text:
Talk:Electrostatics

Cat
I like the picture of the cat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Scieszka (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks. To keep the picture we had to fight a battle against other editors who thought it was inappropriate. --ChetvornoTALK 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I like it, too. Out of Phase User (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it too, however, I wonder if a cat lover might think that this cat has been mistreated. This image was cropped from a larger image Cat and styrofoam – electrostatic charge (235112299).jpg.  I like this image better, since it is clear that the cat is not being confined and is free to shake off the Styrofoam peanuts. Constant314 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe crop it halfway more and put it in. The original is cropped pretty tight, just aesthetically. Out of Phase User (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The cat is here to stay. Alexceltare2 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should add an easier way to find the full image on the page, since replacing the image with a slightly less tightly cropped version seems redundant. KurthyWurthy (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Electrostatics description that charges that are at rest or "static" || Partially correct statement?
A given situation can be both electrostatic and have a constant current density. Current is the amount of charge per unit time that flows through a chosen area. Therefore moving charges but the distribution of charges would be the same at any instance of time in such a case.

I then wonder if 'at rest' is an apt description. A teaching assistant in a course of mine had wrongly assumed that electrostatics also requires the current density to be zero because of the 'static charges' description. Would like some insight from others about this.

Also, this wiki page is all over the place but the cat is amazing. Spartie19 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 * In electrostatics, charge is at rest. There are no currents. Constant314 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The source that I consulted was "Field and Wave Electromagnetics" by David K. Cheng, 2nd edition. It does support the statement and it's also mentioned further down on the wiki page. Spartie19 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In as atom the electron causes magnetic effects it is not stationary. To look at the electrical attraction between the proton and an electron as a charge at rest while ignoring the well known magnetic effects without some clarifying remark of why they can be viewed in isolation is wrong. The electron is moving quite fast no matter what frame of refence is chosen Bill field pulse (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Electrons are not part of electrostatics, so their motion is not relevant for this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconding @Johnjbarton comment. The focus of this article is supposed to just be the forces between charges and not include motion. We tried to rewrite it to be clearer, is used to be a bit chaotic (look at the versions from early in 2023). This article does not include currents or other moving charge effects, the example is just a simple one. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article defines it much clearer than previous versions, especially under "Electrostatic approximation". I think my original comment may have been a bit pedantic. Nevertheless the wording and flow of the article lends itself well to explaining the concepts and I don't think my old comment applies to this current version. Spartie19 (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To say the magnetic field due to electron motion in a rough circle is slow moving is incorrect. It changes extremely quickly hence "spin" (which is not conventional spin). Bill field pulse (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is about the classical body of knowledge known as electrostatics. It is about the theory of electrostatics.  All ordinary objects are made of jiggly parts.  We are not going to throw out all of electrostatics. We simply take "nothing is moving" as an assumption of the theory.  Real life does not have to perfectly obey the assumption for it to be useful.  That fact that all objects jiggle does not mean that the assumption that "nothing is moving" is not useful.  It is "close enough". Constant314 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn’t we say something about why one of the most dynamic situations in nature can be treated as being equal to nothing is moving? Consensus Cheat (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What situation would that be? Constant314 (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you use bing chat
 * . They agree as follows: No, an atom is not static. An atom is made of smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and neutrons form the nucleus, which is the center of the atom. The electrons orbit around the nucleus in shells, which are like invisible bubbles. The electrons are constantly spinning and moving to stay as far away from each other as possible12. Sometimes, the electrons in the outermost shells can be pushed out of their orbits by applying a force. These moving electrons are electricity2. Static electricity is a form of electricity that occurs when electrons jump from one object to another, such as when you touch a metal doorknob after walking on a carpet3. Therefore, an atom is dynamic, not static. Bill field pulse (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comments are scattered around so much that I am having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what you want to propose. Maybe you are proposing several things.  How about starting a new thread and summarize how you propose that the article should be changed. Constant314 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy the way the article is now devoted to net stationary or slow moving charges. I think the special electron proton situation did not belong, as it was before. It seems better suited to the electromagnetic field article where discussion of the whole electron motion topic is allowed. My intent is have the article make sense. Static electricity certainly fits with the original definition without clarification. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is about electrostatics. It is not about static electricity or about atoms or about electrons. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Electrons in atoms are 1% of c; even if the quarks are ignored. While Coulomb attraction is found in static cases as well, to ignore the magnetic effects without any clarifying remark is wrong.
 * Either clarification should be added or electron-proton attraction should be moved to the Electromagnetic field article where fast moving charges are being considered. Bill field pulse (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed protons and added content disclaiming quantum effects. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can some of this be added to the electromagnetic field article?Otherwise, the special conditions for assuming a steady magnetic field are an electron circling in a fixed perfect circle having a fixed "spin" effect. Bill field pulse (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the article as improved. I hope we don't revert in a few weeks as we did with the electromagnetic radiation drawing. I think the electron-proton situation deserves a place in electromagnetic field article. Bill field pulse (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please remember that exchange-correllation is only a minor (but important) term on top of the dominant VXC, and spin-orbit is some orders of magnitude smaller. I edited the article slightly so readers don't get the incorrect idea that Coulomb forced don't matter in QM. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

orders of magnitude
k = 9x10^9 N·m^2·C^−2 q1 = q2 = 1.6x10^-19 C q1 x q2 = 2.6^-38 C^2 q1 x q2 x k = 2.3x10^-28

G = 7x10⁻11 N·m^2·Kg^-2 m1 = 1.7x10^-27 Kg m2 = 9x10^-31 Kg m1 x m2 = 1.5x10^-57 m1 x m2 x G = 1.1x19^-67

(q1 x q2 x k)/(m1 x m2 x G) = 2.1x10^39 Pediadeep (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 * What we need is a reference, a source that shows this calculation is valid. Otherwise its WP:Original research.  Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This comes without reference, like it was with the claim of 36 orders of magnitude as it was before.
 * This calculation is pure simple low level mathematics combining physical constants, Coulombs law, and the law of gravity. It is trivial and stated here just for reference on its own.
 * I can understand the objection, but finding an external reference for this is (about) like finding a reference for stating that a car travelling with 100 km/h will make 28 meters in a second.
 * Sorry.
 * If I can not convince the community, we have to delete the entire statement, including the numbers. Pediadeep (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.texasgateway.org/resource/231-four-fundamental-forces Says $$10^{-38}$$ compared to strong force and electromagnetism is $$10^{-2}$$. Same on http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.htm
 * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/myths-of-physics-2-gravit_b_5718233 says the comparison typically derived by comparing forces on an electron and proton don't make sense. Or rather the entire nature of the comparison is not sensible. Force is not an independent quantity that can be measured, it always depends upon the circumstances.
 * Gleick, James. Genius: The life and science of Richard Feynman. Vintage, 1993. On page 352 says $$10^{42}$$ but its not completely clear what setup that refers to. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * texasgateway compares against the strong force, what is only of limited help here because strong force is definitifely not a classic conservative force as can seen from their statement that it has a range of 10^-15 m as compared to the range of infinity for bothe gravitation and elecro(static).
 * hyperphysics website does not answer to me, so I can not reason about.
 * huffposts article is quite a strange reasoning IMHO, and can not be taken serious.
 * Both articles just STATE what they claim, without giving references or proofs.
 * The point is, that in classical physics, neglegting quantum physics and relativity, both, gravitation and coulomb, regard the respective forces to have a strict 1/r^2 dependency, and coulomb takes additional a factor of q1xq2, where gravition has a respective factor of m1xm2.
 * And it is general consensus that both laws hold true especially in distance ranges that are considered to be accessible by experiment, say, some millimeters to billions of kilometers (of course their is no experiment prooving the validity of coulomb to such big distances).
 * Both laws are tested and verified by experiment, as it is agreed by physical community and common sense.
 * Please note that I am talking about classical physics for particles in rest.
 * We could decorate this statements about relative strength of these forces, but that would actually blurr the meaning.
 * Take it this way:
 * You have an electron at rest and a proton at rest, separated by a distance of one meter, what would the actual force(s) be. How would you calculate these? How would you measure.
 * You could take electrons and positrons, protons or antiprotons or anything else. I think electron and proton is very telling, particular in this case.
 * Of course we should compare apples with apples and nothing else, and electrons are only very very little similar to protons, as we know, but both are considered to have rest mass and charge, and the values of these masses and charges are very good understood, measured, and documented. Pediadeep (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with your reasoning. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The math is simple but the implications are purely theoretical because we are talking about things which are mathematical concepts rather than reality. For example, an electron and a proton at rest are textbook ideas. Bill field pulse (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagrgee with such statement.
 * An electron at rest is as much a textbook idea as is a car at rest. 2A02:B98:4736:AC7C:F537:BE3F:7366:C530 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out this issue 2A02. Do you agree that in an atom they cannot be at rest because the field from a Proton is actually a field made by quarks cycling at near the speed of light? So the most likely place for an electron to be at rest is in a surplus of electrons in say a metal ball which is at rest. Do you agree that the fields of all the other balanced electrons in all the atoms in the ball are in a constant state of motion due to electrons moving in their orbitals. What happens to your perfectly spread out surplus electrons as they sit in these volatile EM fields in all the atoms. surely they must react to all the vibrations and field changes all around them. I would argue strongly that you can have a large number of electrons which have a net charge which is perfectly at rest. But at the atomic level there is so much activity even in a cold hard metal ball that it is impossible to hold an individual electron still. Only for an infinitely short instant is an individual electron truly at rest. I would appreciate more from you regarding the condition you have in mind where a single electron is at rest. However, if you agree that only a large number of electrons can have a net charge which is at rest then yes we are on the same page. Bill field pulse (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Any relation?
In a recent edit a user named @Lekner added this ref: Please be aware of Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It also turns out that almost all of the contributions by @Lekner consist of additions of references to works by J. Lekner. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All reverted. A warning was left on the user's talk page. Constant314 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electrostatics


text:
User talk:Justanyone

Hi Justanyone, welcome to Wikipedia. Message for you on Talk:Electrostatic. -- Tim Starling 07:44, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Justanyone--

I liked your page on municipal government. You may not have realised that there are already pages on local government and county. I've rewritten the start of your page a bit to connect with them. Would you be able to improve the US material in local government? I've just written a bit in now, because there was nothing, but I'm only a visiting Brit, so what do I know? seglea 07:10, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just deleted the page you created at E-God. Creating nonsense like this is considered vandalism, and will always be deleted. Thank you. Graham :) 22:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jet engine image
I notice there is no license notice on this image:

which you uploaded. The copyright on the image itself suggests that you own the copyright. If this is the case, are you licensing it under GFDL? The copyright notice suggests you are not releasing it to the public domain. Placing a license notice on the page would clarify Wikipedia's legal position on using the image. —Tkinias 05:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

I replaced your JPEG version with a smaller, cleaner PNG one. If you saved your version as PNG, it might even improve slightly more. You can probably easily reduce the number of colours used to 32. Either use a tool know for compressing PNG well, or use pngcrush to squeeze out the last few bits.

Thx, --branko 21:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Doing a grand job on Jet Engine. I think Intake and Nozzle are both components. Wikiwizzy 13:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)

Images
I noticed that you contributed an image to Arc de Triomphe and several very nice images to Gallery of Arc de Triomphe photographs. You have also released this image into the public domain. Does that go for just that image, for all of the Arc de Triomphe images that you contributed, or all of the images that you contributed? If not, what licence are you releasing them under? - Didactohedron 07:33, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sources for Suppressive fire
Hello, good work on Suppressive fire, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Suppressive fire? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 03:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Apollo (programming language)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Apollo (programming language), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Apollo (programming language). Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Apollo (programming language)
I have nominated Apollo (programming language), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Apollo (programming language). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scholarship hall
I have nominated Scholarship hall, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Scholarship hall. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC) SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arc_de_triomphe_viewfromtoptowest.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arc_de_triomphe_viewfromtoptowest.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grand Barriere Bridge

The article Grand Barriere Bridge has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable bridge. No significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Saphonian

The article Saphonian has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No sources, only two external ones.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ob tund Talk 17:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Indiana U logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Indiana U logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerrymandering
Hi, Kevin. I reverted your recent edit to gerrymandering because it looked like original research, to me. If you have any reliable sources for the solution you suggested, please go ahead and reinstate your text, with appropriate citations. Thanks, Dricherby (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect:Current Ratification Status of Amendments to the United States Constitution
The page you created, Current Ratification Status of Amendments to the United States Constitution is being redirected to List of amendments to the United States Constitution as the information on the former page is presented within the latter, which is a broader article on the same subject.Drdpw (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Letter George Washington Mohammed Ben Abdallah 1 Dec 1789

A tag has been placed on Letter George Washington Mohammed Ben Abdallah 1 Dec 1789 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Letter George Washington Mohammed Ben Abdallah 1 Dec 1789 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Letter George Washington Mohammed Ben Abdallah 1 Dec 1789 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/Letter George Washington Mohammed Ben Abdallah 1 Dec 1789 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. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

American cities page
Hello, I'm just curious, what happened to your idea of making a page with all the cities in the United States? It sounds like a good idea.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎ 02:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had an large page removed, despite my hard work creating it, because it was too large. Apparently listing all this info in one place is against some guideline or another.JustAnyone (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Auto Manufacturer Social Media (December 24)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Auto_Manufacturer_Social_Media Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Snowycats was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This information should be put into existing articles (if it is notable/fits) - there is no need for a separate list of auto manufacturer social media accounts.

Snowycats (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

New message from Snowycats
Snowycats (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Auto Manufacturer Social Media concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Auto Manufacturer Social Media, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Auto Manufacturer Social Media

Hello, Justanyone. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Auto Manufacturer Social Media".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Auto Manufacturer Social Media

Hello, Justanyone. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Auto Manufacturer Social Media".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Justanyone


text:
Bali bombings

Bali bombings can refer to either of two separate incidents on the Indonesian island of Bali:
 * The 2002 Bali bombings, 12 October 2002 in the tourist district of Kuta
 * The 2005 Bali bombings, 1 October 2005 in Jimbaran Beach Resort and Kuta

title: Bali bombings


text:
User talk:Jimdunderfield

Hello Jim, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 07:58, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jimdunderfield


text:
Crotalus cerastes

Crotalus cerastes, known as the sidewinder, horned rattlesnake or sidewinder rattlesnake, is a pit viper species belonging to the genus Crotalus (the rattlesnakes), and is found in the desert regions of the Southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. Like all other pit vipers, it is venomous. Three subspecies are currently recognized.

Description
A small species, adult specimens measure between 43 and 76 cm in length. Most adults are 50 – in length. The females are larger than the males, which is unusual for this group of snakes.

Usually, 21 rows of keeled dorsal scales occur midbody. Males have 141 or fewer ventral scales; females have 144 or fewer. It is sometimes referred to as the horned rattlesnake because of the raised supraocular scales above its eyes. This adaptation may help shade the eyes or prevent sand drifting over them as the snake lies almost buried in it. As only pressure on top of the horns will cause them to fold down, it is concluded that they strike against the roof of rodent burrows to protect their eyes.

The color pattern consists of a ground color that may be cream, buff, yellowish-brown, pink, or ash gray, overlaid with 28–47 dorsal blotches subrhombic or subelliptical in shape. In the nominate subspecies, the belly is white and the proximal lobe of the rattle is brown in adults. Klauber and Neill describe the ability of this species to display different coloration depending on the temperature—a process known as metachrosis.

Common names
Common names include sidewinder, horned rattlesnake, sidewinder rattlesnake, Mojave Desert sidewinder (for C. c. cerastes), and sidewinder rattler.

Habitat
In the Southwestern United States, this species is found in the desert region of southeastern California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, and western Arizona. In northwestern Mexico, it is found in western Sonora and eastern Baja California.

Conservation status
This species is classified as least concern on the IUCN Red List (v3.1, 2001). Species are listed as such due to their wide distribution, presumed large population, or because they are unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category. The population trend was stable when assessed in 2007.

Behavior
The common name sidewinder alludes to its unusual form of locomotion, which is thought to give it traction on windblown desert sand, but this peculiar locomotor specialization is used on any substrate over which the sidewinder can move rapidly. As its body progresses over loose sand, it forms a letter J-shaped impression, with the tip of the hook pointing in the direction of travel. Sidewinding is also the primary mode of locomotion in other desert sand dwellers, such as the horned adder (Bitis caudalis) and Peringuey's adder (Bitis peringueyi), but many other snakes can assume this form of locomotion when on slick substrates (e.g., mud flats). Sidewinder rattlesnakes can use sidewinding to ascend sandy slopes by increasing the portion of the body in contact with the sand to match the reduced yielding force of the inclined sand, allowing them to ascend up to the maximum possible sand slope without slip. In cybernetics, incorporating this control scheme into a snakebot can enable the robot to replicate sidewinding movement. Activity range does not change with sex or body size.

The species is nocturnal during hot months and diurnal during the cooler months of its activity period, which is roughly from November to March (probably longer in the southern part of its range).

Juveniles use their tails to attract lizard prey, a behavior termed "caudal luring". Adults lose this behavior as they make the transition from lizard prey to their primary diet of desert rodents, birds, and other snakes. Sidewinder juveniles appear to mimic both life stages of lepidopterans in their luring motions. Their fast luring motions resemble the fluttering of a moth, and their slower tail movements resemble a caterpillar. Both movements have been observed to attract prey lizards.

Neonatal sidewinders engage in a remarkable behavioral homeothermy that has not been observed in any other type of snake. Following birth, the neonates mass together in their natal burrow. Most often, gravid females select an east-facing, small-diameter rodent burrow for giving birth. For the first week or so of their lives, neonatal sidewinders plug the entrance to this burrow during daylight hours, forming a dynamic multiple-individual mass that takes advantage of the hot exterior environment and the cool interior of the burrow to maintain an average aggregate temperature of 32 °C (the optimal temperature for shedding). The dynamic mass of neonates modifies the thermal environment at the burrow entrance such that the young can occupy a location that would ordinarily become lethally hot for an individual neonate (or even an adult). Because of the constant movements of the neonates, the aggregate assumes stable temperature properties reminiscent of a homeothermic organism (i.e., maintains tight temperature tolerance ± 2 °C).

Reproduction
Females produce up to 18 young, with an average of about 10 per litter. Like most other viperids, the young are born enveloped in thin embryonic membranes, from which they emerge shortly after being expelled from the mother. The young stay with their mother in a burrow for 7–10 days, shed for the first time, then leave their natal burrow. During this time, the mother is thought to guard and protect them from predators.

Sidewinders mature at 2–3 years of age, are capable of reproducing annually, and give birth to live young. Some females skip reproductive opportunities. Some might even skip two years if the food supply is scarce. Sidewinders mate in April through May and sometimes in fall. When the male and female mate, the male snake crawls along the female's back, rubbing her with his chin to stimulate or arouse her. The male then will wrap his tail around her tail, and then will try to bring their cloacae together. The cloaca is the posterior body opening through which snakes both excrete waste and reproduce. If the female wants to mate, she lifts her tail and allows him to mate with her. The snakes can mate for several hours, and if one of the snakes decides to move, the other is dragged along. Females might mate with several males in a season. Females give birth to five to 18 young in late summer to early fall. The young are born 6-8 inches long. The birth takes only 2–3 hours altogether. Within a few minutes of being born, the newborn sidewinder escapes from a thin, transparent membrane. The young stay at their natal burrow for 7–10 days until they shed, and then they disappear and have no future contact with their mother or their littermates. While the density of sidewinders can be up to one individual per hectare, they rarely encounter each other except during mating season.

Sidewinders have an extraordinarily accelerated lifecycle, with natural life expectancies of females of about 5 years. Males may live quite a bit longer (maximum known natural lifespan of 13 years). Sidewinders can live more than 20 years when well fed in captivity (even females). Thus, energetics apparently factor heavily into natural female mortality, whereas predation might be the primary pressure on males. In the wild, females often die of exhaustion after giving birth, but the lives of sidewinders are also cut short by predation, diseases, and vehicle encounters.

Venom
These snakes are venomous, but possess a weaker venom than many other rattlesnakes. This, together with the smaller size of their venom glands, makes them less dangerous than their larger relatives. Regardless, any rattlesnake bite can be fatal and should be taken seriously and medical attention sought immediately.

Norris (2004) lists these venom yields: 33 mg average and 63 mg maximum (Klauber, 1956), and 30 mg average and 80 mg maximum (Glenn & Straight, 1982). Brown (1973) gives a venom yield of 33 mg (Klauber, 1956) and values for mice of 2.6 mg/kg IV, 3.0, 4.0, 2.3 mg/kg IP and 5.5 mg/kg SC for toxicity. With these figures, Brown calculated that the LD50 for an adult human being weighing 70 kg would be 385 mg (SC).

Envenomation can cause pain, swelling, hemorrhagic bleb formation, and ecchymosis (i.e., bruising). Swelling, while not particularly severe, occasionally may involve entire limbs and the trunk. Envenomation's systemic symptoms include nausea, dizziness, chills, coagulopathy (blood disorders), and shock. Klauber (1997) includes an account of a man who had been bitten on the first joint of the index finger of the right hand, with only a single fang penetrating. Although the bite was described as no more painful than a pin prick, a doctor was seen within about 25 minutes, and 10 cm3 of antivenin were administered. Within 2.5 hours, his entire arm was swollen and the pain was severe, "as if the arm were soaked in a bucket of boiling oil."

Ovine-derived antivenom, CroFab, for North American pit viper envenomation, has been widely available since 2001. Consultation with a local expert or regional poison control center should be obtained before administering antivenom. The previous antivenin (ACP) is no longer manufactured.

title: Crotalus cerastes


text:
Talk:Masonic lodge

Comments
There were several erroneous statemens made, that I corrected. Freemasonry originally existed in Scotland, not England, for example. Also, originally there was only one degree to Freemasonry. By 1717, two degrees were in use, and sometime before 1725 the third degree was added. This is well established. Another thing, in NO jurisdiction is the blue lodge part of the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite is a totally separate organization. You said you are a Mason; so am I. Where do you hail from?

Justin 08:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

kcylsnavS 00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In some jurisdictions, there are lodges which are part of the Scottish Rite. This is well known.

Some changes, and proposal to relocate some info
I'm still rather confused by the information on this page. Mainly I just don't know whether things don't seem "right" to me because they're inaccurate, or if it's because other parts of the world do things differently. I cleaned up as best I could, but I may have inadvertently removed or changed information relating to U.K. or other non-U.S. practice; if so, my apologies.

It seems to me that a great deal of the information on this page would be better-suited to other pages anyway. Grand Lodge already contains information on the processes of governance and recognition. The three degrees and the landmarks are really about Freemasonry as a whole and there isn't a good reason to tuck them away under "Lodge" in particular, is there? If they're not already discussed on Freemasonry, they should either be moved there or should have their own articles.

I think ideally this particular article would be very short (a definition of what a Lodge is, its function, its place in the hierarchy of governance, relevant vocabulary) and most of the substantive content about Freemasonry would be elsewhere (wikilinked from here, of course). Would anyone object if I pursued this approach? —Bsktcase 17:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Bsktcase. In addition, I would include the distinction that is made between the word "Lodge" and the Lodge Building or Temple that starts the Freemasonry page. Blueboar 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, the degree thing is 100% a Freemasonry page thing, as is a lot of the content here. As said above, the title here is "Masonic Lodge", which, with wiktionary, is no more than a definition entry. It'd be a stretch to make it more.
 * With this page's existance, text exists that is 100% topic of freemasonry but is not as scrutinized, because it is here.
 * The only reason, in my opinion, this might ever be deserving of a page outside of freemasonry or an wiktionary entry is because of the as-above-descrbed distinction of "meeting in a Lodge" and "meeting as a Lodge".

Grye 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

TBH, not sure why this is here....
There's nothing in here that we don't have in the main article or can't add. Is there a reason to keep this article? MSJapan 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that having this article is useful, it can be used to go into a little more depth on how an individual lodge is organised which is inappropriate in the main article. Could probably afford to slim down the Lodge section of the main article.  This one probably needs more detail on officers and could lose the appendant bodies section.ALR 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I don't think it has a purpose, other than to be an alternate platform for alternative opinions. nearly everything here is redundant, when looking at Freemasonry. Plus, I'm not at all a fan of these alternate Masonic articles, as they are ill-watched. Grye 09:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Alternative opinions? The main article is already pretty dense, and as has been identified elsewhere over the recommended length.  I'd move towards more sub-articles rather than less.  Agree there is some duplication though.ALR 09:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with sub-articles is, the main article is closely watched; sub-articles can appear & stay fairly unwatched for a while. Edit & rv wars can wage on & on, where they'd be but a moment's notice on the main article. I've experienced this issue first-hand, & have had hours upon hours taken out of my life by it. I'd rather like to see any sub-articles sunstantially & directly linked from the main article, is all. Otherwise, I agree, it is recognized that this article is large & could use sub-division. Either replicated info should be taken out of the main article, or this article merged with the main. Grye 09:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll add to what Grye said here. I think the main article is a little long (it's 19 pages printed) and could probably do with some delegating. I understand the concerns about the watch issues - I just think that might be the price we pay to make it more readable and understandable. Just my $0.02. Bdevoe 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Officers
We need to get a hold on this. What's in the article now is by no means a definitive explaination of a Lodge officer structure. For example, in the Grand Lodge of Idaho the progressive elected officers in order of importance are: Worshipful Master, Senior Warden, Junior Warden, Senior Deacon, Junior Deacon, Senior Steward and Junior Steward. By custom, a brother who is elected Junior Steward may reasonably expect to be Worshipful Master six terms later by serving one term in each the other offices in order.

The Secretary and Treasurer are not considered officers in the line. Because of the nature of those jobs a brother may - and probably will - hold one of these offices for years at a time (having a new Secretary and Treasurer every year would result in total chaos in most Lodges I know of). Tyler is not considered a line office, either; it's more of an emeritus officer position than anything else.

In the Grand Lodge of Idaho, Organist is only an officer at the Grand Lodge level. There is no Inner Guard (the Junior Deacon fulfills that role) or Director of Ceremonies, assistant or otherwise. There is, however, a Chaplain and a Marshal, neither of which are currently mentioned.

The point is we could probably have 10 different editors in 10 different jurisdictions write 10 different accounts of officer structure. --Faustus37 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Didn't see this until after I'd been doing some tinkering with the section. This mornings was a quick flash whilst I was thinking about the subject, I think I've squared it away a little better now.  I've tried to explain progressive offices, which are pretty standard, and made clear the continuity offices.  It should be straightforward enough to add a comment at the office where there are differences.  Agree it could get a bit lengthy, in Mother Kilwinning we have 20 progressive offices so it takes a brother some 20 or so years to get to the chair.  I didn't include all of them!ALR 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * A few caveats I addressed:

 * In some Grand Lodges (such as mine) the Junior Deacon and the Outer Guard are one and the same.

 * [Sorry - don't you mean, Inner Guard?Nuttyskin 03:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)]

 * Some Grand Lodges necessarily have two Stewards. Others apparently allow more in certain situations.
 * Tyler is not a progressive line office in many jurisdictions, particularly in the US.
 * Appointed officers can, but don't necessarily have to be, Past Masters in all jurisdictions.
 * Director of Ceremonies I think belongs in the "present in some Grand Lodges but not others" category. I put Marshal there too.

I think we can agree that most Blue Lodges have similar offices when it comes to Worshipful Master, Senior and Junior Wardens, and Senior and Junior Deacons. Beyond that it gets messy. --Faustus37 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * GL of Colorado USA does not have Almoner nor Charity Steward, at a glance. It's gonna haveta change Grye 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Both of them fall under a heading of A number of other offices do not exist in all jurisdictions, which looks pretty clear to me that there are going to be some jurisdictions they don't exist in. Given that there are lots of GLs, there are bound to be a lot of differences.  And since I am both ADC and Charity Steward in my Mother Lodge, and Tyler in another....ALR 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the "Junior Past Master" to the officers section. It's a very common title used in Colorado - don't know if it's shared outside of that, but as people may run into a Mason who is a "Junior Past Master", I thought it might be a good addition. Bdevoe 18:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For the Inner Guard, is that being associated with the officer assigned to inform the Tyler/Tiler that the WM has opened/closed lodge (i.e., the guard the lodge side of the door)? Or is that the door to the preparation room (our SD handles that role). Just curious. :) Bdevoe 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Inner guard is inside the closed door of the lodge. The preparation is carried out by the Tyler. It may be a layout thing, in all three of my English Craft Lodges we only have one door, no distinct adjacent, in Scotland the Temple has two doors, one double for entry and exit and one to the side used when we're Tyled for latecomers, visitors and the candidate. The IG deals with that from inside the temple.ALR 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * In our lodge we have two sets of doors - both double - one to the right of the JD where (outside) the Tyler/Tiler is stationed and the other to the left of the SW where we receive candidates and initiates. The SD is responsible for alarms "at the door to the preparation room" (where the candidates and initiates come) and the JD guards the main door from the inside. We generally use main set of doors for everything (late-arriving brethren, visitors, etc.). I've not been in many other lodges, but they've all had similar layouts. I'll have to visit on in Britain while I'm there in a couple of weeks. :) Bdevoe 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * In terms of visiting, have you asked your Grand Sec to communicate with ours? You'll have difficulty just appearing, at least in England, since most lodges have to book beforehand.  If you know where you'll be then there are a couple of places to ask about meetings.ALR 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Unlike in the US, where generally one can show up at the door of any lodge with a dues card (to verify that you are in good standing) and be admitted... in other jurisdictions one needs to do more to visit. First you should apply to you Grand Lodge for a "Masonic Passport" (a fancy piece of paper certifying that you are a brother in good standing), and ask them to contact the Grand Lodge of the Jurisdiction where you are visiting.  That Grand Lodge will then give you contact info for lodges that meet in the area you are visiting (and will assist you in contacting the lodge). You then need to contact the lodge and ask if you can attend.   Actually, even in the US it is often a good idea (not to mention common courtesy) to contact the local lodge and ask if you can visit.  (Don't be turned off if the answer is no... they may be planning to conduct some piece of personal lodge business that would be awkward to do if a visitor were in attendance) Also, by calling ahead the lodge can account for you in their catering numbers, and can inform you of things like dress code.  Forwarning often saves everyone from potential embarassment. Blueboar 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * In theory, in the US if you are travelling outside your GL's Jurisdiction, and wish to visit, you need to contact your home GL, have them contact the foreign GL, who then contacts a lodge local to where you will be travelling, and notifies them you may visit.--Vidkun 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I appreciate all of the info. I was thinking more of an a "touristy" mode than actually attending a regular meeting. I'm traveling with family, so it would be a bit uncouth to just jet out one evening for a good time with brothers. :) That being said, this is all excellent advice. I have done so previously in my lodge visits (Alexandria Lodge in Virginia, for instance). Any brother should work through their secretaries to arrange meetings like this (at least get contact info). Many lodges have websites that can be used to contact another lodge, but there may issues of "regularity" which should be avoided if possible. Again - thanks for the advice. :)

 * Ah, if you're in London there are regular tours round Grand Lodge, or indeed you could wander around the museum and library.Well worth the visit. If you're in Scotland similarly Grand Lodge is worth visiting.  Feel free to drop me an email through the link o my user page for more information if you want.ALR 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Section to develop
Hey i live in a masonic Lodge (The building) and there a a few mysteries that i was hoping this article would solve. e.g: Why are there 4 red lights in the floor and why is there a coffin shaped box at the front of the temple? Could we have a section called "Common Features of a Masonic Lodge"? or is there an article on the structure of masonic lodges?Paige Master 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt the veracity of the claim, and in any case, you'd be better off asking somebody there. There are very few constants in Lodges, which is why there is no section on them. MSJapan 18:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, i live in the building(ex-lodge) so who am i going to ask, myself? And yeah there are lights in the floor and a sunken in coffin at the front of the temple room. I would think that some of these features would be shared with other places, as in 4 red dots or, 4 torches on the walls ect.Paige Master 06:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then you don't live in an active Lodge, which is not what your original statement led me to believe, and as for what's in it, I've got no idea what you're talking about, so no, they aren't shared. MSJapan 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To a large extent it would depend on what orders worked in the temple, for example my craft lodge shares a temple with about 6 other orders. I can imagine contexts for a coffin but the four lights don't ring a bell.  In any case, as MSJ says, there is little commonality so it would have the potential to become one of those interminable lists of exceptions.ALR 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he lives in a formar Odd Fellows lodge building- I am not familiar with the ritual but I know a coffin plays an important part in the initiation. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows is often supposed to be a part of Freemasonry.Saxophobia 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not. But it's a reasonable assessment, it may be a former Oddfellows building.ALR 23:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for info
I recently started the Wikipedia article Royal Masonic School and I collect RMIG Steward medals/badges. I am however unclear as to who these jewels would have origionally been given to. From reading this article I believe they were given to Charity Stewards - Responsible for managing and co-ordinating the collection of charity monies from within the membership of the lodge. Does this sound right and does anyone know approx how many would have been given each year. Thanks Agnellous 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The RMS article is interesting, thanks for starting that. The Jewels are classed as Charity Jewels and would be purchased by Masons who had donated a required sum to one of the Festival Appeals for the RMIG, and the various other charities.  A Charity Steward would normally co-ordinate and track the amount donated and advise the brother in question that he was entitled to purchase the Jewel, the purchase sum also going into the charity.  Some will have bars which were subsequently awarded for reaching certain trigger points.
 * Jewels of the Craft, here, is a good source of info on these kind of things, as is Quatuor Coronati Correspondence Circle, based in Grand Lodge. I'm making the assumption that you are a former pupil of the School, so they'd be pretty receptive to any questions and have access to past issues of the transactions which will have articles on the subject.
 * Hope that helps a bit.
 * ALR 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Lodges
We recently had a "Masonic Education" section at our regular meeting and the topic turned to "why are lodges called 'Blue Lodges'". After some interesting theories (stonemasons used a blue flag to identify themselves when they traveled to avoid confrontations, etc.), the issue came up that Scottish Rite has 'Red Lodges', which are not the traditional (York Rite) Blue Lodges. Are Red Lodges common anywhere other than the US? I think they're mostly located in the Southern US (but claim no extraordinary knowledge on the subject). Thoughts as to whether we should discuss this in the article? Bdevoe 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Blue lodge appears to be an Americanism, elsewhere it's Craft. I have heard of the Royal Arch being called a Red Lodge although my main recollection is from a book of Masonic inspired literature and humour written in the 30s, and published as part of a fundraising effort for the Temple in Dundee.
 * Notwithstanding that, in the 18th degree of A&AR there are three chambers one of which is known as the Red Chamber.
 * Given the absence of any sensible information I'd be cautious about discussing it. The various editors have been quite careful about conflating A&AR and craft in the various articles that we have, mainly because the SJ view isn't common elsewhere and the Craft and SR are distinct..
 * ALR 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, one has to be careful about making sweaping statements... My lodge (The Holland Lodge, No. 8 in NY) has a dispensation to use orange bordered aprons and regalia, as it was founded by dutch speaking New Yorkers, (the orange color is in honor of the House of Orange) and one should be careful NOT to call it an "Orange Lodge" (which has very different connotations). We are a blue lodge that simply uses a "unique shade of blue".

 * I can understand the distinction :)
 * Most Scots Lodges have their own regalia, anything from tartan through red, blue, purple and various others. My Lodge in Scotland wears green, the same colour as that used by Provincial Grand Lodges and Grand Lodge.  My fathers Lodge, in Glasgow, wore a blue apron a similar shade to that used by Provincial GLs in England.  No linkage though.
 * Mind you, in Scotland we don't wear our dress aprons, we all use a plain white apron for most meetings, because we're all equal in the craft. We do wear them for visiting though or the installation meeting.  I thought that most US lodges didn't use the dress apron at all between receiving it at ones raising and on being elevated to the Grand Lodge Above?
 * ALR 21:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Plain aprons are provided at the meeting, though most Lodges have a distinctive set of officers' aprons and collars, which is what I think BB is talking about. If not, I might have to wander over there just so I can tell people that ornage is blue. MSJapan 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In Colorado, almost everyone uses plain white aprons (due to the EA discussion) - Past Masters can wear ones with a gold square and compasses on a circular blue field. Our GL has specially embroidered ones. When we receive visitors at the annual GL meetings it's always interesting to see the different aprons (we occasionally get visitors from Canada and Europe).
 * What I was getting at with the "red lodge" was that we mention "blue lodge" in reference to the craft lodges in the US, but I do know that some lodges (particularly in the south) aren't Blue - they're called "red lodges" to differentiate them from the York Rite "blue lodges". Readers in some of the Southern Jurisdiction areas may not know what a blue lodge is. I don't know if anyone who's currently contributing is from that area of the US and can speak definitively on the topic. Bdevoe 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

kcylsnavS 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * MSJ... you would definitely find a visit to Holland very colorful... all brethren of the lodge are provided with orange bordered aprons (Officer aprons are the same, but with added frills and some gold trim... PMs are given a fancier version of the officer's apron, with a Master's square embroydered on it). Add in the fact that one of the other Lodges in the district uses red, and the GL types use purple... and it can be a bit of an eye strain! :>) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Do descendants of William, Prince of Orange get to wear completely orange aprons? (Just kidding!)

There are SOME (oh noes, weasel word!!!) Craft Lodges in Louisiana, under the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, that use a form of the Scottish Rite Craft degrees. One needs to remember: outside of the US, Scottish Rite isn't the same sort of organisation - it is a type of Masonic Rite that DOES have rituals for 1-3 degrees ... as well as 4-33. Lodges in the US which use that Rite's Craft degrees are called Red Lodges, although I do not, at this time, have a citation. Additionally, according to this page Red Lodge is the term used in Prince Hall Affiliated York Rite Royal Arch Chapters:  in the Red Lodge, or the Chapter of Royal Arch Masons.  They then go on to call the Council of Royal and Select Masters, or Cryptic Rite, the Purple Lodge. --Vidkun 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now I am really confused. I was told by a Mason that the York Rite IS the Red Lodge. Are Red Lodges within the Scottish Rite or is it another name for the York Rite? LAWinans (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Neither, and both - which means you're going to stay confused. Within some groups (from my memory, specifically Prince Hall Affiliation) the Chapter Degrees (to Royal Arch) are considered the "Red Degrees" or "Red House", but it's an idiomatic usage.  Also, within some groups, Red Lodge is used to denote those Craft Lodges working the Scottish Rite (or French Rite, or Rectified Scottish Rite) 1-3 degrees, as opposed to "Blue Lodges" which work the so-called "York" degrees which are really a modified Preston-Webb ritual.--Vidkun (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More Images
For what it's worth, here is another image which can eventually be used in the article. Fred Hsu 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lodge Officers Again - new article
I'm aware that this is a big change - but if nobody likes it, we can always agree to revert! The officers section of this article has always been a bit piecemeal, and in need of sorting out, despite several good efforts. For a while I've felt that a new main article was required for Lodge Officers, and a couple of days ago MSJapan encouraged me to finish the article - on which I started work just after Christmas. I've studied all the articles and sections of articles which address lodge officer roles, and I've tried to include everyone's ideas. If I've missed yours, SORRY, but you can always start editing the new article! I've included a table which may help clarify the overview, and that categorises the offices in the subsection write-ups below. I hope people like it - but if not, please tell me! Timothy Titus 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lodges vs. Halls
If a Masonic Lodge is a group of people rather than a building, why are all the photos in this article of buildings? Perhaps we need a separate Masonic hall article to cover the buildings specifically. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a "Lodge" and a "Lodge building". Furthermore, considering that every building is different in some respect, that article is an unnecessary impossibility. MSJapan (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Masonic buildings or something similar? As it stands now, however, having an article about groups of people that is only illustrated with pictures of buildings is confusing. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement
"...but is subject to its direction only in enforcing the published Constitution of the jurisdiction." This statement may be true somewhere but is definitely not true in the U.S. where lodges are definitely subject to the direction, rules, laws, etc., of their grand lodge. kcylsnavS 11:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for A-Class status
Perhaps this is just an exercise for the group, but we need to be more pro-active. I therefore propose this article be elevated to A-Class status per the standards discussed at WP:WikiProject_Freemasonry/Assessment. RiverStyx23 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. Not a proper noun; the generic name; Naming conventions (capitalization).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Masonic Lodge → Masonic lodge – Following on from the consensus at Talk:Research lodge, I think this article should also be decapitalised per WP:NCCAPS as it is a generic term. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom —Мандичка YO 😜 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for above stated reasons. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Generic name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 * The above move slipped under the radar (it would have been nice if notice had been given at the Freemasonry project).... and I think it needs further discussion. While the word "lodge" on its own can be generic... The term "Masonic Lodge" is a two word proper noun, where both words are almost always capitalized. I would say it is closer to "Grand Lodge" (which is always capitalized) than it is to "research lodge". Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why it's a proper name? Since every masonic lodge is called a masonic lodge how is this not a generic name? It doesn't apply to a specific organisation. It sounds a bit like Freemasons arguing they should be a special case with very little basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not arguing that Freemasonry is a special case... but fraternities that use the word "Lodge" may be... in fraternalism, capitalization often is used to distinguish what exactly you are referring to. For example, an "Elk" is a member of the Fraternal order while an "elk" is an animal... a Mason is a member a fraternity while a mason builds a wall.  (the last example goes for adjectival forms as well... the capitalized "Masonic" refers to things related to Freemasonry, while the non-capitalized "masonic" refers to things related to stone or brick masonry).
 * In the case of "Lodge" and "lodge"... capitalization is used to distinguish the entity (both its members and its meetings) from the building in which they meet. So... for example, if you say "I think we need to clean up the lodge", you are saying that the building is messy and needs cleaning. If, on the other hand, you say, "I think we need to clean up the Lodge" you are saying that there is something wrong with the membership (perhaps we are letting in people that shouldn't be Masons).
 * The topic of this article is not about Masonic buildings (for that topic, see our Masonic Temple article, which uses an alternative name)... it is about the entities. So... the capitalized word "Lodge" should be used.  In this context the entire phrase "Masonic Lodge" is used a proper name (as would "Elks Lodge" or "Oddfellows Lodge"). Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 * To avoid duplication, see Talk:Masonic Lodge Officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Take a look at the following n-gram search: here we can see that the capitalized version is actually more common than the non-captialized version.
 * The same is true for other fraternal orders (see: here and here)... so this is not unique to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the premise of this (old) post-RM discussion is false. The RM discussion was actually notifified to the project at the outset. See WT:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 7. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Shift of focus?
I note that a lot of the information presented in this article is already covered by our article on Freemasonry (which I think is appropriate) ... this strikes me as being unnecessarily duplicative.

I also note that our article on Grand Lodge treats the topic generically ... discussing "Grand Lodges" as a concept in fraternalism... something that is common to many fraternal orders (although, looking at the article, it does focus heavily on Freemasonry... perhaps overly so). In any case, I am wondering if we shouldn't do the same with "Lodges"? Shift the focus away from Masonic Lodges in specific, and discuss the topic of fraternal "Lodges" generically ... perhaps re-naming the article Lodge (fraternal order) or something similar. thoughts?

 * I see your point, it's a bit of a non-article at the moment. I think the route you are proposing ought to start with writing a general article, then starting a merge discussion. I would much rather retain the current article with a view to expanding it into a discussion of the various forms of masonic lodge, and its importance in early catechisms. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Various forms? importance in early catechims?  what ever are you on about? Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the historical sense as explained in early rituals, I think. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As in: "The form of a Lodge is an oblong..."? Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As in the long, thin, early continental lodges v the more regular rectangles of the "regulars", the Egyptian lodges, in and outside Memphis-Misraim, and the origins of the three traditions. The early catechisms have interesting questions about the lodge ("where is the key of the lodge" etc) and some, enigmatically, give its ideal location as well away from other human habitation when we know they met in towns and cities. We haven't scratched the surface. If anything, I'd favour a merge with Masonic Lodge Officers, dealing with the whole lot in a big, decent article rather than two scraps. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Original research? Or are there really enough reliable secondary sources that go into depth about what you are thinking about?  In any case... I like your idea of starting a Lodge (fraternal societies) article first, and then merging. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Description of lodges isn't a sin. Still looking for a comparison to include. Early catechisms are extensively discussed by both Stevenson and Cooper, so not a problem. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like an awfully obscure topic to me... I would have to see a draft to know if what you had in mind is really notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (or not)... however, assuming it is, I am not sure such an article would be appropriately entitled "Masonic lodge". It seems to be too narrow in focus for that.  Suggest you draft the article, and then we can see if the title fits (or if there is a better title). Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In broad brush terms we're talking about the development of the Masonic lodge in the 17th and 18th centuries. I'd say that was pretty essential stuff, and properly belongs in this article. I'll work up a preliminary paragraph or two when the festivities have subsided. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would put that in the History of Freemasonry article... which I would love to see expanded and broken up into sub-articles.  In any case... have a happy festivities. Blueboar (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think one of the sub-articles would have to be the history of the lodge. I can only agree that History of Freemasonry is too long already, and the detail needs spread to other articles. A cool Yule to you too bro, and best wishes for the coming year.
 * Obviously, we can't determine where the material would best go until we see it... so, suggest you write up an initial draft in your user space, and we can discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation
The lead paragraph of this article is stolen from The Esoteric Codex: Freemasonry by Adam Prinkleton, chapter 36. I don't yet know how much of the rest of the material is suspect, but it clearly needs addressed. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Other way around, actually. The book is dated October 2015 and claims it collects curated articles. MSJapan (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words... Prinkleton copied Wikipedia, not the other way around? In which case, there is no copyright violation... just a case poor scholarship on the part of Mr. Prinkleton.  Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, although if the attribution is missing, Prinkleton has committed the violation. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masonic lodge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170303125248/https://grandstewards.org/About to https://grandstewards.org/About

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Masonic lodge


text:
Methylisothiazolinone

Methylisothiazolinone, MIT, or MI, is the organic compound with the formula S(CH)2C(O)NCH3. It is a white solid. Isothiazolinones, a class of heterocycles, are used as biocides in numerous personal care products and other industrial applications. MIT and related compounds have attracted much attention for their allergenic properties, e.g. contact dermatitis.

Preparation
It is prepared by cyclization of cis-N-methyl-3-thiocyanoacrylamide:

Applications
Methylisothiazolinone is used for controlling microbial growth in water-containing solutions. It is typically used in a formulation with 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (CMIT), in a 3:1 mixture (CMIT:MIT) sold commercially as Kathon. Kathon is supplied to manufacturers as a concentrated stock solution containing from 1.5 to 15% of CMIT/MIT. Kathon also has been used to control slime in the manufacture of paper products that contact food. In addition, this product serves as an antimicrobial agent in latex adhesives and in paper coatings that also contact food.

Hazards
MIT is allergenic and cytotoxic, and this has led to some concern over its use. A report released by the European Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-food Products Intended for Consumers (SCCNFP) in 2003 also concluded that insufficient information was available to allow for an adequate risk assessment analysis of MIT.

Rising reports of consumer impact led to new research, including a report released in 2014 by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety which reported: "The dramatic rise in the rates of reported cases of contact allergy to MI, as detected by diagnostic patch tests, is unprecedented in Europe; there have been repeated warnings about the rise. The increase is primarily caused by increasing consumer exposure to MI from cosmetic products; exposures to MI in household products, paints and in the occupational setting also need to be considered. The delay in re-evaluation of the safety of MI in cosmetic products is of concern to the SCCS; it has adversely affected consumer safety."

The American Contact Dermatitis Society named methylisothiazolinone “contact allergen of the year” in 2013. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group found that methylisothiazolinone caused 10.9% positive reactions, being the third most common contact allergen in patch test results which surveyed close to 5000 contact dermatitis patients. Additionally, new research into cross reactivity of MIT-sensitized patients to variants benzisothiazolinone and octylisothiazolinone have found that reactions may occur if present in sufficient amounts.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency has a 1998 data sheet on methylisothiazolinone in their Pesticides section which reads in part "Human Health Assessment: Toxicity: In studies using laboratory animals, methylisothiazolinone has been shown to be of moderate acute toxicity by the oral and inhalation routes. It is highly acutely toxic when applied dermally or to the eye and is considered to be corrosive."

Regulation
In 2014, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety further issued a voluntary ban on the MCI/MI mixture from leave-on products such as body creams. The measure applied for products placed on the market after 16 July 2015." Shortly thereafter, Canada moved to adopt similar measures in its Cosmetic Ingredients Hotlist.

Based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) of 2013, Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1198 of 22 July 2016 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council on cosmetic products banned the use of methylisothiazolinone in leave-on products (skin creams and lotions) effective 12 February 2017 and limited it to 0.01% in rinse-off products (e.g. shampoo). Effective 27 January 2018 (placing on the market), the maximum concentration in rinse-off products was reduced to 0.0015%.

title: Methylisothiazolinone


text:
List of non-governmental organizations in Sweden

Like most other countries, Sweden is home to a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Among those with international reach are the Nobel Foundation and the Olof Palme International Center.

Business and industry

 * Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv)
 * Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations (SACO)
 * Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO)
 * Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SIF)
 * Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO)
 * Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden (SAC)

Defence

 * Society and Defence (Folk och Försvar)

Think tanks

 * Timbro
 * Agora
 * Eudoxa

Foundations

 * Nobel Foundation (Nobelstiftelsen)

Other

 * Olof Palme International Center
 * Piratbyrån
 * SVEROK
 * Swedish Federation of Young Musicians
 * Tolkien Society of Sweden


text:
Penny Singleton

Penny Singleton (born Mariana Dorothy McNulty, September 15, 1908 – November 12, 2003) was an American actress and labor leader. During her 6 decade career on stage, screen, radio and television, Singleton appeared as the comic-strip heroine Blondie Bumstead in a series of 28 motion pictures from 1938 until 1950 and the popular Blondie radio program from 1939 until 1950. Singleton also provided the voice of Jane Jetson in the animated series The Jetsons from 1962 to 1963.

Behind the scenes, Singleton was the first woman to serve as president of an AFL-CIO union, and served two terms as president of the American Guild of Variety Artists. She testified before a Senate subcommittee in 1962 on the union's treatment of women variety workers, and led a strike of the Radio City Rockettes in 1967.

Early life
Singleton was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She began performing professionally as a child, and only completed sixth grade in her schooling.

Career
Singleton sang at a silent movie theater, and toured in vaudeville as part of an act called "The Kiddie Kabaret". She sang and danced with Milton Berle, whom she had known since childhood, and actor Gene Raymond, and appeared on Broadway in Jack Benny's The Great Temptations. She also toured nightclubs and in roadshows of plays and musicals.

Singleton appeared as a brunette nightclub singer in After the Thin Man, credited as Dorothy McNulty. She was cast opposite Arthur Lake (as Dagwood) in the feature film Blondie in 1938, based on the comic strip by Chic Young. They repeated their roles on a radio comedy beginning in 1939 and in guest appearances on other radio shows. As Dagwood and Blondie Bumstead, they proved so popular that a succession of 27 sequels was made from 1938 until 1950, with the radio show ending the same year. Singleton's husband Robert Sparks produced 12 of these sequels. Also in 1950, she had her own program, The Penny Singleton Show, on NBC radio.

Singleton held top billing in Go West, Young Lady (1941), over her male co-star, Glenn Ford. Only two other female stars (Dorothy Page and Jane Frazee) were top-billed singing cowgirls at the time.

One of her last live-action roles was as Jessica Fletcher's Aunt Mildred on the Murder, She Wrote episode The Perfect Foil (1986).

She provided the voice of Jane Jetson in the 1962–63 animated series, The Jetsons. From 1985 to 1987, Singleton reprised her role for the new seasons of The Jetsons. She also played Jane in The Jetsons Meet the Flintstones (1987), Rockin' with Judy Jetson (1988) and Jetsons: The Movie (1990).

Labor activism
Singleton was active in union affairs as a vocal member of the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA). She was elected president of the AGVA in 1958–1959, and again in 1969–1970. Her union membership was suspended in 1962, when she was accused of slandering some of the union's officers, and she countersued. Singleton was reinstated as a union member in 1963, after the dispute reached a legal settlement.

She testified on the exploitation of women in variety work, and the union's shortcomings in representing those workers, before a United States Senate subcommittee in 1962. "I charge here and now that the exotic and strip artists have been abandoned and made outcasts by the very union to which they pay dues for representation and protection," she announced to the subcommittee.

In 1967, she led a successful month-long strike by the Radio City Rockettes for better working conditions. During her presidency, she led negotiations with the Disney on Parade show (NAWAL Productions) during a variety artists' strike in the 1970 Disney on Parade (DOP) show – a joint venture between Walt Disney and NBC, and one of the most successful touring arena shows ever, with tours all over the world. With over 100 cast members, she led a slowdown in the performance in Hershey, Pennsylvania, followed by a walkout in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, and a settlement the next week in Houston, Texas. The issue was purportedly that the 16" support stage used by the dancers was cut from the show to reduce trucking costs. The stage, which was laid down on the arena floor without the support, caused the dancers to reportedly get shin splints. The strike was settled and the show went on in Houston.

Personal life and legacy
Singleton married Laurence Scroggs Singleton, a dentist, in 1937; they divorced in 1939, although she kept his surname. She remarried, to Robert C. Sparks, a Marine Corps officer and film producer, in 1941. They remained wed until his death in 1963. Singleton had two daughters, Dorothy and Susan. She was a lifelong Catholic.

Singleton was a charter member of the Hollywood Republican Committee and campaigned for Republicans Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 and Richard Nixon in 1960.

For her contributions to both radio and the motion-picture industry, in 1960, Singleton was honored with two stars during her induction to the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Her star for radio is located at 6811 Hollywood Boulevard, and her film star is at 6547 Hollywood Boulevard.

Death
On November 12, 2003, Singleton died at the age of 95 of respiratory failure in Sherman Oaks, California. She was buried at San Fernando Cemetery.

Features
Credited as Dorothy McNulty 1930–1937
 * Belle of the Night (1930)
 * Good News (1930) - Flo
 * Love in the Rough (1930) - Virgie
 * Howd' Ya Like That? (1934) - Dancer
 * After the Thin Man (1936) - Polly Byrnes
 * Vogues of 1938 (1937) - Miss Violet Sims
 * Sea Racketeers (1937) - Florence Riley
 * Swing Your Lady (1938) - Cookie
 * Outside of Paradise (1938) - Colleen Kerrigan
 * Men Are Such Fools (1938) - Nancy
 * Racket Busters (1938) - Gladys Christie
 * Mr. Chump (1938) - Betty Martin
 * Boy Meets Girl (1938) - Peggy
 * Secrets of an Actress (1938) - Miss Reid
 * Garden of the Moon (1938) - Miss Calder
 * The Mad Miss Manton (1938) - Frances Glesk
 * Hard to Get (1938) - Hattie
 * Blondie (1938) - Blondie
 * Blondie Meets the Boss (1939) - Blondie
 * Blondie Takes a Vacation (1939) - Blondie
 * Blondie Brings Up Baby (1939) - Blondie
 * Blondie on a Budget (1940) - Blondie
 * Blondie Has Servant Trouble (1940) - Blondie
 * Blondie Plays Cupid (1940) - Blondie
 * Blondie Goes Latin (1941) - Blondie
 * Blondie in Society (1941) - Blondie
 * Go West, Young Lady (1941) - Belinda Pendergast
 * Blondie Goes to College (1942) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Blessed Event (1942) - Blondie
 * Blondie for Victory (1942) - Blondie
 * It's a Great Life (1943) - Blondie
 * Footlight Glamour (1943) - Blondie
 * Leave It to Blondie (1945) - Blondie
 * Life with Blondie (1945) - Blondie
 * Young Widow (1946) - Peg Martin
 * Blondie's Lucky Day (1946) - Blondie
 * Blondie Knows Best (1946) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Big Moment (1947) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Holiday (1947) - Blondie
 * Blondie in the Dough (1947) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Anniversary (1947) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Reward (1948) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Secret (1948) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Big Deal (1949) - Blondie
 * Blondie Hits the Jackpot (1949) - Blondie
 * Blondie's Hero (1950) - Blondie
 * Beware of Blondie (1950) - Blondie
 * The Best Man (scenes deleted, 1964)
 * Jetsons: The Movie (1990) - Jane Jetson (voice)

Sourced, to 1964, from TV Guide

Short subjects

 * Belle of the Night (1930)
 * Campus Cinderella (1938)
 * Screen Snapshots Series 19, No. 1 (1939)

Television credits

 * Pulitzer Prize Playhouse (1950) - Wilhelmina
 * Frances Farmer Presents (1958) - Belinda Pendergast
 * The Quick Draw McGraw Show (1959) – The Cattle Battle Rattled – Wife
 * The Jetsons (1962–1963, 1985–1987) - Jane Jetson (voice)
 * Death Valley Days (1963) - Maggie Franklin
 * The Twilight Zone (1964) - Sounds and Silences- Mrs. Flemington
 * Murder, She Wrote (1986) – "The Perfect Foil" – Aunt Mildred
 * Rockin' with Judy Jetson (1988) - Jane Jetson (voice)
 * The Jetsons Meet the Flintstones (1989) - Jane Jetson (voice)
 * Hanna-Barbera's 50th: A Yabba Dabba Doo Celebration (1989) - Jane Jetson (voice)
 * The Funtastic World of Hanna-Barbera (1990) - Jane Jetson (voice)

Stage work

 * Sky High (1925)
 * Sweetheart Time (1926)
 * The Great Temptations (1926)
 * Good News (1928) (replacement for Zelma O'Neal)
 * Hey Nonny Nonny! (1932)
 * Call Me Madam (1959)
 * Never Too Late (1964)
 * No, No, Nanette (1971) (replacement for Ruby Keeler)
 * No, No, Nanette (1974)
 * Little Me (1983)

Theme parks

 * The Funtastic World of Hanna-Barbera (ride) (1990) – Jane Jetson (voice)

title: Penny Singleton