text:
Alexis Brimeyer

Alex Ceslaw Maurice Jean Brimeyer (4 May 1946 – 27 January 1995) was a pretender who claimed connection to various European thrones. He used fraudulent combined titles such as "Prince d'Anjou Durazzo Durassow Romanoff Dolgorouki de Bourbon-Condé". He authored the highly controversial book, Moi Petit-Arriere-Fils du Tsar. He also sold false titles of nobility through "orders" that he and his associates had created.

Early life
Alex Brimeyer was born on 4 May 1946 in Costermansville (now Bukavu, Democratic Republic of the Congo). His parents were the engineer Victor Brimeyer and his wife, Beatrice Dolgoruky, daughter of Ceclava Czapska.

Noble pretender
Brimeyer's first attempt to ennoble himself came when he named himself, Brimeyer de la Calchuyére, in the 1950s when he was about ten years old. This came to nothing. In 1955, he took a name, His Serene Highness Prince Khevenhüller-Abensberg, but the real Princess Khevenhüller threatened to sue him. He backpedaled and apologized. Brimeyer also wrote to a number of aristocrats to convince them to adopt him. In 1969, he received a passport of the Principality of Sealand with the name His Highness Prince Alexis Romanov Dolgorouki. When he contacted a Brussels Orthodox priest, Jean Maljinowski, to be baptized, the priest was suspicious since the supposed prince did not speak a word of Russian.

He commissioned two death certificates to be published in Le Soir. Through them, he claimed that Nikolai Dolgorouki, his supposed father, had used a pseudonym of Nicholas di Fonzo to escape the October Revolution and lived under the name. In actuality, the Bolsheviks executed the real Nikolai Dolgorouki after the Revolution.

Khevenhüller trial
Princess von Khevenhüller-Metsch, Princess Maria Dolgoroukova and Prince Alexander Pavlovich Dolgorouki sued Brimeyer. They charged that Brimeyer was using their noble titles with malicious intent. The prosecutor presented a large number of fraudulent documents, including letters where Emperor Charles V supposedly ennobles Brimeyer. The court noted that his claim of marriage between his "grandfather", Prince Dolgorouki, and his "grandmother", Maria Nikolaevna (who was long mistakenly thought by some to have survived the execution of the Romanov family in July 1918), was false. On 24 November 1971, Brimeyer was sentenced to jail for 18 months but had fled to Greece from where he sent a letter to the prosecutor. In it he claimed descent from the Emperors of Byzantium.

In Greece Brimeyer presented himself in the police station, and said that his passport had been stolen. He requested temporary documents. He registered then himself as Alexis Romanov Dolgorouki and for the next ten years he used those documents to "prove" his status.

"I, Alexis, Great Grandson of the Tsar"
In 1979 Brimeyer was living in Spain and contacted the cadet line of the Anjou Durassos. He convinced some of them to give their support and recognize him as the head of the royal house of Anjou-Durazzo. In 1982 he published a book "I, Alexis, Great Grandson of the Tsar" by "H.R.H. Prince Alexis d'Anjou Romanov-Dolgorouki, Duke of Durazzo". The book included a "will" where Vassili d'Anjou Durassow supposedly recognized him as his only son. Thus he claimed connection to the house of Anjou and the throne of Naples.

Alexis was certain that Victor Brimeyer was not his father. He claimed that after his mother divorced Brimeyer she married Vassili d'Anjou Durassow on 15 April 1947 and that he was born in 1948. This supposed marriage was then annulled and she married Prince Igor Dolgorouki on 6 September 1948, divorcing him shortly thereafter and marrying Joseph Fabry in 1950.

Ties to the House of Condé
In August 1984, Alexis' mother, Beatrice, married Bruce Conde, an imposter to the Princes of Condé. After the wedding, he adopted Brimeyer. This gave Alexis an excuse to add the title Bourbon-Condé.

Ties to Russia
Next, Alexis claimed that as his father was the son of Prince Dolgorouki and that Prince Dolgorouki had married the supposedly escaped Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia, and that his mother was their only daughter.

Alexis claimed that his grandfather had been elected Volodar of Ukraine and persuaded a few orthodox priests that he was the heir to a throne. Through the Grand Duchess, Alexis claimed a connection to the Romanovs and the Russian throne.

Serbian throne
He sent numerous letters to King Juan Carlos of Spain and demanded his recognition. He married and had a son. He also managed to convince the British College of Arms to include himself in documents. Lord Mountbatten of Burma wrote to him on 3 January 1977, addressing him as Prince Dolgorouky as a courtesy.

In 1992, two Greater Serbian nationalists, including Vojislav Šešelj, visited Brimeyer in Spain. Supposedly they offered him the throne of Serbia. He told journalists that he had been in touch with Slobodan Milošević, who was supposedly in favor of restoring the Serbian monarchy. Then he used the title, "Prince Alexis II Nemanitch Romanov Dolgorouki", Grand Master of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem. He had convinced his Serbian nationalist supporters that he was descended, in a very convoluted manner, from Hrebeljanovic Nemanitch.

Alexis claimed to have accepted the throne of Serbia. There appeared to be at least some support for him. The European Monarchist Association published a communiqué, where it stated Brimeyer's real identity. The scheme then appears to have collapsed.

Death
Alexis Brimeyer died of HIV/AIDS in Madrid, aged 48, on 27 January 1995.

title: Alexis Brimeyer


text:
Nadi (yoga)

 (नाड़ी) is a term for the channels through which, in traditional Indian medicine and spiritual theory, the energies such as prana of the physical body, the subtle body and the causal body are said to flow. Within this philosophical framework, the nadis are said to connect at special points of intensity, the chakras. All nadis are said to originate from one of two centres; the heart and the kanda, the latter being an egg-shaped bulb in the pelvic area, just below the navel. The three principal nadis run from the base of the spine to the head, and are the ida on the left, the sushumna in the centre, and the pingala on the right. Ultimately the goal is to unblock these nadis to bring liberation.

Overview
Nadi is an important concept in Hindu philosophy, mentioned and described in the sources, some as much as 3,000 years old. The number of nadis of the human body is claimed to be up to hundreds-of-thousands and even millions. The Shiva Samhita treatise on yoga states, for example, that out of 350,000 nadis 14 are particularly important, and among them, the three just mentioned are the three most vital. The three principal nadis are ida, pingala, and sushumna. Ida (इडा, iḍā "comfort") lies to the left of the spine, whereas pingala (पिङ्गल, piṅgala "orange", "tawny", "golden", "solar") is to the right side of the spine, mirroring the ida. Sushumna (Suṣumṇa "very gracious", "kind" ) runs along the spinal cord in the center, through the seven chakras. When the channels are unblocked by the action of yoga, the energy of kundalini uncoils and rises up the sushumna from the base of the spine. While the sushumna came to be envisioned as a vertical channel extending upwards from the heart, navel region, or base of the torso, there is an old precedent for the idea that it extends, like the śaktitantu, to the feet: the Mataṅgapārameśvara, a comparatively early Siddhāntatantra, envisions the sushumna running from the tips of the big toes to the crown of the head via the navel and heart. This archaic model of a central channel extending to the feet, linking together the principal series of nine lotuses [i.e., Kapālīśabhairava, the four Devīs and the four Dūtīs] spanning the body’s axis from crest (śikhā) to feet (pāda), may underlie the Brahmayāmala’s conception of the śaktitantu.

The nadis play a role in yoga, as many yogic practices, including shatkarmas, mudras and pranayama, are intended to open and unblock the nadis. The ultimate aim of some yogic practices are to direct prana into the sushumna nadi specifically, enabling kundalini to rise, and thus bring about moksha, or liberation.

Early references
Several of the ancient Upanishads use the concept of nadis (channels). The nadi system is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad (8~6 cc. BCE), verse 8.6.6. and in verses 3.6–3.7 of the Prasna Upanishad (second half of the 1 millennium BCE). As stated in the last,

"3.6 'In the heart verily is Jivātma. Here a hundred and one nāḍis arise. For each of these nāḍis there are one hundred nāḍikās. For each of these there are thousands more. In these Vyâna moves.' 3.7 'Through one of these, the Udâna leads us upward by virtue of good deeds to the good worlds, by sin to the sinful worlds, by both to the worlds of men indeed.' (PU Q3)"

The medieval Sat-Cakra-Nirupana (1520s), one of the later and more fully developed classical texts on nadis and chakras, refers to these three main nadis by the names Sasi, Mihira, and Susumna. "In the space outside the Meru, the right apart from the body placed on the left and the right, are the two nadis, Sasi and Mihira. The Nadi Susumna, whose substance is the threefold Gunas, is in the middle. She is the form of Moon, Sun, and Fire even water also; Her body, a string of blooming Dhatura flowers, extends from the middle of the Kanda to the Head, and the Vajra inside Her extends, shining, from the Medhra to the Head."

Functions and activities
In hatha yoga theory, nadis carry prana, life force energy. In the physical body, the nadis are channels carrying air, water, nutrients, blood and other bodily fluids around and are similar to the arteries, veins, capillaries, bronchioles, nerves, lymph canals and so on. In the subtle and the causal body, the nadis are channels for so-called cosmic, vital, seminal, mental, intellectual, etc. energies (collectively described as prana) and are important for sensations, consciousness and the spiritual aura.

Yoga texts disagree on the number of nadis in the human body. The Hatha Yoga Pradipika and Goraksha Samhita quote 72,000 nadis, each branching off into another 72,000 nadis, whereas the Shiva Samhita states 350,000 nadis arise from the navel center, and the Katha Upanishad (6.16) says that 101 channels radiate from the heart.

The Ida and Pingala nadis are sometimes in modern readings interpreted as the two hemispheres of the brain. Pingala is the extroverted (Active), solar nadi, and corresponds to the right side of the body and the left side of the brain. Ida is the introverted, lunar nadi, and corresponds to the left side of the body and the right side of the brain.

Central channel (Sushumna)
Sushumna is the central and most important channel. It connects the base chakra to the crown chakra. It is important in Yoga and Tantra. It corresponds to the river Saraswati.

Left channel (Ida)
Ida is associated with lunar energy. The word ida means "comfort" in Sanskrit. Idā has a moonlike nature and feminine energy with a cooling effect. It courses from the left testicle to the left nostril and corresponds to the Ganges river.

Right channel (Pingala)
Pingala is associated with solar energy. The word pingala means "orange" or "tawny" in Sanskrit. Pingala has a sunlike nature and masculine energy. Its temperature is heating and courses from the right testicle to the right nostril. It corresponds to the river Yamuna.

Unblocking the channels

The purpose of yoga is moksha, liberation and hence immortality in the state of samadhi, union, which is the meaning of "yoga" as described in the Patanjalayayogasastra. This is obstructed by blockages in the nadis, which allow the vital air, prana, to languish in the Ida and Pingala channels. The unblocking of the channels is therefore a vital function of yoga. The various practices of yoga, including the preliminary purifications or satkarmas, the yogic seals or mudras, visualisation, breath restraint or pranayama, and the repetition of mantras work together to force the prana to move from the Ida and Pingala into the central Sushumna channel. The mudras in particular close off various openings, thus trapping prana and directing it towards the Sushumna. This allows kundalini to rise up the Sushumna channel, leading to liberation.

Other traditions and interpretations
Other cultures work with concepts similar to nadis and prana.

Chinese
Systems based on Traditional Chinese Medicine work with an energy concept called qi, analogous to prana. Qi travels through meridians analogous to the nadis. The microcosmic orbit practice has many similarities to certain Indian nadi shuddha (channel clearing) exercises and the practice of Kriya Yoga.

Tibetan
Tibetan medicine borrows many concepts from Yoga through the influence of Tantric Buddhism. One of the Six Yogas of Naropa is a cleansing of the central channel called phowa, enabling the transfer of consciousness to a pure land through the sagittal suture.

The Vajrayana practice of Trul Khor is another practice used to direct and control the flow of energy within the body's energetic meridians through breath control and physical postures.

European
Sometimes the three main nadis are related to the Caduceus of Hermes: "the two snakes of which symbolize the kundalini or serpent-fire which is presently to be set in motion along those channels, while the wings typify the power of conscious flight through higher planes which the development of that fire confers".

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

title: Nadi (yoga)


text:
Waihi miners' strike

The Waihi miners' strike was a major strike action in 1912 by gold miners in the New Zealand town of Waihi. It is widely regarded as the most significant industrial action in the history of New Zealand's labour movement. It resulted in one striker being killed, one of only two deaths in industrial actions in New Zealand.

Origins
At the time of the strike, the labour movement in New Zealand was expanding rapidly. The New Zealand Federation of Labour (known as the "Red Fed"), which was linked to the Socialist Party, was gaining considerable support from the working class, and the Waihi Trade Union of Workers, to which many miners belonged, was part of the Federation. Disputes between the union and the large Waihi Goldmining Company were frequent. Miners had many grievances regarding their working conditions and often downed tools and walked off the site in response to accidents in the mine (falls, broken limbs, crushing, brusings and even the occasional fatality). A more insidious killer than the accidents was miners' phthisis, dust on the lungs. Because of 'miners complaint' as it was known, men who started mining at 16 would be lucky to reach 40. The company offered no compensation for miners and long before the strike (1906) there was a feeling among them that

"there were too many accidents, too many maimings, too many deaths... Miners would ask themselves bitterly what they were dying for. The answer seemed to be: for themselves, £2/8s. a week, just enough to feed and clothe their families; for the shareholders in the Waihi Gold Mining Company, a quite fabulous flow of unearned income."

In May 1912, a number of stationary engine drivers who rejected the Federation of Labour's strong positions established a breakaway union. Although the Waihi Goldmining Company claimed to have no involvement in the breakaway union, saying that it was a matter of union politics, many workers believed that the Company was attempting to split the union, and called a strike. The local police chief reacted cautiously to the action, but Police Commissioner John Cullen ordered a strong response, dispatching additional police.

Two months later, the conservative Reform Party came to power — the new Prime Minister, William Massey, declared that he would strongly oppose the "enemies of order".

Support from other miners
Several other mines around the country were affected by the action at Waihi, with miners downing tools in support of the Waihi miners or with their own claims against the harsh working conditions. At Reefton, in the South Island, this led to a lock-out of workers in June and July 1912.

Confrontation
The police buildup in Waihi continued until an estimated 10 percent of New Zealand's police force was present. Around 60 strikers were arrested and jailed. Anger among the strikers grew, and the Federation of Labour gradually began to lose control to even more radical groups, such as the Industrial Workers of the World organisation.

In October, the Company was able to re-open the mine with non-union workers ("scabs"). The union workers reacted angrily, and the new workers were attacked with stones. Tensions between the union and non-union workers were very high — the union workers saw the newcomers as threatening their livelihoods and as being traitors to the working class, while many of the newcomers felt they had little choice but to take what work they could find, and resented the attacks and condemnation.

Black Tuesday

The violence gradually escalated, with union workers on one side and non-union workers and police on the other. The greatest level of violence came on 12 November, known as "Black Tuesday". A group of armed non-union workers and police attacked the union hall, which was defended by a small group of union workers (also armed). Thomas Johnston, a non-union worker who had come to the mines after his market garden in Auckland was bankrupted, was shot in the knee, and a police constable (Gerald Wade) was shot in the stomach. The shots were fired by Fred Evans, a radical unionist. Evans himself was struck by Constable Gerald Wade and later died of his injuries. Soon afterwards, the strikers broke ranks, with many fleeing Waihi altogether.

Aftermath
Evans was later held by the hardliners up as a hero and a martyr, with Bob Semple saying that Evans had been "doing his duty and should have shot more of them". Despite this, however, many people in the union movement actually moderated their positions after the strike — it had, after all, failed to achieve its goals. The strike also contributed to unity in the New Zealand labour movement — the Socialist Party, which had backed the strike, moved towards merger with the more moderate United Labour Party, which had not. The resultant Social Democratic Party later formed the basis of the modern Labour Party.

A pamphlet The Tragic Story of the Waihi Strike was co-written by Harry Holland, Robert Samuel Ross and Francis Edward O'Flynn (O'Flynn wrote under pseudonym Ballot Box).

The imprisoned strike leaders including Bill Parry were released in November against security of £1600; the bond was later found to have been put up by brewer Ernest Davis, who was a major source of funds for the Labour Party for half a century.

Legacy
In late 2016, the play 'Scarlet and Gold' told the story of the Waihi strike.

title: Waihi miners' strike


text:
Bathybius haeckelii

Bathybius haeckelii was a substance that British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley discovered and initially believed to be a form of primordial matter, a source of all organic life. He later admitted his mistake when it proved to be just the product of an inorganic chemical process (precipitation).

In 1868 Huxley studied an old sample of mud from the Atlantic seafloor taken in 1857. When he first examined it, he had found only protozoan cells and placed the sample into a jar of alcohol to preserve it. Now he noticed that the sample contained an albuminous slime that appeared to be criss-crossed with veins.

Huxley thought he had discovered a new organic substance and named it Bathybius haeckelii, in honor of German biologist Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel had theorized about Urschleim ("primordial slime"), a protoplasm from which all life had originated. Huxley thought Bathybius could be that protoplasm, a missing link (in modern terms) between inorganic matter and organic life.

Huxley published a description of Bathybius that year and also wrote to Haeckel to tell him about it. Haeckel was impressed and flattered and procured a sample for himself. In the next edition of his textbook The History of Creation Haeckel suggested that the substance was constantly coming into being at the bottom of the sea, "monera" arising from nonliving matter due to "physicochemical causes." Huxley asserted in a speech given to the Royal Geographic Society in 1870 that Bathybius undoubtedly formed a continuous mat of living protoplasm that covered the whole ocean floor for thousands of square miles, probably a continuous sheet around the Earth.

Sir Charles Wyville Thomson examined some samples in 1869 and regarded them as analogous to mycelium; "no trace of differentiation of organs", "an amorphous sheet of a protein compound, irritable to a low degree and capable of assimilating food... a diffused formless protoplasm."

Other scientists were less enthusiastic. George Charles Wallich claimed that Bathybius was a product of chemical disintegration.

In 1872 the Challenger expedition began; it spent three years studying the oceans. The expedition also took soundings at 361 ocean stations. They did not find any sign of Bathybius, despite the claim that it was a nearly universal substance. In 1875 ship's chemist John Young Buchanan analyzed a substance that looked like Bathybius from an earlier collected sample. He noticed that it was a precipitate of calcium sulfate from the seawater that had reacted with the preservative liquid (alcohol), forming a gelatinous ooze which clung to particles as if ingesting them. Buchanan suspected that all the Bathybius samples had been prepared the same way and notified Sir Charles Thomson, now the leader of the expedition. Thomson sent a polite letter to Huxley and told about the discovery.

Huxley realized that he had been too eager and made a mistake. He published part of the letter in Nature and recanted his previous views. Later, during the 1879 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he stated that he was ultimately responsible for spreading the theory and convincing others.

Most biologists accepted this acknowledgement of error. Haeckel, however, did not want to abandon the idea of Bathybius because it was so close to proof of his own theories about Urschleim. He claimed without foundation that Bathybius "had been observed" in the Atlantic. Haeckel drew a series of pictures of the evolution of his Urschleim, supposedly based on observations. He continued to support this position until 1883.

Huxley's rival George Charles Wallich claimed that Huxley had committed deliberate fraud and also accused Haeckel of falsifying data. Other opponents of evolution, including George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll, tried to use the case as an argument against evolution. The entire affair was a blow to the evolutionary cause, who had posited it as their long-sought evolutionary origin of life from nonliving chemistry by natural processes, without the necessity of divine intervention. In retrospect, their error was in dismissing the necessary role of photosynthesis in supporting the entire food chain of life; and the corresponding requirement for sunlight, abundant at the surface, but absent on the ocean floor.

title: Bathybius haeckelii


text:
Andrew Crosse

Andrew Crosse (17 June 1784 – 6 July 1855) was a British scientist who was born and died at Fyne Court, Broomfield, Somerset. Crosse was an early pioneer and experimenter in the use of electricity. He became known after press reports of an electrocrystallization experiment he conducted in 1836, during which insects "appeared".

Early life
Crosse was the first son of Richard Crosse and Susannah Porter. In 1788 he accompanied them on a trip to France, where he went to school for a time in Orléans. From the age of six until he was eight he stayed with a tutor, the Reverend Mr White, in Dorchester, where he learned Greek. On 1 February 1792 he was sent to boarding school in Bristol.

Around the age of 12, Crosse persuaded one of his teachers to let him attend a series of lectures on the natural sciences, the second of which was on the subject of electricity. This was the cause of his lifelong interest in the subject. Crosse first began experimenting with electricity during his time in the sixth form, when he built a Leyden jar. After leaving school, he studied at Brasenose College, Oxford.

Scientific research
Having lost his parents, his father in 1800 and his mother in 1805, Crosse took over the management of the family estates at the age of 21. After abandoning his studies for the Bar, he increasingly devoted his spare time to studying electricity at Fyne Court, where he built his own laboratory. He also studied mineralogy and became interested in the formation of crystalline deposits in caves. Around 1807, he began to experiment with electrocrystallization, forming crystalline lime carbonate from water taken from Holwell Cavern. He returned to the subject again from around 1817 and in subsequent years produced a total of 24 electrocrystallised minerals.

Among his experiments Crosse erected "an extensive apparatus for examining the electricity of the atmosphere," incorporating at one point an insulated wire some 1.25 mi long, later shortened to 1800 ft, suspended from poles and trees. Using this wire he was able to determine the polarity of the atmosphere under various weather conditions. His results were published by his friend George Singer in 1814, as part of Singer's Elements of Electricity and Electro-Chemistry.

Along with Sir Humphry Davy (who visited Fyne Court in 1827), Crosse was one of the first to develop large voltaic piles. Although it was not the largest he built, Henry Minchin Noad's Manual of Electricity describes a battery consisting of 50 jars containing 73 sqft of coated surface. Using his wires Crosse was able to charge and discharge it some 20 times a minute, "accompanied by reports almost as loud as those of a cannon". He became known locally as "the thunder and lightning man". In 1836, Sir Richard Phillips described seeing a wide variety of voltaic piles at Fyne Court, totalling 2,500, of which 1,500 were in use when he visited.

In 1836, Crosse was persuaded to attend a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Bristol. After describing his discoveries over dinner at the house of a friend in Bristol, he was further persuaded to recount them to both the chemical and the geological sections of the meeting. They included his electrocrystallization and atmospheric experiments, and his improvements to the voltaic battery.

Crosse went on to separate copper from its ores using electrolysis, experimented with the electrolysis of sea water, wine and brandy to purify them, and examined the effects of electricity on vegetation. He was also interested in the practical uses of electricity and magnetism, including the development of loudspeakers and telegraphy although he did not do research in these areas himself.

Controversy
A few months after the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science Crosse was conducting another electrocrystallization experiment when, on the 26th day of the experiment, he saw what he described as "the perfect insect, standing erect on a few bristles which formed its tail". More creatures appeared and two days later they began moving their legs. Over the next few weeks hundreds more appeared. They crawled around the table and hid themselves wherever they could find shelter. Crosse identified them as being members of the genus Acarus.

Puzzled, Crosse mentioned the incident to a couple of friends. A local newspaper learned of the incident and published an article about the "extraordinary experiment," naming the insects Acarus crossii. The article was subsequently picked up by other newspapers across the country and elsewhere in Europe. Some readers apparently gained the impression that Crosse had somehow "created" the insects, or at least claimed to have done so. He received angry letters in which he was accused of blasphemy and trying to take God's place as a creator. Some of them included death threats.

Other scientists tried to repeat the experiment. W. H. Weeks took extensive measures to assure a sealed environment by placing his experiment inside a bell jar. He obtained the same results as Crosse, but due to the controversy that Crosse's experiment had sparked his work was never published. In February 1837 many newspapers reported that Michael Faraday had also replicated Crosse's results. However, this was not true. Faraday had not even attempted the experiment. Later researchers, such as fellow members of the London Electrical Society Henry Noad and Alfred Smee, were unable to replicate Crosse's results.

Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments.

It has been suggested that this episode was a source of inspiration for Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, but this cannot have been the case, since Crosse's experiments took place almost 20 years after the novel was first published. The idea appears to have originated in the book The Man Who Was Frankenstein (1979) by Peter Haining. Mary Shelley did, however, know Crosse through a mutual friend, the poet Robert Southey. Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley reportedly attended a lecture by Crosse in London in December 1814, in which he allegedly explained his experiments with atmospheric electricity. However, Mary Shelley's diary speaks only of "Garnerin" as the lecturer. Similarly dubious is a claim that Edward W. Cox wrote a report of their visits to Fyne Court to see Crosse's work in the Taunton Courier in Autumn 1836. Percy had been dead for over a dozen years by then.

Other interests
Crosse also wrote a great many poems and enjoyed walking on the Quantock Hills, in which Fyne Court is set, "at all hours of day and night, in all seasons".

Crosse advocated the benefits of education for the lower classes, argued against emigration, and supported a campaign by local farmers against falling food prices and high taxes during the 1820s. He was also active in party politics, speaking in support of friends at election meetings. Following the Battle of Waterloo Crosse boarded a ship at Exeter to see the captured Napoleon Bonaparte on the deck of HMS Bellerophon (1786) near Plymouth. Crosse also served as a magistrate.

Personal life
Crosse married Mary Anne Hamilton in 1809. They had seven children, although three died in childhood. Mary died in 1846 following several years of ill health.

On 22 July 1850 Crosse married again, aged 66. His second wife was the 23-year-old Cornelia Augusta Hewett Berkeley. They went on to have three children.

Crosse suffered a stroke while dressing on the morning on 26 May 1855. He died on 6 July 1855, in the same room in which he had been born.

The Italian writer Dacia Maraini is his great-great-granddaughter, the socialite Cornelia Edith "Yoï" Crosse being his granddaughter and her grandmother.

Memorial
The laboratory table on which Crosse carried out experiments stands in the aisle of the Church of St Mary & All Saints, Broomfield, and an obelisk in his memory is in the churchyard.

Crosse's home, Fyne Court, was largely destroyed by fire in 1894. The garden and the 65 acre estate are now owned by the National Trust, and are open to visitors.

Documents
A number of documents related to Andrew Crosse and his work are held in the Somerset Record Office. In December 2008 Somerset County Council acquired a further two letters for the sum of 400 pounds to add to the collection.

title: Andrew Crosse


text:
Nadi (disambiguation)

Nadi, is a region in Fiji.

Nadi or NADI may refer to:

People

 * Aldo Nadi, Italian fencer
 * Alireza Nadi, Iranian volleyball player
 * Jules Nadi, French politician
 * Nedo Nadi, Italian fencer
 * Yunus Nadi Abalıoğlu, Turkish journalist

Acronyms

 * Normenausschuß der deutschen Industrie (NADI), Standardisation Committee of German Industry, predecessor of Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN)

Other uses

 * Nadi Bhd, Malaysian public company
 * Nadi (yoga), subtle energy channels described in yoga and Tantra
 * Nadi astrology, an Indian form of astrology
 * Ñadi a soil type or phytogeographic zone in Chile

title: Nadi (disambiguation)


text:
Mazda Verisa

The Mazda Verisa is a subcompact car based on the jointly engineered Mazda DY platform. It was launched by Mazda in 2004 and was only available in Japan, although used Verisas were exported to international markets. The Verisa can be considered either a 'tall hatchback' or a 'low mini MPV'. Its height of 1530 mm is similar to other Japanese boxy subcompact cars and lower than European mini MPVs like the Fiat Idea and Opel Meriva. The Verisa was previewed at the 2004 North American International Auto Show in Detroit as the Mazda MX Micro-Sport, although it was never sold there.

According to Mazda the name Verisa was created by combining the Italian word 'verità' (truth) with the English word 'satisfaction', and the intended result of the term Verisa is to signify 'true fulfillment'. The car is built with the watchwords "simple, quality and compact" and is targeted towards couples in their 30s with individual style and values. The Verisa was available with a variety of factory and dealer-fitted options.

The Verisa comes in front-wheel drive (2WD) and electronic four-wheel drive (e4WD) configurations. There is one engine option that delivers the following power and efficiency figures:
 * Power = 113 PS at 6,000 rpm
 * Torque = 140 Nm at 4,000 rpm
 * Fuel consumption (2WD) = 5.5 L/100 km combined
 * (2WD) = 126.2 g/km
 * Fuel consumption (e4WD) = 5.8 L/100 km combined
 * (e4WD) = 135 g/km

In financial year 2004 Mazda produced 19,473 and sold 18,526 units. In financial year 2005 Mazda produced 14,336 and sold 14,416 units. The summary information for financial year 2006 and onwards was not published on the Mazda website. However, month by month breakdowns for domestic sales of individual car models are available.

The Verisa received updates in 2006 and 2009. Two special editions of the car have been released, the 'Brown Collection' in 2005 and the 'Stylish V' in 2007. The car has gained international admirers who question why it has not been made more widely available.

title: Mazda Verisa


text:
James de la Cloche

James de la Cloche (1644–1669; unattested dates) is an alleged would-be-illegitimate son of Charles II of England who would have first joined a Jesuit seminary and then gave up his habit to marry a Neapolitan woman. His existence has not been proven, and the parentage with Charles II is unlikely if 1644 is his correct birth date, since the king was only 14 years old then. James de la Cloche is mainly known through studies of British historian Lord Acton.

Arthur Barnes in 1908, and Marcel Pagnol in 1973, developed an identification of the famous Man in the Iron Mask with James de La Cloche. In his historical essay Le Secret du Masque de fer (The secret of the Iron Mask) released in 1973, Marcel Pagnol summarizes and comments various theories of historians. Besides Lord Acton and Mgr Barnes, M. Pagnol also refers to the historian John Lingard, Andrew Lang, Edith Carey, and also the French historian Laloy.

Lord Acton's Research
In 1862 Lord Acton received copies of the so-called Gesu manuscript from Giuseppe Boero of the Jesuit archives in Rome. Lord Acton later wrote an article The Secret History of Charles II.

Based on the documents, Charles II would have had an illegitimate son with lady Marguerite de Carteret when he had been in Jersey in 1646. The official father was Marguerite's husband, Jean de la Cloche. The son would have received Protestant education in France and the Netherlands and used the name James de la Cloche du Bourg. Charles II would have recognized him in secret in 1665 and granted him an annuity of £500 as long as he would stay in London and as an Anglican. Apparently de la Cloche spoke mainly French.

Jacobus de la Cloche entered a Jesuit seminary in Rome 2 April 1668. He was wearing common clothes and claimed that he was 24 years old. De la Cloche had converted to Catholicism in Hamburg in 1667. He had received a written proof of his ancestry from Queen Christina of Sweden and now wanted to join the seminary. He was accepted and entered St. Andrea al Quirinale as a novice on 11 April.

Apparently King Charles was not angry that de la Cloche had switched faiths. In 1668 Oliva, the general of the Jesuits, received a letter in which the king told that he planned to convert to Catholicism. He could not contact any of the local Catholic priests without arousing suspicions but his son, one de la Cloche, would be a perfect choice. He could arrange a cardinal's position for him, if he would not be suitable for the throne. In August the next letter invited de la Cloche to come home, without speaking to queen Christina, who was coming to Rome. The king had arranged him to travel under the name Henri de Rohan. By October de la Cloche was on his way.

The next royal letter, dated 18 November 1668, says that Charles II had sent his son back to Rome to act as his unofficial ambassador to the Holy See and he would later return to London when he had received answers to questions the king was willing to deliver only orally. He had asked Oliva to give de la Cloche 800 doppies for expenses. After that, there is no mention of de la Cloche.

Prince "Stuardo"
However, in 1669, a James Stuart, or  Don Giacopo Stuardo, appears in Naples and on 19 February, marries a Donna Theresa Corona, daughter of, Signor Francesco Corona, and Lady Anuccia de Anicis of the Orisini branch, in the chapel of S. Aspremo in the cathedral of Naples. She receives a dowry of 200 doppies. However, when Jacopo is heard to talking of his high birth and seen to live extravagantly, the suspicions of the viceroy of Naples are raised. He orders Stuart's arrest and imprisonment in San Elmo castle, before he eventually he is transferred to the castle of Gaetà. Theresa is shut up in a monastery. The English consul Browne, is summonsed and reports that this Jacopo can 'give no account of the birth he pretends to,' despite his claim to be a natural son of Charles II (although it is unclear when this was said).

The English offered no substantiation of the claims, and he had no documents to verify them, so he was removed from the relative comfort of the castle of Gaeta to the lowly prison of Vicaria. He was sentenced to flogging but his in-laws managed to stop that.

Stuart was eventually released, left supposedly for England and returned with more money. By 31 August he was dead. In his confusing will he had asked Charles II to give his unborn child an "ordinary principality" or something equally appropriate. He also named Henrietta Maria Stuart (Charles II's sister) as his mother. The matter was mentioned in contemporary newsletters and English consul's messages to England.

Stuart's widow gave birth to a son, Giacomo Stuardo. The son married Lucia Minelli di Riccia in 1711 and later regained some of his father's inheritance. The last record of him is from 1752.

Various historians have had conflicting opinions about the matter. James de la Cloche might have forged the royal letters himself. The confusing will may have been the handiwork of the Corona family. There might have been two separate men claiming the same ancestry - the change would have been rather drastic. Lord Acton and Father Boero assumed that the second man was an impostor. Boero assumed that de la Cloche had returned to London using yet another name and James Stuart had adopted his claim. Lord Acton suggests that Stuart might have been a servant who had robbed de la Cloche to get his money and papers.

John Lingard
The historian John Lingard, who procured the letters of Charles II to James and Father Oliva, affirmed that they all are fakes, making James an imposter prince. The letters addressed to King Charles II evoke Queen Henrietta Maria as being in London in 1668, when she went to settle in France three years before, where she remained until her death in 1669. M. Pagnol then cited other evidence put forward by John Lingard identifying one of the letters as a fake: "On the other hand, one of the King’s certificates is dated from White Hall while the King, because of the plague in London, had taken refuge in Oxford with all his court".

Whitehall does not appear in what M. Pagnol transcribed of the certificate. The letter of 18 November 1668, by which Charles II sent a debt of gratitude to Father Oliva, is dated from Whitehall. However, according to the article Charles II of England referring to the book Charles II (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1991) by John Miller, the royal family left London in July 1665 for Salisbury, while Parliament met in Oxford. The King returned to London in February 1666, he could therefore have drafted a letter to White Hall in late 1668.

Miss Edith Carey
She is convinced that James is really the son of Charles II and Marguerite Carteret. He would have been ordained a priest in Rome before returning to London in order to catechize (convert) in father. He vanished after the letter from Charles II to Oliva, dated 18 November 1668. According to her, Charles II had Louis XIV arrange the arrest of this embarrassing bastard son in France (in July 1669) and then his incarceration in Pinerolo, which gives the identification with the Man in the Iron Mask, being then cousin of Louis XIV as the son of his first cousin. The Prince Stuardo would then have been made up by Charles II in order to explain James’ disappearance.

Charles II would then have got rid of his bastard son, a few month only after requesting his return to London, in order to appeal to his new priest status to be catechized. Marcel Pagnol disagrees with this theory, arguing that Charles II, who made other bastard sons dukes, would certainly not have had James life-imprisoned after having recognised him.

Andrew Lang
According to him, if James de la Cloche had been of royal blood and had acquired deep religious creeds, he would not have married a commoner or displayed his money. Lang made up his mind to demonize James, considering him as a "bold crook" who screwed Father Oliva for the sole purpose of getting money out of him. This is what Marcel Pagnol retrieves in the Jersey's dictionary: James was not the king's bastard son, but a megalomaniac crook, who died in Naples in on 10 September 1669.

Arthur S. Barnes
In his book The Man of the Mask (1908), Mgr Barnes claims James was really the illegitimate son of Charles II. According to him he returned to London under the name of Father Pregnani to catechise his father before returning to France. Because he held the secret of the Treaty of Dover, he was arrested and taken to Pinerolo under the name "Eustache Dauger." This theory was examined again by the French historian Mr Laloy. Father Pregnani returned from London to Paris in early July 1669, but according to the Memoirs of Primi Visconti, he died in Rome in 1679.

Marcel Pagnol
In the historical essay Le Masque de fer (The Iron Mask) released in 1965, Marcel Pagnol develops a theory identifying the famous prisoner in the Iron Mask as the elder twin brother of Louis XIV, who was born after him (meaning the older brother, born before Louis, was the legitimate heir to the throne). Marcel Pagnol completed his essay in 1973, re-titling it Le Secret du Masque de fer (The Secret of the Iron Mask), adding in particular the result of his research on James de la Cloche, whom he identified as the twin brother of Louis XIV, bearing that name in his youth.

Growing up on the Island of Jersey
M. Pagnol could not find any birth certificate, baptismal death certificate in the Jersey archives. He therefore concluded that James was not born on the island, and that he did not belong to the Carteret family.

In 1644 Louis XIV was 6 years old. Cardinal Mazarin sent the midwife Lady Perronette to England where Queen Henrietta of France, sister of Louis XIII and wife of the English king Charles I, gave birth to Henrietta of England. According to M. Pagnol, the midwife brought the twin with her to hide him abroad, which was the actual purpose of her journey. After giving birth, Henrietta of France sent Lady Perronette to the Carterets, the noblest family on the island of Jersey, so their daughter Marguerite could raise the child. Perronette paid them a large dowry for the adoption but did not reveal his true identity, presenting him as the son of a young noblewoman. It was to the same Carteret family that Henrietta of England sent her son (the future Charles II) at the age of 15 years in 1646 during the English Civil War of 1642–1651.

In 1657 Marguerite married Jean de la Cloche, who gave his name to James. In Jersey, a rumour spread that James was born of a liaison between Marguerite Carteret and the future King Charles II, who came to the island in his youth. James questioned Marguerite, who denied the rumour. Later, finding a striking resemblance between himself and Charles II when seeing his portrait, he was convinced of being the King's son and wished to be legally recognised, like two other illegitimate sons. Marguerite (or probably her father) approached the King on his behalf, but the latter did not acknowledge him.

Jesuit in Rome
Considering himself unjustly repudiated by the person he believed to be his father, James did not give up just yet. Knowing via the Carteret family that Charles II was secretly preparing to convert to Catholicism (and would thus subject the English Church to the authority of the Pope), he decided to become a Catholic priest in order to be able to convert Charles II. Besides the certificate from the Queen of Sweden James applied for his candidacy at the Institute of Jesuit novices with a first certificate from Charles II himself, recognising him as his son the "Prince Stuart". In other letters, Charles II promised the throne to James and a generous reward to the Jesuits.

In a letter dated 18 November 1668 (presumably the one cited by Lord Acton), Father Oliva received a debt of gratitude, promising him the sum of 20,000 pounds sterling, and then asked for a payment to James of 800 pounds that he undertook to reimburse to him. According to M. Pagnol, Oliva certainly paid that sum to James, believing the authenticity of the letters and royal guarantees. M. Pagnol therefore placed the departure from Rome at the beginning of December 1668, a few weeks later than the date given by Lord Acton.

Comparing the letters from Charles II to Father Oliva with other letters addressed to his sister Henrietta of England, two expert graphologists consulted by M. Pagnol are positive: the letters sent to Father Oliva are fake, making James a fraud. M. Pagnol's believed in James's good faith though, admitting that he sincerely believed he was the bastard son of Charles II.

The meeting with Charles II
In his last letter, Charles II recommended that James call in to visit his sister Henrietta of England in Paris who could have him ordained as a priest. Knowing this letter was a fake, it was then James who, by the same process of a false supporting letter from Charles II, would have requested an audience with Henrietta of England. Moreover, M. Pagnol also cited a letter of 20 January 1669 by Charles II to Henrietta of England, which referred to a previous letter from Henrietta to Charles delivered by a certain "Italian" identified as James coming from Rome.

M. Pagnol concluded that Henrietta received James, in whom she immediately recognised a resemblance to her cousin Louis XIV (she was living in France) and handed him a letter for the attention of Charles II, judiciously leaving to him the responsibility of ordaining James. When James gave the letter to Charles II in London in early 1669, the king recognised him and revealed to him the secret of his birth - information which he certainly inherited from his mother Henrietta of France. Learning that he should reigning instead of his twin brother, James is sent by Charles II to Roux de Marcilly who organised a conspiracy against Louis XIV of which all the English Ministers were aware.

In his essay, Marcel Pagnol demonstrates that the famous prisoner in the Iron Mask was not Italian. Identifying James de la Cloche as the prisoner, James would therefore not be the Abbot Pregnani, as Mgr Barnes claims. As for Prince "Stuardo" M. Pagnol believes that he cannot be the Prince Stuart (in this case James de la Cloche), who would certainly not have returned to Italy to spend the fortune defrauded from the Jesuits in Rome. So it would therefore have been James's butler who, on learning of the arrest of his master, took his money and usurped his identity before fleeing to Naples.

Sources and further reading

 * Giovanni Tarantino, Jacques de la Cloche: A Stuart Pretender in the Seventeenth Century, in Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu, LXXIII (June-Dec., 2004).
 * Steuart, A. Francis, "The Neapolitan Stuarts", in The English Historical Review, Vol. 18, no. 71 (July 1903).
 * Steuart, A. Francis, "The Neapolitan Stuarts", in The English Historical Review, Vol. 18, no. 71 (July 1903).

title: James de la Cloche


text:
User talk:Culix

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Viriditas 10:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Aloha
I just wanted to say hello, again. Are you on Czech time? I would love to discuss the topic of computer ethics with you at some point, as I have some questions pertaining to some current pages that I think you could help me with in the future. --Viriditas | Talk 06:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Czech, Afshar
Hey Culix!

Thanks for your message! Randomly I noticed on your user page that you're interested in Czech stuff - that's fun, I am Czech. Do you speak some Czech, except for the name of Radek Richta?

Afshar invited me for a dinner and paid for it - it was a pleasant experience so I should perhaps reduce the criticism of his beliefs. (He is also a committed muslim.) Concerning the favorite interpretations, my most favorite one are Consistent Histories which is a "daughter" of the Many-Worlds interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation - the latter was pragmatically speaking essentially fine, too - although it was incomplete. Afshar's experiment is also discussed on my blog although it does not necessarily contain the most up-to-date comments. What about your favorite interpretations?

All the best, Lubos (Lumidek)

Computer ethics
Aloha, Culix. The best way to discuss Computer ethics is to start an article about it! Feel free to start this article at any time, and I will be glad to help. Before you start the article, have a look at Ethics of technology and try to determine if this article is more accurate or inclusive. Either way, this article needs work. --Viriditas | Talk 03:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the difficulty of NPOV in regard to ethics; I suppose the problem is the subjectivity of ethics itself. To get a very brief look at this kind of difficulty, have a look at what I helped contribute to the section on the ethical issues of Terraforming. The best thing to do is to attribute ideas to claimants; this helps avoid many POV problems, although I have yet to do that on the Terraforming page! Good luck on your exams! --Viriditas  | Talk 03:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Double slit exp.
Hey Culix,

thanks for your reply. Well, I think that the double slit experiments were essentially understood once and for all already in the late 1920s, and we physicists just follow their insights at that time.

Concerning translations, I did it - essentially for free - in the case of Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe (from English to Czech). The opposite direction would be far from perfect, and I don't have time to do it... Sorry.

Best, Lubos

Categorization
Not a problem! I need to work on the ethics of Terraforming, though. :) --Viriditas | Talk 01:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hermit's Cave and Valerio Ricetti
Hi there. I came across a misspelling of Valerio (Valeri) Ricetti on the article Hermit's Cave when I was constructing an article on this unusual recluse. Then searching wiki in case there were any others I came across the one on your user page. I hope you don't mind I have corrected the spelling so that it points correctly to Valerio Ricetti. Please feel free to come into the article and edit. -- VS talk 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GEB
I hope I can continue to be of assistance. If you have any free time to spare, please help expand Indra's net. I added the citation to GEB, but I have not yet added the content. I also made a recommendation on the GEB comment page requesting a rewrite for the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 08:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil Postman on bullshit
Just saw your question and replied here. It was classic Postman. Tvoz | talk 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I answered you on the talk page before I got your note - I think it's not the best citation, but it is ok for now. But I do wonder if the essay rises to the level of the books listed there - actually it's not an attack on the essay, it's that I'm not sure it's one of his three greatest accomplishments - probably the section needs expansion.  Tvoz | talk 09:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talkpage...
Sorry for the much belated reply...I was kind of indisposed..anyway: I remember it like yesterday, me putting the tag on the article :)).

Although it was courteous of you to ask, you could have removed the tag by yourself; and, btw, nice work there. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pfhorte
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pfhorte, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process  because of the following concern:
 * notability not established

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

comments
I'm afraid I am somewhat confused by your changing of the Pfhorte article to a redirect. You made the article a redirect that points to Marathon Trilogy, but in the See Also section there is a link back to Pfhorte. This seem circular and leaves nowhere for the content to go. Am I missing something? Are you saying you would prefer in Pfhorte content was placed on the Marathon Trilogy page? --Culix (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless there is a lot more to it it belongs on the Trilogy page (with the link removed once the page is gone; or with the link left in if you feel there is a longer notable page to be written but don't have the time to track down stats, articles and other references). +sj  +  06:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DarkSpace
You asked for feedback. I've only skimmed it so far but it looks pretty good. There are some in line external links that I try to avoid. I need to read it in a little more detail to see if there is excessive detail. RJFJR (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Logo
Good to see you got that logo uploaded. I would say that the image is low resolution, because otherwise we have to reduce the resolution. The size there looks fine. Double a thumbnail size is good for logos. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry for the delay. ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Translating Richta
Dear Culix, I have just made some minor changes to Your article on Radovan Richta and left an entry in the discussion - I hope, I can help You to translate from czech. Ivan 86.49.29.41 (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :) I have replied via email. Let me know if you don't receive it. --Culix (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Ascendancy review
No problem. I noticed that you were working on the article and dropped by on a whim to check it out. When I saw that you were using this review, which I assumed was from the Online print archive, I decided to dig around in some of its less intuitive indexes for more reviews of the game. I was lucky enough to locate the PC Gamer UK review, and left it in the External links in case you wanted it. Sadly, I don't have the original magazine, and I couldn't find any other reviews in the OPA. Still, I hope it was helpful, and I wish you good luck with the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been considering offering instructions on these problems, but the workarounds can be so complicated that it would be almost impossible to do so for every index. I'll try to give you as clear of a breakdown as I can. Basically, there are simple indexes in the online print archive—stuff no one should have any problem sorting through. These include the first PC Gamer US archive, the Game Informer archives and the Computer Games Magazine archive, with some exceptions. The PC Gamer UK archive is tricky, though, because the full page listings for each letter go dead maybe three or four pages in. The workaround is pretty time intensive, but here's how I got that Ascendancy review:
 * First, go to the A's. Then, click on a review link, and look at the number at the end of the URL. If it's something ridiculously high—like a four digit number—go for a different one. You want something <50, as PC Gamer UK sorted their reviews from 1 onward, in alphabetical order. Once you have that, alter the number on the end. In this case, I believe I started with Adrenix (35), or something, and skipped ahead to a higher number that would be close to Ascendancy. Once I got close, I fished around one digit at a time. For example: 85, 86, 87, 88, and finally, 89, the number of Ascendancy's review. There are tons of dead links this way, but countless otherwise-inaccessible reviews may be found like this.

 * The massive review list in the OPA is designed as a workaround for this issue. With all the time I've spent in these indexes, I know all of their quirks, issues and workarounds. However, I can only do so much—I list the reviews for games I recognize, or games whose articles would likely be written. I cannot, however, predict when a game like Ascendancy, which I was unfamiliar with until now, will have an article written about it. It's an ongoing problem with the OPA, which I hope to fix in the next few months. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:AscendancySystemDisplay.png
Thanks for uploading File:AscendancySystemDisplay.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey there, I had just noticed your feedback on the Sadness (video game) article. Thanks a bunch! It was just accessed as C class today, and I'm going to try to find some more sources to get it to B class. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
I'm glad to hear that you found the peer-review article useful. Thanks for taking the time to send me and Ruhrfisch a note about it. Finetooth (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A well-deserved barnstar for thee!
P.S: Can you please rate the Bubble and Squeek article please? I have been waiting for nearly 4 months now. Thank you! In Memoriam A.H.H. I am good at fighting windmills.. 11:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bubble and Squeek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horn ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bubble_and_Squeek check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bubble_and_Squeek?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Phenomenauts - Comic Book - Adventures in the Third Dimension! - 2011 - Fogel et. al - Back Cover -.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:The Phenomenauts - Comic Book - Adventures in the Third Dimension! - 2011 - Fogel et. al - Back Cover -.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

PR for Fawad Khan
Hi Culix, I've recently requested a PR for the article Fawad Khan (see here). It'd be an honour for me if you consider reviewing it. Thanks. Amirk94391 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you very much for the note. I am honoured that you have asked for a review :) My apologies for the delayed reply - I was on a forced wiki-break and did not have access. I would be happy to take a look at Fawad Khan and provide any feedback I can. I see that you have already had quite a thorough peer review. Congratulations! That is great. I will work to make time in the next few weeks to read through and see if I can spot anything. Cheers! --Culix (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You didn't get an answer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2019_August_19#Where_to_ask_for_audio_file_review? this question]. I wouldn't know how to, but did you find the answer elsewhere?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply. I have not received an answer elsewhere. Do you think it is appropriate if I post on Deletion_review? I see that Files_for_discussion says "For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review". I could ping the admin a third time, unless that is considered bothering them too much. I am hoping that if I request undeleting the file, it would get seen and assessed if I submit the article for GA review. --Culix (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea how deletion review works. I've had a couple of articles deleted myself but when I looked at the talk page for one of them, I see that I clearly knew the topic wasn't notable.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Culix


text:
Talk:Dimensionless physical constant

Fine-structure constant
There is a problem with this page in that it seems to assert that the electromagnetic coupling constant and the fine structure constant are different things. The weak nuclear coupling constant is also omitted.

 * I fixed this stuff and gave a more detailed listing of the 25 constants in the current-day Standard Model. John Baez 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks, John. we really can use some real experts on articles like this.  r b-j 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that something be added to clarify that "constants" like the fine structure constant depend on the energy at which they are measured. For example,

$$\alpha(92\ \mathrm{GeV}) \approx 1/127$$

while, $$\alpha(0\ \mathrm{GeV}) \approx 1/137$$ Zekemurdock 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 * i think the fundamental physical constant called the "fine-structure constant" and listed as this universal constant in listed is meant to be the one at 0 energy. but this issue of physics should be in the Fine-structure constant article.   is there either a derived or empirical equation that maps $$ \alpha \ $$ from energy? r b-j 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Rees's Six Numbers
The section 'Martin Rees' 6 numbers' does not fit in with the rest of the article. It definitely does not deserve a section on its own with equal weight to 'The standard model' section. We are talking about a book where "Rees mulls over the following six numbers, which he considers fundamental to present-day physical theory". That would be acceptable if it was published in a scientific journal, otherwise the whole article could as well be cluttered with what an army of scientific writers consider fundamental to present-day physics. Put it another way, when I first read the article and checked the contents I thought "uhm, Martin's 6 numbers...I've never heard of those, they must be a kick ass scientific breakthrough on the field..." and it ended up being not much more than publicity (however good the book probably is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.70.195 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section should not be on equal standing with 'The standard model' section, so I have moved it to be a subsection of 'Other'. It tends to overwhelm the other three entries (with only a couple of sentences each) but the material should be kept.  One possibility would be to create a Just Six Numbers article and shorten the entry here to single paragraph. -- Thinking of England (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Planck's constant displays as a square in Google Chrome
When I view this article with Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer, the h with a slash through it (Planck's reduced constant) displays correctly. When I view it with Google Chrome, however, it shows up as a square or empty box. Oddly, even on Google Chrome, when I click "edit" to see the wiki-code, the symbol appears correct there. I thought I would mention this to see if anyone else knows how to correct this in the article itself, so that it will work in all browsers; or if it is just a browser bug and I need to live with it. Thanks in advance! CosineKitty (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * It's just whether the character is included in each of the various fonts that your browser uses (a proportional font is generally used in display of ordinary HTML text, while a non-proportional font is used in display of form entry box text, so it's not all that surprising that some characters might be in one of the fonts, but not the other.) AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * "If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever". This is just wrong.  It is true if the cosmological constant is zero or if the universe is flat (the universe is flat if Ω and the cosmological constant add up to zero).  Since just after this a non-zero cosmological constant is discussed, we have to assume that Rees isn't limiting himself to either of these special cases.  For general values of lambda (the cosmological constant) and Ω, one can calculate whether the universe will expand forever or not, but it is not that simple.  This needs to be fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.76.37 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Masses of quarks and leptons..
I was just reading the Baez reference where 26 dimensionless fundamental constants are enumerated. He identifies the 12 particle masses "divided by the Planck mass" as fundamental. He doesn't mention relative to another natural unit of mass.

You could have all of the remaining 11 masses expressed relative to the electron mass and then have the electron mass in terms of the Planck mass, which is the sqrt of the gravitational coupling constant, αG. So it's still 12 numbers, either the particle mass ratios against a specific particle along with αG or it's all of the particle masses against the Planck mass. Rather than explain this in the article, I think it would be simpler to just say relative to the Planck mass and leave it. Then the gravitational coupling constant need not enter into it. If you don't like, you can fix it. 70.109.180.126 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Variation of physical constants
Regarding:

 * The question whether the fundamental dimensionless constants depend on space and time is being extensively researched. Despite several claims, no confirmed variation of the constants has been detected.

A simple Google scholar search reveals plenty of papers that should serve to provide a citation that physical-constant-variation is being "extensively studied":

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=variation+of+fundamental+constants&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

.===.
 * The values of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement. This is one of the unsolved problems of physics.

 I posit that these (perhaps 26+) values are parameters for the existence of our universe.  If all that is not prohibited by the laws of physics will occur (ie: virtual particle (Hawking) radiation, etc.), then presuming that the big bang (like other phenomena) was not unique, then some aspect(s) of its nucleation corresponds to those values (and might even affect interactions between those big-bang products (‘verses’)). This concept can be visualized as a multi-dimensional Cartesian meta-space, in which each constant, being a dimensional axis, allows you to catalog each verse by positioning its index along those dimensions according to the ‘value’ of its constants.  Since variations in these values can determine the viability, longevity, livability, etc. of the result, there might be a constellation or envelope of related verses that would be stable enough to interact with each other in subtle or profound ways, and it might be possible to predict what ‘neighboring’ verses might influence ours in ways not yet explored. (I doubt I am the first to consider this avenue of meta-ploration. See also "Plenivers" v "Multiverse" & near-by considerations:A near-by consideration is http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26267-four-ways-you-can-see-the-multiverse.html) JRB 141027 --Wikidity (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"c" as a fundamental dimensionless constant
In relativity, space and time are the same type of dimension as exemplified in Einstein's "Relativity" Appendix 2 where meters=i*c*seconds. This is seen again in the SI definitions of meter and second. So "c" is dimensionless. The problem is that in order to incorporate this into plank units (to remove either length or time), a square root of -1 would need to be carried along as the distinguishing factor between length and time. This has the advantage of describing mass as the negative of energy instead of being considered "equal" or using different plank units for mass, energy, and momentum (the i carries into momentum which makes it a vector quantity). Plank voltage reduces to Mass/Charge, taking out a time and length.Ywaz (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you think that, Ywaz, but you're mistaken. Both semantically and substantively.  70.109.185.68 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know that, so you're mistaken, as well as using a personal attack as a form of argument. "c" should disappear in Plank units as it does, but the "i" conversion factor needs to be carried with it and thereby allowing the removal of either space or time from equations and constants. Ywaz (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with dimensionless constants.
A constant is not a dimesionless constant unless it would be able to be measured up to any accuracy no matter how high provided that a sufficent amount of time is devoted to determining it to that accuracy. There's no reason to endlessly search for a mathematical constant that happens to match a dimesionless constant if it turns out that that constant is not an exact number that can be measured with arbitrarily high accuracy. For instance, I don't think the fine structure constant is an exact number. The fine structure constant determines what fraction of the speed of light an electron orbiting around a proton in its 1st energy level will have and its actual speed will be approximately that speed divided by the number of its energy shell and its radius appoximately the radius of its 1st shell times the square of its shell number. That formula is only approximate due to the finititude of the speed of light. The further away the electron is from the proton, the more accurately the fine structure constant can be determined, but the problem is that it can't be determined with arbitraily high accuracy because the cosmological constant prevents you from taking the proton and electron too far away from each other and doing an experiment on them.

This article has another problem of calling 3 a dimesionless physical constant because it not only is the number of observable dimensions but can also be mathematically defined. Also keep in mind that 2π is not a dimesionless physical constant either even though it's the ratio between angular frequency and frequency for a spinning top because it can be determined mathematically. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I follow you: are you saying these numbers are not constants, or not dimensionless? If the former, how can 3 or 2π not be constant, without redefining pretty much the whole of math? If the latter, what ARE their dimensions? ComaVN (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Weinberg angle
How is the Weinberg angle captured in these constants? I'm curious, because I see the CKM matrices are included directly, and I expected the Weinberg angle to be captured directly as well. I suspect it is here, but implicit as some kind of mass ratio, or something. Anyone know? 70.247.160.87 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not in favor of changing the name of the article and the lastest revert is the reason.
This name changed happened back then: 70.109.179.96 (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A formula for G?
The grandiose claim "Of all fundamental constants, only formulae for value of the Newtonian gravitational constant G have been given" has been given, and now the IP is insisting on it (with the edit summary relative to the rest of the article (also not discussed in talk) this was the well made part). I don't even see the claim as being substantiated in the arXiv paper cited. Some others please take a look. The same is the case at Gravitational constant with this revert. —Quondum 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's "grandiose" - because it came about in reaction to what the article was saying previously: "There are no known..." Inorout (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Q, we both know you're absolutely correct. (I'm not the same IP.)  $$G$$ is not a dimensionless physical constant and can take on whatever real, positive, and finite value we choose with a corresponding definition of units.  I do cringe a little with some of your prolific WP edits, but am too lazy for the most part to take them on (since I haven't seen any yet that are egregiously wrong).  But this other IP is goofy. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just relax. This'll no doubt be cleared up soon enough; not need to get it "right" immediately.  What you mean my the cringeworthiness of some of my edits is unclear: perhaps you could be a bit more specific on my talk page; I'm not averse to constructive criticism. —Quondum 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Quondum, Inorout's material doesn't belong in the article. It is only supported by a single unpublished paper which is, to put it politely, at variance with established physics such as the General Theory of Relativity.   The source is a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE; WP requires primary sources which establish new facts to be backed up by secondary sources (PSTS), "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".  Also, Inorout's assertion that the Omerbashich result is the only derivation of a physical constant needs sourcing, otherwise it is SYNTH. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 1000s of unpublished arxiv papers used as references in Wikipedia. Who is to say which ones are OK and which aren't? You? Also, how is the new reference "at variance with established physics such as the General Theory of Relativity"? Is it your OR, or do you have another reference that says so? Inorout (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Inorout, I don't understand your insistence that this single unconfirmed, unpublished paper be included in WP. Rather than just reverting, could you discuss it on this Talk page?   I'd like to hear your case for this material.  Maybe we can work out a compromise. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Some 2 numbers, both coming from valid references afawk, were compared. Then the comparison was abruptly removed without discussion required for substantial edits such as removal of good-faith text and new references. It would be great if some of you would keep your personal opinion about (any) science references to yourselves. Those opinions are irrelevant, not to mention they constitute OR. Inorout (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 * FYI, User:Inorout has been indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Bosnipedian, (Bosnipedian sockpuppet archive) who was also a promoter of the work of Mensur Omerbashich.  The IPs which supported him were also socks.  Apparently this guy pops up new socks every month  which promote the works of Omerbashich.  Heads up. -- Chetvorno TALK 21:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Inorout? Looks like out. Seriously, the term "scientific reference" refers to material published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The contested "paper" is a good laugh - but that doesn't warrant mention in the article (though it could use a bit of humor). YohanN7 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Higgs boson mass now measured and not tentative
(I tried to follow the instructions for requesting edits in protected pages; apologies if I am not doing this right)

The best mass measurement to date is 125.09±0.24 GeV, cf. Eq. (3) in http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803

More things I noticed: The Baez link is quoted as 2002, but following the link there is a 2011 version.

Finally, Baez explicitly writes "If this new extension of the Standard Model holds up, and all the neutrinos have nonzero mass, this brings the total of fundamental constants to 25!", which leads to what I knew was the answer for SM parameters: 21. The text should be changed to reflect that the "vanilla" SM has no neutrinos in it and 21 parameters.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidtm (talk • contribs) 08:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide an "please change X to Y format" with reliable sources to each one. Make sure that you're making it clear what exactly you want changed with evidence to support it. JustBerry (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or Be bold... actually I changed those two things earlier than your comment here. --mfb (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

First Sentence
"In physics, a dimensionless physical constant, [...], is a physical constant that is dimensionless."

Rule number one of a definition is that you don't use the word you're trying to define to define it. "A dictionary is a book that is a dictionary."

 * It used to be that the official title of this page was "Fundamental physical constant", and I would support changing the title back to that (rather than the redirect). Problem is the definition fits with physical constant and dimensionless wikilinked to their specific definitions. 98.118.36.105 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Relation to physical constant article
This article makes a big deal out of the difference between dimensionless and dimensional. But then it ends up just discussing physical constants in general.

The rest masses of fundamental particles are dimensional physical constants. But of course you can call them "dimensionless" if you look at ratios between them, or between them and the Planck mass. The interesting thing here is not whether you express them in the Planck mass or in kg, the interesting thing is that they cannot be derived from more fundamental principles. So I have to say the entire "dimensionless" focus strikes me as a bit of a red herring.

The "1/137" thing is intriguing, and has traditionally been used as a starting point to philosophize about the mathematical universe, but apart from this, the article essentially duplicates the scope of physical constant, just with a peculiar focus on looking at ratios.

I am doubtful that "physicists increasingly" focus on the "dimensionless" aspects (as the article asserts kind of from thin air). Physicists are nothing if not pragmatic. They simply do not care about choice of units. The electron mass is the electron mass, and equally "fundamental" regardless of the units used. --dab (𒁳) 07:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 * after looking into this in some detail, I would rephrase my merge request to the effect that the "physical constant" article is already about "dimensionless physical constants", where "dimensionless" means "measured as the ratio of other fundamental constants, e.g. in any system of natural units". This should by all means be made crystal clear, because the possibilities for confusion are grave, but it should be made crystal clear on a single page. The current situation is a result of such confusion, and adds to it, because it appears to imply that there are "dimensional physical constants" in any meaningful sense. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly non-noteworthy article; propose removal.
recently added citations to an article he wrote:, ,  This does not appear to me to be noteworthy, and I suggest that it be removed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The server for ref 2 is in process of update and not currently working. Waiting for an operational date.2602:304:B10B:A640:2C0C:A9BB:A38C:29CD (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) the server is now operational for ref 2. Jim Johnson 11:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

 * I support removing it also as reference and the associated content. The abbreviations "SMPP" and "SMC" are very uncommon.
 * The parameters "baryons mass per photon, cold dark matter mass per photon, and neutrino mass per photon" are not fundamental constants in physical laws: no physical process with the same initial conditions would be different if those parameters would have different values. They are dimensionless and used as constants in physics, however, so we have some conflict about scope here. --mfb (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The cosmological constants are input to equations for cosmological evolution. In the article “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters” (Tegmark, Aguirre, Rees, and Wilczek), they are listed as “dimensionless” input parameters. A sentence could be added to clarify this but the reference to Tegmark’s book is important (the book references the article).Jim Johnson 21:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)
 * 1) The terms SMPP and SMC are used frequently but not universal. Brian Greene in his books uses Standard Model of particle physics and Max Tegmark uses cosmological standard model. However, since the terms are not used in Wikipedia, it should say Standard Model and Cosmological Model.
 * "The cosmological constants are input to equations for cosmological evolution." - sure. And the mass of Earth is an input to equations for satellite orbits, and the size of particle detectors is an input in experimental particle physics, you can make both dimensionless if you want. That doesn't make them fundamental constants of physics. As I said, the cosmology constants in the article are dimensionless, but not fundamental, and the article tries to combine both. --mfb (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

✅ Per what seems to be some reasonable support, I've removed the citation to an paper that Jim Johnson wrote and which he, himself, was repeatedly inserting into this Wiki article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC) 2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I think Isambard has missed the reviewers point – he was arguing for deletion of the Tegmark reference. It should be change back.
 * Really? Tegmark is one of the world's most famous scientists writing on the multiverse. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 * 1) Isambard, as you may not recall, it was my edit that added both mine and Tegmark references. If you read what you call “support” it says: “The cosmological constants are input to equations for cosmological evolution." - sure. And the mass of Earth is an input to equations for satellite orbits, and the size of particle detectors is an input in experimental particle physics, you can make both dimensionless if you want. That doesn't make them fundamental constants of physics”. His minor point was the SMPP terminology which I addressed. Now what is your logic?  2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We can remove all of the material in that section. Is that what you are suggesting? Otherwise, it is not appropriate for you to cite your own work in this article. You are not a notable expert on the subject and your work is published in obscure places and has never been cited by anybody that I can see. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 * No, I am not suggesting to remove all or any of what I submitted. I previously responded to the question on the Tegmark reference from Mfb with an explanation on why it should remain and said a sentence could be added to clarify. I also said the SMPP/SMC mnemonics could be removed as Mfb recommended. I will soon make these corrections. I am checking on the citing’s and downloads of my articles. Thanks for your interest.Jim Johnson 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)
 * Jim, you should consult with, since he/she has already edited that part of the article and, per above, does not seem to support citing your article. I will, however, let him/her speak for himself/herself. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification to cosmology constants and related reference changes
I recommend the following changes. 1. Add below to the Cosmology Constants section. This is an important distinction concerning the cosmology model. The reference provides clarifying detail. "The cosmology dimensionless constants are independent from, and cannot be derived from, the Standard Model dimensionless constants." [add to References, Scott, Douglas, 2006. The Standard Cosmological Model. Canadian J. Physics, 84: 419-435. DOI: 10.1139/p06-066, pp 12-12] 2. Delete from External Articles the Kaku book. I did not find any information in the book on dimensionless constants. 3. Add to External Articles a source covering dimensionless constants from particle physics and cosmology:  Johnson, James, R., 2015. Discovering Nature's Hidden Relationships, an Unattainable Goal?" Physics International 6 (1): DOI: 10.3844/pisp.2015.3.10. http://thescipub.com/PDF/pisp.2015.3.10.pdf Please advise on changes. If approved, I will put in proper format and make changes. Jim Johnson 17:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs)

The recent reverts
, 50.47.109.91: Stop this edit war, please find some agreement here. I prefer the longer version (from the IP) but don't have a strong opinion on the topic. --mfb (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "longer version" is the pre-existing status quo with a small amount of explicit amplification that I did to try to deal with virus's first-stated concern (about redundancy). I am willing to go back to exactly the prior status quo, but I thought that the changes I made sufficed in correcting any simple semantic redundancy.  Expanding on a concept to explain it is not a simple semantic redundancy.  It's explaining.  Part of the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain concepts relevant to the primary topic of the article.  50.47.109.91 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Status quo is not by definition superior and I'm surprised it is even used as an argument. As I mentioned in one of my edits, I can't imagine that there exists a person who after seeing the phrase "dimensionless physical constant" wonders whether it means a constant that is dimensionless or not, and only after reading the sentence "is a physical constant that is dimensionless" realises what it actually means. If and 50.47.109.91 genuinely think that this redundancy helpful to anyone, there is a lot of work to be done on multiple Wikipedia articles such as Electromagnetic field (a field that is electromagnetic), Fundamental interaction (an interaction that is fundamental) etc.. Independovirus (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh come on... I'm sure you can find real arguments instead of just being silly. --mfb (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course,, you just provided that argument yourself. If you think that my last message was silly, defining "dimensionless physical constant" as "physical constant that is dimensionless" - is silly. Before this edit section, I had a discussion with the user who kept reverting my changes, where I provided the same argument from a semantic standpoint: it's redundant. The user kept saying that it is "to make it absolutely clear", but I honestly don't see how repeating the same phrase in a different grammatical structure makes it any clearer or adds any value. As I said above, I can't imagine there is a person who after reading "a physical constant that is dimensionless" will be any more illuminated about what "dimensionless physical constant" is. I am, however, aware that I am sometimes wrong about these things, so I was wondering about your experience of this opening statement. What did you, , learn from the phrase "a physical constant that is dimensionless" that you didn't know after reading the phrase "dimensionless physical constant"? Independovirus (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a physicist, I'm not the target audience of this article. One advantage is the natural link to Dimensionless quantity, for example, so people who use the article to learn something new can learn more about how dimensions matter. You also remove the "pure number". --mfb (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dimensionless physical constant