text:
Talk:Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

This and that
I wrote this based mainly off my notes from an international law course from last semester and I'm sure that more work is needed on it. One thing that could use more information is the decision of the ICJ to rule on the case (it was somewhat controversial of them to do so, the arguments pro and con deserve to be included). Also, is my description of the main arguments in the case correct? I hope that someone more familiar with the case than I can help here. Jacob1207 04:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Jacob. I added the words in italics: "Nuclear weapons have not been used at a large scale in a war  since 1945 because nuclear weapons have been tested dozens of times since then, and depleted uranium weapons were used in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Get-back-world-respect 21:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Although G-b-w-r is correct to point out the historical fact that nuclear weapons have in fact been "used" since 1945, the statement in the article was reporting the findings and reasoning recited by the World Court, so I would ask G-b-w-r please to take a second look at this correction, if he or she has not done so already, and compare it with the text of the opinion, to see if the correction remains true to what the ICJ said. The ICJ analysis actually made a point of considering possession and deployment as separate from threat or detonation-use. If there is any confusion or possibility of misunderstanding, maybe this important fact belongs in a separate sentence, as a comment on the ICJ's findings and opinion. I haven't had a chance to study the ICJ opinion again carefully, to see whether the correction as it stands is accurate with regard to what the ICJ said, but I have an uneasy feeling about this. Thanks. 151.200.125.46 05:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, though I think that if anyone starts popping off fusion bombs international courts will go from mostly ignored to completely irrelevant (or to a sheet of molten, radioactive glass). Not that I'm criticizing the accuracy of the article or suggesting a change, just felt like making the point.

 * Well, and this is all PoV, but in my opinion the U.N. is basically irrelevant when it comes to 'international law'. It exists mostly to give smaller nations a podium to vent and to let the big boys try peaceful solutions first (or to seem nicer and like they played ball when they do have to go stomp somebody later), so as a forum of discourse it's great. However 'laws' require some form of enforcement if they're to be taken seriously and the U.N. doesn't have that, never will, and shouldn't. If a true power such as the U.K., France, definetly China and the U.S., maybe Russia still, or the like decides to just piss on it their isn't anything they can do. At it's very inception it was designed to be a helpless body that could only enforce itself through outside aid. Since the various powers with nuclear weapons are the ones who provide that outside enforcement aid, what's it going to do? Tell the Chinese, U.S., and other militaries to go stop themselves? Or in other words, you're appraisel is pretty much accurate. The smaller countries push this stuff out all the time, and the big nations just smile and nod their heads at the children that don't matter in the grand scheme so they feel special and like they have real power. The day the U.N. trots out a law that actually directly challenges the big boys is the day before all those little piddly nations don't even get what little voice they have anymore. [Wednesday, 2007-03-21 T 04:31 UTC]

Summary
The summary seems to be original research. I have not bothered to check beyond the first paragraph that mentiones paragraph 72. Paragraph 72 states:
 * ... That application by the General Assembly of general rules of customary law to the particular case of nuclear weapons indicates that, in its view, there was no specific rule of customary law which prohibited the use of nuclear weapons; if such a rule had existed, the General Assembly could simply have referred to it and would not have needed to undertake such an exercise of legal qualification. :

is the contrary of what is being stated about the paragraph in the summary. Please see the article on military necessity for a more detailed argument about unnecessary suffering. It is not at all clear that the paragraphs mentioned in this judgment conclude that the use of nuclear weapons cause unnecessary suffering above that consequential to military necessity. If this is indeed the conclusion drawn by some legal scholars then those legal scholars should be cited. likewise the other bullet points need a cited source for the conclusions that they are drawing -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another example in passing. This article currently states "First and Second Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions," But how many of the Necluar states have ratified those protocols? For example any legal scholar will be aware that Britain signed the protocol but included reservations on HMG's Ratification and Accession to Protocol I ( expressed in a Declaration on 2 July 2002) that states that "It continues to be the understanding of the United Kingdom that the rules introduced by the Protocol apply exclusively to conventional weapons without prejudice to any other rules of international law applicable to other types of weapons. In particular, the rules so introduced do not have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons." This statment by a permament member of the UN Security Council must affect the interpretation of this judgement in relation to Protocol I. Further AFAICT Protocol II [Additional to the Geneva Conventions] is not mentioned in the Judgement, (it is protocol II of the the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is) so why is Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions mentioned in this article? Further Paragraph 50 of the judgement specifically mentions "The Court finds that it is not called upon to deal with an internal use of nuclear weapons." which would seem to explicitly rule out Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi Philip: the "summary" was my addition to the article, and was left unfinished - I ran out of time a week or so ago and left various loose ends. My bad. I will be spending some time on this summary in the near future, but for the moment feel free to take it out. It is based on one interpretation of how the ICJ Opinion effects the UK-US Trident missile, so will almost certainly need some rewriting. Thanks for your attention to this article, which I'm trying to get up to a decent standard: it's currently a nominee at WP:ACID, and you may wish to vote for it there. --Jim (Talk)

UK Reaction
The government statement is very useful information, so I've placed it in the context of the other stuff on UK law (put under "English Law" previously). What I'm really looking for now is a justification of the government position: they just seem to be stating it in every source I've checked, without backing it up with legal argument. It would be fascinating to hear what their argument is.

Also, I've started using "blockquote" rather than "cquote" as I think that is the style we're supposed to use. --Jim (Talk) 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The UK Government's position is explained by generlising paragraph 55 of the ICJ opinion, "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States," and by HMG's reservations on ratification and Accession to Protocol I. It is that under international law as practiced by states (not what some NGO's would like it to be) that they reserve the right to use WMD either for military necessity (as for example the threat in the Cold War to use tactical nukes on massed Soviet armoured columns) or in retaliation if attacked by others using WMD --Article 51 or UN charter {See paragraph 59 of the ICJ opinion}-- (This was the position in the First Gulf War by both Thatcher (UK) and Cheney (US)). I guess if you look hard enough you will find a decent source which explains this better than I can :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Article title
The current title of the article is unwieldy, and the capitalization looks funny because of the embedded title of the actual opinion. I would suggest moving the article to Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, and have the current title redirect there rather than vice versa. By comparison, articles on other court cases have titles like Marbury v. Madison rather than United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Similarly, this article should be titled the same as the advisory opinion it's about. That it is an ICJ advisory opinion should be abudantly clear from the content of the article. Thoughts? PubliusFL 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that the current title is unwieldy and should be changed. However, although titles like "Marbury v. Madison" clearly refer to court cases, I'm not sure that Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons does. Maybe the article should be renamed to ICJ Hearing on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons? I think there was some discussion on the International Law wikiproject about the naming conventions for ICJ hearings - might be of use to you. --Jim (Talk) 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the wikiproject (WikiProject International law). On the project case, regarding the citation of ICJ cases, it says "Introductory articles such as 'The' and the words 'Case' or 'Case Concerning' should be omitted."  A fortiori, I would think that additional explanatory words should not be inserted in the article title.  Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons may not clearly refer to a court case, but it is the actual title of the opinion (as I understand it).  It's clear from the article that we're talking about an ICJ advisory opinion.  By the same token, if you read Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? it's clear that the article is about a collage with that title, rather than a book, motion picture, or magazine article.  They don't call the article Pop art collage called Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? just to make sure that you know what type of work the title belongs to. PubliusFL 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Good argument - I'm happy with the move to Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons now. --Jim (Talk) 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is much better if this article remains at "International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" because to change the title to "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" will over time alter the article into one which is a discussion about the legality of nukes in general and not this specific court case. For example under the title "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" what is to stop someone introducing sections on the opinions of every tom dick and hairy NGO and a section on Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State? So I think that if the article is to be renamed to "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" it should be via a WP:RM request so that the issues can be thoroughly discussed with a larger pool of participants. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point Philip, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. It's pretty clear that this article is about the ICJ opinion, so I don't think anyone will turn it into a more general discussion of the legality of nuclear weapons. Noone has done this yet, and if they do other editors could simply revert their edits and point out to them what seems obvious to me: that this article should only cover the ICJ opinion. To be honest, I think this is indicated in the title of the article, since the use of capital letters in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons suggests immediately that the article refers to something specific; Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be a more likely name for a general discussion article, in-keeping with the WP style guide on the use of capital letters. Removing "International Court of Justice advisory opinion on" from the start of the article name keeps it in-line with what the guys at the International Law Wikiproject seem to like.

 * I guess I should also point out that the correct title of the AO was "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", not "The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict". I just changed the first line of the article which used the second form. The AO relating to the use of NW's in Armed Conflict was, I think, the one in response to the request from the WHO, and basically said, "sorry chaps, no can do". --Jim (Talk) 10:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the title is certainly unwieldy, I think Philip's point is a very good one. --kingboyk (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Two caveats in the Opinion
The advisory opinion says the following:

"in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

I think the article should clarify precisely what the court meant by "the current state of international law" and "the elements of fact at its disposal", but I'm not sure what these things mean myself. Anyone got any sources? --Jim (Talk) 10:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro
The lead (intro) is too long. It should be a summary of the article. Can we get the quoted text moved into a section please? See WP:LEAD. --kingboyk (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg trials basis
No German was tried for the use of indiscriminate bombing of civilians with V2's etc, thus making also nuclear "dehousing" campaigns legal, unless the laws have changes since this paper came out.MILITARY LAW REVIEW VOL. 33 from 1966 --Stor stark7 Speak 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs legal arguments not descriptions of weapons
on 26 December Brianm358 added to this article lots about the new weapon development and deployment of nuclear weapons by state. In doing so Brianm358 also deleted of the legal arguments for and against the development and deployment of new weapons in the UK, replacing it with: "The British government has announced plans to refurbish its Trident SLBM missiles and build a new class of three or four submarines on which to base them, replacing the four existing Vanguard Class boats.[49] This has caused some debate of the legality of the proposal within the UK."

What Brianm358 dismissed in one sentence "This has caused some debate of the legality of the proposal within the UK." was a whole section looking at the legal arguments for and against deployment of new weapons in the UK based on this ICJ ruling. The section does not need expanding with what the nuclear weapon states are deploying as was done in the new Russian section "Russia introduced a new ICBM missile, the RT-2UTTKh Topol-M in the late 1990s...". but the legal justifications given by the Russians for introduced a new ICBM missiles. -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410131344/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7646.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7646.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616151407/http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/White%20Paper%20Nuclear%20Deterrent.pdf to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/White%20Paper%20Nuclear%20Deterrent.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002435/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
 * Added tag to http://www.peacerights.org/aboutus.php
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130113035419/http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195 to http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193241/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20061123104513 to http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20061123104513
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130113035419/http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195 to http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195
 * Added tag to http://www.peacerights.org/aboutus.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002435/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227095818/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206131612/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/7648.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/7648.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229161239/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7497.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7497.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229160933/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Redux

The Redux Archives ---
 * Blast from the past I
 * Blast from the past II
 * Blast from the past III
 * Blast from the past IV
 * Blast from the past V
 * Blast from the past VI
 * Blast from the past VII
 * Blast from the past VIII
 * Blast from the past IX
 * Blast from the past X

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

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 on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Welcome is a good place to start. How does one edit a page gives editing help. Manual of Style gives formatting info. Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now. Help covers a broad range of useful topics. Village pump is a place to ask questions. Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 04:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Congratulations, you're an admin! Please try to be conservative in the use of your new capabilities.  Best regards, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You're now a bureaucrat, so jump in and help out where you can. Follow the discussions at the bureaucrat's noticeboard and use your new powers for good of course. :) - Taxman Talk 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, after I pestered Suisi, she gave you the oversite bit. Happy editing. Raul654 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Redux. As requested on meta, your check-user flag is now active.
 * Please subscribe to checkuser-l and email checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org so that the listadmins know that you are allowed on the mailing list. (The list may contain confidential information). Bye. --Paginazero 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems from your latest post to the Bureaucrat noticeboard that you haven't seen how fast this issue has moved. Administrators were given the ability to assign and remove "rollback" permissions a few days ago, see the user rights log or the new Requests for rollback board. WjBscribe 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Jimbo and Anthere have commented on the implementation - Jimbo here and Anthere here. WjBscribe 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Welcome to my talk page! Please add your message below this template and at the bottom of the page. (do it now) I will generally reply in your talk page. Thanks.

Welcome back
I was happy to see your name appear in my watchlist just now and was even happier when I read your edit summary here. Welcome back, Redux; it's good you've returned. I remember you being the bureaucrat who made me an admin back in the day. :) Best. Acalamari 18:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you Acalamari!!! It is nice to be back. I had been meaning to for quite a while. Still lots of catching up to do, but I'll get there. Excellent to see that you have stuck around all these years :). It was my pleasure to "push the button" for your promotion. And it shows that the good, honest work we have been doing on the project for more than a decade really paid off. Redux (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Good to see you back again. It's been a long while. :) - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mailer!!! Nice to see you're still around as well :) It's a pleaseure to be back! :)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Camille Muffat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Figaro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Thanks to the bot owner. Redux (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"especifically" is probably misspelled.
My title for this message is taken from the top of the #4 US-Google hit for the word. The #1 hit is from Merriam-Webster, listing a "new word", seemingly explaining it as a portmanteau word, but contributed by someone who offered their name but no title or affiliation with the name. The #2 is a partial match to the entry for the Catalan word "especific", in en:Wikt, and other en:WP and en:Wikt hits are on a talk page and in descriptions of other words' specific domains, respectively -- by contributors who i think in each case were a non-native English-speaker. #5 is the personal name of a 'net-graphical paper-doll on a choose-from-this-list-of-languages page. I haven't checked OED, but i'm pretty sure English use of the word is somewhere on the range between super-peculiar and bizarre. I admire the many non-native speakers of English whose English is far better than my only even-marginally-usable second language, but IMO this term should be thot of as a trap. --Jerzy•t 08:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of Bureaucrats
You are receiving this message because you are listed at Bureaucrats. Writ Keeper pointed out that these users were not directly notified of the community discussion ending August 2015, where consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

As of 1 October 2015, any former bureaucrat who has not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years that wishes their bureaucrat permissions restored will need to request reinstatement at RFB.

If you intend to return to bureaucrat activity, please request restoration of permissions before 1 October 2015 or three years passes since your last bureaucrat activity, whichever is later.

Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xenotalk 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that any potential restoration of permissions is also subject to Bureaucrats: a former bureaucrat who has been completely inactive for three years would need to seek reinstatement at WP:RFB notwithstanding the above. –xenotalk 12:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Humm, I see. Well, I haven't been completely inactive since my original wikibreak until now, but I was inactive for a period a bit longer than 3 years between 2009 and 2012. I'm not sure if that's red tape, but I'm also not interested in "gaming the rules". As I had mentioned some time back, I was not particularly concerned with getting the tools back, given my inactivity. I had only considered that I might jump back in and maybe help given the "special procedure" mentioned in your original message. But even so I would look to get some kind of feedback or consensus from the Admin/Bcrat community before even considering putting in the request. If there would be bureaucratic concerns (no pun intended) which would require me to "wiki-lawyer" in order to get the tools back, I would think that the original purpose of trying to help would end up being defeated. Redux (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. –xenotalk 14:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Domluis.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Domluis.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 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Being that the image is without use, please do delete it. Thank you! Redux (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2015 (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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was recently on the Boulder City, Nevada page, and it cites Robert M. Broadbent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_N._Broadbent). However, that page shows as being deleted by you. Besides being the Clark County Aviation Director, he was also the first mayor of Boulder City, Nevada. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder_City,_Nevada). I want to resurrect the page, adding other tidbits about this person who is important in the history of Southern Nevada (Clark County is where Las Vegas is located). Wikipedia rules state that I should contact the person who did the deleting, beforehand. I'm doing that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCD (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pedir um favor
Será que poderias traduzir este artigo do português para o inglês? Att (Saudações Brasileiras). 187.104.25.153 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Domluis.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Domluis.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:5centavoIIback.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:5centavoIIback.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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation of Villa Annoni
Could you please translate https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Annoni ? I would like to have it in English because there are a lot of American tourists coming here to see the Villa and there is no material. Something in their mother tongue would be helpful. --DelicateAloe (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. No problem. Cheers! Redux (talk)
 * Thanks! --DelicateAloe (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Villa Annoni
Hello, Redux,

Thanks for creating Villa Annoni! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

/* Bom dia */
Poderias traduzir o artigo pt:Batalha da Praça da Sé por favor? Agradeço desde já pela paciência. 2804:14C:5BB5:8B2F:40D3:7B13:E99C:59B1 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

TFA nomination for Chagas disease
I have nominated Chagas disease to appear as today's featured article for an unspecified date. Please click here if you would like to join the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"Rio Claro(São Paulo)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Claro(S%C3%A3o_Paulo)&redirect=no Rio Claro(São Paulo)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

missing
Hi. You are now listed as missing, as we seek to recognize those editors who impacted the project and are no longer contributing. Should you ever return or simply don't want to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Please do not see this message as any sort of prod to your activity on wiki, as we all would hope to enjoy life after having edited here. Chris Troutman ( talk )  14:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Removal from member list You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.

Best wishes,  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  14:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Redux


text:
Sedimentation equilibrium

Sedimentation equilibrium in a suspension of different particles, such as molecules, exists when the rate of transport of each material in any one direction due to sedimentation equals the rate of transport in the opposite direction due to diffusion. Sedimentation is due to an external force, such as gravity or centrifugal force in a centrifuge.

It was discovered for colloids by Jean Baptiste Perrin for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1926.

Colloid
In a colloid, the colloidal particles are said to be in sedimentation equilibrium if the rate of sedimentation is equal to the rate of movement from Brownian motion. For dilute colloids, this is described using the Laplace-Perrin distribution law:

$$\Phi(z) = \Phi_0\exp\biggl(-\frac{m^*g}{k_BT}z\biggr)=\Phi_0e^{-z/l_g}$$

where

$$\Phi(z)$$ is the colloidal particle volume fraction as a function of vertical distance $$z$$ above reference point $$z=0$$,

$$\Phi_0$$ is the colloidal particle volume fraction at reference point $$z=0$$,

$$m^*$$ is the buoyant mass of the colloidal particles,

$$g$$ is the standard acceleration due to gravity,

$$k_B$$is the Boltzmann constant,

$$T$$ is the absolute temperature,

and $$l_g$$ is the sedimentation length.

The buoyant mass is calculated using $$m^*=\Delta\rho V_P=\frac{4}{3}\pi\Delta\rho R^3$$

where $$\Delta\rho$$ is the difference in mass density between the colloidal particles and the suspension medium, and $$V_P$$ is the colloidal particle volume found using the volume of a sphere ($$R$$ is the radius of the colloidal particle).

Sedimentation length
The Laplace-Perrin distribution law can be rearranged to give the sedimentation length $$l_g$$. The sedimentation length describes the probability of finding a colloidal particle at a height $$z$$ above the point of reference $$z=0$$. At the length $$l_g$$ above the reference point, the concentration of colloidal particles decreases by a factor of $$e$$.

$$l_g=\frac{k_B T}{m^* g}$$

If the sedimentation length is much greater than the diameter $$d$$ of the colloidal particles ($$l_g>>d$$), the particles can diffuse a distance greater than this diameter, and the substance remains a suspension. However, if the sedimentation length is less than the diameter ($$l_g<d$$), the particles can only diffuse by a much shorter length. They will sediment under the influence of gravity and settle to the bottom of the container. The substance can no longer be considered a colloidal suspension. It may become a colloidal suspension again if an action to undertaken to suspend the colloidal particles again, such as stirring the colloid.

Example
The difference in mass density $$\Delta\rho$$ between the colloidal particles of mass density $$\rho_1$$ and the medium of suspension of mass density $$\rho_2$$, and the diameter of the particles, have an influence on the value of $$l_g$$. As an example, consider a colloidal suspension of polyethylene particles in water, and three different values for the diameter of the particles: 0.1 μm, 1 μm and 10 μm. The volume of a colloidal particles can be calculated using the volume of a sphere $$V=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3$$.

$$\rho_1$$ is the mass density of polyethylene, which is approximately on average 920 kg/m3 and $$\rho_2$$ is the mass density of water, which is approximately 1000 kg/m3 at room temperature (293K). Therefore $$\Delta\rho=\rho_1-\rho_2$$ is -80 kg/m3. Generally, $$l_g$$ decreases with $$d^3$$. For the 0.1 μm diameter particle, $$l_g$$ is larger than the diameter, and the particles will be able to diffuse. For the 10 μm diameter particle, $$l_g$$ is much smaller than the diameter. As $$l_g$$ is negative the particles will cream, and the substance will no longer be a colloidal suspension.

In this example, the difference is mass density $$\Delta\rho$$ is relatively small. Consider a colloid with particles much denser than polyethylene, for example silicon with a mass density of approximately 2330 kg/m3. If these particles are suspended in water, $$\Delta\rho$$ will be 1330 kg/m3. $$l_g$$ will decrease as $$\Delta\rho$$ increases. For example, if the particles had a diameter of 10 μm the sedimentation length would be 5.92×10−4 μm, one order of magnitude smaller than for polyethylene particles. Also, because the particles are more dense than water, $$l_g$$is positive and the particles will sediment.

Ultracentrifuge
Modern applications use the analytical ultracentrifuge. The theoretical basis for the measurements is developed from the Mason-Weaver equation. The advantage of using analytical sedimentation equilibrium analysis for Molecular Weight of proteins and their interacting mixtures is the avoidance of need for derivation of a frictional coefficient, otherwise required for interpretation of dynamic sedimentation.

Sedimentation equilibrium can be used to determine molecular mass. It forms the basis for an analytical ultracentrifugation method for measuring molecular masses, such as those of proteins, in solution.

title: Sedimentation equilibrium


text:
Talk:Petronilla of Aragon

Untitled
Isn't "Petronilla" the more common spelling of her name? -- Jmabel 04:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've seen lots of spellings for it. I suggest we keep it Petronila (sounds better). Where did see "Pétronille"? -- Apoivre
 * Mostly in French-language sources. Do a web-search, you'll find it. -- Jmabel 17:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * So we're talking about modern spellings? Then we'll have to include them all, in every language (Aragonese medieval lexicology used to be pretty strong in Finland - shall we add a Finnish version, then?). I thought we should only include spellings in Latin/Spanish/Catalan and a common English one (it's en.wikipedia, after all, not fr:). BTW, I uploaded a list of counts of Urgell - care to have a look and check names (Armengol/Ermengol/Ermengarius, Sunifred(o)/Sunyer/Suniarius)?

And another question (I'm totally new here): is there some project to coordinate efforts on Catalonia/Aragon medieval history? -- Apoivre
 * No, though if someone wants to start one, I'm in. Do you read Catalan? A lot of material in the English-language Wikipedia about Catalonia/Aragon medieval history originally came from the Catalan-language Wikipedia. Any such project should probably try to rope in some of the contributors there and should probably cross over at least English and Catalan, and maybe Spanish. -- Jmabel 08:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I read both modern and medieval Catalan. However, there's next to no use translating stuff from :ca as there's lot of incorrect info there (like stating Peter the Catholic died on the next day after the battle of Muret - he died on the battlefield early in the battle). I might actually pitch in and correct everything which is wrong in :ca. --  Apoivre

 * Cool! Sounds like you have quite an advantage over me. My Catalan is just barely OK for reading. I have near-fluent Spanish (and pretty decent Romanian), and I spent enough time in Barcelona and painfully plowed through museum wall texts and copies of Avui to start learning some Catalan. Also, in the last few years I've put in what adds up to maybe 50 hours of more systematic study and maybe another 50-100 hours of attempted translations. And I bought a decent dictionary. At this point, I read it pretty decently, but still hesitate to try to write in the language. I get very confused by any misspellings and bad grammar. (I also get very confused by the pronouns, but that's another story.) As for the medieval history, my knowledge is not at all strong. I would probably not catch any Catalan out in a mis-statement; I've simply been relying on the people writing in Catalan to know their own history.

 * If you do want to start a WikiProject on this, I will gladly join. And help out. I'm not ready to start another myself, because I'm already not giving adequate attention to the Ethnic Groups WikiProject and the Translation project, both of which I started. -- Jmabel 22:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I majored in medieval Aragon at the University so I should be the man for the job. OTOH, if projects are for streamlining content presentation then we probably don't need on for the Corona de Aragón. Might as weel just go along and add bits of info on everyone. And I do like your Ethnic Group Project. Let's see if I can do something there as well apoivre 09:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * On the spelling: I think in this case "Pétronille" is useful because a lot of the searchable web content about her uses that form of the name. I don't by any means advocate reproducing all international forms of a royal name, but I find that it is useful to give ones that might aid someone in doing basic research. Maybe these should be identified by language, though. I've done that elsewhere, didn't think to do it here. --Jmabel 08:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction
Recently anonymously added "The kingdom was inherited only by males, thus Petronila's succession was an exception at the time… Petronila's succession created a new case in succession custom in Aragon." Given that Petronila did, indeed succeed to the throne, the first phrase here seems inherently false. I am editing it to "The Aragonese monarchy had previously passed only to males…" If that is not what was meant, could someone please reword more clearly? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Extenuating circumstances?
"Petronila came to the throne under extenuating circumstances." This makes no sense. "Extenuating circumstances" are those which tend to excuse a crime or mitigate its severity. Ascending to the throne is in no sense a crime. What is meant here? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would guess "unlikely" or "complicated." john k 18:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The editor in question changed it to "special". I still don't think it adds much (the facts follow immediately), but this isn't the sort of thing worth fighting over. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Earlier image?
What happened to the image of Petronilla which was used a few months ago? It was much better than the current one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Tomb
How do you lose a tomb in a church that still stands today? Was it looted or sacked by enemy forces?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would have been the most likely scenario, unless the tomb was later transferred to another church or abbey.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Her tomb may have been lost because the existing Gothic cathedral began construction in 1298; Petronilla died in 1173 when the Romanesque cathedral, built in the 11th century, was on the site.Fromthemitten (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Images' use
Dear and , As regards the use of images in the article, I have made edits to the article: As a 3rd party to this exchange I hope this is a compromise that is acceptable to you both. Personally I believe using two images, rather than just one is advantageous to the look and educational value of the article. Regards, --LukeSurlt c 15:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have retained the portrait in the infobox, but have used the caption field to add the qualification it is from a much later text
 * I have added the image of the charter in the body of the article, at an appropriate position chronologically.
 * I agree with you. For me, alright.--EeuHP (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I disagree. I do not believe that whatever educational value the 15th-century miniature has justifies its prominence in this article about a 12th-century queen. The charter is incomparably more significant and its educational value too far exceeds that of the late portrait. I also disagree with EeuHP's recent changes to the article. Why make the article look longer than it is? And why subsume all of the body text under one heading? What use is the heading then? And why list her children in point form? Is it too hard for people to read in a sentence? All these recent edits, to me, move the article away from its encyclopaedic purpose (to be read) and towards something more database-y. Srnec (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that the painting is not "educational"? What is "educational"? I don't understand. The function of the section "image" is put a picture of the person to illustrate the article. If only there to put a painting (or sculpture) created during the life of the historical figure, 80% of the articles would be without any image. Is that what you want? Place the earliest known portrait is not a sin.
 * Also, place a paper in the "image" (intended to give the reader a picture of a person) makes no sense. And even having placed the letter in the body of the article (which clogs) your opposition is not minor.
 * You oppose my latest changes. I don't understand. Compartmentalize information is not bad. Put the names of the children of the queen in "list mode" helps them look better.--EeuHP (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 * You need to read better. I did not say the painting is not educational. I said that "whatever educational value [it] has" does not "justif[y] its prominence" here. Neither did I ever say that only a contemporary depiction was admissible. What I am saying is that when an image is not a genuine depiction of a person, we need a different reason from "intended to give the reader a picture of a person", since the image does no such thing. Such is the case here. The "paper", as you call it (it isn't one, it's parchment), is a contemporary artifact of great importance for understanding and learning about Petronilla (i.e., it's educational). Srnec (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for attacking my edition in the article of Nicholas II. An edit war against me is very little for you, it seems. Reasoning with you is a futile enterprise. But I will try one last time.
 * The picture illustrating the article. You have not given any reason why a painting years later should not appear. Why reject later paintings? Sometimes, the portraits made during the life of the person hiding their flaws and made them look better. There are portraits of a person, made during his life, that are completely different of others of the same condition.
 * The letter is already in the article. Why do you insist? It seems you want to remove the picture and put the letter in his place. Sorry, but this claim is illogical. The "image" refers to a person's image, painted or sculpted. Put her act of abdication have the same logic that put a photo of your college diploma in the identity card.--EeuHP (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I did not "attack" your edit to Nicholas II. I reverted it. Because it is not an improvement.
 * You don't get to decide how many times you try to reason with me. That's not how Wikipedia works.
 * You clearly have no idea what I am saying (perhaps you just don't know English well enough). I am not categorically rejecting posthumous depictions. I am arguing that the image you insist on barely even deserves the label "depiction". It is nothing of the sort. It is about as good as if I drew a picture of girlfriend with a crown on at a Renaissance Fair and uploaded it here under the file name "Queen_Petronilla_of_Aragon". The fact that somebody beat me to it by 500 years does not make the image a depiction of Petronilla. Now, (a) if it showed a woman doing something distinctly associated in historical memory with Petronilla, or (b) if it was of great artistic merit and witnessed the legacy of the queen in the centuries after her death, or even (c) if we had nothing better, then I could live with the image. But in this case we (a) have something very much better, (b) have a portrait of little artistic merit and having nothing to do with what people thought of Petronilla in the 15th century [it's basically just a decoration beside a name in a genealogy] and (c) have a portrait that could be of any queen of the Middle Ages, with nothing distinct about it to indicate that it must be Petronilla. For these reasons, it is educationally practically valueless—at least next to the charter.
 * There is no Wikipedia rule that we must you a "depiction" of a person as the main image in an article on him/her. Don't be fooled by the infobox. "Image" is just the name of a field, it need not be an image of the person whose name is atop the stupid box. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The (in your opinion) poor quality of the picture does not take away its age. It is the most oldest drawing of her in Commons. Would you accept another picture, higher quality, but more modern? 2. The letter (though valuable) is unacceptable in the place where you want to put in the beginning (if you believe that there is no valid paint, you should believe that in "image" there should be nothing). And I do not change my opinion. The place where the letter is now is the correct. I no see reason for complaint: there is only one image in the body of the text and is the letter (and I have decreased the size of the letter because before dislocated the position of the section "notes". A simple aesthetic criteria).--EeuHP (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about? I don't want any drawing of her that doesn't meet the criteria I set out. To my knowledge, she plays little to no role in Spanish/Catalan historical consciousness. Her legacy, in common memory, is nil. Therefore, there is no portrait of her that we could justify on artistic merits alone. No artist, no historian, no demagogue has taken her up. All the picture of her are mostly meaningless placeholders. We have a lot of those at Wikipedia, and if it were up to me many (perhaps most) would be gone.
 * Why is the charter unacceptable at the beginning? If it is because of the infobox, let's get rid of the infobox. But where is there a rule that says only a picture of the article's subject must be in the infobox? Srnec (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on main image
See the preceding section. There are two main candidates to be the primary image (i.e. the image in the infobox): the one that is currently there (since User:EeuHP, now blocked, added it a few days ago) and the one that was there before (the charter that is lower on the page right now). I have argued that the contemporary charter, bearing the subject's signature and perhaps her own thoughts or words, is superior to a much later image that was never intended to depict the subject, but was mainly decorative. User:EeuHP has argued that the lead image to a biographical article should by default be a depiction of the person, and that disqualifying posthumous or late images would leave most pre-modern biographies barren. Is one image more appropriate as the lead image for this subject? Srnec (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: I found a section of the MoS: WP:LEADIMAGE, which seems to prefer the picture of the lady, as opposed to the picture of the document: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic". As this is an article about the lady, a picture of the lady is a visual representation of the topic. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think this applies when there is no near contemporary visual representation of the subject? Should we then use, as in this case, a much later picture in preference to a contemporary document of the lady's own issuing? Srnec (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, even in that case, see the same MoS page which says "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". There are other articles with similar problems with images, although this is probably one of the least representative ones. If no agreement can be reached as to the appropriateness of an image, the MoS page also provides that a lead image isn't mandatory on a page. In case the portrait is chosen, it should be represented correctly as a later work, see e.g. the way the lead image of Anne Boleyn is introduces. --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But do provably inauthentic images "look like what they are meant to illustrate"? We have no reason to believe so. All we can say is that the image is of a royal woman and Petronilla was a royal woman. Srnec (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the sense that in this case the image portrays a lady who is docketed as the lady this article is about. Obviously, if we had a contemporary portrait we'd use that, but as we don't we need to use a picture that we do have. The subject of this article isn't the charter so using an image of the charter seems contrary to the MoS section quoted first above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this image would be better than the current one, although Petronilla is only one of three figures in it. It illustrates her key relationships and visualises the distinction between her (crowned) and her husband (not). Petronill and her son are facing into the page. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with this one? That seems better than both of those. And I don't see what being contemporary has to do with anything; there are no contemporary portraits of Jesus, but his article still has a stylized image of him. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather dislike the lead image at Jesus, but the case is not comparable, since we have no contemporary artefact directly associated with him. As for the image you suggest, I won't bother critiquing it. It's all made-up, which is fine for what it is, but, in my opinion, apparently contrary to the MoS, makes it unworthy of being the lead image (when we have another option). Srnec (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as you say, your opinion is contrary to the manual of style. And apparently you're the only one who has a problem with it. Hardly grounds for an RfC. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a dispute. There was a third opinion, with which I still disagreed. That's grounds for an RFC. I will bow to the wishes of my fellow editors, even though I continue to believe the current lead image is not helpful to our readers. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly opposed to this new image, although I'd prefer the one with just Petronilla. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The image at right illustrates a several things for the reader's benefit: the difference in status between the queen and her husband, the count; that the queen's status passed to her son (i.e. he didn't become king b/c of his dad); and that in the first decade of the 15th century this was remembered (that Ramon Berenguer did not become king). What does the reader learn about Petronilla or her life/reign from an obscure 15th-century image? Does he even learn anything about her legacy or posthumous reputation?
 * I am not absolutely opposed to merely decorative images, but I think that decoration is of secondary importance. In this case, we have options and we do not have to fall back on a mere decoration. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is going to learn any of that by looking at the picture. They'll learn it by reading the article. So the picture should be used to illustrate the appropriate section of the article. The function of the lead image is not to teach readers anything; it shouldn't need a long caption to explain all the esoteric elements. It is solely to illustrate the subject. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 02:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kafziel makes a good point, we can use this image further down in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is supposed to learn it from the image alone, but the image should at least illustrate something found in the article, preferably something more unique to her than "royal woman". This image, unlike many we use, is not in any way a likeness of Petronilla. So what is it illustrating? Srnec (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 * RFC Comment -- I prefer the current photo per Dailycare above and MOS WP:LEADIMAGE. Even though the image is from a later period it is still more appropriate than the photo of the charter. This image would also be fine and I also favor it over the charter image.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary and explanation
Hello. I'm back and now I understand the situation. Srnec is a misunderstood genious. A normal person see the article of Petronilla, think "oh, an article without image" and put an image (this, this, this or this other). But Srnec no. He is a genious and the genious never take the easy way. He prefer the document of abdication of Petronilla. The normal people say "WTF??? The infobox should illustrate the appearance of the person and a paper does not do that". But Srnec thinks it does. Why? Because he is a misunderstood genious.

Distrustful people may think that Srnec is stupid, but he is not stupid. A stupid person couldn't have done what he did to get rid of me. His maneuver was very clever. He couldn't let that a user "boss" saw our edit war because both would be blocked. But if he reopened an old war edition where I participated, I would be the only blocked (by "recidivism") and he would not be punished. And so it happened. A maneuver worthy of him.

But the genius does not stop there. Now he defend the image of the right side and I can't understand the decisions of his brain. Why he refused this image two weeks ago and now he defend the extended version of the same image (with Petronilla, Ramon Berenguer and Alfonso II). Why put a picture of three people (very excessive) when exist a cropped version of Petronilla? Would not it be easier to leave the image of Petronilla? It is possible, but he is a genius and he understands it differently.

I do not want to be locked again. Only say that I am opposed the document (it does not serve to enlighten readers about the person) and I'm opposed the image that he defends now (three people is excessive, we only need one person to illustrate the article). Maybe I'm not a genius, but I think my arguments are equally valid.--EeuHP (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are valid, but please discuss your point of view about the photos, not other editors. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have wanted to laugh (because it's better to laugh than mourn).

 * Everyone tells me "Do not talk about other editors." Sorry, but that's nonsense. It is impossible to speak about my position without a mention to Srnec.

 * I talked to him during three days, trying to explain why his decision (put a document in the infobox's section "image") was not correct.

 * He has rejected all images of Petronilla (saying that its validity was the same as a picture of his girlfriend painted by him with a pencil). He accused me of ignoring the importance of the document (when I had accepted that it was in the body of the article). He removed my editions eight times (even cosmetic changes). And he managed to expel me.

 * And now he has completely changed his opinion and accepted a painting, precisely the worst of all (the only one where the presence of Petronilla goes unnoticed -the opposite of the mission of the infobox-).

 * I share your position on the matter, but I assure you that talk to the hand is not a pleasant task. He wants the image of infobox inform more that the article and a week later he continues to think the same. He is entrenched. I hope you have better luck.--EeuHP (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, the only thing left to do is say that these two images are most appropriate to put in the infobox. These images are closer to her time and fulfill their purpose of illustrating the article. Ah, and I think that divide the informations into compartments are not bad (the document in the article dislocates the text and the division helps readability, I think).--EeuHP (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I was an involved party in this discussion and this topic appears to be contentious and has continued in a new form a another article topic, I have self reverted my non-admin closure of the RfC and have relisted it at WP:ANRFC so it can be closed by an un-involved party.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on structure of the article
Seems that Srnec want to be my eternal opponent and as I don't want to war, I would ask to the users their opinion of my proposition of structure and his option. My reasons by the change are:
 * I've compartmentalized the information on the life of the queen in three parts (enthronement, full age and last years) for easier reading. This article looks better that way and if, in the future, more information is added, the work for clarification is already advanced.

 * I replaced the phrase Charter by Which Petronilla abdicated (18 July 1164) in Favour of her son Alfonso II of Aragon for this one sentence: Charter by Which Petronilla abdicated in Favour of her son Alfonso II. Why? Because in the accompanying paragraph already appears the date on which she abdicated.

 * I have decreased slightly the size of the image because I think that so overwhelms least paragraph next door and I think that the images don't must detract prominence to the words without reason.

Thanks in advance.--EeuHP (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I get down the title "Notes" because the section was disjointed and I think the composition should be harmonious.

 * I agree about the caption and have amended it. About the size of the image, I believe we should not generally force image sizes. Logged-in users can set defaults in their preferences. Other users will have screens of various sizes and resolutions, so forcing the size does not optimise it for everyone. That's why I prefer the parameter "upright" to make the image smaller. I don't know what you mean about the "Notes".
 * I am opposed to "compartmentalizing" because the section headings are meaningless. They do not help the reader navigate because all they do is refer to ill-defined chronological periods in any person's life. They break up the text for no other reason than to break it up. We have paragraphs for that. Srnec (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The key is that the image broken the harmony of the text: the annex paragraph and the section title "notes" are moved to the right. If I were the only editor, I'll remove the image. But I preferred to keep it to avoid arguments. Now, I try to make other harmony (a image with less size and section headings to get that "Notes" get down and leave the right of the article).

 * Moreover, the section heading not break up the article. They make reading easier. Petronilla almost was born married. All her life can be divide in three period: before her wedding night (childhood), after her wedding night (full age) and when she was widow. I think that the division is perninent and correct and help my intention of make a new harmonic structure .--EeuHP (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, I know how I would fix that bunching problem. . . Seriously, it is a problem only on some screens (not mine) and section headings are not the way to solve it. I have added a template, I hope that helps.
 * I do not see how headings make reading easier, since they assigne basically one paragraph to a section. The division, moreover, is applicable to anyone's life. That was my point. Who comes to this article looking to learn about Petronilla's "later years"? Also, the bulleted list of children is disapproved of in the MOS, see WP:L, where it says, "Do not use [bulleted] lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs". Srnec (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The move to get "Notes" below was good. Now the problem is that there is much space blank. But we can solve without compartmentalize the article. We just need a title "Biography" to separate the introductory paragraph of the rest of the article and put the children of Petronilla in list mode (thus adding additional information about the role they had).--EeuHP (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A "biography" heading is meaningless and list mode is, as I pointed out, discouraged. Instead, I removed the "issue" from the infobox as redundant. There are two ways to fix the white space: remove the infobox or make the article longer by adding information with references. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * References: --EeuHP (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is your responsibility to add citations to material you add, not mine. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead image
The above is the lead image (debate) history. I stand by my position in the RFC. I would be happy with the charter at the top or in the infobox. I don't care if the infobox stays or goes. I think #2 is an acceptable compromise for the lead or the box. If we must have a decorative image, the current one is clearly the prettiest. —Srnec (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a lede image is not to be "pretty" it is to represent what the person looked like, or -- in this case -- how the person was imagined to have looked like. The only image which does a halfway decent job of this is #6. (I added the numbers.)  I still don't understand on what ground Smec reverted my addition of it, it appeared to be pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The 2014 RfC image (#1) would be OK if there were a version of it with better resolution.  As it is it to too poor an image to be the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of a lead image is defined by MOS:LEADIMAGE: That would seem to disqualify the charter, as the topic is a person, not the charter or abdication. This clearly disqualifies fanciful depictions from the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries because these are not associated with the subject in modern scholarship. I would much rather see one of those in the Petronilla_of_Aragon section, which discusses how she was seen in the later centuries. So not only does MOS:LEADIMAGE allow for having no image in the lead, it states that no image may sometimes be the best option. In my opinion, having no image in the lead is certainly better than having a fanciful image in the lead. She did not look like this nor did women in 12th-century Catalonia dress in 16th-century Portuguese fashion; but that is exactly what an average reader will gather from that image. For what it's worth, last year there was an RfC on non-contemporary images of popes, ending in a nearly unanimous consensus not to use fanciful images in the lead. Surtsicna (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Petronilla of Aragon


text:
Talk:Ron Davies (Welsh politician)

Untitled
RD's web page used to exist:. What do people think about linking to archive.org pages? Marnanel 04:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Family and personal life
There's nothing in the article about his family. There is also nothing about his personal life, apart from the fact he likes to cruise for homosexual encounters with strange men. I heard he was married, and is a father: is that correct? Is he still married? It is very relevant to the article, all the more so considering his risky, multiple homosexual encounters, and resultant downfall. Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Marriage
I deleted the section on the marriage, because it was bizarre, uncited, and potentially sensitive to living people. In particular, it was unclear whether the Stephen Matthews referred to is either of those who were linked to. HenryFlower 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Councillor
Could somebody who knows the facts update the bit at the bottom about him being a councillor. Sounds like he isn't a councillor any more, and therefore should no longer be a cabinet member either. Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Another moment of madness?
I've reduced the following paragraph, which was written in a strange manner:

On 23 September 2016, The Times ran an article entitled "Forest Chump: disgraced politician denies another moment of madness" in which video evidence of Davies and another man showed him placing rocks and other obstructions on permissive mountain bike trails in Caerphilly. The story and video/photo footage was also reported by BBC News, with a "right to reply" interview where Davies cut the interviewer short and ended the interview when challenged about his statement and why he would not deny laying the obstructions and condemn the actions. The story was subsequently reported across a number of national and international news sites and cycling media outlets.

There are various issues in form and content:
 * Only the part referring to the Times article is actually referenced to a source.
 * Parts are totally incomprehensible to readers (like me) who do not already know what happened.
 * What's a "right to reply" interview?
 * "when challenged about his statement" - what statement?
 * "why he would not deny laying the obstructions and condemn the actions" - what's the accusation here? Why would he "not deny it" when there's video evidence?
 * Parts are actually not notable enough to warrant explicit inclusion:
 * Who published it and also published it (with only The Times actually references)
 * That he cut an interviewer short.

Str1977 (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ron Davies (Welsh politician)


text:
User talk:137.111.13.34

Nomination for deletion of Template:GSL
Template:GSL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of I-OOA
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is I-OOA. 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/I-OOA. 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) 01:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of I-OOA

A tag has been placed on I-OOA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Prisoners' rights

The article Prisoners' rights has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * This article doesn't offer any information. It alludes vaguely to a "movement for prisoner rights" and "advocates", a list of articles, but little else. This subject is already well covered under articles such as Prison reform, Penal Reform International, and associated prison articles.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeffJ (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of G&R Gmail

The article G&R Gmail has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Notability has not been demonstrated.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cyber cobra (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Le Lisp

The article Le Lisp has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * no references, notability not established

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yworo (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Object-oriented SQL

The article Object-oriented SQL has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced since 2009, no evidence of notability

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Keφr 09:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Keφr 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of I-OOA

The article I-OOA has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No sign of this meeting WP:NSOFT.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ObjVlisp

The article ObjVlisp has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No significance or importance claimed. No genuine notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. H.dryad (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. H.dryad (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of IBM OD390

The article IBM OD390 has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * While I believe this is or was a real IBM product, I can find almost no information anywhere on it. There are some passing references on the IBM website, but not enough to determine much more than its existence; it has either been discontinued or renamed. (Possibly, it has been renamed to "IBM Content Manager OnDemand for z/OS and OS/390", but I can't confirm that.)

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SJK (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Paraconsistent mathematics moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Paraconsistent mathematics, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Polyamorph (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Object-code Buffer Overrun Evaluator

The article Object-code Buffer Overrun Evaluator has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Does not appear to meet NSOFT, NPRODUCT, or GNG due to a lack of evidence, cited or brought up through source searches, of widespread use, use of innovative techniques or impact on the industry."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  SITH   (talk)   11:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Visual editor" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Visual editor. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tea2min (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Object Value

The article Object Value has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "I wasn't able to find sufficient sourcing to indicate that 'object value' is a truly notable term of art in industrial design, as opposed to just being a two-word phrase. Insufficient sourcing available to port it to Wiktionary."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Non-classical analysis

The article Non-classical analysis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: '''As has been noted previously on Talk:Non-classical analysis, there does not seem to be a unified concept of non-classical analysis in the literature at all. As a concept, I believe this fails WP:GNG.'''

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Felix QW (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Acousmana 15:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ObjectCenter

The article ObjectCenter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non-notable IDE from a non-notable company that's already had two of its articles deleted."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ℰ mi1y⧼T·C⧽ 03:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:137.111.13.34


text:
Seram Island

Seram (formerly spelled Ceram; also Seran or Serang) is the largest and main island of Maluku province of Indonesia, despite Ambon Island's historical importance. It is located just north of the smaller Ambon Island and a few other adjacent islands, such as Saparua, Haruku, Nusa Laut and the Banda Islands.

Geography and geology
Seram is traversed by a central mountain range, the highest point of which, Mount Binaiya, is covered with dense rain forests. Its remarkably complex geology is because of its location at the meeting of several tectonic microplates, which have been described as "one of the most tectonically complex areas on Earth". Seram falls on its microplate, which has been twisted around by 80° in the last 8 million years by the relatively faster movement of the Papua microplate. Meanwhile, along with the northward push of the Australian Plate, this has resulted in the uplift that gives north-central Seram peaks of over 3000 m. On the island, there are important karst areas. In the mountains, near Sawai, there is the cave Hatu Saka, currently the deepest cave in Indonesia (-388 m). In Taniwel district, on the north coast, is the underground river Sapalewa, one of the largest underground rivers on the planet.

The population of the island and the neighbouring smaller islands in the 2020 Census was 773,459 people, administered among three regencies (kabupaten), namely Maluku Tengah Regency (which had 204,907 people on Seram Island itself and 218,185 on the lesser islands, the majority on Ambon Island), Seram Bagian Barat Regency and Seram Bagian Timur Regency.

Ecology
Seram Island is remarkable for its high degree of localised bird endemism. There are 117 species of birds on the island; 14 species and subspecies are endemic, including the eclectus, great-billed and Moluccan king parrot, purple-naped and red lories, salmon-crested cockatoo, Seram masked owl, collared, sacred and lazuli kingfishers, long-crested myna, elegant imperial-pigeon, Seram oriole, metallic starlings and grey-necked and Seram friarbirds.

The mammals found on Seram include Asian murid rodents as well as Australasian marsupials, including the common spotted cuscus and several species of Phalanger. The mountain area of Seram supports the greatest number of endemic mammals of any island in the region. It harbors 38 mammal species and includes nine species that are endemic or near-endemic, several of which are limited to montane habitats. These include the Seram bandicoot, several bat species including Moluccan and Seram flying foxes, Manusela mosaic-tailed rat, spiny Ceram rat and the Ceram rat, all considered threatened.

Herpetiles are highly prevalent on the islands. The largest and most dangerous to humans is the saltwater crocodile, found within the island's coastal brackish waters and deltas; some are known to swim inland via freshwater routes, such as the Salawai River. Other reptiles of the island include Amboina sailfin lizards, Bronchocela sp., the brown tree snake, emerald tree skinks, green sea turtles, Indonesian blue-tongued skinks, Moluccan flying snakes and the tokay gecko, among numerous other species of gecko and skink. Amphibians include Fejervarya, fork-tongued frogs and Horst's and white-lipped tree frogs.

In the eastern part of the island, Manusela National Park was established in 1997, covering an area of 1,890 km2 (11% of the island).

History

Most central Moluccans consider Seram to be their original ancestral home and it is still known colloquially as Nusa Ina (Mother Island). In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Seram was generally within the sphere of influence of Ternate, although it was often ruled more directly by the Ternaten vassal state of Buru. The expedition of António de Abreu (as captain) and Francisco Serrão sighted and explored the entire southern coast of Seram in early 1512, for the first time for Europeans. Portuguese missionaries were active there in the 16th century. Dutch trading posts were opened in the early 17th century, and the island came under nominal Dutch control c. 1650. The Tidore Sultanate made periodical claims on Seram and were accorded suzerainty in the eastern part of the island from 1700 to 1768. In the 1780s, Seram provided a key base of support for Prince Nuku of Tidore's long-running rebellion against Dutch rule. From 1954 until 1962 the island's mountain terrain was the scene of an armed guerilla struggle against Indonesian rule by the counter revolutionary Republic of South Moluccas movement led by Soumokil.

Administration
Seram includes three of the regencies within the province of Maluku, but administratively each of these regencies includes a number of smaller islands adjacent to Seram.
 * 1) West Seram Regency (Kabupaten Seram Bagian Barat) is mainly located on the island of Seram, but includes various islands lying to the west of Seram – Manipa, Kelang, Boano and the smaller Babi, Pua and Marsegu. It covers a land area of 6,948.40 km2, and had a population of 164,654 at the 2010 Census and 212,393 at the 2020 Census; the estimated total in mid 2023 was 214,979. The principal town lies at Piru.
 * 2) Central Maluku Regency (Kabupaten Maluku Tengah), with its capital at Masohi, includes the middle part of Seram, as well as much of Ambon Island (apart from the City of Ambon which forms the southern half of that island), the Lease Islands (Saparua, Haruku, Nusa Laut) and some other smaller offshore islands, plus the Banda Islands further to the south. It covers 11,595.57 km2 and had a population of 423,094 at the 2020 Census; this excludes the City of Ambon, which occupies the southern half of Ambon Island but is administratively not part of the regency. The portion of the regency on Seram Island itself covers 10,680.55 km2, and had an estimated 213,694 inhabitants in mid 2023.
 * 3) East Seram Regency (Kabupaten Seram Bagian Timur) is mainly located on the island of Seram, but also includes smaller islands to the southeast comprising the Gorom and Watubela archipelagoes. The regency covers a land area of 5,779.12 km2, and had a population of 99,065 at the 2010 Census and 137,972 at the 2020 Census. The principal town lies at Bula. Excluding the Gorom and Watubela archipelagoes, the 'mainland' of East Seram covered 5,577 km2 and had a population of 92,500 in mid 2023.

Religion

Seram has been traditionally associated with the animism of the indigenous Alfur (or Nuaulu), a West Melanesian people who reputedly retained a custom of headhunting until the 1940s. Today, however, most of the population of Seram is either Muslim or Christian due to both conversion and immigration. Seram was affected by the violent inter-religious conflict that swept Maluku province starting in late 1998, resulting in tens of thousands of displaced persons across the province but after the Malino II Accord of 2002 tempers cooled. Seram has been peaceful for many years but towns like Masohi remain informally divided into de facto Christian and Muslim sections. Around 7,000 people belonging to the Manusela tribe follow Hinduism.

Economy
Copra, resin, sago, and fish are important products. Oil is produced in the northeast near Bula by CITIC Seram Energy who took over from KUFPEC (Indonesia) Limited in 2006. The Oseil oil field is located onshore in the northeast of the island in the Seram Non-Bula Production Sharing Contract area. The discovery well was drilled in 1993. As of end 2010 the Seram Non-Bula Block had estimated proven oil reserves of 9.7 million barrels. Most production comes from the Jurassic Manusela carbonate formation.

title: Seram Island


text:
Buckingham County

Buckingham County may refer to:
 * Buckingham County, Virginia, United States
 * Buckingham Land District, formerly Buckingham County, Tasmania, Australia
 * County of Buckingham (South Australia)
 * Buckinghamshire, ceremonial county, England, United Kingdom

title: Buckingham County