text:
User talk:DragonFire

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
 * 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. 08:24, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Portugal FPF crest.png
Hi DragonFire, in April you uploaded an image of the portuguese football asociation. As there´s no statement of the origin, please add a comment about, wether it´s GFDL or not, 'cause I´d like to use it for interwiki. - Dragao 09:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image:FC Porto emblem.png
Image:Portugal FPF crest.png

Hi DragonFire, yet another license question ... in February you uploaded the emblem of FC Porto. As there´s no statement, please add the origin and a license statement (wether it´s GFDL, Public Domain or not). I´d like to use it for interwiki. Regards - Dragao 14:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template talk:Albumbox
I posted some questions about the albumbox template on the talk page. Thought you might be interested. -- Rick Block 15:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

awesome!
hey! nice job on 2004 European Football Championship - Germany. i really liked what you did with it. Kingturtle 06:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too! Great job you done for the 2004 European Football Championship articles! - Nick_C 17:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1994 Football World Cup logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:1994 Football World Cup logo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1974 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1974 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:France national football team logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:France national football team logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:France national football team logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:France national football team logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Portugal FPF crest.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Portugal FPF crest.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Portugal FPF crest.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Portugal FPF crest.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Portugal FPF crest.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:France national football team logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:France national football team logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1990 Football World Cup logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:1990 Football World Cup logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. King of Hearts 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:France_football_shirt_badge.png
I have tagged Image:France_football_shirt_badge.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Bigr Tex  20:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1978 Football World Cup logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:1978 Football World Cup logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1978 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1978 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1930 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1930 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1938 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1938 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1950 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1950 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1970 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1970 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:1966 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1966 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1954 Football World Cup poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1954 Football World Cup poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1958 Football World Cup poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1958 Football World Cup poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1934 Football World Cup poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1934 Football World Cup poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Music review
A tag has been placed on Template:Music review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Music review2
A tag has been placed on Template:Music review2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Music review header
A tag has been placed on Template:Music review header requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1982 Football World Cup poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1982 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1958 Football World Cup poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:1958 Football World Cup poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File:1954 Football World Cup poster.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1954 Football World Cup poster.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:DragonFire


text:
User talk:Esrogs

who is this clown???

Hey, I edited the Minnesota Timberwolves' page when I noticed your request... feel free to look through it to see if I missed anything!--ekedolphin 03:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Re: validity vs truth etc
Your changes in the logical fallacy article (which are more consistent with general usage) should also be reflected in the logical argument page. However, I confess to using the (somewhat idiosyncratic "formula valid in a model"), usage which I conced is much too idiosyncratic. Could I ask you to look at the logical argument page and make the changes there also? Thanks! CSTAR 03:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
BTW, I noticed nobody has welcomed you to WP. Welcome! CSTAR 17:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

greetings
sup eric aka radical edward its John from CPS100. Bubbachuck 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Working on a Duke Wiki

 * Hey Eric, we are making a Duke Community Wiki at http://www.duiki.com if you want to help out.

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

title: User talk:Esrogs


text:
Talk:What goes around comes around

Could this be incorporated into List of clichés instead of meriting a whole article on its own? --CeltMDC 08:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed, as I don't think there much more to write about the phrase than what's here now, without duplicating (or expanding) the existing Karma entry. I've just added this to the cliche list. Silverfish 14:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:What goes around comes around


text:
Talk:Quantum number

Nearly-compatible quantum numbers
In the section "Spatial and angular momentum numbers" the article states "As per the following model, these nearly-compatible quantum numbers are [...]". What does nearly-compatible mean? I have not heard of compatibility of quantum numbers. If this is not a scientific term, I believe this should be clarified. If it is, including a citation or further explanation would be helpful. --abhandari (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of electrons, the quantum numbers can be defined as "the sets of numerical values which give acceptable solutions to the Schrödinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom"
The article says: In the case of electrons, the quantum numbers can be defined as "the sets of numerical values which give acceptable solutions to the Schrödinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom" Seems to me that this is true near some positive particle. Well, much of quantum numbers has to do with the quantum description of an atom, but all this is also more general. Quantum mechanics also describes, for example, the states of spin 3/2 negatively charged particles around a spin 2 positive particle. Seems to me that a good part of the article should describe the quantum mechanics of electrons around nuclei, that being a common situation, but not the only one. Gah4 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the silliest statements I've read on Wikipedia, and I'm surprised it's been around for so long. Wow. What does this even mean? I'm deleting it. Just wow. Ponor (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

dimensionality
It seems that the number of quantum numbers needed is related to the dimensionality of the system. It takes three quantum numbers for a hydrogen-like atom because we live in a 3D universe. Should this be mentioned here? Gah4 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a misunderstanding. In addition to the degrees of freedom that arise from 3D space, particles can have internal degrees of freedom, like spin, and hence additional internal quantum numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:2C32:B9A0:1C47:6E99 (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true, but I did say related. Note that quantum systems could be numbered with only one quantum number, but it would be more complicated. Instead of spin, one could use even/odd values after doubling some other quantum number. The whole set of quantum numbers is (usually) countably infinite. The quantum numbers that we use tend to correspond to classical quantities, and so have connection to system dimensionality. Gah4 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The whole set of quantum numbers is (usually) countably infinite."
 * Yes, although the elements created to date stop at Oganesson, atomic number 2 + 4*(2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2) = 118. That fills up s,p,d,f and if anyone succeeds in pushing this to atomic number 121 (since 119 and 120 only need s again), f will need to be followed by g.
 * There has been some discussion of islands of stability, but the prospects for g followed by h any time this millennium seem pretty slim. Speaking as a pantheist who considers g*d to be the universe, I believe the universe doesn't want us to ever get even to g.  Certainly not in my lifetime.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the elements created to date stop at Oganesson, atomic number 2 + 4*(2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2) = 118. That fills up s,p,d,f and if anyone succeeds in pushing this to atomic number 121 (since 119 and 120 only need s again), f will need to be followed by g.
 * There has been some discussion of islands of stability, but the prospects for g followed by h any time this millennium seem pretty slim. Speaking as a pantheist who considers g*d to be the universe, I believe the universe doesn't want us to ever get even to g.  Certainly not in my lifetime.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Orbital hybridization
The rules subsection nicely uses carbon for an example. This might be a good place to mention that the basis for the numbering isn't unique, and, for examples, Sp3 hybridization. This is sort-of hinted at when it mentions linear independence earlier, but should be mentioned more. Gah4 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 * If we write the numbering system as (n, L, m, S) where n ranges from 1 to 7, 2L+1 ranges from 1 to n (so L ranges from 0 to 3), m ranges from -L to L, and S is either 0 or 1, then an equally good numbering system is (hn, T, L, m, S) where hn ranges from 0 to 3, T is 1 when hn == 0 and otherwise is 0 or 1, L ranges from 0 to hn, m ranges from -L to L, and S is either 0 or 1. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Good quantum number into Quantum number. There is no good reason that these should be two separate pages. I also note that what this article, in places, calls a quantum number, is more accurately called a good quantum number. Quantum numbers are more general; when they represent a conserved quantity they are referred to as good. Please also note that, although the Good quantum number article is shorter and less pretty than this one, it is far more accurate. I get the impression it was written by a professional physicist, whereas this article appears to have been edited by passionate amateurs (absolutely no offence meant by this). 2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:2C32:B9A0:1C47:6E99 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the Good quantum number page is fine, but it needs a new name. There is actually very little on actual quantum numbers. Otherwise, it seems that there could be (somewhere) discussion of allowed and forbidden transitions, which are related to quantum numbers, and especially that some are better than others. It seems that there is a page for forbidden transition but not for allowed transition. In any case, Good quantum number could be changed or renamed. Gah4 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood. It is this article Quantum numbers that is problematic. Some of the statements in it are simply false in general - instead they refer to particular cases of good quantum numbers. The whole article needs an overhaul. At the moment it is mainly describing good quantum numbers, not quantum numbers more broadly. A case could also be made for merging the articles with Complete set of commuting observables. I would strongly welcome the opinion of some professional quantum physicists 2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:FD4E:24FE:8C0D:1A4C (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect you could find something wrong with any article, but I do agree that this one could use some fixing. I am not sure that merging will fix it, though. I notice that Complete_set_of_commuting_observables seems to be a list of articles that might have too much overlap. (No pun intended. I didn't think of it until after I wrote it.) As above, though, I don't see so much wrong with Good quantum number except the name. There isn't much discussion of quantum numbers at all! Gah4 (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good points, thanks. I'll give this all some more thought. In the meantime, other opinions are also welcome (that's of course the purpose of a discussion!) By the way, my motivation (speaking as a graduate student of quantum physics) is that so many maths/physics articles on Wikipedia are astoundingly good - i.e. better than a lot of textbooks. Unfortunately, the ones being discussed here just do not seem up to the same standard. Again, there's absolutely no disrespect or criticism intended, just a desire to help improve things as I love Wikipedia!2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:58DF:2ED1:A67A:6DFB (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect you could find something wrong with any article, but I do agree that this one could use some fixing. I am not sure that merging will fix it, though. I notice that Complete_set_of_commuting_observables seems to be a list of articles that might have too much overlap. (No pun intended. I didn't think of it until after I wrote it.) As above, though, I don't see so much wrong with Good quantum number except the name. There isn't much discussion of quantum numbers at all! Gah4 (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good points, thanks. I'll give this all some more thought. In the meantime, other opinions are also welcome (that's of course the purpose of a discussion!) By the way, my motivation (speaking as a graduate student of quantum physics) is that so many maths/physics articles on Wikipedia are astoundingly good - i.e. better than a lot of textbooks. Unfortunately, the ones being discussed here just do not seem up to the same standard. Again, there's absolutely no disrespect or criticism intended, just a desire to help improve things as I love Wikipedia!2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:58DF:2ED1:A67A:6DFB (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good points, thanks. I'll give this all some more thought. In the meantime, other opinions are also welcome (that's of course the purpose of a discussion!) By the way, my motivation (speaking as a graduate student of quantum physics) is that so many maths/physics articles on Wikipedia are astoundingly good - i.e. better than a lot of textbooks. Unfortunately, the ones being discussed here just do not seem up to the same standard. Again, there's absolutely no disrespect or criticism intended, just a desire to help improve things as I love Wikipedia!2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:58DF:2ED1:A67A:6DFB (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good points, thanks. I'll give this all some more thought. In the meantime, other opinions are also welcome (that's of course the purpose of a discussion!) By the way, my motivation (speaking as a graduate student of quantum physics) is that so many maths/physics articles on Wikipedia are astoundingly good - i.e. better than a lot of textbooks. Unfortunately, the ones being discussed here just do not seem up to the same standard. Again, there's absolutely no disrespect or criticism intended, just a desire to help improve things as I love Wikipedia!2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:58DF:2ED1:A67A:6DFB (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this page just needs a professional editor. Merging it with another page wouldn't do any good, as the mistake is intrinsic. Anyways, imma just put this topic into WT:WC just in case :). Good job fellow editors! Ice bear johny (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What's the spin quantum number?
This article says $$s$$ is the "spin quantum number". The article spin quantum number starts by saying $$m_s$$ is the spin quantum number. But later at one point it calls $$s$$ the spin quantum number. $$s$$ and $$m_s$$ are different things, so this is a bit confusing.

Is there a standard definition of "spin quantum number", or do experts freely call both of these things the "spin quantum number"? If there's a standard definition, let's only call one of $$m_s$$ and $$s$$ the spin quantum number, not both. If there's not a standard definition, we should warn the reader. John Baez (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect people are lazy and use them wrong. Not only that, $m_{\ell}$ and $\ell$ also have that problem. When the distinction is needed, and often enough it isn't, both are used with distinct meanings. When the distinction isn't needed, it is convenient to use the $\ell$ and $s$. Especially since electrons are always spin 1/2, there is no need to remind people of that. Gah4 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two quantum numbers, $$s$$ for total spin and $$m_s$$ for projection of spin on $$z$$.
 * Eisberg, Robert, and Robert Resnick. Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei, and particles. 1985. Page 274.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of "integer" and "half-integer".
This article mixes up energy levels with transition energies and implies that measurements arrive at integer values. EG "quantities can only be measured in discrete (often integer) values." Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Symmetry
Discussion about the relation between symmetry and some of the quantum numbers, like those related to angular momentum, should be added. I don't have a reference in mind, but most of the advanced QM textbooks probably discuss such things. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 * You might take a look at
 * from Springer. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * from Springer. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Need a section History and on Hund's rules and Pauli
The current article starts with "Mathematical origin", implying that quantum numbers are a math thing rather than the other way around. The origin story for quantum numbers is vital to even understand why they are notable.

Central to the understanding of quantum numbers is Pauli's symmetry principle: without it we only need one quantum number ;-)

Hund's rules also deserve a section as they summarize the way that the electron quantum numbers (occupying most of the current article) impact chemistry. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Another problem with the article is the definition which assumes quantum numbers are conserved, making this duplicate of good quantum number. And even if the assumption of conservation is relaxed, the overlap remain quite significant. (Complete set of commuting observables is not too far either, but has more mathematical emphasis). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Conceptually these might overlap, but the content of the articles seem independent. This page does not even discuss conservation after the first sentence and the short description. Maybe we can have a summary section linking good quantum number? Including your suggestion about symmetry? Should connect with Yang-Mills theory and Spin–statistics theorem?
 * To be honest I'm not clear on how this overall topic should be handled. The electron section is good, provides a nice concrete example. But I don't think the article gets across the various meanings of quantum number, most especially its meaning as "a quantized degree of freedom for a particle". A symmetry/conservation section could help. Reworking the section "mathematical origin" might help.
 * I'll look in to a History section, summary mainly, so much appears in other articles. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The conservation is assumed in the 'Mathematical origin' section when the operators are required to commute with the Hamiltonian. It is implicit in later sections also: for spin-orbit coupled systems it leads us to reject the orbital/spin angular momentum basis; for elementary particles there is some related discussion about symmetries. My guess would be that it is easiest to approach the concept by starting with good numbers, and only later mention that even if the symmetries are broken, the same numbers can be used to describe the system.
 * For Yang-Mills and Spin-statistics, I don't immediately see the connection. Making a connection to a 'degree of freedom' is a good idea. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a small section on this, mainly to link the topics and "Aufbau principle" and Hund's rules. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a History through 1953. I tried to avoid being expansive and just focus on "quantum number".
 * I set it at the top as is common but the bottom is also common and fine by me. I would actually prefer the top to have a good short section on 'definition' but the math one.
 * @ReyHahn please check. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Much better than the rest of the article at the moment. The definition should indeed go to the top, unless the introduction is extensive enought to make it redundant. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Different meanings of quantum number.
I think on of the issues here is that different sources from different fields use the term. Atomic physics uses "quantum number" in two ways: as a quantized degree of freedom ("orbital angular momentum quantum number") and as an identifier for an energy level ("l=1 for p orbitals"). Particle physics uses the first meaning mostly. Ref: VS: Johnjbarton (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei, and particles by Eisberg, Robert Martin; Resnick, Robert.
 * Page 20: $$n h \nu$$, the $$n$$ is a "quantum number". So an integer scalar I guess.
 * Page 100: values in Bohr's radii formula. So a integer marker identifying a state.
 * Page 238: values in Schroedinger atom formula. Again an identifier.
 * Griffiths, David. Introduction to Elementary Particles. Germany, Wiley, 2020.
 * "The answer is that neutrons carry other 'quantum numbers' besides charge (in particular, baryon number), which change sign for the antiparticle." So a quantized degree of freedom.

 * I don't see that there would be two really distinct meanings here. It is just that in the first case the quantum number l is not specified, and in the second one it is set to l=1. I tried to check what Eisberg and Resnick write on those pages, but this must be different edition and the pages don't quite match (and I'm not sure how different the text would be from your edition).
 * I understand the set of quantum numbers as essentially the eigenvalues of a commuting set of observables (or closely related to them, as with $$L^2$$ operator and $$l$$) that we use to label the quantum states. This is how Bruus and Flensberg use the term:
 * "\nu\rangle$. The completeness of a basis state as well as the normalization of the state vectors play a central role in quantum theory"
 * The examples are the free particle, hydrogenic atom and a free electron in a magnetic field in Landau gauge. Here the quantum numbers are not necessarily discrete, as momenta are also referred to as quantum numbers.
 * The symmetry discussion actually seem to belong more to the good quantum number article (I wasn't aware of that previously). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have given the link to Eisberg/Resnick book. I was using the 1985 edition and didn't realize the 1974 edition was also online.
 * Ok, maybe I am making too much of the difference between a quantum number and its value. Particle physicists tend to focus on the "set of quantum numbers", per your quote above. Chemist and atomic physicists get very personable with the values, eg "ℓ = 0 is called s orbital, ℓ = 1, p orbital, ℓ = 2, d orbital, and ℓ = 3, f orbital." Q: "What's the quantum number for a d orbital?" Chemist: "Oh it's 2." Physicist: "Huh? It is orbital angular momentum, l, with value 2".
 * I just suggest that this may account for some of the lack of clarity in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote that gets at the issue I was trying to suggest:
 * "In other words, the quantum numbers satisfying the principle of per- manence, n and k, could serve as labels of the various electronic groups and subgroups."
 * The "permanence" of quantum number values seems unremarkable to us, but the labeling of atomic levels by a few words vs a value from a continuum revolutionized chemistry.
 * The context here is Pauli's exclusion principle work and the periodic table; (k will be renamed l, azimuthal, later).
 * Darrigol, Olivier. "8. A Crisis". From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992, pp. 175-212. (In De Gruyter library)
 * This source is quite detailed so I'm unsure how useful it will be. And I'm now convinced not to make an issue of the "identifier" aspect. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Flavour_quantum_numbers
Template:Flavour_quantum_numbers links this article with text "flavour quantum numbers". Sadly this page has almost nothing to say about that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quantum number


text:
William Pickering

William Pickering may refer to:

Politicians

 * William Pickering (Australian politician), Western Australian state MP
 * William Pickering (governor) (1798–1873), Republican governor of Washington territory, 1862–1866
 * William A. Pickering (1840–1907), first Protector appointed by the British government to administer the Chinese Protectorate in colonial Singapore
 * William Pickering (British MP) for Warwick (UK Parliament constituency)

Sports

 * William Pickering (cricketer) (1819–1905), organiser of the first overseas cricket tour by an English side
 * William Pickering (footballer) (1894–1917), Scottish-born association football player, playing for English team Burnley
 * Bill Pickering (footballer, born 1901) (1901–1971), English-born professional footballer, playing for English and Welsh teams
 * Bill Pickering (Australian footballer) (1879–1939), Australian footballer for St Kilda

Others

 * William Pickering (fiction), director of the National Reconnaissance Office in Dan Brown's book Deception Point
 * William Pickering (publisher) (1796–1854), British publisher and bookseller
 * Bill Pickering (rocket scientist) (1910–2004), director of the NASA/Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory from 1954 to 1976
 * William Henry Pickering (1858–1938), American astronomer

title: William Pickering


text:
Bill Pickering (rocket scientist)

William Hayward Pickering (24 December 1910 – 15 March 2004) was a New Zealand-born aerospace engineer who headed Pasadena, California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for 22 years, retiring in 1976. He was a senior NASA luminary and pioneered the exploration of space. Pickering was also a founding member of the United States National Academy of Engineering.

Origins and education
Born in Wellington, New Zealand, on 24 December 1910, Pickering attended Havelock School (also attended by Ernest Rutherford), Marlborough, and Wellington College. After spending a year at the Canterbury University College, he moved to the United States (where he subsequently naturalized), to complete a bachelor's degree at the California Institute of Technology ("Caltech"), and later, in 1936, a PhD in Physics. His speciality was in Electrical Engineering, and he majored in what is now commonly known in scientific vernacular as 'telemetry'.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory
William Pickering became involved with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in 1944, during the Second World War.

As the Director of JPL, from 1954, Pickering was closely involved with management of the Private and Corporal missiles under the aegis of the U.S. Army.

His group launched Explorer I on a Jupiter-C rocket from Cape Canaveral on 31 January 1958 less than four months after the Soviet Union had launched Sputnik.

In 1958 the lab's projects were transferred to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Pickering's team concentrated on NASA's unmanned space-flight program. JPL, under Pickering's direction flew further Explorer 3 and Pioneer missions as well as the Ranger and Surveyor missions to the moon and the several Mariner flybys of Venus and Mars.

Explorer III discovered the radiation field round the earth that is now known as the Van Allen radiation belt. Explorer 1 orbited for 10 years and was the forerunner of a number of successful JPL earth and deep-space satellites. William Hayward Pickering is not to be confused with William Henry Pickering, an astronomer from an earlier era.

At the time of his retirement as director, in 1976, the Voyager missions were about to launch on tours of the outer planets and Viking 1 was on its way to land on Mars.

Retirement
Pickering, keen to support authentic science in his home country, was Patron of New Zealand's only school-based research group, the Nexus Research Group, from 1999 until his death in 2004. Between 1977 and his death in 2004, Pickering also served as Patron of the New Zealand Spaceflight Association; a non-profit organisation that existed from 1977 to 2012 to promote an informed approach to astronautics and related sciences.

Gifford Observatory
Pickering re-opened the Gifford Observatory as the guest of honour, on 25 March 2002. He had been a frequent user of the observatory during his school days in Wellington College.

Death
Pickering died on 15 March 2004 of pneumonia at his home in La Cañada Flintridge, California, US.

Honours

 * In 1964, he was awarded the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement.
 * In 1964 he presented the Bernard Price Memorial Lecture in South Africa.
 * 1965 The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) Honorary Fellowship
 * Magellanic Premium in 1966.
 * IEEE Edison Medal in 1972, For contributions to telecommunications, rocket guidance and spacecraft control, and for inspiring leadership in unmanned exploration of the solar system.
 * National Medal of Science in 1975 awarded by President Gerald Ford
 * Honorary (because of his American citizenship) investiture as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1975
 * In 1980 he was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame.
 * In 1979, Pickering was inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame at the San Diego Air & Space Museum.
 * Japan Prize in 1994
 * In the 2003 Queen's Birthday Honours, he was appointed an honorary member of the Order of New Zealand, the highest civilian award in the New Zealand honours system.
 * Pickering is one of the few non-politicians to have appeared on the cover of Time magazine twice.

Honorific eponyms
In 2009 to mark the International Year of Astronomy, William Hayward Pickering was selected along with cosmologist Beatrice Tinsley to have their names bestowed on peaks in the Kepler Mountains of New Zealand's Fiordland National Park. In December 2010 the New Zealand Geographic Board officially gazetted Mount Pickering as an official New Zealand place name.

Three roads in New Zealand have been named after Pickering, namely: Sir William Pickering Drive in the Canterbury Technology Park in Christchurch; Pickering Crescent in Hamilton; and William Pickering Drive in Auckland.

In December 2018 New Zealand company Rocket Lab announced that the fourth launch of their Electron rocket and their first mission for NASA's Educational Launch of Nanosatellites programme will be named "This one's for Pickering", in honour of Bill Pickering.

Minor planet 5738 Billpickering is named in his honour.

title: Bill Pickering (rocket scientist)


text:
Aegopodium podagraria

Aegopodium podagraria, commonly called ground elder, is a species of flowering plant in the carrot family Apiaceae that grows in shady places. The name "ground elder" comes from the superficial similarity of its leaves and flowers to those of elder (Sambucus), which is not closely related. Other common names include herb gerard, bishop's weed, goutweed, gout wort, snow-in-the-mountain, English masterwort and wild masterwort. It is the type species of the genus Aegopodium. It is native to Europe and Asia, but has been introduced around the world as an ornamental plant, where it occasionally poses an ecological threat as an invasive exotic plant.

Description
This herbaceous perennial grows to a height of 100 cm from underground rhizomes. The stems are erect, hollow, and grooved. The upper leaves are ternate, broad and toothed. It flowers in spring and early summer. Numerous flowers are grouped together in an umbrella-shaped flowerhead known as a compound umbel. The main umbel is further divided into several secondary umbels known as umbellets or umbellules. Each umbellet has 15 to 20 rays (pedicels) that are each topped with a single, small, five-petaled white flower. They are visited by many types of pollinating insects.

The fruits, produced in late summer and autumn, are small and have long curved styles.

Distribution
Aegopodium podagraria is distributed widely in the temperate zone of western Asia and the whole of mainland Europe. It has been introduced elsewhere, including Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia (including Tasmania), New Zealand, and Japan.

Invasive habit
Seed dispersal and seedling establishment are typically limited by shading, and new establishments from seed are restricted to disturbed areas. However Aegopodium podagraria readily spreads over large areas of ground by underground rhizomes. Once established, the plants are highly competitive, even in shaded environments, and can reduce the diversity of ground cover and prevent the establishment of tree and shrub seedlings. Because of its limited seed dispersal ability, short-lived seed bank and seedling recruitment, the primary vector for dispersal to new areas is human plantings as an ornamental, medicinal or vegetable plant, as well as by accidentally spreading rhizomes by dumping of garden waste. It spreads rapidly under favorable growing conditions. Because of this it has been described as a nuisance species, and been labelled one of the "worst" garden weeds in perennial flower gardens.

Status as an invasive exotic plant
A. podagraria has been introduced around the world, including in North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, most commonly as an ornamental plant. It readily establishes and can become naturalized in boreal, moist-temperate and moist-subtropical climates. It is an aggressive invader in the upper Great Lakes region and northeastern North America, Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand. It can pose an ecological threat owing to its invasive nature, with potential to crowd out native species. Because of its potential impacts on native communities and the difficulty of controlling it, it has been banned or restricted in some jurisdictions outside its native range, including in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Vermont in the USA.

Control
Once established, goutweed is difficult to eradicate. The smallest piece of rhizome left in the ground will quickly form a sturdy new plant. All-green goutweed may be more persistent and spread more rapidly than ornamental, variegated goutweed varieties, making the all-green type particularly difficult to control. And all-green, wild type forms are known to reappear from seeds of variegated varieties.

Integrative management strategies that combine herbicide with landscape cloth, bark mulch, and hand weeding to control goutweed in a garden are largely unsuccessful because sprouting occurs from either rhizomes or root fragments left in the soil. Hand pulling, raking, and digging followed by monitoring to control goutweed may be effective; however, caution must be taken to remove the entire rhizome and root system. Removing flowers before seed set may help control the spread of goutweed. Because goutweed's starch reserves are typically depleted by spring, removal of leaves in spring could be effective in starving the plant. Once goutweed has been removed, the patch should be carefully monitored periodically for a few years. New shoots should be dug up and destroyed. Revegetation with other plant materials is recommended.

Systemic herbicides such as glyphosate are recommended because A. podagraria will regrow if merely defoliated.

The most effective means of control is to prevent its establishment in natural communities. It is thus recommended to plant goutweed only on sites not adjacent to wildlands and in gardens where root spread can be restricted (e.g., between a sidewalk and a house). However, the aggressive nature of this plant makes even this strategy risky. Several states have banned sales of goutweed (also known as bishop's weed).

Ornamental use
A variegated form is grown as an ornamental plant. However it is banned in several states owing to its invasiveness. Seeds from the variegated form may revert to the more aggressive green form.

Ecology
In Eurasia, it is used as a food plant by the larvae of some species of Lepidoptera, including dot moth, grey dagger and grey pug, although A. podagraria is not the exclusive host to any of these species.

Uses as food and medicine
The tender leaves have been used since antiquity as a spring leaf vegetable, much as spinach is used. It is commonly used for soup. Young leaves are preferred as a pot herb. It is best picked from when it appears (as early as February in the UK and other parts of northern Europe) to just before it flowers (May to June). If it is picked after this point it tastes pungent and has a laxative effect. However it can be stopped from flowering by pinching out the flowers, ensuring the plant remains edible if used more sparingly as a pot herb.

It also had a history as a medicinal herb to treat gout and arthritis, applied in hot wraps externally upon boiling both leaves and roots together. Ingested, the leaves have a diuretic effect and act as a mild sedative. Its use as a medicinal herb has largely declined.

The plant is said to have been introduced into Great Britain by the Romans as a food plant and into Northern Europe as a medicinal herb by monks. It is still found growing in patches surrounding many monastic ruins in Europe, and descriptions of its use are found among monastic writings, such as in Physica by Hildegard von Bingen.

Do not confuse with extremely toxic poison hemlock and hemlock water-dropwort.

title: Aegopodium podagraria


text:
RLS

RLS may refer to:

Education

 * Royal Latin School, a grammar school in Buckingham, England
 * Stevenson School, formerly Robert Louis Stevenson School, California

Science and technology

 * Recursive least squares filter, in minimisation
 * Regularized least squares, for solving least-squares problems
 * Reef Life Survey, a marine monitoring program in Tasmania
 * Restless legs syndrome, a medical disorder

Other uses

 * Real-life slash, a subgenre of real person fiction
 * Rial (disambiguation), plural abbreviation Rls, Middle Eastern currency units
 * Robert Louis Stevenson, Scottish writer

title: RLS


text:
Talk:Royal Academy of Music

Untitled
What is the point in the "See alsos" here? It could simply grow to be a list of every school of music in the world. Surely a link to a general "music schools" page would make more sense? I might change it. Nevilley 08:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yep, that makes more sense. --Camembert

 * I agree. Nick04 19:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arvo Part not Russian!
Arvo Part is Estonian! :) - Gjonss

Photographs
Why on earth did someone take down the professional photographs of the building that were on this page?

Hii
My name is meiyandre Lyntanique Mia memei hartlief l was born in the year 2012 I love singing 41.149.77.1 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Royal Academy of Music


text:
Talk:Royal College of Music

"most prestigious" claim
Um - are we going to have this "most prestigious" claim for, what, every music school in the UK? Or just some of them? :) Nevilley 08:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I've just removed a raft of POV content, including "excellent summer school", "hand-picked youngsters", etc.  Has the PR dept been at work? Cal T 23:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did Andrew Lloyd Webber really go to the RCM? His Wikipedia article doesn't say so. (I know his father taught there, and maybe his brother Julian went there.) Ben Finn 19:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he was a junior scholar? Countersubject 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I deleted some non-NPOV from the intro. They are, even when sourced, highly unencyclopedic and should not be in the article. Please remember that this is not prospectus/viewbook and such claims of prestige and greatness make them sound self-promotional material. Even the Juilliard, Cambridge University, the Academy, the Curtis institute's articles don't bare any self promotion in their intro paragraphs. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Famous students
Shouldn't that be 'Famous Former Students' or even 'Famous Alumni' ???

Baby out with bathwater?
This edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_College_of_Music&diff=221778627&oldid=221289813

- is I guess an attempt to introduce a bit more NPOV but it has an unfortunate effect. The latest version from 24.9.77.229 said:

Since its founding, the list of students and professors at the RCM have included some of the most distinguished and influential figures in the history of classical music.

- and 151.205.118.239 has now revised it to read:

Since its founding, the students and professors at the RCM have played a significant role in the history and development of classical music.

This is perhaps better NPOV but it spoils the sense of 24.9.77.229's sentence which had the crucial "have included". This made better sense because the new one seems to sound as if ALL of the students and profs have played a significant role, and they haven't. The previous version made it clear that it was some of them. Do you see what I mean? I am not sure how to fix it but I hope someone else can see how. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Since its founding, the list of students and professors at the RCM have included some of the most distinguished and influential figures in the history of classical music" and "Since its founding, the students and professors at the RCM have played a significant role in the history and development of classical music" are not very neutral and both should be avoided. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:AWW. Cheers. --Karljoos (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an unregistered editor who keeps adding the sentences above mentioned. Please visit the articles of other major conservatoires: almost none of them promote the subject in such a subjective way. The RCM is without any doubt one of the best conservatoires in Europe, but the sentence removed, even if sourced, is highly unencyclopedic. Thank you--Karljoos (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Junior Department of the Royal College of Music to Royal College of Music
I have proposed that Junior Department of the Royal College of Music is merged here, creating a new section. I think there is no need of a separated article. The JDRCM article includes information that is superficial such as the fees or a list of ensembles and other information that is closer to a brochure/viewbook than to an article.--Karljoos (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

FRCM?
FRCM redirects here, but the article makes no mention. What is it? —Frungi (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See the 'Awards' section of the article - FRCM stands for 'Fellow of the Royal College of Music' and is one of the awards bestowed by the college. 87.112.74.175 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I've just adjusted that FRCM link to point directly to the 'Awards' section. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Royal College of Music