text:
User talk:Wjbeaty

Is this who I think it is? If so, we were talking about you over in Talk:Capacitor. Maybe you could clarify that article, too? - Omegatron 03:52, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

24.75.67.179 15:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) Another mystery IP

Electric power transmission
I'd like some amplification as to why "electric energy transmission" is felt to be more accurate than "electric power transmission". Are those wires overhead moving energy, or moving power? I found the use of "energy flow (power)" to be particularly interesting, since I thought "power" was an adequate way of expressing energy flow. True, my local newspaper has a hard time distinguishing between "MWh" and "MW". Also true, my household bill totals my consumption in "kWH" and doesn't talk about "kW" - but industrial "power" bills do. And when I flip the switch, I expect the 100 W to be available, no matter how long I have the light on. --Wtshymanski 17:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I know this wasn't directed to me, but the page is on my watchlist. I think it's as simple as power being the rate of flow or dissipation of energy, so power isn't flowing, energy is flowing, and power is the rate of that flow.  So energy is transferred, and power is dissipated.  Beaty can certainly explain this better. - Omegatron 21:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is good stuff! To some, this may seem like nitpicking but the truth is that cleaning up the slopply use of terms always leads to better understanding of the material.  I wonder how many misunderstandings occur every day because two people use and understand the same terms differently?
 * Within the context of electric circuits, energy is either delivered to or supplied by a circuit element. The power associated with that element is the rate at which this energy transfer occurs.  If the circuit element is resistive, the energy delivered to the element is lost (dissipated) to the environment.  If the circuit element is reactive, the energy delivered to the element is stored in some fashion such that the energy can be returned to the circuit.  Alfred Centauri 14:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Exactly.  To understand electrical physics, we really have to understand the differences between energy and power and the differences bewteen charge and current.   Both energy and charge are substance-like entities (they are "conserved.")   Energy can flow, but power cannot, since power *IS* the flow of energy.  Energy is joules, power is joules-per-second.
 * Analogy: what should we call the stuff that flows in rivers, "water" or "current?"   When we fill a bucket from a faucet, do we get a bucket of "current?"  Of course not.  But in the electrical world, the equivalent of water and water-flow are frequently confused with each other.  In most everyday conversation, accuracy isn't all that important, but in the classroom and in reference material it is vitally important that we avoid screwy concepts such as "flow of current" and "flow of power."   Unfortunately, even the experts often use these terms incorrectly, and the terms have wormed their way into all sorts of places.   Does a "power company" sell power, or does it sell energy?  For anyone who has gut-level knowledge of the difference between energy and power, the answer is trivial: power is not a stuff, power can neither flow nor be used nor be sold, and the phrase "Power company" is even cringe-worthy.   (And some "power companies" are changing their names, replacing the term "power" with "energy."
 * Charges flow in wires, and we call their flow by the name "electric current."  EM energy flows across circuits, and we call its flow "power."   To test the accuracy of statements about these sorts of topics, just replace the more complicated term by its definition: e.g. substitute the term "power" by the term "energy flow," or by the term "rate of energy use," and see if it still reads correctly.--Wjbeaty 07:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the difference is between a physicist's perspective and an electrical engineer's perspective? CYME sells software for "power flow" analysis. My old EM textbook (William Hayt "Engineering Electromagnetics 3rd Ed." ) uses the phrase "power flow" several times, for example in discussion of the Poynting vector.  I think the "power flow" usage is common, and that "power transmission" is what the wires are doing. And the distinction between selling "power" and selling "energy" is too fine for me to discern at this late hour; you can't have one without the other. When I worked at the steel mill, a big bill came in each month, with about half for something that was priced in dollars per megawatt (power) and about half the cost for something priced in dollars per megawatthour (energy) - it certainly looked like the utility was in the business of selling both power and energy.  --Wtshymanski 08:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm a BSEE.  :)  What makes me different than most BSEEs is that I spent several years trying to explain electricity to the general public.   And there certainly is a difference between the EE and the Physicist perspective: scientists tend to be much more strict with terminology.  It's built into their culture, while we engineers are far more likely to play fast and loose with words.   Let me repeat myself again: power does not flow.  The entity which flows is called "electrical energy."   We could say it this way: Joules can flow, but Watts cannot, since "Watt" is the same as "Joule per Second."  This isn't complicated!  The plumbing analogy clears it up: gallons of water can flow, but gal/sec cannot flow, since gal/sec is an abstract entity.   Electromagnetic energy is not abstract; it's the exact same stuff as light, just of lower frequency.  And yes, you're right, the "power flow" misuse is very common.  I said as much above: it has wormed its way into many reference books.   But that doesn't change the definitions of the terms, since in science, the meaning of words is not determined by the number of people using (or misusing them.)  If vast numbers of people say "power" when they're talking about "energy," it has no effect on the definitions of those words, and those vast numbers of people are using the terms incorrectly, and it suggests that they have a feeble grasp on the difference between the two concepts.

 * If we were two engineers having a conversation, then the phrase "power flow" would be no problem. We both know what we really mean.   We could be strictly correct and say "power appears" or "power arises," but it would be sort of silly.   But if we wish to explain these topics to NON engineers, then it becomes very important to avoid misusing the terms.  And if we're writing a reference book, we'd better take pains to correct any common misuse.  Engineering conversations and even engineering textbooks can get away with screwy phrases.  A source like Wikipedia cannot.  If we talk about "power flow," then we are unwittingly sowing confusion regarding the two concepts.  Saying "power flow" unwittingly teaches the reader that there's this stuff called "power" which can flow through wires.  This is wrong.  The "stuff" that flows in electric circuits is called electromagnetic energy or electrical energy (or often, "electricity.") --Wjbeaty 04:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * I must respectfullly disagree. The majority usage seems to be that power flows. Definitions are how people use the words. Insisting that power can't flow doesn't seem to serve the cause of clarity.  I have argued on the side of pedantry before, so this is an inconsistency on my part, but I don't think saying that power flows, is transmitted, etc. puts us much further along the line to pointing and grunting instead of articulate speech.
 * And what about reactive "power" - this can't exist, because power is the flow of energy, and energy is the capacity for doing work, and we all know that reactive power can't do any useful work. Correct? --Wtshymanski 22:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "The majority usage seems to be that power flows."  The majority is wrong, and if you disagree, then you are wrong as well.  Why wrong?   It's very simple: Energy is a conserved quantity, therefore energy is substance-like, and energy can flow along.  But "energy flow"(power) is a rate, it's not a conserved quantity.  Rates are not like substances, rates cannot flow.  Yet this issue goes even deeper:  words like "number" and "rate" and "energy" signify fixed concepts, therefore whenever a large number of people try to re-define those words, those people are wrong.  This is the difference between legal debate and science debate.  Suppose I say that 1+1=3.  Suppose I get two billion people to say the same thing.  Does 1+1 now equal 3?!!!  The definition of scientific terms like "energy" and "power" are similar to 1+1=3: they are not open to voting.  If the majority has traditionally swapped the words "energy" and "power," then the majority is wrong, and their error has become ingrained and traditional.  Yet it remains an error.

 * In most cases, such misuse causes no problems. For example, we say "power supply" and "power lines" and "power consumption," when in all three cases the correct term would be "energy."  Since these misuses cause no problems, attempts to correct them is pedantic nitpicking.  But in some situations the misuse of words does cause problems.  In my teaching career, time and time again I've seen that students don't know the difference between power and energy.  The words "power flow" are one major cause of student misconceptions.

 * If our goal is to teach newbies the difference between energy and power, then we can greatly help them by ruthlessly excizing our own traditional misuse of such words.

 * Here's a very powerful rule of thumb: stop using the term "power" entirely. Erase it everywhere it appears.  Instead expand the word "power" by replacing it with its own definition: "energy flow" or "rate of energy use."  Ok, ready?...  If someone writes "flow of power," and if we expand it to "flow of energy flow," then the original mistake is made clear.  The stuff that flows along electric cables is not called "energy flow," it's called "energy." --Wjbeaty 12:33, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * "And what about reactive "power" - this can't exist."  Ah, this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate how correct semantics can clear up problems.  If we remove the word "power," then we realize that "reactive power" is not like a substance.  What then does "reactive energy-flow" mean?  GOOD QUESTION.  Look at an AC generator (an ideal voltage source) connected to an idea capacitor.  The energy flow is 100% reactive.  During one quarter-cycle, the energy flows from the generator into the capacitor, charging it.  During the next quarter-cycle, all of the energy that was stored in the capacitor returns to the generator again.  OUR ANSWER: reactive energy-flow is  "energy sloshing back and forth."  The reactive energy-flow is not 'abstract.'  It is genuine, it really exists.  But it doesn't flow continuously forward from the source to the load.  On average there is no forward flow of energy into that ideal capacitor.  Contrast this with a resistor connected in place of the capacitor.  In that case the energy flows continuously forward as two pulses per cycle, and no energy flows from the resistor back to the generator.  In AC energy distribution systems, the flow of electrical energy can have a vibrating component riding upon an average forward flow component.  The vibrating component is the "Reactive" flow, while the average forward component is the "Real" flow.  Yet both components really exist. --Wjbeaty 12:58, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I noted the edits to the electric power transmission page which led me here. Transmission systems are designed and operated on the basis of "power" or "load" "flows". The maximum rate of energy transfer determines the capacity of the network or network component. For a monthly energy transfer of 720 kWh, the power requirement could vary from 1kW used continuously or 720kW used for only one hour in the month.  I think that is why engineers tend to think of transmission systems as being power transfer systems.  In a utility system control room the MW or MVAr "flows" are monitored continuously to manage system constraints and system performance.  Notwithstanding the pedantry exhibited, and despite the physics, I believe that "power" will continue "flow" in transmission systems as that is how the industry has described and continues to descibe the transmission of electrical energy. The terms power and energy have become synonymous.  Good luck with the campaign to stem the tide.
 * On the question of how the transmission company charges, there is a simple reason for it to bill for both kW and kWh - it is load factor. As noted previously, the system required to convey 720kWh in a month is highly dependent on the rate of energy consumption.  The energy conveyed is related to the duration of the demand.  Hence, utilities want to signal the benefits of high load factors; they therefore recover their costs by applying a two part tariff.  It is worth noting that in a deregulated electricity market a transmission utility does not sell energy, nor does it sell power.  It recovers its costs for the use of its system by  generators, distributors and retailers through its tariff. The steel mill sees a bundled charge for the services of all the contributors. Tiles 02:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * By analogy: the public water system is designed and operated on the basis of flow rate.  Does this mean that the substance flowing within the pipes is no longer called "water?"  Of course not.  Does this mean that households aren't buying gallons of water?  (I'm just trying to show that pipes always deliver water, even if the city water system is designed in terms of gallons/sec rate capability, and even if pipe-owners focus on flow rate in their fee calculations.)   As far as Power goes, where electric systems are concerned, it's MORE important that we clean up our usage of words, since the energy and its motion are both invisible.   At least with hydraulic systems we can see the water, and we can conceptually grasp what one gallon, is or easily understand the "one gallon per second" rate.

 * Power transfer systems?  :)   But "flowrate" is not something that can be transferred, so "power transfer system" isn't such an  informative and meaningful phrase.  "Energy transfer system" is OK, and "Power system" isn't that bad.  In all these examples, to reveal the problem, just replace the word "power" with "flow rate."  Is the utility grid a system for transferring energy, or is it a system for transferring "flow rate?"   And yes, the utilities are certainly selling a service.  Charging for power is similar to charging for maintainence: nothing substance-like is being sold.   (In a water system, the supplier could add surcharges for high flow, but that doesn't mean that the pipes have become "flowrate transfer pipes" rather than "water transfer pipes."

 * Ah, that's exactly it; the terms "power" and "energy" have become synonymous.  So, how can we explain these concepts to the public?  First we have to act like nitpickers and fix any mistaken usage.   But such nitpickingly-consistent usage of terminology is only appropriate to reference authors.   Analogy:  people who correct their friends' grammar have some sort of mental problem...  but the authors of grammar texts had better be the worlds' formost nitpickers.  :)  But there's no need to "stem the tide" of widespread misuse of the word "power."   All we have to do is fix the mistakes in our little online textbook here.   Or put it another way: teachers have to maintain very high standards of accuracy, since their misuse of words will give their students misconceptions.  But the world of non-teachers has little need for such ridiculous levels of rigid consistency.  --Wjbeaty 04:54, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

SEE ALSO:

 * Common Electricity Misconceptions
 * Articles list: electricity education
 * Mistakes & misconceptions in textbooks (huge list)

Titling
Note you do not need to type ""s when you are creating a new article. Experimenter's regress will do, that will show up as Experimenter's regress. Thanks Dysprosia 05:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You can register, login and submit a bug at http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org . By the way, talk goes at the bottom of the page :) Dysprosia 05:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Resonance
I replied a while ago. I don't understand your comment. - Omegatron 03:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, WP started taking up too much time, so I went temporarily Cold Turkey --Wjbeaty 01:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I should do that... - Omegatron 01:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Tesla's "radiant energy" patents
Can you check my... "review" of one of Tesla's patents over at Talk:Photoelectric_effect? I think it's up your alley. If I did anything wrong, point it out. - Omegatron 15:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also check out User:Omegatron/Hydraulic analogy, which will be merged into Hydraulic analogy when it's complete enough. I wish I knew how to write applets... - Omegatron 00:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

electrometer
Does an Talk:Electrometer measure charge, electric field, or voltage? - Omegatron 16:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Or picoamps too?  I think an electrometer is similar to an analog meter movement: depending how it's used, an analog meter can measure current or voltage, yet it's really a current-sensitive display device.   An electrometer is a voltage-sensitive display device, but can be used to build a voltmeter, a picoammeter, an e-field meter, or a micro-coulometer. --Wjbeaty 20:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * To simplify the description I'd like to add that for a typical electrical engineer (like me) an ideal electrometer is a device that messures voltage while allowing no current through itself (it has infinite impedance). The closer to this ideal the better device. Of course it may be used in many applications as Wjbeaty says depending on the closeness to the ideal of a particular model. Jim 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am happy to see you here. I found your http://amasci.com/ pages inspirational for many years. I hope your ideas catch on -- especially the idea of making explanations understandable to newcomers, rather than just to people already in-the-know. "thoughts on why obfuscated language develops. I hope you are right that more and more people will solve more and more of the big, complicated problems. The sort of problems that previously, people didn't do anything about, because the big words tricked them into thinking they weren't smart enough to fix it." ( http://CommunityWiki.org/PlainTalk ) --DavidCary 06:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I concur. :-) — Omegatron 13:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You have my support too. Its so refreshing to see someone prepared to tackle this insidious watering down of terminology and to explain things in ways that make sense. Keep up the good work! --Light current 17:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Awwww, shucks. --Wjbeaty 21:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Electric flux
According to Gauss' Law, electric flux is equal to charge which is measured in Coulombs. Therefore should not electric flux have the units of Coulombs? If not, what is the unit of electric flux? --Light current 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "According to Gauss' Law, electric flux is equal to charge which is measured in Coulombs."  Nope.  Electric flux is e-field over a surface, and e-field does not "equal" charge.   The only time that electric flux is directly connected to electric charge is when we measure the *net* flux extending through the *entire area* of a *closed* surface (such as a sphere) which contains charge.  If the closed surface contains zero charge, then the flux summed over the whole surface is zero, even though the flux at any small patch need not be zero.  If we measure the flux of an arbitrary piece of that surface, or the flux of any area bounded by a closed curve, in that case flux isn't proportional to charge. --Wjbeaty 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The closed surface integral of the e-field is the total charge enclosed over the permittivity of the medium. It is the closed surface integral of the electric flux density (D) that is equal to the charge enclosed (in coulombs). A non-conservative e-field or d-field integrated over a closed surface is identically zero (the divergence of the curl is identically zero...). However, a closed contour integral of the e-field is non-zero only if the e-field is non-conservative (the curl of the gradient is identically zero...). Stationary charge creates a conservative field. Accelerated charge (a changing electric current) generates a non-conservative component of the e-field ([E = -(gradV + dA/dt]). Welcome back Bill! Alfred Centauri 03:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

OK Bill, thanks for the clarification on that one!--Light current 01:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

magnetic field sensing
"The Gift of Magnetic Vision" http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20040226.html Should I drop this link into magnetoception ? --DavidCary 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Very cool.   Also this was a scary coincidence, since I just logged in to look at Talk:Nose, but first I checked this message.  On Talk:Nose they're arguing about ...human magnetoception! --Wjbeaty 21:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
Sorry, don't remember doing that - it was blank and TFD'd at the time, should be a redirect to Template:SI electromagnetism units, restored and fixed. ed g2s • talk  23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I have undelete those edits as well. Looks like an mistake by User:Brockert. ed g2s • talk  23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of one of your pages
See Reference_desk/Science, where one of your pages is being discussed. http://www.amasci.com/weird/unusual/e-wall.html I thought you'd like to join in perhaps. --GangofOne 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vaneless ion wind generator
Do you know of any other specific implementations of this idea besides Kelvin's thunderstorm and Alvin Marks' power plant patent? — Omegatron 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Didn't "Sharper Image" or "BN Genius" or one of those catalogs sell tens of thousands of these things as ion-fans/air cleaners?--Wjbeaty 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * No, that's the opposite. You're thinking of ion wind generators or air ionizers, which generate wind directly from electricity.  This is a device that generates electricity directly from wind.  I listed Kelvin's thunderstorm as similar, since they both generate electricity from the motion of water droplets. — Omegatron 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops! I didn't click on the link.  No, I haven't heard of anything besides the Marks "power fence" patent. --Wjbeaty 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hill's spherical vortex
Isn't the term Hill's(spherical) vortex used only for the spherical case, not the general vortex ring? (cf Batchelor p526, IIRC) Linuxlad 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pathological skepticism
Hi, you may want to comment on this:

Articles_for_deletion/Pathological_skepticism

Much enjoyed reading your commentary on that article's talk page and some stuff you've posted elsewhere on the subject, with which I pretty much agree. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 04:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG!!!1!!!
I wanted to just say wowza for that totally awesome answer to the physics question. I was really worried that it was going to be all frivolity and n00bashing, thanks soooo much for taking the time to say something so thoughtful. Your comments about the eastern philosophy really struck a chord with me, I had a Buddhist meditation teacher who talked about the 'child mind' and how useful it was for learning and re-learning. I think a popular scientist (maybe Carl Sagan) used to talk about it too. Anywayz, you totally made my week with that post. Cheers!Anchoress 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Glad you liked it!  Well, if I actuall followed my own advice, I'd hope to avoid any positive ego-stoking comments, and instead much happier if you could deliver some brutally accurate detailed criticism!

 * Yeah well, reading on it looks like that's already been covered. ;-) I have a policy of giving positive feedback for the best responses I read, and yours was one! Anchoress 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah well, reading on it looks like that's already been covered. ;-) I have a policy of giving positive feedback for the best responses I read, and yours was one! Anchoress 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Laser explanation
I'd like to caution you against using the Wikipedia reference desk as a soapbox for your ideas on how to improve science teaching, as you did here. -- SCZenz 06:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the criticism. But could you clarify?  I don't understand what I did wrong, so I don't understand what I should do differently in the future.  What should I change in my reply in order that I *not* be "on a soapbox?"

 * I do think I came down a bit hard on the guy who recommended that very poor laser explanation at UC, so I deleted that section. But it fell more under the heading of excess criticism of others' mistakes, so I don't yet think I understand what you're objecting to. --Wjbeaty 21:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * No response? --Wjbeaty 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On learning physics...
I'm not sure you told our Reference Desk physics student what they wanted to hear, but as someone who managed to get an "800" (top marks) on the physics achievement test in November of the year that I was taking high-school physics, I'm certain you told them the truth. Like you, I've often been one of those peope who spot the errors and unstated assumptions in the textbooks, and find there are better ways to learn than to memorize (or, often, even read) the textbooks. But those shortcuts you listed, true as they may be, sure sound like the hard work that our questioner is trying to avoid ;-).

Atlant 12:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, it's always hard to accurately "read minds" of anon. users who ask questions.  However, the guy did not want shortcuts to getting high grades or quick learning.  Instead, he wanted the secrets leading to expert knowledge (becoming like his teachers.)  That's a very different thing.   The "shortcuts" I discussed let us avoid barriers which prevent most people from gaining expert status.  But unless one has an immensely high IQ, these "shortcuts" can end up slowing one down, and even earning low grades on tests.   But then, the guy did say that he's ambitious! --Wjbeaty 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Transistors with 1920 technology
I thought you may be interested, I posted the same on the J.E.Lilienfeld talk page.öö

Just in case somebody is interested in how Julius Lilienfelds results can be replicated using 1920ies technologies. I found a paperJVST A Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 1365-1368 describing transistors made with anodized aluminum gate insulator and a chemical bath deposited semiconductor (CdS/CdSe). Both are techniques that do not require complicated equipment (beaker, current source, heater) and should have been accessible in the 1920ies.

Bizarrely enough the same authors managed to file patent on their technique (US6225149), despite of all the prior art. (Using chemical bath deposition for transistors is not exactly a novel idea..) --Qdr 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Move Levitron article?
(Moved from entry made to User_talk:Keenan_Pepper/Archive_3

 * (Old discussion from May 2006.) Good idea. Moving the article to Magnetic Levitating Top will probably stop some of the odd reverts (and the message from Wikipedia's lawyer BradPatrick threatening to delete anything about the court case.) Hmmmm, "TheGreatScott" is anonymous (no personal info on user page) and has contributions only on the Levitron page but nowhere else, so I wonder if he's from Hones' Levitron company. Me, I have a little personal interest, having followed the Sherlock's "hidden history" page as they added more and more info. I still maintain a piece of their old page on my site. But I've never heard the story from the other opponents (from Hones/Fascinations.) --Wjbeaty 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Reply: Nope - no 'personal' info on my page (and never will be as long as the ex-wife and her lawyers are alive). I have other contributions under Evangelical Christianity, but they are anon as well for obvious reasons (tolerance seems to be one-way these days and 'Christian Scientist' is not an oxymoron!). I haven't been part of the 'corporate world' other than my own company for a long time and ended up visiting the Levitron entry looking for help in getting mine to work (hints/tips appreciated). I've read the article and to be honest, it sounds like a conspiracy theory (then the Art Bell references didn't help); then I read that (in the court case) the article was posted just after the authors' company was sent to a collections lawyer for refusing to pay a $ 10K debt. A very similar thing happened to me by a former client when I sent him to collections. This history article is well-written, but I have doubts as the motivation. As far as a reply from the Levitron Company goes, I would take a pr release from a corporation with a grain of salt - as I imagine most would these days. I also know from experience that your words can be twisted around and used against you. They may be thinking the same thing. Bill Bennett never suggested aborting every black baby in America - but that's exactly how some media outlets portrayed his comments - and these were the 'respected networks'.

 * Just a thought. If anyone wants to email me, it's The.Great.Scott at Hotmail dot com.  If you have ideas on how to get the top to actually work, please let me know.  I have the levitron floating globe, and it's electromagnetic so the setup is easy.  TgS --TheGreatScott 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Lasagna cell
An editor has nominated the article Lasagna cell for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Articles for deletion/Lasagna cell. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Lasagna cell during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Street Light Interference
Thanks for your comments. See my reply on my talk page and my complete overhaul on the article Street Light Interference. --Doug talk 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Levitron
Hello William, first let me express to you what a big fan of your excellent site I am! I've perused your site now and again since it's eskimo.com days way back when. Your site inspired me to purchase some thick heavy aluminum and copper tubing and experiment with the Lenz's law. Anyways I'm writing to you about this contentious article. Your site is being used as a source for certain versions of the article. How do you view your site in terms of Reliable sources? As great as your site is it is a kind of personal blog, no? By the way your Youtube videos are excellent. I just watched this one and was duly impressed. I'm not sure if you've seen it before but you can observe a similar (although no where near as spectacular) effect using two cylindrical neos polarized through the length laying side by side by placing a pencil lead in the cleft. Anyways, looking forward to your response. Cheers! 00:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having rewatched that video you mentioned about the magnet being repelled from the ends of the cylinders (so long as there isn't steel bearings there) this actually happens on the above cynlindrical magnet / pencil lead setup as well. 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing, I updated the physics portion of the article. If you could review my update and see if it needs work, that'd be great. ;-) 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Beaty (I suppose my earlier usage of "William" was a bit informal but you seem like the kind of guy to accept that ;-), I haven't mistaken amasci.com for a "personal blog" but like a personal blog you are the only one exercising editorial control over it, no? This is actually what I was originally intending to say and did a poor job of making the "personal blog" analogy. I agree with you that the reliability of given content hinges upon the credibility of the content's authors and sources. The problem on Wkipedia is (and has been) who establishes a given source's credibility? This article covers a significant Wikipedia event and its difficulties in this area (please do not take that to mean I'm comparing you to the individual in that story). I for example don't see a conflict of interest on your part in the usage of your site as a source for the article. But obviously my view isn't what's going to carry a decision about such a thing. I 100% agree with your that "the other side" should be expressed for balance and I've made a request of one of the editors suppressing the story about that hoping for a response. At this point what I am thinking is that we should just create an article about Spin stabilized magnetic levitation which in all honesty merits its own article as a physical phenomenon and then just include the details of Roy Harrigan's discovery and his and Joseph Chiefo's inventions there with a Wikilink leading from the Levitron article. What do you think about that idea? On another note, being that you make efforts to ensure that Physics principles don't become watered down over time (particularly in regards to electricity) is it wrong in your view to talk about "gyroscopic forces"?  23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Beaty, I've updated the Levitron article and started the spin stabilized magnetic levitation article. I've been in communication with Marin Simon and hopefully we'll be able to get a bit of assistance with him as this article is developed. Looking forward to seeing you on the article. :-) 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I don't have an argument against what you are saying. The only thing that I can imagine that could be done is to demonstrate that your website has been used by reliable sources as a source itself (which seems awfully redundant). Regardless though it is going to be a challenge keeping the "hidden history" of the Levitron top device in the article without some balance.
 * I've added a video to the Levitron article. Perhaps you can view it and give me a critique? 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

John G. Cramer
Mr. Beaty, do you know this man? His work on "retrocausality" is extremely interesting... 10:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Optical levitation
Thought you might be interested in contributing to this article I've just started. Cheers. :-) 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of...
this article: How_a_transistor_works? It looks like a cut and paste of your material but I don't see you as an editor in the history. Alfred Centauri 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(reply to reply). You're welcome. I hear you and understand but I haven't thrown in the towel just yet. I'm down to watching a few dozen articles for experiments and outright nonsense. BTW, have you visited scholarpedia? Alfred Centauri 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Schumann resonance
You wrote that the ninth overtone to 7.8 Hz is ~60 Hz. Did you mean the ninth observed resonance is around 60 Hz? Strictly speaking, an overtone falls near an integer multiple of the fundamental freq; the first overtone of 7.83 would be very near 15.66 and the ninth overtone would be very near 78.3 Hz. The ELF article uses the word resonance, not overtone. Binksternet 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How a Transistor Works
Hi, I see you've had some comments on this article. I've rewritten it but I gave up electronics many years ago. Perhaps you could give it the once-over in case I've left any glaring howlers, & particularly the Talk page, where I've put some rationale & scope for what's been done. Thanks.-- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 23:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Electronic charge"
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion
I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lasagna cell

The article Lasagna cell has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Not notable and no reputable sources. The electrochemistry is well covered in Galvanic cell, Galvanic corrosion and Electrochemical cell

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Apau98 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Nomination of Suppression of dissent for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suppression of dissent 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/Suppression of dissent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Contact electrification for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Contact electrification 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/Contact electrification 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. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wjbeaty


text:
Talk:Valerie Solanas

on clarifying play and Fahs
It's common practice for an author who has submitted a work and then withdraws it from further consideration to reclaim the physical representation of it and it probably doesn't matter whether the author has a copy. I guess it has to do with law if the physical holder thinks there was still a right to publish (or will allege that right) if the author withdrew it without taking the physical version back. This can occur if, for example, an editor changed it in a way the author rejects.

If you have the source (I don't), feel free to edit the article accordingly.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and for your very informative possible explanation, Nick Levinson. Unfortunately I don't have access to the source, so I don't feel free to edit the article (indeed without such access, I'm not even 100% sure that it is 'Up your ass' rather than some other play, such as perhaps some stage version of S.C.U.M., although I'm almost certain it's 'Up your ass'). And of course, assuming it is 'Up your ass', I still don't know whether Solanas had a copy or had to try to re-write it from memory. But presumably some editor who has access to the source can produce a clarification. Thanks again, and regards.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 * According to the footnote that's visible at Google Books, Feiden had a play called The Society for Cutting Up Men, but it was a partial copy of an earlier draft of Up Your Ass. I don't know if that sheds any light on the question. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Malik Shabazz, that's a very important footnote, which may ultimately result in significant changes to quite a lot of the article (possibly even by me, but if so probably not just yet, due to having too many other things on my to-do list). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the footnote does not say the play was called The Society for Cutting Up Men, it says that Feiden had said in an interview that it was called that, when in fact it was a partial copy of an earlier draft of Up Your Ass. I understand the footnote is implying Feiden's recollection (she was speaking decades after the event) was mistaken and it was called 'Up your ass'. The footnote doesn't say how it knows this, though it may be explained elsewhere in the book and/or in one of the two references it tells the reader to see. Maybe the copy is available (and has perhaps since been used in the recent production of the play, or maybe not). Or maybe the footnote is actually wrong (though we should normally assume it's right, assuming it's from a so-called Reliable Source, which it clearly is). But the fact that two of us seemingly understand the footnote differently may mean that it is inherently ambiguous about the actual name of the play, and thus arguably can't be used to state that, but it presumably can still be used to say that it was a partial copy of an earlier draft of Up Your Ass, as that bit is unambiguous even if we arguably aren't sure of what it was actually called. That should probably be enough to enable me or some other editor to clear up the 'Clarify' bit, which I hope to try to remember to try to do fairly soon. But other possible uses of that footnote, such as using it in our article to question whether Warhol ever had a copy of the play, may be a lot more difficult, as it's not clear whether anybody except Feiden is asking such questions, in which case using it carelessly could easily run foul of WP:UNDUE, etc, especially as the "rather lamely" bit suggests the author of the footnote (Arizona State University associate Professor Breanne Fahs) disagrees with Feiden and O'Brien. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Footnote 161 says Feiden admitted fearing retaliation from Solanas for not producing Up your Ass, which I see as a Reliable Source (Fahs) saying the play was called 'Up your Ass' by referring to it as such, so I think we can use that, as well as the previous bit that it was a partial copy of an earlier draft of Up Your Ass.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Fahs also repeatedly calls it Up Your Ass in the text from which the footnotes are called. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that the footnote is ambiguous: "Feiden indicated that the play she possessed was called The Society for Cutting Up Men, when it was in fact a partial copy of ... Up Your Ass." Did Feiden indicate that the play she possessed was a partial copy, or is that the author's comment?
 * To be honest, I think Feiden is given too much weight in this article. And her hard-to-swallow story gets less credible the more I read. Footnote 161, which you mention, adds to my belief that very little of what people remember should be relied upon: "I was traumatized. It was the age of Kent State." Uh, no, it wasn't. If 1968 was the age of Kent State, 1964 must have been the Summer of Love. Warhol was shot in June 1968, Kent State was in May 1970, almost two years later. One was the action of a deranged individual. The other was the action of an out-of-control government. Like I said, 40+-year-old bad memories aren't very reliable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Feiden, "the age of Kent State" doesn't necessarily mean "after Kent State" - the fear among counter-culture people of the police hostility and brutality that eventually culminated with the 4 Kent State killings in 1970 was already widespread in 1968 as a result of people's experience of protesting against the Vietnam War (either through protesting themselves, or through hearing from friends who did). As a late uncle of mine said about taking part in one such protest well before Kent State (he returned to Ireland shortly before 1969) "When a New York policeman kicks you, you stay kicked". (Such fears can be very real even when not well-founded - my aunt said that one of her 'duties' at such protests was to tell frightened sit-down and lie-down protesters that police horses would not step on them if they could possibly avoid it.) Once the war ended well-off white people like my uncle and aunt and presumably Feiden would eventually lose their fear of the police, but might sometimes need a convenient-but-not-necessarily-well-considered-or-accurate label to refer to that different era when they were afraid of the police, and 'the age of Kent State' looks like such a label. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The excerpt that Feiden possessed was from Up Your Ass. You can see some of the actual pages here, as posted by Feiden herself: https://web.archive.org/web/20091006022832/http://alhirschfeld.com/warhol/play-pages.html. It's definitely Up Your Ass (which I have a copy of), but since it seems that Feiden didn't have a title page, she was just guessing on the title. Kaldari (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Either guessing or having confused or false memories due to the passage of time and/or perhaps something like false memories created by something like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for all your helpful replies. I've now used footnote 198 to say it was a partial copy of an earlier draft of Up Your Ass (which I've placed beside 'handed her a copy of her play' as perhaps the best place for that info), and I've removed my Clarify request since I think it's now probably been clarified as much as we can. Contrary to what I said when I first saw the footnote, I no longer feel the footnote is useful for saying anything elsewhere, due to above-mentioned problems with Feiden's recollection, etc. But if others wish to try to use use it, I guess that's up to them. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Schizophrenic
We source she was schizophrenic and is relevant to the opening because it was diagnosed from the attempted murder. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Your opening sentence mischaracterizes Solanas as a feminist, an author, and a schizophrenic. That's like describing somebody as a liberal, a poet, and a diabetic. The first two are political and career choices, the last is a condition that requires treatment. It's mixing apples and oranges.
 * If you wish to mention her schizophrenia, I think better ways to do it would be to describe her as a feminist and author who suffered from schizophrenia, or to mention schizophrenia in a second sentence. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
I do not see how 'Up Your Ass' could be classified as a 'notable work', though I can see why it might merit a mention in the article. Valetude (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Her Son
Why do we include the adoptive surname of her son? Irish Melkite (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

LEAD
I moved a lot of excess content out of LEAD and put here per WP:MOSLEAD, and WP:PRESERVE. If you can find some other place in the article it needs to be, then put it there. Anyhow, it should all be duplicated anyhow in the article already per policy as lead summarizes. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Solanas had a turbulent childhood, suffering sexual abuse from both her father and grandfather, and experiencing a volatile relationship with her mother and stepfather. She came out as a lesbian in the 1950s. After graduating with a degree in psychology from the University of Maryland, College Park, Solanas relocated to Berkeley. There she began writing the SCUM Manifesto, which urged women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."

In New York City, Solanas asked Warhol to produce her play Up Your Ass, but he claimed to have lost her script, and hired her to perform in his film, I, a Man, by way of compensation. At this time, a Parisian publisher of censored works, Maurice Girodias, offered Solanas a contract, which she interpreted as a conspiracy between him and Warhol to steal her future writings. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Valerie Solanas


text:
Lake Goodwin (disambiguation)

Lake Goodwin or Goodwin Lake may refer to various lakes in the United States:

Populated place

 * Lake Goodwin, Washington, a census-designated place in Washington

Bodies of water

 * Goodwin Lake (Thurston County, Washington)
 * Lake Goodwin (Snohomish County, Washington)

title: Lake Goodwin (disambiguation)


text:
Social Democratic Party of Canada (in Manitoba)

When the Social Democratic Party of Canada broke away from the Socialist Party of Canada in 1911, many Winnipeg SPC members joined the new organization. The new party's platform was written by three residents of the city (Richard Rigg, Herman Saltzman and Jacob Penner), and it has been estimated that nearly 20% of the SDPC's total membership lived in Winnipeg during the early 1910s.

The party was more pragmatic than the SPC, and cooperated with reformist labour groups. It benefited from the relative weakness of the SPC in Winnipeg following the provincial election of 1910. The SPC had contributed to reformist Fred Dixon's defeat in this election, and was shunned by many in the city's trade union movement as such.

In the provincial election of 1914, the SDPC ran Arthur Beech and Herman Saltzman as candidate's for Winnipeg North's two ridings. Both candidates were defeated, due in part to the SDPC's insistence that further immigration to the city be curtailed in a time of high unemployment (Winnipeg North was home to many recent immigrants).

The party fared better in the election of 1915, when Richard Rigg was elected for Winnipeg North's second seat. Rigg had defended the city's immigrant population in the past, and was elected despite strong SPC opposition. Beech finished a close second in the other Winnipeg North seat. Both of the SDPC's candidates were also endorsed by the Labour Representation Committee, a reformist organization.

Rigg did not remain in parliament long, resigning in 1917 to contest Winnipeg North at the federal level. This time, he was endorsed by reformist labourites and Liberal supporters of Wilfrid Laurier because of his opposition to conscription. Support for the war was strong in western Canada, however, and Rigg was defeated by a supporter of Robert Borden's Union government.

Labour radicalism in Winnipeg increased after the General Strike in 1919. In the following year's provincial election, the Dominion Labour Party, SPC and SDPC were able to present a united slate of candidates in Winnipeg, running a combined total of ten candidates for the city's ten seats (which were determined by preferential balloting). John Queen was the sole Social Democrat on the ballot, and was declared elected to the legislature.

The SPDC joined the Federated Labour Party in 1920. Queen was re-elected as an "Independent Workers" candidate in 1922, and became leader of the province's Independent Labour Party caucus the following year.


text:
Generalized other

The generalized other is a concept introduced by George Herbert Mead into the social sciences, and used especially in the field of symbolic interactionism. It is the general notion that a person has of the common expectations that others may have about actions and thoughts within a particular society, and thus serves to clarify their relation to the other as a representative member of a shared social system.

Any time that an actor tries to imagine what is expected of them, they are taking on the perspective of the generalized other.

An alternative name of the mentally constructed idea of who an audience is without real or complete insight is imagined audience.

Precursors
Mead's concept of the generalised other has been linked to Adam Smith's notion of the impartial spectator – itself rooted in the earlier thinking of Addison and Epictectus.

Adam Smith wrote: "We Conceive ourselves as acting in the presence of a person quite candid and equitable, of one who...is meerly a man in general, an impartial Spectator who considers our conduct with the same indifference with which we regard that of other people".

Role-play and games
Mead began by contrasting the experience of role-play and pretence in early childhood, in which one role simply gives way to a different one without any continuity, with that of the organised game: "in the latter", he stated, "the child must have the attitude of all the others involved in that game". He saw the organised game as vital for the formation of a mature sense of self, which can only be achieved by learning to respond to, and take on board, the others' attitudes toward the (changing) common undertakings they are involved in: i.e. the generalized other.

Mead argued that "in the game we get an organized other, a generalized other, which is found in the nature of the child itself....in the case of such a social group as a ball team, the team is the generalized other in so far as it enters – as an organized process or social activity – into the experience of any one of the individual members of it".

By seeing things from an anonymous perspective, that of the other, the child may eventually be able to visualize the intentions and expectations of others, and see him/herself from the point of view of groups of others – the viewpoint of the generalized other.

The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the larger community. According to Mead, the generalized other is the vehicle by which we are linked to society.

Multiple generalized others
Arguably, a modern differentiated society contains as many generalized others as there are social groupings: as Mead put it, "every individual member of any given human society, of course, belongs to a large number of such different functional groups". The result is that everybody will articulate aspects of the range of socio-cultural values in their own way, taking on the perspectives of a set of generalized others in a unique synthesis.

With rising levels of socialisation and individuation, more and more people, and more and more aspects of the self come into play in the dialectic of self and generalized other.

Psychoanalytic equivalents
As a concept, the generalised other is roughly equivalent to the idea of the Freudian superego. It has also been compared to Lacan's use of the Name of the Father, as the third party created by the presence of social convention, law, and language in all human interaction. It is also similar to Bakhtin's (Superaddressee) "superaddressee" presumed to receive and understand human communication.

Imagined Audiences in Social Media
Specifically referencing modern social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai explain that the imagined audience refers to a mental construct people form of their audience without real insight into who is actually consuming their online content.

This disconnect between a user's imagined audience and actual audience is affected by social norms and context, and could play a large role on impression management — if a user believes their audience is composed of certain people, they may curate their social media feed and image to reflect this belief. Notably, academic scholar Jacqueline Vickery found in a study that her informants attempted to dissociate themselves from peers they considered "ghetto." Since her informants were aware that Facebook friend connections are visible to everyone, those who were worried about associating with certain people then needed to maintain online distance by declining those friend requests.

Scholar danah boyd argues that the "imagined audience ... resembles the concept of the White audience inherent to respectability politics; namely, that one must be able to successfully perform a White-defined bourgeois self to achieve upward mobility." The relationship between the dominant, acceptable social norms and intersections of class, gender, racial, or ethnic norms creates tension when managing impressions for both the imagined audience and the invisible audience.

As sharing on social media continues to become more commonplace, the imagined audience will continue to play a role in how people choose to represent themselves on different platforms. For instance, a study on impression management in online dating found that participants had to navigate mediating conflict between the pressures of impression management and their desire to present an authentic sense of self. Other similar studies have also found that there are significant instances of misrepresentation in online dating: 86% of participants in one study felt that other members of their dating sites misrepresented their physical appearance. Misrepresentation, particularly on sites where participants are looking for companionship and love, could be explained by the idea of the imagined audience — as participants form the idea of who is actually viewing their profiles, they may cater their own online representation to be more appealing.

title: Generalized other


text:
Talk:Streets of Rage

Untitled
Please don't revert this page, as the previous version seems to be a copyright infrigiment. The text has been copied and pasted from SOR Online. Unless the author gives his/her permission, we can't put it here.--Paraiba 08:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fanfic?
Should the section on novels be included in the article? It seems more like fanfiction and advertisement to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.229.22 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with this, it's nothing more than fan-fiction. It may try and follow the story or whatever (wouldn't know, haven't read it), but it's not official in any way and probably shouldn't be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.183 (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I also agree. They are unofficial, VERY loosely based on the actual series, and the stories themselves have many plagarized claims against it. - ChrisGuy

Mr X
I support merging Mr X into this article and truning the Mr X page into a disambiguation page... Mr X could also refer to Homer Simpsons online pseudonym. Usrnme h8er 11:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

SOR2 Edit
I made a pretty minor change in the SOR2 section (added last sentence). I'll try to add more to this article when I have the chance. Shenzhou

Objectivity
This article reads to me like a fan's review, i would suggest it needs to be cleaned up to provide information about the game (good and bad points) not review it

 * I'm plotting a major overhaul of both this and the three games pages. Stay tuned. -- Truncated 13:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see much purpose for this page. Its mostly in-universe character descriptions and plot summary. You could easily merge the non-in-universe info like comics and soundtracks to their respective pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny2x4 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Max
The characters section lists Max as being famous for various moves, including the Atomic Drop. It claims that the Atomic Drop does more damage than any other move, but max has another attack where he places them in a headlock which does much more damage (albeit through several hits, it's all one attack). I'm not going to change it just now, I'm simply saying that I don't feel that information to be accurate. DarkTechnomancer 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but there is one thing. The Atomic Drop does damage all at once and the headlock does damage in small amounts meaning that the headlock attack can be stopped before he is able to finish. S0nicLightning 13:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)S0nicLightning

There is now a Bare Knuckle Mobile game
http://www.andriasang.com/e/galleries/2008/09/25/bare_knuckle_mobile/ Though, only two characters and the older style. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Streets of Rage Remake
Just wondering why there's no mention of the remake project or how Sega shut it down just before it was released. Kotaku and other gaming news sites gave the game (which is a compilation of SOR 1,2 & 3 plus extra content) glowing reviews and also covered the decision of Sega to axe it. (203.27.52.235 (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

Question about Streets of Rage Remake and Rudra
Is Streets of Rage Remake technically a fangame? If so, does that make Rudra a fanmade character? 69.118.251.97 (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and also yes. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"A Remake for PC, titled Streets of Rage: Remake was released by Bomber games in 2011, the game is a mixture of all SoR/BK games and is considered a sequel of SoR 3."

It was a fun remake, but does this really belong in the article? It was officially shutdown by Sega, despite its completion. If its worth mentioning, it'd be more appropriate to say something like an unofficial (or fanmade?) remake was being developed, but was shutdown at Sega's request/demand. 69.118.251.97 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

– The Streets of Rage series seems to meet the following criteria on WP:NCVG:"'...If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with '... (series)'.'"...So, with that being said, should the series page be moved to the base title? Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Streets of Rage (series) → Streets of Rage
 * Streets of Rage → Streets of Rage (video game)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Streets of Rage. 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/20111007220957/http://www.psy-q.ch/mirrors/thegia/sites/www.thegia.com/features/f010123.html to http://www.psy-q.ch/mirrors/thegia/sites/www.thegia.com/features/f010123.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130101192010/http://www.1up.com/features/the-magic-of-fm-synth to http://www.1up.com/features/the-magic-of-fm-synth

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) 08:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

release timeline
I'm ambivalent whether the release timeline visual adds much value, but having 26 vertical years without releases taking up a huge amount of space is really inconsiderate to mobile readers. Maybe there's a better way to visually express these releases? Schazjmd  (talk)  19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed. The best way to represent release info is just in prose. Even a large paragraph would physically take up less space than that template. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Streets of Rage


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CourtZero

Non-notable web site ad. (~150 google hits, none for this site) - Kenwarren 04:04, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * A few minutes ago (different article listing) I said I wouldn't mention Alexa traffic if it was over 50,000. Well...  just this once... Alexa traffic of 5,717,495!  Delete.  SWAdair | Talk  04:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * worthy, but... Delete. Ianb 06:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - UtherSRG 11:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Let it come back when there's a reason for it. Geogre 12:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Sarasota, Florida

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Logo of Sarasota, Florida.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Logo of Sarasota, Florida.svg

Sarasota Orchestra
To whoever keeps adding promo language about it on here, the orchestra is in the process of leaving downtown Sarasota to unincorporated Sarasota County. https://www.mysuncoast.com/2022/03/25/sarasota-orchestra-moving-fruitville-road-location/ – The Grid  ( talk )  02:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I didn't add any "promo language." I only described what the Sarasota Orchestra does.
 * Right now, this is all the information offered on the page: Sarasota is the home of the Sarasota Orchestra, which was founded by Ruth Cotton Butler in 1949 and known for years as the Florida West Coast Symphony. It holds a three-week Sarasota Music Festival that is recognized internationally and boasts it attracts renowned teachers and the finest students of chamber music.
 * Why is it more important and relevant to know that it was founded by Butler in 1949 and under a different name, but not to mention in just a couple sentences what the orchestra actually does in the community?
 * The arts section of this page is outdated, anemic and often poorly written. I don't know why some people are watching it like a hawk and not letting anyone else contribute. FloridaRob71 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One guideline on what to put into an article about a city is at WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Many of us, however, are wary of trivia in articles that seems to be more about promoting something in the city rather than informing the reader about the city. It is an editorial decision, ultimately subject to a consensus of the participating editors, as to what has sufficient import to the city to be included in the article, and how much detail should be included. If an organization, event, or place in the city is notable in itself, then it can have its own article, and be linked from the city's article. Donald Albury 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Be wary. But reach out and ask why someone is adding information to an anemic Wikipedia page instead of just reversing the work done.
 * And I'm still not seeing how basic information about what the orchestra actually does is more "trivia" than letting readers know that Ruth Cotton Butler founded it under a different name that hasn't been used in decades.
 * For now, I'll concentrate my effort on smaller pages, but whatever group it is that has decided to sit on this page and not allow updates is doing a disservice. Someone even decided that a city full of galleries and working painters and sculptors should not have a "Fine Arts" subsection under the Visual Arts section. Why not? What's the reasoning there? FloridaRob71 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also a lot missing from the Film section and the Architecture section.
 * If the editors guarding this page can bring themselves to let someone update them, it would be beneficial. FloridaRob71 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Climate data does not match the sources
I’ve put a citation needed on the claim that Sarasota has a tropical climate because that assertion, as well as the data on the article, does not match the data from the sources. Cretaceousa (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sarasota, Florida


text:
User talk:Maxdamage

I am maxdamage...

Image copyright problem with Image:Carrols-LogoCrop.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Carrols-LogoCrop.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maxdamage


text:
User:Maxdamage

I am maxdamage... I operate http://www.maxdamage.org

title: User:Maxdamage


text:
List of countries by wheat production

The following international wheat production statistics come from the Food and Agriculture Organization figures from FAOSTAT database, older from International Grains Council figures from the report "Grain Market Report".

The quantities of wheat in the following table are in million metric tonnes. All countries with a typical production quantity of at least 2 million metric tonnes are listed below.

title: List of countries by wheat production


text:
United States congressional delegations from Wyoming

These are tables of members from Wyoming of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.

The current dean of the Wyoming delegation is Senator John Barrasso, having served in the Senate since 2007.

United States House of Representatives
Current Representative


text:
Burial vault (enclosure)

A burial vault (also known as a burial liner, grave vault, and grave liner) is a container, formerly made of wood or brick but more often today made of metal or concrete, that encloses a coffin to help prevent a grave from sinking. Wooden coffins (or caskets) decompose, and often the weight of earth on top of the coffin, or the passage of heavy cemetery maintenance equipment over it, can cause the casket to collapse and the soil above it to settle.

Description and usage
The burial vault or burial liner is designed to prevent the weight of earth or heavy cemetery maintenance equipment from collapsing the coffin beneath. Coffin collapse will cause the ground to sink and settle, marring the appearance of the cemetery and making it harder to maintain. Burial vaults originally emerged as a means of ensuring that grave robbers could not easily access a coffin and remove valuables, clothing, or even bodies from the coffin. Early vaults were made of wood (the "rough box"), although by the middle of the 1800s brick, iron and later steel vaults were used. By the late 1800s, the fashion of burying the deceased with jewelry lost favor. However, the value of burial vaults in ensuring that the ground did not settle over graves was seen, and burial vaults began to be more widely used. By the early part of the 20th century, concrete (and, later, reinforced concrete) vaults became more common.

Although quite commonly used in many industrialized countries, the burial vault is very much a funerary item used almost exclusively in the 20th century. In the United States, the burial vault was largely unknown until the 1880s when the L.G. Haase Manufacturing Co., which owned a cemetery in Illinois, conceived the burial vault as a means of adding a product line to their funerary sales. As late as 1915, only 5 to 10 percent of funerals in the United States used a burial vault or liner. In the 1930s, company owner Wilbert Haase, who had an interest in Egyptian mummification, began promoting the sealed (or "waterproof") vault as a means of allegedly protecting the body from water, microbes, and vermin. The Haase company later purchased several plastics companies, and began manufacturing plastic burial vaults as well. The company dominates the American burial vault market today, with about 12 percent of all vault and liner sales.

A burial vault encloses a coffin on all four sides, the top, and the bottom. Modern burial vaults are lowered into the grave, and the coffin lowered into the vault. A lid is then lowered to cover the coffin and seal the vault. Modern burial vaults may be made of concrete, metal, or plastic. Because the sides of the burial vault are attached to the bottom of the vault, the burial vault is generally stronger than a burial liner. Some burial vaults reverse the construction, so that only a base is placed beneath the coffin. The lid consists of the four sides and the top. These types of burial vaults allow a better seal between the lid and base.

A burial liner is similar to a burial vault, but does not have a bottom. With a burial liner, the coffin is lowered directly onto the earth. The burial liner is then lowered over the coffin. Modern burial liners may also be made of concrete, metal, or plastic. Many come in a wide array of colors, even stripes.

Burial vaults do not prevent the decomposition of the human remains within. Vaults which are installed incorrectly and too tightly sealed may not allow gases generated by the decomposing body to escape. Pressure then builds up within the vault until the vault ruptures, causing the vault to fail. Although some manufacturers of burial vaults claim that their vaults are "green" (environmentally friendly) and prevent the toxic chemicals used in embalming from leaching into the surrounding soil, such claims are uniformly false since the vault cannot be hermetically sealed without causing it to rupture from the pressure of decomposing gases. A truly "green" or natural burial does not use embalming fluids, and does not attempt to protect the body from the soil and rapid decomposition.

Modern burial vaults often come in a variety of styles, which can greatly increase the cost. Modern vaults and liners sometimes are lined on the inside with bronze, copper, fiberglass, or stainless steel sheeting, and some vaults and liners are inscribed on the outer surface with words, scenes, or other images.

Some jurisdictions require the use of a burial vault or burial liner. For example, several U.S. states require them. In some cases, cemeteries require the use of a burial vault or liner, although it is not a legal requirement.

World usage
Data on the use of burial vaults and liners outside the United States is very difficult to come by, and usage rates are not known. Burial vaults and liners are almost unheard of in China and Japan. Cremation is required in China, and is used in 90 percent of burials in Japan. They are also uncommon in Italy. In modern Italy, burial plots (either below-ground or in wall loculi) are re-used after a period of years, usually 10 to 25. At that time, most of the soft body parts have decomposed, and the bones are removed to an ossuary.

In the United States, the use of burial vaults is also decreasing, caused by a sharp rise in the number of cremations. Whereas 36 percent of all deceased were cremated in the United States in 2008, the National Association of Funeral Directors forecast this to rise to 46 percent by 2015 and 59 percent by 2025.

Jewish law does not bar the use of burial vaults or liners, and their use is permitted where law or a cemetery requires them. But Morrison David Bial argues that burial vaults are antithetical to traditional Judaism, in part because they deny the reality of death (e.g., inhibit decomposition of the body) and in part because they are ostentatious and undercut the equality of all people at death.

Islamic law requires only that the body be washed, anointed, and wrapped in linen for burial. Funerals must be kept simple, and no ostentation is allowed. Preferably, the body should be buried without coffin or burial vault, although such is permitted if required by law. Generally, Muslims prefer to have separate cemeteries due to the specific preference for burial without coffin or vault.

Criticisms
Burial vaults and liners do not decompose, and have been criticized as being environmentally unfriendly. Burial vaults and liners consumed more than 14000 ST of steel and more than 1636000 ST of reinforced concrete in 2009.

A burial vault or liner is not the only solution to settling earth over the grave. Traditional burials with a casket leave a larger void and thus create more settlement when the casket decomposes or collapses. Natural or "green" burials do not use a casket, which means only minimal settling. In either case, the cemetery can remedy sunken graves by filling in the settled area.

title: Burial vault (enclosure)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/CourtZero

Courtzero currently has 53 google hits, and is also within the first few pages of a google search of the term "judicial activism". Since the wikipedia entry for judicial activism is not fleshed out at all, it useful to those seeking information to have entries that fall on either side of the current American debate over the appointment of judges and judicial activism in general.
 * Hmm, I see that. I searched on "Court Zero", which would typically be the name of a "real world" organization (as opposed to one that exists entirely online), but not "courtzero". You do get some Google hits. But you fail the Alexa test. I don't believe that the site is notable, so I'm going to let my nomination stand. You might want to enhance Judicial activism instead, since as you say it needs some work. - Kenwarren


text:
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements

I hate to sound like I'm whining, but can I be listed first? After all, I think that I announced first. 172 04:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * They currently seem to be in nomination order ;-) I think there's a quality selection here - David Gerard 21:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A question
Is anyone supposed to post directly on the candidate statements page? I find Hadal's response to Raul off-putting -- that's Raul's space, I think. But I don't know what the guidelines are, and don't want to be accused of censorship if I revert Hadal's edit. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 22:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was a vandal with the name Hada-capital I. But my question stands in theory. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think having a separate "questions" page would be more appropriate. This could be a subpage of each candidate's user page in same way as the Board elections were done. Angela. 00:37, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Angela. However, no one has seemed to have anything to say so far. Ambivalenthysteria 02:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from UninvitedCompany
As many readers know, I take an active interest in policy issues at Wikipedia and served for a time as a member of the arbitration committee before resigning last February. I would like to encourage the Wikipedia community to consider closely the qualifications of candidates in certain crucial areas prior to casting their votes:

 * Committee members would ideally have experience in several other online communities in addition to Wikipedia itself, preferably as a sponsor, moderator, or administrator.

 * To work together most effectively with other committee members, the best candidates would have practical experience with group decisionmaking. Since true group decisionmaking in online communities is rare, such experience in most cases would come from real-world activities.

 * The ideal candidate would have some sort of real-world experience in dealing with behavior problems, whether as a bouncer at a bar, a camp counselor, a parent, a Sunday school teacher, or a member of the United States Secret Service.

 * Since the term of office is substantially longer than most Wikipedians' duration of participation, and since some arbitration committee members have all but left Wikipedia, candidates should be prepared to explain the depth of their commitment to Wikipedia, their likely duration of participation, and whether they intend to take numerous or lengthy Wikiholidays.

I would encourage all candidates to address these points in their Candidate Statement or in a linked page.

While I respect all candidates and believe that each could serve the community well as a member of the committee, two exemplary candidates stand out. I would encourage the community to support:

 * User:David Gerard, and
 * User:Jwrosenzweig

UninvitedCompany 19:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I humbly thank UC for the endorsement. For UC's information (and anyone else's who wishes), I have replied to UC's points at User:Jwrosenzweig/AC candidacy, as my statement is already a bit long.  If you have questions about my comments there, please note them at User talk:Jwrosenzweig and I'm happy to discuss them. Jwrosenzweig 22:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from blankfaze
As I believe him to be a user who holds the best interests of Wikipedia in his mind at all times, and someone who is more than capable of fulfilling the duties of the position, I hereby officially endorse Raul654 and Jwrosenzweig as candidates for the open Arbitration Committee seats, and encourage all members of the community to strongly consider supporting them. blankfaze | (беседа!)  19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from Neutrality
We have a fine selection of candidates to choose from. Each has contributed the Wiki in their own way, and has gained distinction among the community for their achievements. However, two users in as particular are the most well-suited and well-qualified. Both are experienced, sensible users who are in touch with a firm notion of should Wikipedia is and what it should be. I strongly urge all Wikipedians to vote for these two users to be on the AC: Good luck to all, and may the best users win! Neutrality 01:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 172
 * Ambivalenthysteria

from 172
In recent months we've been seeing the rise of a bureaucratic caste on Wikipedia, reminding me of Max Weber's concept of "politics as a vocation." . Users who instead primarily write articles (as opposed to those who sit on all these committees and spend a lot of time on IRC) are becoming increasingly detached from the governance of Wikipedia. Yet, trying to write quality, NPOV articles on controversial subjects (the source of conflict on Wikipedia)-- esp. on contemporary and modern history and politics-- is necessary for seeing the bigger picture that I allude to in my candidate statement. (Many seem to think that minimizing disruption is more important than cleaning up the mess left by users who are impeding efforts to make Wikipedia into a scholarly, quality sourcebook, as opposed to a social club.)

While all but one of the candidates are excellent users, Jwrosenzweig's commitment to scholarly standards and his vast contributions to writing scores of articles stand out. [I now add User:Sj, who is a new entry in the race, to this list]

Thus, I strongly urge all Wikipedians to vote for these two users to be on the AC:
 * User:Jwrosenzweig User:Sj (I'm now supporting Sj, who is a new entry in the race. I totally concur with his candidate statement, which really articulates well the need to focus more on the edits and less on the personality.)172 11:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 172 (well, we are casting two votes

from David Gerard
I love everyone - David Gerard 17:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on the very idea of endorsements and where they belong
I strongly oppose endorsements of particular candidates appearing on this talk page. I mean no offense or disrespect to the users above or to the candidates they have endorsed, but I must request that the endorsements be moved to individual user pages and off of this talk page. It seems to me that this page should be used to discuss matters relating to the election statements page, like the creation of candidate questions pages. I believe that placing official endorsements for individual candidates here is unfair to the candidates and to potential voters.

Most sincerely,

Acegikmo1 22:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I endorse Acegikmo's statement above. ;-) In all seriousness, I think it would be wise -- if 30 people wish to chime in, it will overwhelm this page. User and user talk pages, however, are so rarely traveled in many instances that I wonder if a third option is possible?  A subpage of this talk page?  Or perhaps each candidate could create a subpage for the purpose of listing endorsements?  I'm open to any solution, I'm just wondering if a solution other than user or user talk pages would be wiser -- this election is happening swiftly enough that I worry we're going to miss wise courses of action. And I hope everyone knows I'm saying this out of a desire to let everyone's voice be heard (I'm a little hesitant to speak up as I'm a recipient of two endorsements, and don't want to be seen as simply asking for my horn to be tooted more loudly) -- if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, please use my underutilized talk page to politely inform me so. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I started this, so I'll respond. Traditionally, people have been chosen for special roles through a process of discussion, voting, and consensus. Traditionally, this has been a very open process, with substantially all votes and rationale and discussion occuring in public. This has been true, for example, with administrators, bureaucrats, and to a lesser degree with developers. Since it is proposed that this election will be by secret ballot (something I do not necessarily endorse), I feel that it is highly appropriate for there to be a public discussion of the merits of the candidates prior to the election itself -- both because of tradition, and because we'll have a better decision with more community buy-in.

UninvitedCompany 01:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding ballot types - there's a significant difference between admins/bureaucrats/developers and the Arbitration Committee (and for that matter, the Board of Trustees). For the former group, there is no limitation on numbers, so it's more practical to operate by consensus and a fully open voting process. You're simply voting yes or no on the question of whether a particular candidate is qualified. But when a limited number of positions are available, some candidates will necessarily be excluded, even well-qualified ones. In order to discourage animosity and recrimination, I believe that a secret ballot is preferable in this situation.

However, a secret ballot does not imply that there should be no discussion of the merits of the candidates. The problem is not with people making endorsements - it's a question of whether this is the right place to do it. For the Board of Trustees election, I noted several people who published endorsements on their user pages. I think this is the best solution. A list of people who have chosen to make endorsements might also be compiled on an election subpage, as Jwrosenzweig suggested.

By the way, may I remind everyone that we are using approval voting? In other words, you can vote for (and endorse) as many candidates as you consider qualified. Yes, there are only two positions open, but that shouldn't mean that endorsers need to feel limited to making only two endorsements. I'm not going to make any endorsements here myself, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could find more than two candidates to recommend. --Michael Snow 17:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * User pages? I disagree.  I think at the very most these should be moved to a subpage of this talk page. I really don't see what the problem is.  And yeah, most of the candidates are good users, but the two I endorsed are the only ones I really feel comfortable... endorsing.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  18:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

well I really appreciate the endorsements as I have actually dealt with very few of the candidates. While I support "no personal attacks" I do think it is also reasonable for critics of the candidates to list URLS to diffs the candidates have made that may not show them in good light. If people put themselves forward as AC candidates then it is important that their histories are explored. I know it's a bit late now but its a thought. best wishes Erich 14:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions
May we ask questions to the candidates, and if so, where can we do so ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 00:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You can ask me any questions you like, here or on my talk. If the other candidates agree, I will create a special portion of my user name space for this purpose, otherwise I will simply keep it in an unarchived (at least until the election is over) portion of my talk page (assuming you don't ask me here :) Sam [Spade] 01:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ask away! - David Gerard 17:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Answers on my talk page - David Gerard 14:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * What they said. As there don't seem to be many questions, I guess talk pages will do for the moment. Ambi 10:27, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * What they said again. I also welcome any questions on my talk page. 172 11:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm happy to answer questions at User talk:Jwrosenzweig -- if there become too many, I'd move all questions and answers to a subpage (and announce that fact here and on my talk page). Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 15:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I welcome questions - if you have any, just leave 'em on my talk page. →Raul654 16:52, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I have a question. :) I would like to know which one of you are not sysops so I can use my vote to increase diversion (or dispersion?). Eric B. and Rakim 23:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * List of administrators indicates that 172, Raul654, Ambi, David Gerard, Jwrosenzweig, Merovingian, and Sj are administrators.  Sam Spade, Misterrick, and Lir are not.  Acegikmo1 23:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page Freezing
According to my clock at this time it is 02:18 (UTC) and a notice on the page says it will be frozen on 2 August 2004 at 24:00 hours. So shouldn't the Candidate Statements page now be frozen? Misterrick 02:18, 2 August 2004 (UTC)

 * If you read on, the context makes clear that it means that the page is to be frozen at 24:00 UTC on the 2nd === 00:00 UTC on the 3rd:
 * "Candidates must present themselves before 24:00 UTC on Monday, 2 August, 2004. [...] The list of candidates will be frozen starting 3 August."
 * So, no, it'll be frozen in 22 hours and 33 minutes. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2004 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't see anything about August 3rd on Arbitration_Committee_Elections_July_2004/Candidate_statements can you point me to exactly where it states that? because I only see a statement that says the "This page will be declared frozen at 24:00 UTC on Monday, August 2, 2004". Thank you. Misterrick, 02:34, 2 August 2004 (UTC)

 * He's saying that 2400 UTC on 2 August is the same thing as 0 UTC on 3 August. I think you're mistakenly under the impression that 2400 is the start of 2 August rather than the end.  So, anyway,  like James said, the page won't be frozen for 22½ hours.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  02:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm. The list is frozen, but the text? I clarified my statement by linking to my en: page, not my comparatively irrelevant meta: page, and added a line. +sj +  03:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, in that case presumably you should also be prepared to make any changes requested by candidates who aren't admins, and therefore can't edit the page while it's protected. --Michael Snow 20:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course. +sj +

Response to questions
Please see: User_talk:Sam_Spade if you are interested.

Feel free to ask other questions of me as well, but SnowSpinners questions (and I hope my answers ;) are quite comprehensive. Sam [Spade] 18:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To all concerned, please see Misterrick for my responses to these questions posted by Sam. Misterrick 20:40, 2 August 2004 (UTC)

Voting question
So I have 2 votes? Can I vote for more than 2 people if I want to? Sam [Spade] 01:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Sam -- it's Approval voting -- so you can vote for as many of the candidates as you like. The two candidates with the greatest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, a run-off election between the leading candidates will be held. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 02:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks Sam [Spade] 02:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)