text:
Catspaw (Star Trek: The Original Series)

"Catspaw" is the seventh episode of the second season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek Written by Robert Bloch and directed by Joseph Pevney, it was first broadcast October 27, 1967.

The crew of the Enterprise encounter two aliens from another galaxy with magical-seeming powers. This episode was the first filmed to include series regular Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig), although it was broadcast after several other episodes with the character had already been aired; the airing was delayed to coincide with Halloween.

Plot
The USS Enterprise, under the command of Captain Kirk, orbits the apparently lifeless planet Pyris VII. Contact has been lost with the landing party, consisting of Chief Engineer Scott, Lt. Sulu, and Crewman Jackson. Jackson calls for transport back to the ship, but falls from the platform dead. His open mouth emits an eerie voice, telling Captain Kirk that Enterprise is cursed and must leave the planet immediately, or death will follow.

Kirk beams down with First Officer Spock and Chief Medical Officer Dr. McCoy to search for the missing crewmen, leaving Assistant Chief Engineer DeSalle in charge of Enterprise. The landing party comes upon three apparitions that appear as witches, who warn the landing team not to proceed any further. The team ignores the warnings and discovers what appears to be a medieval castle.

Entering the castle, the landing party comes upon a black cat wearing a diamond pendant. As they follow the cat, the floor collapses, and the fall knocks them unconscious. When they awaken, they find themselves held in a dungeon. Scott and Sulu soon appear, walking as if in a trance, and unlock their restraints.

Kirk and the others attempt to overpower them but suddenly find themselves in another part of the castle, with a robed man, Korob, and the black cat, whom he appears to consult for advice. Spock remarks that no life is known to exist on the planet, and Korob admits that he is not a native. The cat leaves the room, and Korob's beautiful colleague Sylvia enters, wearing a pendant identical to the cat's. As a demonstration of her power, by which she claims to have killed Jackson, Sylvia dangles a miniature model of Enterprise over a lit candle, after which the crew of the real Enterprise reports a rapid rise in hull temperature.

Kirk reluctantly surrenders and offers to cooperate. Korob then surrounds the model of the ship with a crystal prism, informing them that Enterprise has been encased in an impenetrable force field. Kirk and Spock are then led back to the dungeon.

After a while McCoy appears, in a trance, and leads Kirk back to Sylvia. Sylvia wants to experience human sensations, and appears in various feminine forms to stimulate Kirk's interest. Kirk plays along as he tries to get information. Sylvia tells Kirk that she and Korob are explorers from another galaxy, who wield their power through a device called a transmuter, which gives them control over matter. Sylvia then realizes Kirk is using her, and angrily sends him back to the dungeon. Korob comes to free Kirk and Spock, telling them that he has released their ship, and urges them to leave immediately, as he can no longer keep Sylvia under control. Sylvia, in the form of a giant cat, attacks him. Korob releases his scepter and Kirk picks it up, guessing it to be the transmuter.

Kirk tells Sylvia that he has the transmuter. He destroys it when she threatens him with a phaser. The castle disappears and Sulu, Scotty, and McCoy return to normal. Looking down, Kirk sees two tiny blue and yellow creatures, apparently Korob's and Sylvia's true forms. Unable to survive without the transmuter, the two creatures die and disintegrate.

Production
Bloch wrote this episode, basing it on a short story of his, "Broomstick Ride" (1957) and also wrote the Star Trek episode, "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" Both mention the "Old Ones". The character of Asst. Chief Engineer DeSalle previously appeared in the episodes, "The Squire of Gothos" and "This Side of Paradise" wearing a gold command shirt.

The cloak worn by Gilligan in "Lovey's Secret Admirer" (aired January 23, 1967) was also worn by Korob in "Catspaw" (October 27, 1967).

Critical response
In 2017, H&I included "Catspaw" in a list of "eerie, disturbing and downright scary" episodes of the series. The list noted that the episode was written by Robert Bloch, writer of the famous psychological thriller Psycho.

In 2020, Den of Geek ranked "Catspaw" as the 28th scariest episode of all Star Trek franchise television episodes, including later television series.

In 2021, ScreenRant ranked "Catspaw" the 10th scariest episode of all Star Trek franchise television episodes, including later series.

Release
Catspaw was released on VHS on April 15, 1994, by CBS Paramount International Television.


text:
Compound Poisson process

A compound Poisson process is a continuous-time stochastic process with jumps. The jumps arrive randomly according to a Poisson process and the size of the jumps is also random, with a specified probability distribution. To be precise, a compound Poisson process, parameterised by a rate $$\lambda > 0$$ and jump size distribution G, is a process $$\{\,Y(t) : t \geq 0 \,\}$$ given by

 * $$Y(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} D_i$$

where, $$ \{\,N(t) : t \geq 0\,\}$$ is the counting variable of a Poisson process with rate $$\lambda$$, and $$ \{\,D_i : i \geq 1\,\}$$ are independent and identically distributed random variables, with distribution function G, which are also independent of $$ \{\,N(t) : t \geq 0\,\}.\,$$

When $$ D_i $$ are non-negative integer-valued random variables, then this compound Poisson process is known as a stuttering Poisson process.

Properties of the compound Poisson process
The expected value of a compound Poisson process can be calculated using a result known as Wald's equation as:

 * $$\operatorname E(Y(t)) = \operatorname E(D_1 + \cdots + D_{N(t)}) = \operatorname E(N(t))\operatorname E(D_1) = \operatorname  E(N(t)) \operatorname E(D) = \lambda t \operatorname  E(D).$$

Making similar use of the law of total variance, the variance can be calculated as:

\begin{align} \operatorname{var}(Y(t)) &= \operatorname E(\operatorname{var}(Y(t)\mid N(t))) + \operatorname{var}(\operatorname E(Y(t)\mid N(t))) \\[5pt] &= \operatorname E(N(t)\operatorname{var}(D)) + \operatorname{var}(N(t) \operatorname E(D)) \\[5pt] &= \operatorname{var}(D) \operatorname E(N(t)) + \operatorname E(D)^2 \operatorname{var}(N(t)) \\[5pt] &= \operatorname{var}(D)\lambda t + \operatorname E(D)^2\lambda t \\[5pt] &= \lambda t(\operatorname{var}(D) + \operatorname E(D)^2) \\[5pt] &= \lambda t \operatorname E(D^2). \end{align} $$

Lastly, using the law of total probability, the moment generating function can be given as follows:
 * $$\Pr(Y(t)=i) = \sum_n \Pr(Y(t)=i\mid N(t)=n)\Pr(N(t)=n) $$

\begin{align} \operatorname E(e^{sY}) & = \sum_i e^{si} \Pr(Y(t)=i) \\[5pt] & = \sum_i e^{si} \sum_{n} \Pr(Y(t)=i\mid N(t)=n)\Pr(N(t)=n) \\[5pt] & = \sum_n \Pr(N(t)=n) \sum_i e^{si} \Pr(Y(t)=i\mid N(t)=n) \\[5pt] & = \sum_n \Pr(N(t)=n) \sum_i e^{si}\Pr(D_1 + D_2 + \cdots + D_n=i) \\[5pt] & = \sum_n \Pr(N(t)=n) M_D(s)^n \\[5pt] & = \sum_n \Pr(N(t)=n) e^{n\ln(M_D(s))} \\[5pt] & = M_{N(t)}(\ln(M_D(s))) \\[5pt] & = e^{\lambda t \left( M_D(s) - 1 \right) }. \end{align} $$

Exponentiation of measures
Let N, Y, and D be as above. Let μ be the probability measure according to which D is distributed, i.e.

 * $$\mu(A) = \Pr(D \in A).\,$$

Let δ0 be the trivial probability distribution putting all of the mass at zero. Then the probability distribution of Y(t) is the measure

 * $$\exp(\lambda t(\mu - \delta_0))\,$$

where the exponential exp(ν) of a finite measure ν on Borel subsets of the real line is defined by

 * $$\exp(\nu) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty {\nu^{*n} \over n!}$$

and

 * $$ \nu^{*n} = \underbrace{\nu * \cdots *\nu}_{n \text{ factors}}$$

is a convolution of measures, and the series converges weakly.

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

title: Compound Poisson process


text:
User:Guybrushnd

There is art that people don't recognise. There is a history that is only noticed by it's members. There is technology to which the mainstream will remain forever ignorant.

My main interest / hobby / career / life's work is real-time computer graphic art. Not prerendered animations, there's no risk to them, and you never get to see them without video compression anyway. Not video games, they're just wastes of time. There have been a few attempts to chronicle the history of 'demos', but most people don't understand them, and think that they're self-promotion, just one website, a DVD for sale, or some company selling .the .product. If a web-based, 'free' encyclopedia wishes to retain any notion of credibility, it must allow an internet-based, free technological-artistic movement to chronicle it's history.

-Guybrush of the Northern Dragons / Tim Cowley, of the DMD, at Microsoft.

title: User:Guybrushnd


text:
Talk:Relativistic jet

Copyright infringement
Image:Galaxies_AGN_Inner-Structure-of.jpg

Does not have permission of authors of original scientific article to be published here.

Please delete.

Mr Brak 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You originally uploaded this image and as creator released it (licensed it) under the GFDL. Are you now wishing to retract this? -- Curps 04:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was originally published in a paper with numerous authors. I don't have permission of the other authors to use it here. I didn't realize this was an issue when I originally uploaded it.

Mr Brak 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

At the moment this article is really just a diagram. I am planning on adding more text and explanations of this diagram soon.

Layman copy needed
"Collimates" isn't a common word. It wasn't in my vocabulary, at least. Could we have a better explanation for the layman? What exactly makes matter shoot out in these jets, in language I will understand? —RadRafe 13:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Plasma physics - electrical universe - cosmology - doesn't believe in black holes and has different explanations for the jets. They start with wondering why a black hole which is supposed to be sucking everything in sight is expelling massive jets of plasma and radiation. I am just starting to study this so I am not competent to explain why they think all of the active nuclei galaxies can be explained as electrical effects - powerful electrical structures explain the features without the need of mythical black holes which only have validity in certain mathematical computations. This appears to me to be a more interesting avenue of exploration.

 * What? Who says black holes are mythical?  By our understanding of the fundamental forces, whenever the gravity that a very massive object exerts on itself ceases to be countered by internal pressure, it is compressed to something smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius.  That's a black hole.  For black holes to not exist, there must be another pressure effect which kicks in after thermal pressure, radiation pressure,  and electron and neutron degeneracy pressure have all failed to stabilise a collapsing object.  We don't know of any mechanism that would produce such a pressure and save the thing.  Black holes must exist. —RadRafe | t 10:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * plasma doesn't say anything directly about black holes. That's more the province of general relativity - which firmly predicts such objects.  (So does Newtonian gravity, but it gives a different mass threshold.)  Look near the end of the black hole article for an account of models of supermassive objects without singularities.  The mainstream physics community supports black holes.  (Actually, to be more precise, the theories of gravity don't say that black holes exist, they only say that they're possible and that if they exist they have certain properties observed as common to galactic nuclei and other dense astrophysical objects.  Plasma physics might say something about the ways in which a dense star could collapse to form a black hole, but there are a lot of unknowns there.)
 * Even though nothing can escape from inside a black hole's event horizon, several sorts of radiation are emitted from just outside it. These include both the relativistic jets and Hawking radiation.  The former have been observed, while the latter is still theoretical.  (But is considered likely by mainstream physicists since the math looks good and the necessary observations are beyond current technology.)
 * The gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole might not be real, but that's not a big deal, since general relativity isn't expected to hold at lengths shorter than around the Planck length. (And singularity implies infinitesimal extent.  I.e., some variant on general relativity might allow the event horizon without the singularity.  Physicists find this idea comforting.
 * As for the definition of collimation: It means that the cone-shaped jets have a very narrow opening angle.  The width is something like 2% of the height.  The jets are very thin and long (for astronomical scales).SMesser 13:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Needed
I seriously doubt weather there should be a "Relativistic Jet". IMHO it should eighter be merged with Jet, or renamed to Jet (astronomy).

Unsolved jet problem demystified
I replaced the unsolved problems in physics paragraph regarding relativistic jets with Williams' recognized applications of Penrose's black hole energy-momentum extraction mechanism. Tcisco 03:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this as it is not generally accepted in the scientific community. The references you cited are poorly cited compared to other papers. Much debate about the nature and composition of jets continues. I have also removed the press release from Swift. Filling Wikipedia with press releases and peoples' pet theories is not good. Xioxox 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Williams’ explanation for relativistic jets is verifiable and has been published by reliable third-party journals: Physical Review D and The Astrophysical Journal. Both these peer-reviewed scientific journals have a reputation of accuracy. Therefore, I have re-entered the text discarded by Xioxox, which was originally edited by Tcisco. I have included additional references: one to MHD models, the other to reliable black hole jet model supporting the explanation of Dr. Williams. Her explanation was re-entered so that the scientific community and society at large may have unbiased information available to them. Dr. Williams’ explanation is internationally known and accepted by many prominent scientists in the field of general relativity and relativistic astrophysics, including Sir Roger Penrose.

I am an expert in the field, and I know for a fact that Dr. Williams’ contributions over the past ten years have tremendously increased our understanding of rotating black hole physics and of the energy-momentum, relativistic-jet extraction process. Dr. Williams’ research is sound. In my opinion, there is no one in this somewhat narrow field of study more worthy than her to have their explanation mentioned in Wikipedia.Djily 01:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You may claim to be an expert, but you need to back up the choice of this text with heavily cited papers. Can you cite a review article where this work is claimed to have solved any kind of problem? These papers have very little citation. I've been to dozens of talks by astrophysicists, work in a similar area to jets, and most claim that the origin of jets is an unsolved problem. I suggest if you wish to mention this theory, please add a section to the bottom and include it in a list of possible theories. You should not try to advance careers of individuals or theories by including comments in Wikipedia articles. I could probably produce a whole list of Jet papers from ApJ and so on - dozens are published every year. Xioxox —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at ADS, I can only find a maximum of 8 citations for her most cited work on this subject. This is very small compared to most papers or authors in this field. Can you provide a paper with at least 50 citations on this subject? I can find other papers on ADS with hundreds of citations on jet formation mechanisms. Xioxox 10:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Niedzwiecki 2005 (MNRAS, 2005, 356, 913, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409710), states that Williams work is similar to a different study, and the conditions in her model may be unphysical and flawed. I suggest all references to different models be removed unless a review of all the different models is added to the page. It also appears that the article Gravitomagnetism may have too many references to her work. Xioxox 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also found this interesting article, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0404029 where Dr Williams complains that her work is overlooked by her peers, which appears to claim it is due to her race. The paper shows her work is very controversial and not accepted by other scientists. Xioxox 09:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the article (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0404029), it appears that Dr. Williams is not complaining about her peers overlooking her work, but that some particular peers are using her work, specifically black hole physics derived in Williams (1995, Physical Review D, 51, 5387), and are not citing her manuscript as the originator. In Williams (1995) she gives the first detailed analytical 4-dimensional general relativistic spacetime description of particle orbits or trajectories about Kerr (rotating) black holes.Djily 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the reference Niedzwiecki 2005 (MNRAS, 2005, 356, 913, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409710) cited by Xioxox is there a mentioning that Dr. Williams’ explanation is unphysical or flawed. In fact, the results of this paper support the validity of Dr. Williams’ model.Djily 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - the astro-ph article is not the same as the published one. Try this http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356..913N See page 923, section 5.1. Xioxox 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking carefully at Williams’ (1995), 41 page, ''Phys. Rev. D'' publication, it appears that she laid the groundwork needed to do efficient Penrose-Compton scattering processes (as well as other Penrose processes considered by her), for other authors to follow and extend as did Niedzwiecki 2005 (MNRAS, 2005, 356, 913, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409710). Her scattering processes considered radii between r = 1.09 - 1.2, in units used by Niedzwiecki, whereas he considered radii ≥ 1.4. Both Williams and Niedzwiecki considered equatorial target electrons; the hard X-ray spectra produced by these authors were comparable and consistent with one another [see Table I, p. 5413 of Williams (1995)]. Williams considered, in addition, nonequatorially confined electron targets that have spherical-like orbits that pass through the equatorial plane repeatedly, as described by Carter (Phys. Rev. , 1968, 174, 1559). Williams derived analytical expressions for conserved energies and angular momenta of trajectories of such orbits, which include the orbits above the equatorial plane considered by Niedzwiecki. At r < 1.2, of course these orbits are unstable, but they are marginally bound. Unstable in this sense of general relativity means that for a small perturbation a test particle will either escape to infinity or fall into the black hole—just the condition it appears needed for effective Penrose processes.

These nonequatorially confined orbits are neither “unphysical nor flawed’’; neither was this terminology ever used by Niedzwiecki in reference to Williams’ work. In appears that Niedzwiecki’s statement that these nonequatorial orbits “obviously unbound” was presumed and not a fact. Further, it appears that Williams assumed that these nonequatorial orbits were from a corona surrounding the accretion disk just as Niedzwiecki assumed; the only difference is that Williams considered these orbits as they passed through the equatorial plane at r ≤ 1.2 and Niedzwiecki considered them at an angle above the equatorial plane at r ≥ 1.4, while assuming the corona to be corotating with the disk so that the equatorial orbital energies could be used for the target electrons. As for the statement made by Niedzwieck concerning Williams not considering the scattering probability, it appears that she does, by assuming the electron target energies cut off at about 12 MeV, allowing photons to escape with maximum energies of order 12 MeV.

In summary, it appears that there is nothing unphysical or flawed about Dr. Williams’ explanation. I sincerely hope we can clear up this matter soon with all fairness being extended to Dr. Williams, giving credit where it is due.Djily 02:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. This is ridiculous. Williams has virtually no citations for her work on this subject. Even she says "But, whatever the case maybe, the supporters of the Blandford-Znajek (BZ) model of today, Blandford, in particular, and his collaborators, continue to promote this model, even with the aged-old problem of converting from electromagnetic energy to relativistic particle energy, not to mention the general relativistic problems (see Williams 1999b and references therein). Now, I find nothing wrong with their continued support of BZ-type models. It is only when these supporters publish researched work from my paper (Williams 1995) in which I describe in details gravitational physics near the event horizon; yet, they do not appropriately reference my manuscript: this is where the problem lies." http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0404029 Here she admits there are other competing theories for relativistic jet formation. Why does the article imply she has solved the problem?

And also "It seems that they are suppressing my successful, competing model—that can extract energy from a black hole—by masking my model, while using black hole physics originated from my manuscript, attempting to make BZ-type models work. Such behavior, of not references my work, has resulted in other authors taking credit for black hole physics devised by me." (same reference) Here she says that few other scientists in her field cite her work (as is obvious from ADS). Therefore few other scientists in her field think her work is important.

Her model is not worthy for mentioning (as it is not recognised) unless you want to do a proper review of all the competing models. In addition the non neutral point of view statements need to removed from the text (you shouldn't be making all those biased citations). There are many scientists working on MHD theories. For example, McKinney (2006), who does MHD simulations has 44 citations - many more times than Williams work. Xioxox 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I've editing the text to make the point of view neutral. It read like an attack on MHD models before, which we both know are much more commonly used. I've included Penrose and Blandford-Znajek processes. I've tried to avoid going into too much detail here. Perhaps you could put the pros and cons of the Penrose and BZ mechanisms in their own pages if you want to. I think it now meets the Wikipedia NPOV standards now. Xioxox 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we have reached a compromise. Your edit yields fairness to all. I have included in the list of references Williams (2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 952-963. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404135). This is the important paper that ties her previous work of producing relativistic particles observed to be present in the jets (Williams 1995, Physical Review D, 51, 5387) to detailed creation /collimation of the jets. That is, these manuscripts form a complete package: the information presented in both is equally important in describing the relativistic jets produced by the Penrose mechanism.

Finally, one cannot but wonder, “What if Williams’ claim that some competitor peers in the past did not appropriately cite her work, leading to credit being given to others, is accurate?”  This might provide a reason today for her lack of citations, while her competitors have many.Djily 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Electrical neutrality
The article writes about jets, that they "have long been known to be electrically neutral". What is this inferring?
 * Is it suggesting that because they contain equal numbers of proton and electrons, they are electrically neutral overall?
 * Or is it saying that although plasmas are quasi-neutral, jets are actually completely neutral?
 * That there are no electric fields or electric currents present... even though a current flowing through a wire is electrically neutral?
 * That there is no charge separation, even though equal charge separation would still imply electrical neutrality overall? --211.178.81.118 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Jet
Relativistic jets are commonly observed in radio-loud systems.Now my question is that how do you know the origin of emission of relativistic jet is lying at the centre of the system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.45.64 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking this question because you know a lot about this subject? High resolution radio analysis shows the jets originate from milliarcsec form the point-like compact objects, the supermassive black hole in the centres of galaxies. I'll revert this unless you want to refer to something which disagrees with this. Xioxox 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys taken a look at the theory of dipole gravity? My name is Eue Jin Jeong the author of the theory of dipole gravity. If neutron stars can produce jets, the plasma and magnetic field caused jet theory must be false. Look how simply the theory of dipole gravity can explain jets as well as the dark matter problems. Just visit the [dipole gravity web blog] --Tachyonics (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason Jeong’s hypothesis does not belong here, besides the questionable physics I address below, is that the so-called theory of Jeong is not considered as one of the competing models. Both the Blandford-Znajek and Penrose mechanisms and subsequent tests of these models have been published in numerous peer review refereed journals. In addition, these models have been cited by numerous authors working in the field of relativistic jets. I cannot find one place where Jeong’s paper has been cited by another author, except once in another "dead-end paper which exists nowhere but the arXiv" (see Wikipedia website given below).

After reading details of Jeong’s model claiming to produce relativistic jets, I conclude that his model is confusing and misleading. Jeong claims that he is using general relativity, and uses the term “gravito magnetism” as being another name for his so-called dipole gravity. This is very misleading since gravitomagnetism, as related to the Lense-Thirring effect  (or frame dragging), is a well known general relativistic phenomenon, with physical properties very different from what Jeong calls gravito magnetism. It is clear that Jeong is erroneously labeling components of his model with well known terms and conclusions in general relativity (GR) to make his model appear to be consistent with GR, when, in fact, it is not.

If Jeong wants his model to be accepted by the astrophysical community he needs to publish his work in refereed journals who have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, wherein his work can be reviewed by experts in the field. It appears that Jeong has not done this. Only through publications and citations will his work be considered as one of the “competing theories”; therefore, I have once again removed his model from this category. The Wikipedia is to inform the community, not to confuse them. It is not a place to have to argue the validity of a model or theory (peer review scientific journals are the place for that); neither is it the place to publish one's personal beliefs.

Moreover, please refer to Jeong’s contributions at (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) to see that Jeong’s model of  “dipole antigravity,” which  he now refers to as “dipole gravity,” was deemed unfit for Wikipedia, citing serious flaws in his paper. Thus, based on all that has been said above, I now consider this matter closed. Djily (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The dipole gravity paper has been published in the refereed journal Physica Scripta in 1999(http://www.tachyonics.com/physica.pdf). It is the Swedish journal published by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences that decides who gets the Nobel prize each year. The reason the paper has not been cited is because people do not understand what it is. I don't see why it is confusing if you take a look at it carefully. It would be the simplest theory of the relativistic jets known today. Basically, it is the theory of the additional long range gravity next to Newtonian gravity derived from the linearized theory of general relativity. Think about the possibility that you have been missing the additional fundamental long range gravity force.

If you take a look at the length of the jets from the both poles of the rotating black holes, you can tell immediately why the plasma and the magnetic field can not be the cause of it. The observed length of the both jets are basically the same. If the magnetic field and plasma are responsible for the jets, one side has to be shorter by at least a factor of 1836. This is the most favorable condition because it assumes that the jet materials are totally made of the hydrogen atoms. But if those jet are made of the materials heavier than the hydrogen atoms, the short side of the jets will be totally invisible because it will be shorter by the factor of 3672, 5508 etc.

This is a simple consequence of Newtonian dynamics, ie, if you have the same force in the system, the heavier the object, the lesser distance it travels inversely proportional to the mass of the projectile. And the plasma and the magnetic field can not shoot the both type (positive and negative) of particles in the same direction. Of course, this is a simple consequence of the Maxwell's equation. If you assume, by some kind of miracle, that the same number of positrons can be created at the core of the accretion disc, you may be able to explain the symmetric jets, but what is the probability for such a large number of poisitrons can be created equally as the number of electrons?

I'm tired of this silly game of deletion and undo nonsense. No one in the astrophysics community considers the problem of the relativistic jets has been completely solved.

It is not a bad idea letting people know of the unconventional theory but which may be the real solution to the relativistic jet problem. Because it also offers an excellent solution to the dark matter problems as well. To my best knowledge, no one has claimed a theory that can explain both the jets and the dark matter problem at the same time. Tachyonics (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Name?
The article doesn't explain the name "relativistic jet", or what "relativistic" means. I think relativistic means "moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light" and therefore a relativistic jet is a jet of material moving at relativistic speeds. Is that right? If so could someone who actually knows about these things add a sentence to that effect to the article? Captain Chaos (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. "Relativistic" speeds refer to speeds at which the effects of Relativity (as opposed to classical/Newtonian mechanics) become significant. 72.187.145.13 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lorentz factor
According to this, a "Lorentz factor of ~100" would be faster than the speed of light. Should this article say "Lorentz factors of ~22.366" or something else, such as "speeds of ~.99995c" (and then I'd love to see a citation for that)? 72.164.134.11 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Should be merged with Polar Jet
A relativistic jet is just a very big, very fast polar jet. I can't see any rationale at all for them having separate articles. Someone has even put "Not to be confused with relativistic jet, a polar jet emitted at relativistic speed" at the start of the polar jet article. On the contrary, they should be potentially confusable (as long as you realise that all relativistic jets are polar but not all polar jets are relativistic). You could even make a case for merging with bipolar outflow, though that has other differences (non-ionised gas rather than plasma, non-collimated etc). Silent Key (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Relativistic jet


text:
User talk:SimonP/Archive 1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Help or drop me a line. BTW, sorry about the misunderstanding that a few of the other long time users had about you - we can be rather protective of the wiki, sometimes to a fault. Cheers! --maveric149

SimonP, is the information you're adding to British Empire your own work, or is it from a textbook or a copyrighted website? -- Zoe

I've added little more than general information, what I was doing was editing another fellow's 5000 word essay that they added to the article, and that was not particularily relevent to the topic. - SimonP

Thanks, sorry, it was hard to follow who was adding what. -- Zoe

Everything in the article, even the portions that dealt with other countries, illustrated the factors that contributed to the breakdown of Pax Britannica and the ensuing repercussions. It was a disorganized weave of some different drafts that did require extensive editing. The content was generally fine and warranted.

But was it original work? -- Zoe

--

SimonP, I have a page now

172

I was not offended by your “essay” comment, but the use of the term “undergrad” as a term of derision. If it weren’t an utter waste of time, I’d go through your contributions, excoriating your writing as that of an ‘undergrad level’ whenever possible.

Thank you for the excellent rewrite on the FLQ page....DW

Re changing Canal Zone to Panama Canal Zone, what's your authority for that? As far as I know, the official title was always just "Canal Zone", because it was a unique governmental entity. For instance, the stamps for it always said just "Canal Zone", and my references mentioning the CZ do likewise. state.gov sometimes says "Panamal Canal Zone", but in informal contexts only that I can see. Stan 16:44 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

While it might not be the official name it:

1) distiguishes which canal zone, I know the area around the Suez Canal is also called the Canal Zone, and there are probably other Canal Zones around the world

2) is more exact for many readers, especially non-Americans who do not think 'Panama' as soon as they hear the term 'Canal Zone'.

3) international sources, such as the Canadian government, will usually refer to it as the 'Panama Canal Zone'

4) seems more logical and less annyoing then changing it to Canal Zone (Panama)

SimonP 17:26 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Simon.

I was just looking through your change to Queen of Canada, and noticed that you had marked it as a minor change. Please be a bit more careful. While your change was correct, it was not minor in the sense used here. From Contributing FAQ:

"The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any 'real' change, even if it is a single word. (Emphasis added)"

Since this was a fact correction, even though it only changed a link, it shouldn't have been marked as minor. But, good catch. I had previously edited that section and missed the error. - Cafemusique 20:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I tend to use the minor change more liberally, but perhaps I won't in future. SimonP 02:38 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Er, what in the world were you talking about with the current Bourbon heir being an Anglophone Canadian? The current heir to the throne of France is either Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon, Duke of Anjou, a cousin of Juan Carlos (for the legitimists), or the Comte de Paris, a (French) descendant of Louis Philippe (for the Orleanists). john 06:50 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Simon. Noticed your edits to the entry for the UB. I'm currently researching the UB, and wondered if you might know a bit about the structure/history of the organisation in the post-war years.

Rayray 08:09 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but my knowledge is pretty limited I was mostly just cleaning up the articles. - SimonP 16:58 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circlces on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely
 * 1) Do we actually want to have a new page?
 * 2) If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
 * 3) What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the Canada-specific information because having parallel information for all the nations of the world, or even all the English-speaking nations of the world, would be tedious at best in the death article. Death in Canada simply seemed to be an utterly idiosyncratic facet of death in general. I think a better use for that info would be in an article like life expectancy or causes of death, where the almanac-ish data of how likely people are to die from any given sourth in any given nation could be the main focus of the article. If you put it back though, I'm not going to start an edit war over it.Shimmin 03:07, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good work linking all of those names in List of current NHL players. That must have taken more patience than I could possibly have. RickK 01:52, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Question for SimonP : I would like to know your reference on the fact that "One of the only areas of the world where Pepsi outsells Coke is the Canadian province of Quebec.". I'm doing a small research on the word Pepsi in Quebec and it would help me. Thank you.

 * It was from an article in the Ottawa Citizen from a few years ago. An electronic search of their back issues should be able to find it.  I'm not 100% sure but you could also try to get a copy of the documetnary "Cola Wars" which was broadcast on the CBC a few years ago. - SimonP 19:16, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

Re List of socialists - is there another Herbert Morrison? Adam 06:27, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The other is Herbert Morrison (announcer), he is the fellow who narrated the Hindenburg disaster. - SimonP 04:14, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hey SimonP, how are things going? Still working away? I've recently switched to working mostly on the Danish wikipedia, as they are lagging somewhat behind the English. (currently at roughly 13,700 articles) However, it is making slow but steady progress and can be proud of hitting way above its weight considering population of native speakers relative to other languages. Any rate, just thought I'd say hello. Hope all is well.

Peregrine981 23:38, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In response to your question, peregrine comes partially from peregrine falcons which for some reason I was always impressed with, ever since that section in our grade 4 math book, and partially from the character in Lord of the Rings, although I was no particular fan of the character, I just liked the name. The Danish wiki definetely has huge holes in it, it is missing many very important subjects, or they are treated in a very superficial way. It also has random subject very well covered, like for some reason Rhododendrons and butterflies are covered in detail with many articles about the different species of each. My main problem is a lack of formal training in written Danish which limits my usefulness for complicated topics, but I can still make up charts, and slowly but surely write simple introductions. Currently I am adding Canadian content, and countries. Hope all is well Peregrine981 20:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey, SimonP. Are you planning to add any information about the council elections to 2003 Toronto election? I was thinking of moving it to 2003 Toronto mayoral election but thought I'd better check with you first to see if you had further plans for the article. Trontonian 03:14, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Good article, by the way. Would the mainstream press could present the issues as concisely. What influenced me, by the way, was Miller's being the only candidate to have a real plan for getting the money for all the things he planned to do. He also insulted the voters' intelligence far less than the other candidates -- according to me, anyway. I think you're right, though, that the airport was the big issue for most people. Torontonians have a thing about the Island. Trontonian

 * Thank you, I also voted for Miller. I hope that bias isn't reflected in the article, however.  I wasn't planning on adding anything about the council elections.  I don't know, or care, much about them.  It would be nice if someone else could discuss them, but feel free to move it as there are not many other Torontonians around here. - SimonP 03:39, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Simon. I think I'll wait and see if any theme emerged from the council elections. I've been working this evening and so don't have much of an idea of what's happened. Trontonian

 * In the end I just tacked a short bit on the end about council, so moving it would now be inappropriate. If I learn anything more of value about council I'll add it. Trontonian

Hehe, another Torontonian here. ;-) Anyway, I just saw that you corrected the links to a bunch of misspelled articles on User:Daniel_Quinlan/redirects3. If you do any more, then it is a good idea to actually redirect the misspellings to the correct page. That means in the future when people make incorrect links, some of them might redirect to the correct page. Or if people type in a misspelling on a search engine, Wikipedia will show up. Thanks for the work you've done fixing those links. --snoyes 03:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--- You may want to add your voice to: Wikipedia talk:Don't include copies of primary sources --mav 07:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I still think even the 1998 in Canada info could be added directly to 1998...it would be necessary to add that certain things refer to Canada, of course, but why bother separating them into a country-specific timeline? On the other hand, "Wikipedia is not paper," as they say, so there's no reason not to have a timeline for every country. I'm still on the fence about this :) Adam Bishop 18:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

years in canada
SimonP--

I saw the discussion on these pages, so as a non-Canadian I had a look. I think they are very useful and you should argue to keep them. But, wouldn't it make sense if each had a link back to the main page for that year, right in the first line? The one I looked at didn't - and someone coming in from outside might not know that those general pages exist seglea 19:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Egypt
If you are going to split Arab and Ottoman Egypt, please make appropriate changes at History of Egypt and the other Egypt history pages. Adam 02:56, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Already in progress - SimonP 03:14, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)

You're now an administrator. -- Tim Starling 03:16, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

1872 in the U.S.
SimonP,

The page 1872 in the U.S. is an orphan, and it appears that you tried it, and decided not to pursue the idea.

Do you have plans to continue down this path? Would you object to making the page into a redirect to 1872?

-Anthropos 16:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi SimonP,

thanks for stopping me adding the daggers † if it's not the preferred wiki format. Could you point me towards the style guide that's mentioned in? I thought of the dagger as an instrument of death, rather than a Christian symbol. ;) But I take your point, it looks like a cross. Fabiform 18:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re Gaston Thorn. Such pompous officiousness I have rarely seen. There is no "copyright issue to resolve". The text I posted is biographical material from official websites, who are extremely unlikely to notice, and even less likely to care, that it has been temporarily copied into a Wikipedia page so that someone can rework it into an article. People should really try to maintain some sense of proportion about these issues. Adam 04:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Simon did exactly the right thing. Copyright violations are not to be tolerated on Wikipedia.  RickK 04:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see how it could possibly be any more clear that you are not supposed to copy copyrighted text into Wikipedia. silsor 04:56, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

you commented on my tables, I want to respond

specifically, the colours. I find without them that the table is hard to read, so rather then stripe gray's down the board, I went with something more realistic. however if you have a compromise, I am willing to listen.

Pellaken 08:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to use more pastel colours, and if you have specific HTML colour suggestions, I am willing to "give it a shot" although I feel the Ontario Preimiers colours leave too little distinction between the NDP and Liberals.

David Duncan
Simon, thanks for editing the article on David Duncan. --Rj 04:01, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery
You seem to have created a self redirect at Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery. You may also want to note the double and triple redirects linking to there. --Jiang 01:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind. I deleted it. --Jiang

John Manley
The photo's really not him? It's labelled as such on the OAS page, and it bears a fair resemblance to the official pics on his website. Taken from a funny angle, right enough... Are you sure? Did you see the bigger original photo I cropped it from? –Hajor 18:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any objections if I transfer this exchange to the article's Talk page? –Hajor 18:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Draft Dodger
Hi, SimonP, The opening of your article Draft dodger is simply incorrect: "Draft dodger is a term that became current during the Vietnam War to describe conscripted American soldiers who fled abroad to avoid the draft."

A draft dodger was a person subject to the draft who fled to avoid being drafted. If the person was already a soldier, he was a military deserter. Generically, the term described almost anyone who tried to escape service, though those who fled the country were what was usually meant by draft dodger. Someone who had a medical exemption (Howard Dean) was not consider a dodger or even an avoider, though some medical exemptions (Joe Namath) were dicey. Bush was not a dodger, serving in the National Guard. Clinton arguably was, though his behavior could be called draft avoider or draft resister. Cecropia 06:22, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. - SimonP 13:41, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous remailer faq
Just wanted to let you know that I added a copyright violation notice and moved Anonymous remailer faq to Possible copyright infringements. - Texture 02:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sergei Gonchar
Hi Simon, I just noticed you were here writing about hockey stuff, so I thought I'd ask this...some anon created an article about Sergei Gonchar claiming he'd been traded to Toronto, but I have found no confirmation of this. Have you heard anything about it? Adam Bishop 21:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi. Just randomly popping in here because I just finished cleaning up the Sergei Gonchar article.  The rumor seems to be stemming from a few things: several unconfirmed reports said that the Maple Leafs were interested in trading a few prospects for Gonchar, Gonchar was a healthy scratch for Friday's game (which was supposedly indicative that he was being shipped out) and the much bigger point, the Maple Leafs' web site had a player bio for him posted briefly (although this was removed Saturday apparently).  Either way, we'll know soon enough: the trade deadline is March 9. RadicalBender 05:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyediting redirects
Thanks for catching the copyediting redirect to the moved page. Normally I fix those, but I realized after my move, which was after someone else's move, that perhaps the original was still the best bet (Talk:Copy editing), so I didn't go tracking down all the pages that link to all of the variations yet. Elf 17:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Willow
Thanks for moving Willow (movie) to the proper place. Next time you move a page, please remember to fix the articles that still link to the redirect, Willow (1988). I'll get this one. :) You're a great editor, please keep up the good work!  Catherine 16:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jack Layton
Jack Layton may not have studied at the University of Toronto but he taught (teaches? doubt it, he's a busy guy) there. The list was students & faculty. I have no opinion on whether he belongs on the list or not, but I thought I'd just let you know. moink 20:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup Maint
I like what you're doing with the week-and-larger headings, and i think it's at least more valuable than what i've been doing with merging the Toc-visible headings. Now that i see what you are doing daily, i suspect my compression is probably an impediment to your work rather than complementing and enhancing it. Let me know how you see it; i'll defer to the approach you prefer. --Jerzy(t) 00:28, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger Writeup
Just a suggestion, but maybe instead of Lucca (Chrono Trigger), it should be Lucca (video game character). This allows for that she appears in more than one game, and also doesn't require one to know that Lucca is from Chrono Trigger to know how to look up her entry.

Proxy war
Good job on proxy war, that was quick :) Dori | Talk 23:18, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Simon. I disagree with your move of Henry Morgenthau, Jr. to Morgenthau Plan. Morgenthau was far more than just the creator of the Morgenthau Plan. He was Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury during World War II, responsible for war bonds and bringing the American economy back on track during the New Deal and after the Great Depression. He was also, to the best of my knowledge, the first Jewish cabinet member in the U.S. and a very influential figure in WW2 politics. The Morgenthau plan is just one regretable aspect in the long career of a very important individual. Please restore it to what it was, or justify the Redirect. Thanks, Danny 03:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. Thanks very much. I am a little sensitive on the issue of Morgenthau (his son is my boss, among other things). Danny 03:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the list of encyclopedia topics. I've been poking around there too. You might want to check out page 22. Danny 01:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Trinity College
Hi Simon, it's always good to see a fellow Canuck in cyberspace. I was wondering about your addition to the Episkopon section of the University of Trinity College article. Specifically, what are your sources regarding the 1990s controversy? I know that while the organisation is definitely controversial it has also been unfairly treated by certain media outlets (particularly the U of T campus newspaper). I have added to your additions in order to clarify that many of the allegations were just that but still I wonder if the article would be more factual and encyclopedic if that paragraph didn't include the "outing" allegation or the part about the Minister for Women's Affairs. Thanks, Carruthers 01:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Michael (archangel)
I'd like to make a caption that gives the artist's name. Any help? Wetman 23:45, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:VfD-Benign
Sorry for the benign attribution - I had not meant to imply that you were voting. -- Zigger 04:19, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

Heads of State

 * Why is "Head of State" capitalized in the article title? It's Wikipedia policy to use lowercase when possible.
 * Head of State is capitalized because it is a specific political term that is usually capitalized, as many times it is used as a title.

 * A whole new title might even be preferable as heads of state is too limiting. In my opinion it would be best to have Prime Ministers, U.N. Secretary generals, Popes, etc. on the list as well.
 * Heads of State is intentionally limiting. A Head of State is distinct from a head of government; the head of state is the titular ruler while the head of government is the functional one.  Often, constitutional monarchs will be Head of State, while a Prime Minister will be the head of government.  This is the case in Britain, for example.  Othertimes (Germany, for instance), there will be a President who is the elected Head of State; that person appoints a Prime Minister as head of government.  Non-state organizations, such as the UN and EU among others, do not have Heads of State but rather only heads of government.  Popes are Head of State in the Holy See in their role as Bishops of Rome.

 * Also it would be best if each article linked to the actual year article, and also to the directory of all the head of state listings at heads of state timeline.
 * We're still working on the format of the pages, so we could certainly work that in. I think ugen64 is working on that.  --  Jonel 20:23, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let me clarify: separate pages are nice. But please do not create redirects. -- Jonel 21:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Editing Heads of State timeline page
Prior to when you changed the links, some were live and some were ghost, but now you changed them and all are now ghost. Why?? 66.32.69.46 22:23, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I switched it to the proper capitalization, it shows that we need to move all those links to the correct title. - SimonP 22:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Please see Incumbents_by_year, make comments, etc. ugen64 02:35, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion
Were you aware that anonymous listings on the above page do not count as nominations for deletion and by right should be removed? Therefore the group of listings you made this morning without signing who you were should have been removed. However I have gone through and added to each one who you were. Can you please remember to sign your name ( ~ ) each time you list something or vote there. Thank you. -- Graham :) | Talk 11:51, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * "This issue has been addressed" suggests more than one person in discussion. This is not what has taken place at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.  Please continue this discussion there. -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

United Holyland
Hi, I reworked United Holyland to be more representitive of it's being a grass roots term and concept. It has about 140 hits on google and is being more widely discussed as mentioned in Binationalism sinc eabout 2003 as the Holyland demographics have tilted in a slight majority "west of jordan" (an oddly covetus expression). I think the "United Holy Land" meme is a rather non partison proposal and one worth mentioning because it adresses widly misunderstoood aspects of both "single state" and "dual state" options. Please let me know what you think rather than just unilaterally deleting it?

Your coverup of funding disclosures
How is it you are so threatened by one word on the page about Fallujah that directs readers toward discussion of Bomis' role as Wikipedia's key funder along with its support for the military forces active in Fallujah? Are you acting as any other at-large editor or specifically as a representative of a non-profit foundation? I find your behavior non-collegial and outright dangerous to contributors who might be harmed by contributing to the article without knowing the foundation's key financial supporter might be inclined to violate their privacy. TruthSayer 20:51, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Congradulations nitwit. You deleated a page without any VFD. Scriptural justifications for a united holyland was never voted on. Since you also deleted the United Holyland page after most of the votes askes only weather there were other groups which supported it, those votes were not delete votes but ''questions.

You obviously HATE the idea. But that is no justification for taking such uniladeral action. A common theme.. Quickwik 17:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Articles with long dashes
Hi, I noticed that you started a couple of articles with long dashes in their name. Is there a reason for not using a simple - ? It will be harder to type the long ones. Dori | Talk 04:21, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I see, there is an explanation given here Talk:List of Canada's electoral districts Dori | Talk 04:31, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. If you have a chance, could you please have a go at Wikipedia: List of encyclopedia topics (64). I want to see if we can get it to break 30%. Danny 01:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with 64. If you get a chance, look at 49 too. It is moving ahead nicely. Danny 14:34, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

VfD and MediaWiki Templates
If you're going to use them, can you at least make sure they work? Your links and includes point at the Template: namespace, but your comments are in the MediaWiki namespace. I had to hack the url to find out what was going on. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Canadian election pages
Most of them already were "Canadian federal election, XXXX" rather than "XXXX Canadian election". In particular, the most recent one is Canadian federal election, 2004, not the other way around. I changed the remaining ones to be consistent.

As far as I can see, other election pages use this format, for instance U.S. presidential election, 2004 and ROC presidential election, 2004 and UK general election, 2001 and other examples. So this seems to be a Wikipedia standard.

This fits with the overall idea that disambiguating or specifying information is added at the end, for instance Mars vs. Mars (planet) (rather than Planet Mars) or Canadian federal election and Canadian federal election, 2004 and Canadian federal election, 2004 (candidates). Among other things, this ensures that related pages are all grouped together in alphabetical order: you can look at an alphabetical listing (such as editing a watchlist) and be sure that no election year was inadvertently omitted.

I didn't know of the discussion at Talk:Canadian federal election. Looking over it briefly, I'm not sure that a consensus was in fact reached.

It wouldn't hurt to have both, with "XXXX Canadian election" redirecting to "Canadian federal election, XXXX" for all XXXX. Then people putting links in articles are free to use whichever form they want. You could do the redirect the other way, but I don't see a reason to go against the Wikipedia standard for other countries' elections, and in any case, it's transparent to people editing articles.

P.T. Aufrette 06:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

District
Which district was created in 1915? I can't figure it out here: Past_Canadian_electoral_districts. You also forgot the creation of the Yukon, but that may be insignifigant. I don't know. I trust you will fix my mistakes. Earl Andrew 03:09, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi; I've moved quite a few of these. I can move them back if they need to be moved back but could we discuss it first? - Hephaestos|§ 21:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's fine then, I can move them back. Can you point me to where it was discussed before? I've been looking around but couldn't find anything; asked on a couple of talk pages. Furthermore I don't see an em-dash used for these anywhere but Wikipedia, but of course I'll go along with what the majority here thinks in any case. - Hephaestos|§ 22:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How would it be to use a hyphen with spaces, for example Rivière-du-Loup - Montmagny? - Hephaestos|§ 22:17, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll get to work moving them back to the em-dash locations then, I'm going to need to eat dinner first though. :) - Hephaestos|§ 22:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Viruses
I see you added Varicella-Zoster virus to List of computer viruses. While there is a biological virus with this name Varicella-zoster virus, I'm not aware of any computer virus, although as the list points out, computer viruses are given many different names. I googled for it but found only references to the biological virus, and also looked on www.sarc.com. I'm removing it from the list for now; feel free to add it back in if you're sure it exists. --gadfium 01:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reform Party of Canada
SimonP, Thanks for your edits of the Reform Party of Canada article. What do you think about the discussion about an anonymous editor's insistence on using the term Democrat to describe the RPOC and the Reform Party of Ontario? I've set out my argument son the Talk pages of those two articles, but I get no response. He/she just goes and puts this irrelevant term back in. Kevintoronto 15:29, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reversion. I've gone back in and fixed some of the typos that the anonymous editor had caught on my revision. Kevintoronto 16:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pronouns
Our policy with regards to articles on pronouns, and other very common words, needs to be rationalized. Currently we have three systems in place: My opinion is that (2) is the best option and that the extant articles should be transwikied to wiktionary, which does not yet have articles of such quality on these words. Redirects to a general article on that type of word should then be made. For instance, The should become are redirect to Grammatical article. Finally almost all pages that link to these words should be checked as most of them break the "do not link everyday words" rule. (e.g. ) What do others think? - SimonP 02:39, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Than, The, Who, We, It, and A, an all have their own articles. In the past these pages have been defended as being encyclopedic in that they included information on origin, pronunciation, and usage .  I would argue that this makes them very good dict. defs., but still not encyclopedia articles.
 * 2) Some like He and And redirect to more general articles e.g. He redirects to Gender-specific pronoun. Some like That are disambig pages listing multiple uses.
 * 3) Many like Their, Our do not exist in any form or, like Them, are disambig pages with no mention of the word's use as a pronoun.

 * "He" redirecting to "Gender-specific pronoun" is pretty peculiar. A redirect to "pronoun" would be better, unless we're devoted to "agenda-specific redirects". - Nunh-huh 04:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've changed it to #REDIRECT Pronoun. The other article has an obvious agenda.    — Chameleon My page/My talk 09:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Simon, I've moved this from the village pump in case you hadn't seen the replies yet. Angela. 22:51, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Permission
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Pentrack" < pentrack at cwo.com > Subject: Request for permission To: "pieter du toit"

I hereby give my permission for you to use this article - "Chronology of Christianity" from my website. The primary sources I used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M. Thank you for the great job you are doing at Wikipedia.

David Pentrack

pieter du toit  wrote:

David Pentrack,

I really liked your "Chronology of Christianity"! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.

Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.

I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of Christianity;. To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.

We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)

The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/

Thank you for your time.

Kindly,

P Du Toit

Hi Simon
I'm sorry to again leave personal messages here, but I have a quick question. Do your parents have a phone number in Kingsburg? I was wondering if I could have it, as I will be heading down to the South Shore for a couple of days tomorrow. Thanks for the help, hope all is well,

Thorfinn aka Peregrine981 01:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Warsaw
What recent studies are you referring to? Perhaps it was unlikely that the soviets reached the city but they did reach it on July 29 (Targówek area). Halibutt 06:33, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's hard to call Overy's Russia's War "a recent study". Moreover, there is not much left to study. The Soviets really did reach the city in July 1944. Later they withdrew southwards and returned by mid-August. Whether they could or could not cross the river is not a matter of discussion either since they did cross it by mid September. So where's the fire? Halibutt 17:02, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Entertainment Unit
HI! I'm ever so sorry to bother you, but I have reason to belive you deleated an article I did on the Entertainment Unit in Friends. If not, i'm very sorry. However, if it was you, then I have left a strongly worded message on the Friends message board that I can't be bothered to re-type. It was very un-coutious (and, I believe, strongly against the site's policy) to do so without any sort of explanation. It's also extremely arrogant and ignorant. If it is possable, i would like the article restored. If not, get bent. (Again I apologise very strongly if it was not you, and am more than willing to retract this piece). --Crestville 23:32, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry bud, thanks anyway. --Crestville 00:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Economic profit
I see you added a link to the economics term Economic profit in the existing accountancy article Economic Profit. I've created a stub for the economics term by cutting and pasting a paragraph from the Profit maximization article, but if you understand this subject, could you fill it out a little please? -gadfium 01:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks! -gadfium 05:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name titles
Hi Simon, you have redirected "K.J. Yesudas" to "K J Yesudas". Why is this change ? Or is it policy ? Jay 18:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revival of learning
Hi -- I'd like some feedback on why the revival of learning content was removed in renaissance. Thanks. Stbalbach 00:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sparks Street
Simon, re your new page on Sparks Street:

You wrote "Sparks Street is a street in downtown Ottawa, Canada that has been converted into a pedestrian mall, the first such mall in Canada." For some reason, that phrasing made me think that you were saying it was the only such mall in Canada. I think because of the combination of 'has been converted' and 'first such'. I think this could be fixed by giving the conversion a date (i.e., was converted to a ped mall in 19XX) or by saying something like 'the earliest such mall in Canada'.

In any case, is there authority for it being the first? That seems remarkable!

Regards,

Ken

Klanda | Talk 04:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
Indeed, they have, for the most part, turned out well. Is the church we took called St. Paul's-Eastern United Church (Ottawa)? Peregrine981 23:57, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Edits on the woman's role in war article
Well done, some great edits. Article starting to come together well. Edcreely 01:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Supreme Court decision
I assumed you removed the text of the Supreme Court decision in Boynton v. Virginia to move it to Wikisource, per the discussion at Talk:Boynton v. Virginia/deletion, but I can't find it over there. - dcljr 08:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it. - dcljr 08:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

wrongtitle
Your approach of having an asterisk that links to the comment in the talk page seems good. But you should edit the instructions at Naming conventions (technical restrictions) to reflect this approach. (Once you've achieved consensus at Template talk:Wrongtitle2 and Template talk:Wrongtitle.) Gdr 09:33, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Union Station
Hi. Was your change to Union Station (Los Angeles) a mistake? Mackerm 23:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Unless they are in the aviators categories, they don't appear in the aviator section, even if they are in a subsection. GSL removed aviators, and added flying aces (which they weren't in before). PPGMD

Spy satellite
See Talk:Spy satellite -Joseph 19:47, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

VfD: RAHOWA
This is already listed once on the page - please stop adding duplicate entries - it's killing my attempts to fix the fage ;) The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 21:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moving VfD Discussions
SimonP,

Thanks for taking the time to move expired VfD discussions to the talk pages of relevant articles. So many of us hop on the keep/delete/merge/redirect/whatever bandwagon, but don't stick around to clean up the mess after the party's over. Your willingness to do this helps us archive the arguments for future editors.

I do have one suggestion, though; Could you add a little more information about the moved discussion on the talk page? A simple statement that this article came up for VfD on such-and-such date, and what the results of the debate were?

Also, when an article is merged (as in the case of Votes for deletion/Bravo Company), where the discussion ends up on a talk page with of a different article, just putting from VfD is confusing. A section header, like == VfD: Bravo Company == would help in identifying what the discussion was about, as well as separating it visually from any existing discussions on the talk page.

I know it's extra work I'm asking you for, but it would help immensely in preserving the VfD discussions in a useful fashion.

And thank you again for your work in keeping Wikipedia great!

Kevyn 02:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The business and economics forum
Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 19:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scanian Nationalism
SimonP, just wondering what's up with Votes for deletion/Sång till Skåne. As the nominator of the article for VfD, I have no more role in it, but it looked like a pretty decisive loss for the article. Granted, there were quite a few sock puppets voting (many of whom were red links and grew blue only as the "discussion" kept going), but my count showed it well over consensus for delete. Please let me know the basis for keeping, if you can, either on my user page or here. Geogre 21:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response, SimonP. I appreciate and sympathize with your position. Geogre 22:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:History of Britain
You re-organized all the categories that used to be under Category:History of the United Kingdom. Perhaps you could explain your rationale for this change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History and if you get consensus for your rationale, edit WikiProject History so that it corresponds with what you did. Gdr 18:20, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

 * I am sorry for overturning your carefully built categorization system, but it had a major flaw. Category:History of the United Kingdom was serving as both the top level category for the history of that state, and also the sub-category for post-1800 history. The warning on the page specifically states that it is only for post-1800 history, yet paradoxically it was also the correct location for Category:Ancient Britain.  Thus I separated it. Cat:History of the UK can now live up to its billing as being for only post 1800 history, while Category:History of Britain can take on the duties of being the higher level category, similar to what the article History of Britain does. SimonP,

 * Surely the flaw was in the description of the category Category:History of the United Kingdom, not in the organization of the categories? The reason I say that is because other categories for national histories have a similar organization to the one I recommend at WikiProject History. For example, Category:United States history is on the one hand the category for the post-1776 history of the US, but on the other it contains Category:U.S. colonial history; similarly Category:History of the Netherlands is on the one hand the category for the modern history of the Netherlands and on the other it contains Category:United Provinces. Do we need to make higher level categories in these cases too? Gdr 19:59, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

 * For just as many countries it does not work that way. Category:History of Canada contains pre-confederation articles.  Category:German history contains articles on the Holy Roman Empire.  Even Category:United Provinces is something of an aberration containing a single sub-category, with other UP articles being in the main Dutch history article.  Personally I think names for nations (like German, British, and Canadian) are much better than those for states for history articles fortunately for almost all states those names are the same.  State names can change rapidly, with little actual effect on the ground.  Category:Burkina Faso need not be divided by each arbitrary name change.  nations tend to be more substantive and enduring.  The vast majority of British history was unaffected by the Union of 1800.  The Industrial Revolution, British culture, the British economy, and the British Empire, those things that modern historians most concern themselves with, were all but completely unchanged.  It thus makes sense to keep the full history of these things in one category, dividing only the political sphere, which was much affected by the Union, into two sub-categories. Great Britain is not a geographical or temporal subset of the United Kingdom.  Legally it was a distinct entity and there is no logic to making it a sub-category of the UK.  What they are both a sub-category of is the history of the British, and Category:History of Britain is thus a logical category to encompass them both. - SimonP 20:26, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's a good argument. It may be convincing. However, you're not right to say "no logic": the logic is explicitly given at WikiProject History: the category for the history of a state includes the history of its predecessors. Anyway, this is the discussion I was hoping to have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. May we take it there? Gdr 20:33, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

VfD
Not to be ungrateful, but as you moved the Beasts of England VfD discussion 9and apparently counted the votes, etc.) could you add a summary of the decision. Thanks! -- orthogonal 03:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More vfd
You input is requested on Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 and Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion as to why this page was removed from vfd but not deleted when a clear majority voted for its deletion. Mintguy (T) 17:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sports in Canada
There was an existing category: Category:Canadian sport. RedWolf 05:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Anniversary names
True or false: you know of some anniversary names not mentioned in the List of anniversary names. 66.245.112.43 22:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Honoré-Mercier
The article for Honoré-Mercier (electoral district) should actually not be a double dash. The double dash applies to ridings that are named for communities and regions within the riding (eg. Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing). Honoré-Mercier is actually named for an individual person, so the correct riding name has a single hyphen in it. Just so you know why I've reverted. Bearcat 07:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of sitting styles
The VfD for this article (List of sitting styles Talk:List of sitting styles) resulted in many votes for moving to sitting. Can you delete the redirect at sitting and then move the Talk:List of sitting styles there? This is also on Redirects for deletion. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for doing the move! -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Republic of Choson
Hi! By my count the votes on VFD for Republic of Choson was 6 to keep, 9 to delete and 3 to redirect, so I'm a bit confused as to why you decided to keep it and put it in cleanup instead. Thanks! --G Rutter 15:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for your speedy reply. --G Rutter 15:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great Lakes
SimonP, in English, which this encyclopedia covers, the overwhelming majority of Great Lakes references are going to refer to the Great Lakes of North America. We have a standard at Wikipedia to use the simplest possible common name in English for any article, and to let items with overwhelming precedence keep a primary URL. Therefore President of the United States refers to the executive head of the U.S. government, Ottawa refers to the Canadian locale, rather than both being disambiguation pages for the exec office and the band and the Canadian locale and the number of other Ottawa-named things. jengod 21:55, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Because the vast majority of English speakers live outside of Africa, and probably rarely if ever have occassion to consider the great lakes of Africa, whereas there are tens millions of English speakers living around the North American Great Lakes who have daily occasion to describe them and mention them as such, and, in deed, refer to them on Wikipedia. Plus, take a look at [|What links here:Great Lakes]--there are at least 100 direct links to the Great Lakes pages. There are about 20 links to the Great Lakes (Africa). I see what you're trying to do, and in general it's a good idea, but in many cases, common sense overwhelms the need to make everything even-stevens for, well, everything. jengod 05:45, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, no more reverts until this is settled. How do you propose settling this? An RfC or a poll on the talk page? 16:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for moving the discussions. I added a mention of this to Requests for comment to get some other input on this. No hard feelings, though I was a little upset when you started using the rollback function (something normally reserved for vandalism). I think it might have gone better if you had discussed the move first (seeing as how it affects so many articles) -- or at least made an attempt to explain what you were doing and why. older ≠ wiser 18:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Canadian federal election article names
I noticed that you moved Canadian federal election, 1988 to 1988 Canadian election. I do not understand your motivation, as the rest of the Canadian federal election pages are titles using the former format.

Acegikmo1 18:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great Lakes
I found this personally offensive: We could make Wikipedia an encyclopedia geared towards the wealthy as they are the current readers and editors. Not only is it untrue, but it's condescending. There are SOME of us who are below the poverty level, here. RickK 04:01, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

TV Naming conventions.
I am assuming that you might like to express an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great lakes
So why was this "controversy" never referenced in the Edit summaries of these articles?!? I am SO sick and tired of being blindsided by being accused of violating rules/processes/whatever that I had no way of knowing about. I've already greatly reduced my time spent here, and this sort of BS just about has me on a permanent vacation. Niteowlneils 14:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair use
I noticed you changed the words "more restrictive" to "similar" in the mention of fair dealing. My understanding is that fair dealing is more strictly limited by statute, while fair use, though also found in the U.S. copyright statute, invites courts to perform a more indeterminate balancing test. It is also my understanding that the difference in scope of fair use v. fair dealing has caused some criticism over whether the U.S. is complying with copyright treaties to the extent of those employing fair dealing. What were your thoughts? Postdlf 20:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Countries / Nations
Hello, sir, I request that you undo the move from list of island countries to list of island nations. As you can see, the list documents political, not cultural entities. According to country and nation, the difference is clear. Country = political, nation = cultural. Please consider my request; thanks for your time. -- Merovingian Ѥ Talk 09:49, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok. -- Merovingian Ѥ Talk  01:51, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

New Orleans categories
What is the reason for removing some of the categories from the New Orleans, Louisiana article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 03:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupations categories
Simon, if you want to further discussion occupational categorization, please do so. We can invite other in also, but Please don't de-populate categories which have been majority established as valid. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

 * The system does offer sub-categorization also, although I think that's premature. If religious work is your objection, the system describes that the next level is "Religious workers".  Would creating a category under that name for monks, abbots, etc. work for you? -- Netoholic @ 03:26, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

 * Sorry to add a comment without waiting for your reply, but, even though "Occupations" can certainly hold more than 23 categories, without the controlled system, it could balloon out of control as every editor adds their own. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

 * I have doubts that another discussion will enlist any change, but in the meantime, please stop "breaking" them up and removing the existing structure from articles. -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

 * The structure of these categories is very formal and documented. Please stop interfering with it by imposing your views until some consensus is reached.
 * Why don't you sketch out your idea of the best structure (on a page) so that it can be discussed? It seems that implementing your ideas is just making the whole Occupations tree extremely ugly.  - Netoholic @ 19:17, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

 * "If you do not think these categories should not exist the proper procdure is to list them on CfD wait for consensus and then empty them." - I feel that kind of response is wholly un-productive. Only two users (you and Postdlf) have expressed dislike of the system, while many others have seen it's worth.  By continuing on your path you're only making extra work, while adding no extra value.  Categorization on WP is what we make it. It can be as formal and structure, or as random and useless, as we like.  I choose the later, but your efforts are moving towards the former.  Not everyone need totally agree with the system in order to see the value of using it.  Let me clean it up and incorporate your feedback. -- Netoholic @ 22:06, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

 * "There has been no one other than yourself who has criticized my systemand you seem very reluctant to list it on CfD for public comment." - the SOC occupations structure has already withstood public comment, and it was found to be an agreeable basis for the Occupations category. You have single-mindedly destroyed that structure making it far less useful.  I'll be reverting those changes in short order, since the majority is of my opinion, and whenever there is a dispute, the standard is to retain status quo until consensus is reached. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Still more category emptying
Hey! What are you doing trashing the former colonies categories!? Those are useful for reviewing the articles for consistent treatments. Don't you have anything better to do than to destroy other people's work? I see zero discussion of this anywhere. Stan 04:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind, sorry to grumble. I knew about the former colonies cats, but didn't realize until a moment ago that places like Togo and Senegal were showing up as subcats instead of articles (unexpected but rational). Stan 04:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice work
Just wanted to say, I admire the nice job you did on Iskenderun. Take care. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 04:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome
According to the VfD vote, this page should have been deleted (keep: 11, delete 19). Could you explain why it was preserved? JFW | T@lk  09:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mozilla (version)

 * According to the VfD vote, this page should have been deleted or redirected (delete: 6, redirect: 6). Why did you remove the notice and do neither of those? I am restoring the VFD notice on the page pending a proper resolution. --Improv 15:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You pointed out that that wasn't enough for a delete consensus, and so you added it to the list of pages for merging. I merged the info and made it a redirect. Thanks for explaining what you were doing, although it might've been a good idea to do so initially in a more public place. --Improv 17:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

War
I see you recently made some sizeable additions to War, which I thank you for. Just wondering if you could finish the sentence you ended the Information theories section with. It read "If each side had complete knowledge of the power, resolve." For now I have just deleted it but the section now lacks a good conclusion, which that sentence seems to have been meant to be. Since I know nothing about war or information theories I couldn't finish it. I'm sure you just got distracted in the middle of the sentence or something :) Again, thanks for adding so much great content to the article. - biggins | talk 16:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JillandJack
DW's IP range is, AFAIK, blocked; he could have moved or switched ISPs, though. —No-One Jones (m) 16:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I was wondering who you thought it might be, and DW came to mind. Very interesting. Are they changing opening sentences to match DW's pet format? RickK 18:51, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, their style is different. DW insisted on not having a full sentence as the opening sentence. RickK 00:04, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Data Management Wiki Committee
Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:30, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine
Just out of interest: on what basis did you decide that the outcome of the VfD was to keep the article? I think a number of people (not including me) will be very unhappy about this and feel that due process was violated. - pir 12:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American Bobtail
PLEASE stop with the color/colour arguement. This is such a miniscule detail. Thank you. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 21:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

vfd top template
the template

Has a blank for the actual descision made at the end. So if for instance consensus is to keep, you should have:

Keep

have a nice day! Kim Bruning 23:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Daedalus Publishing
Thanks you very much !!! :-)

Dlloyd 02:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MoS violation
Please stop reverting my changes to Nickel and Mineral. You are violating the Manual of Style by reverting my changes. Specifically, Manual_of_Style says:

"In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use IUPAC names for chemicals wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name."

Darrien 03:35, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

 * Both nickel and mineral are terms and concepts used in the general populace, and thus should not have to follow IUPAC standards.

 * Do you have a policy or some other community consensus to back this up?

 * Also the MoS section you are constantly quoting contradicts Manual_of_Style.

 * I don't see any contradiction. Perhaps you could quote the parts that you believe contradict each other.

 * I see no reason one should overrule the other. Thus I think interpreting the MoS chemistry section as only referring to naming, and not spelling, is an appropriate compromise.

 * You haven't proven that they contradict yet.

 * Again these issues should be resolved by discussion them at teh MoS, not by waging wars of attrition article by article.

 * So why didn't you start a discussion there instead of going out and reverting my edits?

 * Get consensus before you start making major changes.

 * The MoS is enough of a consensus for me and, I can only assume, countless others to make major changes to articles. Also, the fact that my edits stood for two months and about a dozen edits before you reverted them, shows that no one who viewed the article had a problem with them until you changed them.

 * - SimonP 04:01, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Darrien 04:24, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

OK - I'll post it here. Quoting from: American and British English differences

"sulphur sulfur The American spelling is the international standard in the sciences, although many British scientists use the British spelling." The American spelling is the International standard for science articles, and Mineralogy is science!--Vsmith 16:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WWWOOOOOWWW!!! What a Guinness World Record Holder!!!
Dear SimonP, it is truly a great pleasure for me to write (ermmm..... I mean edit) this message of praise and commendation to you at this hour! Guess what, I have done checking through the list of the Wikipedians or the Wikipedia's editors' list to see who edit the MOST articles with the MOST EDIT COUNTS in this big Free Online Encyclopedia, and what can I say man! Behold, it is You who are still the highest KING cream of the crop ever with a whooping of over about 92,000 Wiki-articles' edit counts plus editing hits of yours done in just or merely five years and counting!!! '''WWWOOOOOWWW!!! That is absolutely amazing!''' How did you manage to do that with such substantial Wiki-enterprises and huge editing projects coupled with other Wiki-stuffs to complete or deal with? I was really stunned by your supreme consistency plus your hardcore non-stop around-the-clock industrious efforts in contributing so many and so much information in this encyclopedia! Congratulations to you, Great and Honourable Highly-Commendable General Multi-Exa-Wiki-Editor!!! What an awesome job well done!!! Keep it up!!!!! -onWheeZierPLot Monday, 3rd July, 2006ad. You deleted CTMU so I say that is a -ve to your fine record. Themonuclear -ve. Ground Zero -ve. 125.237.52.63 12:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

how do i shot web
hello, i wanted to create this page but i saw that there where already a page with this name. so if i create this again, u will delete this? -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Somalia Affair
Thanks for keeping your eye on Somalia Affair, after all the work I put into it, I was distressed to see the same pattern emerge as happened after I completed Operation Red Wing; of users with a "strong personal objection" to large swaths of material covered...and even the near-identical process of "just nominate all images in the article for deletion". I actually noticed you were the #2 contributor to the article a week ago when checking edit history, and quietly hoped you were still watching it simply for ego-stroking; turns out it's a good thing you do. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Please also note that the same user has removed all images, and chunks of sourced text from Unified Task Force; Somalia-related articles might require some watchlisting (I've added UTF for now) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Spare me the lecture, okay? Those images were ripped directly from a CBC documentary on the Somalia Affair, as the supposedly "well-respected" uploader himself indicated. It was his own decision to title that image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" -- just like it was his own decision to caption one "Cpl. McKay speaks of the "niggers" around him in Somalia" and another "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers"." Awfully fond of the n-word for a so-called "respected long time user", isn't he? Perhaps this is difficult for you to understand, but I assure you, it won't be for the folks over at the administrator's noticeboard. Do not again add copyright violations to the article or tell me to respect people that don't know the meaning of it. Middayexpress (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:SimonP/Archive 1


text:
UPRA

UPRA may refer to:

 * Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army
 * University of Puerto Rico at Aguadilla
 * University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo

title: UPRA