text:
Athlete's foot

Athlete's foot, known medically as tinea pedis, is a common skin infection of the feet caused by a fungus. Signs and symptoms often include itching, scaling, cracking and redness. In rare cases the skin may blister. Athlete's foot fungus may infect any part of the foot, but most often grows between the toes. The next most common area is the bottom of the foot. The same fungus may also affect the nails or the hands. It is a member of the group of diseases known as tinea.

Athlete's foot is caused by a number of different funguses, including species of Trichophyton, Epidermophyton, and Microsporum. The condition is typically acquired by coming into contact with infected skin, or fungus in the environment. Common places where the funguses can survive are around swimming pools and in locker rooms. They may also be spread from other animals. Usually diagnosis is made based on signs and symptoms; however, it can be confirmed either by culture or seeing hyphae using a microscope.

Athlete's foot is not limited to just athletes: it can be caused by going barefoot in public showers, letting toenails grow too long, wearing shoes that are too tight, or not changing socks daily. It can be treated with topical antifungal medications such as clotrimazole or, for persistent infections, using oral antifungal medications such as terbinafine. Topical creams are typically recommended to be used for four weeks. Keeping infected feet dry and wearing sandals also assists with treatment.

Athlete's foot was first medically described in 1908. Globally, athlete's foot affects about 15% of the population. Males are more often affected than females. It occurs most frequently in older children or younger adults. Historically it is believed to have been a rare condition that became more frequent in the 20th century due to the greater use of shoes, health clubs, war, and travel.

Signs and symptoms
Athlete's foot is divided into four categories or presentations: chronic interdigital, plantar (chronic scaly; aka "moccasin foot"), acute ulcerative, and vesiculobullous. "Interdigital" means between the toes. "Plantar" here refers to the sole of the foot. The ulcerative condition includes macerated lesions with scaly borders. Maceration is the softening and breaking down of skin due to extensive exposure to moisture. A vesiculobullous disease is a type of mucocutaneous disease characterized by vesicles and bullae (blisters). Both vesicles and bullae are fluid-filled lesions, and they are distinguished by size (vesicles being less than 5 mm and bulla being larger than 5 mm, depending upon what definition is used).

Athlete's foot occurs most often between the toes (interdigital), with the space between the fourth and fifth digits (the little toe and the fore toe) most commonly affected. Cases of interdigital athlete's foot caused by Trichophyton rubrum may be symptomless, it may itch, or the skin between the toes may appear red or ulcerative (scaly, flaky, with soft and white if skin has been kept wet), with or without itching. An acute ulcerative variant of interdigital athlete's foot caused by T. mentagrophytes is characterized by pain, maceration of the skin, erosions and fissuring of the skin, crusting, and an odor due to secondary bacterial infection.

Plantar athlete's foot (moccasin foot) is also caused by T. rubrum which typically causes asymptomatic, slightly erythematous plaques (areas of redness of the skin) to form on the plantar surface (sole) of the foot that are often covered by fine, powdery hyperkeratotic scales.

The vesiculobullous type of athlete's foot is less common and is usually caused by T. mentagrophytes and is characterized by a sudden outbreak of itchy blisters and vesicles on an erythematous base, usually appearing on the sole of the foot. This subtype of athlete's foot is often complicated by secondary bacterial infection by Streptococcus pyogenes or Staphylococcus aureus.

Complications
As the disease progresses, the skin may crack, leading to bacterial skin infection and inflammation of the lymphatic vessels. If allowed to grow for too long, athlete's foot fungus may spread to infect the toenails, feeding on the keratin in them, a condition called onychomycosis.

Because athlete's foot may itch, it may also elicit the scratch reflex, causing the host to scratch the infected area before they realize it. Scratching can further damage the skin and worsen the condition by allowing the fungus to more easily spread and thrive. The itching sensation associated with athlete's foot can be so severe that it may cause hosts to scratch vigorously enough to inflict excoriations (open wounds), which are susceptible to bacterial infection. Further scratching may remove scabs, inhibiting the healing process. Scratching infected areas may also spread the fungus to the fingers and under the fingernails. If not washed away soon enough, it can infect the fingers and fingernails, growing in the skin and in the nails (not just underneath). After scratching, it can be spread to wherever the person touches, including other parts of the body and to one's environment. Scratching also causes infected skin scales to fall off into one's environment, leading to further possible spread. When athlete's foot fungus or infested skin particles spread to one's environment (such as to clothes, shoes, bathroom, etc.) whether through scratching, falling, or rubbing off, not only can they infect other people, they can also reinfect (or further infect) the host they came from. For example, infected feet infest one's socks and shoes which further expose the feet to the fungus and its spores when worn again.

The ease with which the fungus spreads to other areas of the body (on one's fingers) poses another complication. When the fungus is spread to other parts of the body, it can easily be spread back to the feet after the feet have been treated. And because the condition is called something else in each place it takes hold (e.g., tinea corporis (ringworm) or tinea cruris (jock itch)), persons infected may not be aware it is the same disease.

Some individuals may experience an allergic response to the fungus called an id reaction in which blisters or vesicles can appear in areas such as the hands, chest, and arms. Treatment of the underlying infection typically results in the disappearance of the id reaction.

Causes
Athlete's foot is a form of dermatophytosis (fungal infection of the skin), caused by dermatophytes, funguses (most of which are mold) which inhabit dead layers of skin and digest keratin. Dermatophytes are anthropophilic, meaning these parasitic funguses prefer human hosts. Athlete's foot is most commonly caused by the molds known as Trichophyton rubrum and T. mentagrophytes, but may also be caused by Epidermophyton floccosum. Most cases of athlete's foot in the general population are caused by T. rubrum; however, the majority of athlete's foot cases in athletes are caused by T. mentagrophytes.

Transmission
According to the UK's National Health Service, "Athlete's foot is very contagious and can be spread through direct and indirect contact." The disease may spread to others directly when they touch the infection. People can contract the disease indirectly by coming into contact with contaminated items (clothes, towels, etc.) or surfaces (such as bathroom, shower, or locker room floors). The funguses that cause athlete's foot can easily spread to one's environment. Funguses rub off of fingers and bare feet, but also travel on the dead skin cells that continually fall off the body. Athlete's foot funguses and infested skin particles and flakes may spread to socks, shoes, clothes, to other people, pets (via petting), bed sheets, bathtubs, showers, sinks, counters, towels, rugs, floors, and carpets.

When the fungus has spread to pets, it can subsequently spread to the hands and fingers of people who pet them. If a pet frequently gnaws upon itself, it might not be fleas it is reacting to, it may be the insatiable itch of tinea.

One way to contract athlete's foot is to get a fungal infection somewhere else on the body first. The funguses causing athlete's foot may spread from other areas of the body to the feet, usually by touching or scratching the affected area, thereby getting the fungus on the fingers, and then touching or scratching the feet. While the fungus remains the same, the name of the condition changes based on where on the body the infection is located. For example, the infection is known as tinea corporis ("ringworm") when the torso or limbs are affected or tinea cruris (jock itch or dhobi itch) when the groin is affected. Clothes (or shoes), body heat, and sweat can keep the skin warm and moist, just the environment the fungus needs to thrive.

Risk factors
Besides being exposed to any of the modes of transmission presented above, there are additional risk factors that increase one's chance of contracting athlete's foot. Persons who have had athlete's foot before are more likely to become infected than those who have not. Adults are more likely to catch athlete's foot than children. Men have a higher chance of getting athlete's foot than women. People with diabetes or weakened immune systems are more susceptible to the disease. HIV/AIDS hampers the immune system and increases the risk of acquiring athlete's foot. Hyperhidrosis (abnormally increased sweating) increases the risk of infection and makes treatment more difficult.

Diagnosis

When visiting a doctor, the basic diagnosis procedure applies. This includes checking the patient's medical history and medical record for risk factors, a medical interview during which the doctor asks questions (such as about itching and scratching), and a physical examination. Athlete's foot can usually be diagnosed by visual inspection of the skin and by identifying less obvious symptoms such as itching of the affected area.

If the diagnosis is uncertain, direct microscopy of a potassium hydroxide preparation of a skin scraping (known as a KOH test) can confirm the diagnosis of athlete's foot and help rule out other possible causes, such as candidiasis, pitted keratolysis, erythrasma, contact dermatitis, eczema, or psoriasis. Dermatophytes known to cause athlete's foot will demonstrate multiple septate branching hyphae on microscopy.

A Wood's lamp (black light), although useful in diagnosing fungal infections of the scalp (tinea capitis), is not usually helpful in diagnosing athlete's foot, since the common dermatophytes that cause this disease do not fluoresce under ultraviolet light.

Prevention
There are several preventive foot hygiene measures that can prevent athlete's foot and reduce recurrence. Some of these include: keeping the feet dry; clipping toenails short; using a separate nail clipper for infected toenails; using socks made from well-ventilated cotton or synthetic moisture wicking materials (to soak moisture away from the skin to help keep it dry); avoiding tight-fitting footwear; changing socks frequently; and wearing sandals while walking through communal areas such as gym showers and locker rooms.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Nails should be clipped short and kept clean. Nails can house and spread the infection." Recurrence of athlete's foot can be prevented with the use of antifungal powder on the feet.

The funguses (molds) that cause athlete's foot require warmth and moisture to survive and grow. There is an increased risk of infection with exposure to warm, moist environments (e.g., occlusive footwear—shoes or boots that enclose the feet) and in shared humid environments such as communal showers, shared pools, and treatment tubs. Chlorine bleach is a disinfectant and common household cleaner that kills mold. Cleaning surfaces with a chlorine bleach solution prevents the disease from spreading from subsequent contact. Cleaning bathtubs, showers, bathroom floors, sinks, and counters with bleach helps prevent the spread of the disease, including reinfection.

Keeping socks and shoes clean (using bleach in the wash) is one way to prevent funguses from taking hold and spreading. Avoiding the sharing of boots and shoes is another way to prevent transmission. Athlete's foot can be transmitted by sharing footwear with an infected person. Not sharing also applies to towels, because, though less common, funguses can be passed along on towels, especially damp ones.

Treatment
Athlete's foot resolves without medication in 30 to 40% of cases. Topical antifungal medication consistently produces much higher rates of cure.

Conventional treatment typically involves thoroughly washing the feet daily or twice daily, followed by the application of a topical medication. Because the outer skin layers are damaged and susceptible to reinfection, topical treatment generally continues until all layers of the skin are replaced, about 2 to 6 weeks after symptoms disappear. Keeping feet dry and practicing good hygiene (as described in the above section on prevention) is crucial for killing the fungus and preventing reinfection.

Treating the feet is not always enough. Once socks or shoes are infested with funguses, wearing them again can reinfect (or further infect) the feet. Socks can be effectively cleaned in the wash by adding bleach or by washing in water 60 C.

To be effective, treatment includes all infected areas (such as toenails, hands, torso, etc.). Otherwise, the infection may continue to spread, including back to treated areas. For example, leaving fungal infection of the nail untreated may allow it to spread back to the rest of the foot, to become athlete's foot once again.

Allylamines such as terbinafine are considered more efficacious than azoles for the treatment of athlete's foot.

Severe or prolonged fungal skin infections may require treatment with oral antifungal medication.

Topical treatments
There are many topical antifungal drugs useful in the treatment of athlete's foot including: miconazole nitrate, clotrimazole, tolnaftate (a synthetic thiocarbamate), terbinafine hydrochloride, butenafine hydrochloride and undecylenic acid. The fungal infection may be treated with topical antifungal agents, which can take the form of a spray, powder, cream, or gel. Topical application of an antifungal cream such as butenafine once daily for one week or terbinafine once daily for two weeks is effective in most cases of athlete's foot and is more effective than application of miconazole or clotrimazole. Plantar-type athlete's foot is more resistant to topical treatments due to the presence of thickened hyperkeratotic skin on the sole of the foot. Keratolytic and humectant medications such as urea, salicyclic acid (Whitfield's ointment), and lactic acid are useful adjunct medications and improve penetration of antifungal agents into the thickened skin. Topical glucocorticoids are sometimes prescribed to alleviate inflammation and itching associated with the infection.

A solution of 1% potassium permanganate dissolved in hot water is an alternative to antifungal drugs. Potassium permanganate is a salt and a strong oxidizing agent.

Oral treatments
For severe or refractory cases of athlete's foot oral terbinafine is more effective than griseofulvin. Fluconazole or itraconazole may also be taken orally for severe athlete's foot infections. The most commonly reported adverse effect from these medications is gastrointestinal upset.

Epidemiology
Globally, fungal infections affect about 15% of the population and 20% of adults. Additionally, 70% of the population will experience athlete's foot at some point in life. Athlete's foot is common in individuals who wear unventilated (occlusive) footwear, such as rubber boots or vinyl shoes. Upon exposure to an athlete's foot-causing fungus, the moist conditions generated from poor foot ventilation promotes growth of the fungus on the foot or between the toes. Occupationally, studies have shown increased prevalence of athlete's foot among miners, soldiers, and athletes. Likewise, activities such as marathon running have seen increased prevalence of athlete's foot. Countries and regions where going barefoot is more common experience much lower rates of athlete's foot than do populations which habitually wear shoes; as a result, the disease has been called "a penalty of civilization". Studies have demonstrated that men are infected 2 to 4 times more often than women.

Cases of athlete's foot were first documented around 1916 during World War I, where infection among soldiers was common. By 1928 it was estimated that nearly ten million Americans with cases of athlete's foot; the alarming prevalence of the disease caused for public health concern. In the following year, an epidemiologic study was conducted on incoming freshman to the University of California; it was found that 53% of incoming freshman men had athlete's foot and by year's end that number had risen to 78%. Prevalence of the disease increased in the 1930s, specifically among individuals of higher socioeconomic status; these individuals had more access to common shared spaced such as pools, colleges, and athletic clubs where transmission of athlete's foot-causing fungus was common. Prevalence in the United States was high enough to call for the use of sterilizing footbaths in the 1932 Olympics in Los Angeles. It was at this time public health officials adopted the idea that athletes foot was a product of modernity and that dealing with this disease was "a penalty of civilization" as many treatments proved ineffective. Antifungal properties of compounds such as undecylenic acid were studied in the 1940s; products containing zinc undecylenate were shown to be the most effective topical treatment for curing the condition. The use of orally ingested Griseofulvin was shown in the 1960s to be effective in acute cases of athlete's foot. Likewise, recorded incidence of athletes foot decreased among American soldiers in Vietnam who were given Griseofulvins as a preventative drug. In the 1990s, research supported the use of itraconazole and the Allylamine known as terbinafine as drugs effective at eliminating athlete's foot and also dermatophyte infections on other parts of the body. As of 2012, research has shown that terbinafine is 2.26 times as likely to cure athlete's foot than treatment with Griseofulvin; comparative studies between itraconazole and terbinafine have shown little difference in effectiveness.

title: Athlete's foot


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004

European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was undocumented. On 24 Aug 2004, User:SimonP apparently determined that the final decision should be keep since he removed the VfD tag and the listing from the VfD/Old page, however the decision was not fully documented in accordance with the Deletion process. Clarifications would be appreciated. Rossami 17:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. There is a majority of roughly 2:1 for deletion. Why has the noticd of deletion been removed and the page retained? Mintguy (T) 13:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Because you need consensus to delete an article, and naturally 2:1 is not considered consensus. --Dittaeva 22:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, Deletion_policy does indicate that a 2/3 majority is sufficient consensus for deletion. I'd also like to know the reason why convention was not followed in this case.
 * Any comments from admins? If this article remains, I would also like to see its supporters add to it by explaining how the EU-as-a-combined-sporting-entity results would be different, if it had two competitors in the 100m freestyle, as opposed to the 22 (out of 71) or so it had as individual nations, and adjust its medal count accordingly.  (And do a similar thing with all sports.)  Or is this too hard, and is simply adding up rows of numbers good enough? -- Chuq 05:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You are entering here in original research, I'm sure that simulations will be made later by professionals. But, in the example you chose, only the best world athlete can get the gold medal, and you can see that the gold medal count is not so different from the other medals. Also, the gap between the EU and the next country is really sizeable, it is not just a few percents gap. Add to that the law of decreasing returns, and I don't see how simulations might invert the ranking. --Pgreenfinch 13:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a 2/3 majority to delete. 35/55 < 2/3. Rich Farmbrough 13:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There are 5 invalid votes for retention. 35/50 is pretty close to 2/3 Mintguy (T) 13:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You changed from "sockpuppets" to "invalid votes". OK. But how do you define invalidity and where are the evidences of it? --Pgreenfinch 13:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators explains why those votes are invalid. They were all made by brand-new user IDs.  Plenty of documentation is available on Wikipedia's deletion policies; Deletion policy is a good place to start reading.   —Triskaideka 14:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is not there a distinction to do between "new user id" (which I understand as a user taking another id) and new user? --Pgreenfinch 16:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * By "new user ID" I meant a user who was new to Wikipedia, or who had previously been editing as an IP address. Votes cast by such users are not counted, just as votes cast by IP-only users are not counted.  This helps reduce sockpuppetry and ensure that the only people who vote are those who have an interest in improving Wikipedia (as opposed to simply pushing their own agenda).  It is true that users who may have good intentions will not be able to vote for a short period while they are building credibility (i.e., making a significant number of good, useful contributions to articles on a variety of subjects).  If an established user creates a second user ID, a.k.a. a sockpuppet, s/he should vote with the old one until the new one builds credibility, and should never vote with both in the same poll (in fact, s/he should probably be consistent about voting with only one of the user IDs).  See Sockpuppet.    —Triskaideka 16:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * So, the meaning has to be interpreted, as the wording of the rules is not too clear? Maybe that left the decider no other choice, using his common sense, than to keep the page, so that it would not be deleted in a doubt. Never mind, it might be because I'm in the discovery phase phase that I find those things a bit obscure. I'm just trying to learn, the issue has been settled anyway, and the last outside news has confirmed that the article has its place in the encyclopedia. --Pgreenfinch 18:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm, results are results, real figures are real figures. Maybe some factual mentions, like in the int'l org article, about the nature of the results would help. But facts, just facts, at least at the moment. Too early for simulations here, imho. Simulation could be considered original research, with risks of POV. The interesting swiss institute sim has already be mentioned, but you saw that it just created new debates. I would be interested myself in seeing such sims but imo, instead of jumping at wikipedians original researches, I'm sure they would be pretty good, it might be better to wait a few month to see how professional analysts work on the information, which is public domain, make titles in the medias (seen the EU Commission statement ?) and seems to raise a lot of interest. Well, even our lengthy debates here shows that there is some paradigm shift, maybe in a trivial field, international sport ranking, but not without sociological incidences. Btw, imagine if the english wikipedia had be seen as trying to hide it? As for now, imo, let us kep facts, just facts, sticking to wikipedia factuality tradition. --Pgreenfinch 06:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion
 * I made the decision to keep the page, and I stand by it. I do apologize for forgetting to close the debate, however.  My count put the vote at about 32 to 19 in favour of deletion. (I always count merge votes as keeps as they propose keeping the content.  Postdlf's vote has to be ignored as merge and delete is an invalid option.  You could also add on an extra keep vote from myself).  32 to 19 might be a borderline consensus; however, the page has been dramatically altered and improved since the vote began, and the first seven delete votes are referring to a very different article than the one that now exists.  Thus doubt over consensus existed and my only option was to keep the page.  Feel free to relist the page in the future, and if the vote tilts the other way I will certainly delete it. - SimonP 18:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

This thread has become very difficult to sort out. In order to have even a hope of getting it straight at the end of the discussion period, I've added a Voting Recap table. In addition to making your comments below, please add your name to this table. I've taken a first crack at who is currently voting for what based on my interpretation of the comments below but if I got it wrong or if you change your mind, move your name. Note: Only names go in this recap. For this to work, all comments must remain below. Rossami 16:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Process comment: Having watched this discussion for several days, I'm going to suggest adding a rule. Accusations of sockpuppetry should be made and rebutted in the comments below.  Please refrain from adjusting the table until after the voting is completed. Please trust that the sysop making the final call will carefully read all the comments and will adjust the votes then. Thanks.  Rossami 16:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Users accused of being sockpuppets are indicated by (contribs) which is a link to their contributions

This information was removed from the 2004 Summer Olympics article because of its POV-ness and the fact that it's meaningless. The European Union does not have an Olympic medal count, and to create one is to creat false information because each EU member state competes separately, meaning that they have the potential to win more medals per event than a national team could. The vast consensus on the Talk:2004 Summer Olympics page was that the information is meaningless. In addition, the information in this article is pretty incoherent. RickK 07:10, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Calling it false information is a libel and a POV for dubious motives. Maybe the performance doesn't please everybody. It is a real information, the figures are not invented and the introduction of the article is clear about how to understand it. I don't see why this harrassment against that work of information --Pgreenfinch 07:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty clear to understand. As an event occours where EU nations win more medals in one event than would be possible for a single country (i.a. two medals in a team sport), it should be noted. Aside from that, the page is pretty easy to understand and should remain. Yardcock 07:31, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh? There isn't an EU team. ··gracefool |☺ 21:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Pgreenfinch, so far I have seen you describe the removal of the EU tally from 2004 Summer Olympics as "censorship" on its talk page, and now you describe the statement that this table displays false information is "libel". Obviously you don't believe the information should stay on the basis of the content of the page alone, and need to try to shift the blame onto other users by accusing them of doing something dodgy.  Yes, I find trivia like "what if EU was competing as a single nation" quite interesting, but it is not accurate and certainly not the type of material that is suited to an encyclopedia.  Delete. -- Chuq 07:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I see that, for some, to gather statistics is "trivia", inaccurate whatever the sources and explanations, and not encyclopedic, when it is ...related to the EU. Imo, this rationalization says a lot on the motives to kill that article. --Pgreenfinch 08:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The article's writeup seems to lack a NPOV with comments like "impressive" and "supremacy". I concur that the statistics are suspect, not only because a combined EU figure can have multiple medal winners that would not make sense - but merely the fact there are more competitors from that country vying for an event can influence the results in unforseeable ways. Additionally, if such a methodology were supported, where could you draw the line? The Commonwealth, the African Union, the G8, English speaking countries etc. all represent hypothetical collections of countries, the EU is not unique in that respect. If the article is retained it should have calculations for different coalitions of countries for balance, and be fixed for NPOV. --Kjd 08:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm quite open that you add calculations for other groups, although their political integration is less institutionalized than for the EU. --Pgreenfinch 10:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is misinformation, promoted for political reasons. Andrewa 08:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the facts aren't necessarily false, I don't particularly see the use of this, any more than I would one of NAFTA medals at the Olympics. Since selection to the Olympics is made via national olympic committees, this is a misleading metric, and therefore pretty much useless. Average Earthman 08:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Useless. We dont have a Mercosul or NAFT or NATO page. Maybe a UN page? J/K. saopaulo1
 * :-) Saopaulo1, that's a brilliant idea. United Nations medals count for 2004. But I wish I could understand what the dubious motives are that Pgreenfinch ascribes to users who want the article deleted. Hey, Americans being unwilling to admit European athletic superiority, is that it? No, that's too hilarious ... I got nothing. Pgreenfinch, you've given a lot of hints, could you please once say what you mean by them? (Oh, delete, too.) Bishonen, EU citizen 17:59, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that nafta, nato or mercosur are becoming federations or confederations with their own citizen-elected parliaments. I should follow the news better. Btw, funny how you are sensitive to some questions about motives for deletion, I'm so pleased that it contributed to your joyous mood. Enjoy the party and the Games ;-))--Pgreenfinch 18:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it looks like you can't or won't. That's a pity, my question was quite seriously intended. If I'm in a joyous mood (? where does that come from ?), it's no thanks to you. Bishonen 19:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, the EU is not awarded any medals at the Olympics. Maybe a footnote to the main medal tally article would be acceptable, as a piece of trivia of interest, but certainly not an article. —Stormie 10:09, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * You might be right, and I quite agree to a footnote instead of an article. But a censor deleted such a footnote, without waiting for a vote, btw, which could be considered as vandalism. So in a quest for appeasement, whatever the true reasons that might be behind the opposition, and I made a page instead. Another thing, no country is awarded a metal as they are granted to the athletes themselves. I wonder if some would consider a table by countries a trivia ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 10:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There you go, using that word "censor" again. Your edit, and the removal of your edit, are perfectly visible in the page history, and discussed openly on the page's talk page.  -- Chuq 23:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - OK, since the heavy rewrite, this article no longer irritates me by its mere presence, and although I still think it's fairly trivial, and would probably be better as a footnote to the main article, I don't object to it remaining as it is, now. —Stormie 01:09, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * p.s., enough of the "censorship" nonsense, Pgreenfinch - this is a community project where, on occasions, the bulk of the community may disagree with you as to whether something you write is encyclopedia-worthy. That has absolutely nothing in common with a censor telling you what you are and are not allowed to write. So calm down, please. —Stormie 01:09, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Pointless, to make such a thing, it's far more interesting and usefull to add a table with medal tally by continent (Eur/Asia/Afr/Oc/NAm/CAm/SAm), instead of by political or economical organization. WolfenSilva 11:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a point - perhaps if it was a tally of how various political/economic/geographical groupings that hold their own games (e.g. the Commonwealth games) then it might give an idea of the level of importance of that games in that field (e.g. Commonwealth swimming medals, African athletics medals, etc). One page should suffice for the lot. Of course, EU isn't Europe, so the current page is still useless, and my earlier vote still stands. Average Earthman 11:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Wolfen, I'm talking about a political organization, the European Union, with most of the traits of a country, with its own passport and its directly elected parliament. Now, an additional article or table by continents could be also interesting. Imagine Europe including Russia, Ukraine, Turkey... (all are among the 45 members of the Council of Europe, a looser European organization, but still with institutional powers) --Pgreenfinch 11:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I reckon that, if there were enough people willing to expand the listing to several economical/political organizations, and even "if" scenarios, I'm willing to change my vote, but not until it's just one article regarding the EU. My suggestion is to wait for the end of the games so that the information is completed (to avoid hourly updates), and then decide if there should be an article called "Medal Tally in the 2004 Olympics with hypothetical geographical scenarios ", using a 1988 world map, (with Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, East/West Germany) other splitting the UK between the 4 countries involved, etc. WolfenSilva 22:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. This page is totally pointless, the EU does not have an Olympic Committee, that's why this page should definitely NOT exist. Medals are awarded to the athletes who are chosen by their respective National Olympic Committee to attend the Olympics, that's why there is a national medal count, this does not exist for the EU. -- 203.220.170.49 12:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Pointless page. Frankchn 13:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe merge into the EU page any useful content and delete.
 * DELETE. Deleting it is not POV. It was false, inaccurate information because it gave a 'medal count' for an Olympic team that does not exist. Also, it could lead to action by the athletes concerned if they feel slandered by being listed as winning 'for Europe' if they are not pro-EU. Also from a practical standpoint the Olympics haven't finished yet so there is little point in having any sort of medal count since it would have to be update every couple of hours. --Cynical 13:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Cynical, hey ;-). Tell me what is false in the account? Are not those medals realities? Btw, did I talk of a team? And where did I said winning "for" Europe? But the most surprising is the a contradiction between those "motives" and the fact that at the same time you seem to approve such a count after the Games. Do you think a hourly update is needed and will change the ranking? Well; I will need some help for this permanent updating (which is not made in the main articles tables btw). Are you making a proposition to give such assistance? All that is inconsistent with wanting a deletion. Seems again that other motives are at play. --Pgreenfinch 13:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The results are flawed statistics, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. If the EU wants to act as one nation, that's fine.  But until people are going through the EU Olympic Trials (and false starting their way out of Olympic spots), this information is hypothetical at best, and misleading at worst. -- Mike J. 13:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The EU is not a nation and does not have a team. It is a group of nations with separate teams.  Then there are monetary unions vs. political unions and new members not yet qualifying for full union, etc.  Imposing a monetary and political cooperative on the jingoistic business of medal counting is utterly pointless to those who don't find it completely inflammatory.  Geogre 13:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * We get further and further from a rational reason not to give such statistics. Funny coincidence, this ...coalition of deleters. Which side is the ..."jingoism"? ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 14:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, the EU is not a nation. It is an cooperative entity.  It does not field a team.  If it did field a team, it could not enter so many athletes.  Counting medals is jingoistic nonsense.  It is to the detriment of the games and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.  I had no hand in the wins of my nation's athletes.  Therefore, the idea of redividing "medal count" to serve the vicarious thrills of this or that homebody is utterly pointless.  If you want to write a letter to the editor of your hometown paper glorying in the triumph of the EU's athletes, go right ahead.  If you want to go to the local pub, and are of age, and get in a roiling argument with someone over whether the EU is the best thing since Adam and Eve, go ahead.  If you want to yell at the top of your lungs that anyone who disagrees with you needs a punch in the head, go right ahead.  However, the decision here is whether an article dividing up medal counts by an entity that is only a political cooperative is 1. factually accurate (no), 2. encyclopedic (no), 3. NPOV (inherently no).  Therefore, it's a delete vote.  Gazettes and sports pages lump and relump counts.  They're great at tables.  I vote delete on most undigested lists, so I'd vote delete even on the far more neutral List of...by Region.  To me, these are useless.  Take a single table of 2004 Olympic Medalists, list nation, possibly introduce a column on political organizations that nation belongs to...or not.  I'm indifferent to that, but I am increasingly unwilling to revisit the issue, given your ceaseless arguing and shrill tone. Geogre 14:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - everyone has already stated the reasons this should be deleted. Pgreenfinch, the medals are real, but the stats are wrong, and it's easy to just look up who's winning in Europe on the normal medal count table.  [[User:supadawg|supadawg - [[Image:Bulldog.jpg|30px|Talk]]]] 15:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that, to do that, you have, 1) to memorize the 25 countries (well, a thing most EU citizens are supposed to know, even if the Union enlargement is quite recent), 2) to find the 25 different lines in the table, and 3) add them. Of course I could add a table with those 25 lines, and only them, below or above the EU count, if you would find it practical. --Pgreenfinch 16:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As an article, not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Short on real content and potentially confusing or misleading to people who don't understand how the medal system works.  No objection to adding combined medal counts for the EU, continents, or any other interesting groups of countries on 2004 Summer Olympics medal count, as long as (a) they're separate from the main table and (b) it's made clear that the statistics are just sums and that those groups of countries have no official standing as such. No objection, I say, but no particular need for it either.   —Triskaideka 16:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Quite favorable to adding such (a) count(s) in an ad'hoc chapter in the main article. Any cooperation welcome to make the wordings clear. It would be the perfectly neutral counterpart of a delete of the article --Pgreenfinch 16:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Misleading statistics, inherently POV: it seems to be intended to support the idea that the EU should compete under a single banner, like the various ex-Soviet states did as the Unified Team in '92. Maybe that's a good idea, maybe it's not, but that sort of advocacy has no place in an encyclopedia.   — Gwalla | Talk 16:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote the article to make it more NPOV. Again, the EU is unlike any other organization, in that it has a complex governing body that in many areas has the same authority as other national governments in their countries. This does not however negate the fact that there is no such thing as an "EU Olympic Committee". The article now considers this fact and explains the differences.
 * You made a great job, Yardcock. It seems to me that there is no more doubt now that the article reaches the neutral and encyclopedic status. --Pgreenfinch 17:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've just created 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization which could in theory show listings for as many organizations (or atleast the ones including any kind of political/diplomatic cooperation) as we can find. Perhaps people objecting to a listing about the EU alone as inherently POV would like this page instead. It's still a stub though, and I don't have as much time as I would like in helping update it. Anyway my own vote is merge into the page I created. Aris Katsaris 17:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting and efficient work also, Aris, IMO. A merger seems conceivable if the job made in the EU count page is kept. Then, "European Union Olympic medals count for 2004", or some similar title, would just be a redirect page. That would be my position, although before making it definite, I would like Yardcock to give its own, to see if we could make a common proposal --Pgreenfinch 17:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to retain the total. That the EU exists as a federal community is simply fact, with a federal legislature, supreme court and the beginnings of a federal army. A total for the PRC (PRC plus the PRC governed territory of Hong Kong) would also be welcome, as woudl such totals for any other political unions with a legislative body which can pass mandatory laws and a supreme court which can enforce them in practice. Jamesday 19:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't understand. Each EU country is allowed to compete as an individual nation in such events as relay races.  This gives them the chance for three medals in an event where, if they compted as a single EU entity, they would only be entitled to a single medal.  This is an invalid medal count.  RickK
 * NOw there is another bogus article at 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. Let's please delete this, too.  RickK 20:01, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem Rick, after the merger of the two articles, and once the discussion settles, and you leave things evolve in the wikipedia way, I mean by real cooperation of all those who have info to bring and share, we will see we have here the embryo of a perfect encyclopedic article. It will need some editing and hard work. Didn't you know the world is evolving into federations and confederations ? Wikipedia, as always, will be at the cutting edge of this world advance. And the merit will fall on you, Rick, for having helped start the brainstorming. --Pgreenfinch 21:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The EU count alone is worthless, but the page above could be interesting trivia. Keep. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:14, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
 * Delete European Union Olympic medals count for 2004, keep 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. The former article is on the POV side, since it focuses entirely on the EU. The latter article is not, although the statistics it lists are officially meaningless under the Olympic system. But to a reader who wants to know what the total number of medals per continent or per treaty or per whatever, this article is perfect. As long as the article explicitly explains the inherent caveats to its statistics, there is no reason for it not to exist. After all, curious readers could tally the medal counts manually from the main page — by why should they have to? • Benc • 20:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I wish to reiterate my vote: STRONG KEEP for 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization, delete for European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 (only because its material should be in the International Organizations article, less NPOV that way). While I appreciate the rewriting efforts for the EU article, I don't feel that the material is appropriate for the Wikipedia — even if it is fascinating to read about. As others have pointed it, it's original research. I modified the intro text of the EU article for NPOV as best I could and put it on the talk page of "International Organizations". I'm sure that some pundits of the EU will make similar statements. If they're notable enough, the content can (and should) be added to the bottom of the "International Organizations" article. • Benc • 07:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * For now, I'm voting delete on the Int'l Orgs. page as well as retaining my delete vote on the EU page. My question here is the same for both pages: what value does such a flawed count hold?  If a reader would like to learn what would happen if the continents competed against each other, a lot more detailed math would need to be done (and even then, I'm not sure I'd take it as being accurate, given differences in pressure, stress, and other hard-to-measure factors).  Such complicated math, done on an event-by-event basis, might make for an interesting web site where individuals could redraw political boundaries and see what the medal count would be in whatever world the user is trying to imagine.  But I believe such a site is beyond the capabilities of the wiki, and probably not worth article status (but as an external link, would be fine, I think). -- Mike J. 20:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It has trivia value. The page itself describes itself how the count is flawed, but nonetheless people who have an obscure interest in regional (or cultural, or other) organisations and spots may nonetheless be quite interested. Aris Katsaris 21:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand the value of trivia, but I can't see how this particular thing would have value. The particular count that a person is trying to view could, I think, be calculated a lot more correctly than is being done.  If someone (or a group of people) were willing to do the work for that, and present that page (even if it were EU-only) I would have no problem.  Would we include a Periodic Table of Elements with rough approximations of the atomic weights if we've got the ability to make more accurate measurements?  My issue with both pages is their inaccuracy (which I think is too far to be included, even with a description of the algorithm's flaws), especially when someone who really did care about these sorts of counts could come up with a count that was much more accurate. -- Mike J. 21:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) On second thought, even a more accurate way is still quite flawed.  While I personally might think it good if the USA absorbed the various NOCs from US territories, I realize I'm not going to come up with an accurate medal count for this larger USOC (and even if I did, it would be in an essay or something arguing for inclusion of the NOCs, not on Wikipedia).  So... still delete, but moreso than before.  Ugh.  My head hurts. 23:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK, If you wanted to list the new *different* article on vfd which btw I had already mentioned above, I think proper procedure would have been to list it properly under a new heading. But either way my vote is keep on the 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization, and I object to it being called "bogus" just because it's a stub on a issue that you consider to be just trivia. Wikipedia has lots and lots of pages on trivia around. Aris Katsaris 21:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE: An article irrelevant to the Olympics (there being no country nor NOC for the EU) and, therefore, totally POV. Even if the counts were interesting / of value as trivia, the discussion there remains POV. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 21:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What do you mean POV? Counting medals awarded to EU citizens is POV ? --Pgreenfinch 22:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete. Redundant. Neutrality 21:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What do you mean redundant? Somebody made a similar article with similar info? --Pgreenfinch 22:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not have a UK count? All you have to do is figure out which members of the Ireland team are from Northern Ireland and add their medals to the Great Britain count.  And maybe the Cyprus medals should be added to the Greece total, but only if they aren't Turks, but add the Turks from Cyrpus to the Turkey total.  And add the American Samoa and Puerto Rico medals to the United States total.  But then, since Puerto Rico beat the US basketball team, you can't count that as a win or a loss since they're the same team.  And what happens is one Northern Irish swimmer competes in a relay while the other three are from the Republic of Ireland?  Do you award 1/4 of a medal to the UK? RickK 22:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's easy. None of them. The GB team is actually the Great Britain and Northern Ireland team. There is only an all-Ireland team from both the Republic and Northern Ireland in sports like rugby union and cricket. Not the Olympics. Average Earthman 08:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Greece and Cyprus (and Turkey) are different countries. And doing an overly elaborate examination of each single match or checking the backgrounds of individual athletes is rather more problematic than a simple summing up of countries' medals in order to compare certain regional organizations (who have specific memberships) with each other. Aris Katsaris 23:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That's my point. ALL of the EU nations are separate countries, and trying to figure out how they would hav econtributed to a bogus national medal count is ridiculous.  RickK 23:58, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point of having a table at all. It's to see how we (Europeans/EUians) have fared as a whole in the Olympics. Feeling European and part of the EU, is, in Ireland at least, a growing phenomenon. I've suitably edited the article removing nonsense about united EU team, but the table and article should stay. zoney  █ █ █  talk 00:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course Keep. The EU is unlike any other organisation and should be respected for this. In any case, the article even neutrally compares the countries of the EU in a table, listing the total below. This is both fair and interesting, and, in my opinion, gives an interesting touch to Wikipedia, especially for all those pro-EU people or citizens from EU countries,which make up a significant proportion of the Wikipedia user base or viewers. This article is different to 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization, and hence should not be merged, because the EU article provides a country-by-country breakdown and is therefore more precise. I don't see why we should delete it, what bad does it do? It is saddening to see that we still live in a world where European integration is facing barriers when it shouldn't be... Rronline 22:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - simultaneously meaningless and misleading. When the EU sends a single team under an EU banner, we can start talking about how many medals the EU has won. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've already voted, but I just wanted to make the suggestion - the only place this information would be useful would be an article like Hypothetical consequences of European Union sovereignty An article similar to this may already exist. -- Chuq 23:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Echo that. Delete ··gracefool |☺ 21:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * KEEP. I see no reason anyone should wish to disallow this interesting piece of analysis. zoney | talk 00:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note - I have re-edited this page to discuss the EU's potential role more sanely (I've scrapped the nonsense about a "single European team" and instead discussed the likelihood of co-operation amongst EU members for the Olympics. The table in particular is a perfectly reasonable piece of information B.T.W. zoney | talk 00:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Another note - Just to point out to anyone new reading this page, that I have lobbied objectors to reconsider (following my edits). I'm announcing it here so as it doesn't seem underhanded to have done so. zoney █ █ █  talk 01:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Even with all the edits, this remains a purely hypothetical exercise started by and discussed only by Wikipedians. I believe that makes it fall under the "no original research" rule. Delete. (A suitably NPOV footnote or comment in the main article would probably be acceptable.) Rossami 01:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Surely you can consider the table itself as perfectly fair reference material for those within the EU? (I mean yes, most outside the EU aren't going to give two hoots! - but that shouldn't have any bearing!) And the discussion, really, isn't exactly "patent nonsense" anymore! <B>zoney</B> █ █ █  <B>talk</B> 01:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If someone outside Wikipedia does this analysis and it then gets enough press to be notable, then it can be an article. Otherwise, it smells like "original research" to me. Rossami
 * Most lists of "somethings" by "something" hosted in Wikipedia are produced for Wikipedia alone, they aren't copies of some external notable research. I don't think that adding up some medal numbers and putting them in a table qualifies as "research" -- the same way that I don't think it qualifies as "research" if I want to make a page that brings together all EU-related referendums. Aris Katsaris 02:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it is pointless to say that just because something cannot be found in another place, it shouldn't exist. Wikipedia is not a pooling-together of all of the world's information, it actually creates it own ways of displaying existing statistics. Therefore, just because other sources don't display EU information in this way, why shouldn't Wikipedia. Keep Rronline 06:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * delete Utterly pointless. Perhaps a USAian would like to draw up a table of Medal winners by US State. I wouldn't be suprised if someone followed this up a a table of medal winners by ethnicity, or by shoe size. Mintguy (T) 01:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. On "original research": I think the general thrust of the idea is that by compiling this list, we're hypothesising a connection, that has not been yet made by anyone outside of Wikipedia. Once there's discussion of a combined European medal tally (if it becomes standard practice in some countries, eg.), then it's appropriate to put it in. At this stage, the pragmatic effect of appearing in WP is to act as *encouragement* rather than *reporting* of the trend. Lacrimosus 02:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. An encouragement. What is so very wrong with that? Are you saying we shouldn't be encouraging the beneficial and wonderful integration of European countries into a union of peace and prosperity? As a Romanian citizen, I can say that I will be very proud when Romania joins the EU in 2007 and our medals will be counted towards a combined EU tally. Rronline 06:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There is not doubt about it that the information contained in the article is of a certain value. It is not worth an article though. This is more like Trivia stuff. As an article I vote for its deletion. But I am wondering is it possible to have separate pages for trivia. Maybe this is asking too much. But certainly there is so much information that does not qualify as valid article material but can be incorporated as say extra info. Its like you open a book or magazine and sometimes they have small little boxes in which they give foot notes, side notes, interesting observations, inside jokes... etc. These boxed snippets of information are at times written in an informal manner. I really enjoy reading them. They have background colours that make them stand out from the article you are reading. Actually such an addition will give so much scope for improvement (Wikipedia:Bad jokes as well :o). You certainly WONT find the article of the type in Britannica but if you compare Encarta and Britannica you will find that Encarta is more lively only because you will find trivia kind of information in Encarta or any well designed children's information book. --Ankur 04:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. That would be great. But this isn't trivia, it's simply a rearrangement of existing statistics. For example, it's like the page Financial and social rankings of European countries, which lists various factors affecting prosperity in European countries. Same here, it ranks EU countries and shows which ones are the best out of the EU. In its current stage, I think this article ranks EU countries rather than actually talking about an EU total tally. Yes, it shows a total medal count, but what is really wonderful about it is it says "OK, which are the top-performing countries in Europe, which are the laggards". I think it's a fantastic article. Keep. Rronline 06:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to know one thing - why are people arguing about this issue? Do you think that this one article undermines the value of Wikipedia? I don't see it doing any harm. Yes, people may not like it. Dare I say, some people even think European integration is blatant stupidity. But as long as this article attracts people (like me) coming to it and viewing it and contributing to it, I think it maintains the spirit of Wikipedia. Why delete it then?? Rronline 06:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting trivia, but 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization does a better, NPOV job, as well as spelling out the caveats. --Kjd 07:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

]] 08:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) ]] 08:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled, I recognize nothing in the result of the merger and the changes that has been made hastily, although with good intentions, by some. Another thing is that this debate seems more and more to have been launched as a lab experiment in group behavior. How to explain otherwise that any attempt at evolution was blocked by deciding to add such personal touch as the "insanity" labels when some initiatives for balanced solutions were initiated? I don't know what was the purpose of those manipulations devised at avoiding any evolution of the text that would help to reach a consensus. Anyway, I consider the last changes to have been hastilly made under pressure, and I don't follow too much their rationale. But whatever the present shape of the article(s), my position is to keep them. It is their existence that is important, it would be a show of open mindness and neutrality for the english-speaking wikipedia, a test that it is not victim of (irrational) groupthink or (politically rational but POV) agenda. As for the presentation and content, it would them evolve the wikipedia way, by cooperation between contributors, without demonization and menace to kill it, which could only make for sloppy editing and "trivialization" to please the henchmen. I hope reason comes back, as what happened in this discussion could make fear that this language section of wikipedia has entered some dark age of intolerance and is driven by some dogma or herd instinct. I think it was just an exception to the normal behavior of this usually civilized and progress-oriented encyclopedia, thus I hope that this episode will end in a more positive way, for the sake of the world-wide wikipedia --Pgreenfinch 07:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete both. When the EU competes in an Olympics as a united team, they can have a united article. Until that time, they should join the African Union in article-free bliss. Ambi 09:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The same denial of reality again, This / those article(s) is (are) not a count by teams (a thing you are confusing with NOCs it seems), those medals exist, and they were awarded individually to EU athletes. Same for the other entities. Try to find better arguments, the one you gave is either shallow or biased, and at least irrelevant --Pgreenfinch 09:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks will get you nowhere. The EU has nothing to do with the Olympics. Creating pages for the EU, AU, ASEAN, NAFTA, the UN, the CIS, ECOWAS, etc....serves no purpose, apart from pushing odd political points. Ambi 09:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It is the arguments I attack, as I understand them, the same that I say that it is now your stance that seems to me to be political and you should explain what are "odd political points" --Pgreenfinch 10:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You've been obnoxious in this thread and more harmed your own argument than helped it by this stance of attacking anyone who makes any argument you don't like : prejudiced, denial of reality blah blah blah! -- I'm definitely inspired to vote delete just in order to make it a point that such attitudes are not proper. You've already made your argument, so stop hunting down dissenters to it. Aris Katsaris 12:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Clarification -- I meant to say I was *tempted* to vote "delete" because of Pgreenfinch's attitude, not that I was actually voting such. My vote remains that merge thingy I had suggested earlier on. Aris Katsaris 01:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * OK, Aris, I will from now on ignore whatever argument or accusation thrown against the existence of the article(s), and leave the discussion follow its course here, and concentrate my attention on the participants who constructively intend to improve its/their content(s). --Pgreenfinch 13:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's unfair to decide to delete an article because you have something against Pgreenfinch. It is the best interests of Wikipedia to keep this article, regardless of Pgreenfinch's behaviour, which, actually, has been defensive because there has been such a strong and suffocating pro-delete vote that hasn't really understood the other side's argument. comment added by User:Rronline
 * As far as I can understand, the "other side's argument" boils down to, "what-if the EU was a country that competed in the Olympics as a whole, rather than the independent nations it is now". I made a comment above (that went un-noticed) which suggested that if the information in this page was to exist on WP, the only place it would be acceptable is something like Hypothetical consequences of European Union sovereignty -- Chuq 23:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect and move info to 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. That way the information is still available, but there is less room for argument about POV. (And I think some of the information about possible benefits of working together - if it is determined to be factual and not purely speculative - would be a good addition to the latter article.) Everyone wins. --Aranel 14:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No. That wouldn't be correct, because the EU is different to other organisations. The way that article sits now, the EU is compared to G8, UN, etc other groups which are totally different. I think that is more ludricous than the EU medal tally we had before. Can't people for once understand that EU is, without sounding superior, the most powerful regional organisation in existence. It is almost like a federal state. The UN (let alone G8, what a thought!) could never match that level of intergration and supranationalism. Keep and answer the question, everyone - What bad is created by this article? No one has seemed to answer that yet and it's the main gist of what we should be arguing when deciding whether to delete an article. Basically, the logic should be this - articles which are more good than bad should be kept, those that do more bad than good should be deleted. Those that are in perfect balance should be kept, because at least it is in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole. This article in either 'in perfect balance' or does more good than bad. I think it would be tough arguing that this article really does bad to Wikipedia. Rronline 15:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the EU being powerful or not. This is about the numbers being meaningless and actively misleading! -- Cyrius|✎ 17:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. Meaningless - why do you say that? I for one enjoy reading this article and keeping updated with it. It is not at all meaningless for a lot of people, especially those who are patriotic Europeans and who take pride when any EU country wins a gold medal. I know I am very proud when I see the likes of France and Hungary winning medlas, even though I am Romanian. Misleading - the only thing misleading to an extent is the total count, which is simply a composite of the country articles. It's not as if it is compared directly to the main medal count of other countries. [[User:Rronline|Rronline
 * The total count is the meaningless and misleading part that everyone is objecting to, and it forms the basis of the entire article. This isn't about the EU, this is about not keeping statistics that we know are fundamentally flawed. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE This is not encyclopedic. I ditto the above reasons for deletion. Draco 00:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Not encyclopedic - why do you say that? It is based entirely on stats and fact, and is written in an unbiased manner. It is also a very interesting way of looking at the data and celebrating the contribution that the European Union has made to European society. [[User:Rronline|Rronline
 * That you think a simple summation of medals shows how the EU has contributed to European society tells me that you don't understand why we're objecting. It's not encyclopedic because it is an utterly flawed attempt at statistical analysis. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Having been requested, I've looked at the rewrite. My objections remain. Presenting the information in this form even with the many disclaimers is still misleading. It assumes that the EU has a significance which it doesn't currently have. Many people would like it to have this significance, and I can sympathise with them, but I still don't want Wikipedia to be a means of promoting this cause. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comments: "What if" articles should not be encouraged. Any such hypothesis is original research which means it shouldn't be here. That this is bad original research doesn't help. "Celebrating the contribution that the European Union has made to European society" sounds very POV to me. No article should itself be either celebrating or deprecating "the contribution that the European Union has brought to European society". There are great differences of opinion on that matter within Europe. If a particular "what if" hypothesis created outside Wikipedia becomes notable because it is widely discussed and debated, then an article in Wikipedia on that hypothesis would be appropriate. Jallan 17:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting article, based on facts. To delete it would be a political decission (and a wrong one, too). So let's keep this little gem! AlexanderPlahr 11:05, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * The user above seems to have come into being for the sole purpose of posting this vote. No other edits. Bishonen 12:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved out of table for now contribs.

 * Keep — Trilobite (Talk) 14:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. To reiterate what has been said above, this is misleading and seriously flawed. First of all, why would you want a total medal tally for the EU? What are you comparing it with? The only possible answer, especially judging by some of the above "keep" comments, is that the EU is being regarded as a pseudo-state and therefore the comparison is with other states such as the US and China. This is what is misleading, due to the fact that the EU is made up of 24 different NOCs and is thus able to send far more participants per event. Thus the medal tally as a comparison is inflated above what would indeed be the total medal count were the EU a single entity with one NOC for the entire organisation. So I do not see how this article has any encyclopedic value, because the medal tally will never be a true reflection of what a united EU team would achieve. 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization is similarly useless, as it's a case of comparing apples and pears. In short, Pgreenfinch and others have given one of the most pertinent reasons for the deletion of these articles by stating that the EU was unlike any of the others on that list due to its greater level of integration, amongst other things. What that means of course is that comparing these organisations is truly silly, just as silly as comparing a political alliance, however united, with a nation state. Even comparing continents or global regions would be somewhat useless, as for instance North America consists of just two countries whilst Africa consists of around 60. Basically, there's a reason the comparison is done between countries only. That's the most accurate, NPOV and informative way to do it. I mean come on, that's just simple logic. Impi 23:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, again. I intervene here only because my user name is quoted in your answer, thanks for the hello ;-)). So, I make clear again that medals are awarded to athletes. I don't see what is irrelevant in counting medals of athletes of a given area. Be it an institutionally integrated zone like the EU, or a looser one, with or whithout cooperation agreements, or even just continents. For example the "other" european institution, much less integrated but still with some institutional power, the Council of Europe, is larger, having 45 members. Some could be interested to have some sport statistics about that area also. Another thing is that the world is more and more organised in country groups. A thing the English language wikipedia should not be the last one to take into account and to consider "trivia" --Pgreenfinch 08:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * For one, it creates a false impression of sporting strength, and therefore should not be in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to have accurate, non-misleading and informative articles. This sort of article may have a place if the EU decides one day to have a central Olympic Committee, but not now. The IOC measures performance in terms of countries, not regional blocs or political alliances simply because the former is the only truly accurate means of measurement of all the options. Creating medal tallies of supernational entities will always be misleading so long as the individual countries within still have their own NOCs.Impi 09:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I understand that all statistics can be considered misleading and can bring endless débate. But each one has its interest. If the IOCs measure countries, although medals are awarded to athletes, it is just because of the practical organisation in NOCs, nothing to do with the Olympic spirit. Even so, nobody is asking to delete this practical counting in a wikipedia article. It can mislead about what you call "sporting strength" (think about the athletes who changed nationality just to be hired by those NOCs who decided it was their interest to present them to the Games). And supranational entities, country groups, geographical divisions are a fact of life, as well as countries are. Btw, please tell next time if your comment is adressed to all, or to me (in that case please do it in my user page), or both, as I said I will not intervene anymore in the general discussion. Just because I have the - maybe wrong - impression (and it doesn't address to you), after seeing certain practices (the "insane" flag for example), that dissenters are considered as spoiling the party --Pgreenfinch 13:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Until the European Union competes in the Olympics as the European Union and not its constituent nations, there is no reason for a page like this. Kairos 00:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Dittaeva 21:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the reasons above. --Minesweeper 00:58, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the reasons above. --Jiang 08:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep because the figures are clearly of interest to some. Rich Farmbrough 15:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is useful statistical data for European Union's Member-States about the Olympic medals in Athens 2004. The EU is a very real entity. Wake Up! -- Eurolusitanian 15:55, 22 Ago 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't about whether the EU is real. It's about whether the numbers represent anything meaningful. They don't. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - To vote for the removal of this page simply because you dislike the EU (as many of the comments seem to imply) does not seem acceptable to me. I found it to be a very valuable source of information. -- Kevloral 23:09, 22 Ago 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet, first edit is to this page. Also appears to be deliberately misinterpreting the objections. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved out of table for now sockpuppet contribs
 * Keep - I find it a valuable piece of information, i myself was going to manually add them to see how the UE as a whole did, then i found this article. If it worked for me, it could work for others. Salvi 22:41, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - The fact that the EU doesn't compete as a single team (something that is throughly explained in the page itself) does not make the page useless. It is an interesting piece of information and I want it to stay.Calcinus 23:04, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet. Only edits are to this page. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved out of table for now sockpuppet contribs
 * Ok, for those who want this page to stay - please go to Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metre Freestyle and check the list of 71 entrants for that race. I can count around 23 of those as competing for "EU" countries.  Please tell me which two you would choose as competitors if the EU was a single entity?  (All other countries have a maximum of two per event.)  How is it possible to do that and still keep the numbers useful?  It is not just as simple as getting the top two rated EU'ians, because the absence of the other 20+ swimmers would result in different people getting through to the semi's, maybe someone who only just qualified for the final may get a medal placing, etc.  There are too many "what-if"'s involved for this to be useful data. -- Chuq 23:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The Great Britain has many football (soccer) and Rugby teams when competing in the major international championships. Those teams are Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England. Is that a reason to forget the existence of Great Britain as a whole? I don't think so. Don't you know this? For God's sake, open your mind to reality! Eurolusitanian 02:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Does The [sic] Great Britain get ranked among Scotland, England, etc. in football championships? Of course not.  People here aren't asking the EU to be forgotten, but it does not compete as a single team in the Olympic games and therefore comparisons are irrelevant.  FWIW, I'm not anti-EU, I think a single European political entity is a great idea, although it doesn't really affect me as I'm Australian. -- Chuq 02:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep It's obvious that the European Union doesn't compete as a single team, but that doesn't mean that such a medal count isn't an interesting bit of information. I like it. I am a new user, yes, but I am no sock puppet as you seem to declare lots of new users. If you don't believe me look for usenet postings by Patrick Ahrer at Google Groups. That's me.
 * Both User:Pgreenfinch and User:Kevloral have vandalized this page, in the exact same method, making one wonder if they are acting in concert or are the same person. Regardless of that, their vandalism shows that they can't bother to rely on their arguments, but instead must rely on underhanded tactics to win this vote.  RickK 06:18, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those unfounded personal attacks, as ridiculous as desesperate, by the above participant, I suppose meant as a provocation, and following its past vandalism practices on the issue, don't add to his credibility. His problem, anyway --Pgreenfinch 07:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * So you deny deleting Mintguy's vote? It's pretty easy to review the edit history and see that both you and Kevloral deleted Mintguy's vote in the EXACT same way.  And I defy you to show a SINGLE instance of my having "vandalized" anything.  RickK 18:17, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Come on, Rick, I explained in your page that the reverted Mintguy's comment or vote, which I didn't even notice, was just a technical consequence of restablishing the voter's list as it was before some were striked without explanation. I'm not sure many people here, among whom myself, understood why those names were eliminated. Do you really think I would censor a vote? You cannot be serious. I admitted my technical inexperience and if it is my public apology for that unvoluntary result you want here, I give it to everybody here that could have been puzzled, and more specifically to Mintguy, who I'm sure understood what happened. As for the "sanity" piece, you don't remember it? And neither the deletion of the table's total? --Pgreenfinch 18:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * User:AlexanderPlahr claims not to be a sock puppet, but with no edits other than to this page and his user namespace, I don't see how his vote can be accepted. See his contribs Mintguy (T) 09:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I say keep it, its not official records but its still records. I see no reason why it should be deleted now that it is there. unsigned comments generally are not counted
 * I am a sockpuppet?! Mintguy, whoever you are, wherever you are... You are really very clever. Congratulations!! I am really proud of you. For the others, I just want to say that this wasn't the way I thought you welcome the newbies here. Eurolusitanian 12:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep When listening to the news (in France), day after day, EU is compared to extra-european countries (mainly the US, of course, for obvious reasons of population, size, history) on many economic, social, military,... indicators. Given the emerging, and probably increasing cooperation between the EU nations, the 2004 Olympics medals count appears to me as just another interesting statistical tool to address this comparison. No more, no less. As many of us showed previously, being overly strict with medal counts leads to nowhere else than : medal count per persona. Even the sorting order (gold, total) can then be disputed. Let's keep the article, those who do not like it, ignore it. --Olivier Debre 13:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's not really relevant to anything in particular. Anyone interested in these specifics (I assume that the number of people who go looking for this info. is small) should be able to work it out for themselves. The info. is so esoteric that it would be foolish to try to second-guess people by working it all out for them. As mentioned above, where does this stop? Medals won by North America? Medals won by non-EU countries? Worm, can, etc. This is the sort of thing I would expect (and like) to see either on an external personal site, or possibly on a user's page, but not as a main Wikipedia article itself. PMcM 14:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm European (well English), and I can see why some might want to compare EU stats vs US stats, but it just leads to bad statistics all round. If anything has to stay, keep 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization, it makes the falicy behind the grouped statistics clear and all though some of the groupings are odd, the African Union column is comparable to the EU one. Possibly add NAFTA to that table too. -- Solipsist 14:31, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved out of table for now Pat_at sockpuppet contribs
 * Delete. I would imagine that African Olympic medals count for 2004, Latin American Olympic medals count for 2004, East Asian Olympic medals count for 2004, NATO Olympic medals count for 2004 etc are next. -Sean Curtin 19:40, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form. But this needs to be cleaned up. anthony (see warning) 21:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't really see a need for this. --Conti|✉ 23:12, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with the broader int'l organizations listing and delete. I don't see the harm in separating out the stats in this way—I don't think it is "false information", because the unions of states are real and the medal counts by state are real.  I think it's better to keep the EU data in the context of other state orgs, however, with the explanatory info, rather than a separate article, thus my vote to M&D.  Postdlf 14:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some say the numbers are meaningless, but at least the gold count actually underestimates the EU, as pointed out by Schmidhuber. Why? Because a unified EU would win many additional team competitions currently won by non-EU teams. They'd simply form teams by assembling the best athletes of all EU countries, instead of letting them compete against each other in lesser teams. They'd get less silver and bronze though. EUmedals 16:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Would win"? That is just a guess. It is not a fact. I've yet to see an explanation why this page is a better alternative and more NPOV than 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization, for those that want this kind of summation of results. --kjd 17:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

 * Delete as I have mentioned on a few talk pages. Useless info unless it is put into some kind of context in a greater rtcl about progression of sport in different areas around the world or something like that with a better title.Scraggy4 01:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * ???? Interesting suggestion, it could lead to some new article(s), but I'm a bit puzzled by this last vote, it seemed to me this article was no more VfD. Did I miss an episode again?
 * Huh? Why would it have been removed from VfD? The only possibility I can think of is that it moved to the VfD archive, but that only means the status of the vote is locked until an admin's had a look at it. So why was the VfD notice removed from the page? Impi 09:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * See note at the top of the page. Apparently, SimonP made the sysop decision on 24 Aug but overlooked closing this discussion.  Rossami

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


text:
New Hanover Island

New Hanover Island, (Neuhannover), also called Lavongai, is a large volcanic island in the New Ireland Province of Papua New Guinea. This region is part of the Bismarck Archipelago and lies at -2.5°N, 150.25°W. Measuring some 460 sqmi, it had a population of 5,000 in 1960, which increased to approximately 17,160 by 2000.

In the interior the Tirpitz Range reaches a height of 2,800 feet.

Culture
Friedrich Ratzel in The History of Mankind reported in 1896, when discussing Melanesian ornament, that there were luxurious feather ornament displays in New Hanover, showing much taste in the combination of forms and colours with vegetable fibres and beads on sticks. An example was a delicately formed face in feather-mosaic forming the head of a hairpin.

title: New Hanover Island


text:
Talk:Delivering Security in a Changing World

Untitled
I'm not sure about the following:

'Overall cuts will see personnel levels drop from 108,500 to 102,000 - this compares to a total strength of 255,000 prior to the 1993 Options for Change cuts.'

Is this a confusion between current British Army strength (before/after former) and overall armed services 1993 strength (latter)?

I can't find an accurate, modern overall figure anywhere. :Clue

 * Currently deleted 'overall strength' comment --Clue 04:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These look like Army-only numbers.

FYI, the total strengths of the UK Armed Forces at 1st April 2000 were: - Royal Navy 42,900 (including 5,900 Royal Marines) - Army 110,100 - RAF 54,700 for a total of 207,700 regular personnel.

The overall Defence total, including civilians and locally engaged personal, and possibly including reservists, was 349,800 at that date, including 115,100 civilians. For comparison, the overall Defence total ten years earlier (1990) was 487,000. --Vvmodel (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Delivering Security in a Changing World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060803223635/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PolicyStrategyandPlanning/DeliveringSecurityInAChangingWorldFutureCapabilitiescm6269.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/PolicyStrategyandPlanning/DeliveringSecurityInAChangingWorldFutureCapabilitiescm6269.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Fpga

Hello, Fpga! Welcome to the English Wikipedia (or should I say dobrodošel? :-)). --Romanm 07:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you
I'd just like to thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia, those were some much needed photos. --Aramgutang 15:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I made a few minor changes to your additions to Sanahin, shortening the info that can also be found at Anastas Mikoyan, and I played around with the Khor Virap layout. Feel free to improve on those changes if you like and thanks again for the new photos. As soon as I have the time, I'll scan some of the photos from my childhood photoalbum, they're not that good, but there's a few nice ones of Haghpat, Sardarapat and Zvartnots. --Aramgutang 09:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome. Make yourself at home...
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Questions? Help || Village pump(everyone gathers here) || Admin links: Deletion || Undeletion

Helpful links: Editing || Writing a great article || Naming || Style Manual || Policies || Reassigning old edits.

I hope you enjoy being an en: Wikipedian! Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. You can also leave me questions at my talk page. +sj +   Monday, July 29,  UTC

Komitas Vardapet
Hey, I moved Komitas Vartabet to Komitas Vardapet, you can update the Slovenian article as you see fit. --Aramgutang 00:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Odzun
Odzun in Armenian script would be "Օձուն" (&#1365;&#1393;&#1400;&#1410;&#1398;). The letter Օ is actually used in any word starting with an "o" sound. It's use inside the word body is reserved for a few rare cases though. Thanks again for contributing so much about my homeland, I've been so busy with college, I've hardly had the time to check my watchlist recently. --Aramgutang 18:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sevan
Sevan is usually referred to as "Սևանա լիճ" (Sevana litch). I don't think there's any need for Western Armenian spelling of names of things in Armenia. Nice job on Odzun, by the way. --Aramgutang 17:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated
And one of the articles you've recently created is part of the line-up. Enjoy! - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:15, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ustje

 * Addressing your remark on the Dutch wikipedia and concerning copyright of newest picture on Ustje you will find all information with the pictures themselves;
 * I copy this information for your information here: dateert uit jaren 1990 en is gemaakt door valentina kobal, die ook een webstek beheert waar de foto en bijbehorend verhaal vermeld zijn: http://www2.arnes.si/~ljeimv11/e8aug.html. Voor plaatsing is mij door auteur schriftelijk toestemming verleend op 19 juli 2004.;
 * In case you prefer a translation of the above text, you are invited to ask for it;
 * On any future ocassion of commentary on the nl:wikipedia you are invited to use my user-talk-page at the nl.wikipedia. Do not ask questions at places where these cannot be answered.--Besednjak 16:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Anton_Rop.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anton_Rop.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Currency Image:100skk.jpg
Hi, To assist global anti-counterfeiting efforts you may wish to consider marking images of banknotes you upload as "Specimen" in some way, if those banknotes represent legal tender.ShakespeareFan00 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ambartsumyan-100dram.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ambartsumyan-100dram.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Prospect (punk rock band)
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Prospect (punk rock band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prospect (punk rock band)
An editor has nominated Prospect (punk rock band), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Fpga! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lara St. John -

Fair use rationale for File:100dram-old.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:100dram-old.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:100skk.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:100skk.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Simcos-initial.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Simcos-initial.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Simcos-results.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Simcos-results.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2012 (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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fpga