text:
Human action cycle

The human action cycle is a psychological model which describes the steps humans take when they interact with computer systems. The model was proposed by Donald A. Norman, a scholar in the discipline of human–computer interaction. The model can be used to help evaluate the efficiency of a user interface (UI). Understanding the cycle requires an understanding of the user interface design principles of affordance, feedback, visibility and tolerance.

The human action cycle describes how humans may form goals and then develop a series of steps required to achieve that goal, using the computer system. The user then executes the steps, thus the model includes both cognitive activities and physical activities.

The three stages of the human action cycle
The model is divided into three stages of seven steps in total, and is (approximately) as follows:

Goal formation stage

 * 1. Goal formation.

Execution stage

 * 2. Translation of goals into a set of unordered tasks required to achieve goals.
 * 3. Sequencing the tasks to create the action sequence.
 * 4. Executing the action sequence.

Evaluation stage

 * 5. Perceiving the results after having executed the action sequence.
 * 6. Interpreting the actual outcomes based on the expected outcomes.
 * 7. Comparing what happened with what the user wished to happen.

Use in evaluation of user interfaces
Typically, an evaluator of the user interface will pose a series of questions for each of the cycle's steps, an evaluation of the answer provides useful information about where the user interface may be inadequate or unsuitable. These questions might be:

 * Step 1, Forming a goal:
 * Do the users have sufficient domain and task knowledge and sufficient understanding of their work to form goals?
 * Does the UI help the users form these goals?
 * Step 2, Translating the goal into a task or a set of tasks:
 * Do the users have sufficient domain and task knowledge and sufficient understanding of their work to formulate the tasks?
 * Does the UI help the users formulate these tasks?
 * Step 3, Planning an action sequence:
 * Do the users have sufficient domain and task knowledge and sufficient understanding of their work to formulate the action sequence?
 * Does the UI help the users formulate the action sequence?
 * Step 4, Executing the action sequence:
 * Can typical users easily learn and use the UI?
 * Do the actions provided by the system match those required by the users?
 * Are the affordance and visibility of the actions good?
 * Do the users have an accurate mental model of the system?
 * Does the system support the development of an accurate mental model?
 * Step 5, Perceiving what happened:
 * Can the users perceive the system’s state?
 * Does the UI provide the users with sufficient feedback about the effects of their actions?
 * Step 6, Interpreting the outcome according to the users’ expectations:
 * Are the users able to make sense of the feedback?
 * Does the UI provide enough feedback for this interpretation?
 * Step 7, Evaluating what happened against what was intended:
 * Can the users compare what happened with what they were hoping to achieve?

Related terms

 * Gulf of evaluation exists when the user has trouble performing the evaluation stage of the human action cycle (steps 5 to 7).
 * Gulf of execution exists when the user has trouble performing the execution stage of the human action cycle (steps 2 to 4).
 * OODA Loop is an equivalent in military strategy.

title: Human action cycle


text: User talk:81.241.207.38

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

title: User talk:81.241.207.38


text:
Category talk:Grape varieties

I am inclined to keep local names as entries rather than redirects, as it lets you write about local issues under that entry, eg Spatburgunder can talk about how it is grown and used in Germany and Austria. This doesnt always work though, and maybe the detail should be moved to the "standard" name? Justinc 11:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

General conclusion seems to be put everything under the common name and have redirects, then split into sections if typically different by country - see pinot noir for example. Justinc 00:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization
As I understand it, the wine grape, Vitis vinifera, is divided up into varietals. That is Cabernet Sauvignon is technically, Vitis vinifera var. cabernet sauvignon, for example. In shortened usage, this produces merely Cabernet Sauvignon. However, some "varietals" are actually a varietal+descriptor, and the descriptor should not be capitalised. Notably, this means that it should be Pinot noir and Sauvignon blanc (not Noir and Blanc). It's a subtle issue, but perhaps worth correcting at some point.--Limegreen 03:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's Vitis vinifera 'Cabernet Sauvignon', not "Vitis vinifera var. Cabernet Sauvignon"... Technically, it's a cultivar, not a variety, which is a botanical/taxonomic term. In fact, I really think this category should be renamed "Grape cultivars". I do, however, agree completely with your statement about not capitalizing descriptors. Elakazal 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Cheers for the clarification. I'm not the botanical/wine geek, but work with someone who is, which probably explains my cultivar/variety mistake. No real hurry, but perhaps it is something that needs cleaning up over time.Limegreen 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Grape varieties


text:
Tengger

Tengger may refer to:

 * Kingdom of Tengger, a 15th-century Majapahit successor state, which gave its name to:
 * Tengger mountain range, East Java
 * Tenggerese people of Java, Indonesia
 * Tengger massif, a geographic feature in East Java
 * Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park located on the massif
 * Tengger Caldera located in the park, which includes Mount Bromo
 * Tengri (Mongolian: Тэнгэр, Tenger; Chinese: 腾格里, Mandarin:Ténggélǐ), a Turkic and Mongolian sky god, who gave his name to:
 * Otgontenger, a mountain in Mongolia
 * Tengger Desert, a desert in China
 * Tengger (singer), a pop singer from Inner Mongolia
 * Tengger Cavalry, a Mongolian folk-metal band

title: Tengger


text:
Talk:De Branges's theorem

[Untitled]
Now a theorem, so a conjecture category could mislead.

Charles Matthews 11:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both cases a0 and a1 are simply consequences of normalization. The case a2 is elementary (originally due to Bieberbach, see Hille's book on analytic functions, vol II, page 350). The first deep case is a3, and was settled by Loewner (then at Stanford, i believe). He sat on the result for a year, hoping that it could be extended. His method is in Ahlfors' little green book on geometric function theory (not the standard Ahlfors' text), and probably in Peter Duren's book and elsewhere. (See also http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BieberbachConjecture.html which has dates.) Schiffer had a big hand in a4 and a5 (the even coefficients are easier, iirc), and i heard him one time remark at a talk that somebody (whose name escapes me) said that the Bieberbach conjecture was perfect for a mathematician, because it was guaranteed employment (you'd do one coefficient at a time, because there would never be a general proof). I believe Schiffer's work used his method of interior variation, instead of Loewner's method of boundary variation. In fact, Loewner's method yields a PDE which in principle could be studied to derive all the coefficients, and that's what de Branges did, in the context of his own theory.

The remark above about Stanford is incorrect. Loewner proved the case n=3 of the Bieberbach conjecture while still in Europe, in 1923. He came to the US in the late thirties, and to Stanford in the fifties. Katzmik 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Most popular name?
So the article says it was formerly called the Bieberbach conjecture. I found that odd as I've always thought of it as Bieberbach conjecture, and heard it often referred that way. Do specialists really call it de Branges' theorem? A preliminary look through MathSciNet, seems to indicate that "the de Branges theorem" actually refers to a more general theorem that implies (among other important stuff) the Bieberbach conjecture. --C S (Talk) 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, My complex analysis text book (Arthur David Snider) calls the theorem "De Branges' Theorem". Maybe in the next edition it will be Borcia's theorem :-? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.23.62 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Demonstration of non-injectivity in the sufficiency counterexample f(z):=z+z^2
The article states "it is holomorphic on the unit disc and satisfies [...], but it is not injective since f '(-1/2) = 0." Surely this is not complete without also noting f '' (-1/2) > 0, correct? 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No, you're thinking of real valued functions defined on the real axis. A holomorphic function f defined in the complex plane is injective if and only if its derivative is non-zero. As soon as you have a point z0 with f '(z0) = 0, you know that f cannot be injective near z0. The intuitive reason is that such a function, near z0, has approximately the form g(z) = a + b(z-z0)n for some n≥2 (Taylor series), and the function g wraps the circle around z0 n-times around the point a, so is not injective. AxelBoldt 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

De Branges& → De Branges' theorem –
 * Correct grammar (there shouldn't be an 's' after the apostrophe). Ben (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See MOS:POSS – either is acceptable. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now opposing. As the MoS says, either is acceptable and (a la ENGVAR) we should not move articles between two equally acceptable titles. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry Jenks: that's wrong. MOS (at MOS:POSS) says this, very specifically:
 * Singular nouns
 * For the possessive of most singular nouns, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's wife, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy , Verreaux's eagle ). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake).
 * See what I have underlined. The matter is not optional. WP:ENGVAR (also at MOS) says this:
 * (The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section, below.)
 * So appeals to ENGVAR in favour of this RM miss the mark. ENGVAR directs us to POSS, which settles on "de Branges's theorem".
 * N oetica Tea? 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Perhaps I've misunderstood the guideline, but I thought that De Branges's theorem would fall under the second bullet point:
 * For the possessive of singular nouns ending with just one s (sounded as /s/ or /z/), there are three practices:
 * Add 's: James's house, Sam Hodges's son, Jan Hus's life, Vilnius's location, Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's works, the bus's old route.
 * Add just an apostrophe: James' house, Sam Hodges' son, Jan Hus' life, Vilnius' location, Brahms' music, Dickens' novels, Morris' works, the bus' old route.
 * Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is pronounced:
 * Add only an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name: Sam Hodges' son, Moses' leadership;
 * Add 's if the possessive has an additional at the end: Jan Hus's life, Morris's works.
 * Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.
 * My reading of that is that we can use either De Branges's theorem or De Branges' theorem, as long as we use one consistently (or have I misunderstood how De Branges is pronounced?). By the way, I was not trying to say this is an ENGVAR issue – rather, that it is similar to ENGVAR in that we pick one style and stick with it consistently throughout the article. Anyway, happy to be proven wrong, either way the article should be at the current title. Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What you excerpt is not the applicable section, Jenks. Our case does not have an "s" that is pronounced, "sounded as /s/ or /z/". It is as silent as each "s" in "Descartes". Anyway, good to see that you have now changed your mind. N oetica Tea? 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, but can you verify that statement? Having a quick google, I found this and this, which give the pronunciation as "deh-BRAHNZH" and "de-BRÄNZH" respectively. I must admit this is not my strong suit (I don't know IPA and so on), but doesn't that mean that the s is sounded as a /z/? Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure I can verify it, Jenks. The sounds /z/ (as in "zoo") and /ʒ/ (as in "pleasure" and "beige"; often represented informally as /zh/) are quite distinct in both English and French. The MOS guideline uses /s/ and /z/ with precision: /s/ is sometimes spelt with "c[e,i,y]", and the "s" of interest at the end of a word is often sounded as /z/ ("bees", "beds", "bugs", but not "bucks"). The distinctions have to be made accurately, even if some people are unaware of the IPA niceties, or unaware of the facts of their own speech (and we all have a foot in that camp).
 * I hope that helps. Take it to my talkpage if you want more (though I'm completely busy in the world just now). I agree with Dick that some things need fixing with MP:POSS (see below; I tried hard, a couple of years back). But those linguistic facts are accurate, I assure you.
 * N oetica Tea? 12:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Noetica. I now agree that it is the first section, not the second, of MOS:POSS that we should apply here. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose – nom needs to learn grammar before asserting wrongly. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not know that either was acceptable, but can you please explain why I was explicitly wrong? Ben (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess Dicklyon wanted to say that "de Branges" is a French name, therefore the "s" is not pronounced. Therefore the rule of MOS:POSS does not apply (it is only stated for nouns that end with an /s/ or /z/ sound). Sasha (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, Sasha. See the excerpt of MOS:POSS that I have posted, above. N oetica Tea? 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Whether it's French or pronounced or not, it is incorrect to assert that "there shouldn't be an 's' after the apostrophe". If it is in fact French and the s is silent, then that s is not even optional.  I've been through such exercises enough to be easily annoyed; sorry about that.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm reading the apostrophe article incorrectly, it disagrees with you. Admittedly I was taught to leave off the extra  's'  and I did not know that either was acceptable, which lead me to filing this RM. Given that either is acceptable acceptable I'm not really worried about which way this RM goes now, although my preference is still for de Branges' theorem because that's what I'm comfortable with. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Apostrophe is also ambiguous also allows both practices. Sasha (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous? How? It describes both practices, doesn't it? "The English possessive of French nouns ending in a silent s, x, or z is rendered differently by different authorities." And so on. N oetica Tea? 02:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he means that it doesn't support my assertion that the s is not optional. Perhaps I'll learn something here myself.  But not from an unsourced claim in a WP article; what do guides say about this?  This one supports what I always thought.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * too complicated for a non-native speaker like me :( Even Oxford and Longman do not quite agree on this. Sasha (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see either of them discussing this case. But advice does vary on the s after apostrophe.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But MOS:POSS makes a clear ruling, and it is exactly the resource to be using here. N oetica Tea? 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Neither Apostrophe nor WP:MOS is against addition of that "s", and WP:MOS is against omission of that "s" . As a major contributor to both those pages, I have researched the matter minutely. I have surveyed many style guides and related resources. My own preference is to add the "s", and this is strongly supported in the guides and in best-practice publishing. N oetica Tea? 02:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose (per the discussion above). Sasha (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Let me summarise what I understood from it:
 * de Branges has a silent s (like Descartes). Perhaps we should add the phonetic transcription ([də bʁɑ̃ŋʒ] or something like that) to the article.
 * WP:MOS prescribes de Branges's theorem in this case.
 * Apostrophe allows both de Branges' theorem and de Branges's theorem.
 * WP:ENGVAR links to both WP:MOS (in bullet 4) and Apostrophe (in bullet 5), so it is not of great help.
 * At least some of the detailed manuals (e.g. the one of Dicklyon) prescribe de Branges's theorem, but the manuals are not very consistent (in particular, it seems that the rules have become more flexible in the 1960's).
 * Summary: de Branges's theorem is at least as good as de Branges' theorem, therefore there is no reason to move it.
 * Sasha (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sasha, ENGVAR does not link to Apostrophe. It clearly excludes punctuation from its own scope, and defers to MOS:POSS (via MOS:PUNCT).
 * Summary (and I invite you to correct your own): Both forms are used in the literature, because this is a style matter par excellence; Wikipedia's own style (see WP:MOS) consistently and definitely calls for "de Branges's theorem". The ENGVAR component of WP:MOS has no bearing on the present case.
 * N oetica Tea? 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sasha, here is the complete text of WP:ENGVAR:
 * {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #aaffaa;" | Complete text of WP:ENGVAR
 * National varieties of English
 * National varieties of English
 * National varieties of English

The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other. These varieties (e.g. U.S. English, British English) differ in vocabulary (soccer vs. football), spelling (center vs. centre), and occasionally grammar (see Plurals, below). The following subsections describe how to determine the appropriate variety for an article. (The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section, below.)

Although Wikipedia favors no national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. The exceptions are:
 * Consistency within articles
 * quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see Allowable typographical changes, below);
 * proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);
 * titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and
 * explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

 * Strong national ties to a topic

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:
 * Great Fire of London (British English)
 * American Civil War (American English)
 * Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)
 * Australian Defence Force (Australian English)
 * Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian English)
 * Usain Bolt (Jamaican Standard English)

For articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote (especially if the writings are quoted). For example, the articles on J. R. R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings use British English with Oxford spelling.

This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Ownership of articles.

 * Retaining the existing variety

In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates rarely accomplish anything apart from wasting time and engendering controversy.

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another. Editors who alter an existing variety can be advised of this guideline via the placement of {{subst:uw-lang}} on their talk pages.

 * Opportunities for commonality

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.
 * Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties aeroplane (British English) and airplane (American English).
 * If one variant spelling appears in an article title, make a redirect page to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and in linking.
 * Terms that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion, for example,.
 * Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is meant).

Articles such as English plural and American and British English differences provide information on the differences between these major varieties of the language.

 * }
 * Please indulge me, Sasha. Show me, by underlining if you like, where this section of WP:MOS called WP:ENGVAR "links to both WP:MOS (in bullet 4) and Apostrophe (in bullet 5)". I'm not seeing it.
 * N oetica Tea? 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Support. This is properly a style issue rather than a Googling issue. But it seems that the style guides fail to clarify the matter. I get 280 post-1980 English-language Google Book results for "De Branges' theorem", 25 for "De Branges's theorem". Wolfram's MathWorld uses "de Branges' proof." Kauffner (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * note that some of the 280 results are for "the de Branges theorem" without a possessive apostrophe. But this is strange indeed. Sasha (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, if it's a style issue, and you want to appeal to style resources, why do you not go straight to WP:MOS? It calls for "de Branges's theorem". If you want that changed, go to WT:MOS and talk about it. This business of appealing to MOS when it suits one's own opinion, ignoring it in all other cases, is an abuse. N oetica Tea? 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You must know better than this. The MOS lists all the possibilities and doesn't recommend anything. Kauffner (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An absurdity. MOS is replete with recommendations. You must know nothing about MOS. I, on the other hand, am renowned as a MOS specialist (if I have any slight claim to fame at all). Read MOS, rather than simply appealing to it captiously when doing so appears to suit your pre-formed opinion. N oetica Tea? 05:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Noetica, the MOS does have a severe lack of guidance in MOS:POSS in the bullet "For the possessive of singular nouns ending with just one s (sounded as /s/ or /z/)". And one might think this case is applicable here, depending on how one thinks the guy's name is pronounced.  But the other bullet point does have a good strong recommendation, which seems to me is more applicable here.  It's well illustrated with words ending in /s/, which helps.  It would be nice if we could add some better recommendation to that other mess; we all recognize that authoritative opinions vary, but that doesn't mean we can't at least pick a style that's pretty broadly acceptable and recommend it.  In practice, I think the third option is the only one that's close to what most people do, and pretty broadly supported, though some guides get more specific, e.g. on monosyllabic vs otherwise.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

comment on previous discussion
Noetica is right, I am wrong, so future readers, please ignore my item #4. Sasha (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:De Branges's theorem


text:
Peremyshl

Peremyshl may refer to:
 * Peremyshl, Russia, a village in Kaluga Oblast, Russia
 * Peremyshl, Muscovy, a former town of Muscovy

title: Peremyshl


text:
User talk:Zelda~enwiki

Khayyam on Iram of the Pillars
There is a discussion on your reffrence to Khayyam, please follow it here. – Kaveh (talk)  06:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Komeda_(pop_band).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Komeda_(pop_band).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 08:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wizardman 14:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Dino Boy
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dino Boy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dino Boy is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dino Boy, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AST logotype.png
Thanks for uploading Image:AST logotype.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Krzysztof Komeda.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Krzysztof Komeda.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - AWeenieMan (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Absolute (record compilation)
I have nominated Absolute (record compilation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Absolute (record compilation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oo7565 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Siba
A tag has been placed on Siba requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Otis Jimmy  One  11:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Zelda. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Zelda~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of RJA Group

The article RJA Group has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Sandstein  07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Zelda~enwiki

Thank you for creating The Addams Family: Pugsley's Scavenger Hunt.

User:Emir of Wikipedia, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  JaJaWa | hello  07:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zelda~enwiki


text:
Interpersonal attraction

Interpersonal attraction, as a part of social psychology, is the study of the attraction between people which leads to the development of platonic or romantic relationships. It is distinct from perceptions such as physical attractiveness, and involves views of what is and what is not considered beautiful or attractive.

Within the study of social psychology, interpersonal attraction is related to how much one likes or dislikes another person. It can be viewed as a force acting between two people that tends to draw them together and to resist their separation. When measuring interpersonal attraction, one must refer to the qualities of the attracted and those of the attractor to achieve predictive accuracy. It is suggested that to determine attraction, both the personalities and the situation must be taken into account.

Measurement
In social psychology, interpersonal attraction is most-frequently measured using the Interpersonal Attraction Judgment Scale developed by Donn Byrne. It is a scale in which a subject rates another person on factors such as intelligence, knowledge of current events, morality, adjustment, likability, and desirability as a work partner. This scale seems to be directly related with other measures of social attraction such as social choice, feelings of desire for a date, sexual partner or spouse, voluntary physical proximity, frequency of eye contact, etc.

Kiesler and Goldberg analyzed a variety of response measures that were typically utilized as measures of attraction and extracted two factors: the first, characterized as primarily socioemotional, included variables such as liking, the desirability of the person's inclusion in social clubs and parties, seating choices, and lunching together. The second factor included variables such as voting for, admiration and respect for, and also seeking the opinion of the target. Another widely used measurement technique scales verbal responses expressed as subjective ratings or judgments of the person of interest.

Causes and effects
There are factors that lead to interpersonal attraction. Studies suggest that all factors involve social reinforcement. The most frequently studied include physical attractiveness, propinquity (frequency of interaction), familiarity, similarity, complementarity, reciprocal liking, and reinforcement. The impact of familiarity, for example, is shown in the way physical proximity and interaction enhances cohesiveness, a social concept that facilitates communication and positive attitude towards a particular individual on account of similarities or the ability to satisfy important goals. Similarity is believed to more likely lead to liking and attraction than differences. Numerous studies have focused on the role of physical attractiveness to personal attraction. One finding was that people tend to attribute positive qualities such as intelligence, competence, and warmth to individuals who have a pleasing physical appearance.

Physical attractiveness
Physical attractiveness is the perception of the physical traits of an individual human person as pleasing or beautiful. It can include various implications, such as sexual attractiveness, cuteness, similarity and physique.

Judgment of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture or society or time period, partly biological, and partly subjective and individual.

According to a study determining the golden ratio for facial beauty, the most attractive face is one with average distances between facial features, and an average length and width of the face itself. Facial attractiveness, or beauty, can also be determined by symmetry. If a face is asymmetrical, this can indicate unhealthy genetic information. Therefore, if a face is symmetrical (see facial symmetry), healthy genetic information is implied. People will judge potential mates based on the physical expression of the genetic health, which is their apparent attractiveness. This supports the good genes theory, which indicates that attractiveness is seen as a way to ensure that offspring will have the healthiest genes and therefore the best chance of survival. Certain traits that indicate good genes (such as clear skin or facial symmetry) are seen as desirable when choosing a partner.

Personality
Studies have reported mixed findings on whether or not similarity in personality traits between people in interpersonal relationships (romantic, friendship, etc.) is necessary or essential for relationship satisfaction. This has been due to different types of research methodologies used to reach conclusions. It is argued that the previous lack of evidence that congruence in personality traits between two people is an important predictor for relationship satisfaction has been due to individuals making judgements of each other at a salient level (local group) rather than a global group comparison (reference-group effect).

A 2014 study suggested that people who tend to portray positive personality traits such as kindness are typically seen as more attractive than people who portray negative personality traits.

Similarity attraction effect
The proverb "birds of a feather flock together" has been used to illustrate that similarity is a crucial determinant of interpersonal attraction. Studies about attraction indicate that people are strongly attracted to lookalikes in physical and social appearance. This similarity is in the broadest sense: similarity in bone-structure, characteristics, life goals and physical appearance. The more these points match, the happier, satisfied and prosperous people are in these relationships.

The lookalike effect plays the role of self-affirmation. A person typically enjoys receiving confirmation of aspects of his or her life, ideas, attitudes and personal characteristics, and people seem to look for an image of themselves to spend their life with. A basic principle of interpersonal attraction is the rule of similarity: similarity is attractive — an underlying principle that applies to both friendships and romantic relationships. The proportion of attitudes shared correlates well with the degree of interpersonal attraction. Cheerful people like to be around other cheerful people and negative people would rather be around other negative people. A 2004 study, based on indirect evidence, concluded that humans choose mates based partly on facial resemblance to themselves.

According to Morry's attraction-similarity model (2007), there is a lay belief that people with actual similarity produce initial attraction. The perceived similarity is either self-serving, as in a friendship, or relationship-serving, as in a romantic relationship. In a 1963 study, Theodore Newcomb pointed out that people tend to change perceived similarity to obtain balance in a relationship. Additionally, perceived but not actual similarity was found to predict interpersonal attraction during a face-to-face initial romantic encounter.

In a 1988 study, Lydon, Jamieson & Zanna suggest that interpersonal similarity and attraction are multidimensional constructs in which people are attracted to people similar to themselves in demographics, physical appearance, attitudes, interpersonal style, social and cultural background, personality, preferred interests and activities, and communication and social skills. Newcomb's earlier 1961 study on college-dorm roommates also suggested that individuals with shared backgrounds, academic achievements, attitudes, values, and political views typically became friends.

Physical appearance
The matching hypothesis proposed by sociologist Erving Goffman suggests that people are more likely to form long standing relationships with those who are equally matched in social attributes, like physical attractiveness. The study by researchers Walster and Walster supported the matching hypothesis by showing that partners who were similar in terms of physical attractiveness expressed the most liking for each other. Another study also found evidence that supported the matching hypothesis: photos of dating and engaged couples were rated in terms of attractiveness, and a definite tendency was found for couples of similar attractiveness to date or engage. Several studies support this evidence of similar facial attractiveness. Penton-Voak, Perrett and Peirce (1999) found that subjects rated the pictures with their own face morphed into it as more attractive. DeBruine (2002) demonstrated in her research how subjects entrusted more money to their opponents in a game play, when the opponents were presented as similar to them. Little, Burt & Perrett (2006) examined similarity in sight for married couples and found that the couples were assessed at the same age and level of attractiveness.

A speed-dating experiment done on graduate students from Columbia University showed that although physical attractiveness is preferred in a potential partner, men show a greater preference for it than women. However, more recent work suggests that sex differences in stated ideal partner-preferences for physical attractiveness disappear when examining actual preferences for real-life potential partners. For example, Eastwick and Finkel (2008) failed to find sex differences in the association between initial ratings of physical attractiveness and romantic interest in potential partners during a speed dating paradigm.

Quality of voice
In addition to physical looks, quality of voice has also been shown to enhance interpersonal attraction. Oguchi and Kikuchi (1997) had 25 female students from one university rank the level of vocal attraction, physical attraction, and overall interpersonal attraction of 4 male students from another university. Vocal and physical attractiveness had independent effects on overall interpersonal attraction. In a second part of the same study, these results were replicated in a larger sample of students for both genders (62 subjects, 20 males and 42 females with 16 target students, 8 males and 8 females). Similarly, Zuckerman, Miyake and Hodgins (1991) found that both vocal and physical attractiveness contributed significantly to observers' ratings of targets for general attractiveness. These results suggest that when people evaluate one's voice as attractive, they also tend to evaluate that person as physically attractive.

Attitudes
Based on cognitive consistency theories, difference in attitudes and interests can lead to dislike and avoidance whereas similarity in attitudes promotes social attraction. Miller (1972) pointed out that attitude similarity activates the perceived attractiveness and favorability information from each other, whereas dissimilarity would reduce the impact of these cues.

The studies by Jamieson, Lydon and Zanna (1987–88) showed that attitude similarity could predict how people evaluate their respect for each other, and also predict social and intellectual first impressions – the former by activity preference similarity and the latter by value-based attitude similarity. In intergroup comparisons, high attitude-similarity would lead to homogeneity among in-group members whereas low attitude-similarity would lead to diversity among in-group members, promoting social attraction and achieving high group performance in different tasks.

Although attitude similarity and attraction are linearly related, attraction may not contribute significantly to attitude change.

Other social and cultural aspects
Byrne, Clore and Worchel (1966) suggested that people with similar economic status are likely to be attracted to each other. Buss & Barnes (1986) also found that people prefer their romantic partners to be similar in certain demographic characteristics, including religious background, political orientation and socio-economic status.

Researchers have shown that interpersonal attraction was positively correlated to personality similarity. People are inclined to desire romantic partners who are similar to themselves on agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, emotional stability, openness to experience, and attachment style.

Activity similarity was especially predictive of liking judgments, which affects the judgments of attraction. According to the post-conversation measures of social attraction, tactical similarity was positively correlated with partner satisfaction and global competence ratings, but was uncorrelated with the opinion change and perceived persuasiveness measures.

When checking similar variables they were also seen as more similar on a number of personality characteristics. This study found that the length of the average relationship was related to perceptions of similarity; the couples who were together longer were seen as more equal. This effect can be attributed to the fact that when time passes by couples become more alike through shared experiences, or that couples that are alike stay together longer.

Similarity has effects on starting a relationship by initial attraction to know each other. It is shown that high attitude similarity resulted in a significant increase in initial attraction to the target person and high attitude dissimilarity resulted in a decrease of initial attraction. Similarity also promotes relationship commitment. Study on heterosexual dating couples found that similarity in intrinsic values of the couple was linked to relationship commitment and stability.

Social homogamy refers to "passive, indirect effects on spousal similarity". The result showed that age and education level are crucial in affecting the mate preference. Because people with similar age study and interact more in the same form of the school, propinquity effect (i.e., the tendency of people to meet and spend time with those who share the common characteristics) plays a significant impact in spousal similarity. Convergence refers to an increasing similarity with time. Although the previous research showed that there is a greater effect on attitude and value than on personality traits, however, it is found that initial assortment (i.e., similarity within couples at the beginning of marriage) rather than convergence, plays a crucial role in explaining spousal similarity.

Active assortment refers to direct effects on choosing someone similar to oneself in mating preferences. The data showed that there is a greater effect on political and religious attitudes than on personality traits. A follow-up issue on the reason of the finding was raised. The concepts of idiosyncratic (i.e. different individuals have different mate preferences) and consensual (i.e. a consensus of preference on some prospective mates to others) in mate preference. The data showed that mate preference on political and religious bases tend to be idiosyncratic, for example, a Catholic would be more likely to choose a mate who is also a Catholic, as opposed to a Buddhist. Such idiosyncratic preferences produce a high level of active assortment which plays a vital role in affecting spousal similarity. In summary, active assortment plays a large role, whereas convergence has little evidence on showing such effect.

Propinquity effect
The propinquity effect relies on the observation that: "The more we see and interact with a person, the more likely he or she is to become our friend or sexual partner." This effect is very similar to the mere exposure effect in that the more a person is exposed to a stimulus, the more the person likes it; however, there are exceptions. Familiarity can also occur without physical exposure. Recent studies show that relationships formed over the Internet resemble those developed face-to-face, in terms of perceived quality and depth.

Exposure effect
The exposure effect, also known as the familiarity principle, states that the more a person is exposed to something, the more they come to like it. This applies equally to both objects and people. A clear illustration is in a 1992 study: the researchers had four women of similar appearance attend a large college course over a semester such that each woman attended a different number of sessions (0, 5, 10, or 15). Students then rated the women for perceived familiarity, attractiveness and similarity at the end of the term. Results indicated a strong effect of exposure on attraction that was mediated by the effect of exposure on familiarity. However, exposure does not always increase attraction. For example, the social allergy effect can occur when a person grows increasingly annoyed by and hypersensitive to another's repeated behaviors instead of growing more fond of his or her idiosyncrasies over time.

Pheromones
Certain pheromones secreted by animals, including humans, can attract others, and this is viewed as being attracted to smell. Human sex pheromones may play a role in human attraction, although it is unclear how well humans can actually sense the pheromones of another.

Types of attraction
Split attraction model describes different types of attraction separating different aspects of experiences people may have. They can roughly be grouped into physical and non-physical. Physical being: sexual, sensual, aesthetic... Non-physical may include emotional, mental (intellectual), spiritual...

Sensual attraction is a type of physical attraction to another person involving all the senses, although usually the sense of touch is considered first of all. Sensual attraction is defined as the drive, desire to have non-sexual forms of touch such as sensual cuddling, kissing, holding hands, hugging, massage etc. with another person in particular and other sensual activities like experiencing their voice, odor, taste. Asensual (sometimes known in short as asen) is an identity on the asensual spectrum (asen-spec) defined by a lack of sensual attraction. For non-asensual also known as allosensual people, sensual attraction is involuntary, and possibly even occurs when someone does not know the other person (though one might not act on it). Asensual people do not have this innate desire to have sensual experiences with any specific person. Asensuality refers to the way sensual attraction is experienced, not to how it is acted upon. How asensual people feel about touching others and/or being touched by others and other sensual activities can vastly vary. They may feel disconnected from the idea of engaging in sensual activities or even be repulsed by the concept of sensuality. Terms like touch-averse/repulsed, touch-indifferent, touch-favorable, or touch-ambivalent can be used to describe some of these feelings. Some asensual people do engage in sensual activities involving other people. This could be for any reason, such as satisfying overall sensual drive not directed toward a particular person, meeting their sensory needs or those of a friend, partner/partners. They may also meet their sensory needs by using a weighted or heated blanket, cuddling with a stuffed animal or pet etc. Being asensual does not mean that one is unable to experience other types of attraction like sexual, aesthetic, emotional etc. including they may very much enjoy sexual activities. It is also important to remember that one can receive pleasure usually associated with a form of attraction without actually feeling that form of attraction. The term "asensual" can also be used as an umbrella term to describe someone on the asensual spectrum.

Some identities on the asensual spectrum are Asenflux, Greysensual (Grey Asen), Demisensual, Aegosensual, Cupiosensual, Homosensual etc.

Chemistry
In the context of relationships, chemistry is a simple emotion that two people get when they share a special connection. It is very early in one's relationship that they can intuitively work out whether they have positive or negative chemistry.

Some people describe chemistry in metaphorical terms, such as "like peanut butter and jelly", or "like a performance". It can be described in the terms of mutual feelings — "a connection, a bond or common feeling between two people", or as a chemical process — "[it] stimulates love or sexual attraction...brain chemicals are definitely involved". A common misconception is that chemistry is an unconscious decision, informed by a complex blend of criteria.

Some of the core components of chemistry are: "non-judgment, similarity, mystery, attraction, mutual trust, and effortless communication". Chemistry can be described as the combination of "love, lust, infatuation, and a desire to be involved intimately with someone".

Research suggests that "not everyone experiences chemistry", and that "chemistry occurred most often between people who are down-to-earth and sincere". This is because "if a person is comfortable with themselves, they are better able to express their true self to the world, which makes it easier to get to know them...even if perspectives on important matters differed." Sharing similarities is also deemed essential to chemistry as "feeling understood is essential to forming relational bonds."

There are various psychological, physical and emotional symptoms of having good chemistry with another person. It has been described as a "combination of basic psychological arousal combined with a feeling of pleasure". The nervous system gets aroused, causing one to get adrenaline in the form of "rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, and sensations of excitement that are often similar to sensations associated with danger". Other physical symptoms include "blood pressure go[ing] up a little, the skin...flush[ing], the face and ears...turn[ing] red and...[a] feeling of weakness in the knees". However, all these symptoms vary on an individual basis, and not all individuals may experience the same symptoms. One can feel a sense of obsession over the other person, longing for "the day [when they return] to that person". One can also uncontrollably smile whenever thinking about the other person.

There is some debate over whether one can artificially create chemistry if they are "not initially feeling it". While some people hold that it is something that you "can't learn and can't teach...[and you] either have...or you don't", others hold that chemistry is a process rather than a moment, "build[ing] up and adds up and eventually you get this kind of chemical bonding". Some people, while believing it is possible to artificially create chemistry, think that it is better to let chemistry hit them spontaneously.

In Western society, chemistry is generally considered the "igniter [and] catalyst for the relationship", i.e., without this chemistry, there can be no relationship. Having chemistry "can be the difference between a relationship being romantic or platonic". Chemistry "can cause people to act sexually impulsively or unwisely". It can also be the difference between someone remaining faithful in their relationship, and seeking one night stands and affairs.

Dating coach Evan Marc Katz suggests that "chemistry is one of the most misleading indicators of a future relationship. Chemistry predicts nothing but chemistry." This is because chemistry can make people blind to actual incompatibilities or warning signs. Psychologist Laurie Betito notes that arranged marriages actually do quite well in terms of relationship satisfaction, and this is because "a spark can build based on what you have in common. You can grow into love, but you grow out of lust." Neil Clark Warren argues that physical chemistry is important because "couples who don't share strong chemistry may have additional problems during the ups and downs of a life together." Like Betito, he suggests not ruling someone out on the first date due to lack of chemistry. "But", he adds, "if by the second or third date you don't feel a strong inclination to kiss the other person, be near him, or hold his hand, you're probably never going to feel it." Although this quote assumes the other person is male, the truth of the matter is that the other person may instead be female. April Masini likewise says that chemistry is a strong predictor of relationship success. She suggests that chemistry comes and goes, and it is important to actively cultivate it because it can help couples deal with future conflicts.

Complementarity theory
The model of complementarity explains whether "birds of a feather flock together" or "opposites attract."

Studies show that complementary interaction between two partners increases their attractiveness to each other. Complementary partners preferred closer interpersonal relationship. Couples who reported the highest level of loving and harmonious relationship were more dissimilar in dominance than couples who scored lower in relationship quality.

Mathes and Moore (1985) found that people were more attracted to peers approximating to their ideal self than to those who did not. Specifically, low self-esteem individuals appeared more likely to desire a complementary relationship than high self-esteem people. We are attracted to people who complement us because this allows us to maintain our preferred style of behavior, and interaction with someone who complements our own behavior likely confers a sense of self-validation and security.

Similarity or complementarity
Principles of similarity and complementarity seem to be contradictory on the surface. In fact, they agree on the dimension of warmth. Both principles state that friendly people would prefer friendly partners.

The importance of similarity and complementarity may depend on the stage of the relationship. Similarity seems to carry considerable weight in initial attraction, while complementarity assumes importance as the relationship develops over time. Markey (2007) found that people would be more satisfied with their relationship if their partners differed from them, at least in terms of dominance, as two dominant persons may experience conflicts while two submissive individuals may have frustration as neither take the initiative.

Perception and actual behavior might not be congruent with each other. There were cases that dominant people perceived their partners to be similarly dominant, yet to independent observers, the actual behavior of their partner was submissive, i.e. complementary to them. Why people perceive their romantic partners to be similar to them despite evidence of the contrary remains unclear.

Evolutionary theories
The evolutionary theory of human interpersonal attraction states that opposite-sex attraction most often occurs when someone has physical features indicating that he or she is very fertile. Considering that one primary purpose of conjugal/romantic relationships is reproduction, it would follow that people invest in partners who appear very fertile, increasing the chance of their genes being passed down to the next generation.

Evolutionary theory also suggests that people whose physical features suggest they are healthy are seen as more attractive. The theory suggests that a healthy mate is more likely to possess genetic traits related to health that would be passed on to offspring (known as indirect benefits), and also that a healthier mate may be able to provide better resources and parental investment than less healthy mates (known as direct benefits). People's tendency to consider people with facial symmetry more attractive than those with less symmetrical faces is one example. However, a test was conducted that found that perfectly symmetrical faces were less attractive than normal faces. According to this study, the exact ratio of symmetric to asymmetric facial features depicting the highest attraction is still undetermined.

It has also been suggested that people are attracted to faces similar to their own as these features serve as cues of kinship. This preference for facial-resemblance is thought to vary across contexts. For example, a study by DeBruine et al. (2008) found that individuals rated faces which had been manipulated to be similar to their own as having more prosocial attributes, but were less likely to find them sexually attractive. These results support "inclusive fitness theory", which predicts that organisms will help closely related kin over more distant relatives. Results further suggest inherent mate-selective mechanisms that consider costs of inbreeding to offspring health.

Increased female attraction to men in relationships
A 2009 study by Melissa Burkley and Jessica Parker found that 59% of women tested were interested in pursuing a relationship with an "ideal" single man (who was, unknown to the women, fictitious). When they believed the "ideal" man was already in a romantic relationship, 90% of the women were interested in a romantic relationship.

Breaking up
There are several reasons that a relationship, whether friendly or romantic, may come to an end (break up). One reason derives from the equity theory: if a person in the relationship feels that the personal costs of being in the relationship outweigh the rewards there is a strong chance that this person will end the relationship.

title: Interpersonal attraction