 * Masquerade, an album by Dreams of Sanity, 1999
 * The Masquerade (album), by mxmtoon, 2019
 * The Masquerade, by Mêlée, 2010

Songs

 * "Masquerade" (2PM song), 2012
 * "Masquerade" (Kaya song), 2006
 * "Masquerade", by Alfred Hui and Win Win Yeung, 2022
 * "Masquerade", by Ashley Tisdale from Guilty Pleasure, 2009
 * "Masquerade", by Backstreet Boys from This Is Us
 * "Masquerade", by Beach House from Once Twice Melody, 2022
 * "Masquerade", by Berlin from Pleasure Victim, 1982
 * "Masquerade", by Edward Bear, 1972
 * "Masquerade", by Hey! Say! JUMP from Dear, 2016
 * "Masquerade", by Jack Hylton and His Orchestra, featured in the film The Shining, 1980
 * "Masquerade", by Nicki Minaj from Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, 2012
 * "Masquerade", by Northlane from Singularity, 2013
 * "Masquerade", by Rania from Teddy Riley, the First Expansion In Asia, 2011
 * "Masquerade", by Sarah Nixey from Sing, Memory, 2007
 * "Masquerade", by Skids, 1979
 * "Masquerade", by Soul Asylum from Say What You Will, Clarence... Karl Sold the Truck, 1984
 * "Masquerade", by Swing Out Sister from Kaleidoscope World, 1989
 * "Masquerade", by Symphony X from Symphony X, 1994
 * "Masquerade", by Versailles from Holy Grail, 2011
 * "Masquerade", by Yes from Union, 1991
 * "Masquerade", from the musical The Phantom of the Opera, 1986
 * "The Masquerade", by Voltaire from Raised by Bats, 2014

Other uses

 * Masquerade (biology), a form of camouflage relying on mimicry of inanimate objects such as twigs
 * Masquerade (trope), a fantasy and speculative fiction trope involving a hidden society within the real world
 * Masquerade, a type of computer threat

title: Masquerade


text:
Talk:Well-defined expression

Example: definitions based on a representative of an equivalence class
a good example from group theory is when you define something on an equivalence class in terms of one of its members. Naturally, you need to get the same result no matter which member was chosen. -- Tarquin 21:01 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, this is a "canonical" meaning of "well-defined", when certain operations or functions, more generally, don't depend on choice of representatives. This precise meaning isn't really articulated in the article here. Revolver

It would be nice to have a specific example of what you need to verify in order for a function to be "well defined".

 * Example added, although possibly you may want more detail. Geometry guy 11:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Well defined.
Is it meaningful to ask " Is the definition of "well defined" itself well defined, under its own definition ?" is this a paradox ? http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/welldefined.html 81.141.30.210 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

on "well-defined-ness"
something is well defined when what the definition claims to exist exists. thus, to show something is well-defined you show it exists. that's all.

if you always show something exists before you name it, you never need to show your definition is well-defined, because you've already did. (see for example "the structure of the real number system" by cohen and ehrlich; they never use the term well-defined, because they carefully show everything exists before they even think about naming it for good.

examples:

let f be a function bla bla bla; you need to show f exists. some functions clearly exist; but that doesn't mean you can't show it exists. for instance, let f be a function that multiply 2 to its argument x; that's clearly a function; but you can show it is exists; if exists, then its name --- f --- is well-defined.

here's something ill-defined: let joe be a kangaroo that's not a kangaroo. every kangaroo is a kangaroo. such joe doesn't exist.

here's something ill-defined: let f be a function that maps its rational argument p/q to the number p + q. try to map 0.5 = 1/2 = 4/8. such f is not a function; hence, such function doesn't exist; hence, this definition isn't good.

more examples:

how would one show that f x = 2*x is well-defined? look at what it rests on; it rests on *; and * is a function; a binary function; we're just fixing one of its arguments; hence, f is just a restriction of *'s domain; therefore, f is a function; hence well-defined.

on psychology:

why do people always talk in terms of "ambiguity"? because a function is never ambiguous; it always maps each domain-guy to only one in the co-domain; if you map twice, then ambiguity arises; usually though, people go straight to the ambiguity talk because they haven't realized what well-defined-ness really means and they're usually talking about functions.

but relations and sets can also be ill-defined; even kangaroos can be ill-defined. -- danulus bastilis :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.91.80 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Defined and undefined
According to WP:ADJECTIVE, ''Titles should be nouns or noun phrases. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages, as at Organic.'' For this reason, "Defined and undefined" is not an appropriate article title. Anything which could be discussed under such a title would be better discussed on the Well-definition article, therefore the Defined and undefined article should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree to merge the “defined and undefined” and “well-definition” to the “well-definition” article – this is the same. But with one condition: there should be a distinct article undefined (or, say, undefined value if you are so concerned about grammatical issues), because this is an important topic itself, not only in mathematics, but in some programming languages also. “Undefined” is an important case regardless of its cause, such as function's argument out of domain, uninitialized variable or an argument which has not be passed (as in MediaWiki templates). There should be two articles: “well-definition” about the concept, and “undefined value” about the case when something is not defined and possible consequences. So, a completely new article should be written, with the title undefined or with a redirect from. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why "Undefined" couldn't be a section in the article on "Well-definition"... By the way, how about merging both articles into the general article on Definition? FilipeS (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I merged the more sensible parts of defined and undefined with this page, as was suggested by several people. I included a bit more about exponentiation and some links to the corresponding notions in complex analysis. Tilmanbauer (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 * "Defined and undefined" is an entirely different subject from "well-defined". In Euclidean geometry, "line" and "point" are undefined terms, "triangle" and "circle" are defined terms.  In abstract algebra, f(a/b) = 2a/b is well-defined, f(a/b) = a + b is not well-defined.  Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Neologism?
The new title is better than defined and undefined in one way; it is a noun, and in most cases article titles should be nouns. But it's worse in a possibly more important way, which is that it appears to be a neologism. Oh, I imagine that the term well-definition is probably attested somewhere, but it is certainly not in common use. I don't think the article can stay here. --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure about that word, either, although I've read it here and there (e.g. Davis-Kirk, Lecture Notes in Algebraic Topology). A short, unrepresentative search seems to indicate that "well-definedness" is used more often. I personally find that awkward, but who am I to judge. Unrelated to that, the page did exist before I merged "defined and undefined" into it, so would you agree that the content of the old page fits into this page, whatever its name? I don't think we need a separate page for "undefined values". Tilmanbauer (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New title for this article.
"Well-definition" is a phrase you almost never hear. What you hear is "well-defined". Also, the noun form of a two-word adjective is not hyphenated. I would like to so some work on this article, providing the required references, but before I begin I would like to move it to "Well-defined". Any comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It's commonly used in mathematics, it is common in Europe and UK education. --Jorgen W (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, it should be easy to provide references, which the article lacks. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Hearing no response, my inclination is to make the change. In a google search for "well-definition" all the front page hits (except the one for this article) are about a "well" meaning a hole in the ground.  On the other hand a search for "well-defined" gives many appropriate mathematical hits.  I also note that this article itself uses "well-defined" eight times, and only uses "well-definition" twice in the body of the text.  However, I will wait 24 hours before making the change, to give Jorgen W a chance to respond. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going ahead with the move. My aim is to 1) have the article title reflect the most common form of the idea, 2) separate out the difference between well-defined and undefined, and 3) add references. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made the move, added a reference, an started working on links -- there are a lot of them and most link the phrase "well-defined" first to "well-definition" and then back here. Help would be appreciated, especially reference to a bot that will do the job. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that you hear well-defined a lot, and well-definition almost never, and this common use is probably enough to override WP:NOUN, assuming the article should exist at all.
 * But frankly I don't think the article should exist at all. The principle that titles should be nouns is not really just about titles; it's about the kind of thing that should have articles.  Articles should be about a thing, and "well-defined" is not a thing.  Articles should not exist merely to document jargon.  I think we should look for another solution.  --Trovatore (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The concept is much more basic than many esoteric mathematical terms that have Wikipedia articles. It really isn't possible to understand why f(a/b) = 2a/b is well-defined and f(a/b) = a + b is not well-defined unless you have the definition of well-defined under your belt. I've been teaching abstract algebra for a long time, and while mathematicians take understanding well-defined for granted, students struggle with the concept. In class on Friday I discovered that none of my students in Modern Algebra II knew what well-defined meant. And these are students who habitually turn to Wikipedia for answers. I'd appreciate your help in making this a better article. Note that there are more than a hundred articles which have links to this page. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See, I just don't think that's part of the encyclopedic mission. You have to remember that we are not teachers, in our role as encyclopedists.  Wikipedia should be, and is, an excellent resource for self-teaching, but it absolutely MUST NOT NOT NOT attempt to teach in and of itself.  I can't over-emphasize how fundamental this point is.  -Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this article solely about well-defined functions? I agree that "well-defined" is an important description, but I don't see why it needs its own page when distinguishing "function" from "well-defined function" from "functions with holes in their domains" could done through example on a page about functions. I do hear the term used fairly often to describe problems, as in a "well-defined problem," by physicists, cognitive scientists, and mathematicians (see this wikibook for an example) and within mathematics I've also heard it used to describe operations or expressions (eg, MathWorld and PlanetMath). I've never in my life "well-definition." Scoresomecake (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The concept of "well-defined" has nothing to do with "functions with holes in their domains" nor has it anything to do with what physicists mean by a "well-defined problem". It is an essential concept in abstract algebra.  The most important elementary example has to do with fractions.  A function defined on the rational numbers must take on the same value for 2/4 that it takes on for 1/2.  The large number of pages that link to this page shows its importance.  I, too, never heard to "well-definition" until I saw it in the old name for this article.  Rick Norwood (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for taking on the page -- it looks much nicer. I asked about functions (and other things that "well-defined" can describe) because this page offers examples of well-defined functions and there are other legitimate uses of the term. Indeed, the definition is given as "a function is well-defined if..." It seems that other uses of the adjective should not be directed to here if this page is only about "well-defined functions,  foundational concept in abstract algebra."  Frankly, I got to this page while wondering about criteria for "well-defined problems."  I do not find the term indexed in Artin. It is indexed in Dummit & Foote (1999).  On page 1, "If the function f is not specified on elements it is important in general to check that f is well defined [note -- no hyphen!], i.e., is unambiguously determined."  So, this has to do with functions (and it comes up again in the context of cosets and homomorphisms, in D&F), but the indexed pages do not offer a stand-alone definition of the term.  Examples following on page 2 use the phrase ``unambiguously defines."  Given this usage and the usage on PlanetMath, I think "well-defined" has to do, in general, with lack of ambiguity, not just whether or not the same input might yield different outputs (as with the f(.5) vs. f(1/2) example -- not the only kind of ambiguity) or the example with the function that excludes 0 from its domain and so is well-defined on its domain.  For example, whether a*b*c is unambiguous for some operation *.  The "ambiguity" view would be consistent with other objects that "well-defined" can describe, as well. Scoresomecake (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Can you give me an example of a function that is "ambiguous" but does not fail the "If x = y, f(x) = f(y)" test? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Undefined versus well-defined
"A function that is not well-defined is not the same as a function that is undefined. For example, if f(x) = 1/x, the f(0) is undefined, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether f(x) = 1/x is well-defined. It is. But 0 is not in the domain of the function." This sounds like POV to me. References, or it goes... FilipeS (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ill-defined
I wonder if ill-defined should redirect here. I was looking for the definition, and comparing other sources like online dictionaries I found out that the meaning is perhaps the opposite. I suggest then that ill-defined should have its own page, or at least one section under well-defined explaining the distinction, instead of being simply redirected and presented as the same thing.

Luiscarlosrubino (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Often it is best to define something in terms of its opposite. The phrase ill-defined is not often used, rather people say "not well-defined". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

subtraction and division convention — PEMDAS, anyone?
The article has this text:
 * The subtraction operation, $$-$$, is not associative, for instance. However, the notation $$a-b-c$$ is well-defined under the convention that the $$-$$ operation is understood as addition of the opposite, thus $$a-b-c$$ is the same as $$a + -b + -c$$. Division is also non-associative. However, $$a/b/c$$ does not have an unambiguous conventional interpretation, so this expression is ill-defined.

As much as subtraction is understood as the addition of the opposite, division does have an unambiguous conventional interpretation as outlined in order of operations: top to bottom, left to right. In this application, if $$a-b-c=d$$, then $$a=b+c+d$$; likewise, if $$a/b/c = d$$, then $$a = b \times c \times d$$. If there really is evidence to the contrary, that evidence should be presented, because every scientific calculator that I've ever used would respond to an entry of 36/6/6 with 1, not 36. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The meaning of a/b/c and of a/bc has been extensively discussed, and the outcome has been inconclusive. People have strong views on both sides. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it fairly problematic that this topic is discussed in the same article as what constitutes a well-defined map on, say, a quotient space (has to not depend on choice of representative). To my mind this is more evidence that this article does not have a clear rationale. That's not to say any of the material is bad, just that we probably should not have an article under this title. The subject matter can be treated in other articles. --Trovatore (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree. I think most mathematicians would reserve "well-defined" for functions on quotient spaces and the like, and group a/b/c and similar problems under "order of operations". Rick Norwood (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Bearing in mind the text appearing in the first paragraph—"A well-defined function gives the same output for 0.5 that it gives for 1/2", added by user:Rick Norwood earlier today—and understanding that the onus is on the function and how the input is processed, I propose changing the text of #Well-defined notation to the following, or a better paraphrase:
 * For real numbers, the product $$a \times b \times c$$ is unambiguous because $$(ab)c= a(bc)$$. In this case this notation is said to be well-defined. However, if the operation (here $$\times$$) did not have this property, which is known as associativity, then there must be a convention for which two elements to multiply first. Otherwise, the product is not well-defined.

 * The subtraction operation, $$-$$, is not associative, for instance. However, the notation $$a-b-c$$ is well-defined under the convention that the $$-$$ operation may be understood as addition of the opposite, thus $$a-b-c$$ is the same as $$a + -b + -c$$. However, if the operation is upon a variable a and an input u, if the given input $$u=b-c$$ is processed prior to subtraction from a, then $$a-u=a-(b-c)=a+ -b+c$$.

 * Division is also non-associative and depends on whether the input is processed before further operations or inline with further operations, so the expression $$a/b/c$$ is ill-defined. See Order of operations, especially § Exceptions to the standard.
 * D. F. Schmidt (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 * OK, so first of all, never ever ever rely on MathWorld on terminological issues. NEVER EVER EVER!!!!   It's utterly unreliable on such things.
 * But my complaint is not really with the wording. I don't think that these two things (well-definedness on equivalence classes, and non-ambiguity of mathematical notation) should be treated in the same article at all. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell us how you really feel, Trovatore. lol. That source preceded my edit, and since I had no justification to remove it nor indeed any interest in touching that paragraph as it appears here, I simply left it alone. Since we're discussing article scope, I guess it sounds like you want to see well-defined go away altogether, right? I have no objection to this, which is my primary objection to the article as it exists now, and in fact any very simple overview--if any at all--should refer to order of operations as the main article to see on the topic. However, I feel that this would negate user:Rick Norwood's edits earlier today. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My edit was just to try to make the lead clearer to someone without any knowledge of mathematics. I have no problem with the section on well-defined notation either going away, or being shortened to a sentence with a reference to order of operations. Maybe something to the effect that mathematics has many conventions, such as order of operations, to make sure that all mathematical expressions are unambiguous.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

not very good
I think the current header is not very good, so I searched for better ones. Wolfram starts like this:  An expression is called "well-defined" (or "unambiguous") if its definition assigns it a unique interpretation or value. Otherwise, the expression is said to not be well-defined, or ambiguous.

I would also try to avoid "well-defined function" because a function is by definition well-defined. Admittedly, this does make the wording longer. Instead, we can say that in math, any function f must satisfy the requirement that a = b implies f(a) = f(b), and that "well-defined" is the name of this requirement. A common example is that f(a/b)=a+b does not define a function over the rational numbers because f is not well-defined, e.g. 1/2 = 2/4 but f(1/2)=3 is not f(2/4)=6. MvH (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)MvH

 * I like all of these suggestions. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MvH (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)MvH

Several algebra textbooks explain the issue using sets mod an equivalence relation. Dummit and Foote give this example: A = A1 union A2 define f: A --> {1,2} as f(a)=1if a in A1 and f(a)=2 if a in A2. What I like about Dummit/Foote's example is (a) that it is more elementary than most other examples, and (b) that it gives an example where f is well-defined, and an example where f is ambiguous. If A1 intersect A2 is empty, then f is well-defined, but if A1 intersect A2 is not empty, then f is not well-defined since f(a) is ambiguous for a is in A1 intersect A2. MvH (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)MvH

I made a number of changes. I propose to delete this part: "In set theory, functions are special cases of binary relations. For such a relation to give a well-defined function, if there exist two ordered pairs in the function with the same first coordinate ... An equivalent way of expressing the definition above ...". MvH (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)MvH.

I deleted the "In set theory, functions are special cases of binary relations...." because I think people that can read this probably already know what well-defined is. I inserted the example from Dummit/Foote because it is the easiest example I could find (other than the f(1/2) = f(0.5) example that was already in the page). MvH (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

 * I guess we have to tell people that well-defined is not the same as defined. If a mathematician uses the term "well-defined" he knows
 * that he is going to define sth, but
 * that it's not done as usual by writing down the definition, and that he has to prove sth, namely that the new object is a very specific type of relation.
 * And only after that proof the object is really defined (e.g. as a function).
 * Nobody says: "As binary relation, f is always well-defined." (Nor did I!) Instead: "The binary relation f is defined ... ." And that's it, and there is no need for the term "well-defined". (What I want to say: we as mathematicians should use the term "well-defined" only when a "definition" contains also an assertion the proof of which is required.)
 * And sorry, I do not see how the breaking down defeats the purpose of the example:
 * The breaking down of the "definition" of a function into 2 sound steps, is IMHO mathematically correct, and does not require apostrophs around "define". It could help people to understand what is going on mathematically. (See also some discussion above) --Nomen4Omen (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response. The usefulness of the Dummit/Foote example comes from its simplicity, it can explain the concept of "well-defined" to beginning undergrad students. Adding additional concepts to the example defeats that purpose.  MvH (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)MvH

Too technical in the first paragraph after the lead.
I appreciate the work of editors to make this article mathematically accurate, but the first paragraph after the lead should be written in language that it is at least possible for a non-mathematician (someone who does not already know what well-defined means) to understand. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An effort has been made to address this problem. Thank you. However, nobody who is not a mathematician an read even the first sentence of the simple example. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
Isn't the following sentence "For instance if f takes real numbers as input, and if f(0.5) does not equal f(1/2) then f is not well-defined" wrong? If f is a function on the real numbers, and I can evaluate f(1/2) at all, then that has to mean that the argument has first to be somehow convert to a real number. And presumably this would happen via division on the real numbers, with result 0.5, or not? Put another way, if you read the sentence on a degree of sloppiness so that the statement "If f takes real numbers as input and is well-defined, then f(0.5) does equal f(1/2)" is correct, then f(0.5) has to equal f(1/2) (on this given level of rigour) no matter whether it is well-defined or not.Seattle Jörg (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right: The sentence does not catch the point, although it has some similarity to Eric Weisstein's. --Nomen4Omen (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Other uses of the term
Currently this section only contains the sentence "A solution to a partial differential equation is said to be well-defined if it is determined by the boundary conditions in a continuous way as the boundary conditions are changed." There is reference to MathWorld, where not further references exist. I find the whole claim very questionable. Perhaps the author (in MathWorld) was thinking of "well-posedness in the sense of Hadamard", which is stronger than the existence and uniqueness of solutions in some given (distribution, classical, viscocity etc.) sense, which would be the correct meaning for "well-defined" in the context of solutions of PDE's. Should the whole section be removed? Lapasotka (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Well-defined expression