text:
Philip of Milly

Philip of Milly, also known as Philip of Nablus (Philippus Neapolitanus; c. 1120 – April 3, 1171), was a baron in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the seventh Grand Master of the Knights Templar. He briefly employed the troubadour Peire Bremon lo Tort in the Holy Land.

Early life
Philip was the son of Guy of Milly, a knight of French origin, who witnessed a dozen of royal charters in the Kingdom of Jerusalem between 1108 and 1126. Guy held fiefs in the royal demesne around Nablus and Jerusalem. Guy's wife was a Flemish noblewoman, Stephanie, according to the late 13th-century Lignages d'Outremer. The same source stated that Philip was his parents' eldest son, but the sobriquet of his brother, Guy—Francigena (or "born in France")—implies that Guy was Philip's elder brother, born before their parents come to the Holy Land. The Lignages d'Outremer also claimed that Philip was a nephew of Pagan the Butler, but no other primary source refers to Pagan as Philip's uncle.

The date of Guy's death is unknown, but he was most probably still alive in the early 1130s. Philip inherited his father's estates around Nablus. He married a noblewoman, Isabella, before 1144. Her name is the only known fact about her, but Steven Runciman writes that she was a niece of Pagan the Butler.

Philip first appeared in a royal charter in 1138. He and his brothers are absent from the lists of witnesses of royal charters in the 1130s. Their absence shows that they could not secure their father's position during the reign of King Fulk, who seized the throne through his marriage with Queen Melisende and appointed his own men to the most important offices.

Lord of Nablus
Philip's career started only after Fulk died and Melisende became the actual ruler of Jerusalem. He was first mentioned as lord of Nablus in 1144. Late in that year, the queen appointed Philip along with Elinand, Prince of Galilee, and Manasses of Hierges, to lead a relieve army to Edessa, but Imad ad-Din Zengi captured the town before they approached it. During the following years, he seized further fiefs, including lands in the hills near Nablus and Tyre. In 1148, upon the arrival of the Second Crusade, Philip participated in the council held at Acre, where he and the other native barons were overruled and the ill-fated decision to attack on Damascus was made.

Along with the powerful Ibelin family, Philip was a supporter of Melisende during her conflict with her son Baldwin III. In the division of the kingdom in 1151, Melisende gained control of its southern part, including Nablus. Despite this arrangement, Philip assisted Baldwin during the siege of Ascalon in 1153. He granted estates to Order of Saint Lazarus in 1153. From 1155, Philip was regularly listed among the witnesses on Baldwin's charters. He participated in the relief of Banyas in June 1157, but he and his troops soon returned home, and were not present at Nur ad-Din's subsequent ambush of Baldwin at Jacob's Ford.

Lord of Oultrejordain
Philip exchanged the lordship of Nablus with Baldwin III for Oultrejordain on 31 July 1161. For Melisende was dying, the agreement was confirmed by her sister, Hodierna, on her behalf. The king retained the revenues from tolling the caravans and the Bedouin tribes crossing Oultrejordain. One of Philip's new vassals, John Gothman, was required to directly swear fealty to the king. Philip strengthened Kerak Castle with a ditch and towers. He made a pilgrimage to Saint Catherine's Monastery in the early 1160s.

Knight Templar
Philip joined the military order of the Knights Templar in January 1166, passing on to them a significant part of Oultrejordain, including the castle of Ahamant. Acting against the decision of the Templars, Philip joined Amalric's invasion of Egypt in 1167. The Ibelin family later recalled an event during the siege of Bilbeis, in which Philip saved the life of Hugh of Ibelin, who had broken his leg when his horse fell in a ditch. The Templars as a whole refused to support Amalric's invasion, and the king blamed them for the failure of the expedition. After the death of their Grand Master Bertrand de Blanchefort in January 1169, Amalric pressured them to elect Philip in his place in August of that year. With the election of Philip, Amalric regained Templar support for the invasion of Egypt, although by the end of the year Amalric was forced to retreat.

For unknown reasons Philip resigned as Grand Master in 1171, and was succeeded by Odo de St Amand. Philip accompanied Amalric to Constantinople as ambassador to the Byzantine Empire in order to restore good relations with them after the failure of the Egyptian invasion. He probably died on April 3, before reaching Constantinople.

Family
Philip's personal life is largely a mystery. William of Tyre describes him as one of the "brave men, valiant in arms and trained from their earliest years in the art of war" who accompanied Amalric to Egypt., Sometime after he became lord of Oultrejordain, he made a pilgrimage to the monastery of Saint Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai. With his wife Isabella he had a son, Rainier (who predeceased him), and two daughters, Helena and Stephanie. Isabella died probably in 1166, which may have led to Philip's decision to take vows as a brother of the Knights Templar. His lands were inherited by his elder daughter, Helena, wife of Walter III Brisebarre, lord of Beirut, and after Walter's death, by Stephanie and her husbands.

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

title: Philip of Milly


text:
Saks, Inc.

Saks, Inc. (originally Proffitt's, Inc.) was an American holding company founded in 1919. Before acquisition by the Canadian-founded Hudson's Bay Company in 2013, it held ownership of department store chains including New York City-based Saks Fifth Avenue (1998–2013) and Tennessee-based Proffitt's (1919–2005). It acquired several mid-range department store chains in the 1990s, however, refocused on upscale retailing and divested of them in the mid-2000s.

HBC maintains the Saks Fifth Avenue nameplate through the full-line department stores, Saks Off 5th off-price stores, and SaksWorks coworking space provider.

Operations during 20th century
Proffitt's Inc. began as five Proffitt's stores in the Knoxville, Tennessee, metropolitan area. After going public under the symbol PRFT on the NASDAQ stock exchange in 1987, Proffitt's Inc. grew by acquiring several department stores. In 1989 the company purchased 18 Hess's locations in Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, and Georgia. From 1994 to 1998, the company added McRae's, Younkers, Parisian, Herberger's, Carson Pirie Scott, the Wisconsin-based Boston Store chain, and Bergner's chains, as well as additional stores from Loveman's, Parks-Belk, and Brody's, which were converted into existing store nameplates. After acquiring Parisian, Proffitt's relocated its corporate headquarters to Birmingham, Alabama, from Knoxville in October 1997. Although the full Saks company no longer has a store in Mississippi, Saks operates its data services from the former McRae's headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi.

1998 acquisition of Saks Holdings
In September 1998, the company acquired the holding company for the luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue, Saks Holdings, Inc., and subsequently changed its legal name to Saks, Incorporated. The acquisition brought the Saks Fifth Avenue and Off 5th franchises, as well as Folio, a mail-order business and Saks.com, an online retailer.

The former Saks Fifth Avenue properties became the Saks Fifth Avenue Enterprises division of the company with the larger Birmingham-based department store division becoming the Saks Department Store Group. The company's main-line department store group was made up of its Southern Department Store Group: McRae's and Proffitt's, the Northern Department Store Group: Bergner's, Boston Store, Carson Pirie Scott, Herberger's and Younkers, the company's Specialty Department Store Group Parisian, and the company's Saks Fifth Avenue Enterprises which included Saks Fifth Avenue and Off 5th.

Operations during 21st century
In 2001, the company recorded record revenues of $6.6 billion, making it a member of the Fortune 500 and one of the largest operators of department stores in the United States. The company was also a primary sponsor of the Bruno's Memorial Classic golf tournament, now known as the Regions Charity Classic. The company moved its headquarters to Midtown Manhattan, New York City in 2007.

In 2005, vendors filed against Saks alleging unlawful chargebacks. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigated the complaint for years, and according to the New York Times "exposed a tangle of illicit tactics that let Saks ... keep money it owed to clothing makers", inflating Saks' yearly earnings up to 43% and abusively collecting around $30 million from suppliers over seven years. Saks settled with the SEC in 2007, after firing three or more executives involved in the fraudulent activities. In March, 2005, Saks announced to restate financial results from fiscal 1999 through the third quarter of fiscal 2004 to correct some accounting errors related to its previously recorded operating leases.

By 2005, Saks Incorporated began to seek a narrower focus towards the luxury-oriented retail synonymous with its Saks Fifth Avenue stores. The decision resulted in a July 2005 sale of its combined 47 Proffitt's and McRae's stores to Belk for approximately $622 million.

On October 31 that same year, Saks announced that it was selling the 142 stores within its Northern Department Store Group, including Carson Pirie Scott, Bergner's, Younkers, Herberger's, and Boston Store to Bon-Ton Stores, Inc., for $1.1 billion; the transaction was complete as of March 6, 2006.

On August 2, 2006, Saks Incorporated announced that it had agreed to sell its upscale 38 Parisian stores, along with two regional distribution centers and Birmingham corporate headquarters to Belk, which rebranded them under their own name in the third quarter of 2007.

On November 5, 2008, Saks announced the closure of the unprofitable Club Libby Lu chain.

2013 acquisition by Hudson's Bay Company
On July 29, 2013, Toronto-based Hudson's Bay Company announced that it will buy Saks, Inc. for US$2.4 billion. Through this ownership, Saks Fifth Avenue and Saks Fifth Avenue Off 5th became affiliated with Hudson's Bay, Home Outfitters, and Lord & Taylor.

title: Saks, Inc.


text:
Talk:Benai Israel

Consolidation
We really need to consolidate Bnai Israel, Bnai Yisrael (there should be a redirect), and Children of Israel. —iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * All article now redirect to Children of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 10:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved Commentary
Don't know how relevant this comment is, but I figured it shouldn't stay in the article itself. Avocado 01:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * This article is incorrect in what it says, Benai Israel is just another say of spelling Bnai Israel. I looked in multiple encyclopedias, asked people, and then lastly search the internet and i found no web pages which weren't associated with winkipedia which talked about this

title: Talk:Benai Israel


text:
Bowled

In cricket, the term bowled has several meanings. First, it is the act of propelling the ball towards the wicket defended by a batter.

Second, it is a method of dismissing a batter, by hitting the wicket with a ball delivered by the bowler. (The term "bowled out" is sometimes used instead.)

Third, it is used in scoring to indicate which bowler is credited with dismissing a batter, when the batter is dismissed by being bowled, leg before wicket (LBW), caught, stumped, or hit wicket.

Dismissal of a batter
This method of dismissal is covered by Law 32 (Bowled) of the Laws of Cricket.

A batter is out Bowled if his or her wicket is put down by a ball delivered by the bowler. It is irrelevant whether the ball has touched the bat, glove, or any part of the batter before going on to put down the wicket, though it may not touch another player or an umpire before doing so. Such rules mean that out Bowled is the most obvious of dismissals: almost never requiring an appeal to the umpire; a bowled batter will usually acknowledge the dismissal voluntarily.

If the delivered ball deflects off the bat, and bowls the batter, then the informal term is known as played on, knocked on, chopped on, or dragged on. If the wicket is put down without the batter making any contact with the ball, then it is known as clean bowled, with variations of this being bowled through the gate, where the ball travels between the bat and pad, or bowled around the legs, where the ball goes behind (to the leg side of) the batter and hits the stumps.

A batter cannot be bowled from a no-ball, wide or dead ball.

A batter is out Bowled even if he/she could be given out by another method of dismissal instead. For example, if a batter edges the ball onto the stumps (such that the bails are removed) and the ball is then caught by a fielder, the batter would be given out Bowled instead of caught.

Out Bowled is the second most common method of dismissal after caught, accounting for 21.4% of all Test match dismissals between 1877 and 2012.

The bowler is credited with the wicket if the batter is bowled.

Muttiah Muralitharan holds the Test record for dismissing most batters (167) through the method of out Bowled.

Scoring
For example, a scorecard may say that a batter was 'c Smith b Jones', which reads as 'caught Smith, bowled Jones', and means he was out caught by Smith, when the bowler was Jones.

Or it might say 'lbw b Jones', which reads as 'lbw bowled Jones', and means he was out LBW when the bowler was Jones.

title: Bowled


text:
Talk:Children of Israel

Consolidate
We really need to consolidate Bnai Israel, Bnai Yisrael (there should be a redirect), Bani Israel and Children of Israel.

And yes, there should be discussion of how they are referred to in the Qur'an. Not to state the obvious, but as a reminder, this is an encyclopedia, right? —iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:23, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Merged Bnai Israel into Children of Israel. IZAK 07:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
I removed the following text:

 * The rebirth of the Jewish state in Israel with the simultaneous in-gathering of many Jews from the Diaspora presents a major counter-argument to the view that the Jews have lost their title as the Children of Israel.

Even though I am not really an outsider on the whole thing I still could not see how this relates to anything before it. Why is it a counter-argument? What argument is it countering? How? Gadykozma 00:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see why the issue of Christian Replacement Theology is even discussed in this article.--Josiah 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Christian part ought to be included because it is a justifiable identification of who the Children of Israel are. If it were excluded, we would need a disambiguation page reading Children of Israel (ethnicity) and Children of Israel (spiritual). This would then problematize the whole enterprise further, since there are undoubtedly many people who would disagree with the division of Children of Israel into categories or kinds. In essence, the 'ownership' of the phrase is in dispute, and THAT'S why we have to be inclusive rather than exclusive. 99.243.118.201 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Jonathan

This page ought to be merged
This page ought to be merged with Bnai Israel--Josiah 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yesterday I suggested on Talk:Israelite that this page (Children of Israel) would become the center for the discussion "who are the real children of Isreal today" (moving parts of Israelite here). Bnai Israel can then be trimmed slightly and made a center for uses of the Hebrew phrase. What do you say? Gadykozma 15:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arabic?
Why is the Arabic for bani israil included in this article? Why not Malayalam or Russian? Tomer TALK 06:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't forget piglatin!!! 220.233.48.200 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced. I'm taking it out.  Tom e rtalk  06:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic misconceptions
Why do so many moslems & even some Arabic head-of-states keep insisting on the basis that: the reference is wrongfully made to the hebrons, when they should be actually made to them instead. Asserting that Islam's prophet Muhd had persistently emphasized that, Moses was a prophet of Islam & never Judaism. Yeah. For sure, Muhammad... I unconditionally "believe" you. That's why I'm a practicing Sikh btw :). But what I really want to know is, where do these guys try and fit themselves in, to say... exploit the truth? Additionally, how has the Jewish people refuted this claim alongst the generally-fraudulent Islamic community?

There's so much wrong with your little rant that I generally won't bother suffice to say the Prophet Muhammad never said Moses was NOT a prophet of Judaism. Maybe if you bothered to read the Qu'ran you'd know this, quite clearly he is a leader of Jews and a much revered Prophet. Other than that continue your little hate filled rant, seems quite the norm in this day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Am Israel
Should there be mention of Am Israel (the people of Israel) here, as synonymous (almost) with B'nai Israel? BobFromBrockley 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Banu Israel (palestinians)
are the palestinians descend from Banu Israel (Children of Israel) ؟؟؟

Nope. They are descandants of Arab conquers who converted the Middle East populations into Islam under force during the 7th Century, many of them are descandants of Jews, Samaritans, and other populations (icluding Christians) who lived in the area and were forced to convert into Islam in order to stay a live, later they scattered into some parts of the Land of Israel. Some of them are just descandants of muslim immagrants from Iraq, Syria and Egypt who came into Israel during the time of the Ottoman Empire ruled over the land, while most Jews were stil living in exile over the world.--DXRD (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For more information about the Israelites' descendants go to: Israelites.--DXRD (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Page will be deleted: comments?
I intend to delete and redirect this page to Israelites, with minor parts salvaged. Do you agree, oppose? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * After waiting two months for comments, I understand no one disagrees or cares. The deletion/redirection is done. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse this restoration of the original redirect; there is no need for this title to do anything but point to its clear primary topic. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:BD2412; i was bold and didn't ask, but it seemed pretty obvious to me. Cheers, LindsayHello 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Children of Israel


text:
Kirby J. Hensley

Kirby James Hensley (July 23, 1911 – March 19, 1999) was the president and founder of the Universal Life Church.

Biography
The second of seven children, Hensley was born on July 23, 1911, in the mountains of Low Gap, Yancey County, North Carolina. For more than 65 years he studied and preached religion throughout the United States. He was practically functionally illiterate; he hired others to read the Bible for him and later listened to recordings of the Bible on tape. Henley "studied and preached religion" in this manner for 65 years.

Hensley received a doctoral degree from "mail-order" institution by name of Hollywood University of Los Angeles, then an honorary doctorate in metallurgy from an unnamed school in Nebraska.

Hensley was ordained in a branch of the Baptist Church, but after several years he left the denomination and attended the Pentecostal churches in the area. He married his first wife Nora in a Pentecostal church ceremony; they had two daughters together. He also pastored in Oklahoma and California.

Hensley later divorced Nora and moved back to North Carolina, where he met his second wife, Lida. During their forty-six-year marriage, they had one daughter and two sons.

In the mid-1980s, Hensley called himself the King of Aqualandia and sold citizenship documents, as well as church ordinations, for $35. He ran for President of the United States as the Universal Party's candidate in 1964 and 1968, with Roscoe MacKenna as his running mate.

Hensley founded the Universal Life Church in 1962. He remained president of the church until his death on March 19, 1999. He compiled many sermons and once appeared on 60 Minutes (also available in printed version — final highlight on page 24, still with Morley Safer, who concludes: "I certainly liked him. He was a wonderful character.").

title: Kirby J. Hensley


text:
Balloon Pilot Badge

The Balloon Pilot Badge is a military badge of the United States Armed Forces which was issued during the First and Second World Wars. The badge was issued by both the United States Army and the U.S. Air Force, with the Navy equivalent known as the Dirigible Pilot Badge.

Originally known as the Aeronaut Badge, the Balloon Pilot Badge was created in 1918 and awarded to pilots of military observation balloons. The badge consisted of a balloon centered on a standard Pilot's Badge and was issued in two degrees. The senior degree of the Aeronaut Badge was denoted by a star centered above the winged balloon.

The Aeronaut Badge was awarded under the authority of the United States Army Air Service and the United States Army Air Corps until the mid-1930s. The badge was then redesignated the Balloon Pilot Badge and, during the Second World War (WWII), was issued by the Army Air Forces. Like its predecessor, the Balloon Pilot Badge was issued in junior and senior degrees.

The Army Air Forces also issued a Balloon Observer Badge for those who served as co-pilots and support crew on board military balloon craft.

Due to the aircraft technology advances of the 1940s, balloon aeronautics became militarily obsolete by the 1950s. At that time, the United States Air Force discontinued the Balloon Pilot Badge; however, the basic version of the badge is still issued by the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary's Civil Air Patrol.

title: Balloon Pilot Badge


text:
User talk:Vague Rant/Archive 1

Some arrangement modified by me to fit with my preferred style.

Welcome message
Hi Vague Rant, welcome to Wikipedia. Just a quick note - you recently changed walkthroughs to walkthroughs in an article, and this is not accepted practice. The former is preferred over the latter because it takes up a marginally smaller amount of space. Thanks,  – Andre ( talk )  20:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see. My apologies. - Vague Rant 05:02, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Passenger Pigeon
Hi, see Talk:Passenger Pigeon for caps policy, jimfbleak 14:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. - Vague Rant 10:35, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Corrections to Opposition to Castro
Hi there I have made changes to the Opposition to Castro will you reconsider your vote. If you do not think that satisfy the NPOV policy please help me do so. It is hard for me to not have a POV on the matter. I love democracy and the Internet and this great country we live in. Thanks and regards! SilentVoice 23:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you have another look at Opposition to Castro? I'm not sure what it was like when you looked at it (I gather is started out very POV), but at this point it looks to me like the nucleus of a good article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, that's very nice. It was quite POV originally, and still somewhat yesterday, but this is good. I'll head off to VFD to change my vote. - Vague Rant 00:05, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

MegaMan
MegaMan is one word in the Battle Network/NT Warrior series. See: http://www.viz.com/onlinemanga/mm-hi-chapter-1.html WhisperToMe 06:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I was trying to be careful not to add the space in any Battle Network references. Did I screw up? My apologies. - Vague Rant 06:35, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers Dad.
I've noticed a shit load of the sites off of my user page, wot i did, have been trolled through by your good self in search of spelling errors and stuff. Cheers, but I can't help wondering why you picked my stuff, is it that bad? Also, I think the songs on Noel Gallagher were supposed to be in italics - i dunno for sure but there must be some ruling. Nice page, good work, God bless.--Crestville 14:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (also, if you wouldn't mind, would you reply on my user page)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Hey there, Crest. Sorry if it seemed like I was going after your work. I'm a bit of a Beatles nut, so I was looking around the articles which linked to it, and tried to pep them up a bit as I went. And yeah, the usual style is that albums are italicized, while songs are in "quotes". Nice work, regardless. - Vague Rant 03:26, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, no, I'm actually greatful. If you want to tidy up the rest of me stuff, be my guest ;o)--Crestville 17:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Faroe Islands
Regarding Your comments on my articles on Faroe Islands. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know where to answer to Your comments... So I do it here. You wrote:

"Actually, Ricky, they're copyvios. 194, I just thought I'd give you this link: Wikipedia:Copyrights. Have a read of that, it should teach you what you need to know about copyrighted material. - Vague Rant 09:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) Whoa there, IP! In the link, it essentially says "Don't copy material from other sources," which, unfortunately, is what you're doing. Why don't you to try your hand at writing your own articles? - Vague Rant 09:17, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)"

What I am pasting into the articles is text from my own homepage regarding these villages. So I did write it myself. But the information is not relevant for Wikipedia then I will not wast my time on it.

Jon.

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that the site you were taking the info from is your own. I'll restore your articles. Please, feel free to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, we value what knowledge you can bring. - Vague Rant 10:06, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok. Thanks. Jfo 07:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

GLA
Thanks dude for fixing my GLA article. it was pretty shit until you fixed it up a bit. thanks Wifki 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * No problem, glad I could help. - Vague Rant 12:16, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

transparent bg
Hey, thanks for pointing out that the bg on my user page wasn't quite right. I've made the background change you suggested. But yeah, feel free to use any element of my page you want. I kinda got the inspiration for it from Tεx  τ  urε, although I took a more minimalist approach to that design. I've also taken a while making it better and better, and will probably keep screwing around with it. For some reason, its one of the best parts of wikipedia heh. gl with whatever you do with yours    — siro  χ  o  04:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for signing that unsigned comment on my user-talk page too. (

capitalisation 'corrections'
Are the capitalisation changes you're making (The Rutles -> the Rutles, e.g.) part of any wikipedia policy? Varitek 01:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * It's not so much Wikipedia policy as it is the regular format of English. Album titles, bands, etc. which begin with "a," "the," or such aren't capitalized if the name appears in the middle of the sentence. As an example, "The Rutles parody the Beatles." I won't get into an edit war over it or anything, if you'd rather have it as The Rutles, then hey, be my guest. It won't detract from the information within. - Vague Rant 06:33, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * In th example you give, my instinct would be for "The Rutles parody The Beatles", but compare with "The Rutles parody the Beatles' songs" - as the object in the first is the proper noun The Beatles, but in the latter the object is the songs. I don't know what the likes of Fowler say about it, but I do think that it's contentious enough that mass-replacing it in many articles is a little presumptuous. Varitek 16:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Well, if we're going for uniformity, then "the" is probably the way to go. Of the "the Bandnames" articles, a few which probably get the most attention are the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys and the Beatles, all of which follow the same system of capitalization as I do. As I say, feel free to change it. It's no big issue for me, I don't mind it either way. I don't go searching it out or anything, I just change it if I come across it while making other edits. It's a Wiki, I don't make the rules, you can do what you like. Have a good one. - Vague Rant 22:32, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keiyo
I noticed that you marked Keiyo for speedydeletion back on Oct. 30th... but that notation was deleted by an anon, and the page seems to have remained. I've re-marked it for speedy due to it's copyvio and apparent reposting of another deleted article, but if you could mark down why you initially marked it for speedy and any other comments you had on it's talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Arcuras 16:07, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey there, Vague. I noticed a lot of the great work you've been doing, and I think that you would make a great administrator. With about 41/2 months of experience, >1000 edits, and admirable work with copyvios, I think that you'll be supported by most. I also know you a bit from personal experience, and I'd be honoured to nominate you. If you accept, please leave me a note on my talk page (this is unofficial), and I'll put in a nomination (you should accept again there officially). I look forward to your response :) -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * I'm flattered that you might think I could be an admin, but I don't think I'll accept at the moment. Maybe in a couple of months. You see, I, personally, wouldn't support the adminship of someone who'd been here less than five months, so I couldn't justify having others vote for me. No offense. So anyway, raincheck. - Vague | Rant 04:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, it's up to you :). While I feel that you would make a great admin, if you wouldn't vote for yourself...well then that's what matters.  If you change your mind in the future (and don't get offered again before that), you know my home number :). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

copyright vio of Saveetha Engineering College
You had said: ''Hey there. I just noticed that your latest article was imported from another source. If you own or have permission to use the copyright for this material, please indicate this on the talk page of your article. Otherwise, we can't accept it here. If you want to rewrite the article in your own words, please do so on the "/Temp" subpage of the article. Also, regardless of whether this article infringes on copyright, we welcome any other original contributions you may wish to make. Thanks! - Vague | Rant 10:04, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)''

I am a student of Saveetha Engineering College and I have posted the information from my college prospectus. I have got the permissions to use this information. So I would like the page to be restored so that I can add more info.

Thanks.

Cnu 10:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * I restored your article. Your continued contributions are welcomed. - Vague | Rant 11:06, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your action.

Copyright violations
Thanks, re: your kind remarks regarding another copyright violation. Hu 07:11, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Question about multiple article issue
Hi Vague. I recently noticed that a bunch of articles related to Rebellion were in a bit of a tangle. I wrote a description of the problem with a request for advice, but I can't find anywhere to put it as all the collaborative pages seem to deal only with single articles. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at my post (currently pasted at the bottom of my talk page) and tell me where the most appropriate place to put it is. Thanks! BanyanTree 09:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comments! They'll be useful.  I think I'll just try to get people to look at my talk page and make comments as I start working on it, rather than post it somewhere inappropriate.  BanyanTree 04:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oompa Loompas
Whoah! Talk about having my mind blown! I don't recall hearing about the "racist" accusations before. I believe you, but do you think it needs to be sourced with an external link? BTW, nice job on your edits. I would love to upload an image, too. Any ideas on where I could find an acceptable (such as non-copyvio) image for the page? --Viriditas 08:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Good point on the need for an external link. I went in and added one. Thanks for the compliments on my editing. As for an image, that could be hard to find. Since (obviously) Charlie hasn't passed into the public domain yet, we can't use images straight out of the book, unless we want to pull fair use. Likewise, "fanart" couldn't be used, because even though the art itself is by the artist who draws it, they themselves are breaking copyright by making the art (sounds crazy, I know). Unless Joseph Schindelman or one of the later artists has released his work into the public domain, with permission from the owners of the Charlie works' copyright, there is probably not any free images of an Oompa Loompa. - Vague | Rant 09:07, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I suspect that I'll probably scan in a DVD cover or something for fair use.  Also, after reviewing the current page, I think your information should be included in its entirety, but that some rearranging is in order.  For example, Oompa Loompas are currently dwarves from Loompaland in not only the present book form, but in the current film version(s), so that should be the main lead.  However, since these creatures were once pygmies from Africa, that should be included in the next section, perhaps in an "origin" of the concept section.  I wanted to run that by you before I changed it.  Let me know what you think on my talk page, or feel free to make the change yourself. --Viriditas 10:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-English Speedy
Thanks for the tip. I hadn't realized that non-English articles were so common that they had their own dedicated tag... I should of course have checked for copyvio though. — Asbestos | Talk 11:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copyvios
Thanks for pointing out that copyvios have to be reported on a separate page. I had been under the impression that the copyvio tag/category would be enough. I've meanwhile also added the older copyvio candidates I had identified previously. --MarkSweep 07:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In addition. Hello Vague, also thanks for the remarks about copyrights. I've added some words about it in the talk page of the new article (universal virtual computer). --Jrvanderhoeven 11:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding woman
Your reversion suggesting that I was "disrupting" Wikipedia by adding a caption to a photo is misguided. You need to re-read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's not about that kind of edit - it refers to disingenuous changes, moves, or arguments. - Nunh-huh 04:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * From WP:POINT--

 * Understanding the inconsistent nature of Wikipedia and accepting it as a good thing inherent in the processes and values of the project helps relieve Wikistress and limits the temptation to make disruptive edits.

 * You cited the lack of a similar photo at "man" as a reason why the image was not acceptable. Wikipedia will always be inconsistent, and your caption clearly made a point, and was, it appears, generally not accepted, though that is only by Rhobite and myself. I agree that the photo is not appropriate, but I don't think drawing attention to the image's inherent flaws within the article is the right way to go about it. If your comments were on the talk page, rather than in the image caption, I would readily agree with them. Thanks. - Vague | Rant 04:41, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * They are on the talk page. I hope you'll feel free to express your agreement with them there. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Leo Gaje and Leo T Gaje Jr
The anon who began both of these articles informed me on my Talk page that you had marked the latter as a copyvio. The anon placed the same text on both pages, as well as the Temp page. I've looked at the source, and it seems to me that Leo Gaje, as it currently stands, is sufficiently reworded. Would you disagree with deleting Leo T Gaje Jr and recreating it as a redirect to Leo Gaje? --Slowking Man 23:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Yeah, Slowking, I'd be okay with that. Not too impressed with this guy's conduct, though. - Vague | Rant 01:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Scorelogix, Unemployment Score and Patent-pending copyvio
Hello,

I am the inventor of Unemployment Score and the CEO of Scorelogix and have full copyrights to all the content that I had tried to post related to unemployment, unemployment risk, unemployment risk, job migration, Scorelogix, living standards, etc, since I believed that all of these topics are very well related and I wanted to share our research and insights through this encyclopedia.

Note that we are the pioneer in the field of unemployment and employment risk scoring and our product is very simplistically called Unemployment Score, so it appeared to some moderators that we are trying post commercial links, but that's not the case since. We have many other ways to sell our product, but our prime intention here is to share the research and knowledge only through relevant topics. I would like to hear from anyone who thinks 'unemployment' and 'unemployment score' and Scorelogix are not related and why anyone would consider them not worthy of this medium.

If you have any doubts about our company or solutions pertaining to unemployment (which is a major problem affecting millions of people) then visit our website at www.scorelogix.com and read about us on the 'about us' page. Users and companies that know Scorelogix already respect us, and I think it is a question of time before we become well-known for the problem we are addressing and eventually it will get here anyway.

Sincerely,

Suresh Annappindi CEO, Scorelogix

Copyvios rewritten Delta Chi and Delta chi
This is a reminder that one week ago you added Delta Chi and Delta chi to Copyright problems. I have rewritten them as a stub at Delta Chi/Temp and a redirect at Delta chi/Temp. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Great job on those stubs. I'm sure they'll be moved into the main namespace as soon as possible, but as I'm not an admin, I don't really have any influence on when that happens. All I do is report them, then they're someone else's problem. *winks* But given it's been a week, it shouldn't be too long before the originals are deleted and your revisions can be moved. Have a good one. - Vague | Rant 12:35, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

On discussion for Category:Megatokyo you posted
Does Megatokyo really need its own subcategory? - Vague Rant 10:15, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree but I'm new here an I'm not sure how to get rid of it as a subcategory. user talk:RJFJR 00:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So how do we get rid of it and replace it with just a regular page?

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Unfortunately, I'm not so sure on how to remove subcategories myself. I'll have an ask around and see what I can do. - Vague | Rant 02:15, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * DarkLordSeth has listed subcategory megatokyo for category deletion. That answers the question about 'how to' do it.  I'm not sure if this is someone you contacted about how to do this or just someone who found it. RJFJR 02:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Oh, and by the way, I discovered that subcategories are just categories which have been placed in other categories. For example, if I put Category:Pokémon into Category:Nintendo, it would become a subcategory. Same thing in reverse to remove them. - Vague | Rant 04:48, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing extra tilde at User:Utcursch/wel. I never noticed it. utcursch 12:32, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Feedback
Re: Copyright query from user Vague_Rant

Wednesday 8 December 2004

Dear mudthang

As we previously discussed, I'd like to bring responsible education and training to governments and honest citizens concerned with personal safety, wherever they may live.

Thank you for following through and posting information at various websites, including Wikipedia, as I requested.

Any further postings on my behalf are greatly appreciated.

Yours in self-protection, Tom Sotis Founder of IBFG/AMOK!

/ends
 * Originally posted to your user: page by 168.209.97.34 (moved here by Hadal 06:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC))

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * I think you must be a little confused. I'm not Mudthang. In fact, he shares your IP. - Vague | Rant 07:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!!!
Thank you for being a diligent wikipedian and banishing my Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington page to the copyright section. I would have removed that line myself if you had given me 4 1/2 minutes. 194.201.20.90 11:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC) (unsigned)

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

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

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

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

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

copy vio in clearly labeled working copy?
In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here: I understand that your article was a WIP, but it included content from other sources, and as such I had to remove it as a copyvio. I know that by the time you were finished, it would have been reworded enough that it would no longer be a copyvio, but the copyvios would still be in the history, meaning we'd still be breaking the law. Sorry about this. Do feel free to do your rewriting in Word before posting it here. Thanks. - Vague | Rant 11:16, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

So, what's up with deleting my working copy and inserting your copy vio stuff while I am still working on it, within less than one hour? I am using multiple sources, referencing all used, and my word processor is on the fritz. This is helpful? Why not a Q to my talk page or are your some kind of automated thing? Vaoverland 11:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, I suppose I understand, but... Vaoverland 11:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I think I understand, and I apologize. I never intend to use copywrited material inappropriately, and misunderstood that I could use WP indicated of my word processor when gathering from many sources and going though to pull out appropriate data for editing and etc. I have entered an article stub all of which is from my personal factual knowledge only. (I worked in the bus industry for 35 years). It is listed under Perley A. Thomas Car Works/Temp, and i am not sure what happens next. I have plenty of other articles to work on. Vaoverland 03:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * No need to apologize. As for what happens, the admins will move your stub article into place after about a week. Possibly sooner. Good luck. - Vague | Rant 05:39, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Barnstars on Wikipedia
Switch to divs, trust me on this one. Not unless you explain what's wrong with :-) JRM 12:34, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * I suppose people have already brought this up for fixing? The  -construction can't be a permanent solution, right? JRM 12:40, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * I think bug #691 is the one: . JRM 12:46, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

WackoWiki
that was fast, I already was confirming that, so copyright is granted under the GNU Free Documentation License ;), an the text needs much more improvements, try my best and hope I will get some support. Thanks again. http://wackowiki.com/SkipPer

Copyrights
I'm not sure which article you are referring to, but I forgot all about copyrights. I don't know how to, so can you just delete it for me. Thanks, Anonymous User

P.S. I'm signing off too. Thanks again.

Votes for deletion/Brad Levicoff
Brad Levicoff, the article created in the space to which your former redlink from Zophar's Domain had led, is up for deletion. You might want to contribute comment and to vote at its entry there. Cheers! Samaritan 01:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Thanks for the tip. - Vague | Rant 02:23, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Biting
Dear Vague Rant Due to your trigger-happy copyvio finger… A few people are feeling more than a little sore and bruised http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 14:50, 18 Dec 2004 (GMT+2)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Thank you for the multitude of comments posted on my talk page. I suppose I shall address them in order.

 * Okay, the first one, on biting the newcomers. I don't feel that I have done so, if you could cite evidence of this, I would be very grateful. Removal of copyrighted material is in no way biting the newcomers. I'd remove anyone's copyrighted material, new user or no, and have done so in the past. I also make an effort to ensure that the user understands what has happened, with (usually) a message on their talk page and the boilerplate on my user and talk pages. - Vague | Rant 04:29, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio process
Dear Vague Rant You seem quite manic about flagging pages for copyvio problems but only suggest that users make a note on the problem page's talk page. Then you don't even bother to check back at the copyvio talk page, which you flagged in the first place.

Surely you are being remiss in not also telling the contributor to post a note on the Votes_for_Undeletion VfD page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion

Mmm… Now there's a thought…

Possible suggestion for comment: This entry was deleted as a copyvio. However, the original contributor has added a note re: permission to the talk page. The contributor did not know that she should also have mentioned this on WP:CP. The usual in cases like this, where we have been given email permission, is to restore (unless there is reason to disbelieve the statement of permission given, or there is a later complaint from the copyright holder of course). -- 15:10, 18 Dec 2004 (GMT+2)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * As for the copyvio process, my advice on where to address ownership or permission of copyright is correct. I don't delete articles, I just report possible copyright violations. Administrators are the ones who need to check the talk page in case a user owns or has permission, not I. The burden of deletion falls not on me. If an article is incorrectly deleted, it is by no fault of mine. - Vague | Rant 04:29, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Vague|Rant
For your wise and insightful feedback… You are obviously extremely gifted at all things and unlike lesser mortals, you appear to be beyond making even stupid mistakes. The humility and grace with which you dispense advice is truly a fine example to me. Keep well mudthang 18 Dec 15:55 (GMT+2)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Also, thank you for the compliments on my conduct, they are appreciated. - Vague | Rant 04:29, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio alerts by Vague|Rant
Vague|Rant In the blurb at the top of your user and this talk page, you clearly state: If you are able to make it clear that you own or have permission (my emphasis) to use the copyright for the material you posted, please do so on the talk page of the article in question. I followed this note, and tried to contact you, yet you allowed two pages to be deleted for copyvio. You have asked me to be civil to Wiki users. I have not been "uncivil" to any other Wiki-user to date, besides the offense you have taken. Yet, after suggesting that people contact you at your forum page, you ignored my request for contact and removed my posted query from your forum page. You also seem to have ignored my posting of copyright permission on the talk pages you yourself flagged for copyvio. So really, in all due process, who has been uncivil? I have tried to contact you at the forum you posted a link to, and posted the source permission at the original Wiki-article talk page. But no response from you. Nada. I am as unimpressed as you seem to be, with due cause. Any feedback would be a pleasant and unexpected surprise.

 * User:Mudthang 18 Dec 21:00 (GMT+2)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * As for removing comments from my "forum page", I can't say I'm fully aware of what you're speaking of. There was a comment on my user page at one point which appeared to be addressed to you (beginning with "dear mudthang") which Hadal then moved to my talk page, as is the usual process. I responded to the anonymous IP which posted the comment, see here:.

 * In conclusion, it is clear that I have not been uncivil at all. You simply seem to have misunderstood Wikipedia policy, which is neither of our faults. Good day to you. - Vague | Rant 02:07, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Update 20 Dec 2004. For the record, my original query (posted 2004-11-29 00:06) has reappeared on your Friends Only site at
 * http://www.livejournal.com/users/rago/135519.html?view=296799#t296799

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * As I said in my first comment on your talk page way back on the 5th, it's all well and good that you tried to contact me, but you would have been better off addressing such questions to my talk page, which is how conversation is usually conducted at Wikipedia. - Vague | Rant 04:16, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Can you look The Ancient Track:The Complete Poetical Works of H.P. Lovecraft for me? it seems it might be copied verbatim from the back cover of the book. Is that fair use? (It's in the deadend list which is how I found it). RJFJR 02:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In the interest of completeness, my response is preserved here:
 * Yeah, I'd say that's a copyvio. The same text appears on this page: . We may be able to claim fair use, but it's very unlikely we'd get away with it. If you'd like to report it yourself, just put this code on the page:

 * Then head to Copyright problems and add this to today's date:

 * The Ancient Track:The Complete Poetical Works of H.P. Lovecraft from . ~

 * If you can't be bothered, I'll probably do it tomorrow. Have a good one! - Vague | Rant 04:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I reported it (my first time, I hope I did it right). Thank you for the clear directions. RJFJR 01:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vague Rant/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Kanzashi

Sub articles
Someone went a little overboard on the sub-articles. It shouldn't be called Hana flower kanzashi, it should be either Hana kanzashi or Flower kanzashi. Also, do all of those sub pages really need to point to everything relating to traditional Japanese culture? If the links can't be worked into the body text (on the sub pages, mind you) they probably don't belong. (I'm noting this here because I'm too busy to fix all these pages myself, although I might.) Bigpeteb 20:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "Basic Kanzashi" section contained incorrect information stating that Obi (Dome) were kanzashi. An Obi is the sash worn with kimono - and an Obi Dome is the jewelled accessory worn by maiko on their obi - not in their hair. The correct name for this particular kanzashi is Kanoko Dome. I edited the article to fix this and also included additional information about Kakoko Dome. --Immortalgeisha 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's also been a recent boom in kanzashi makers abroad. There are many people who wish to make "authentic" Japanese hairpins, and then there are others who wish to make it a more modern, approachable art. Thoughts on authenticity? Also, is kanzashi an art? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.40.78 (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos?
Does anyone have photos of kanzashi they can share for use in the article? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Hairpin?
Isn't Kanzashi just a Japanese style of hairpin? It has been used in China for more than 2000 years, recorded in the Records of the Grand Historian. Hairpin was used for every men and women in ancient China before Qing Dynasty, and only used by women after that. The character 簪(Kanzashi) is used in both Chinese and Japanese represents hairpin, even not specific Japanese style.

So I suggest to move this topic to hairpin, or Japanese hairpin. -- Flywhc 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Totally agree with you!!As Kanzashi was spread to Japan from china during Nara period(The character 簪 is completely a chinese word)219.79.21.95 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This article is totally biased... it makes it sounds like Japanese created it, but the truth it this is a 100% Chinese creation that spread Japan... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.228.103.188 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I dont understand what's wrong here. you said yourself this is just a japanese variation of a hairpin, you could easily create another page for chinese hairpins.  these are distinct enough and with enough extensive information to warrant its own article for its own variation.

Agreed. While it should be stated in the article that it came from China, calling it un-Japanese would be like saying that Kanji was stolen from China, and that Nihongo is actually Pressondude (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Please, let's not degenerate into another "they stole my culture" argument. A kanzashi is a particular type of hairpin. The article is fine where it is.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tsumami kanzashi
I've completely rewritten the bizarrely chauvinistic paragraph about tsumami kanzashi while trying to stick to its general gist (cultural significance and credentials) and add references. I kinda think the whole paragraph should be moved out of the general "History" section, but that would probably require retitling/rewriting the "Hana/seasonal kanzashi" sections and/or splitting them off into a separate article. -- Wombat1138 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Also found and added a reference that contradicts the now-deleted statement "There are many amateurs who make modern kanzashi, but only those who receive classical training are allowed to commercially sell, strictly under the National designated master's permission", which implies that modern kanzashi cannot be commercially sold in Japan by anyone who has not undergone full professional certification. It's possible that the actual intended meaning was "Only traditionally-trained artisans are allowed to sell their kanzashi labelled as products of a certified master'-- haven't found any refs wrt certification/labelling so far. --Wombat1138 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kanzashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217061916/http://www.tourism.metro.tokyo.jp/english/tourists/info/basic_info/basic/dento/tokusan3.html to http://www.tourism.metro.tokyo.jp/english/tourists/info/basic_info/basic/dento/tokusan3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120054448/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/photospecials/graph/kanzashi/ to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/photospecials/graph/kanzashi/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018214705/http://www.immortalgeisha.com/hairstyles_maiko.php to http://www.immortalgeisha.com/hairstyles_maiko.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202345/http://www.kanzasi.co.jp/cgi-bin/kanzasi/sitemaker.cgi?mode=page&page=page4&category=2 to http://www.kanzasi.co.jp/cgi-bin/kanzasi/sitemaker.cgi?mode=page&page=page4&category=2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kanzashi


text:
Talk:Jirga

Bad Redirect
I disagree with the redirect from Jirga to Loya jirga. It's like redirecting Parliament to House of Commons. —iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:28, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jirga


text:
Talk:Glossary of mathematical jargon

Iff
Should "iff" be on this list? Isn't it a rigorous term, rather than jargon? And how is it pronounced in a lecture, anyway: I've only heard "if-and-only-if" spoken. - DavidWBrooks 20:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jargon does not necessarily imply that a term is less than rigorous. It's terminology that is used specifically within one field and would probably not be understood by those outside that field. "If and only if" does have a specialized meaning in mathematics. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Iff has two uses, imho. One is used in logic (and related fields, I suppose) to mean a binary function from a theory to a truth-value set

iff : Th x Th → {T,F}
 * and the other is used in arguments in any math paper or lecture. The meanings are the same, I think, but the uses are different. I think that Iff should be edited to reflect these two uses; right now it blends them. (Actually, I think Iff should only refer to the logical iff, with the other one being merged into Mathematical jargon, but that's part of another argument, which I'll make under a separate heading, below.) As for pronunciation, I, too, have only heard iff pronounced as if and only if is.  —msh210 17:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * David Lewis (philosopher) used to pronounce it iffffffff (or so I've heard or read somewhere). -- dbtfz talk 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think i recall either professors or undergrad peers pronouncing it in a way that i would render as either "if-if" or "IFFif". --Jerzy•t 17:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging
It seems to me that most of the articles linked to from Mathematical jargon are very short. Not short enough to be stubs, perhaps, but short enough to be merged into here. Why not do that?

(An exception is Iff, but, as I wrote above, I think iff has two uses; the one can be merged into here, and Iff can be about the other.)  —msh210 17:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Necessary and sufficient is also a large-ish article in its own right. And some of these articles have many links from other articles which will be followed by readers who are unfamiliar with a particular jargon phrase. Redirecting these links to a general jargon article will make it more difficult to find the specific meaning of handwaving, for example. My vote is leave it as it is. Gandalf61 11:46, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree - leave it as it is. In its current form it serves a valuable purpose for the casually curious reader, who hadn't even realized that mathematics *has* jargon. It gives them a very quick overview of the sort of ideas that fit into this category. I think it's a perfect example of a wikipedia "introduction article", presenting a concept that is rarely encountered in the outside world without bogging you down with detail. Readers who want more insight can easily follow the links - which will, I bet, expand over time. - DavidWBrooks 14:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we leave it as is, then why are we considering it a stub? It's a complete article, isn't it?  —msh210 19:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Stub notice? I don't see any stub notice!!! - DavidWBrooks

Obtain
Mathematicians use obtain for two things: So I was going to add obtain to this list. But then it struck me: is this actually mathematical jargon, or is this just the usual meaning of obtain? That is, are these two uses of obtain just small variations on the dictionary definition of obtain, understandable to "outsiders", or are they real jargon? I'm not sure, so am not adding obtain to the list. What do y'all think?  —msh210 17:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Getting a simplified expression from a complicated one:
 * By adding three and five we obtain eight.
 * By summing this expression over N, we obtain one-half.
 * Proving a theorem:
 * Applying Lemma 3, we obtain our result.

 * I would say no. I think this entry should be for terms that are only used by mathematicians, or that are used by mathematicians in ways radically different than by normal human beings - er, I mean, than by the rest of us. I don't think "obtain" meets those criteria. - DavidWBrooks 21:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about meet, miss, and avoid (which mean, respectively, "intersect", "intersect in the empty set", and "intersect in the empty set")? Are these jargon?  —msh210 00:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Whoof ... that's the trouble with making rules; things always get complicated near the boundaries! You've got the same definitions for "miss" and "avoid" - is that correct? As you have written them, my personal opinion was that they do not rise to the level of "jargon," per se - they are more like tweaked versions of terminology found in the wild. But they're pretty close ... - DavidWBrooks 03:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Hm. I've already added we to Mathematical jargon. Would you (DWB) say it doesn't belong either? (I think it does, unless the same use of we is found in most academic fields.)  —msh210 19:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Um, er, ah, I guess no, I don't think it is sufficient different from other fields - that is, using "we" to mean "one" in the non-specific-person sense - and therefore shouldn't be here. - DavidWBrooks 20:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * So we is used in other fields, you're saying? (I just don't know: I'm in math.) Or are you merely saying that, if it is, then it shouldn't be here?

 * If the former, then someone should remove we from this list, and also edit We to be about academic fields in general, not just math(s).  —msh210 18:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's an alternate to passive constructions. ("This result is obtained" vs. "we obtained this result".) I know that this is done in scientific contexts. I use it in non-scientific papers all the time, but I don't know if that is just because of my science training or because it is actually used in non-science fields. I would guess that's a general academic writing technique. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 19:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "We obtained this result"? That's not what I referred to at We. That's actually the first-person (unless I'm misunderstanding): the author(s) obtained the result in question. The "we" I mean is a real third-person, and is used primarily in the present tense (though sometimes in the future, the present perfect, the subjunctive, and perhaps others): "by adding three and five we obtain eight", "if we were to mod out by the action of G, we would of course have a simply connected space".  —msh210 20:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I was thinking of the wrong variation. What it is really comparable to is the use of the indefinite pronoun "one", which is, indeed, a sort of generic third person. Your example could as easily be written "by adding three and five, one obtains eight". I don't know about standard practice, but I use it all the time in non-mathematical writing. "If we examine the facts, we find that..." -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah  ")]] 23:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Do we ( :-)  ) have a consensus? Do you all agree with Aranel ?   —msh210 14:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I have certainly encountered it in this usage in both technical and semi-popular scientific (even soft-science like psychology) works, so it's not mathematical enough (so to speak) for this article. - DavidWBrooks 19:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've removed 'we' here and edited We accordingly. —msh210 21:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone just added smooth; is this jargon? It's just a word found in math, like plus or group. No?  —msh210 14:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In general
I'm not sure I agree with all that is said. But in any case it might warrant an article. Charles Matthews 12:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * An "In general" article would have no potential for becoming anything more than a dictionary definition.As such, it'll be tagged (rightfully imho) with move to Wiktionary and then vfd, merged back into here, and deleted or replaced with a redirect link. So don't bother.  —msh210 03:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wrt
this is not really specifically mathematical, is it? — MFH: Talk 08:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. See WRT and Votes for deletion/WRT.  —msh210 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

 * well, currently this (math jargon) page says :

* wrt, with respect to

 * while wrt says:

* In mathematics, "With Respect To" ; see mathematical jargon.

 * and that's all (not very mathematical, neither useful, imho). But see my vote (at the end) of the voting list, with constructive suggestions.  — MFH: Talk 18:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Structural revision
I've given a new face to this page, since I found the old version to be sprawling, arbitrary, and rather ugly. I've simply divided the terms into categories and given a broad overview of each category. My next move will be to regularize the presentation of the page and add simple descriptions to each term. Finally, a few terms landed in "Miscellaneous" for a few reasons: LHS/RHS is seemingly none of the above categories, "transport of structure" is a term I've never heard and has no page to describe it, and "wrt" is hardly specific to mathematics. I think that the latter two ought to go, and if anyone could argue whether LHS/RHS belongs under Proof or Qualitative, or even Philosophical, it would be nice. Ryan Reich 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, I've given descriptions to everything but "Miscellaneous". Perhaps some of the dead links should be filled in, or removed if my description is thorough enough, and some unlinked terms may want their own pages. Conversely, I've tried to be as concise but authoritative as possible, so maybe a better route is to excise some of the specific pages. Pedantry is endless, and even if one can write a whole paragraph on the term, a single sentence might suffice. Ryan Reich 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia frowns on major edits to an article when there's an AFD discussion going on, since it confuses things, but your changes are so excellent that I don't think anybody will object. - DavidWBrooks 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Not that almost anyone is objecting to the article at large, anyway. Thanks. Ryan Reich 14:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Not sure what general opinion would be, but if you go by Guide to deletion, then it positively encourages editing an article during an AfD discussion, simply recommending that significant edits should be noted on the article's talk page (it does prohibit blanking, renaming or redirecting and strongly discourages merging during AfD). But we can certainly agree on the excellent quality of Ryan's edits - keep up the good work ! Gandalf61 14:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with having been on wikipedia too long - I learn things, then they go and get updated! I got yelled at for editing a then-VFD article ... but then again, that was 2003. - DavidWBrooks 16:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In general
Yesterday I made a few changes to the page, one of which was to split up "in general" so that, rather than appearing as a single, large entry in one category, it is now three entries in three categories. Depending on your perspective on this page this is either obviously right or obviously wrong. It makes it harder to come in looking for a specific phrase and learn everything about it in one place; on the other hand, my opinion is that people will come here having seen a phrase in a particular context and go straight to the correct place. They have to do that to find any of the terms, anyway, in the new layout.

I feel that splitting up this term is reasonable on those grounds, then. I also think that it's reasonable on the grounds that the nature of mathematical jargon is to overload common words, in this case "general", rather to make up new ones, so that the context is particularly important; thus, the same phrase should appear multiple times if it's used in multiple contexts. It also keeps the entries short; if it's not already clear from the way I did things at the beginning, I favor definitions which are as consise as possible: every term either has its own page or isn't worth having its own page because it's so simple. Finally, there are probably only one or two terms that have their hands in every pot like this, so it won't happen much.

Obviously I can do whatever I want and if people don't like it they can revert the changes; however, since this is a reasonably blatant change and also a little odd, I thought I'd explain it and ask for opinions. Ryan Reich 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I added an introductory phrase to warn of such multiple uses. Its application is less than clear on my screen, where it is separated from the actual sections by a wide area of white space. One obvious solution to this is to move the TOC up so that the italicized warning falls immediately above the first section.

 * I prefer my edit to Scaife's, but either is preferable to the default. Septentrionalis 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Ha! Wikipedia has a code to place the TOC directly, which is sort of hidden in the style guide.  I've put it where, I think, everyone really wanted it to be. Ryan Reich 17:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

some more
Somewhat related to the non-techniques, there are the invalid techniques, such as Googling such terms reveals many others. Btyner 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Proof by intimidation (As any idiot can see,...)
 * Proof by lack of imagination
 * Proof by example
 * Proof by picture

 * These all remind me of a joke poster I saw up around school a year or two ago, which had a whole list of these together with suggested methods. They're also self-explanatory and not specific to mathematics, really.  Some of them (especially "lack of imagination") could have a case made for being put in logical fallacies, though.  Actually, that one already is. Ryan Reich 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

frontier question
How about frontier question?—msh210 ℠ 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * How about it? I don't know the term but others might. Ryan Reich 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof non-techniques
I'm sorry, I don't see why this is more accurate. Can you even explain what this term (i.e. non-technique) means? The phrase furthermore strikes me as being excessively cute. .--CSTAR 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I also don't see why logical fallacies need to be mentioned here. --CSTAR 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * As for the fallacies, since someone thought it worth mentioning incorrectly it is at least worth mentioning correctly. And now that I think about it, there is a point to be made that these terms are not logical fallacies, but simply bad form.  As for the terminology, I was first of all trying to write concise, efficient headings and this is the best I could do to convey that these terms: a) appear in proofs; b) purport to contribute to the proof; and c) in fact detract from it, or at least fail to constitute proper technique.  Hence, they are non-techniques.  Writing "Non proof techniques" is ugly, "Non-proof techniques" is just wrong since it suggests that they are techniques to do this imaginary "non-proof" thing, and omitting the term "technique" fails to make the connection with the previous section, which I think is important.  Your suggestion, "Other phrases appearing in proofs", is far too general since it doesn't mention that these are phrases (or strategies) that do not belong in proofs.  And yes, I wanted it to be sort of cute. Ryan Reich 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * They do not belong in proofs? The fact is they are in proofs appearing in papers, books as well as in the lecture hall. To say they do not belong in proofs seems like a normative judgement about what constitutes a proof, which does not belong here, in my opinion. We are here, I believe not talking about proofs developed within some formal system. --CSTAR 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, they don't belong in formal proofs, but I chose the titles to reflect the reason I think underlies this, not the fact itself. The question is still about technique: what differentiates these terms from the ones in "Proof techniques" is that those are methods of rigorous, albeit shorthanded argument, and these are at best guidelines to such an argument.  "WLOG" is to "clearly" as a model ship is to the box of parts with a picture on the cover.  That's the only distinction I'm trying to make: even someone who puts "clearly" in a proof knows he is being terribly informal, however accepted the proof might be as a result of the fact that people are not, after all, machines, and have the imagination to build the ship.  I'm not trying to make a judgement about what a proof is with my title; I'm just separating terms which are prescriptive from those which are descriptive.  However, while I was writing this I thought of a solution.  Let's call "Proofs and proof techniques" instead "Proofs and rigorous proof techniques", and the current "Proof non-techniques" instead "Informal proof technqiues".  We might want to call "Informalities" something like "Descriptive informalities" to distinguish it from informalities of argument, in this case. Ryan Reich 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Though I think your suggestion is an improvement, I think there is still a problem here which results from the following: a mathematical proof (in a lecture, or paper or book) isn't necessarily a sequence of inferences (say in a sequent calculus) or even an approximation to such an object, but is itself a higher order object -- in part, a recipe for constructing such a proof object or even more abstractly an argument why such a proof object exists (which could legimately include appeals to other principles, assumptions about the interlocutor's experience, even pictures). That is why there is all this jargon. The view of proof that is suggested here is too narrow in my opinion and does not adequately convey the flavor of mathematical communication.--CSTAR 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Going by what you describe, it would seem there is no problem with calling them "informal proof techniques", since they are indeed tools for the informal proof-like communication that you mention. Or are you saying that we should just put all the proof-related jargon into a single subsection? Ryan Reich 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * No I'm satisfied with the distinction you make. I'm just pointing out that an informal proof should not be thought of as a bad proof.--CSTAR 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, okay. I'll make the changes, then. Ryan Reich 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

as desired
I've seen "as desired" used in place of QED in some papers recently - though, more informally. Anyone else, or does anyone think it's common enough to include? Tparameter (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * But is it jargon? Ryan Reich (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Seems to me that it is. It means, QED - but, that isn't what it means in regular use. It really only means QED in the context of a mathematical paper. Tparameter (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Several examples can be found in proofs in Wikipedia articles. In some cases you can only reconstruct that the proof author set out to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by their use of "as desired", as for the conclusion ν0 = 0 in the proof of the Radon–Nikodym theorem for finite measures. This use of "as desired" appears (according to my own, very original, research) to be an outgrowth of a more normal use in proofs of, specifically, the existence of some object having some property. If the proof proceeds by constructing an object that is to bear witness to the claimed existence, the proof will culminate in a demonstration that the constructed object indeed has the desired property – the raison d'être for its construction –, which then can be phrased as "..., and so OBJECT has PROPERTY, as desired". Other uses, like the one noticed above for ν0 = 0, appear to mimic the words without comprehension and are in some cases (see, e.g., Proof of Szemerédi–Trotter theorem (second formulation)) indistinguishable in meaning from Q.E.D. I tend to agree that this is jargon, as I can't think of (nor find by Googling) any analogous use of this phrase outside the context of proofs. --Lambiam 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * But I think it is used with its natural meaning here. My impression of "as desired" is that people use it when they are trying to write a chattier sort of proof, and this phrase, unlike the opaque Latin QED, blends with the ambient text.  The form is:
 * Theorem: 2 - 1 = 1
 * Proof: By the associative law, 2 - 1 = (1 + 1) - 1 = 1 + (1 - 1) = 1 + 0 = 1, as desired.
 * (obviously this depends on your definitions, etc. etc.) If I may generalize, it looks like "as desired" means "this expression is exactly the logical statement claimed in the theorem".  However, I have previously been wrong-by-consensus about just this point, so perhaps I'm just a mathematician rationalizing, in the name of more "accessible" writing, his profession's increasingly jargonistic use of a "natural" phrase to mean something that is actually quite specialized. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I only asked in the first place because it seems exactly like, "clearly", or "can easily be shown", which are used to mean, "clearly" and "can easily be shown", respectively. They're used to mean exactly what they say, but sort of in a mathematical context. This seems to be the case with "as desired".  I'd say they're analogous. This one, "as desired", is like the little box - it's kind of there to say, "I'm finished." Tparameter (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

quality of the text
I am not sure if that kind of comment is regarded as bad wikipedia-style (if so please feel free to delete it) but i just wanted to mention that for me the article was very insightful and valuable. It is not easy to find that kind of information in a standard introductionary text book about mathmatics although I think it would definitely belong there. Just wanted to thank the editors of this page for their work, highly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.179.123 (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Saying "thank you" is never bad style ! Glad you found the page useful. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

frequently
In the context of limits, this is shorthand for arbitrarily large and its relatives; as with eventually, the intended variant is implicit. As an example, one could say that "The function sin(x) is frequently zero", where "frequently" means "for arbitrarily large x". I strongly disagree. If someone tells me a function is frequently zero I take them to mean, based on formality of the context, either: (a) the function vanishes infinitely often but not everywhere; or (b) the function vanishes more than once. --129.79.237.217 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd ask for a citation, but I don't have one either :). However, your usage (a) is the same as mine on the real line, except for "not everywhere", which is sort of a vacuous implication case; your second is perhaps new, though I've never heard the term used so loosely.  However, I don't much hear people talking about real functions these days, either.  The example is not very good, though; the usage I had in mind was more like "sin(x) has no limit at infinity because it is frequently equal to both 1 and -1".  But there's no point in my arguing; I wrote the current text based on my experience, and you have presented a new and different experience, which you can append to make the explanation more comprehensive.  One day I'd like to find books which say these things. Ryan Reich (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Mathematicians frequently disagree amongst themselves about the meaning of "frequently". --Lambiam 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * True; however "As an example, one could say that 'The function sin(x) is frequently zero', where 'frequently' means 'for arbitrarily many x'." would be closer to my understanding of the phrase. yoyo (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this terminology is more common and standard for nets, as at. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Referencing
This article lists a bunch of references but the ones I checked don't seem to connect with anything in the article. Many of the phrases are well known to mathematicians and so the definitions do not strictly need to be sourced, but the ones that are not common knowledge should have inline cites. Even for the common knowledge terms, it would be desirable to have a source where it is used.--RDBury (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename proposal: Glossary
This page should probably renamed to remove "jargon" and add "glossary". Possibilities are Mathematical glossary or Glossary of Mathematics or Glossary of mathematical terms. Does anyone have any opinions? The standards of the Glossaries wikiproject should probably be used. Verbal chat  09:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you wish to remove "jargon"? It tells the reader that this is about mathematical jargon rather than vocabulary (as those terms are used in the lead of this article; I believe "jargon" is fairly standard with this meaning, but this use of "vocabulary" in opposition to it is not). Algebraist 09:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glossary is the standard naming convention for wikipedia (see the wikiproject linked at the top), and is a " list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms.". It should stay in it's current format, with each sublist being alphabetised. Jargon is more closely related to slang; or an intentionally obfuscated private language - which mathematical language is not (at least not intentionally). Thanks, Verbal chat

I believe this article is not intended to cover mathematics terminology in general, but rather "commonly used phrases which are part of the culture of mathematics, rather than of the subject". I don't think List of mathematics terminology would be a reasonable article in the first place, it would be far too broad in scope. But that is not this article in any case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what is this article, and how is it notable? Verbal chat  12:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my sense as well. —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't worked on this article before, but it seems clear to me what it's about, based on the lede. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Either it's a glossary, or notability of the concept needs to be established. Verbal chat  14:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "mathematical jargon" is a well-known phrase which gives the correct associations for the reader. This article only describes a subset of all mathematical terminology (in more detail " "commonly used phrases which are part of the culture of mathematics, rather than of the subject" as written above). I think it is evident that this article describes an important part of mathematics, and hence should be included in Wikipedia. Ulner (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please bring WP:RS to show that. Verbal chat  16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See The World of Mathematics, Volume 3, page 1994: Commentary on Double Infinite Rapport and Mathematical Jargon. Ulner (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See also . Ulner (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In particular, I think that what VerbalGray writes about jargon is wrong in this case "Jargon is more closely related to slang; or an intentionally obfuscated private language - which mathematical language is not (at least not intentionally).". Do you have some reliable source to refer to for this claim? Regards Ulner (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I still think this is a glossary and should be retitled accordingly, for the reasons above. If it is not renamed then it might require much improved sourcing, or to go to AfD. Verbal chat  20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it a glossary, but not for all mathematical terms but for a subset. Do you think it is enough to change the title or do you want to change any of the contents of the article? Ulner (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be renamed to glossary. The lead can make inclusion criteria clear. Verbal chat  20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The title is certainly problematic. An article called mathematical jargon should discuss mathematical jargon, not enumerate it.  It would be perhaps a sociolinguistics article.  That's clearly not what this article is. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed this article is a glossary, and should be renamed as such. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to the discussion clear - it is only the title which you think is incorrect and not any of the contents? Ulner (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone through the content in detail, but yes the title is the issue here. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a glossary, but it is not a glossary of mathematics, in general, but a glossary of mathematical jargon. So glossary of mathematics is clearly the wrong title. Is there any reason to believe that glossary of mathematical jargon would be more useful as a title than the current mathematical jargon? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a better title, but is mathematical "jargon" notable, and what is jargon and what is formalism? A basic glossary might be better and see how the article evolves. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, it would be a more accurate title. Readers are entitled to expect that an article called mathematical jargon should discuss mathematical jargon in general, probably giving examples, but the examples will not be the point.
 * That leaves open the question of whether the article should actually exist at all. I think it's a little iffy in terms of encyclopedic justification, but it's probably useful enough as a sort of "service article" that I'm disinclined to press the point.  But it needs a more descriptive name. --Trovatore (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glossary of mathematical jargon would be fine for me. I also think it is a very important article because it explains a core issue of mathematical exposition - for example that certain ordinary English words have a specific technical meaning. Ulner (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glossary of mathematical jargon seems fine to me, also. If only to better match the other pages in Category:Glossaries on mathematics.
 * Also, this page should be listed somewhere within Lists of mathematics topics (the listing of all math lists). -- Quiddity (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite blatantly obvious from this article's content that it's not a glossary of mathematical terms, and no one has attempted to make it into that. But it is a list of certain kinds of terms used by mathematicians. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) ...and if there were a glossary of mathematics, it would need a lower-case initial "m" as required by WP:MOS, not the capital letter that "Verbal" suggested. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping the existing name. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think the existing name is not an option, for the reasons I explained above. There are lots of defensible possible names, but not the current one. --Trovatore (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glossary of mathematical jargon seems perfectly fine, and addresses the objections raised here. I was thinking of replacing "jargon" by "slang" or "idiom" but in the end jargon seems the best option.  Tkuvho (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In form this is more an outline than a list or a glossary. Many of the terms link to their own articles, and you could make a case for notability for the rest but I'd rather see the material gathered into an article like this than split up in a dozen stubs. I think changing the name to "Glossary of ..." would reduce the scope of what can be included to a definition and the result would be less encyclopedic. I rather see the current name kept with material added to the entries without their own articles, so the entire article is more in keeping with summary style.--RDBury (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it keeps the current name, it must be entirely re-written so that it is an article about mathematical jargon in general, where examples are provided merely as examples, but where they are not the focus. The current name is unacceptable for the current content.  We have to have predictability about the focus of an article given its name; we owe that to the readers. --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Trovatore", could you list what you consider "defensible" names for this article? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glossary of mathematical jargon
 * List of mathematical jargon terms
 * List of informal mathematical terminology
 * Glossary of informal mathematical terminology
 * just off the top of my head. The important thing is that it needs to start with some phrase that makes clear that the article is a collection of terms and their explanations, not a discussion of such terminology at a general level. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Improved sourcing
I think parts of this article need better sourcing. Many terms are described without references. Ulner (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Degenerate
What about adding "degenerate" to the list? According to Oxford, "degenerate" is a mathematical term "relating to or denoting an example of a particular type of equation, curve, or other entity that is equivalent to a simpler type, often occurring when a variable or parameter is set to zero." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregherlihy (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Make it so 128.143.67.220 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Let
Although I understand what's meant by 'let', still, provided that I'm not native english, I wonder what does it actually stand for. Maybe it doesn't hold any extra information for a native speaker, I'm not sure. For me it does. For me it seems that something like 'let x be an integer' means something like 'let me speak about an integer variable and let me call/refer_to that particular integer variable as x'. But also it seems that it's not all about variables but is a very general notation instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.93.173 (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My dictionary says that when used in the imperative, "let" is used to make a request or proposal. It's used this way in math more than usual, but the meaning is not specific to math so I wouldn't call it jargon. It's possible to rephrase it in different ways according to context, but rarely in a way that is as concise. To take your example, "let x be an integer" could be either "assume that x is an integer" or "choose an integer and call it x".--RDBury (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sharp = tight?
I have added, based on experience in applied fields, that the word "tight" is often used with the same meaning as the word "sharp" in this excellent article. If someone with pure math experience can confirm that this is also the case in pure math (I am almost certain it is.. No field is an island, right?), please delete the "in applied fields" qualifier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.72.92.107 (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Not) enough open sets
I would very much like to see a clear definition/explanation for this phrase which is often thrown into the middle of a mathematical paper with little or no explanation. Keithbowden (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "vanish at x"
also sometimes used implying not only $$f(x) = 0$$, but also $$x\notin \mathrm{supp}(f)$$? I'm not sure, but by, you know, intuition... of course this wouldn't apply to infinity, though.--131.159.0.47 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"plurious"?
In Proof Techniques, index battle, in the phrase "for proofs involving object with plurious indices", what does "plurious" mean? It's not in Wiktionary, and there don't seem to be any relevant Google hits. - Adavies42 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hep, that wasn't English? If I remember correctly, the phrase was by me, and I'm no native speaker. In any case, it means or was assumed by me to mean "more than one" (multiple?), i. e., if you are familiar with Latex notation, expressions of the sort "x_{i_{j_{1}}}, x_{i_{j_{2}}}, ..., x_{i_{j_{n}}}".--131.159.0.47 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have replaced "object with plurious indices" by "objects with multiple indices", since, although I got the intended meaning, I doubt that the word "plurious" is currently English, if indeed it ever was; and we need either plural "objects" or singular "an object". (Did Proto-Germanic even have an article?!) yoyo (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Owl and Washing Machine
These entries are amusing, but are they actually in use? I'd say cite or remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.137.60 (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.133.174 (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"The"
Mathematicians often identify isomorphic structures implicitly, so they talk about "the field with two elements" or "the product of A and B" when really, any one of a variety of isomorphic (not identical) things will do. Arguably, this is not how we use "the" in everyday speech (one says "get some eggs from the store", not "get the eggs from the store). There is a whole page on nLab on this concept. Is it worth a mention? siddharthist (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Inasmuch as jargon is not just strange words, but also strange ways of using (or abusing) common words, the way we use "the" to denote a category of isomorphic objects certainly falls in the scope of this article. And we who use jargon are often unaware we do so, so it would be good to inform non-mathematicians that "the" has this special meaning in maths.  yoyo (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviations
In the article section Tetration, I noticed the abbreviation s.t., and wondered
 * 1) whether readers with only basic mathematics experience in school would understand it;
 * 2) whether I should replace it with the phrase "such that"; and
 * 3) whether an explanation of such abbreviations belongs somewhere on Wikipedia.

The last point is what brought me to this page today. Thoughts, please? yoyo (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

'Sharp' and 'essentially sharp' Could someone contribute by offering a description of what is meant by 'essentially sharp'
Could someone contribute by offering a description of what is meant by 'essentially sharp' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.85.81 (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Dubious
Contrary to the following statement in at by way of contradiction (BWOC): Also, starting a proof or a sub-proof with Assume... indicates that a proof by contradiction will be employed a proof starting with "Assume …" may continue with, e.g., "… without loss of generality …", or some other conventional phrase, without necessarily implying that the proof will assume a contradiction. Therefore, I propose to remove this sentence entirely, after a suitable pause (a few days) for protest - or (and preferably) for convincing evidence to the contrary. yoyo (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Admits"
Could someone please add an entry here for "admits", in usages like "X admits a Y-structure"? -- 86.147.207.61 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Seconded. Can anyone find a WP:RS for an accurate definition of the usage of "admits"? Searching just finds things like Reddit and Stack Exchange (for example, this). -- The Anome (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Kill"
I believe mathematicians sometimes use the phrase "kill" as an alternative to "mod out". Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? There is also the method of "killing homotopy groups" in algebraic topology, which might be related (I don't know though because I haven't gotten that far in algebraic topology). Joel Brennan (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Glossary of mathematical jargon