text:
Tropinone

Tropinone is an alkaloid, famously synthesised in 1917 by Robert Robinson as a synthetic precursor to atropine, a scarce commodity during World War I. Tropinone and the alkaloids cocaine and atropine all share the same tropane core structure. Its corresponding conjugate acid at pH 7.3 major species is known as tropiniumone.

Synthesis
The first synthesis of tropinone was by Richard Willstätter in 1901. It started from the seemingly related cycloheptanone, but required many steps to introduce the nitrogen bridge; the overall yield for the synthesis path is only 0.75%. Willstätter had previously synthesized cocaine from tropinone, in what was the first synthesis and elucidation of the structure of cocaine.

Robinson's "double Mannich" reaction
The 1917 synthesis by Robinson is considered a classic in total synthesis due to its simplicity and biomimetic approach. Tropinone is a bicyclic molecule, but the reactants used in its preparation are fairly simple: succinaldehyde, methylamine and acetonedicarboxylic acid (or even acetone). The synthesis is a good example of a biomimetic reaction or biogenetic-type synthesis because biosynthesis makes use of the same building blocks. It also demonstrates a tandem reaction in a one-pot synthesis. Furthermore, the yield of the synthesis was 17% and with subsequent improvements exceeded 90%.

 * [[Image:Robinson tropinone synthesis.png|500px|Robinson tropinone synthesis]]

This reaction is described as an intramolecular "double Mannich reaction" for obvious reasons. It is not unique in this regard, as others have also attempted it in piperidine synthesis.

In place of acetone, acetonedicarboxylic acid is known as the "synthetic equivalent" the 1,3-dicarboxylic acid groups are so-called "activating groups" to facilitate the ring forming reactions. The calcium salt is there as a "buffer" as it is claimed that higher yields are possible if the reaction is conducted at "physiological pH".

Reaction mechanism
The main features apparent from the reaction sequence below are:

 * 1) Nucleophilic addition of methylamine to succinaldehyde, followed by loss of water to create an imine
 * 2) Intramolecular addition of the imine to the second aldehyde unit and first ring closure
 * 3) Intermolecular Mannich reaction of the enolate of acetone dicarboxylate
 * 4) New enolate formation and new imine formation with loss of water for
 * 5) Second intramolecular Mannich reaction and second ring closure
 * 6) Loss of 2 carboxylic groups to tropinone
 * [[Image:TropinoneSynthesisMechanism.svg|Tropinone synthesis]]

Some authors have actually tried to retain one of the CO2H groups.

CO2R-tropinone has 4 stereoisomers, although the corresponding ecgonidine alkyl ester has only a pair of enantiomers.

From cycloheptanone
IBX dehydrogenation (oxidation) of cycloheptanone (suberone) to 2,6-cycloheptadienone [1192-93-4] followed by reaction with an amine is versatile a way of forming tropinones. The mechanism evoked is clearly delineated to be a double Michael reaction (i.e. conjugate addition).

Reduction of tropinone
The reduction of tropinone is mediated by NADPH-dependent reductase enzymes, which have been characterized in multiple plant species. These plant species all contain two types of the reductase enzymes, tropinone reductase I and tropinone reductase II. TRI produces tropine and TRII produces pseudotropine. Due to differing kinetic and pH/activity characteristics of the enzymes and by the 25-fold higher activity of TRI over TRII, the majority of the tropinone reduction is from TRI to form tropine.

title: Tropinone


text:
User:Sanmartin

I'm brazilian, my name is José San Martin and live in Campinas, São Paulo state.

Interessed in linguistics, geography, Brazilian politics (leftist) and History and programming. As of 2006, working as webmaster.

José de San Martín José de San Martín José de San Martín חוסה דה סן מרטין José de San Martín José de San Martín ホセ・デ・サン＝マルティン José de San Martín José de San Martín Хосе де Сан-Мартин José de San Martín José de San Martín José de San Martín 何塞·德·圣马丁

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

title: User:Sanmartin


text:
Talk:Dawn Marie Psaltis

Finishing and Signature Moves
I replaced three signatire finishing moves that had been removed by an IP user who also added the work slap to the article randomly. Therefore, I was skeptical of their removal. If they needed to be removed for legit reason, please do so. I would appreciate it. Thanks. -- Psy guy (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No Rumors?
No Rumors? Certainly it bears mentioning, as it was reported by several credible sources, rumors or not.
 * Credible sources which you failed to cite. Moreover, news websites are not reliable sources where potentially libellous rumours are concerned. Wikipedia deals in verifiable fact, not gossip and speculation. McPhail 14:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok fine, but it still deserves mention, even if you can't drop names. I re-wrote it to be more vague.

Incorrect Link
The link to Al Wilson leads to the NFL Linebacker, with no mention of the wrestling angle whatsoever. I removed the wiki link from his name for the time being. Genocidal 08:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I wrote a small article on Al Wilson and relinked. MartinSL 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

how did she get the name Beulah Mcgillslutty anyways?

Ok someone put on this page that she died. I dont know if its a joke or real but if she really is dead, then we need proof.

Dawn Marie Wilson
I have correct where it said Dawn MArie-Wilson to Dawn Marie Wilson. There would be no hyphen, as Marie is not her last name, but part of her first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxbulldogxx (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dawn vs Torrie.jpg
Image:Dawn vs Torrie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Block quote

Moves
Should a headbutt to the mid-section be added to her moves list as she done this quite alot throughout 2002. Lee 18 January 2008, 11:07 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review
Ok I haven't done this in a long time, but I am noticing a few things with the article :) Overall its really good, just some minor tweakage is needed.

 * This is very trivial and doesn't apply just to this article but while I'm here... It would be nice to be able to link to where sports entertainment is mentioned in the lead.  However, that article is hardly even a stub right now, has no references, and would detract from any article it was linked to in its current state.  I'll try to bring this up at WP:PW in the near future, because that article would be an asset to the project.

Early Life section Professional wrestling career
 * 1st paragraph
 * The first two sentences are a bit short/choppy. Could they be combined?
 * Four out of the Five sentences here only refer to Psaltis as "she" so lets try to mix it up and alternate the terms.
 * 3rd paragraph
 * Five out of the seven sentences here only refer to Psaltis as "she" so lets try to mix it up and alternate the terms.
 * 1st paragraph
 * Lets start off this section by immediately mentioning her name instead of "she". It won't sound as awkward here after the first section has been altered as mentioned above. At least I don't think it will.  It is just best to introduce new sections with the actual name whenever possible.
 * Who is Jeff Jones? If his name is mentioned, there needs to be some info given about him if we can't link to an article about him.
 * World Wrestling Entertainment section
 * 2nd paragraph
 * Despite this, as part of the storyline, she developed feelings for Al and the two got married on an episode of SmackDown! in the underwear. I think "the underwear" should read "their underwear."
 * 3rd paragraph
 * (1st sentence) Psaltis later began a feud with Wilson for the second time. might read slightly better asLater, Psaltis began a second feud with Wilson.
 * (4th sentence) After being on hiatus from SmackDown! programming, she began a new storyline with Miss Jackie, involving whether she and Jackie's fiancée Charlie Haas had an affair - should there be commas around Charlie Haas' name?

There might be some more nitpicking I can do, but I'd like to see these changes implemented if possible first, because the others might be non issues if the rest is altered. Great work! --Naha|(talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Naha! I'll get to this after work tonight. Nikki  311  21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Let me know if there is anything else. Nikki  311  04:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I also looked over the article. It's looking good, but I wanted to mention a few things as well:
 * In the second paragraph of the "World Wrestling Entertainment" section, the word "storyline" is used three times. Could the second mention be changed to "Despite this, as part of the angle, she developed feelings for Al..."?
 * Just to clarify, Hardcore Homecoming: November Reign is not officially affiliated with WWE/ECW, correct?
 * For the "Personal life" section, do we know her husband's last name? I know that sort of information is sometimes impossible to find, but I thought it was worth asking about.
 * That's all I could find. I made a few minor changes for clarification, but the article is well done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look over the article. Here are the fixes I made:
 * 1) changed to your wording
 * 2) It is not affiliated with WWE. I clarified that in the article.
 * 3) I never found anything about his last name.
 * Nikki 311  18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review
After going through the article I feel that it meets the GA criteria and I have decided to pass it. I have fixed up spelling errors and redirects as I read through it. The only way I feel this article could be better was if it contained more current information on Psaltis and also if her ring name in the infobox should still be in boldface, because bold should only be used if the person is still wrestling. If she is, perhaps include some information about that but if not then the name should not be in boldface. Anyway, congratulations to everyone who helped turn this into a good article. - Deep   Shadow  00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and cleaning up the spelling and redirects. Currently, Psaltis is only doing a few shows here and there. From what I read about her, she is still trying to lose the baby weight, and then she is going to hopefully begin training/wrestling again. Since she is not wrestling on a regular basis, I unbolded the ring names. Nikki  311  19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlers Rescue
It seems like there are accusations about her embezzling from her organization. I know that rumors are not to be addressed, but she has felt strong enough to address them and will be dealing with them in court. Inevitably someone's going to have do the work to cite them. I would, but I got better things to do.69.243.42.251 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Age fuctionality
Is not working. It lists Psaltis as 40. She is 41 now. Friosurely (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DmpdJuly2010.jpg photo
Hi. Regarding Keraunoscopia's removal of the Infobox photo, please see this discussion at the Commons Help Desk (which is also linked to on the photo's page, right under the licensing information). It's not a copyvio image. Marie's manager, Michelle Mupo, took the photo herself. I met Ms. Marie and Ms. Mupo at the Big Apple Con last weekend. She asked me for help regarding the issue of the photo, as she and her manager, Michelle Mupo, have some grave concerns about the placement of in the Commons, which was previously being used at the main Infobox photo in the article, and prefer  photo that Ms. Mupo took. I've contacted Jimmy Wales, and in response, community liaison Maggie Dennis has contacted me, and asked me to have Ms. Mupo fill out this form letter and email to the Wikimedia Foundation to clear this up. Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The image was uploaded illegally to Commons and licensed as public domain by MarkDBSkinsFan, who is not the manager and who did not have permission to upload the image, nor does he have the right to license the image. It is a copyvio image. Just because you're in contact with the manager—which was in regards to another entirely unrelated image—doesn't, in any way, make File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg right to use. The fact that an admin undeleted it is cause enough for complaint on that end as well. But I don't edit war, so I will not remove the image from the article, since undoubtedly you will simply revert it right back. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 17:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of YouTube video as sources in matter of controversy
This accusation against the BLP subject was added ... with youtube video as RS??? If I'm not mistaken that's huge policy violation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would like to change the link to one of the dozens of news stories that have covered this story, go ahead. (Although I have seen many Youtube videos used as sources, especially when they're direct from the source, and don't see the problem) But the accusation itself is a relevant one that has received major coverage and featured a rebuttal by the main subject herself. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Nightscream has addressed this in a very satisfactory manner with his most recent edit. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Several issues here. First, you revert my revert, then you post here? Is that supposed to constitute a "discussion" and "consensus"? Please explain the order of your actions, User:ChessPlayerLev.

 * Second, the accusation against the BLP subject is an "RS" that is a Youtube video made by the accuser. I reverted this according to my understanding of BLP policy. You restore it and encourage me to find a better RS? Your idea is that meanwhile, the Youtube video "RS" stands? How does that make any sense? According to WP BLP policy, charges or accuses against a BLP subject which could cause them harm, can & should be reverted on-sight, even without an edit summary, to protect the BLP subject, and in turn to protect WP. Instead, you reinstate the accusatory Youtube vido reference, saying it can stand in the article, and advise me to go research a better source for the accusation? How is that possibly consistent w/ WP BLP policy? Please explain.

 * Third, the additional "RS" added by User:Nightscream, from CagesideSeats, looks to be a wrestling blogsite/gossip/news site. The author of the article is a member user of the site and looks to be a voluntary contributor. The article informs the reader that the Harris Youtube video exists, and what it is about. Then he postulates about the topic (i.e., an opinion piece). That's journalism? That's "reliable source" by Wikipedia terms & policy? For inclusion in a BLP? For including accusatory content against the BLP subject? I doubt very much that source constitutes "reliable", and, it doesn't add anything, other than affirming that the vidio exists, and the blogger member's feelings about it. Please explain your justification rationale for this.

 * Fourth, your argument that since the Youtube video was made by Harris, that makes it stronger as an RS, for including in the BLP. What logic is there in that argument?: Person 'A' has a BLP article. Person 'B' makes an accusatory Youtube video, an attack against the integrity of person 'A', that person 'A' has cheated person 'B'. The fact person 'B' made the video, and not someone else having made it, strengthens it for inclusion in the BLP? How does that argument work? Please explain.

 * Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Honestly, I'm not interested in indulging another one of your endless back-and-forth arguments, Ihardlythinkso. If you have a problem with the way the article is presently written, address it to Nightscream, not me.  I would also be more circumspect about continually following me around Wikipedia and starting an argument/reverting my edit each time.  You have been given a million second chances on Wikipedia, and there were no fewer than 3 different admins who wanted to block you last time.  Only the last-second plea of an admin on your behalf for yet another "second chance" saved you.  Do you really want to start this nonsense all over again?  I would suggest ignoring me (as I try to do with you), instead of going out of your way to spar with me on my every edit, including topics you clearly have no interest in.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * There are rules for BLPs. You can ignore them? On what basis? You're the editor who reverted my revert without discussion prior, not User:Nightscream. So I don't follow your logic to write "address it to Nightscream, not me". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * User:ChessPlayerLev, please revert the Youtube ref you re-reverted. For the policy reasons above, which you haven't addressed at all. (Or is it your intention to make a continued dispute over it? I really don't have an interest to invest more time in this, but I will if necessary. Please revert to save others' time. Ok?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Revert what to what, exactly? The most recent (and by far the largest) edit of the page was done by Nightscream, not me.  In fact, the text I reverted to a week ago was also something written by Nightscream, with no involvement from me.  Once again, if you feel there is a problem with the article, feel free to address those concerns to Nightscream.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Huh? "Revert what to what, exactly?"? Your revert here. The issue isn't the smallness or bigness of the text, but whether it belongs in the BLP. You re-added it thru a revert action, so it is material addition you're accountable for, regardless who added it originally. FYI, because of the reluctance here, I've opened a query at WP:BLPN. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Don't you ever get tired of this? The most recent edit of the page was done by Nightscream.  I have absolutely nothing to do with it.  If you would like the page to be reverted back to your edit a week ago, ask him. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I question both the material you re-added, and the add'l ref added by User:Nightscream. (His add'l ref did not justify the Youtube ref, it seems to be nothing more than a blog site user reporting that the Youtube video *exists*, then giving his personal feelings about it. As already explained, that does not rectify the Youtube reference, if that is what you thought. User:Nightscream did not re-add the offending material, you did. He simply added an add'l ref, to the material you restored. IMO the material you restored is counter BLP policy, and the add'l ref added by User:Nightscream did not change that, it simply added another ref that is also not a reliable source.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I must agree that I don't follow the logic of telling an editor with whom you disagree to take it up with a different editor either. An implicit part of discussion, which is required in editorial conflicts, is that you explain your own position. Just because I made edits that seem to be consistent with your position, Chess, doesn't mean that you have no obligation to respond to Ihardlythinkso's statements regarding your arguments, since you also made edits he disagreed with. Saying "take it up with someone else" comes across as stonewalling, which I find to be shady behavior to exhibit during editorial conflicts, particularly when one has only been participating in it for less than a day. Editors should be able to explain their positions during such conflicts. If they don't, then discussions cannot proceed, which means that others have to called in to help resolve the conflict. While that is often the case, some effort should be made to resolve the conflict amongst the original parties themselves before that becomes necessary. Otherwise, the problem is just being passed off to other editors. There may be no policy or guidelines requiring editors to stick things out a bit in a discussion, but I think that there is a transcendent ethical one.

Ihardlythinkso, regarding your statement "Person 'A' has a BLP article. Person 'B' makes an accusatory Youtube video, an attack against the integrity of person 'A', that person 'A' has cheated person 'B'. The fact person 'B' made the video..." Relying on YouTube videos created by people who are not themselves considered RS's or notable is not appropriate, and I have indeed removed such videos when cited as sources. But when the creator of the video is themselves a notable person, that makes it appropriate, IMO (unless someone disputes that the person in the video is indeed that notable person). Another factor is the fact that Dawn Marie herself responded to the charges. How can we cite the sources in which she responds to the charges without making available the video in which Kamala makes the charges in the first place? Another factor is the fact that I cited what I thought was an RS in which Kamala's video was embedded, but which you say is a blog. I'm sorry if I didn't notice it as a blog; I'm not really that familiar with pro wrestling. I only first happened upon Dawn Marie's article after I photographed her for it, and tried to help her with her complaints regarding a previous photo in the article that was taken without her consent while she was pregnant, and was not flattering. In any event, I welcome your suggestions on how to improve the article, and to find better secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Heh, Nightscream, I completely agree with you about providing reasons for editorial decisions. However, Ihardlythinkso is a unique case.  Once the guy gets it in his head to incessantly argue about something, he is allergic to any logic or argument, and will keep writing reply after reply, repeating the same things that have already been answered.  To him, Wikipedia is a warzone and every editorial discussion is a battle to the death.  These aren't just my views; these are the views of the admins who blocked him before and were very, very close to blocking him again less than a month ago.

 * Trying to "prove" or "show" anything to him is a waste of both time and energy. After multiple failed attempts, I now know better.  Thus, I figured a less exhausted editor like yourself, who he does not (yet, anyways) stalk around Wikipedia with reverts could be more successful. :)

 * If you really want me to provide my reasons more fully, I can. In fact, I briefly noted them above; I don't see the problem with Youtube videos as sources when they feature the person they are discussing.  James "Kamala" Harris posting a video of himself making accusations seems like a relevant source for a Wikipedia statement about James "Kamala" Harris making accusations, no?  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, maybe it's me, but I didn't get that sense about his arguments here. You provided an explanation, and he was impeaching it because he felt it did not held up. Whenever I falsify another editor's arguments, and they stonewall on the matter, it isn't just irritating, it brings the question at the heart of the disagreement to a grinding halt. I understand that you there comes a point when one tires of a discussion, and I'm not saying you should have to answer every single bit of minutiae your opponent brings up, but you expressed that you were tired of the discussion in only your second post here, which I find a bit disappointing. But I'm not trying to come after you or anything, and I don't mean to be accusatory or anything. I appreciate your responses. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * User:Nightscream, thanks for your response, I have some followups, and would like to move them to your user Talk for discussion with you there, feeling it'd more appropriate there, than here. (Is alright w/ you? We could copy any conclusions arrived there, to here then.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 * If they pertain to this article, then we might as well discuss them here. If they pertain to other matters, then you can ask me them on my talk page. :-) Nightscream (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I don't know. In the end it will pertain to the current status of the article. To get there, I'd like to discuss the status when I opened this thread. (A past status at the time of my revert of the accusatory Youtube vid, before you changed it to include a ref regarding the BLP subject's response.) I mentioned I thought it would be more appropriate to start on your user page. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Nightscream, please respond. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made a request at the BLP Noticeboard for editors there to join this discussion.

I hardlythinkso, what aspect of BLP policy do you feel calls for the removal of that YouTube video on sight?

In answer to your hypothetical question on my talk page, I do not see what would be wrong with use of multiple YouTube videos of notables airing their viewpoints, though obviously, Wikipedia does prefer secondary sources to primary ones, where the former are available. Nightscream (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Nightscream, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how policy requires sources to be used in Wikipedia. There is no "preference" for secondary sources. All articles are required to follow the NPOV pillar. This means that any conclusions drawn, any POV expressed or implied (by the article), any DUE weight, etc, *must* derive from a source that is not primary. Fact-checking for accuracy of quotes or statistics would benefit from primary sources. But that isn't the 'meat' of articles. You cannot simply say "Famous Guy X said he was cheated" and use that as a basis for material here. How do you know it is accurate? Because the guy said so? What if his accountant is lying to him? What if he doesn't realize what the terms were? What if he thinks he's being cheated but he has a bad memory? You could say "BUT I KNOW BETTER!", and yes, any of us can, in good faith, say the same thing. And yet later... we'll all get burned. NPOV is a Pillar and a policy, but let's also look at what BLP says. It requires high-quality sources. So not only do we have the verification requirements and the reliable source requirements that standard content requires, we have a HIGHer standard for BLP. We don't just print "Famous Guy X said he was cheated" because Famous Guy X said so. In the real world, that is called slander or libel. And if we blithely repeat it, we're libelling as well. I'm frankly baffled how you have 70,000 edits and seem to have completely missed the mark on this. -- Avanu (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, when you say, "How do you know it is accurate?", are you referring to the mere fact that the other notable made the accusation in question, or do you mean the substance of the accusation? The former is illustrated by the video in question, while the latter is not part of Wikipedia's mission, since the standard that Wikipedia strives for is Verifiability and Attribution, not truth, since Wikipedia cannot make statements about "truth". As far as your hypotheticals in general, they are not precluded, in and of themsevles by the use of secondary sources, since those scenarios can and do indeed occur with secondaries. Moreover, slander and libel are not defined as merely "Famous Guy X saying so". Those crimes have requirements that you omitted, and have nothing to do with whether a source is primary or secondary.

I will say that I think you're placing slightly more emphasis than is warranted on my use of the word "preference", since for the most part, I think you and I are in agreement--at least more than you might imagine. Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the best, then again, I think this is a rather subtle point. I don't think that YouTube videos are an ideal source. Secondary sources for such material are the better ones to use. One would think, after all, that secondary sources would report on Kamala's accusation. But at the same time, I question the wholesale prohibition of YT, particularly if it contains a legitimate grievance from another notable whose omission from an article may be omitted. You argue that we have no way knowing if the assertion is accurate. Putting aside my aforementioned counterargument that this happens with secondary sources too (Jayson Blair, anyone? Stephen Glass?), I don't see the merit in questioning whether Kamala is able to be accurate when stating he received zero funds from a charity that used his name. Are we questioning his ability to count to zero? And what if we do find secondary sources, ones which do not imbed the YouTube video? If the secondaries reference the video, would it still be inappropriate to include then, in addition to the secondary sources? I hope that secondary sources can be found for Kamala's position, but it disturbs me that if they cannot be found, that his views on a charity using his name will be essentially censored.

Ihardlythinkso, let's keep this discussion here on this page. It's not a good idea to split it up into multiple fronts. I don't see anyone violating CIV, AGF or NPA toward you, and if they do, be assured that I will address it.

My response the hypothetical question you posed on my talk page is this: I think the laws that we have against libel and slander tend to make people cautious in making public accusations against a public figure. That said, if a group of notables all made individual YouTube videos leveling a particular accusation against one notable in particular, I would imagine that secondary sources would report on it, and that we could cite those secondary sources. But then again, perhaps you're asking me if we should cite those videos in the absence of secondary sources? I don't know. The hypothetical scenario you propose is so bizarre that it's difficult for me to entertain. I have a hard time believing that if 24 different notables made an accusation against me, that there wouldn't be secondary coverage of it, but at the same time, I'm not sure about completely prohibiting citation of any of those videos, especially if they were cited by secondary sources themselves. Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Someone thowing wild (or even mild) accusations from a video in you-tub is completely unacceptable as a "source". If you dont understand that, you need to stop editing content related to living people NOW. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 * What you and Avanu seem to be missing is that the video is used to make a statement in the article about an accusation, not an actual fact. It clearly stated (before the most recent revert) "Retired wrestler James "Kamala" Harris accused Dawn Marie and Wrestler's Rescue in 2012 of claiming to raise money on his behalf that he has yet to receive." and NOT "Dawn Marie and Wrestler's Rescue in 2012 stole money on James "Kamala" Harris's behalf".  Is a video from James "Kamala" Harris making an accusation insufficient evidence for a statement about James "Kamala" Harris making an accusation?  You will respond by saying "these types of statements, even as accusations, don't belong in a BLP", but at the end of the day, how else can any controversy make it in there?  I don't know much about pro wrestling, but I can't imagine it gets nearly the coverage in respected news sources that something like politics or other forms of entertainment do.  Thus, the best secondary sources available might in fact be something like cagesideseats or whatever, simply because no one else is interested enough.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here in response to Nightscream's request at BLPN. I have just skimmed the above discussion, and I don't know all the ins and outs of the secondary sources some people allude to. Let's assume that all we had was the YouTube video. Use of that video would be a violation of WP:BLPSPS. The issue as to whether you can include it simply because Psalties denied it is harder because that seems to give additional legitimacy to the accusation, but I disagree with Nightscream that that makes it reportable in our article. Essentially, the media is picking up on it because both parties are sufficiently notable and it's juicy. Does that make it now reportable in Wikipedia? My editorial judgment (not policy) says no, but I can see both sides of that particular argument (does someone have a link to the secondary coverage of Psaltis denying it? - sorry if I missed it). BTW, is Kamala accusing Psaltis of a civil or a criminal wrong? If it's the latter, then we have an issue with WP:BLPCRIME, although that particular policy also engenders disagreement about the spectrum of notability. Anyway, those are my musings, for what they're worth.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, James "Kamala" Harris is merely expressing his frustration at the situation. There is no indication that any legal action has been or will be taken.  As for the article, it was "this one".  Actually, if you search on Google, there are DOZENS of secondary sources about this story in addition to the primary source of the video.  The problem is that none of these secondary sources come from respected news organizations.  But as I noted above, I believe this is true of virtually every pro wrestling story except when some wrestling tragedy, like death, occurs.  Only that makes into the mainstream press.  Lesser controversies, like this one, would never make into any pro wrestler bio by the standards expressed by Avanua and RedPenofDoom above.  Which seems far from optimal.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@ChessPlayerLev, an accusation can be as damning as anything else. We don't use primary sources (for this). Repeating a bit of gossip or scandal because someone notable started it doesn't make us any less culpable. We use high-quality secondary sources, and the primary sources can serve as reference or verification for the quality or accuracy of a secondary source. We don't draw conclusions or implicitly or explicitly push a point of view. Primary sources alone would create these scenarios. We recount what our reliable secondary sources tell us. Suppose we just used primary sources to write an article, and in one "Famous Guy X" says "that guy stole $500 from me", and in another primary source, we show "that guy" just deposited $500 in the bank on the same day the money was supposedly taken. If we write:
 * "FamousGuyX says ThatGuy stole $500 from him around 2 p.m. on December 15th. Bank records show ThatGuy made a $500 deposit on December 15th at 3 p.m."

We've just led the reader to a conclusion by placing primary sources near one another. What if FamousGuyX regularly loses $500 at the casino and blames it on people to cover himself? What if ThatGuy has a monthly social security check in the amount of $500 that always arrives on the 15th? We've said nothing except what our primary sources tell us, yet we may have completely misrepresented the situation. This is why we don't use primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources that have good publishing standards, good editors, and good authors. We don't simply take one guy's word for it. (with certain exceptions, of course, and those don't apply here) When in doubt, leave it out. WP:BLP doesn't mean we have to whitewash a person's record. It simply means that we need to be VERY sure of our information before we add it to an article. The stuff that was in this article was of a fairly poor standard. -- Avanu (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Avanu, I agree with you in principle. However, as noted above, the problem with biographies on pro wrestlers is that no reliable secondary source ever covers this stuff at all!  Seriously, what reliable secondary source is going to waste its time on a monetary dispute between two has-been pro wrestlers, a marginal entertainment field?  Only a major tragedy, like a death or steroid allegations will get any main-stream run.  As a result, you're left with the absolute bare bones on most of these biographies, and most controversies are taken out as a result.  Honestly, I don't care a great deal about this issue, so you can leave it without that section.  But it does seem like a problem when applied to this entertainment field. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23: "Use of that video would be a violation of WP:BLPSPS." Thanks for pointing that out, Bbb23. I almost forgot about SPS's.

TheRedPenOfDoom: "Someone thowing wild (or even mild) accusations from a video in you-tub is completely unacceptable as a "source". If you dont understand that, you need to stop editing content related to living people NOW." I am more than able to accept that the community may decide against using that particular source. The fact that I don't often come across articles in which controversial statements are sourced solely to self-published sources may be why it was necessary for this nuance to be clarified, and has no bearing on my editing of BLP articles in general. One clue to my good faith here is the fact that I invited other editors to join this discussion at BLPN, in order to clarify these points. If you doubt my ability to edit BLPs, feel free to check my edit history for my BLP editing; you might be surprised at how often I removed material that is either unsourced or sourced to sites with user-generated content. But if you cannot express yourself to a fellow editor in good standing without that condescending tone, then you need to stop participating in discussions with editors you disagree with until you have familiarized yourself with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * User:Nightscream, I think you are minimizing your mistake here. Even I knew better, inexperienced WP editor as I am, that inclusion of a Youtube video by aggrieved person impugning the reputation of the BLP subject, is contrary to WP policy. When I asked you the logical conclusion of your argument, ... if you yourself were notable person with BLP article, and other notable persons piled on with self-made Youtube videos accusing you of wrong-doing, without limit to the number of said Youtube videos, it was a thought experiment with only one conclusion: that your justification for keep was a slippery slope that leads to BLP catastrophe. (Instead, you gave me answers that you "didn't know", "weren't sure", and tried to change the parameters of my thought experiment, adding contingency that there should be reliable secondary sources present under the circumstances of the experiment, when clearly my experiment meant to copy and parallel this article, where there are no reliable secondary sources associated.) I agree with User:Avanu, that you have fundamental misunderstanding of WP BLP policy, and to minimize that now by characterizing it as "nuance" is a bit beyond the pale. It is clear to me by your minimizations and inability to give answer to my thought experiment question (instead calling it "bizarre", which deflects and disenfranchises the point driven home by it), you are in damage-control mode vis-a-vis your reputation as admin by your glaring mistakes re understanding of BLP material inclusion criteria. I'm sure you've learned something here, but this was no "nuance", and jumping on User:TheRedPenOfDoom is scapegoating, you are responsible for glaring mistakes in policy comprehension and IMO should admit as such instead of the behavior you have chosen here to minimize and marginalize. (You've just been "spanked" by a lowly editor; you are admin. You've questioned me and tried to turn my thought experiment upside-down, when you should have apologized to me instead. I agree with Malleus: WP:CIV is not about tone or words chosen, but ideas perpetuated that are inappropriate and unfair.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're all guilty of messing up and being thoughtless from time to time. It sounds like Nightscream gained some degree of insight from this, and hopefully will take extra time on BLP's in the future. I don't know if we're going to get anywhere with shaming anyone in the debate here, so let's see if we can just work on making the article better. Of course, if anyone feels like dropping a thoughtful comment on any other editor's page as a token of apology, that wouldn't hurt. ChessPlayerLev did make a rather good point that the more obscure a person is, even if they are potentially notable, the harder it is to find good sourcing on them. But this kind of makes it all the more important that we get these articles right, and take extra care when we include anything that affects someone's reputation, after all, how many sources will bother to correct it if we get it wrong? -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * If User:Nightscream is puzzled why I brought up outstanding apology, ... I can send to him/her a list, if necessary. Regarding CPLs observation that secondary source converage of wrestling is far and few between ... he's probably right; I also agree. (But, CPL, that's no excuse for including potentially damaging accusations against a BLP subject. Clearly, that's why there's policy against it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Charity Section
This entire section is a collection of poor sources and primary sources. As a reminder, Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Primary sources may be used as reference for research, but they may not be used as they have been here. In addition, these sources are being used to support criminal fraud allegations which definitely fall into the realm of BLP, and as such, our standard is even higher. To quote our WP:BLP policy: 'We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.' This is *not* optional.

Before any of this gets re-added to the article, whether it is positive or negative, it needs to be vetted here by the community and receive a consensus to absolutely ensure that the material we are adding is supported by reliable secondary sources is not defamatory or problematic in any way. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dawn Marie Psaltis
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dawn Marie Psaltis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "owow": From Cynthia Lynch:  From Sable (wrestler):  From Stacy Keibler:  From Torrie Wilson:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012120330/http://slam.canoe.ca:80/Slam/Wrestling/PPVReports/2004/05/17/463112.html to http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/PPVReports/2004/05/17/463112.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012120352/http://www.firetank.com:80/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml to http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012120352/http://www.firetank.com:80/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml to http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525034455/http://www.marcelusive.net/2003-royal-rumble-review/ to http://www.marcelusive.net/2003-royal-rumble-review/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012091634/http://mikemooneyham.com/pages/viewfull.cfm?ObjectID=ECE58748-D1D5-4414-813AF6D89DFFB969 to http://www.mikemooneyham.com/pages/viewfull.cfm?ObjectID=ECE58748-D1D5-4414-813AF6D89DFFB969
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212072838/http://gerweck.net/dawnmarieinterview.htm to http://www.gerweck.net/dawnmarieinterview.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414125917/http://www.dawnmarieonline.com/ to http://www.dawnmarieonline.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dawn Marie Psaltis


text:
Bayesian experimental design

Bayesian experimental design provides a general probability-theoretical framework from which other theories on experimental design can be derived. It is based on Bayesian inference to interpret the observations/data acquired during the experiment. This allows accounting for both any prior knowledge on the parameters to be determined as well as uncertainties in observations.

The theory of Bayesian experimental design is to a certain extent based on the theory for making optimal decisions under uncertainty. The aim when designing an experiment is to maximize the expected utility of the experiment outcome. The utility is most commonly defined in terms of a measure of the accuracy of the information provided by the experiment (e.g., the Shannon information or the negative of the variance) but may also involve factors such as the financial cost of performing the experiment. What will be the optimal experiment design depends on the particular utility criterion chosen.

Linear theory
If the model is linear, the prior probability density function (PDF) is homogeneous and observational errors are normally distributed, the theory simplifies to the classical optimal experimental design theory.

Approximate normality
In numerous publications on Bayesian experimental design, it is (often implicitly) assumed that all posterior probabilities will be approximately normal. This allows for the expected utility to be calculated using linear theory, averaging over the space of model parameters. Caution must however be taken when applying this method, since approximate normality of all possible posteriors is difficult to verify, even in cases of normal observational errors and uniform prior probability.

Posterior distribution
In many cases, the posterior distribution is not available in closed form and has to be approximated using numerical methods. The most common approach is to use Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to generate samples from the posterior, which can then be used to approximate the expected utility.

Another approach is to use a variational Bayes approximation of the posterior, which can often be calculated in closed form. This approach has the advantage of being computationally more efficient than Monte Carlo methods, but the disadvantage that the approximation might not be very accurate.

Some authors proposed approaches that use the posterior predictive distribution to assess the effect of new measurements on prediction uncertainty, while others suggest maximizing the mutual information between parameters, predictions and potential new experiments.

Mathematical formulation
Given a vector $$\theta$$ of parameters to determine, a prior probability $$p(\theta)$$ over those parameters and a likelihood $$p(y\mid\theta,\xi)$$ for making observation $$y$$, given parameter values $$\theta$$ and an experiment design $$\xi$$, the posterior probability can be calculated using Bayes' theorem
 * $$p(\theta \mid y, \xi) = \frac{p(y \mid \theta, \xi) p(\theta)}{p(y \mid \xi)} \, ,$$

where $$p(y\mid\xi)$$ is the marginal probability density in observation space
 * $$p(y\mid\xi) = \int p(\theta)p(y\mid\theta,\xi)\,d\theta \, .$$

The expected utility of an experiment with design $$\xi$$ can then be defined
 * $$U(\xi)=\int p(y\mid\xi)U(y,\xi)\,dy,$$

where $$U(y,\xi)$$ is some real-valued functional of the posterior probability $$p(\theta \mid y, \xi)$$ after making observation $$y$$ using an experiment design $$\xi$$.

Gain in Shannon information as utility
Utility may be defined as the prior-posterior gain in Shannon information
 * $$ U(y, \xi) = \int \log(p(\theta \mid y, \xi))\,p(\theta | y, \xi) \, d\theta - \int \log(p(\theta))\,p(\theta)\,d\theta \, .$$

Another possibility is to define the utility as
 * $$U(y, \xi) = D_{KL}(p(\theta\mid y,\xi) \| p(\theta)) \, ,$$

the Kullback–Leibler divergence of the prior from the posterior distribution. noted that the expected utility will then be coordinate-independent and can be written in two forms

\begin{alignat}{2} U(\xi) & = \int \int \log(p(\theta \mid y,\xi))\,p(\theta, y \mid \xi) \, d\theta\,dy - \int\log(p(\theta))\,p(\theta) \, d\theta \\ & = \int \int \log(p(y \mid \theta,\xi))\,p(\theta, y \mid \xi)\,dy\,d\theta - \int\log(p(y \mid \xi))\,p(y\mid \xi) \, dy, \end{alignat} \, $$

of which the latter can be evaluated without the need for evaluating individual posterior probability $$p(\theta \mid y,\xi)$$ for all possible observations $$y$$. It is worth noting that the second term on the second equation line will not depend on the design $$\xi$$, as long as the observational uncertainty doesn't. On the other hand, the integral of $$p(\theta) \log p(\theta)$$ in the first form is constant for all $$\xi$$, so if the goal is to choose the design with the highest utility, the term need not be computed at all. Several authors have considered numerical techniques for evaluating and optimizing this criterion. Note that
 * $$U(\xi) = I(\theta;y)\, ,$$

the expected information gain being exactly the mutual information between the parameter θ and the observation y. An example of Bayesian design for linear dynamical model discrimination is given in. Since $$I(\theta;y)\, ,$$ was difficult to calculate, its lower bound has been used as a utility function. The lower bound is then maximized under the signal energy constraint. Proposed Bayesian design has been also compared with classical average D-optimal design. It was shown that the Bayesian design is superior to D-optimal design.

The Kelly criterion also describes such a utility function for a gambler seeking to maximize profit, which is used in gambling and information theory; Kelly's situation is identical to the foregoing, with the side information, or "private wire" taking the place of the experiment.

title: Bayesian experimental design


text:
Category:Spoken word poets

Poets (individually or as a group) who perform spoken word poetry

title: Category:Spoken word poets


text:
Talk:Nematode

Vandalism
The person who keeps on screwing up the Roundworm page is really cool. Replacing legitimate sentences with "asldkja;slkj" blabber. I am glad that creativity & intelligence still runs rampant throughout --Klestrob44 23:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Them's the wonders of government edumacayshkin.

 * What, I wonder, would be a good way to mention the pop culture presence of nematodes? They occasionally crop up as comedy plague infestations, like gruniun. The most recent example I can think of is a Spongebob Squarepants episode. Kaz 23:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

ok, i got flagged for vandalism on this once in this very talk page, So I'll say it again with more words...

Abundance
So how do we know for certain that they are not telepathic? I think that as it is a significant proposition that can't be refuted it is probably worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Shaped like a penis"!? - Is this vandalism? ok I guess it was, it is no longer in the article?

LOL, I honestly cannot beleive that some idiot put and i quote"these worms are telopathic". i think thats vandilism and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.221.178 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! It's ludicrous, so I'm going to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.103.99 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article name
"Nematode" might be a less surprising name. Pekinensis 01:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Disagree. Roundworm is a common name, and I'm not sure why we should prefer an anglicization. Josh

 * This sort of dispute comes up periodically. There are some guidelines at the Tree of Life project, but I think they're only really followed for birds.  For the most part, it's probably not worth arguing about.Dave (talk) 12:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer nematode because I believe it is the more common name, not because it an anglicization, but it is indeed not worth arguing about. — Pekinensis 04:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know in UK at least nematode is much more common name, i'm studying a biology degree and all my notes and the books I read mention nematodes not roundworms.

I think that both terms could/should be used within the body of the article, but it seems to me that the best approach would be to have the article title be the "official" phylum name Nematoda. As mentioned before, however, it probably isn't that big of a deal either way. Cerealkiller13 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happier to see either nematodes or Nematoda at the head of the entry, but I agree that it isn't a huge issue, as long as people can find the information. Myopic Bookworm 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Roundworms are triploblastic protostomes

I'm pretty sure they're not tripoblastic, they can consist of many more layers. They're epidermis usually consists of up to 9 layers of fibres, muscles etc. I'm no expert though, should it be changed? Or do these layers in the epidermis still count as an epidermis so still only one layer?

You know what I think about roundworms? They are just plain stupid! How can a worm not be round!!!! lol! -the person who keeps screwing up the roundworm page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.33.147 (talk • contribs).

Triploblastic refers to the three primary germ layers of the embryo, not to tissue layers in the adult. Triploblastic is the highest count achieved by any animal to date. Hope that answers the question. Cerealkiller13 04:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture caption
We are confused over at Featured picture candidates/Soybean cyst nematode. Is the "egg" in the picture a single egg or a cyst, or something else? Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More info on...
It looks like there needs to be more information on the roundworms' effect on third world countires and their populations, and more specifically Africa.

Spongebob?
Why is spongebob mentioned in the trivia? it's hardly relevant to the species at all. nematode have probably been mentioned in TONS of popular media. i think it's not needed. anyone else have any feelings on this? 130.49.4.75 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not needed, and at the same time it really isn't doing a whole lot of harm, as long as it's only a sentence or two and at the end of the article. If you wish to delete the section, by all means feel free to do so.  However, keep in mind it'll probably be less than a month before someone replaces it.  Cerealkiller13 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur, and have deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.131.148 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Hey, if Doug gets a mention, why shouldn't Spongebob? BabySinclair 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I think they should both be removed and we should shut up about this whole thing. Adolph172 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Adolph172

HEY! Put the trivia section back in! Put the SpongeBob reference back in! Of COURSE it is relevant! Do you not understand the concept of what "trivia" is? No, it is not relevant to the actual species the way all the other facts are, but that is the whole point of trivia... it's trivial. Asking for trivia to be significant is like asking for a foghorn to be quiet; you're missing the point completely. More importantly, the whole reason I came here and looked up "nematode" at all is because I watched the SpongeBob episode where they mentioned nematodes, and I thought to myself, "I wonder what that is?" Yes, that really happens. This is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work; you come here to look things up, even if you didn't hear about them in a "proper" way. Get it? Now that you understand why it belongs here, please restore it and stop judging people for not looking things up for reasons you approve of. Sheez. 104.35.137.227 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Phyla?
"The nematodes or roundworms (Phylum Nematoda from Greek νῆμα (nema): "thread" + ode "like") are one of the most common phyla of animals," I might be wrong here, but isn't Aschelminthes the Phyla? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.54.244 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Pronunciation
Is Nematode pronounced "Neh-mah-toad" or "Nee-mah-toad" or something else? --Yvesnimmo 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is Pronounced Nee-mah-toad. Adolph172 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)adolph172

Actually, the audio pronunciation guide at dictionary.com supports a pronunciation closer to "Neh-mah-toad" and both pronunciations are used by scientists who study the nematodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.230.109 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree—in biology pronunciation is always a little wishy-washy. As long as you can spell it like everyone else does, you are OK. Rikku (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Prevention
I would like to add a Prevention section to this page. I work for Fleishman-Hillard who represents Bayer Animal Health. We would like to provide users with information regarding how they can protect their pets from nematodes. The text below was copied from some of the other pet disease pages.

Prevention Moxidectin has been re-released in the United States as part of Advantage Multi, which utilizes moxidectin for control and prevention of roundworms, hookworms, heartworms, whipworms, and well as imidocloprid to kill adult fleas.

Preventative drugs are highly effective, and when regularly administered will protect more than 99 percent of dogs from infection. Most failures of protection result from irregular and infrequent administration of the drug. However, the monthly preventives all have a reasonable margin for error in their administration such that if a single month's dose is accidentally missed, adequate protection is usually provided so long as the next two monthly doses are administered on schedule.

68.91.226.241 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Since this article is about an entire phylum of animals, and pet parasites only make up a very small fraction of nematodes, I think it would be better to just have that information in those parasites' articles. I would also recommend just giving the basic information without anything that sounds like advertising.  For instance, someone else (or possibly you) added something similar to the heartworm page a few days ago.  I cut it down to "Moxidectin has been re-released in the United States as part of Advantage Multi, which utilizes moxidectin for control and prevention of roundworms, hookworms, heartworms, whipworms, and well as imidocloprid to kill adult fleas."  We don't want to be seen as pushing one product over another, and we also don't want to be giving people medical advice for their pets (e.g. dosing information).  Thanks for asking, and let us know if you have any other questions.  --Joelmills 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Whoops, looking at whipworm and hookworm, you already cut out the advertising tone. Great.  --Joelmills 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Diversity
I removed the line, "Only the Arthropoda are more diverse" since there are about 60,000 Chordates (according to the Chordate page). That is 3x more than the 20,000 species of Nematode mentioned in this article. Redhookesb 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, though there are probably far more nemotodes than we know about - they aren't exactly the most conspicuous animals. Richard001 07:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References
Cultural References and Robustness sections are just trivia under a different name, which is a violation of wiki policies (this is common in Wiki articles). It should be removed/ worked into the text. Removal is best because it is utterly unimportant to anyone but the cartoon fans who added it.
 * Trivia Sections aren't against Wikipedia Policies. Maybe you should check the rules before stating falseties --Kurtle (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nematode in the Bible
I've heard (World Facts by Dr James Mackay, ISBN 0-75258-226-7) that the nematode could possibly be the fiery serpents mentioned as a plague in Numbers 21:6-9. I will incorporate this into the article unless someone can find reason otherwise. --MosheA 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also heard that to.--86.29.245.46 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Treatment
If you're going to add a prevention section-- maybe a treatment page would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.161.3 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow
i never knew they existed... by the sounds of it i thought it was a mythical creature like the jackalope

24.5.57.90 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)mitch

Question
Hi, I wonder why the following is written in this article: "Since Cobb was the first to exclude all but nematodes from the group, the valid taxon should be Nemates Cobb 1919 or Nemata Cobb 1919." On which nomenclatural grounds (i.e. article of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) is this assertion made? This is just a personal opinion. There are no rules (for the moment) covering higher taxa in Zoology, so anyone can name his/her pet group as he/she likes. Yours, --Dryas (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My work messed up
I've resone againt. If I get more over-speen, I'm call it vandarm. --Philcha (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you work in your sandbox instead of in the live article? You can work as you please there, and when you have a revised article you can move it to the mainspace. This leaves the current article untouched and still useful for those seeking immediate nematode information while you perfect your draft. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Sandbox is good. But then I'd need the source (mark-up). Oops, my Sandbox is a mess. One at your's, ? --Philcha (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Why not use these:
 * User:Philcha/1 Sandbox
 * User:Philcha/2 Sandbox
 * Named to help them float to the top of your list of subpages. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I can see list of subpages but how do I make a subpage for Nemertea, with all my data ((mark-up)), i.e. no retyping. --Philcha (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what your problem is, but if you open the text you want to copy from and the text you want to copy to, at the same time and in separate windows, both of them as EDIT pages, then you can conveniently copy and paste between them without loss of any markups. JonRichfield (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and copied your most recent version of the page into the first sandbox with the wikimarkup. Enjoy. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Philcha has passed away due to a brain tumor. I would like to propose that Wikipedians work on improving this article in his honor, since this is the last article he tried to work on. Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 * What needs to be done to improve the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Phylogeny
This section talks a lot about Ecdysozoa, but sounds very old-fashioned now and importantly does not reflect well the consensus of the Ecdysozoa main page on wikipedia. It is clear that the phylogenetic consensus overwhelmingly supports ecdysozoa, and the nematode page is not the place to re-run this debate. I note that this section was written quite a while ago now. I suggest that the nematode page just use the term Ecdysozoa without reviewing old controversies. Discuss here if necessary, then I'll try to clean up the section appropriately. Along the same lines the next section on the phylogenetic relationships within the phylum is getting old too "The understanding...as of 2002 is summarised below" and should perhaps be tackled at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XCalPab (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

--XCalPab (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think cutting the second paragraph in the "Phylogeny" section entirely is probably a good start. Danger! High voltage! 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * -I agree, glad I'm not alone in this! XCalPab (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * IRL, I'm going to be doing quite a bit of work on nematode phylo starting in the next couple of months. I'll definitely be working on this article then. Danger! High voltage! 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

OK I have made some edits since this discussion seems to have been uncontroversial for the last 6 months. The ecdysozoan "debate" is now removed. The best place for this is the ecdysozoa page. The discussion of if the phylum needs to be split stems from a 1997 paper which is not very clear on the topic. This is so old, contradicted by numerous phylogeny studies with enormous amounts of data, all showing a monophyletic phylum that it would not be a reasonable view to place so much attention on a throw-away comment in a 1997 discussion. I have removed these parts and tried to keep things simple and clear. If anyone disagrees with my keep it simple and well-accepted approach it would be best to discuss it here first- its easier to expand arguments and present evidence.

I think that bringing in the very large number of molecular phylogeny studies would help these sections. Also better referencing is needed. I will try to help with this but please jump in also.--XCalPab (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

pictures
so how big are the worms in the pictures? wouldn't it be nice to have a scale in/under at least one the pcitures? --193.175.206.234 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Information in the top, linking to disease Ascariasis
This top line is not quite correct as it is linking only to one type of infection but there are others as well? ''This article is about the organism. For the infection, see Ascariasis.'' Should it rather say: ''This article is about the organism. For the infection, see soil-transmitted helminthiasis''? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

 * (Yes, I'm responding almost a year late) I changed the link to Helminthiasis rather than soil-transmitted Helminthiasis. The latter doesn't capture all nematode infections, some of which are transmitted by insect bites or eating of infected meat. There is no perfect link here, but Helminthiasis at least includes all the types of nematode infections that we have articles on. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nematode length ... contradiction?
The article says, "Nematodes are slender worms: typically approximately 5 to 100 µm thick, and at least 0.1 mm (0.0039 in) but less than 2.5mm long.[31] The smallest nematodes are microscopic, while free-living species can reach as much as 5 cm (2.0 in), and some parasitic species are larger still, reaching over a meter in length." So is it under 2.5mm, or is it over a meter? (It's the latter.) I'll change this myself unless someone can explain why the first quoted sentence makes sense. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I guess it makes sense in context. Reference 31 is referring to soil nematodes, though I would not refer to soil nematodes as "typical nematodes" (I would not refer to any nematodes as typical, as there is no shortage of species of all varieties, such as marine, aquatic, parasitic, etc). The largest nematode is also 8 meters long, which seems like it would have been mentioned there. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputed classes
An unsourced claim was made in the infobox that Chromadorea and Enoplea are disputed classes but I can find no further mention of this anywhere, either in the bulk of the article (where I rescued a class for the infobox) or in the articles alluded to. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Enoplea has been argued to possibly be a polyphyletic taxon, but I don't see anyone arguing for its removal from the nomenclature. I can find no evidence in the literature that Chromadorea is disputed. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Okay, I agree we shouldnt remove either, it is just the tags I have removed. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Oh, I understood what you said. Just trying to let you (or any other lurkers) know that I looked into the claims these taxa are disputed and found them wanting. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Trivia
I don't have a problem with the trivia section being there (although I am not a great fan of it), but it would still need to be properly referenced, otherwise I would say it should be deleted. EvMsmile (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nematode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/nematodes-roundworms-of-man/xk923bc3gp4/99
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027152335/http://intramar.ugent.be/nemys/start.asp?group=2 to http://intramar.ugent.be/nemys/start.asp?group=2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nematode
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nematode's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Anderson": From Pest control:  From Halicephalobus gingivalis:  From Amphibian:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Lifespan
Came to this article specifically looking for information on their lifespan. Saw a video in which the person claimed they live only hours and would like to verify. Unfortunately, the article has nothing along those lines, unless I missed it. Unschool 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Missing references in Parasite Species section?
The parasitism section seems to be missing some sort of verification of information. At the moment, the section on Myrmeconema neotropicum and Lasioglossum zephyrus paragraphs seem to be properly cited, but the paragraphs on human parasites and fig wasp parasitism seem to lack sources. The human parasites paragraph links specific species, and I imagine that a lot of the sources needed can be found there, but the fig wasp paragraph lacks any specific information or citations. None of this is marked for missing citations, but I'd imagine the fig wasps bit needs SOMETHING. I'd be happy to track those down, but I'm also new to the editing side of Wikipedia and wanted to check in before I made any sorts of changes.

LanceJAndrew (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nematode


text:
Lantana (disambiguation)

Lantana is a plant genus.

Lantana may also refer to:

 * Lantana (fabric), a mixture of typically 80% cotton and 20% wool
 * Marko Antun Lantana, Italian count from a noble family (originally from Bergamo, Italy) in Zadar, Croatia
 * Lantana (film), a 2001 Australian film
 * Lantana (singer) (born 1980), Spanish artist
 * Lantana, Florida, United States
 * Lantana, Texas, United States
 * FC Lantana Tallinn, a defunct Estonian football club
 * Viburnum lantana, a plant species

title: Lantana (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Supercooldude333

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Gkhan 23:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Supercooldude333


text: Category:Spoken word

title: Category:Spoken word


text:
Purkinje effect

The Purkinje effect or Purkinje phenomenon (sometimes called the Purkinje shift, often pronounced ) is the tendency for the peak luminance sensitivity of the eye to shift toward the blue end of the color spectrum at low illumination levels as part of dark adaptation. In consequence, reds will appear darker relative to other colors as light levels decrease. The effect is named after the Czech anatomist Jan Evangelista Purkyně. While the effect is often described from the perspective of the human eye, it is well established in a number of animals under the same name to describe the general shifting of spectral sensitivity due to pooling of rod and cone output signals as a part of dark/light adaptation.

This effect introduces a difference in color contrast under different levels of illumination. For instance, in bright sunlight, geranium flowers appear bright red against the dull green of their leaves, or adjacent blue flowers, but in the same scene viewed at dusk, the contrast is reversed, with the red petals appearing a dark red or black, and the leaves and blue petals appearing relatively bright.

The sensitivity to light in scotopic vision varies with wavelength, though the perception is essentially black-and-white. The Purkinje shift is the relation between the absorption maximum of rhodopsin, reaching a maximum at about 500 nm, and that of the opsins in the longer-wavelength cones that dominate in photopic vision, about 555 nm (green).

In visual astronomy, the Purkinje shift can affect visual estimates of variable stars when using comparison stars of different colors, especially if one of the stars is red.

Physiology
The Purkinje effect occurs at the transition between primary use of the photopic (cone-based) and scotopic (rod-based) systems, that is, in the mesopic state: as intensity dims, the rods take over, and before color disappears completely, it shifts towards the rods' top sensitivity.

The effect occurs because in mesopic conditions the outputs of cones in the retina, which are generally responsible for the perception of color in daylight, are pooled with outputs of rods which are more sensitive under those conditions and have peak sensitivity in blue-green wavelength of 507 nm.

Use of red lights
The insensitivity of rods to long-wavelength (i.e. red) light has led to the use of red lights under certain special circumstances—for example, in the control rooms of submarines, in research laboratories, aircraft, and in naked-eye astronomy.

Red lights are used in conditions where it is desirable to activate both the photopic and scotopic systems. Submarines are well lit to facilitate the vision of the crew members working there, but the control room must be lit differently to allow crew members to read instrument panels yet remain dark adjusted. By using red lights or wearing red goggles (called "dark adaptor goggles"), the cones can receive enough light to provide photopic vision (namely the high-acuity vision required for reading). The rods are not saturated by the bright red light because they are not sensitive to long-wavelength light, so the crew members remain dark adapted. Similarly, airplane cockpits use red lights so pilots can read their instruments and maps while maintaining night vision to see outside the aircraft.

Red lights are also often used in research settings. Many research animals (such as rats and mice) have limited photopic vision, as they have far fewer cone photoreceptors. The animal subjects do not perceive red lights and thus experience darkness (the active period for nocturnal animals), but the human researchers, who have one kind of cone (the "L cone") that is sensitive to long wavelengths, are able to read instruments or perform procedures that would be impractical even with fully dark adapted (but low acuity) scotopic vision. For the same reason, zoo displays of nocturnal animals often are illuminated with red light.

History
The effect was discovered in 1819 by Jan Evangelista Purkyně. Purkyně was a polymath who would often meditate at dawn during long walks in the blossomed Bohemian fields. Purkyně noticed that his favorite flowers appeared bright red on a sunny afternoon, while at dawn they looked very dark. He reasoned that the eye has not one but two systems adapted to see colors, one for bright overall light intensity, and the other for dusk and dawn.

Purkyně wrote in his Neue Beiträge: "Objectively, the degree of illumination has a great influence on the intensity of color quality. In order to prove this most vividly, take some colors before daybreak, when it begins slowly to get lighter. Initially one sees only black and grey.  Particularly the brightest colors, red and green, appear darkest.  Yellow cannot be distinguished from a rosy red.  Blue became noticeable to me first.  Nuances of red, which otherwise burn brightest in daylight, namely carmine, cinnabar and orange, show themselves as darkest for quite a while, in contrast to their average brightness.  Green appears more bluish to me, and its yellow tint develops with increasing daylight only."

title: Purkinje effect


text:
John Hawkes (novelist)

John Clendennin Talbot Burne Hawkes, Jr. (August 17, 1925 – May 15, 1998) was a postmodern American novelist, known for the intensity of his work, which suspended some traditional constraints of narrative fiction.

Biography
Born in Stamford, Connecticut, Hawkes was educated at Harvard College, where fellow students included John Ashbery, Frank O'Hara, and Robert Creeley. Although he published his first novel, The Cannibal, in 1949, it was The Lime Twig (1961) that first won him acclaim. Thomas Pynchon is said to have admired the novel. His second novel, The Beetle Leg (1951), an intensely surrealistic Western set in a Montana landscape, came to be viewed by many critics as one of the landmark novels of 20th-century American literature.

Hawkes took inspiration from Vladimir Nabokov and considered himself a follower of the Russian-American translingual author. Nabokov's story "Signs and Symbols" was on the reading list for Hawkes' writing students at Brown University. "A writer who truly and greatly sustains us is Vladimir Nabokov," Hawkes stated in a 1964 interview.

Hawkes taught English at Harvard from 1955 to 1958 and English and creative writing at Brown University from 1958 until his retirement in 1988. Among his students at Harvard and Brown were Rick Moody, Jeffrey Eugenides, David Shields, Christine Lehner Hewitt, Jade D Benson/Denice Joan Deitch, Alex Londres, William Melvin Kelley, Marilynne Robinson, Ross McElwee, and Maxim D. Shrayer.

Hawkes died in Providence, Rhode Island; his papers are housed at Brown University.

Quotations

 * "For me, everything depends on language."
 * "I began to write fiction on the assumption that the true enemies of the novel were plot, character, setting and theme, and having once abandoned these familiar ways of thinking about fiction, totality of vision or structure was really all that remained."
 * "Like the poem, the experimental fiction is an exclamation of psychic materials which come to the writer all readily distorted, prefigured in that inner schism between the rational and the absurd."
 * "Everything I have written comes out of nightmare, out of the nightmare of war, I think."
 * "The writer should always serve as his own angleworm—and the sharper the barb with which he fishes himself out of blackness, the better."

Works

 * Charivari (1949)
 * The Cannibal (1949)
 * The Beetle Leg (1951)
 * The Goose on the Grave (1954)
 * The Owl (1954)
 * The Lime Twig (1961)
 * Second Skin (1964)
 * The Innocent Party (plays) (1966)
 * Lunar Landscapes (short stories) (1969)
 * The Blood Oranges (1970)
 * Death, Sleep, and the Traveler (1974)
 * Travesty (1976)
 * The Passion Artist (1979)
 * Virginie Her Two Lives (1982)
 * Humors of Blood & Skin: a John Hawkes reader (1984)
 * Adventures in the Alaskan Skin Trade (1985)
 * Innocence in Extremis (1985)
 * Whistlejacket (1988)
 * Sweet William (1993)
 * The Frog (1996)
 * An Irish Eye (1997)

Awards and nominations

 * 1962 - American Academy of Arts and Letters Academy Award.
 * 1965 - National Book Award nomination for Second Skin
 * 1973 - Prix du Meilleur Livre étranger for The Blood Oranges
 * 1986 - Prix Médicis Étranger for Adventures in the Alaskan Skin Trade
 * 1990 - Lannan Literary Award.

title: John Hawkes (novelist)


text:
Talk:Landau

dubious claim
"Landau lies east of the Palatinate forest, Europe's largest contiguous forest, direct on the German Wine Route."

Is there no forest in Finland or Russia which is bigger than this forest ?? Hard to believe.Eregli bob (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nast is not famous. He was a notorious bigot
much like saving Hitler is famous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8947:E700:19B6:B0A7:FEFF:B404 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Exclaves
Landau has two unihabited exclaves in the Pfälzerwald, someone should look it up in German version and mention it in the English article. --188.97.169.53 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Europe's largest contiguous forest?
A sentence in the article intro had read: "Landau lies east of the Palatinate forest, Europe's largest contiguous forest, on the German Wine Route."

I went ahead and removed the claim that it's "Europe's largest contiguous forest," as: 1) No citation was given. 2) The linked article doesn't claim this. 3) I find the claim rather dubious....I mean it probably is one of the largest forested areas within the densely populated core of Western Europe, but looking a Europe as a whole, there are certainly much larger contiguous forests in Scandinavia, European Russia, the Balkans, etc. -2003:CA:8722:33FA:FD59:22D1:899B:5698 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Landau


text:
Talk:Mayo Clinic Hospital (Rochester)

I moved the page "St._Mary's_Hospital", because it's official spelling dsoes not include a apostrophe. Peb1991 23:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I was born in this hospital and have visited it many times since. The name carved in stone above the front door does have an apostrophe, while the hospital website does not. As an incurable nut about correct apostrophe use, I notice this every time I visit either one. Let me check with Mayo on when and whether the official use changed. Jonathunder 02:13, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I see the page was moved to Saint Marys Hospital (Rochester). There is a St. Mary's Hospital in Rochester, New York. Jonathunder 00:43, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Why gutted?
Why was the article gutted and the historical info removed? (unsigned comment from July 14, 2005 by Danhicks)

 * I don't know what was removed. Please be bold and add back anything relevant that should not have been. Jonathunder 15:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mayo Clinic Hospital, Saint Mary's Campus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927062703/http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=247566 to http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=247566

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mayo Clinic Hospital (Rochester)