text:
Measurement and signature intelligence

Measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) is a technical branch of intelligence gathering, which serves to detect, track, identify or describe the distinctive characteristics (signatures) of fixed or dynamic target sources. This often includes radar intelligence, acoustic intelligence, nuclear intelligence, and chemical and biological intelligence. MASINT is defined as scientific and technical intelligence derived from the analysis of data obtained from sensing instruments for the purpose of identifying any distinctive features associated with the source, emitter or sender, to facilitate the latter's measurement and identification.

MASINT specialists themselves struggle with providing simple explanations of their field. One attempt calls it the "CSI" of the intelligence community, in imitation of the television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

Another possible definition calls it "astronomy except for the direction of view." The allusion here is to observational astronomy being a set of techniques that do remote sensing looking away from the earth (contrasted with how MASINT employs remote sensing looking toward the earth). Astronomers make observations in multiple electromagnetic spectra, ranging through radio waves, infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light, into the X-ray spectrum and beyond. They correlate these multispectral observations and create hybrid, often "false-color" images to give a visual representation of wavelength and energy, but much of their detailed information is more likely a graph of such things as intensity and wavelength versus viewing angle.

Discipline
MASINT may have aspects of intelligence analysis management, since certain aspects of MASINT, such as the analysis of electromagnetic radiation received by signals intelligence, are more of an analysis technique than a collection method. Some MASINT techniques require purpose-built sensors.

MASINT was recognized by the United States Department of Defense as an intelligence discipline in 1986. MASINT is technically derived intelligence that—when collected, processed, and analyzed by dedicated MASINT systems—results in intelligence that detects and classifies targets, and identifies or describes signatures (distinctive characteristics) of fixed or dynamic target sources. In addition to MASINT, IMINT and HUMINT can subsequently be used to track or more precisely classify targets identified through the intelligence process. While traditional IMINT and SIGINT are not considered to be MASINT efforts, images and signals from other intelligence-gathering processes can be further examined through the MASINT discipline, such as determining the depth of buried assets in imagery gathered through the IMINT process.

William K. Moore described the discipline: "MASINT looks at every intelligence indicator with new eyes and makes available new indicators as well. It measures and identifies battlespace entities via multiple means that are difficult to spoof and it provides intelligence that confirms the more traditional sources, but is also robust enough to stand with spectrometry to differentiate between paint and foliage, or recognizing radar decoys because the signal lacks unintentional characteristics of the real radar system. At the same time, it can detect things that other sensors cannot sense, or sometimes it can be the first sensor to recognize a potentially critical datum."

It can be difficult to draw a line between tactical sensors and strategic MASINT sensors. Indeed, the same sensor may be used tactically or strategically. In a tactical role, a submarine might use acoustic sensors—active and passive sonar—to close in on a target or get away from a pursuer. Those same passive sonars may be used by a submarine, operating stealthily in a foreign harbor, to characterize the signature of a new submarine type.

MASINT and technical intelligence (TECHINT) can overlap. A good distinction is that a technical intelligence analyst often has possession of a piece of enemy equipment, such as an artillery round, which can be evaluated in a laboratory. MASINT, even MASINT materials intelligence, has to infer things about an object that it can only sense remotely. MASINT electro-optical and radar sensors could determine the muzzle velocity of the shell. MASINT chemical and spectroscopic sensors could determine its propellant. The two disciplines are complementary: consider that the technical intelligence analyst may not have the artillery piece to fire the round on a test range, while the MASINT analyst has multispectral recordings of it being used in the field.

As with many intelligence disciplines, it can be a challenge to integrate the technologies into the active services, so they can be used by warfighters.

Terminology
In the context of MASINT, measurement relates to the finite metric parameters of targets and signature covers the distinctive features of phenomena, equipment, or objects as they are sensed by the collection instrument(s). The signature is used to recognize the phenomenon (the equipment or object) once its distinctive features are detected.

MASINT measurement searches for differences from known norms, and characterizes the signatures of new phenomena. For example, the first time a new rocket fuel exhaust is measured, it would be a deviation from a norm. When the properties of that exhaust are measured, such as its thermal energy, spectral analysis of its light (i.e., spectrometry), etc., those properties become a new signature in the MASINT database. MASINT has been described as a "non-literal" discipline. It feeds on a target's unintended emissive byproducts, or "trails"—the spectral, chemical or RF emissions an object leaves behind. These trails form distinctive signatures, which can be exploited as reliable discriminators to characterize specific events or disclose hidden targets."

While there are specialized MASINT sensors, much of the MASINT discipline involves analysis of information from other sensors. For example, a sensor may provide information on a radar beam, collected as part of Electronics intelligence (ELINT) gathering mission. Incidental characteristics recorded such as the "spillover" of the main beam (side lobes), or the interference its transmitter produces would come under MASINT.

National and multinational
There has been work on developing standardized MASINT terminology and architecture in NATO. Other work addresses the disappointments of Non-Cooperative Target Recognition. For this function, infrared beacons (infrared MASINT) proved disappointing, but millimeter-wave recognition shows more promise. Still, cooperative, network-based position exchange may be crucial in preventing fratricide. The bottom line is that MASINT cannot identify who is inside a tank or aircraft of interest.

Numerous countries produce their own antisubmarine warfare sensors, such as hydrophones, active sonar, magnetic anomaly detectors, and other hydrographic sensors that are frequently considered too "ordinary" to be called MASINT.

China
As of 2004, China was reported not to be pursuing the more specialized MASINT technologies, although it does produce its antisubmarine sensors.

Germany
Following the first successful launch on December 19, 2006, about a year after the intended launch date, further satellites were launched at roughly six-month intervals, and the entire system of this five-satellite SAR Lupe synthetic aperture radar constellation achieved full operational readiness on 22 July 2008.

Italy
Italy and France are cooperating on the deployment of the dual-use Orfeo civilian and military satellite system.

Orfeo is a dual-use (civilian and military) earth observation satellite network developed jointly between France and Italy. Italy is developing the Cosmo-Skymed X-band polarimetric synthetic aperture radar, to fly on two of the satellites.

Russia
Russia does have nonimaging infrared satellites to detect missile launches. Russia produces a wide range of antisubmarine warfare sensors.

United Kingdom
UK developed the first successful acoustic system, sound ranging to detect hostile artillery and anti-submarine acoustic detection in World War I. In the 1990s, an improved acoustic system for artillery location acoustic artillery location system was introduced, which complements Counter-battery radar.

United States
Within the US Intelligence Community the Directorate of MASINT and Technical Collections office of the Defense Intelligence Agency is the central agency for MASINT. This was formerly called the Central MASINT Office. For education and research, there is the Center for MASINT Studies and Research of the Air Force Institute of Technology.

Clearly, the National Reconnaissance Office and National Security Agency work in collecting MASINT, especially with military components. Other intelligence community organizations also have a collection role and possibly an analytic role. In 1962, the Central Intelligence Agency, Deputy Directorate for Research (now the Deputy Directorate for Science and Technology), formally took on ELINT and COMINT responsibilities.

The consolidation of the ELINT program was one of the major goals of the reorganization. ... it is responsible for:
 * Research, development, testing, and production of ELINT and COMINT collection equipment for all Agency operations.
 * Technical operation and maintenance of CIA deployed non-agent ELINT systems.
 * Training and maintenance of agent ELINT equipment
 * Technical support to the Third Party Agreements.
 * Data reduction of Agency-collected ELINT signals.
 * ELINT support peculiar to the penetration problems associated with the Agent's reconnaissance program under NRO.
 * Maintain a quick reaction capability for ELINT and COMINT equipment.

CIA's Office of Research and Development was formed to stimulate research and innovation testing leading to the exploitation of non-agent intelligence collection methods. ... All non-agent technical collection systems will be considered by this office and those appropriate for field deployment will be so deployed. The Agency's missile detection system, Project [deleted] based on backscatter radar is an example. This office will also provide integrated systems analysis of all possible collection methods against the Soviet antiballistic missile program is an example.

It is not clear where ELINT would end and MASINT would begin for some of these projects, but the role of both is potentially present. MASINT, in any event, was not formalized as a US-defined intelligence discipline until 1986.

MASINT from clandestinely placed sensors
CIA took on a more distinct MASINT responsibility in 1987. The National Security Archive commented, "In 1987, Deputy Director for Science and Technology Evan Hineman established ... a new Office for Special Projects, concerned not with satellites, but with emplaced sensors—sensors that could be placed in a fixed location to collect signals intelligence or measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) about a specific target. Such sensors had been used to monitor Chinese missile tests, Soviet laser activity, military movements, and foreign nuclear programs. The office was established to bring together scientists from the DS&T's Office of SIGINT Operations, who designed such systems, with operators from the Directorate of Operations, who were responsible for transporting the devices to their clandestine locations and installing them.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency plays a role in geophysical MASINT.

Multinational counterproliferation
All nuclear testing, of any level, was forbidden under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (which has not entered into force), but there is controversy over whether the preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) or the Treaty Organization itself will be able to detect sufficiently small events. It is possible to gain valuable data from a nuclear test that has an extremely low yield, useless as a weapon but sufficient to test weapons technology. CTBT does not recognize the threshold principle and assumes all tests are detectable.

The CTBTO runs an International Monitoring System (IMS) of MASINT sensors for verification, which include seismic, acoustic, and radionuclide techniques. See National technical means of verification for a discussion of the controversies surrounding the ability of the IMS to detect nuclear tests.

Military uses
Even though today's MASINT is often on the edge of technologies, many of them under high security classification, the techniques have a long history. Captains of warships, in the age of sail, used his eyes, and his ears, and sense of touch (a wetted finger raised to the breeze) to measure the characteristics of wind and wave. He used a mental library of signatures to decide what tactical course to follow based on weather. Medieval fortification engineers would put their ear to the ground to obtain acoustic measurements of possible digging to undermine their walls.

Acoustic and optical methods for locating hostile artillery go back to World War I. While these methods were replaced with radar for modern counter-battery fire, there is a resurgence of interest in acoustic gunfire locators against snipers and urban terrorists. Several warfighter application areas are listed below; also see Deeply Buried Structures.

Non-cooperative target recognition
MASINT could be of tactical use in "Non-Cooperative Target Recognition" (NCTR) so that, even with the failure of identification friend or foe (IFF) systems, friendly fire incidents could be prevented.

Unattended ground sensors
Another strong need where MASINT may help is with unattended ground sensors (UGS). During the Vietnam War, UGS did not provide the functionality desired in the McNamara Line and Operation Igloo White. They have improved considerably, but are still an additional capability for humans on the ground, not usually replacing people altogether.

In the U.S., much of the Igloo White technology came from Sandia National Laboratories, which subsequently designed the Mini Intrusion Detection System (MIDS) family, and the U.S. Marine Corps's AN/GSQ-261 Tactical Remote Sensor System (TRSS). Another major U.S. Army initiative was the Remotely Monitored Battlefield Sensor System (REMBASS), which it upgraded to Improved REMBASS (IREMBASS), and now is considering REMBASS II. The REMBASS generations, for example, increasingly intertwine interconnections of infrared MASINT, Magnetic MASINT, seismic MASINT, and acoustic MASINT.

The UK and Australia also are interested in UGS. Thales Defence Communications, a division of the French Thales Group and formerly Racal, builds the Covert Local Area Sensor System for Intruder Classification (CLASSIC) for use in 35 countries, including 12 NATO members. Australia adopted the CLASSIC 2000 version, which, in turn, becomes part of the Australian Ninox system, which also includes Textron Systems’ Terrain Commander surveillance system. CLASSIC has two kinds of sensors: Optical Acoustic Satcom Integrated Sensor (OASIS) and Air Deliverable Acoustic Sensor (ADAS), as well as television cameras, thermal imagers, and low-light cameras.

ADAS sensors were in a U.S. program, Army Rapid Force Projection Initiative advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), using OASIS acoustic sensors and central processing, but not the electro-optical component. ADAS sensors are emplaced in clusters of three or four, for increased detection capability and for triangulation. Textron says that the ADAS acoustic sensors can track fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and UAVs as well as traditional ground threats.

ACTD added Remote Miniature Weather Station (RMWS), from System Innovations. These RMWS measure temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed, visibility and barometric pressure, which can then be sent over commercial or military satellite links.

Employing UGS is especially challenging in urban areas, where there is a great deal more background energy and a need to separate important measurements from them. Acoustic sensors will need to distinguish vehicles and aircraft from footsteps (unless personnel detection is a goal), and things such as construction blasting. They will need to discriminate among simultaneous targets. Infrared imaging, for the urban environment, will need smaller pixels. If either the targets or the sensor is moving, micro-electromechanical accelerometers will be needed.

Research programs: Smart Dust and WolfPack
Still more of an UGS research program, under DARPA, is Smart Dust, which is a program for developing massively parallel networks of hundreds or thousands of "motes," in the order of 1 mm3.

Another DARPA program is WolfPack, a ground-based electronic warfare system. WolfPack is made up of a "pack" of "wolves." Wolves are distributed electronic detection nodes with location and classification capability, which may use radiofrequency MASINT techniques along with ELINT methods. The wolves could be hand, artillery, or airdrop delivered. WolfPack may fit into an Air Force program for a new subdiscipline of counter-ESM, as well as Distributed Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (DSEAD), an enhancement on SEAD. If the Wolves are colocated with jammers or other ECM, and they are very close to the target, they will not need much power to mask the signatures of friendly ground forces, in frequencies used for communications or local detection. DSEAD works in a similar way, but at radar frequencies. It may be interesting to compare this counter-ELINT discipline with ECCM.

Disciplines
MASINT is made up of six major disciplines, but the disciplines overlap and intertwine. They interact with the more traditional intelligence disciplines of HUMINT, IMINT, and SIGINT. To be more confusing, while MASINT is highly technical and is called such, TECHINT is another discipline, dealing with such things as the analysis of captured equipment.

An example of the interaction is "imagery-defined MASINT (IDM)". In IDM, a MASINT application would measure the image, pixel by pixel, and try to identify the physical materials, or types of energy, that are responsible for pixels or groups of pixels: signatures. When the signatures are then correlated to precise geography, or details of an object, the combined information becomes something greater than the whole of its IMINT and MASINT parts.

As with many branches of MASINT, specific techniques may overlap with the six major conceptual disciplines of MASINT defined by the Center for MASINT Studies and Research, which divides MASINT into Electro-optical, Nuclear, Geophysical, Radar, Materials, and Radiofrequency disciplines.

A different set of disciplines comes from DIA:
 * nuclear, chemical, and biological features;
 * emitted energy (e.g., nuclear, thermal, and electromagnetic);
 * reflected (re-radiated) energy (e.g., radio frequency, light, and sound);
 * mechanical sound (e.g., engine, propeller, or machinery noise);
 * magnetic properties (e.g., magnetic flux and anomalies);
 * motion (e.g., flight, vibration, or movement); and
 * material composition.

The two sets are not mutually exclusive, and it is entirely possible that as this newly recognized discipline emerges, a new and more widely accepted set will evolve. For example, the DIA list considers vibration. In the Center for MASINT Studies and Research list, mechanical vibrations, of different sorts, can be measured by geophysical acoustic, electro-optical laser, or radar sensors.

Basic interaction of energy sources with targets
Remote sensing depends on the interaction of a source of energy with a target, and energy measured from the target. In the "Remote Sensing" diagram, Source 1a is an independent natural source such as the Sun. Source 1b is a source, perhaps manmade, that illuminates the target, such as a searchlight or ground radar transmitter. Source 1c is a natural source, such as the heat of the Earth, with which the Target interferes.

The Target itself may produce emitted radiation, such as the glow of a red-hot object, which Sensor 1 measures. Alternatively, Sensor 2 might measure, as reflected radiation, the interaction of the Target with Source 1a, as in conventional sunlit photography. If the energy comes from Source 1b, Sensor 2 is doing the equivalent of photography by flash.

Source 3a is under the observer's control, such as a radar transmitter, and Sensor 3b can be tightly coupled to Source 3. An example of coupling might be that Sensor 3 will only look for backscatter radiation after the speed-of-light delay from Source 3a to the target and back to the position of Sensor 3b. Such waiting for a signal at a certain time, with radar, would be an example of electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM), so that a signal jamming aircraft closer to Sensor 3b would be ignored.

A bistatic remote sensing system would separate source 3a from sensor 3b; a multistatic system could have multiple pairs of coupled sources and sensors, or an uneven ratio of sources and sensors as long as all are correlated. It is well known that bistatic and multistatic radar are a potential means of defeating low-radar-observability aircraft. It is also a requirement, from operations personnel concerned with shallow water operations.

Techniques such as synthetic aperture have source 3a and sensor 3b colocated, but the source-sensor array takes multiple measurements over time, giving the effect of physical separation of source and sensor.

Any of the illuminations of the target (i.e., Source 1a, 1b, or 3a), and the returning radiation, can be affected by the atmosphere, or other natural phenomena such as the ocean, between source and target, or between target and sensor.

Observe that the atmosphere comes between the radiation source and the target, and between the target and the sensor. Depending on the type of radiation and sensor in use, the atmosphere can have little interfering effect, or have a tremendous effect requiring extensive engineering to overcome.

First, the atmosphere may absorb part of the energy passing through it. This is bad enough for sensing if all wavelengths are affected evenly, but it becomes much more complex when the radiation is of multiple wavelengths, and the attenuation differs among wavelengths.

Second, the atmosphere may cause an otherwise tightly collimated energy beam to spread.

Classes of sensor
Sensing systems have five major subcomponents:
 * Signal collectors, which concentrate the energy, as with a telescope lens, or a radar antenna that focuses the energy at a detector
 * Signal detectors, such as charge-coupled devices for light or a radar receiver
 * Signal processing, which may remove artifacts from single images, or compute a synthetic image from multiple views
 * Recording mechanism
 * Recording return mechanisms, such as digital telemetry from satellites or aircraft, ejection systems for recorded media, or physical return of a sensor carrier with the recordings aboard.

MASINT sensors may be framing or scanning or synthetic. A framing sensor, such as a conventional camera, records the received radiation as a single object. Scanning systems use a detector that moves across the field of radiation to create a raster or more complex object. Synthetic systems combine multiple objects into a single one.

Sensors may be passive or coupled to an active source (i.e., "active sensor"). Passive sensors receive radiation from the target, either from the energy the target emits, or from other sources not synchronized with the sensor.

Most MASINT sensors will create digital recordings or transmissions, but specific cases might use film recording, analog recording or transmissions, or even more specialized means of capturing information.

Passive sensing
Figure "Remote Sensing Geometry" illustrates several key aspects of a scanning sensor.

The instantaneous field of view (IFOV) is the area from which radiation currently impinges on the detector. The swath width is the distance, centered on the sensor path, from which signal will be captured in a single scan. Swath width is a function of the angular field of view (AFOV) of the scanning system. Most scanning sensors have an array of detectors such that the IFOV is the angle subtended by each detector and the AFOV is the total angle subtended by the array.

Push broom sensors either have a sufficiently large IFOV, or the scan moves fast enough with respect to the forward speed of the sensor platform, that an entire swath width is recorded without movement artifacts. These sensors are also known as survey or wide field devices, comparable to wide angle lenses on conventional cameras.

Whisk broom or spotlight sensors have the effect of stopping the scan, and focusing the detector on one part of the swath, typically capturing greater detail in that area. This is also called a close look scanner, comparable to a telephoto lens on a camera.

Passive sensors can capture information for which there is no way to generate man-made radiation, such as gravity. Geodetic passive sensors can provide detailed information on the geology or hydrology of the earth.

Active sensors
Active sensors are conceptually of two types, imaging and non-imaging. Especially when combining classes of sensor, such as MASINT and IMINT, it can be hard to define if a given MASINT sensor is imaging or not. In general, however, MASINT measurements are mapped to pixels of a clearly imaging system, or to geospatial coordinates known precisely to the MASINT sensor-carrying platform.

In MASINT, the active signal source can be anywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to X-rays, limited only by the propagation of the signal from the source. X-ray sources, for example, must be in very close proximity to the target, while lasers can illuminate a target from a high satellite orbit. While this discussion has emphasized the electromagnetic spectrum, there are also both active (e.g., sonar) and passive (e.g., hydrophone and microbarograph) acoustic sensors.

Quality of sensing
Several factors make up the quality of a given sensor's information acquisition, but assessing quality can become quite complex when the end product combines the data from multiple sensors. Several factors, however, are commonly used to characterize the basic quality of a single sensing system.
 * Spatial resolution defines the correspondence between each recorded pixel and the square real-world area that the pixel covers.
 * Spectral resolution is the number of discrete frequency (or equivalent) bands recorded in an individual pixel. (Relatively coarse spectral resolution from one sensor, such as the spectroscopic analyzer that reveals a "bush" is painted plaster, may greatly enhance the ultimate value of a different sensor with finer spectral resolution.)
 * Radiometric resolution is the number of levels of energy recorded, per pixel, in each spectral band.
 * Temporal resolution describes the intervals at which the target is sensed. This is meaningful only in synthetic imaging, comparison over a longer time base, or in producing full-motion imagery.

Cueing
Cross-cueing is the passing of detection, geolocation and targeting information to another sensor without human intervention. In a system of sensors, each sensor must understand which other sensors complement it. Typically, some sensors are sensitive (i.e., with a low incidence of false negatives) while others have a low incidence of false positives. A fast sensitive sensor that covers a large area, such as SIGINT or acoustic, can pass coordinates of a target of interest to a sensitive narrowband RF spectrum analyzer for ELINT or a hyperspectral electro-optical sensor. Putting sensitive and selective, or otherwise complementary sensors, into the same reconnaissance or surveillance system enhances the capabilities of the entire system, as in the Rocket Launch Spotter.

When combining sensors, however, even a quite coarse sensor of one type can cause a huge increase in the value of another, more fine-grained sensor. For example, a highly precise visible-light camera can create an accurate representation of a tree and its foliage. A coarse spectral analyzer in the visible light spectrum, however, can reveal that the green leaves are painted plastic, and the "tree" is camouflaging something else. Once the fact of camouflage is determined, a next step might be to use imaging radar or some other sensing system that will not be confused by the paint.

Cueing, however, is a step before automatic target recognition, which requires both extensive signature libraries and reliable matching to it.

title: Measurement and signature intelligence


text:
User talk:Wwheinz~enwiki

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 21:10, Feb 25, 2004 (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 Wwheinz. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Wwheinz~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 03:27, 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) 20:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Wwheinz~enwiki


text:
PTCA

PTCA may refer to:

 * Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, a type of angioplasty
 * Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography

title: PTCA


text:
Template talk:Calendar/Archive 1

Displaying the current month
Q. Is there a way to add some kind of operator or expression to this template so that on, for example, a user page, one might place a text resulting in display of a the current month's calender? In other words, one would be able to have a calendar which would automatically update according to the time zone I select? Thanks in advance for any help on this. Calicocat 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A. See next section. --Uncle Ed 01:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Day template
See commons:Template:Small calendar.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about templates
Is there a legitimate reason that JulyCalendar links to JulyCalendar2006 (with a current year insert) links to JulyCalendar2006 links to JulyCalendar2006Source which actually contains the manual imput of the Calendar? Is there a legitimate reason for the 4 layers of building or is that just legacy format based on the history of wikipedia? I'm building a new wiki and I'm curious if there is a reason that makes ^ this the ideal format for calendars, or why wouldn't one just put JulyCalenderxxxxSource (with CURRENTYEAR in place of the xxxx) in the page that I'd want the calendar? Thanks TheHYPO 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

New codbase
Have made a new system, using parserfunctions instead of static template inclusing as it's doing now. So to generate the calendar for year 1979 (can sadly only handle years between 1972 and 2037 (see Year 2038 problem)), type:, result:

→ Aza Toth 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Change supporting template
Would there be any objection to changing the supporting templates Template:Calendar/MonthStartSun etc. to list Sunday as the first day and changing the blue to a lighter shade? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Links links links
Currently the template links the year, each day and each month. Do we need all these links? Probably not. But what we certainly don't need is the months to be linked thrice. At the top of each month there is "<<", the month's name and ">>". The "<<" and ">>" are of the one-month calandar that this is built from. They are of dubious use there: they don't get you the next and previous month's calandar but send you to the month's article. These Easter eggs are of no use here. I suggest we turn them off. J IM ptalk·cont 04:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The subtemplates Calendar/Sun1stMonthStartMon etc. have been producing "<<" and ">>" with no link if not given parameters  and. They may make little sense as links to the previous and next month's article; they make no sense whatsoever as unlinked text. Let the subtemplates output nothing if the parameters are omitted. This'll make it easier to get them off this template. J IM ptalk·cont 05:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Layout
The layout of this calendar is pretty unique and pretty different from everything we've had so far. I've gone forward and designed a version that looks closer to what I've already done on Template:Table Suffixes and Template:Table Greekletters - see MediaWiki:JanuaryCalendar/Temp for this suggestion of mine. Please let me know what you think. — Timwi 21:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Your layout, Timwi, seems a little closer to other tables we have dotted around in terms of being borderless and having a familar colour. I'd advocate changing to it - and the beauty of the msg: system is that it is easy to change everywhere! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Neat! I like the /Temp table. Not too thrilled about the color though. I was thinking about having different colors for each season, so we can deal with that later. And yes, the MediaWiki namespace is really cool - changing 12 pages will update nearly 400 articles! --mav 12:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Done. Personally, I rather prefer to have consistent colours all the way through, but I can also see the aesthetic merit of having some sort of continual gradient of colours that changes from blue (winter) over green (spring) and red (summer) via yellow (autumn) back to blue. Might look cool, if the colours are well-chosen. -- Timwi 14:48, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the January calendar link to December and February, etc? Morwen 10:13, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * I tried that and it was ugly. Just follow the January link to that article. Navigate to different months there. Keep it simple. --mav

Rewrite this template?
Could this template be rewritten to be a little more self-maintaining? The way that the template is used now, it is dependent on other templates that have to be created each year. The way I envision it is to work as JanuaryCalendar by default for all the date pages, which would just show a calendar of the current year. For the few pages that list older calendars something like could be used. If the template could be rewritten that way, no one would have to create the new templates each year (half of the source templates are already created until 2010 - half because it requires two for each month) and 120 existing templates (more actually) could be deleted. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I've rewritten these templates so that they do not need to be manually (or bot) updated each year. The current versions depend on Template:JanuaryCalendar2008 and Template:JanuaryCalendar2008Source and these need to be created each year.  The version that I've written use only the Template:Calendar/MonthStartTue set of templates (one for each day of the week).  The new version calculates what day the first of the month is and then uses that to create the calendar.  It should be maintenance free.  I've posted the January version at User:Mufka/JanuaryCalendar.  I'd like to get some input on it before I replace the templates.  Another great feature of the way I did it is that it will only take 12 edits to the   templates to make the change.  I'm also thinking that with just a little more work, I could turn the 12 templates into one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I just remembered that the MonthStartTue templates use Monday as the first day of the week. That can be fixed very simply with a new version of those templates if the existing ones cannot be changed (I already have new versions written). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Template updated
I've updated the template to a self-maintaining version. The only difference is that it is not right aligned but all of the articles that use it have style="float:right;" set and we shouldn't be depending on the template for alignment. You should be able to put it wherever you want it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Template updated again
I have modified the template again so it can replace Template:JanuaryCalendar2008 and Template:JanuaryCalendar2008Source and those similar ones that need to be created every year. My original intent was just to modify Template:CalendarCustom, but it became too esoteric and complex for me to code at this time. Maybe that can be done in the future. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Calendar/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Twins' Love

Untitled
I know that this article title is not good. However it is better than the original which was not only meaningless to English speakers, it was not even readable. This is unacceptable for the English wikipedia. The title should have been translated into English (or at the least into the Roman alphabet) and I hope that it still will be. -- Derek Ross 21:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Indeed, the direct link was a chinese title and was readable but I do not know why it changed to unreadable after I make this page. Anyways, thanks for your help.50precilachan 02:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, 50precilachan. That is much better. -- Derek Ross

title: Talk:Twins' Love


text:
Baron Deramore

Baron Deramore, of Belvoir in the County of Down, was a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 18 November 1885 for the Conservative Member of Parliament Sir Thomas Bateson, 2nd Baronet. His father Thomas Bateson had been created a baronet, of Belvoir Park in the County of Down, on 18 December 1818 in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom. The barony was created with special remainder to the first Baron's younger brother George, who succeeded him as second Baron.

He was the husband of Mary Elizabeth de Yarburgh (died 1884), daughter and heiress of George John de Yarburgh, of Heslington Hall, near York, and assumed in 1876 by Royal licence the additional surname of de Yarburgh after the death of his father-in-law. In 1892 Lord Deramore assumed the surname of Bateson after, instead of before that of de Yarburgh. He was succeeded by his son, the third Baron. He served as Lord-Lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire from 1924 to 1936. On his death the titles passed to his younger brother, the fourth Baron.

The family seat of Heslington Hall was acquired by the University of York in 1962 and now forms part of its campus. The Hall was lived in by the family of the Barons Deramore until ca 1940, when it was vacated in favour of No. 4 Group RAF.

Bateson baronets, of Belvoir Park (1818)

 * Sir Robert Bateson, 1st Baronet (1782–1863)
 * Sir Thomas Bateson, 2nd Baronet (1819-1890) (created Baron Deramore in 1885)

Barons Deramore (1885)

 * Thomas Bateson, 1st Baron Deramore (1819–1890)
 * George William de Yarburgh-Bateson, 2nd Baron Deramore (1823–1893)
 * Robert Wilfrid de Yarburgh-Bateson, 3rd Baron Deramore (1865–1936)
 * George de Yarburgh-Bateson, 4th Baron Deramore (1870–1943)
 * Stephen de Yarburgh-Bateson, 5th Baron Deramore (1903–1964)
 * Richard Arthur de Yarburgh-Bateson, 6th Baron Deramore (1911–2006)

title: Baron Deramore


text:
Baron de Ramsey

Baron de Ramsey, of Ramsey Abbey in the County of Huntingdon, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1887 for Edward Fellowes, who had previously represented Huntingdonshire in the House of Commons as a Conservative for 43 years. His eldest son, the second Baron, sat as Member of Parliament for Huntingdonshire and Ramsey and later served as a Lord-in-waiting (government whip in the House of Lords) from 1890 to 1892 in the Conservative administration of Lord Salisbury. His grandson, the third Baron, was Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire from 1947 to 1965 and of Huntingdon and Peterborough between 1965 and 1968. the title is held by the latter's son, the fourth Baron, who succeeded in 1993.

Ailwyn Fellowes, 1st Baron Ailwyn, was the younger son of the first Baron de Ramsey.

The family seat, is now Abbots Ripton Hall, near Abbots Ripton, Cambridgeshire. Previously the family seat was Ramsey Abbey, near Ramsey, Cambridgeshire.

Barons de Ramsey (1887)

 * Edward Fellowes, 1st Baron de Ramsey (1809–1887)
 * William Henry Fellowes, 2nd Baron de Ramsey (1848–1925)
 * Ailwyn Edward Fellowes, 3rd Baron de Ramsey (1910–1993)
 * John Ailwyn Fellowes, 4th Baron de Ramsey (b. 1942)

The heir apparent is the present holder's son the Hon. Frederick John Fellowes (b. 1978).

title: Baron de Ramsey


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik

Case closed

This arbitration involves accusations against Wik levied by a number of other Wikipedians. The decision can be read at the bottom of the page, and was reached on 15 March 2004.

Evidence and statements
For details see /Evidence

Statement by Wik
Obviously I reject any accusations of wrongdoing against me, and I have replied to them sufficiently elsewhere. Taking the statements below as an example, it is easily seen that my enemies here are trolls (Anthony), POV pushers (Darkelf, VeryVerily), and people who can't distinguish between those and serious users when complaining about edit wars (Kosebamse, RickK). Edit wars are a bad thing just like real-life wars are a bad thing, but one has to distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. It is absurd to demand a sort of "edit pacifism" and say that if any POV pusher attacks an article, one should rather ignore that than waging an edit war. My edit wars were all defensive. Even some of my critics have had to agree that I'm usually right in the substance. It's not my fault that there's no better mechanism for deciding disputed content, as I have repeatedly urged.

Now for my part, I want to urge action against users Hephaestos, RickK, and Ed Poor for blocking me against the rules (Hephaestos and RickK twice each), and against Anthony DiPierro for being a blatant troll.

Statements by others

 * Wik continually reverts pages without explanation if he was not the last editor anymore. Wik refuses to negotiate or compromise, calling those he reverts 'trolls, POV pushers, and morons' (his words, from his talk page). He often marks his reverts as minor in an attempt to hide them. Jor 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik has admitted to reverting edits I have made "on principle" solely because they were made by me. He rarely if ever makes comprimises in edit wars, and rarely if ever accepts comprimises proposed by myself or third parties, saying that there's "no need to compromise with trolls."  On this very page he stated that if an edit I made "wasn't obvious, [he] didn't necessarily waste time analyzing it, and reverted based on [my] history of stupid edits."  The problem isn't that he participates in edit wars.  The problem is how he participates in those edit wars.  One thing I would like to have established is that these types of reverts are inappropriate.  Reverting an established user without even doing a basic search to find the facts, and without even giving so much as a reason on the talk page or even in the comment section is not acceptable. If you've done a basic search and the information is not verifiable, then I can see removing it, once, with a comment "non-verifiable." But to go on reverting 5, 10, 15 times, with no comments, when a link to the verification is right there in the added references section is completely unacceptable. Wik has even gone so far as to remove my external links apparently without even looking at them. This is tantamount to a unilateral ban Wik has attempted to enforce against me, although he has graced me with the ability to add "obviously correct" material.  Anthony DiPierro

 * Wik is a good contributor on political articles. He can be over-keen but his actual content is high quality. It always takes two to edit war, there are no "innocent" participants. Secretlondon 22:10, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * First, let me say that I may be not too neutral in this matter, as I have sometimes expressed my opinion that Wik's behavior is highly counter-productive. Also, I have protected several pages because of edit wars in which he was involved. However, I am not aware of having been involved in quarrels over article content with him. I would like to share my impressions on his views about his conduct and about Wikipedia as a whole. Wik and I had an extensive discussion about his behavior and views (archived here), and I have summarised my thoughts in this mailing list post. It is my impression that his views have not changed since then, but that his pattern of editing has even worsened (see for example his edit history for 12 and 13 February). Although highly unlikely, it seems possible that he is still acting in good faith despite the enormous amount of discussion that the Wikipedia community has directed at him to convince him of the destructive effects of his actions. Kosebamse 22:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik is constantly in a state of edit and revert war. People spend much too much time having to protect pages he is reverting.  He refuses to abide by the three-revert war, and will revert just for the sake of reverting.  He never puts comments on an edit, except for "rv", and will not even explain why he is reverting.  RickK 02:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * After yet more encounters with Wik, I am forced to agree that a ban is appropriate. He is replaceable; whatever contributions he makes, one of hundreds of other contributors could make as well.  And users like him and 172 who show a lack of respect for other users are not simply "good contributors," however much they write, because they do not work collaboratively.  Such behavior has caused me to waste a lot of my time defending pages from reverting and such nonsense, time that I could have spent writing new articles and content.  There is a long list of new content items I've been planning to add had I not been repeatedly sidetracked into dealing with recalcitrant and belligerent users.  I expect others have had similar experiences, which leads me to conclude that Wik's would-be contributions are not worth this cost.  Well, that's my two cents. -- VV 21:21, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that Wik is a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia- he has defended content and the NPOV opinion on many controversial articles, and has detected and dealt with many trolls. Granted, his tactics are rather 'vigilante,' but I don't think that he is acting outside the boundaries of wiki-law.  As he has often stated, he does not abide by the 'three-revert' guideline because it is not an official rule.  In my opinion, unless you have automatic page-protection, you need the people defending pages against trolls to be just as stubborn and insistent as the trolls themselves. - DropDeadGorgias 22:18, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik is a great resource on Wikipedia. As for the edit/revert wars, I hate them and I wish Wik would quit getting involved in them, but it takes two to tango. I say compare how much those who engage with Wik in edit/revert wars have actually contributed to Wikipedia. Dori | Talk 06:19, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik's enormous contribution to Wikipedia cannot be underestimated. Mintguy (T) 11:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik might be a fine contributor if he were the only one working on Wikipedia. However, he's not, and is historically impervious to any argument presented by any other person on any disputed point. On the off-chance that remedies are still being pondered, I propose that he be trained in the ways of discussion by being disallowed from reverting any change by a logged-in user, unless he gets agreement from one or more other people via the article's talk page first. The sole remedy proposed as I write this, a "warning", is totally pointless, because Wik has already repeatedly ignored direct messages from Jimbo, and as various statements in the "evidence" show, does not consider himself to be constrained by anything that is a mere suggestion. Stan 22:25, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik makes countless house keeping edits, including typos, redirects, correcting links and my own atrocious spelling. His dedication to Wikipedia is unquestionable and perhaps its the reason for his ruthless behaviour against people who he considers wrong. I hope the arbitrators keep this in mind. Muriel 08:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rationale for accepting this case for arbitration

 * I had initially formed an opinion that we could not accept these matters due to the rather tenative state of our policy on reversion, but on viewing an e-mail message on the Wikien list from User:Ed Poor in which he says, 'No one has a "right to instantly revert" -- with the possible of exception of the edits of a hard-banned user.' I have changed my mind and hereby vote to accept these matters in order to address the question of repeated, "automatic" reversions. Fred Bauder 15:58, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * The community interest in the matter of Wik is high, to the extent that I feel the arbitration committee is almost compelled to hear that case. I therefore vote to hear that case. Martin 00:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I vote to hear the matters of Wik and Anthony DiPierro because there seems to be a fairly strong feeling among the general Wikipedia community that we should, and because I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't. --Camembert

 * I vote to hear the Wik case (will decide on the others after we finish this one). --Delirium 00:32, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * I concur. We should hear this case since there is a good deal of interest in the community that this dispute needs to be resolved. --mav 08:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I vote to hear the matter of Wik due to community interest. --the Epopt 14:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I vote to hear the Wik case. --Nohat 17:09, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Decision
This decision was accepted on 15 March 2004, following private discussion, and public discussion and voting at /Proposed findings and remedies. Martin 23:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

findings of fact
1. Wik has engaged in numerous edit wars throughout Wikipedia on dozens of articles, which has caused considerable disruption and inconvenience to a number of users. Without making a specific determination on the merits of the contents of any or all of the contentious articles, we find that this sort of behavior, even if the article contents are justified, is not conducive to Wikipedia's progress.

Evidence in support of this finding:
 * History of edit war at Richard Neustadt. Reversions by Wik of edits by several different users (for example,, , )
 * History of edit war at What would Jesus do?, notable for explicit refusal to compromise.
 * History of edit war at Atlantium, notable for fifteen reverts (one unmarked) within three hours.
 * Sheer volume of complaints here, here, here, and here, from a wide variety of people.

Accepted 8-1, with one de facto abstention.

Minority opinion by Gutza, below.

- 2. Wik has, for at least a brief period of time, engaged in a habit of "auto-reverting" all edits by Anthony DiPierro, with the explanation that he feels Anthony diPierro to be a troll, and thus his edits to be worthy of removal without evaluation. Again, without making a determination on the good faith of Anthony diPierro, we find that this is contrary to established Wikipedia policies, which only allow reversion regardless of merit for users who have been banned through the proper channels, or following clear community consensus.

Evidence in support of this finding:
 * "Anthony is an obvious troll, I revert him on principle."
 * History of edit war at What would Jesus do?
 * History of edit war at Atlantium

Accepted 9-0, with one de facto abstention.

3. The above three findings nothwithstanding, we do acknowledge that Wik has been a long-time and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and that a great many of his edits that did not involve edit wars constitute valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.

Accepted 7-2, with one de facto abstention.

Minority opinions on findings of fact
non-binding opinions of groups of arbitrators

Opinion of one arbitrator: With respect to finding #1, I do find that Wik has engaged in some edit wars, but I do not find that he is to blame for that a priori. I cannot condemn the fact that some Wikipedian sees things in a particular way within NPOV. Yes, even if that leads to an edit war. I find that his actions were (if only subjectively) intended to keep the respective articles within reason, and that he acted out of good faith in protecting what he saw as the NPOV in those articles. Therefore I won't agree with the finding that he somehow purposedly got involved in edit wars. That is where my formal statement ends in this matter. I want to add something for the record however: I reserve the right to hold the same view in any matter involving Anthony DiPierro. I do not uphold the principle stating that if one side in a conflict is right, the other necessarily has to be wrong, or vice-versa. --Gutza

Opinion of four arbitrators: We find that Wik has failed to make appropriate use of edit summaries, failing to describe or explain his edits. The misuse, abuse, or non-use of edit summaries is frowned upon by the community at large, and has unnecessarily lengthened these disputes.

Evidence in support of this finding:

 * Failure to mark reverts as "rv" or "revert" on McFly: the following edits to that page are unmarked reverts: 15:55, 4 Mar 2004; 15:56, 4 Mar 2004; 16:44, 4 Mar 2004; 16:57, 4 Mar 2004; 14:14, 8 Mar 2004
 * A review of Wik's contributions demonstrates a dearth of decent edit summaries.
 * Reverting List of U.S. political families purely because of a misspelt "occurence", and failing to explain this in either edit summary or Talk page.

--mav, James F. (talk), Martin, Nohat

Remedies
1. As the major problem in this case appears to be excessive reversions and edit wars, we note with great interest the emerging community consensus on how to properly deal with edit wars. A proposed policy that would place a limit on the number of reversions per day a user may engage in, as well as allowing for temporary 24-hour bans for violators of the policy, is currently being formulated with a wide degree of support at How to revert a page to an earlier version (with discussion and a vote on the talk page).

Accepted 7-1, with one explicit and one de facto abstention.

--- 2. We remind Wik (and Wikipedians generally) that auto-reverting any one user's edits is only acceptable if that user has been banned through the proper channels, or following clear community consensus.

Accepted 9-0, with one de facto abstention.

- 3. We rule that Wik shall be placed on probation for a period of three months. If during that time period Wik reverts the same page more than three times on the same day, he may be given a 24 hour "timeout" ban, at sysop's judgement. This measure is intended to be in addition to any wider policy that the community may decide to apply. Thus, if the community decides to permit sysops to temp-ban users in revert wars, Wik may be banned for an additional 24 hours, above the normal banning period.

Accepted 6-3, with one de facto abstention.

Minority opinions on remedies
non-binding opinions of groups of arbitrators

Opinion of two arbitrators: We decline to take action beyond a warning in this case, especially in light of the fact that Anthony del Pierro has engaged in a number of edit wars with many other Wikipedians, so Wik's actions might be said to have been provoked. We will take further action in the future if such auto-reverting becomes a habit. Delirium, Gutza

Opinion of four arbitrators: We feel it would be appropriate to take further action beyond remedy #3 mentioned above. This further remedy might take the form of a stronger form of probation, a one week ban as a specific penalty for automatic reverting, or an edit throttle limiting him to a small number of edits per day for a set time. Fred Bauder, mav, James F., the Epopt

Regarding temporary blocks
1. RickK, Hephaestos, and Ed Poor are reminded that temporary blocks are intended to be used in cases of repeat pure vandalism, or following clear community consensus. While the community is discussing extending the use of temporary blocks to cover other cases, individual sysops should not attempt to short-circuit that discussion.

Accepted 9-0, with one de facto abstention.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik


text:
Mathematical Tables Project

The Mathematical Tables Project was one of the largest and most sophisticated computing organizations that operated prior to the invention of the digital electronic computer. Begun in the United States in 1938 as a project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), it employed 450 unemployed clerks to tabulate higher mathematical functions, such as exponential functions, logarithms, and trigonometric functions. These tables were eventually published in a 28-volume set by Columbia University Press.

History
The group was led by a group of mathematicians and physicists, most of whom had been unable to find professional work during the Great Depression. The mathematical leader was Gertrude Blanch, who had just finished her doctorate in mathematics at Cornell University. She had been unable to find a university position and was working at a photographic company before joining the project.

The administrative director was Arnold Lowan, who had a degree in physics from Columbia University and had spent a year at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton University before returning to New York without a job. Perhaps the most accomplished mathematician to be associated with the group was Cornelius Lanczos, who had once served as an assistant to Albert Einstein. He spent a year with the project and organized seminars on computation and applied mathematics at the project's office in Lower Manhattan.

In addition to computing tables of mathematical functions, the project did large computations for sciences, including the physicist Hans Bethe, and did calculations for a variety of war projects, including tables for the LORAN navigation system, tables for microwave radar, bombing tables, and shock wave propagation tables.

The Mathematical Tables Project survived the termination of the WPA in 1943 and continued to operate in New York until 1948. At that point, roughly 25 members of the group moved to Washington, D.C., to become the Computation Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards, now the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Blanch moved to Los Angeles to lead the computing office of the Institute for Numerical Analysis at UCLA and Arnold Lowan joined the faculty of Yeshiva University in New York. The greatest legacy of the project is the Handbook of Mathematical Functions, which was published 16 years after the group disbanded. Edited by two veterans of the project, Milton Abramowitz and Irene Stegun, it became a widely circulated mathematical and scientific reference.

title: Mathematical Tables Project


text:
KKB

KKB may refer to:
 * KKB is stand by Kaushal Kant Bauddh
 * KKB, a 70's American rock band, featuring future KISS lead  Bruce Kulick
 * Kero Kero Bonito, an English indie pop band
 * Kumkum Bhagya, an Indian soap opera
 * Basel Boys Choir (German: Knabenkantorei Basel)
 * Kitoi Bay Seaplane Base, Kodiak Island, Alaska, United States
 * Kuala Kubu Bharu, Selangor, Malaysia
 * Kouadio Konan Bertin, an Ivorian politician
 * Kagoshima Broadcasting, a Japanese commercial TV station

title: KKB


text:
Green Bay

Green Bay may refer to:

Bodies of water

 * Green Bay (Lake Michigan), a bay of Wisconsin known to locals as the Bay of Green Bay
 * Green Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, a bay located on the island of Newfoundland

Populated places

 * Green Bay, Alabama, United States
 * Green Bay, Wisconsin, United States
 * Green Bay (town), Wisconsin, United States
 * Green Bay, New Zealand
 * Green Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada
 * Green Bay, small community of Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands, Ontario, Canada
 * Green Bay, Virginia (disambiguation), United States
 * Greenbay, village in Antigua

Associated with Green Bay, Wisconsin

 * Green Bay Packers, an American football team and the best-known Green Bay sports team
 * Green Bay Blizzard, a professional arena football team
 * Green Bay Bombers, a former indoor arena American football team
 * Green Bay Rockers, a collegiate summer baseball team, formerly the Bullfrogs and then the Booyah
 * Green Bay Gamblers, a Tier 1 junior ice hockey team
 * Green Bay Phoenix, the athletic program of the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay

Other

 * Green Bay (American Samoa football club), an association football club in Faga'alu, American Samoa

Other

 * Roman Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin
 * Green Bay Marathon

title: Green Bay


text:
Baron de Villiers

Baron de Villiers, of Wynberg in the Cape of Good Hope Province and the Union of South Africa, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 21 September 1910 for the prominent South African lawyer and judge John de Villiers. He served as Chief Justice of South Africa between 1910 and 1914. The 3rd Baron graduated from Magdalen College, Oxford and worked as a barrister in Auckland, New Zealand. In 1949, he was admitted to the Supreme Court in Auckland. He lived in Huapai near Auckland. the title is held by his great-grandson, the fourth Baron, who succeeded his father in 2001.

Asked how to say his name, the third Baron told The Literary Digest: "In England it is pronounced 'Villars.' But the pronunciation which is used by English-speaking South Africans, and which I myself use, would be written duh vil'yers. There is a suspicion of an i sound between the l and the y."

Barons de Villiers (1910)

 * John de Villiers, 1st Baron de Villiers (1842–1914)
 * Charles Percy de Villiers, 2nd Baron de Villiers (1871–1934)
 * Arthur Percy de Villiers, 3rd Baron de Villiers (1911–2001)
 * Alexander Charles de Villiers, 4th Baron de Villiers (b. 1940)

There is no heir to the barony.

title: Baron de Villiers


text:
Baron Darling

Baron Darling, of Langham in the County of Essex, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 12 January 1924 for Sir Charles Darling, a former Conservative Member of Parliament for Deptford and Judge of the High Court of Justice. the title is held by his great-grandson, the third Baron, who succeeded his father in 2003.

The family seat is Intwood Hall, near Intwood, Norfolk.

Barons Darling (1924—)

 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Baron.svg|15px|baseline]] Charles John Darling, 1st Baron Darling (1849–1936)
 * Hon. John Clive Darling (1887—1933)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Baron.svg|15px|baseline]] Robert Charles Henry Darling, 2nd Baron Darling (1919–2003)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Baron.svg|15px|baseline]] Robert Julian Henry Darling, 3rd Baron Darling (1944—)
 * (1) Hon. Robert James Cyprian Darling (1972—)
 * (2) Robert Jack Lewis Darling (2008—)
 * (3) Hon. Henry Thomas Unthank Darling (1978—)
 * James Weyland Darling (1922—1941)

The heir apparent is the present holder's son, the Hon. Robert James Cyprian Darling (born 1972).

The heir apparent's heir apparent is the present holder's grandson, Robert Jack Lewis Darling (born 2008).

title: Baron Darling


text:
MBB/Kawasaki BK 117

The MBB/Kawasaki BK 117 is a twin-engined light utility–transport helicopter. It was jointly developed and manufactured by Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) of Germany and Kawasaki of Japan. MBB was later purchased by Daimler-Benz and eventually became a part of Eurocopter, which was later rebranded as Airbus Helicopters.

On 25 February 1977, MBB and Kawasaki signed a cooperative agreement to abandon their independent efforts to design twin-engined general purpose helicopters in favour of a collaborative venture to development of a new rotorcraft for that role. While the programme's costs were shared equally, the workshare was divided into certain areas of the design. MBB utilised their expertise with the rigid rotor system used on the earlier Bo 105 to develop the majority of the dynamic systems and flight controls, while Kawasaki focused on the airframe, structural elements, and various other components. On 13 June 1979, MBB's flying prototype conducted its maiden flight at Ottobrunn, Bavaria, Germany; months later, it was followed by the Kawasaki prototype at Gifu, Chūbu region, Japan on 10 August 1979.

Each company established their own final assembly line, producing the BK 117 for their respective regions. The BK 117 has proven to be popular for passenger services and VIP-transport, the cabin can be outfitted with various seating configurations, seating between seven and ten passengers. It is also used for a diverse range of operations, such as aerial crane and sling work, law enforcement, and military transport, and is exceptional as an air ambulance and search and rescue platform. During the 1990s, due to its popularity, a refined derivative, initially marketed as the BK 117 C-2 before being rebranded as the EC 145 and later as the H145, was developed from the BK 117 C-1 version; this improved version of the rotorcraft has since succeeded the original BK 117 in production.

The original BK 117, Eurocopter EC 145, and Airbus Helicopters H145, are typically thought of as being in one design family, despite different marketing and naming.

Origins
According to aviation author J. Mac. McCellan, the BK 117 has its origins in an earlier rotorcraft designed and produced by German aerospace manufacturer Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB), the MBB Bo 105. This helicopter, which proved to be a commercial success, had made use of a revolutionary hingeless main rotor composed of fibreglass, which was developed by German engineer Ludwig Bölkow. Having established a reputation for reliability and safety, during the early 1970s MBB, along with one of its major shareholders, Boeing Vertol, began studying options for producing an enlarged derivative of the type to accompany the Bo 105. However, Boeing soon withdrew from the venture, leading to MBB searching for another partner; this was found in the form of Japanese company Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

On 25 February 1977, MBB and Kawasaki signed an agreement to cooperate on the development of a new rotorcraft. Under the terms of this agreement, the two corporations merged their previously separate projects to produce twin-engined general purpose helicopters, these being the Bo 107 by MBB and the KH-7 from Kawasaki. All of the privately incurred development costs were shared equally between the two partners; in November 1977, the programme received a huge boost when the government of West Germany announced that it would fund half of the costs of development. By April 1978, project definition studies had been completed, enabling the joint venture to proceed with the detail design phase of development.

Separate elements of the design were assigned to each company; MBB were responsible for developing the rotors (these were based on the rigid rotor system previously used on MBB's Bo 105), tailboom, flight controls and hydraulic system while Kawasaki undertook the development of the landing gear, airframe, main transmission, electrical system and other minor components. German vehicle manufacturer BMW acted as a consultant on the styling of the BK 117. As per their agreement, each company established their own final assembly line for the type, on which they would produce the rotorcraft to meet demands within their respective local markets.

Originally, each company intended to construct a pair of prototypes (in actuality, Kawasaki opted to only build a single prototype) which were to be completed by 1979; one for flight testing purposes and the others for tie down testing and static testing. On 13 June 1979, MBB's flying prototype conducted its maiden flight at Ottobrunn, Bavaria, Germany; months later, it was followed by the Kawasaki prototype at Gifu, Chūbu region, Japan on 10 August 1979. The pace of development on the programme had been slower than expected, a problem that was exacerbated by a shortage of skilled manpower that was available at MBB. Although it was originally planned for the rotorcraft's airworthiness certification to be achieved before the end of 1980, German certification was not achieved until 9 December 1982, being quickly followed by the receipt of Japanese certification on 17 December 1982. On 29 March 1983, the type secured the all-important United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification, clearing it for widespread use.

Further development
During 1983, the initial production version, designated as the BK 117A-1 was first delivered. Improved variants were quickly developed; in early 1985, the BK 117A-3, featuring an increased maximum takeoff weight and an enlarged tail rotor with twisted airfoils, was certified; two years later, the BK 117A-4, equipped with LTS 101-750B-1 engines for improved hot/high performance and increased maximum takeoff weight, along with improvements to the main rotor transmission and tail rotor mast, as well as a larger capacity fuel tank, was introduced. During 1990, MBB's American division launched a dedicated corporate version of the BK 117; it was furnished with a Honeywell-built SPZ-7000 digital automatic flight control system and a cocoon-type interior system; optional extras included a Bendix/King electronic flight instrumentation system (EFIS) and a clamshell cabin door. During 1992, the BK 117C-1, equipped with a revised EFIS panel and an improved environmental control system, along with greater hot-and-high performance, was introduced to service.

At one stage, there was considerable attention paid to the concept of a dedicated militarised variant of the type. During the 1985 Paris Air Show, the concept of an armed attack helicopter derivative, referred to as the BK 117A-3M, was revealed to the general public. As promoted, this variant would have been capable of being armed with launchers for eight Euromissile HOT 2 missiles and a chin-mounted Lucas-built turret for a Browning 12.7mm machine gun, aimed using a helmet-mounted sight. It was also to be equipped with various advanced targeting sensors, including an SFIM APX-M 397 roof-mounted stabilized sight. In order to provide sufficient ground clearance for the gun turret, the use of higher skid landing gear would have also been necessitated.

During the 1990s, as a result of the commercial success of the type, a refined derivative, initially marketed as the BK 117 C-2 prior to its rebranding as the EC 145 and later as the H145, was developed from the BK 117 C-1 version; this improved version of the rotorcraft has succeeded and eventually replaced the original BK 117 in production. In total, 443 BK 117s were manufactured by the two partners; 329 (and two prototypes) were produced by MBB at their Donauworth facility while 111 (and one prototype) were completed by Kawasaki in Japan. during the 1980s, an agreement was formed with Indonesian Aerospace, enabling the type to be produced under license in Indonesia, which was accordingly designated as the NBK 117; however, according to economics author Sören Eriksson, the Indonesian production programme was terminated after only a handful of rotorcraft were completed.

Since exiting production, third parties have produced their own upgrade programmes for existing BK 117s. In 2010, Airwork launched its conversion programme for the type, replacing the original LTS101-750B-1 engine with the newer LTS101-850B-2 engine, increasing both its performance, reliability and safety margins, resulting in the BK117-850D2; by 2016, Airwork had upgraded nearly 50 rotorcraft in this manner.

Design
The MBB/Kawasaki BK 117 is a twin-engined medium utility–transport helicopter. It possessed several attributes that lend itself to performing many different roles, such as twin-engine redundancy, sizable clamshell-shaped rear-facing double doors, and a relatively spacious cabin; one mission to which it was deemed to be particularly suitable was the emergency medical services (EMS). The airframe is composed of rivetted metal, making minimal use of composite materials, and machined to a high standard; in order to free up internal space, both the engines and transmission are positioned above the main cabin. Considerable efforts were made to reduce the weight of the aircraft where possible albeit without compromising the aircraft's structural integrity. The cabin could be outfitted with various interiors in order to suit its purpose, or to incorporate greater comfort levels, which included measures to dampen both noise and vibration.

Early versions of the BK 117 were powered by a pair of Lycoming LTS101 turboshaft engines, rated to generate 550 shp at takeoff with considerable reserve power to guard against a single engine failure. While each engine possesses sufficient power to maintain flight and even takeoff in the event of a single engine being rendered inoperable, the type also has favourable autorotation capabilities. In order to extend their operational lifespan and increase their reliability, MBB tuned the engines to operate at lower-than-standard revolutions per minute (RPM). The engines are regulated using a specialised control system which smoothly and evenly regulate RPM and torque between both engines, even during vigorous manoeuvers. Power management has been greatly eased via the addition of an automatic engine-governor system, allowing pilots to simply monitor the torque and engine temperature gauges. The aircraft can be suitably equipped for flight under instrument flight rules (IFR) as well as for single-pilot operations.

According to aviation publication Flying, as a consequence of its uncommon rigid main rotor system, the BK 117 possessed relatively high stability and manoeuvrability which, amongst other capabilities, reportedly gave the type the ability to perform a steeper approach than any other helicopter in its class. The four-bladed main rotor was smaller and slower-turning than many of its contemporaries, reducing both vibration and noise while also enabling the type to use more compact landing sites. The high-mounted tail boom and tail rotor of the BK 117 also presented several benefits, such as enhanced safety to personnel on the ground. In terms of its flight performance, the type was considered to be suitable for the execution of various aerobatic manoeuvres, such as flying loops and rolls, while retaining such levels of inherent stability that pilots could readily release both the cyclic and collective controls, unlike the majority of rotorcraft. The controls of the BK 117 are heavy and distinctly "un-twitchy". An optional Sperry-built three-axis stability augmentation system also served to improve the rotorcraft's ease of handling.

Operational history
A single BK 117 A-3 (c/n 7106) was leased by the Canadian Forces Air Command for a test program and designated as the CH-143. When the program was over, the aircraft was returned to MBB Canada.

A BK117 helicopter contracted by the New South Wales Rural Fire Service to fight fires crashed on 17 August 2018, the pilot died in the crash.

Variants
NOTE: All later models are derived from the BK 117 by Eurocopter Deutschland and later Airbus Helicopters.
 * BK 117 P-2 (D-HBKA):German prototype, first flown 13 June 1979. Now exhibited at the Bückeburg helicopter museum, Bückeburg, Germany.
 * BK 117 S-01 (D-HDRF):Initial pre-production prototype. Now preserved on top of the DRF-Headquarters at Stuttgart Airport.
 * BK 117 P-3/P-5 (JQ0003):Japanese prototype, first flown 10 August 1979. Now exhibited at Kakamigahara Aerospace Museum, Kakamigahara/Gifu, Japan
 * BK 117 A-1 :Powered by two Lycoming LTS 101-650B-1 engines. First flown 23 April 1982.
 * BK 117 A-3 :Introduced in March 1985, the A-3 has a larger tail rotor with improved blades, Yaw CSAS, improved stability (SPAS) and the take-off weight increased to 3,200 kg (7,055 lb).- The Canadian Armed forces leased a single BK 117-A3 for a test program and designated it the CH-143. When the program was over, the aircraft was returned to MBB Canada
 * BK 117 A-4 :Introduced in July 1986, the A-4 has increased transmission limits at take-off power, improved tail rotor head. German aircraft have provision for extra internal fuel, giving enhanced performance.
 * BK 117 A-3M :Military version introduced in 1986. The A-3M is fitted with taller skids and can carry 11 troops. A Browning 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine gun can be mounted under the fuselage in a Lucas turret with 450 rounds and controlled by a helmet-mounted sight. The A-3M also has outrigger pylons which can hold up to eight HOT II or TOW antitank missiles or a variety of air-to-air missiles, rocket-pods, or forward-firing cannons. Provisions for a doorway gunner's position with a 12.7 mm (0.5 in) gun can also be installed.
 * BK 117 B-1 :Introduced in December 1987, the B-1 is fitted with LTS 101-750B-1 engines to provide increased performance, and a 140 kg (309 lb) increase in payload.
 * BK 117 B-1C :UK-certified version with reduced range and endurance.
 * BK 117 B-2 :Maximum Gross Weight increased to 3,350 kg, 2 x Allied Signal Lycoming LTS101-750B-1 engines fitted as standard, new tail rotor blades, improved "hot and high" performance, take-off/landing limitation increased to 15,000 ft, improved flight performance for: HIGE/HOGE, single engine service ceiling.
 * BK 117 C-1 :Powered by two Turbomeca Arriel 1E engines. Later models may be upgraded to Arriel 1E2 engines.
 * NBK 117 :License-built model produced in Indonesia by Indonesian Aerospace.
 * BK 117-850D2 :Introduced in 2010, the 850D2 variant is an STC (Supplementary Type Certificate) development (i.e., re-engined) of BK 117 B-2 incorporating Honeywell LTS 101-850B-2 engines aimed at improving OEI and Category A performance. Development and certification was conducted in New Zealand by Airwork of Ardmore, NZ, in conjunction with Flight Structures Ltd.

The models BK 117-C2, -D2 and -D3 are therefore better known under their commercial naming convention EC145 and H145. Nevertheless, all models share the same EASA Type Certificate (see EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet).

Military and government

 * Fire and Rescue NSW (formerly)
 * New South Wales Rural Fire Service
 * New South Wales Rural Fire Service
 * New South Wales Police Force
 * Western Australia Police
 * Chilean Air Force
 * Carabineros de Chile
 * Colombian National Armada
 * Bundeswehr
 * Polizei
 * Bundeswehr
 * Polizei
 * Polizei
 * Hellenic Fire Service – Operates three BK-117C1s.
 * Prefectural police departments
 * Malagasy Air Force
 * Peruvian National Police
 * Malagasy Air Force
 * Peruvian National Police
 * Peruvian National Police
 * Peruvian National Police
 * Ministry of Emergency Situations
 * 🇪🇸 Spain
 * Guardia Civil
 * South African Air Force
 * South African Police Service
 * South African Police Service

 * Riverside County Sheriff's Department (California)
 * Riverside County Sheriff's Department (California)

Civil
The majority of the helicopters are operated by various emergency services although it is also operated by private individuals, companies and executive charter operators.
 * CareFlight
 * Westpac Life Saver Rescue Service
 * Shock Trauma Air Rescue Society
 * Helico Secours
 * Airmedic
 * ADAC
 * DRF Luftrettung
 * ADAC
 * DRF Luftrettung
 * DRF Luftrettung
 * Everett Aviation
 * Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust
 * Life Flight (New Zealand)
 * Canterbury West Coast Air Rescue Trust
 * Otago Rescue Helicopter Trust
 * Rega (air rescue) : 7 H145 since 2018, replacing the EC145
 * Daily Air Corporation
 * Si Chang Flying Services
 * Air Methods
 * St. Louis Children's Hospital
 * Orlando Regional Medical Center
 * Air Methods
 * St. Louis Children's Hospital
 * Orlando Regional Medical Center
 * Orlando Regional Medical Center

Former

 * Bophuthatswana
 * Bophuthatswana Air Force
 * Canadian Forces Air Command
 * Ciskei
 * Ciskei
 * Ciskei Defence Force
 * Transkei
 * Transkei Defence Force
 * Venda
 * Venda Defence Force

title: MBB/Kawasaki BK 117


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wik

mediation first?
Has the matter of Wik gone to the Mediation Committee yet? That is necessary to happen before going to the Arbitration Committee, no? Kingturtle 00:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Not according to our Jurisdiction at arbitration policy, which permits us to accept cases that have not gone through mediation. In this case, the mediator discussion can be read at the mediation board, and it seems to suggest that further mediation would not be helpful. Martin 00:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The why does step four read: The other steps failing you must have requested mediation on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and tried and failed to resolve the dispute through the good offices of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in order to proceed to the last step, requesting arbitration. ? Kingturtle 00:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Because it's inaccurate and it needs fixing, on account of we're halfway through sorting the process out.
 * I moved your comment here because (a) you're not an arbitrator and (b) this page is tough enough to manage without threadmode making it worse. Yes, this is probably elitist, but it doesn't make it easier to figure out the requisite four votes needed when a few hundred people can interject their two cents. Martin 00:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the metapage is overly posted. I was just following what looked like the protocol. Maybe you should remove the "Matters of" and "Evidence" from the metapage too. They are not formal requests. Kingturtle 01:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

targeting RickK?
Since the addition of my entry to this page, Wik has begun a campaing of reverting my reversions of POV material. He has turned his attention from reverting all of Anthony DiPierro's changes to reverting all of mine. RickK 04:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually it was Rick who started reverting all of Hector's changes. I reverted his reversions exactly like Rick reverted my reversions of Anthony's nonsense edits. The only difference is that I can't block Rick as he blocked me. --Wik 04:47, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note that I did not revert all of Hector's additions, unlike Wik, who announced that he would revert any and all additions made by Anthony, whatever their merit. RickK 04:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not revert any and all of Anthony's edits either. If something was obviously correct, I left it in place. But if it wasn't obvious, I didn't necessarily waste time analyzing it, and reverted based on Anthony's history of stupid edits. And that's exactly the same Rick did with Hector, having once decided that Hector is on a POV crusade, he just reverted, thereby just pushing his own POV, as he has no less of a pro-American bias than Hector has an anti-American one. --Wik 05:00, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree about this blind reversion. It seems like VeryVerily (and at least for today, RickK) always just looks through my user history and reverts every edit I make, no matter what it is.  Here's an example - I edit the French Communist Party page and note that for years the PCF was the largest political party in France.  I also change the nickname of Pol Pot to the real name Saloth Sar, but that is a minor point, since he is just one of the millions of PCF members anyway.  So what happens?  VV goes through my user history and reverts everything I editted.  So I go through his edit history and re-revert everything.  Then RickK does what VV did and re-re-reverts once again what I had re-reverted.  On the conflicts between users page, RickK accuses me of "adding blatantly POV additions".  How POV is is to note that the PCF was France's largest political party at one time?  It's a fact, look at election results.  Anyhow, for today at least, RickK accusing Wik of being revert-crazy is the pot calling the kettle black. -- HectorRodriguez 06:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I hope the arbitration committee is able to establish that these types of reverts are not to continue. Reverting an established user without even doing a basic search to find the facts, and without even giving so much as a reason on the talk page or even in the comment section is not acceptable.  If you've done a basic search and the information is not verifiable, then I can see removing it, once, with a comment "non-verifiable."  But to go on reverting 5, 10, 15 times, with no comments, when a link to the verification is right there in the added references section is completely unacceptable.  Wik has even gone so far as to remove my external links apparently without even looking at them.  This is tantamount to a unilateral ban Wik has attempted to enforce against me, although he has graced me with the ability to add "obviously correct" material. Anthony DiPierro 15:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Please keep politics out of it. The wikipedia would be so much simpler if everyone shared my POV as well. You have (in my eyes) a strong American POV, that is not shared by 172 or Wik. Perhaps we should ban everyone who disagrees with us? Secretlondon 08:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Is the matter now closed, since over seven days have passed since acceptance of the case and no decision has been made? -- Emsworth 22:29, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's a time limit on decisions being made. If there were a seven day limit, then all three current cases would just be thrown out, and that makes no sense.  The arbitrators appear to be voting on the findings of fact and remedies at the moment: Requests for arbitration/Wik/Decision. fabiform | talk 22:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the "Emergency Session" section of arbitration policy would imply a one week deadline. Since we got four cases going on at once, we've interpreted that a little more flexibly than perhaps we should. Martin 23:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * For me four cases = four weeks to decide them all. I'm sure we will be able to go faster once everything is set up and we have some more experience. I'm spending as much time as I can on arbitration as it is. --mav 05:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

thank you Arbitration Committee
Thank you for making a ruling. Keep up the good work. I realize the process is time consuming, and that you have no previous Committees to refer to, but your work is vital to our community. Please take on more cases soon :) Kingturtle 23:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks! :) --mav

 * I will abide by the committee's ruling. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What a crock
Great. Wik gets a slap on the wrist, and Ed Poor, Hephaestos and I get warnings for doing what nobody else on Wikipedia had the guts to do. It's obvious that the Arbitration and Mediation process is nonsense, and I will not participate in it again. RickK | Talk 02:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * While I agree with you that arbitration didn't work very well in this situation, I believe that was because it was brought prematurely. As for not participating in arbitration, you really don't have a choice.  Jimbo referred this case to the arbitration committee, and refusing to submit to arbitration, he says, "means an end to the privilege of editing." Anthony DiPierro 02:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Rick, although a couple of people initially thanked me for temp-blocking Wik, I was acting unilaterally: i.e., as a vigilante. I would prefer that all of us follow a single set of rules, and that an enforcement policy be followed fairly. The "warning" I got merely restates as official policy what I've been hoping for all along. I am content. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Heh, past history suggests Wik will be unable to control himself and will be back in the dock soon enough. The process has revealed more Wik supporters than I would have guessed, which is interesting to know. Stan 14:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Partially agreed: while the committee failed here in my opinion, I still welcome its existance. Hopefully future cases will be handled properly instead. — Jor (Darkelf) 15:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rick: I'm unsure why you describe our reminder to Wik as a "slap on the wrist", and our reminder to you as a "warning", as if they were two very different beasts. They are both formal reminders.

Also, you may note that Wik got, as well as a formal reminder, a three month probationary period, with the possibility of 24hr temp bans during this period. If you wish to assist the process, you may want to ensure that Wik complies by the terms of his probation, and apply a temporary ban if he does not. Martin 18:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * NO way. It would be just what people like you are looking for to get me blocked.  RickK | Talk 01:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * See, now I'm just confused. The arbitration committee (as a group) has explicitly authorised sysops to temp-block Wik in certain circumstances, as laid down in "remedy three" of our decision. An administrator is unlikely to face much serious criticism for a block explicitly authorised by the arbitration committee.

 * Regardless of that, I hope you are at least reassured that Wik did not get off with just a "slap on the wrist". Martin 01:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm dubious of the effect a temp block would even have. Edit comments from Wik such as "rv, new UTC day" lead me to believe that after the three months is up, the situation will revert to what it was before and this case will again be in arbitration. - Hephaestos|§ 01:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * So far, Wik is sticking to the terms set out by the arbitrations committee. For three months, we'll have relative peace, and we'll get experience with how well this remedy works. After three months, if this comes back to arbitration, the arbitrators are likely to hand down a stiffer sentence (at least according to what Fred said on the mailing list). I think it's a good result. -- Cyan 02:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, in fact he just got his first 24 hour block. MyRedDice obviously disagreed with the UTC 24 hour idea.  fabiform | talk 03:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I just used my judgement as a sysop, on seeing behaviour I felt might breach the probation. UTC (or any particular timezone) doesn't make much sense in an international project. Wik's suggestion of any 24 hour time period made more sense to me. I hadn't really considered the matter previously.

 * No doubt there will be future cases in which arbitration committee decisions are subject to interpretation. Folks have to use their judgement, in the end. Sysops who have a pattern of bad judgements will probably be asked by the community to resign as sysop. Martin 18:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd urge others to follow Martin's lead here - don't worry too much about how you measure the day. There's a certain amount of flexibility as to how to interpret "day" in the ruling. If you use your best judgement and act in good faith, you should be fine.

I'm a bit disappointed that some are saying this remedy is a failure so soon, by the way. If after a month or two things are no better or are even worse than they were before, then we can probably say this rememdy hasn't done us much good, but to me it seems too early to be making such judgements just yet. --Camembert

Clarification request
copied from user talk:Wik

Dear Wik,

The arbitration committee has investigated your case, and reached a decision. As a result of that decision:

The arbitration committee reminds you that auto-reverting any one user's edits is only acceptable if that user has been banned through the proper channels, or following clear community consensus.

The arbitration committee rules that you shall be placed on probation for a period of three months. If during that time period you revert the same page more than three times on the same day, you may be given a 24 hour "timeout" ban, at sysop's judgement. This measure is intended to be in addition to any wider policy that the community may decide to apply. Thus, if the community decides to permit sysops to temp-ban users in revert wars, you may be banned for an additional 24 hours, above the normal banning period.

Sincerely, Martin (on behalf of the arbitration committee)

 * Does "three times on the same day" mean on the same calendar day (if so, according to which timezone) or does it mean three times within any 24-hour period? Also, does "sysop's judgement" mean that if one sysop bans me, another who disagrees with it could immediately unban me? --Wik 23:39, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I would suggest concentrating on avoiding making multiple reverts, rather than worrying about the exact definition of the word "day". You may wish to err on the side of safety. Martin 23:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If you can't give a clear answer, I'll assume calendar days according to UTC. --Wik 00:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * You assumed wrong. See you in 24 hours. Martin 02:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

discussion continued here

[This] decision leaves some questions open, which probably no member of the committee thought about. Does "Three reverts in a day" refer to a calendar day, as might be typically assumed, or does "day" mean any 24-hour period? I asked on my talk page, but Martin failed to give a clear answer; I then said I would assume the calendar day, Martin didn't respond to that, yet he blocked me as soon as I reverted on a new calendar day, apparently because it wasn't 24 hours after the last revert on the previous day. I don't think he has the authority to decide this on his own anyway, and if so, he should have been clear. So I would like to have an official answer from the committee as a whole, and maybe Martin can be warned to adopt a more helpful attitude than he showed on my talk page. Furthermore I would like to know whether "sysop's judgement" means that a sysop can also unblock me if his judgement differs from another sysop who blocked me. --Wik 01:56, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is, to me, blindingly obvious that it means a rolling 24 hour period.
 * The sad thing, really, is that you're attempting to 'game' the system here, needing to work out exactly how much you're pissing everyone else off and whether you think you can get away with it. The point of the order was to encourage you to reform your poor behaviour, rather than merely act as a impediment on it.
 * Martin, now as in the past, enjoys my complete confidence.
 * James F. (talk) 02:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * How this is "blindingly obvious" is beyond me. Normally when one speaks of the "next day", it is the next calendar day, even if it's just ten minutes away. If you meant any 24-hour period you should have been explicit about that. So I would still request a vote of all arbitrators on that. As to the point of the order, an impediment is precisely what it is. If you want me to stop reverting as many times as I'm allowed, you should either provide a system of content arbitration or explain why I should just let content in place which I know is wrong. --Wik 02:25, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, "day" means any 24-hour period, for the reasons Martin states above.

I can only repeat what Martin said on your talk page and what James has said above: rather than trying to work out exactly how many reverts you're allowed before you get a ban, you should concentrate on avoiding reverting so much in the first place. I note that you're currently involved in edit wars over Antinomy, Paradox and Schnorrer. I note also that you've not made any comment on the talk page of any of those articles. Reverting a page without any discussion is rarely a productive way to edit. It's better to explain why you think your version is best and to address the concerns of others on the talk page. --Camembert

 * You can hardly expect that this kind of punishment makes me see things your way, so of course I want to know exactly how many reverts I'm allowed, especially when Anthony is in no way restricted and even allowed to use obvious sockpuppets to hide his reverts. The substance of the three disputes is rather self-evident, I also explained it on my user page. As usual, you're exhibiting your bias by blaming me, as if Anthony made any comment on those talk pages. --Wik 02:40, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)