text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pointless Waste of Time

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was article already deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Waste of Time
Speedied twice as vanity. Alexa rank of 44,254. --InShaneee 02:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep This site was linked to by the online version of the UK's Guardian Newspaper check for "Dr Albert Oxford" Wickbam
 * Keep The site is heavily trafficked and is of original content with some notable contributors CatCrofts 16:57, 11 Apr 2005
 * Note that CatCrofts's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
 * Note that I've actually contributed to 3 articles. Wickbam

 * Speedied twice, speedy it again--nixie 03:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anyone report this to admins as a zombie-deleted article? If it's come and gone a few times, I think they can block the title from being re-created again. Feco 03:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that in Feco's previous 50 contributions, he has voted delete on 3 articles, proposed another article for deletion, and has not voted to keep any articles. CountMippipopolous
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Haven't found evidence of it being created or deleted previously. Also, I'd like to see the reasons for earlier speedy deletions. Besides, if it's described as a Something Awful clone it should be allowed to stay just as the other site. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 08:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery - but that doesn't mean the imitations are on par with the original, or, indeed, notable. SA -> 389k googles, PWOT -> 13k googles. Delete. Radiant_* 11:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * As said elsewhere, and indeed, in the article itself, pwot is not an imitation of sa. (Rather, they were started around the same time.)  Also, "somethingawful" gives 113k googles, "pointlesswasteoftime" gives 15k. Keep merv
 * Note that merv's contrib page is blank... post-spoofing?

 * Keep. This is a relatively popular website. The forum itself has over 4000 members, and the website has been referenced by Penny Arcade. Check this link and search for "wailing and lamentation." It links to a PWoT article. Sean Gray 11:56, Apr 11, 2005 (EST)
 * Note that Sean Gray's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
 * I will openly admit a connection to the site. I don't see how that affects the validity of my argument, however. Sean Gray
 * Sean: It does not affect the validity of of your argument but it is policy that users who have only contributed to the article under discussion do not carry the full weight when forming a consensus about a proposal of deletion. --Theo (Talk) 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Speedy delete as re-creation of previously speedied material. Also suggest protection from re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  16:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: it's been brought to my attention that one of the key reasons for this article's initial speedy was the fact it was at the time a poorly-written substub. No vote as of yet. --InShaneee 16:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - if anything, being a "clone" of another site would make it less notable, not more, as it wouldn't even be innovative. Wikipedia is not a web guide. CDC   (talk)
 * It's not a clone, it just deals in similarly text-based humor. That point is made quite clearly in the wiki. Pointless Waste of Time is innovative in the fact that many of its clearly humorous articles are taken seriously in forums and chat rooms all over the Internet. Do a google search for "Albert Oxford" and you'll find dozens of message boards full of people arguing why this clearly fictitious man is a moron because he claims that "the character of Elrond in Lord of the Rings is a rip-off of Agent Smith from the Matrix." Sean Gray
 * Keep. Be sure to read the article fully before commenting on deletion. The article clearly states the site was made before SomethingAwful, hence it is not a clone. Note also that Jay Pinkerton, one of the largest contributors as noted, is the editor for the National Lampoon. The article needs some brushing up in terms of vanity, but once done it seems acceptable as a keeper. --Atolmazel 5:45 PM, 11 Apr 2005 (GMT)
 * Note that Atolmazel's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
 * Note that ad hominem does not affect my rationality or lack thereof. Atolmazel
 * But they do help decide whether or not you are a member of the Wikipedia community and are knowldgeable about Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that ad Hominem is never acceptable in a debate, and considering how easy it is to become familiar with the guidelines, whether or not you are a "member of the community" is not a factor of the argument.YingPar
 * As YingPar. If I have shown an ignorance of a particular policy, alert me to it. If any of the facts I have quoted are false, expose them. But to merely call me new, bias or ignorant without any explanation is a complete fallacy, and an unfair attempt to undercut my points without relevant confrontation.Atolmazel
 * Y'all are confusing ad hominem arguments with ad hominem fallacies: identifying the source --and probable unreliability thereof-- of an assertion or argument is perfectly reasonable rhetoriacl technique. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: I don't think Wikipedia should be a "web guide." If it is ok to have articles on websites, then what is the criteria for chosing them? I think this is a good article, and the site itself seems very interesting.  Why should it be deleted and "the best page in the universe"  not be?  What's the difference? No vote as of yet. --Chammy Koala 17:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The difference is that some websites (e.g. yahoo) are more notable than others (e.g. splornik ). The google test, while not always a good criterium, would be a decent way of measuring a website's popularity and impact. Of course there are no strict bars for the numbers, hence this discussion. Radiant_* 18:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I must declare a connection with the site but would like to point out the Alexa rankings for some of the other Category:Comedy websites: KTAB News (Ranked 1,886,406, article here since Nov 04), Landover Baptist Church (Ranked 45,872, article here since Jan 04) and Zombo.com (Ranked  143,341, article here since Jan 05). adamsan  18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as Adamsan. Also, previously deleted incarnations of the article have been substubs.--Wasabe3543 18:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk)  21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This site has just as much a right to be here as Jibjab, Seanbaby, or any other self-proclaimed comedy site. Having it on here adds more knowledge to the subject of comedy websites, and does not deter anyone from learning. If this article is removed, it will be tried again in 6 months or so when someone else has the idea to try to put it up here. There must be a reason why this page keeps coming back. I may not have contributed much to Wiki, but I do read it quite often, and I know things like this help. I can not see how it can hurt. Bakudai
 * User's first edit was to the article, and has only been contributing under this name for two days.

 * Keep. There is no valid reason for deletion. No harm will come to anyone in any possible way. The only consequences of having this article will be beneficial ones. YingPar
 * Note that YingPar's only edits are to the article, the Vfd page, and Argumentum ad Hominem.  RickK 00:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet seen any convincing arguments for deletion. The previous incarnations of the article were apparently poorly-written advertisements; this page conforms to basic wiki standards, it could arguably do with some NPOVing but that is a process that necessarily takes time. The relevance of Alexa rankings and Google results has been argued a hundred times before and I do not propose to repeat them; I have however already demonstrated that these criteria have not been applied to other comedy site articles. Some fans of the site have listed a few links with the mainstream media which although not compelling on their own, do build a case for inclusion. The initial reasons for deletion given by InShaneee are therefore not to my mind valid. The contributors who recommend a speedy delete appear to be unfamiliar with wiki policies themselves (WP:CSD) and proposing to block the article from recreation seems rather drastic given that it is not in any way offensive. The page does not conform to the criteria for Vanity_page and I have to sincerely ask whether some of you have read the article or this encyclopaedia's policies.Keep. adamsan 21:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment Just to summarize, the reasons for deletion seem to be 1) Clone of SomethingAwful 2)Been deleted before 3)Not notable. All three have been thoroughly refuted. 1) It has been established PWOT is older than SA, and in any case the arbitrary comparison is hardly grounds for deletion. 2) It has also been established that the older incarnation was substubs, created by an entirely seperate entity from the current entry. 3) Of the two people who have claimed it is 'not notable', neither have exhibited any knowledge of the content of the site itself. PWOT has been mentioned by Penny Arcade, The Guardian UK and has strong ties with National Lampoon. The goal of Wikipedia is to create a compendium of knowledge, this wiki does not go against that goal, in fact actively supports it. At best it needs to be cleaned up a little, deletion is completely out of the question. Atolmazel

*Keep. I've been convinced.--Chammy Koala 23:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a big submitter to Wikipedia, but frankly I see no reason to delete this. Epilpir
 * User's only edit. RickK 00:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't an argument for removing the article, it's called ad Hominem and it's not cool. -YingPar
 * You do know the difference between ad hominem argument and ad hominem fallacy, don't you? --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete. --Kyknos 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, sock puppet level has been broached. RickK 00:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * See above. You're not actually presenting an argument here. -YingPar
 * Neither are you presenting a counter-argument. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note RickK offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have to. Everyone can look at the edit histories of all of these newbie editors and can see that they were created solely for the purpose of editing and voting on this article.  In the Wikipedia environment, the term "sock puppet" means a User which was created to edit or vote on a particular article.  Your edit histories speak for themselves.  We don't need to prove that it's one User with multiple accounts.  RickK 20:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. It's a pointless waste of time.   :) — Helpful Dave 00:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a timeless point of waste. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
 * Let the cryptic slang non-arguments and predictable puns speak for themselves.
 * Keep - What kind of an encylopedia shuns knowlege? - Anonymous
 * Note (Insert obvious remark here) Chris talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Although the site isn't as famous as Something Awful, it is still relatively large (it surely isn't some random person's geocities page or something of that nature).CountMippipopolous
 * Note User has 12 edits Chris talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Too many sockpuppets, and we've already had this. Chris
 * Note Chriscf offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the previous reasons for deletion don't seem to apply. Concerning the "sockpuppet" allegation, I'm pretty sure we don't fit in the usual definition of a sockpuppet (a single person posting under many names). I assume you can check the IPs to make sure. Merv 05:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this sock-supported, already-deleted, no-need-to-waste-any-more-on-it pointless waste of time. Jonathunder 04:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * Note Jonathunder offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * already voted above for a delete, but putting the note here.... page history shows more instances of one user editing/changing/removing another user's comments, but it's too complicated for me to try to revert back those inappropriate changes. Feco 04:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Webcruft, WP is not a web guide, sockpuppet supported. jni 05:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note Webcruft offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Somebody stop this guy from spamming please. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would love to know how my pointing out several users' unfound arguments is spamming, while ad hominem attacks by the likes of Feco and Rickk made in exactly the same manner are considered acceptable. Sean Gray 15:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. Note — user changed vote to delete. This site has been online longer than most of those posting in here have. On a good day, there can upwards of approx. 30,000 hits on a popular article. An editor for a nationally recognized publication is a regular on the site. "John Dies at the End" will hopefully be released sometime in the future in a published form. The site itself has enough solid ground to support a wikipedia article (especially when something as inane as zombo.com is already a part of wikipedia). Have those that want the article deleted proved anything to the contrary? Have they even visited the site? Read the articles? If not, then how can they possibly make a claim to the validity? They cannot. Instead, they resort to childishly flinging notions of "sock puppeting" (unfounded) and the constant editing of the original article (Which was written by a "newbie" from the site, and was not approved by neither David Wong nor John Cheese, the site owners). As stated before, a quick check of each posters IP will show that we are not merely one poster trying to advertise his personal site. If any of the nay-sayers wish to continue to fling the sock puppet rant around, you can personally look me up at the Grinnell College website (http://www.grinnell.edu - email for name) to prove my existence. And yes, this is my only edit. I felt the need to sign up and protect Pointless Waste of Time from people who, without reason, wish to delete this thread. (EDIT: Forgot name. Grinnell007 1:26am, CST, 12 Apr 2005 AD)
 * I've yet to see a real reason for deletion rather than the cop out of "sock puppet" allegations. Wickbam
 * User's second edit.

I'd just like to point something out here: Incorrect; if someone has made an error, the only correct response is to point out the error so that those who haved erred have a chance to refute the argument. Calling their experience in to question does not allow for the opponent a rebuttal, therefore it is not an acceptable debate technique. In any case, the article in question has still not been proved to have violated any of Wikipedia's regulations, ergo there is no reason for it to be removed. As for WP not being a "web guide," the precedent has been set many times before, and this new addition does not violate it. See: Something Awful, Landover Baptist Church, Zombo.com, et cetera. Now, if anyone can respond to those points, I will be shocked. -- YingPar
 * "Y'all are confusing ad hominem arguments with ad hominem fallacies: identifying the source --and probable unreliability thereof-- of an assertion or argument is perfectly reasonable rhetoriacl technique."
 * The only correct response? I'm sorry, was this an Act of Congress that I missed? A UN Resolution?
 * See, that falls under a different rhetorical fallacy, namely "begging the question," whereby you assume the conclusion you're arguing for. The fact that you have to resort to these rhetorical games to "win" an argument pretty much tells me all I need to know about your sincerity and provides me enough information to comfortably dismiss what you have to say. --Calton | Talk 12:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly. Read WP:WIN. In particular, WP is not a general knowledge base. From that, it can be inferred that WP is not a webguide (indeed, that would be Google or Yahoo). Thus, not every webpage deserves a WP article, and the argument that some webpages have an article is no grounds for giving all of them an article.
 * Then, read WP:SOCK. Votes from new or anonymous users are generally discounted to prevent exactly what people have been doing here. A person creating a dozen accounts for voting is just as invalid as a person dragging dozens of friends into WP for voting. Both are called sockpuppetry, and this thread is obviously being socked.
 * It has not been established that PWOT is anything special amongst the thousands of other similar forum-and-text sites. Therefore, the deletion vote stands - and after deletion, it should apparently be protected against recreation to prevent vandalism. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have certainly read WP:WIN. Please explain which one of the consensus criteria you feel this article conforms to without adding your own inferences. You may like to know that arguing by citing precendent is currently being considered as WikiPolicy and you may find yourself using that argument later to no avail.
 * I have read WP:SOCK It states that new users are only treated as sockpuppets if the article being voted for can be established to be vanity or advertising. This has been discussed above and it cannot be classified as a vanity page. If you wish to imply that there are fewer users voting for inclusion than it seems, then I hope you have evidence to back this up.
 * EDIT: WP:SOCK is semi-policy and only provides guidelines, let's judge this article on its merits and not the background of the editors.

 * It has not been established that there is any reason to delete the page whilst maintaining other less well-written articles on less popular, less 'notable' sites. I say once again that this article is significantly different from its predecessors and should not be treated in the same way. Change vote to Strong Keep adamsan 11:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep
 * - Neithan you didn't sign. Chammy Koala 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''So far we have 17 votes keep and 13 delete/speedy. Unless I misscounted. Please keep all new votes below this point.'''--Chammy Koala 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * From a quick survey, 3 of the votes to keep are from users who have only really contributed to this vote. 2 of the votes have been changed, mine and Grinnell007. So 12 keep + 3 debated keeps to 15 delete.--Chammy Koala 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, votes by anonymous accounts and accounts which did not exist prior to the creation of this VfD listing are not ocunted. You might want to re-count with those criteria in mind.  RickK 20:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment I just want to add that PWOT was also mentioned on the front page of [Halo.Bungie.org] for an article. - Bakudai

 * Delete Do we really need to have this here? I am from the site's forums, and I think it is a stupid idea to have a Wikipedia entry about the site. if anyone is at all interested in Pointlesswasteoftime.com the best source is http://Pointlesswasteoftime.com (makes sense huh?). The humor isnt conveyed through the Wikipedia article, and I think the idea of explaining a humor website here is a little bit odd. The site is easy enough to navigate that anyone who ever IS interested in the site is better off simply checking the site out for themselves. All this is then is an article for a website that needs no explaination. Delete it. --Fermun 17:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This account apparently created simply to make this vote. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me when all of these new editors with axes to grind suddenly show up and try to explain our policies to us. As I've said in other places, which the new accounts would obviously have not read since they've never been to Wikipedia before the campaign to keep this article, if an article can't stand on its own merits, but must rely on the invalid votes of people who came here solely for the purpose of voting keep, then it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Thus my vote above. RickK 20:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete I'm 1/2 of the PWoT writing team. I'd rather brush my teeth with a wood-file than have a PWoT entry on this site. "Deserve" to be on Wikipedia?  Please, for the love of God, delete this retarded entry before I vomit blood. -John Cheese
 * possible sock-puppet... or it might really be the owner/creator of www.PWoT.com. In either case, new wiki account. Brings up interesting point... copyright holders can demand their content be removed, but can subjects of articles ask wiki not to cover them? If Bill Gates emailed tomorrow w/ a req to delete his article would/should/could we listen? Feco 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on the above question, see Votes for deletion/Monica de Bruyn for a discussion on this. No vote. Alarm 23:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Email johncheese@pointlesswasteoftime.com, and I'll be happy to let you know in detail what I think. John Cheese
 * Note that John Cheese's only contribs are in relation to this article. He may be a robot; possibly even one from outer space.

 * (already voted above) A visit to WP:POINT might also be useful... it addresses the argument: "well, articles A, B and C are about less-notable subjects, therefore my article D has a right to belong in wiki if those articles are in." Feco 20:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right... it does. "If someone lists one of your favourite articles on VfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do argue vehemently on VfD in favour of your article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples."  I don't get it, have you switched your opinion or something?  Merv 20:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * like many things in wiki, WP:POINT tries to convey both sides of something without editorial bias, thus "consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem" on the same page as "do argue vehemently on VfD in favour of your article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples". I feel the information in WP:POINT is useful to both "sides" in this discussion, and was providing it for the benefit of all who cared to read. My vote, however, remains as above. I will change it in response to continued discussion here. Feco 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No body gives a crap whether your vote is changed or not. I'm personally begging you to LEAVE IT AS A VOTE FOR DELETE.  The quicker we get this entry off of this site, the sooner I'll stop considering setting myself on fire. John Cheese

 * While I voted for "Keep" above, one of the site's owners has come forward and requested a delete. Since he is, indeed, part-owner of the site, and does not wish for this article to be up, then delete it. There's no more reason for it to be up, period. Grinnell007
 * Keep. For wiki consistency -- plenty of other websites are on here.  Sorry, John. Tlogmer
 * Keep. MicahMN | Talk 01:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We cannot allow John to kill himself over this.  I think he makes a valid point in his "deserve" comment.  We should wake up to ourselves.--Chammy Koala 09:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cna't see an honest reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn timewastecruft. ComCat 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote Count

 * You're not counting any of the 'delete' votes as questionable? --InShaneee 19:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I suppose Fermun and John Cheese are "debatable" as well. I really would rather not count any of the "debated" votes, and I don't want to spend ages figuring out who is valid.  If someone else wants to make a list of the invalid votes then they're free to.--Chammy Koala 21:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's proof that it's actually me: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/johncheese/wiki.htm John Cheese
 * Holy shit! That sockpuppet just hacked PWOT! Atolmazel 21:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry John, I already believe that it's you, but the problem is on Wiki votes, it doesn't just matter if you are who you say you are, - and not a "sock puppet" - but we don't really count votes from people who have done nothing but vote on this one thing. I'm happy to count your vote, but it's not just up to me. I'm sure it will influence a lot of votes anyway, such as mine.

 * Would it help if I replaced all the text in that article with goatse? John Cheese
 * That would certainly get you permanently blocked from Wikipedia. RickK 04:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we wouldn't want that. Because then, I wouldn't be able to get on here to remind myself why I hate humans.  Plus, it would really suck to have to take that 10 seconds to spoof my IP address to get around the ban.  The vote's gone on long enough... we have an overwhelming majority of people with no life asking for a delete, so let's do just it. John Cheese

 * So now we have 2 more delets and 3 more keeps. One of the deletes is from John Cheese, I believe it really is him.  Total: 15 keep + 3 debated keeps to 15 delete + 2 debated deletes.--Chammy Koala 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your count is highly flawed. How in the world did you come up with 15 keeps?  As I indicated above, anonymous posters and the votes of people whose IDs did not exist prior to the VfD listing are not counted.  I only count possibly three valid keep votes.  RickK 23:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just counted the obvious ones that were red. If you count 3 keep, how many delete?--Chammy Koala 00:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just doing a cursory scan, I got 12. RickK 00:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Verified Vote Count- below is a table showing every registered (non-anonymous) user and their votes. The letter code FC means the user's First Contribution to wiki was in relation to PWoT AND they have less than 50 total contributions. Note that this information is up-to-date as of the RickK post immediately before this one. Note also that the names listed are User's actual account names, which may vary from the signatures used above: Feco 02:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

x	Keep	Wickbam			FC x	Keep	CatCrofts		FC x	Keep	merv			FC x	Keep	Sean Gray		FC x	Keep	Atolmazel		FC x	Keep	Bakudai			FC x	Keep	YingPar			FC x	Keep	Epilpir			FC x	Keep	CountMippipopolous	FC 1	Keep	Tlogmer 2	Keep	Micahmn 3	Keep	Irishpunktom 4	Keep	MacGyverMagic 5	Keep	Kyknos 6	Keep	adamsan 7	Keep	Wasabe3543 x      Keep    Wesleywatson            FC

x	Delete Fermun			FC x	Delete	John Cheese		FC 1	Delete	Petaholmes 2	Delete	Feco 3	Delete	Megan1967 4	Delete	Radiant 5	Delete	Starblind 6	Delete	Cdc 7	Delete	Jayjg 8	Delete	RickK 9	Delete	Helpful Dave 10	Delete	Calton 11	Delete	Chris 12	Delete	Jonathunder 13	Delete	jni 14	Delete	Chammy Koala
 * I've made contributions to wikipedia months before this, as my contributions page shows (in fact I seem to remember making more, but I suppose I wasn't logged in for them, but the point remains that I've made contributions). If you can't determine when my first contributions were made, I would doubt the accuracy of your list; however, after seeing that the owner does not want the article, I change my vote to a Delete.CountMippipopolous

Not that I care that much anymore, but I had always thought people had needed a *reason* to delete an article. Just sayin'. Atolmazel 08:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand that only my 51st vote and beyond will be counted?CatCrofts 09:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete as vanity, as shown by fans piling in. Also clue in the name. --Henrygb 10:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we've already established it isn't vanity. adamsan 10:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We've certainly established that it's a pointless waste of time. --Calton | Talk 11:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice wit penis breath.
 * I'm begining to undertand what Cheese is talking about. adamsan 11:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Unless this one article somehow fills up the rest of Wiki's storage space, I see no reason to delete it. I am Wesleywatson, and I approve this article. --Wesleywatson 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

How long did it take you spend making that table, Mr. Feco? That's quite an impressive effort for such a Pointless Waste of Time! Ha! Get it? But seriously, you'd make a great contribution to the fabulous world of American social politics. You're already an expert; just keep ignoring any actual relevent information and go straight at 'em! Opponent's plan ineffectual? More like opponent's plan innefagtual! Good times! I love Ad Hominium. Your bestest buddy, YingPar
 * I especially love how that table cuts out votes for people that wanted it kept. What are you, 12?
 * Eleven, actually, next summer. I expect you'll be there? Presents are uneccassary, of course; I'd rather hate to have myself indebted to all my friends, you know. Ha ha!

 * Keep Could do with some editing (ie; to remove vanity) but is otherwise a worthy contribution. The site is very popular and has been around for a considerable time. I can see reason to delete, it is very similar to the 'Fark' and 'Something Awful' articles, albeit, not as lengthy of deep.

 * Does the website owner's view count for more than another voter? And are the FC votes to be ignored for sure?

 * Actually, upon reflection, I see nothing wrong with the article. I would like to change my irrelevant vote to keep. John Cheese

 * Double-take. Vote changed back to Delete.  John Cheese

 * keep delete just about notable enough, but could do with some work to tidy it up once the vandals get bored. Thryduulf 20:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * actually I've changed my mind. The vandalism of my user page has resulted in this change of vote. If the page gets deleted make sure to protect it blank. Thryduulf 20:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or just speedy it. Xezbeth  20:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we have an opinion of the site's owner? See also discussion on WP:AN/I about the calling to arms of the vandals. Mgm|(talk) 20:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * keepGeni 20:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * delete Only 557 references on google. Not enough for a website. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, and supported by a surplus of sockpuppets vandals.  (Vote changed, see below.) --Carnildo 21:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Comment by 128.125.54.22)
 * Err they ain't supporting it they are trying to get rid of it (I admit it is normaly the other way around)
 * In that case, I'm changing my vote. Keep. Borderline notable, and the vandals want it gone. --Carnildo 23:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * which means, the easiest course of action is deleting it. Who wants to give free publicity to a bunch of assholes?

 * Delete - Really not notable, especially for this kind of vandalcruft. – ClockworkSoul 21:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote. They want it gone, I don't feel that I should help them. You know, there's more of us than there is of them: we could swamp the hell out of their little board, if we had the inclination... – ClockworkSoul 21:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote keep. Was borderline notability, so I'm now voting to keep out of spite. When it passes I'm making it a featured article, complete with screenshots. – ClockworkSoul 21:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So you mean a bunch of vandals only need to spam us to get something deleted? That would set a real bad precedent. Mgm|(talk) 21:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * You know what's also a bad precedent? Keeping an article that few people deemed worthy of inclusion until they decided they would vote "keep" just to spite vandals.
 * Oh I dunno we've got some pretty good artilces from following that logic in tha pastGeni 21:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Still, we shouldn't vote based on the vandals. The first few keep votes established enough notability. Keep. We shouldn't let vandals decide what's included. Mgm|(talk) 21:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * You -are- voting based on vandals, just not -with- the vandals. It's like shunning pop music because it's popular; you're still basing a decision on someone else's decision.

 * DELETE Seriously, delete it, and it will all be over. Try our board if you want, but seriously, we don't want to be here anymore. a few of us wanted it at first, now we don't. Bakudai
 * This user is a "mole troll". – ClockworkSoul 22:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been a wikipedia contributor for a pretty long time, and a PWOT regular. I don't know what a mole troll is, and it sounds unflattering, but Bakudai has been fairly non-insane regular over there; he's not just stirring up shit for the sake of it.  And while of course I can't speak for anyone who's vandalized the site, I will add that most of us have no interesting in pissing on the wiki.  The PWOT forums have a very large user base, but the (apparently substantial) number of vandals make up a small minority. Tlogmer (Talk) 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * When I posted a fairly nice note to Bakudai, he immediately reposted it onto the PWOT boards, with the suggestion the he was "gaining my trust". I would have ignored it, but the fact that he referred to me as "Cockwork" suggested that his intentions were not entirely honorable. Unlike most of those that vandalized here, his block is of finite duration. – ClockworkSoul 02:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to locate the post on the PWOT boards -- it may have since been deleted. Do you still have the text?  If so, I could look at it to verify that he was indeed being an asshat and not making a circumspect joke not intended specifically to insult you (PWOT humor can be a bit impenetrable to outsiders.) Tlogmer (Talk) 02:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't :/ I didn't think to save it. If you feel that an unblock is warranted, however, I won't protest too strongly. – ClockworkSoul 02:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I missed the main (newer) thread on this whole mess on PWOT -- I'd been reading the older thread -- so I didn't see all the stuff about directed vandalism. And while I have to admit that I find PWOTers vandalizing the PWOT wiki entry kind of funny, vandalizing other pages on the wiki isn't cool.  Do what you have to do; I don't have the time or energy to follow this properly (especially since it's the weekend now). Tlogmer (Talk) 02:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm changing my vote to Delete. John, half the PWOT writing team, has stated clearly several times that he doesn't want the article on here.  The wiki doesn't have to obey his wishes, of course, but he's really fucking motivated and him and his followers will suck up a lot of your time and energy if you're determined to keep the article here.  I'd say you're faced with a choice:
 * Delete it. Your troubles will end instantly.  (Of course, you'll have appeased people you don't want to appease.  They're people obsessed with this particular issue, though, not general-purpose vandals who'll give you trouble in the future.
 * If you're too worried about setting a bad precedent by caving in, you could go to war: contact John's ISP, etc. Obvisouly I don't want this to happen because I really like his writing and the more time he spends fighting silly legal battles the less writing he does.  I don't think you'll get him to cave any other way, though. (Talk) 02:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good luck to the poor admin who has to do the count when this VfD closes. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete John Cheese, half of the site's writing team, said he didn't want it on here. (My vote isn't going to be counted anyway) --HorustheElder 22:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * first edit to wikipediaGeni 22:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. The article may need improvement but that is not grounds for deletion and I can find no other grounds (it is not vanity and it appears to be notable, albeit mildly, by association). I found the article quite (in the UK sense) interesting. Oh, and if John Cheese could refrain from suicide in the event of the article being kept, I would be grateful. --Theo  (Talk) 23:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough. Also, this VfD is a pointless waste of time. --cesarb 01:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 119 01:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it for a while, it's pretty borderline (although the temptation to say "keep", to stick it to the twerps who hang out on that board, was one I had to work on to resist). It's just one more web-based electronic community, and on the edge as to whether it's notable enough for an article. (And it's basically irrelevant whether Cheese wants it gone or not - since when did we let the subjects of our articles tell us whether or not we could have articles on them? He gets one vote, same as everyone else.) Noel (talk) 02:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kuralyov 02:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This article needs to be deleted and protected from ever becoming an article again. It will be a waste of admin time dealing with the things John Cheese has planned if it isn't deleted.  This whole thing is a joke.  Let's focus our time on more important WP articles. --Chammy Koala 03:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Alright. I nominated this thing, I figure it's time I finally took a stance. Originally, I only listed this because I thought that was the proceedure for previously speedied articles. However, several point have been brought to my attention. Firstly, the speedied articles had 1-2 sentences, so these were definatly not the same article (my bad). Combined with the cited claims to notability provided above, I don't see a convincing enough case for deletion. --InShaneee 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Half the writing team wants it deleted, the other half knows of the situation and has put forth no objections to the deletion request. The point is, by deleting the entry you are hardly 'giving in', the votes were clearly heading in the delete direction.  By then voting the opposite way once John Cheese says he wants it deleted is childish and asinine.  Don't bother stating that I am a new user.  I am a new user, I registered to submit my desire to have this article deleted.     5 Days is up. Do the tally and do what you have to do, but for heaven's sake, don't break your own policies over this  --Ruteger

 * Delete. Seems like the logical decision when you have your arm stuck inside an angry hornet's nest is to take it out.  -- Teh Bomb Sophist P.S., I have at least six Wiki edits by now.  Sockpuppet status: revoked.  I can make more speedy link additions if you want me to.

 * Comment What're the votes at? --Prophet
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Distinction (book)

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement, 1979) by Pierre Bourdieu, is a sociological report about the state of French culture, based upon the author's empirical research from 1963 until 1968. The English translation was published in 1984, and, in 1998, the International Sociological Association voted Distinction as an important book of sociology published in the 20th century.

Summary
As a social critique of the judgements of taste, Distinction (1979) proposes that people with much cultural capital — education and intellect, style of speech and style of dress, etc. — participate in determining what distinct aesthetic values constitute good taste within their society. Circumstantially, people with less cultural capital accept as natural and legitimate that ruling-class definition of taste, the consequent distinctions between high culture and low culture, and their restrictions upon the social conversion of the types of economic capital, social capital, and cultural capital.

The social inequality created by the limitations of their habitus (mental attitudes, personal habits, and skills) renders people with little cultural capital the social inferiors of the ruling class. Because they lack the superior education (cultural knowledge) needed to describe, appreciate, and enjoy the aesthetics of a work of art, 'working-class people expect objects to fulfil a function' as practical entertainment and mental diversion, whilst middle-class and upper-class people passively enjoy an objet d'art as a work of art, by way of the gaze of aesthetic appreciation.

The acceptance of socially dominant forms of taste is a type of symbolic violence between social classes, made manifest in the power differential that allows the ruling class to define, impose, and endorse norms of good taste upon all of society. Hence, the naturalization of the distinction of taste and its misrepresentation as socially necessary, deny the dominated classes the cultural capital with which to define their own world. Moreover, despite the dominated classes producing their own definitions of good taste and of bad taste, "the working-class 'aesthetic' is a dominated aesthetic, which is constantly obliged to define itself in [the] terms of the dominant aesthetics" of the ruling class.

Theory
In the development of social-class identity, the aesthetic choices that people make for themselves also create social-class factions, which are in-groups that distance members of a social class from each other and from other social classes. The cultural capital taught to children, a predisposition towards a certain cuisine, certain types of music, and a certain taste in art are the distinctions of taste that then guide children to their places in their social class and within the hierarchy of social classes. Such self-selection into a social class is achieved by the child's internalization of preferences for objects and behaviours particular to a given social class, and the internalization of a cultural aversion towards the other social classes, a feeling of "disgust, provoked by horror, or visceral intolerance ('feeling sick') of the [bad] tastes of others."

The cultural tastes of the ruling class (communicated through the dominant ideology) determine what is good taste and what is bad taste for the middle class and for the working class. Therefore, the concept of good taste is an example of cultural hegemony, of how a ruling class exercise social control by their possession of the types of capital (social capital, economic capital, cultural capital) that ensure the social reproduction and the cultural reproduction of themselves, as a ruling class. Because persons are taught their cultural tastes in childhood, a person's taste in culture is internalized to their personality, and identify his or her origin in a given social class, which might or might not impede upward social mobility.

Methodology
As researchers, Bourdieu and the statistician Salah Bouhedja applied geometric data analysis, as part of a multiple correspondence analysis, of "the complete system of [social] relations that make up the true principle of the force and form specific to the effects recorded in such and such correlation" using correspondence analysis of the data from two surveys: (i) the "Kodak survey" (1963) and (ii) the "Taste survey" (1967), and subsets of data from the "dominant classes" and from the "petite-bourgeoisie".

Reception
In 1998, the International Sociological Association voted Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1979) an important book of 20th-century sociology, like The Civilizing Process (1939), by Norbert Elias and The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966), by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

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

title: Distinction (book)


text:
Bhutan Broadcasting Service

The Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS, འབྲུག་རྒྱང་བསྒྲགས་ལས་འཛིན) is a state-funded radio and television service in Bhutan. A public service corporation which is fully funded by the state and it is the only service to offer both radio and television in the kingdom, and is the only television service to broadcast from inside the Bhutanese border. The use of telecommunications is currently governed through the Information, Communications and Media Act of 2006.

History
For many years, Bhutan did not have modern telecommunications. The first radio broadcasts commenced in November 1973, when the National Youth Association of Bhutan (NYAB) began radio transmissions of news and music for a half-hour each Sunday, under the name "Radio NYAB." The transmitter was first rented from a local telegraph office in Thimphu. The government took over Radio NYAB in 1979, and renamed it the Bhutan Broadcasting Service in 1986, with expansions in radio scheduling as well as construction of a modern broadcast facility occurring in 1991.

For a long time, Bhutan was the only nation in the world to ban television. BBS announced plans to start the service in April 1999, with the channel complementing other media outlets as a "catalyst in nation-building". The first night of television broadcasts finally occurred on June 2, 1999, on the night of the Jigme Singye Wangchuck's silver jubilee.

Radio in Bhutan
Shortwave radio reached all of Bhutan in 1991. In June 2000, FM stations opened in the south and west of the country, expanding to central Bhutan in January 2001. By the end of 2005, FM radio service reached the entire country. Since November 2009, radio airs for 24 hours a day (23 hours and 21 minutes taking into account pauses and connection breaks), with the low listening times of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. featuring repeats of the previous day's schedule. 14 hours and 45 minutes of each broadcast day is broadcast in Dzongkha, with 3 hours and 45 minutes broadcast in English, 2 hours and 53 minutes in Sharchop and an hour and 58 minutes in Nepali.

Television in Bhutan
BBS is the first television station in Bhutan. News, documentaries, and entertainment programs were originally broadcast for one hour in the evening (7 p.m. to 8 p.m.), seven days a week, but expanded to four hours (6 p.m. to 10 p.m.) in December 2004. Once limited to the capital city, television service spread to the entire Kingdom via satellite in February 2006. It operates 31 TV stations across the country.

In 2008, BBS expanded their television schedule to air from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. Most of the programming is aired in Dzongkha, but two current events and news programs each night are aired in English.

The programming from the previous night is repeated from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. the next morning. Special entertainment and music request programs are also aired between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. on weekends.

BBS started to broadcast all of its programs in high-definition format on July 26, 2023 with its HD feed of BBS TV will be named as BBS HD.

Channels

 * BBS TV (BBS 1) - BBS' flagship channel, it broadcasts news and current affairs, education, sports, and culture. It launched on June 2, 1999 as the first television channel of Bhutan. The high-definition feed started broadcasting on July 26, 2023.
 * BBS 2 - BBS' general entertainment channel, it was launched in 2012. The high-definition feed started broadcasting on July 26, 2023.
 * BBS 3 - BBS' educational channel, it was launched in May 2020. The high-definition feed started broadcasting on July 26, 2023.

Controversy
Although BBS is extremely popular among the Bhutanese people, mismanagement has plagued its growth. The government's attempts to keep its actions and content under its control include deputing senior civil servants as CEOs and toying with the annual budget string. Anchors suddenly disappear from the screen. One of the producers has sued the BBS in court.

On December 6, 2012, the Indian Intelligence Bureau red flagged the Bhutan Broadcasting Service as a hate channel among 24 others for beaming anti-India programmes. A proposal for action was sent to the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs.

title: Bhutan Broadcasting Service


text:
Talk:Paramecium

Are we capable of doing anything with this plant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.228.96 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 * l just want in which category this fall@ 103.137.24.192 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this protozoa animal like, plant like or fungi like?

Protozoa = animal-like, but the similarity is superficial. Paramecium is probably closer to plants (they are both bikonts) than to animals or fungi (opisthokonts).

The 2 p's
Is paramecium a part of protozoa?

 * Yes and No (I believe) because they thoght that until new discoveries

. Hey, my warranty didn't run out after all! 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Collection of Paramecium
How can you collect paramecium? With a stick! --scienceman 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I find it odd how long this article went with such blatant vandalism, even with a few edits in the mean time with no-one seeming to notice. I don't normally do any editing though, so maybe this is commonplace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.146.24.74 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Does Paramecium rotate when swimming?

random microbiology question
does anyone know what the effect would be if a human ingested paramecium? need to know for micro class & can't find info anywhere. thanks! MAybe i can google it, i'll see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.178.243 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Possible addition
Hello. While not new to Wikipedia, I've never before attempted to add any content. Anyways, I have a simple, generic, monochromatic diagram of a paramecium that I created for a Bio class that might fit in well here. However, being new to this system, I have no idea how to upload it and then add it the page, or, more appropriately, add a link to it. --Phoenex 14:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Required
Somebody's put some work into this article recently, but lots of the new material just repeats the (very good) introductory material, only using simpler language. I get the impression that someone pasted in their homework. Unfortunately, their essay started with a verbatim copy of an older version of the article! Nevertheless, the new material does contain some extra information. I've separated it out from the older, better stuff, and cut out some of the more obvious repetition. More work required. AlexTingle 07:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

request for further editing
This article, while very superficial and in lay terms, was helpful to me. However, there are a couple of points which are confusing and need more detail.

1. "Certain single-celled eukaryotes, such as Paramecium, are examples for exceptions to the universality of the genetic code (translation systems where a few codons differ from the standard ones)." ...? please explain how paramecium are exceptions to standard dna replication

2."[edit] Symbiosis One of the most interesting symbiosis relationships known to man is that of Paramecium aurelia and its bacterial endosymbionts. The bacteria infect the protozoa and they produce toxic particles that kill sensitive strains but not killer strains. Giant amoeba, for instance, have 2 types of endosymbiotes, which seem to function as mitochondria in these amoeba. Another example involves protozoa bacteria that produce cellulases that assist the protozoa in cellulose digestion. It is a cell that appears at quiet ponds."

If the symbiotic relationship between this paramecium and bacteria is "one of the most interesting known to man," it would be nice to know what is known about this relationship. it only says that bacteria infect and kill certain paramecium. That doesn't sound very beneficial to me. please explain. also, mentioning the giant amoeba and some unnamed protazoa is out of place here, as it has no direct relationship to paramecium, and belongs in an article about symbiotic relationships. The final sentence looks like it was stuck on at some later point. it should just be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jseagles (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The wording (especially about what "killer strains" actually means) is so ambiguous, I edited it out. If someone puts it back in, they need to clear up just what "killer strains" means does it refer to strains of bacteria or of Paramecium?). rowley (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
Running the risk of being banal, isn't it spelt Paramoecium. I think that is the correct spelling.

 * The "oe" is an example of a greek diphthong that is commonly rendered simply as "e" in modern English. rowley (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Paramecium are Fast (So I've seen firsthand)
In the Seventh Grade, I had the chance to look under the microscope at some paramecium.

I found it rather surprising when I didn't see any mention of just how fast paramecium can move.

Their little cilla allows them to zip all over the petri dish!

Howver, there may be a lot of types of paramecium, so I may have been looking at just one species.

Yet, they really are fast. 74.184.188.59 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

from: anoynmous user: who cares about spellin! and they swim very slow because i said so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.112.166 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbiosis
I cut out this chunt of other examples of symbiosis in othter species from this article on paramecia, just to help keep the article clean. 155.91.28.231 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Giant amoebas, for instance, have types of endosymbiotes, which seem to function as mitochondria in these amoebas. Another example involves protozoa bacteria that produce cellulases to assist the host protozoan with cellulose digestion (similar to those found in some in termites).

EM communication
There is some uncertainty about the validity of the the research regarding the ability of Paramecium to communicate via electromagnetic radiation based on this paper. User:Icek thinks that it is an April's fool joke, which User:Bus stop disagrees with. I myself and sat on the fence - I think if it was an April's fool joke, there would be some coverage of it somewhere (which I can't find) and I've never heard of scientific journals doing April fool's jokes before. That said, having read the paper and also having read stuff about biophotons before, I'm unsure as to whether we should consider it reliable. For starters, even the author admits it "Are these interactions based on biophotons? Clearly this was not measured and to my knowledge is not currently measurable, for the electromagnetic spatial dimension of cells is so far not reachable either for precise assessment or application." It's pretty clear that this is a fringe theory, an IMO having it in the article is undue when we have nothing about the other ways in which they communicate through chemical means. Bus stop, can you explain why you think it should remain in the article? Smartse (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Smartse—in truth I definitely don't know. But I just raised a question here, on our Science reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * And as an example of why scientific papers can't be trusted as RSs all the time see this which was discussing a paper published in PNAS, generally considered more reliable than PLoS. Smartse (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The article was "Received: November 2, 2008; Accepted: February 2, 2009; Published: April 1, 2009" -- nothing sounds too deliberately or outrageously funny about that. As to being "fringe" or notable enough for inclusion in the article -- is this the best article for it?  Presumably it would be something more widespread and not occur in just this one organism; maybe the "biophoton" article would be a better place for it (but I haven't seen that one)?  Wiki Dao  ☯  (talk)  20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Illustration of a pair o' meece-i-yum, with a cat eye-on. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * As opposed to an Anion. : ) Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Every April Fools joke I've ever seen had way more obvious clues that are present here. I don't believe it's a joke. Even the weird-looking things, such as the author coming from the Swiss Tropical Institute, turn out to make sense. I don't particularly believe the result, and the paper certainly wouldn't meet WP:MEDRS if that were the applicable criterion, but it doesn't look like a joke. Looie496 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I emailed the author about this and got the following reply (note that some of it is a reply to text on the science reference desk):

Dear Ariel

Thanks for your interest. Here my answers.

1) It is not a fools joke.

2) For the time being I am the only one who does this type of experiments with Paramecia but by far not the only one who does this type of experiment.

3) Actually, you can see my paper also as a repetition of previous studies but with another organism.

4) I apologize for not contributing on your blog.

A remark after reading your discussion. Single author does not mean bad work. Experiment 1 was 14 times repeated. This is a big sample size.

Please, do not talk in such a sloppy way about other people's work. It took about 700 working hours to do all experiments, read into the literature, permanently hand out my paper to my critical collegues checking for errors, making it waterproof, double-check the statistics and so on ... Note, the field is old (1923) but only few people work on it. These people have to convince the Scientific community about the reality of so-called bio-photons. Join in in a construcitve way.

Yours friendly Daniel Fels

PS: Maybe you and your friends have a (long) glance at this recent review.

Attached was a pdf titled: "Electromagnetic cellular interactions" by "Michal Cifra, Jeremy Z. Fields, Ashkan Farhadi". 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2010.07.003 Ariel. (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for contacting the author Ariel. I still feel it is undue to include it in this article and think it would be a better idea to use the review to expand the biophoton article. Personally I find this field very interesting but after thinking about this in general for a number of years and then today reading the review I still find it pretty questionable. More importantly, it's not our job to convince anyone about anything - we should be presenting the most accepted view of a topic. In this case, an article about Paramecium, one paper which proposes EM communication is undue when there are over 5000 papers which directly study paramecium. Smartse (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Smartse, shouldn't there be some mention, however brief, of this study in the Paramecium article? A link could accompany such a mention, sending the reader to the Biophoton article. Thank you to Ariel for obtaining that additional information on this. Bus stop (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Maybe, but the thing is that if it occurs its not specific to Paramecium, which in my opinion any mention would make it seem. The review mentioned lists many similar experiments but I don't think they should be mentioned in every article about the organisms used in the experiments. As an example, one found that human blood affected the germination of radish seeds, but we shouldn't add this to the radish and blood articles. Paramecium appear to just be the organism that was chosen for the experiment, rather than this being an important, well verified piece of information about Paramecium. Smartse (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, that could be said. Would it be unreasonable to note in the Paramecium article that experiments were carried out that indicate a degree of communicative ability across distances, assumed to be attributable to electromagnetic radiation, but that it is not at all clear that this is unique to this particular organism, or even whether that has been conclusively established. I see nothing wrong with a little tangent in an article. It could be enclosed in brackets perhaps—to set it apart from content directly relating to the topic. I think every reader would find this interesting. And the link (to Biophoton) could be used or not used, at the reader's discretion. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * (Coming here from the Ref Desk.) I'm inclined to agree with Smartse's position.  Much as our article on Mus musculus doesn't – and shouldn't – address every single study that used the mouse as a model organism, this article shouldn't try to include and reference every use of Paramecium in the scientific literature.
 * In this case, we have a small study that reports an unusual result. The scientific community hasn't had the opportunity to replicate the result or to review the findings in the context of a high-quality secondary source.  (That is, this work doesn't form the foundation for additional papers by arms-length research groups, nor has it yet been presented as an important or reliable conclusion in peer-reviewed general literature reviews of Paramecium biology or biophysics.) It would therefore be premature for a general reference work like Wikipedia to incorporate this new finding into our article at this time; creating an entire article section to discuss this result is far too much emphasis on a single newly-published primary source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good example of junk science. 1. The biggest problem is that he did not set out to test a preformulated hypothesis, he started collecting noisy data and then invented super-specialized hypotheses for the statistical tests that might explainec that particular (and only that) data set. 2. The experimental setup does not allow to draw any conclusion about the proposed mechanism. The only valid way would have been to use filters on the *outside* of the cuvettes as controls. 3. The experimental setup was not adequate, the intermittent background during opening/handling light was probably orders of magnitudes brighter than any paramecium light. 4. There is no measurement or characterization of paramecium light emission and how that differs from bacteria light or plain medium light. 5. What is his hypothesis/conclusion? That a certain type of light affects growth? In the presence of background radiation orders of magnitude higher? Much easier to test with artificial light sources. Or does he imply a kind of morse code that parameciums can detect and decode without interference from the hundreds of other parameciums and other organisms in close proximity? Without any obvious (directional) sensing organ or mechanism? Conclusion: All there is is noisy data. And some wild speculation that is not at all backed up by the data. This article definitely has no place in Wikipedia. Cacycle (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Cacycle—I think that is original research. Not that you are the first to engage in what I think is WP:OR in relation to this question, but I don't think that really supersedes sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, WP:OR applies to articles, not to discussions. Cacycle (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True. Good point. But you are virtually conducting or at least evaluating a scientific experiment. Doesn't that require expertise? The spirit of the concept of "original research" involves substituting what we assume to be our own knowledge for that which may be contained in "reliable sources." Your argument is perfectly fine here on the Talk page. I don't mean to silence you (not that I could). But as it translates into excluding what seems to me to be pretty well-sourced information (PLoS ONE and Scientific American) it seems akin to original research. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Cacycle's criticisms are scientifically reasonable in every particular, but I was trying to be polite since the author of the article may be reading and I wanted to be gentle towards someone who is probably quite young and inexperienced so I tried to couch my arguments in terms of a failure to meet our secondary sourcing standards.
 * 'Conducting' and 'evaluating' science experiments are two very different processes; one requires equipment, the other just requires knowledge. While it would be inappropriate for us to engage in actively debunking sources in our articles using only our own skills and knowledge, it is not beyond our scope to evaluate the quality of sources in deciding whether or not to include their findings in our articles in the first place.  Deciding which statements and sources our articles should contain are among our largest and most important responsibilities as Wikipedia editors — WP:WEIGHT is a key plank of WP:NPOV, and even WP:OR cautions us about placing primary source materials in appropriate context.
 * This is a primary research paper from an author with a very limited publication track record, including no apparent experience in biophotonics or photobiology. There are issues with the methodology, analysis, and interpretation of the data presented.  The conclusions are vague.  (PLoS ONE is a great idea, but its catch-all mandate makes it something of a black sheep among the otherwise uniformly superb PLoS journals.)  The paper has not been subsequently reviewed in a peer-reviewed science journal (Scientific American, while both fun to read and significantly more conscientious than New Scientist, doesn't count) and we have no sources which describe the reception of this paper by experts in (for example) Paramecium biology.  The Scientific American source, meanwhile, is a one-paragraph blurb that essentially recites the largest claims of the PLoS ONE paper without further comment.  In the absence of reliable secondary source material on this topic, we need to use our own knowledge and common sense to evaluate these sources, and right now they just don't clear the bar.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a consensus has been reached that it should be removed, so will take it out the article. Thanks for the comments. Smartse (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually I think you should transfer it to the biophoton article. Ariel. (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

2 questions
What's a good magnification power for observing paramecium? And, why isn't there any info on reproduction? Noloop (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Try asking at the science reference desk instead. 2. Because no one has written anything! Feel free to be bold and fix it. SmartSE (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

life expectancy
Seems that aging starts around 80 generations as non viable clones happen around 220 gen unless fertilisation happens. That's about 40 days. Right? -- user:grin 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.132.138.200 (talk)

Edits
Here is a list of the changes I've made:

known for at least 150 years) equipped with a pair of cv's, some have only 1, and others have several). to the universality of the genetic code: in their translation systems a few codons differ from the standard ones." and specific, term term "autogamy." Deuterostome (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed specified "brown" color from taxobox (taxobox color for Chromalveolata is automatically green)
 * Moved species list from taxobox to the text of the article, to make room for a comprehensive list.
 * Removed unreferenced claim concerning new species discovered "in the oceans." (Marine paramecia have been
 * Added a new section on Historical Background
 * Created a separate section for Appearance and Physical Characteristics, and brought the description in line with the subject of the page, which is the genus Paramecium, and not any particular species.
 * Since some of the information in "Physiology" duplicated passages in earlier paragraphs, I have consolidated these sections, removing redundancies (e.g., contractile vacuoles were described 3 times)
 * Removed possibly true but unreferenced claim that paramecia travel at speeds of 12 body lengths per second (not really pertinent here, anyway)
 * Corrected the claim that Paramecia have 2 contractile vacuoles (while some well-known species are
 * Edited passage on osmoregulation for clarity.
 * Removed claim that "the cell approximates a prolate spheroid" Not all species have that shape (although their micronuclei do!).
 * Removed true but tangential claim that "Certain single-cell eukaryotes such as Paramecium are examples for exceptions
 * Removed unsupported claim that Paramecium is often confused with Blepharisma (the genera are not very similar in appearance)
 * Rewrote and expanded section on Movement, with citations.
 * Provided citations for Feeding section, and edited for stylistic reasons
 * Amplified Symbiosis section, removed the colloquial observation that symbiosis of Tetraurelia is "interesting", but kept the citation. The subject is, indeed, interesting and deserves further elaboration!
 * Amplified Reproduction section. As written previously, the section focused on one species, P. tetraurelia
 * Made just one small change to the excellent Aging and Meiosis & rejuvenation sections...replaced "automixis" with the more common,
 * Added a list of valid morphospecies. This is not a list of all taxonomically accepted names, but of well-described species (based on Fokin et al, 2004)

Habitat
Where would you find a paramecium? Are they all around the world? Fresh water lakes? Seas and oceans? We need a section on habitat.Beager (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Beager. Thanks for the suggestion. :) The opening paragraph already includes some basic information about habitat (freshwater, brackish & marine).  When I have a few minutes to spare I'll expand on that, and add a mention of the cosmopolitan distribution of the genus.  Paramecium species are found pretty much everywhere, from ice-bound Antarctic lakes to geothermal sulphur springs.  Deuterostome (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Parameciums or Paramecia
Is the plural of paramecium parameciums or paramecia? I've seen paramecia used in this article, but parameciums used in other places.67.85.219.4 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both are correct. I did a couple of searches in Google and Google Scholar, and returns indicate that Paramecia is more common, by many orders of magnitude.   Deuterostome  (Talk) 21:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add a clarification, in light of Dyanega's helpful edit of Sept. 8. If you are using the scientific name of the genus, the plural form is the same as the singular: Paramecium (italicized, capital "P"). However, informally (in the vernacular, as Dyanega says), the plural form paramecia (lower case, no italics) is commonly used. So, from a major textbook on the genus: "At  the beginning  of the  18th century and extending  into  the  19th, many early microscopists encountered and described ciliates that appear to have been paramecia." (Wichterman, The Biology of Paramecium, p. 1)    Deuterostome  (Talk) 16:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paramecium


text:
Sarah Kuttner

Sarah Kuttner (born 29 January 1979) is a German television presenter and author.

Biography
Kuttner was born in Berlin. Her father is famed radio host Jürgen Kuttner. She has regularly appeared on the music television channel VIVA since November 2001 after being selected out of 1500 other participants in a casting held in summer of that year. Her popularity increased rapidly and in August 2004 she started to host her own show called Sarah Kuttner – Die Show, a variation on the popular late show concept with comedy, a sidekick (Sven Schuhmacher), talk guests and musical guests. After Viacom bought VIVA in 2005, her show was moved to MTV Germany and renamed to "Kuttner." with no dramatic changes in concept or crew. Production was relocated from Cologne to Berlin. Kuttner announced the show's cancellation due to high production costs and low ratings in May 2006.

She also co-hosted (with Jörg Pilawa) the show "Germany 12 Points", the German pre-selection for the Eurovision Song Contest on publicly owned channel ARD on 19 March 2004.

Kuttner wrote a weekly column in the national daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and a monthly column in music magazine Musikexpress. Both were compiled in two books, "Das oblatendünne Eis des halben Zweidrittelwissens" (March 2006) and "Die anstrengende Daueranwesenheit der Gegenwart" (March 2007). "Das oblatendünne Eis" enjoyed a moderate success in Germany with mixed but largely positive reviews. Especially TV personality Harald Schmidt emphasized his admiration for the book. No figures or reviews for "Die anstrengende Daueranwesenheit" are yet available. In 2009 Kuttner released her first novel Mängelexemplar, which dealt with the topic of depression. The film Too Hard to Handle (2016) is based on the book. In November 2011, her second book Wachstumsschmerz was released. Kuttner's second novel is about the pains of growing up.

In 2006 Kuttner accepted her first and so far only acting job, providing the German voice of "Red" in the dubbed version of the movie Hoodwinked!.

Beginning 11 November 2007 she will start hosting a weekly radio show, Kuttner & Kuttner together with her father Jürgen Kuttner, on Radio Eins in Berlin.

In 2011 Kuttner hosted a talk show called "Ausflug mit Kuttner" of which three episodes where shot. In this show she interviewed celebrities while going on typical Sunday trips with them.

Publications

 * Das oblatendünne Eis des halben Zweidrittelwissens. Kolumnen. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2006, ISBN 3-596-17108-3
 * Die anstrengende Daueranwesenheit der Gegenwart. Kolumnen. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2007, ISBN 3-596-17533-X
 * Mängelexemplar. Roman. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2009, ISBN 978-3-10-042205-7
 * Wachstumsschmerz. Roman. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2011, ISBN 978-3-10-042206-4

title: Sarah Kuttner


text: User talk:69.242.122.58

title: User talk:69.242.122.58


text:
User:*Kat*/sandbox2

 * The girl from District 8 is also not named. She is killed the first night in the woods near Katniss. The fire she starts attracts the attention of the Careers and Peeta, who attack her. She does not die immediately, forcing Peeta to go back and kill her.
 * The boy tribute from District 9 is unnamed. He is killed the first day when Clove threw a knife in his back at the Cornucopia while he is fighting with Katniss over a backpack. Upon retrieval of the backpack, Katniss uses the backpack to deflect the knife Clove throws at her directly after.
 * The unnamed male tribute from District 10. He is cited as to have a crippled leg but surprisingly is one of the last 10 to die in the Hunger Games.

title: User:*Kat*/sandbox2


text: User talk:65.95.22.26

title: User talk:65.95.22.26


text:
User talk:SineSurfer

I am testing my user talk page. I have not created a talk page before, but it does not seem difficult. SineSurfer 02:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:SineSurfer


text: User talk:24.162.44.150

title: User talk:24.162.44.150


title: File:Knotslanding1.jpg


text: User talk:217.22.57.129

title: User talk:217.22.57.129


text: User talk:68.63.195.3

title: User talk:68.63.195.3


text: User talk:65.25.218.158

title: User talk:65.25.218.158


text:
Loxley, South Yorkshire

Loxley is a village and a suburb of the city of Sheffield, England. It is a long linear community which stretches by the side of the River Loxley and along the B6077 (Loxley Road) for almost 2.5 mi. Loxley extends from its borders with the suburbs of Malin Bridge and Wisewood westward to the hamlet of Stacey Bank near Damflask Reservoir. The centre of the suburb is situated at the junction of Rodney Hill and Loxley Road where the old village green stands and this is located 3 mi north west of Sheffield city centre. The suburb falls within the Stannington ward of the City of Sheffield.

Loxley was a village in the West Riding of Yorkshire under the jurisdiction of Wortley Rural District Council, until it became part of the City of Sheffield in the 1974 boundary changes brought on by the Local Government Act 1972. Today the suburb is within Bradfield Parish Council and consists almost exclusively of residential housing but it did have some industrial activity in the past. Much of the Loxley Valley is designated as green belt land.

The place-name derives from the Old English words lox, meaning 'lynx', and leah, meaning "glade". Loxley had a population of 1,775 in 2011.

Post–Conquest
The area on which Loxley stands was originally moorland; Loxley Chase was a large expanse of upland ground set aside for hunting by the Norman lords after the Conquest in the 11th century. The Loxley valley was an extensive woodland which was mentioned in the inquisition post mortem after the death of Thomas de Furnival, 1st Lord Furnival (1270–1332). Hunting on Loxley Chase was an infrequent pursuit, and so much of the more productive ground in the valley was turned over to farming. Loxley developed over the following centuries as agricultural and common land with a few scattered farms.

Robin Hood legend
The extensive forest of Loxley Chase extended as far south east as Nottinghamshire in the 12th century where it joined up with Sherwood Forest. Loxley is one of the locations claimed as the birthplace of Robin Hood. It is maintained that Robin of Locksley or Robert Locksley was born in the area in 1160 with John Harrison saying in his Exact and Perfect Survey and View of the Mannor of Sheffield of 1637, "Little Haggas Croft (pasture) wherein is ye founacion of a house or cottage where Robin Hood was borne." Little Haggas Croft was in the area of present-day Normandale House on Rodney Hill. Ballads from the High Middle Ages published in the Child Ballads such as A Gest of Robyn Hode, Robin Hood and the Monk, Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne, and Robin Hood and the Potter, as well as Sir Walter Scott's 1820 novel Ivanhoe all point to a possible South Yorkshire birth for the legend.

In her maiden speech to Parliament in 2020, the local MP Olivia Blake said that the Sheffield Hallam constituency had a "very long history of social justice", as mythology points to a Yorkshire origin for Robin Hood in Loxley, lending her support to the idea that Loxley was the birthplace of Robin Hood.

Industrial and agricultural expansion
Industry came to the Loxley area in the middle of the 17th century when the first mills were set up on the fast flowing River Loxley as small pocket businesses. Steel and iron forging and rolling mills were established and became the main manufacturing processes with the Loxley Steel Works, the Green Wheel Steel Works, the Little Matlock Rolling Mill and the Olive Rolling Mill all becoming established industries by the river. Many of the mill ponds associated with these mills are still present on the river and provide a haven for fish and wildlife.

During the 1800s, the Loxley Valley became an important producer of refractory bricks and materials for the expanding Sheffield steel industry. The bricks were used to line the furnaces and were made from Fireclay from the Stannington pot clay seam which was prevalent in the Loxley area and the ramming materials and some bricks were made from ganister, a sort of sandstone. Many ganister and fireclay mines existed in the area supplying the local firms of Bramalls (ganister bricks and monolithics) Siddons Bros. (ganister monolithics), Thomas Wragg & Sons (Storrs Fire Clay Works) and Thomas Marshall and Co. (Storrs Bridge Fire Brick Works) and later Hepworths, which sprang up in the district and produced the bricks. Refractory production ceased in the area in the 1990s. Wraggs and Marshalls along with Dysons Griffs Works at nearby Stannington, specialised in manufacturing fireclay-based casting pit (pouring pit) refractory holloware and ladle flow control bricks for the steel industry worldwide. Carblox, part of the Marshall group, shared the Storrs Bridge Works site manufacturing carbon blocks for use in hearths in blast furnaces.

All three plants (Marshalls, Wraggs and Dysons) closed following a collapse in demand for casting pit refractories of the type made locally mainly because of the introduction of continuous casting of steel worldwide and because of the general decline of the British steel industry. Carblox's plant closed and carbon block production moved to Hepworth's Bawtry works.

Farming in the Loxley Valley was extended by the passing of the Wadsley and Loxley Chase Act 1789. This allowed the conversion of moorland to grass pasture which was enclosed by straight dry stone walls and roads.

Great Sheffield Flood
Loxley suffered greatly on 11 March 1864 when the dam wall of the Dale Dike Reservoir was breached causing the Great Sheffield Flood. 17 people died in the flood in the Loxley area including five members of the Chapman family along with their domestic servant Alathea Hague and apprentice John Bower. The trip hammer and rolling mill works owned by the Chapmans was completely destroyed. Most of the industrial mills in the area were either destroyed or severely damaged but were quickly rebuilt with compensation money from the Water Company.

Residential development
The substantial residential development of Loxley started between 1905 and the beginning of the First World War with housing expansion taking place on Rodney Hill and Loxley Road near the village green. Inter-war building established the Normandale area and post-Second World War building saw a large amount of Council housing being built in the area.

Statistics
Present-day Loxley has a population of 1,828, living in 753 households, the majority of which (82.6%) are owner occupied. 12.5% are rented from the local authority. A high proportion (76%) of the housing in the area is either detached or semi-detached and this is well above the average for the whole of Sheffield.

Buildings and landmarks

Loxley has no extensive shopping area with most of the residents commuting to Hillsborough to do their shopping. There are three public houses in the area, the best known of which is the Admiral Rodney; the pub has a long history and was originally named after George Brydges Rodney, 1st Baron Rodney after his defeat of the French in the Battle of the Saintes in 1782. The current Admiral Rodney dates from 1957 when the old pub was demolished and a new one built further back from the road. The Nag's Head is in the small rural hamlet of Stacey Bank and is surrounded by farm buildings at the very west of the suburb. The Wisewood Inn is the most easterly of the three and is situated in the Normandale area.

After the closure and sale into private ownership of Loxley Methodist Church in 2012, there are no longer any places of worship in Loxley. The church building being situated at the junction of Loxley Road and Low Matlock Lane; this was built in 1885. Loxley United Reformed Church, a Grade II* listed building, located near the junction on Loxley Road and Rowell Lane was constructed in 1787 and closed in 1993 and is now in private ownership although the burial ground is still used, in 2016 the chapel was destroyed by fire and as of 2020 still sits as an empty shell surrounded by construction fencing. There is one school in the area: Loxley Primary School opened in 1911 and is situated on Rodney Hill; it has just over 200 pupils between the ages of 4 and 11. Senior pupils in the area go to Bradfield School in Worrall.

Hepworths refractory site
The site of the former Hepworth's refractory works (previously Marshalls, Wraggs and Carblox works) was purchased by the house building company, Bovis Homes Group who intended to build 500 homes on the site in plans released in 2006. However the plans have met opposition from the Loxley Valley Protection Society, the Loxley Valley Design Group, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Bradfield Parish Council. Bovis have not received permission to go ahead with the development and as of 2020 the site is still a derelict industrial site.

Recreation areas
Loxley has a recreation ground on Loxley Road near the junction with Long Lane; it is the only substantial public open space in the suburb. However, just to the north is Loxley Common, an ancient area of common land which is now owned and managed by Sheffield City Council on behalf of the people of the city. The common consists of heath land interspersed with trees. The southern slopes of the common which run down to the Loxley Valley have a sandstone escarpment, below which is thick woodland.

title: Loxley, South Yorkshire


text:
File:PabloPicasso Meninas.jpg

Las Meninas by Pablo Picasso

Cannes, 17 August 1957; Oil on canvas 194 x 260 cm; now housed in the Museo Picasso, Barcelona

from, the Libera Associazione il Popolo (Free People Association)

Fair use for Las Meninas
The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

 * 1) It is a historically significant painting.
 * 2) The image is only being used for informational purposes.
 * 3) Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the image depicted is familiar to the general public.
 * 4) The image is readily available on the internet. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for Lump (dog)
The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

 * 1) It is a historically significant painting.
 * 2) The image is only being used for informational purposes.
 * 3) Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the impact of the subject of this article on the artist.
 * 4) The image is readily available on the internet.  Miyagawa   (talk)  21:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

title: File:PabloPicasso Meninas.jpg


text:
Doo Wop 50

Doo Wop 50 is a television and DVD special created and produced by TJ Lubinsky, grandson of Herman Lubinsky (founder of Savoy Records). The special was inspired by a 1994 CD box-set of doo wop music which was also a development and production partner WQED in the program and dvd. It aired in December 1999.

Doo Wop 50 was videotaped live at The Benedum Center For The Performing Arts, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on May 11 & 12, 1999. It showcased many doo-wop groups that had existed since the 1950s, and was hosted by former Impressions lead and soul soloist Jerry Butler. It was followed by Doo Wop 51 and the American Soundtrack and My Music series as seen on public television. Doo Wop 50 became the highest-producing pledge drive special in the history of PBS at that time, garnering more than $75 million for its member stations.

The American Soundtrack/My Music series has become a mainstay for public tv stations, Lubinsky owns the copyright to the special and the American Soundtrack/My Music series.

Part One
Herb Reed's Platters Norman Wright's Dell Vikings The Skyliners The Penguins Gene Chandler with Pure Gold Johnny Maestro & the Brooklyn Bridge Lee Andrews & the Hearts The Cleftones The Capris The Marcels The Jive Five The Legends of Doo Wop Earl Lewis and The Channels
 * "Only You"
 * "The Great Pretender"
 * "Come Go with Me"
 * "This I Swear"
 * "Since I Don't Have You"
 * "Earth Angel"
 * "Duke of Earl"
 * "Sixteen Candles"
 * "Worst That Could Happen"
 * "Long Lonely Nights"
 * "Little Girl of Mine"
 * "Heart and Soul"
 * "There's a Moon Out Tonight"
 * "Blue Moon"
 * "My True Story"
 * "What Time Is It?"
 * "Just to Be with You"
 * "Oh Rosemarie"
 * "Guardian Angel"
 * "That's My Desire"
 * "The Closer You Are"

Part Two
The Cadillacs The Golden Group Memories The Chantels The Chantels featuring Arlene Smith The Moonglows featuring Harvey Fuqua Jerry Butler The Harptones The Flamingos The Channels, The Legends of Doo Wop, The Golden Group Memories, The Cadillacs The Spaniels
 * "Zoom"
 * "Gloria (Leon René song)"
 * "Speedoo"
 * "Unchained Melody"
 * "Sorry (I Ran All the Way Home)"
 * "Look at My Eyes"
 * "Maybe"
 * "Sincerely"
 * "Ten Commandments of Love"
 * "For Your Precious Love"
 * "Sunday Kind of Love"
 * "Life Is but a Dream"
 * "I Only Have Eyes for You"
 * "Lovers Never Say Goodbye"
 * "Gloria Medley"
 * "Stormy Weather"
 * "Goodnight, Sweetheart, Goodnight"

title: Doo Wop 50


text:
Talk:The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual

Setting date
Dear anonymous user,

Can you cite the reason that makes you believe that the setting of this story can be dated? Kelisi 02:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

William S. Baring-Gould attached dates to all of the Holmes stories, and decided that The Musgrave Ritual took place on Thursday, October 2, 1879. This is based on its being one of Holmes's earliest adventures, and that he began his detecting in 1877. But he also suggests that the story might be set in 1887, 1888 or 1889. RickK 02:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Specification of time of year
"The ritual does not specify what time of the year to measure the shadow of the oak and therefore does not consider that the shadow would be shorter in the winter."

 * only on a few days of the year would the sun set exactly on the tip of the oak AND it's shadow lie on the tip of the elm
 * clearly these few days were both in the time that the butler and Holmes both searched —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisboote (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Granda TV VErsion
Differences:
 * Watson is in the story
 * Maid body found in the mere
 * Musgrave is older than Holmes; in orginal story Musgrave was a college contemporary of Holmes
 * Plot hole is that the fragments are still in Musgrave custody-after legal bother and a considerable amount of money has been paid; yet the ritual clearly spells out the fragments are to be with the Musgraves only until the monarchy is restored-in other words the fragments are Crown property! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.50 (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ritual note difficulty
I was interested to read in the article: The story was originally published in the Strand Magazine in May 1893, with illustrations by Sidney Paget. It was later collected in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. The Strand's text of the Ritual did not specify the month in which the shadow of the oak should be measured (the shadow would be longer in winter), but a couplet was added for the Memoirs identifying the month as the "sixth from the first".[2] Someone must have made it clear to Conan Doyle that the shadows of oak and elm would go in different directions as the seasons varied. And so a code was added specifying (pretty clearly) that June was intended. I note the following:

This means that the case investigation must also have taken place in June, though this is no change in the text makes this evident.

The oak is unchanged since the ritual was coded but the elm was cut down decades earlier. Nevertheless, because its full height was known, Holmes is able to establish where its shadow would have been. He uses Euclid's (?) ancient method whereby the height of some object like a pyramid can be inferred very easily by analogy. Simply by placing a small stick near(say) a pyramid and measuring the stick's shadow, then the ratio of the stick's length to its shadow is the same as the pyramid's length to ITS shadow.

The plot hole mentioned in the article, that the butler's scarf was overlooked, is even worse then it sounds. How is that over 200 years, the Musgraves had never thought to investigate what was beneath the flagstone of the cellar?

Moreover, they were not a bright bunch. The ritual is OBVIOUSLY an instruction to find some spot on their grounds, and seek beneath it. It mentions the oak and elm. Ten generations of Musgraves failed to decipher a code which was simpler than many which had been used by pirates.

Lastly, I was repelled by the coldness and severity with which the butler was treated. This man had been with the family for 20 years, and had been much valued for his intelligence and musical abilities. His crime was that, in the course of one night he examined the document of the rite, which the Musgraves had regarded as being a meaningless ritual. For this he is summarily dismissed, ordered to leave the next morning. One would have thought that 20 years service might have seen him to be someone part of the family. But the story shows just how unyeilding British class traditions were. He may have been with them day and night for two decades, but on his first mistake, he is out the door, with no chance of mercy. Myles325a (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

plotholes
One plot hole in the story is when Musgrave claims that the entire house had been searched; yet Musgrave is surprised when Brunton's muffler is found tied to the stone slab in the cellar.

=> with regards to this so called "plot hole", They searched the house for a person, not finding him. Not an item, therefore when searching the house for a person, you check the dark cellar but finding no light there you won't search it further. Then again, if searching for a person, you would assume they look through the place for a person. Anyone who's ever heard a noise in his house at night and snuck down to check the place would not check for items, you look for humanoid shapes then move on to the next chamber.--109.132.235.35 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another plot hole would seem to be that the pacing out of the directions would have started from the wrong point, as the ritual had been written 200 years prior, so the two trees of which shadows were used to establish the starting point would have grown substantially in that time. J.m.bahr (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC) j.m.bahr

 * This bothered me at first, then I looked it up and most tree species reach a maximum height in less than 100 years and then the tree only grows thicker. The text of the storty states that both trees were very ancient, so they would have been at their maximum natural heights when the ritual was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.0 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

1912 film adaptation
Someone might want to add that this was the first appearance of Holmes on film: http://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/PY/523/see-the-film-the_musgrave_ritual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.10.174 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


text:
Extent (file systems)

In computing, an extent is a contiguous area of storage reserved for a file in a file system, represented as a range of block numbers, or tracks on count key data devices. A file can consist of zero or more extents; one file fragment requires one extent. The direct benefit is in storing each range compactly as two numbers, instead of canonically storing every block number in the range. Also, extent allocation results in less file fragmentation.

Extent-based file systems can also eliminate most of the metadata overhead of large files that would traditionally be taken up by the block-allocation tree. But because the savings are small compared to the amount of stored data (for all file sizes in general) but make up a large portion of the metadata (for large files), the overall benefits in storage efficiency and performance are slight.

In order to resist fragmentation, several extent-based file systems do allocate-on-flush. Many modern fault-tolerant file systems also do copy-on-write, although that increases fragmentation. As a similar design, the CP/M file system uses extents as well, but those do not correspond to the definition given above. CP/M's extents appear contiguously as a single block in the combined directory/allocation table, and they do not necessarily correspond to a contiguous data area on disk.

IBM OS/360 and successors allocate files in multiples of disk tracks or cylinders. Files could originally have up to 16 extents, but this restriction has since been lifted. The initial allocation size, and the size of additional extents to be allocated if required, are specified by the user via Job Control Language. The system attempts to allocate the initial size as a contiguous area, although this may be split if contiguous space is not available.

Adoption
The systems supporting filesystem extents include the following:

 * APFS – Apple File System
 * ASM – Automatic Storage Management –  Oracle's database-oriented filesystem
 * BFS – BeOS, Zeta and Haiku operating systems
 * Btrfs – Extent-based copy-on-write (COW) file system for Linux
 * EFS – Extent File System –  SGI's first-generation file system for Irix
 * Ext4 – Linux filesystem (when the configuration enables extents –  the default in Linux since version 2.6.23)
 * Files-11 – OpenVMS filesystem
 * HFS and HFS Plus – Hierarchical File System –  Apple Macintosh filesystems
 * High Performance File System (HPFS) –  on OS/2, eComStation and ArcaOS
 * IceFS – IceFileSystem –  optional file system for MorphOS
 * JFS – Journaled File System –  used by AIX, OS/2/eComStation/ArcaOS and Linux operating systems
 * ISO 9660 – Extent-based file system for optical disc media
 * Microsoft SQL Server – versions 2000–2008 support extents of up to 64 KB
 * Multi-Programming Executive – a filesystem by Hewlett-Packard
 * NTFS
 * OCFS2 – Oracle Cluster File System –  a shared-disk file system for Linux
 * Reiser4 – Linux filesystem (in "extents" mode)
 * SINTRAN III – file system used by early computer company Norsk Data
 * UDF – Universal Disk Format –  standard for optical media
 * VERITAS File System – enabled via the pre-allocation API and CLI
 * XFS – SGI's second-generation file system for Irix and Linux

title: Extent (file systems)