text:
Talk:PETSCII

Terminology
Instead of "shifted" and "unshifted", the two modes were commonly called "lowercase" (or sometimes "business") and "graphics" mode.

 * Quite right! The VIC 6567 has two different character sets available to it in ROM, and you could switch between the two by pressing the CMDR + SHIFT keys simultaneously, and this is how it got to be known as "shifted" and "unshifted" - but "lowercase" and "graphics" mode are much more correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.219.55 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, since the shift key sets the high bits in the character, the way you mention the repeating characters is the wrong way around. Normal characters are 0x20-0x5F and with shift, 0xA0-0xDF. It is the others who were repeats. The reason for the repeats is that the PETSCII characters all map to 128 different "screen codes" (in the video memory) and they don't map 1-to-1, but the conversion code didn't care about that. In screen codes, the high bit is used for reverse video. In the keyboards after the first one, there were fewer keys, so the nice regular mapping of the shift key to the high bit was partially lost.

 * It appears the article was written by a PC user having almost no experience with PETASCII short of observing what it looked like on the computer screen when printing it out using BASIC.  The article could be improved if it were written from the perspective of someone who had SOME experience scanning the keyboard, and not just passing a byte to the BASIC print command.   216.99.201.102 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the very first PET model, the screen codes for upper and lower case letters were swapped. So if you turned on lower case mode, your upper case letters remained on screen as they were, and to get lower case letters you had to press shift. Presumably because that was inconvenient, the character generator rom was changed, and that meant that when you changed into lower case mode, your existing on-screen uppercase letters became lower case (and some graphics became upper case letters), as it is known also on the 64.

Going from PET to 64, the backslash was changed into a pound symbol.

See lots of docs on the CBM Hackers site, http://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm, some of which was contributed by me (Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert).

 * Can anybody explain what "programmable" bit map modes are? The main article mentions in it passing, but if my memory serves me right, the C-64 had a hi-res graphics mode that let you fiddle with everything, right down to the bit.  Similarly with sprites.  In terms of 1983 architectures, what is the difference between a "programmable" bit map mode, and one that is not?  216.99.219.165 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for CBM to 'invent' PETSCII
This would be a more interesting and useful article if anyone could explain *why* Commodore chose to invent their own character set. In 1977, it's not like they were trying to lock people into only buying their peripherals from Commodore! --Wtshymanski 19:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Good question/comment! My best bet (in fact, a bet I'm quite sure I would earn a little money on, had anyone bothered to bet against it) is that CBM did this to allow for the excellent (IMNSHO) block graphics extension to regular ASCII. They were thus able to alleviate, to some degree (or at least, they thought so) the lack of bitmap controllable graphics and user definable character set of the PET range. Using those graphics chars, some reasonably decent looking 'arcade games' (for the era) were actually made for the PET. :-)

 * As you might know, Atari also 'invented' a set of block graphics chars for their own 8-bit home computer family (different chars from CBM's, of course...). --Wernher 00:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So there---done it (added to the article the (most?) plausible reason for PETSCII to be invented, that is). :-) --Wernher 01:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * A little dangerous, in my opinion; we're speculating, do we have a cite for this theory of the PETSCII character set? It's not apparent to me why they didn't just use the 8th bit set characters to extend the character set, as did the IBM PC and even the Osborne 1, where printable characters with the 8th bit set came out underlined (which looked way cool in WordStar) and non-printable characters were block graphics. --Wtshymanski 02:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, we're speculating, which is why I wrote "...may be one reason...". I think the current educated guess, stated very carefully, is OK. As for why did they use this scheme and not any specific one out of a range of alternatives, I think that would be a little beyound answering the basic question of why they in fact invented a proprietary char set as such. But, absolutely, a very interesting question! I'd love to have some CBM engineer(s) give a recollection of those matters from the early days of Commodore! :-)

 * BTW, I'm not sure whether a single one of the other extended/variable-ASCII charset articles have any mention of why their specific version got the way it is, and what other alternatives they considered (if any) and, if relevant, why they did or didn't import parts of other charsets or charset schemes. I have an idea that such information isn't the easiest one accessible; some times because none of the originators remembers (or, even, is at all alive), and/or that the documentation is non-existent. --Wernher 03:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we *want* to see a complete history of ASCII - there's tons of stuff on the Net, any search with "Bemer" and "ASCII" will turn up lots of documents; I once found a .PDF file (which I don't have on this machine) that went into amazing detail about the history of heated discussion over the assignement of the codes in ASCII, which exceeded even my appetite for trivia. Till we get better data (hopefully some day), your more cautious re-write will be  I think sufficient. I wish we *knew*, though...--Wtshymanski 04:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Peddle claims the inclusion of card suit symbols was due to the fact that one of the things that was on his specification list for the computer was an item that said that people should be able to easily construct card games with it.

I rewrote this sentence, but I wanted to highlight it here. Scary stuff. I hope I preserved the meaning. 82.92.119.11 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure why you consider it scary stuff.  If my memory serves me right, there were a lot of people who wanted to play solitaire, and the computers in the late 1970s used cardplaying as a kind of bench test for ranking computers against each other, and for inferring thereby which computer packed more programming power into its chips.  216.99.201.109 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

More archaism
The C64’s substitution of the pound sign for the reverse solidus in position 0x5C hearkens back to a 6-bit ISO subset of ASCII:

Strictly speaking, without further confirmation it would be original research to label the ISO 6-bit subset as an influence here, though the agreement between the two narrows the list of possibilities (the other possibility I can think of is parallelism—unconnected designers making the same choice through expedience). That makes the C64 version of PETSCII both an ASCII-1963 and 6-bit subset throwback. Which amplifies my question even more: who designed that thing?! (ie a post-1970 character set with such blasts from the far past) --Shlomi Tal ☜ 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The main article could be improved if there were some screen shots of how PETASCII were implemented on the PET. There appears to be too much emphasis on the C-64's version. 198.177.27.25 (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Font convertion algorithm?
"...but since the PET font can be converted to the C64 font with a small program, this theory is out of question."

This is an unjustified statement. PET and VIC fonts really appear to be the same. One might think that C64 and later fonts are a bold version of this (example algorithm: (line>>1)|line), however this is not so. PET font has serifs on 'B', 'D', etc. which are not present on C64 and would not be removed by such a simple algorithm. Many characters, e.g. 'm', show that the font was redesigned altogether - i cannot imagine a generic algorithm which would automatically produce that. If one is described somewhere, i would like to know it.

Besides, the "reason" with colour artefacts sounds fishy too. ZX Spectrum had the same pixel and character size as C-64 (though C-64 could adress a larger screen area, thus higher total resolution), yet Spectrum had thin fonts, like PET, colorful output, and no color artefacts.

--89.59.25.27 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The colour artefacts reason is not fishy. At least on PAL there are color effects with thin fonts.  PAL mixes some amount of the color information from one scanline into the next.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.230.122 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PAL contains more scanlines than NTSC, but the color resolution is extremely poor. PAL color resolution considerably less than its luminosity resolution. The result is that PAL colors blur together - much like coloring outside the lines in a kid's coloring book. PAL hackers were able to exploit is design flaws in incredible ways. -DevinCook (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP or RUN key
BASIC programmers might find it difficult to deal with the PETASCII codes for STOP or RUN, but the main article could be improved by noting that pressing the STOP key produces chr$(3) while pressing the very same key with the SHIFT key down, produces chr$(131).

The main article might unfortunately lead a PC user to think that these keys don't have PETASCII codes. Someone should fix the main article. (Especially the diagram that misrepresents these keys.) Just because the C-128 (and the C-64, apparently) are provided with their own species of BASIC as part of the operating system doesn't mean that these keys are inert; the PETASCII codes are available to any programmer calling the KERNAL GET routine at $FFE4).  198.177.27.17 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Table inconsistent with BASIC 'GET' function
I have a problem with the table in the main article.

It seems to presuppose that PETASCII is independent of the BASIC 'GET' function, and depends wholly on the PRINT function. If anybody bothers to look, the PETASCII values received from the BASIC 'get' command tend to depart from the values given in the main article.

For instance, the program below produces strikingly different results than those shown in the main article:

 * 100 GET A$: IF LEN(A$)<1 THEN 100
 * 110 PRINT ASC(A$)
 * 120 GOTO 100

In short, the program shows that SHIFT A produces a value of 128+64+1(that is, $C1, whatever that is in decimal), and SHIFT B produces 128+64+2 (that is, $C2, whatever that is in decimal), and so on. These are hardly "duplicate" values. These are the PETASCII values that you get when monitoring the keyboard. They don't even come CLOSE to being the 'duplicate' values that the main article predicts should occur.

The main article should be improved by taking into account the proper PETASCII values for the SHIFTed keys on the keyboard.

Did I miss something? I'm not a BASIC programmer, and it is possible I mistyped something somewhere. 198.177.27.33 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It has little to do with BASIC and everything to do with PETSCII.
 * Standard ANSI ASCII uses the 7-bit $00-$7F (0-127 dec) for standard code assignments and has 32 control codes $00-$1F (0-31 dec) and 96 characters $20-$7F (32-127 dec). ASCII has uppercase letters in $41-$5A (65-90 dec) and lowercase letters in $61-$7A (97-116 dec).
 * PETSCII uses the full 8-bit $00-$FF (0-255 dec) and has 64 control codes and 128 characters, with two character code segments repeated to total 192 assigned characters.
 * PETSCII has 32 control codes $00-$1F (0-31 dec), 96 character codes $20-$7F (32-127 dec), 32 control codes $80-$9F (128-159 dec), 32 graphics codes $A0-$BF (160-191 dec), repeats characters $60-$7F for codes $C0-$DF (192-223 dec), repeats characters $A0-$BE for codes $E0-$FE (224-254 dec) and repeats character $7F for code $FF (255 dec).
 * PETSCII has 32 control codes $00-$1F (0-31 dec), 96 character codes $20-$7F (32-127 dec), 32 control codes $80-$9F (128-159 dec), 32 graphics codes $A0-$BF (160-191 dec), repeats characters $60-$7F for codes $C0-$DF (192-223 dec), repeats characters $A0-$BE for codes $E0-$FE (224-254 dec) and repeats character $7F for code $FF (255 dec).

 * PETSCII has two different character sets: "text" mode and "graphics" mode. The differences between the "text" and "graphic" mode is in the display of the characters $41-$5A (65-90 dec), $61-$7A (97-116 dec), $7E, $7F, $A9 and $BA.
 * PET "graphics" mode has Uppercase letters in the $41-$5A code positions and form chart graphics in $61-$7A repeated at $C1-$DA (193-218 dec).
 * PET "text" mode has Lowercase letters in $41-$5A and Uppercase letters in $61-$7A repeated at $C1-$DA.
 * Standard ASCII has uppercase letters in the $41-$5A and lowercase letters in $61-$7A just the opposite of text mode PETSCII.

 * In Commodore BASIC, GET the keyboard code for characters 'A' thru 'Z' in unshift returns x'41'-x'5A' and in shift returns x'C1'-x'DA' (the keyboard shift ORs the character returned with a $80 (128 dec)).
 * print chr$(97)
 * and
 * print chr$(193)
 * should both print 'A' in "text" mode.
 * get a$
 * will return $C1 or 193 decimal for a shifted key 'A'.

 * The values poked into or peeked from screen memory for the various characters are different from PETSCII get/print character codes:
 * screen codes x'00'-'5F' correspond to character codes x'40'-x'7F'
 * screen codes x'60'-'7F' correspond to character codes x'A0'-x'BF'
 * screen codes x'80'-x'FF' display reverse video of the screen codes x'00'-x'7F'.
 * Naaman Brown (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 * You are forgetting to double-check your work against the bytes that the BASIC get command produce.  PETASCII is a format for the structure of the byte produced from a keypress, as well as what the byte looks like when you send it to the BASIC PRINT command.   216.99.201.102 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

chr$(8) and chr$(9)
The main article lists chr$(8) and chr$(9) as enabling and disabling the shift mode. I never could get the shift mode to be frozen from BASIC, as people would always poke it back to normal if it ever did. Or they would just press RUN/STOP RESTORE and fix the system that way. (Hence it being far more common to do all your keyboard controller stuff from assembly language, and not let BASIC interfere with it.)

So, does anybody know if chr$(8) really did freeze the shift mode? I really doubt it. I don't think anybody had a use for that feature, and probably never used it, even if it was a feature that BASIC 2.0 offered. (Maybe it is a feature available through BASIC 7.0 for the Commodore 128?)

Similarly, chr$(9) was usually used to advance the cursor forward, not necessarily to any particular TAB setting. And it certainly wasn't used as a "field" advancer like it is used with PC compatibles, and various Internet friendly term programs/browsers.

Unless somebody pipes up and protests, I am going to fix the diagram in the main article by deleting references to $08 and $09 as features having something/anything to do with the Shift Key. Didn't people just poke the state of the shift key into the character set used by the VIC-II chip? And then trap the shift key when scanning the keyboard? Which brings up the issue of PETASCII being far more than a display standard, but also an input standard, something the main article makes no reference to whatsoever. (PETASCII has no make & break codes, like modern PC keyboards, you really did have to debounce everything yourself, and for that reason you used machine language to examine the keyboard lines at $DC00 and $DC01.)  216.99.201.109 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 * chr$(8) and chr$(9) dont enable or disable shift or the shift mode at all - they "lock" and "unlock" the possibility to switch between uppercase and lowercase using cbm+shift (and that only in basic). so the table is wrong there. (its wrong about the "unused" parts too, every code was used, some only as terminal control codes, just like in ascii) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.153.84 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Different table desirable
The main page has a picture by Shlomital, but it misrepresents PETSCII by drawing a false similarity with standard ASCII.

I just spent about an hour trying to upload a picture to the Wikipedia Commons. I think it looks a lot better than the one Shlomital posted.

If there isn't any objection, I will replace Shlomital's picture with the one I posted at Wikipedia Commons. The name of the file is Two_screens_PETASCII.gif, categorized as follows:

Category:Commodore Category:PETASCII demo.

I hope I did it right. I don't have much experience uploading files. It shouldn't take so long to post something that is ineligible for copyright, and inherently in the public domain. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Hmmm.  Let me see if I've got this straight now.

 * [[Image:Two_screens_PETASCII.gif|Example of two screens, one above the other]]

 * Much better. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Character Set Table
The character set table is the most important part of this article. Unfortunately, because it is trying to do too many things at once (and do it all in Unicode which isn't a superset) the current chart is a big mess. I propose splitting the chart in to more easily digestable pieces.

 * A chart which shows just the basic character set, as one might have seen it in the back of a Commodore programming manual. In particular, the Lowercase ("shifted") and graphic ("unshifted") character sets should not be merged into the same cell!
 * A chart showing the best possible mapping from PETSCII to UNICODE, with notations of which characters are impossible and a small inlined bitmap of what they look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.110.101 (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:PETSCII


text:
Fuji (apple)

The Fuji apple (ふじ) is an apple cultivar developed by growers at the Tōhoku Research Station of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (農林省園芸試験場東北支場) in Fujisaki, Aomori, Japan, in the late 1930s, and brought to market in 1962. It originated as a cross between two American apple varieties—the Red Delicious and old Virginia Ralls Janet (sometimes cited as "Rawls Jennet") apples. According to the US Apple Association website it is one of the nine most popular apple cultivars in the United States. Its name is derived from the first part of the town where it was developed: Fujisaki.

Overview
Fuji apples are typically round and range from large to very large, averaging 75 mm in diameter. They contain from 9–11% sugars by weight and have a dense flesh that is sweeter and crisper than many other apple cultivars, making them popular with consumers around the world. Fuji apples also have a very long shelf life compared to other apples, even without refrigeration. With refrigeration, Fuji apples can remain fresh for up to a year.

In Japan, Fuji apples continue to be an unrivaled best-seller. Japanese consumers prefer the crispy texture and sweetness of Fuji apples (which is somewhat reminiscent of the coveted Nashi pear) almost to the exclusion of other varieties and Japan's apple imports remain low. Aomori Prefecture, home of the Fuji apple, is the best known apple growing region of Japan. Of the roughly 900,000 tons of Japanese apples produced annually, 500,000 tons come from Aomori.

Outside Japan, the popularity of Fuji apples continues to grow. In 2016 and 2017, Fuji apples accounted for nearly 70% of China's 43 million tons grown. Since their introduction into the US market in the 1980s, Fuji apples have gained popularity with American consumers — as of 2016, Fuji apples ranked number 3 on the US Apple Association's list of most popular apples, only trailing Red Delicious and Gala. Fuji apples are grown in traditional apple-growing states such as Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and California. Washington State, where more than half of America's apple crop is grown, produces about 135,000 tons of Fuji apples each year, third in volume behind Red Delicious and Gala varieties.

In the United States and Canada, the Price look-up code (PLU code) for Fuji apples is 4131.

Mutant cultivars
Many sports (mutant cultivars) of the Fuji apple have been recognized and propagated. In addition to those that have remained unpatented, twenty had received US plant patents by August 2008:

Unpatented Fuji mutants include:
 * BC 2
 * Desert Rose Fuji
 * Nagafu 2
 * Nagafu 6
 * Nagafu 12
 * Redsport Type 1
 * Redsport Type 2

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

title: Fuji (apple)


text:
Elvis (text editor)

Elvis is an enhanced clone of the vi text editor, first released in January 1990. It introduced several new features, including syntax highlighting and built-in support for viewing nroff and HTML documents. Elvis is written by Steve Kirkendall and is distributed under the Clarified Artistic License (ClArtistic) which is used by Perl and is a GPL-compatible free software license.

Elvis is the version of vi that comes with Slackware, Frugalware, and KateOS.

Comments
Elvis was the pioneering vi clone, widely admired in the 1990s for its conciseness, and many features. It influenced the development of Vim until about 1997.

It was the first to provide color syntax highlighting (and to generalize syntax highlighting to multiple file types), first to provide highlighted selections via keyboard.

Elvis's built-in nroff (early) and (later) HTML displays gave it unusual WYSIWYG features.

Elvis recognizes binary files, as well and provides a split screen for editing them.

jelvis, a Japanese variant, is available, based on work by Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino up until 1998. His more recent work in this area has been distributed as patches against nvi. A Korean variant helvis is also available, originally by Park Chong-Dae. These variants were modifications of elvis 1.8 (July 10, 1994). The nvi editor is based on an older version of elvis 1.5 (April 2, 1992).

History
Elvis is an enhanced clone of vi. To understand the full context in which Elvis was created, readers should consider the history of vi. In this section we examine the version history of Elvis almost exclusively.

Steve Kirkendall posted the first version of Elvis to the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.minix in early January, 1990, intending it to be a more complete and faithful clone of Vi than Tim Thompson's Stevie (ST editor for VI enthusiasts), released three years previously. Kirkendall outlined several ways in which Elvis was different from Stevie, namely: In addition, in Elvis almost all ex/vi commands worked (except :@, :abbr, and :preserve in ex mode and @ in visual mode and appending to named buffers).
 * The text is stored in a temporary file, just like the real vi, and unlike stevie. Because of this, you can edit files that are larger than a single process' data space.  Also, you can recover your file after a crash or power failure.
 * Arrow keys work in input mode. In fact, if you invoke the editor via the name "input", then it will start editing in input mode. You can make your changes, and then exit by hitting Control-Z twice, and NEVER go into visual command mode.  In other words, elvis can act pretty much like a normal editor -- something that the real vi certainly can't do.
 * Long lines are displayed differently. Where vi and stevie wrap the line onto several rows of the screen, elvis displays it on one row and allows you to scroll sideways.

It quickly attracted considerable interest in a number of enthusiast communities. Andrew Tanenbaum quickly asked the community to decide one of these two editors to be the vi clone in Minix; Elvis was chosen, and remains the vi clone for Minix today.

In 1989, Lynne Jolitz and William Jolitz began porting BSD Unix to run on 386 class processors, but to create a free distribution they needed to avoid any AT&T-contaminated code, including Bill Joy's vi. To fill the void left by removing vi, their 1992 386BSD distribution adopted Elvis as its vi replacement. But at UC Berkeley, Keith Bostic wanted a “bug for bug compatible” replacement for Joy's vi for BSD 4.4 Lite. Using Kirkendall's Elvis (version 1.8) as a starting point, Bostic created nvi, releasing it in Spring of 1994.

In August 1994, Kirkendall announced that he was working on a major rewrite of Elvis, and in October 1996, it was ready for release. The new version had a number of new features, including
 * Multiple edit buffers, so you can edit several files at the same time.
 * Multiple windows, so those edit buffers can share screen space.
 * Multiple display modes, including...
 * "normal" which looks like the traditional vi screen
 * "hex" which is good for viewing binary files
 * "syntax" which supports syntax coloring (configurable)
 * "man" which formats Unix man-pages like nroff
 * "html" which formats Web pages
 * Online hypertextual help
 * A variety of user interfaces, including...
 * "termcap" which uses text screens like the traditional vi
 * "x11" which provides a GUI interface for Unix/X Window users
 * Compiling: elvis can parse error messages, and move to source of error
 * WYSIWYG printing, with drivers for most printer types
 * Built-in calculator with a C-like syntax
 * Extreme customizability
 * "Open" mode, for one-line-at-a-time editing even on very dumb terminals

In December 1998, Kirkendall released Elvis 2.1, with added features, including name completion, via the  key, network protocols (allowing can reading/writing via Web URLs), and a "tex" display mode. Kirkendall maintained the 2.1 release with bugfixes and minor enhancements as 2.1_1, 2.1_2, 2.1_3, and culminating in 2.1_4, released in October 1999.

In October 2003, four years after the previous release, Kirkendall released Elvis 2.2, which added a number of new features, including a built-in context-sensitive spell checker, text folding, region highlighting, and user-definable URL protocols. In addition, it adopted a number of ideas from Vim.

title: Elvis (text editor)


text:
File:Killdozer.jpg

Non-free use for Marvin Heemeyer
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It is a historically significant photo of a one-of-a-kind combat vehicle.
 * 2) The vehicle has been decommissioned and destroyed, so a free alternative cannot be created.
 * 3) It is of a very low resolution.
 * 4) The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
 * 5) Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article.

title: File:Killdozer.jpg


text:
Talmudical Academy of Central New Jersey

The Talmudical Academy of Central New Jersey (Adelphia) is an Orthodox Jewish yeshiva high school and rabbinical college in Howell Township, New Jersey, United States.

As of the 2013–14 school year, the school had an enrollment of 44 students and 4.0 classroom teachers (on an FTE basis), for a student–teacher ratio of 11.0:1. The school's student body was 100.0% White.

Founded in 1970 by Rabbi Yeruchim Shain in Adelphia, New Jersey, the school was originally a boarding school for high-school-college aged boys from the New York City area. Today the school has students from all over the world. Many of its alumni are teachers, principals and educators in their respective communities.

The Yeshiva has a state-of-the-art gym and a Mikvah (ritual bath) on its 10 acre campus.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan

 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 transwiki. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Reactions by world leaders to the death of Ronald Reagan
Basically nothing but a bunch of quotes. Maybe move to Wikiquote? RickK 19:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ronald Reagan. World leaders reacted to his death precisely because of who he is; the reaction is inseparable from the man. -- 8^D gab 20:30, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Please do not merge. That's what we have Wikiquote for.  RickK 22:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with Wikiquote: Ronald Reagan if it's okay to have quotes about the person on that person's Wikiquote page as opposed to quotes by the person. This page, even if it consists only of quotes attributed to specific leaders, is going to be pretty POV. The introductory paragraph is already extremely POV, implying as it does that Reagan contributed to "winning the Cold War". And anyway, a list of quotes isn't encyclopedic, even if it were NPOV. --Angr/comhrá 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote and delete. Gazpacho 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic. — Sesel wa  23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article offers a significant snapshot of how different world leaders reacted to an event, it is of historical value, and contains more than just quotes so just a wikiquote would result in the loss of information.  Moreover,  articles like this exist elsewhere on wikipedia, see List of war apology statements issued by Japan. Combuchan 01:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote and delete. What info that isn't quotes are POV or covered in the main Ronald Reagan article. --drew1718 02:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV. There is really not a lot in regard to the quotes that could be kept or merged. Megan1967 05:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Straight delete because I don't think these kinds of comments meet the goals of Wikiquote. The "reactions of world leaders" should be discussed in the Ronald Reagan article but do not need quotes to do so. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote sounds like a reasonable plan, although I have some worries about the transwiki system being in a perpetual traffic jam. Sjakkalle 07:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiquote and delete. I'll keep an eye out for it in Wikiquote's transwiki space. We can decide how we want to process it over there (and in fact are already talking about it). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as whether the article meets Wikiquote goals, the WQ community should decide this, so transwiki-ing it would give us a chance to do so. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiquote. My understanding is that WQ articles can contain also quotes about a person. jni 10:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Let the other project decide if it wants it, we don't know what their standards are. Rmhermen 14:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Merge relevant content to Ronald Reagan and Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. --Idont Havaname 15:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikiquote and delete. I'm not sure all of it should be moved, but they appear to have already volunteered to sort it out there. --MikeJ9919 00:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete before we start having lists like Reactions to President Bush's speech on April 27th, 2005 and Reactions to the Braves Cardinals game on April 30
 * 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: User talk:24.232.40.18

title: User talk:24.232.40.18


text:
Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson

Lemelson-MIT Prize
The Lemelson-MIT Prize is an embarrassment to MIT. (Comment made by an anonymous contributor).
 * Please cite your source so that we can include a comment on this in the article. Allegations are not sufficient. Thanks. --Edcolins 07:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * See, for example, page 10 of MIT VooDoo for an article titled "Lemelson-MIT winner stripped of prize" to for an example of student feelings.

That is ridiculous. That is a satire news article, which you can't generalize to the student body as a whole. Why don't you ask any of the prize winners how they feel about receiving the prize? Or why is has been referred to as the "Nobel Prize" for inventions. ? There is pleny of material on the internet about this.

Inventor Jerome H. Lemelson studied engineering at New York University, then worked at a copper smelting company through most of the 1950s before he was able to support himself and his family through his patents. He held more than 600 patents, and it is widely claimed (but almost as widely disputed) that he invented essential components of automatic teller machines, automatic warehousing systems, bar code readers, camcorders, computer hard drives, cordless telephones, fax machines, industrial robots, injection molding, integrated circuits, personal computers, rechargeable batteries, the Sony Walkman, video-cassette recorders, word processing systems, and much, much more.

In patent applications filed in the 1950s, Lemelson described robots that could perform such industrial duties as riveting, quality inspection, measuring, and welding. He envisioned a "flexible manufacturing system" involving machines with built-in cameras and "machine vision" -- the ability to analyze and respond to what the robot "sees" in this digitized imagery. Lemelson did not manufacture these robots or construct a working model, but decades later, as technological advances allowed such machinery to be built, manufacturers who had never heard of Lemelson were served with legal claims by his attorney. Daimler-Benz Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Motorola, Nissan, and Toyota were among the companies which paid substantial settlements to Lemelson.

The toymaker Mattel refused to pay, when Lemelson claimed that the flexible track used for the company's Hot Wheels toy cars had first been described in one of his patents. Instead Mattel fought Lemelson in court, in a legal battle which stretched on for more than twenty years. At one point Lemelson was awarded $71M, but he subsequently lost the case on appeal and received nothing. Ford was another company that for years litigated against Lemelson. In a 1996 verdict a judge struck down all of Lemelson's claims, effectively severing his patents for everything related to machine vision and bar codes. Then, in a headline-making reversal a year later, the same judge reversed his own decision, and reinstated Lemelson's patents. Cognex Corporation, a supplier of machine vision systems, filed suit against the Lemelson Foundation in 1998, and in 2004 a federal court ruled that 76 claims under Lemelson's patents for machine vision were unenforceable.

Some critics dismissed Lemelson as more a "patent rustler" or science fiction writer than an actual inventor. Others remember him as an American hero, as much for his tenacity in fighting for his legal rights as for his innovations. He dedicated much of his wealth to helping other inventors in what he viewed as a battle against corporate thieves, and established the Lemelson Foundation, which works to encourage and reward innovation, and carries on Lemelson's work of suing over perceived patent infringement. The Foundation gave more than $10M to the Smithsonian Institution to create the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation, and established the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA). The Foundation also provides funding for the Lemelson-MIT Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and underwrites its annual half-million-dollar Lemelson-MIT Prizes given to outstanding inventors.

allegation and slander
I strongly oppose the inclusion of the following lines as erroneous, slanderous and belied by the record: "It is important to note that Lemelson himself did not invent many of the things he patented. He only came up with vague concepts and claimed inventions as his own. This would be similar to an average American citizen writing the US Patent Office and receiving a patent for "An engine that runs on Water." Then, when some smart engineer actually invented and started selling such an engine, the patent holder would sue this engineer for encroaching on the patent, even if the engineer had never heard of the patent or its holder."

1. Lemelson did in fact invent and in some cases manufacture ( or license to others to manufacture) some of his inventions. Read the references, such as the Design News engineer of the year article. 2. The comment on "an engine that is run on water" is rediculous. The implication is that patent examiners are so stupid to award this man 550 worthless patents? That corporate lawyers from IBM, Ford, Mitsubishi etc. who licensed his patents after years of deposition are foolish enough to pay ( as the record shows) over 1 billion dollars in licensing fees? Are they so foolish and cowed by this single individual's "worthless patents", and so irresponsible to their shareholders? Has the poster actually read any of Lemelson's patent applications? The are available on the Lemelson.org website and the Smithsonian's Lemelson website. If he did he would realize the complexity and depth of the ideas, and not relie on such foolish innuendo. Riley is correct that Lemelson was subjected to years of slander and poorly thought out statements as we see posted in Wikipedia. Remember, he was one individual who stood up to some of the worlds largest corporations, on the power of his ideas, defending himself for years with little help or resources. He should not be portrayed on this website in this manner. unsigned edit by

In defense of Jerry, and he doesn't need any.
I was a personal friend of Jerry. If inventing like he did is so easy, why don't his detractors try doing it? An example of my experience: When we approached a company that copied and was selling our patented item  their lawyer said to us. "We're not going to pay you for the past two years we've profited from your invention. And we'll only pay you 1/3 of normal royalties.  And if you don't like it you can go to court with us for the next ten years." Well what do you think we did? We settled. That's what big companies do to inventors. Jerry had the guts to stick it to them. Most of the big companies believe in "NIH", don't you know. That means "NOT INVENTED HERE". It means they refuse to pay a royalty and will try anything including paying off judges, which happened to Jerry with regard to one of his inventions. And they can also "get to" the Patent Office Personel. -- unsigned edit by
 * Cool story, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.248.93 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
The "References" and "External links" sections should be checked for neutrality. It seems these two sections are somehow flooded with references and links in favor of Lemelson: --Edcolins 08:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." (What Wikipedia is not)
 * "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." (What should be linked to)

 * I edited the section that said: 'This dishonesty can be witnessed in statements attacking Lemelson and the Lemelson Foundation by legal opponents such as the president of Cognex, Robert Shillman. He noted [9] "I don't want readers to believe (the Lemelson Foundation) is a charitable enterprise...It's not a charitable enterprise. It gives a small percentage to charity to paint a veneer of kindness and philanthropy on top of what is a rotting piece of material." As a matter of public record, to date the Lemelson Foundation has given over 90 million dollars to numerous programs supporting inventors, innovation and entrepreneurship.'

 * Calling someone dishonest is pretty blatant POV, and, as I pointed out in my edit, $90 million is about 7% of the $1.3 billion in royalties collected. I think we might also point out that Mr. Shillman himself started as a small inventor. I worked for one of his competitors and remember visiting him when his operation consisted of a PDP-11 on a folding table in a nearly empty office. He built Cognex into a major player in machine vision by hard work and many inventions. Shillman deeply resented the fact that Lemelson collected more in profits than he did, based on a patent that Shillman thought was junk. The large corporations pretty much abandoned him and signed licenses with Lemelson. Shillman took the risk of challenging the patents in court (I was one of the witnesses at the trail) and won. Symbol's situation is pretty similar. This is not a story of large corporations against small inventors, it's small inventors who built and marketed their inventions against a small inventor who didn't.--agr 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the 90 million dollars is part of a 5% payout of an endowment (public record) of the Lemelson Foundation worth over 300 million. If you take into account that the tax base on such licenses approximately 33%, and attornies fee (for these types of contingency lawyers) of 33%, the charitable aspect of this is raised quite significantly e.g. after subtracting 66% that Lemelson probably gave to the Feds and his attornies you are left with (even given the possibly inflated totals of 1.5 billion) 500 million. 300 million of 500 million is 60%- a very different number than you cite there. Therefor I have taken out your 7% figure. Shillman's statement is obviously dishonest, given this accounting above. He is obviously a smart guy. Why would he demean the charitable enterprise that is unequivacably doing good work for inventors and society at large? In addition, his public statements on Lemelson (e.g. comments that he should "burn in hell") don't reflect well on his character, regardless of how much he disliked the Lemelson Licensing program. BTW, you stated that "this is not the story of large corporations against small inventors". What story are you referring to? This entry is on Jerome Lemelson, not Robert Shillman and Cognex. His story can't be reduced to a legal battle, fought years after he died, with Cognex et.al. As his history clearly demonstrates, for his entire life Lemelson did engage in a David and Goliath battle with some of the world's largest corporations, who often demeaned and slandered Lemelson in much the same way Shillman has done. To forget this history skews and distorts Lemelson's life and accomplishments.

 * First of all, royalties that go to the foundation are not taxed, nor are his attorney fees (at least not to Lemelson) so your 66% number is inflated. And the foundation's cash is presumably invested and earning some return. So the $90 million that the foundation has "donated or committed" to date is not a large percentage of Lemelson's earnings from the machine vision patents. The $1.5 billion in royalties, by the way, is what Lemelson's attorney is quoted in the article as claiming.

 * Second, I believe you misquoted Shillman. The article you cite says:
 * 'But at the same time the family name is loathed for what its critics say is its practice of legalized extortion. "I don't want readers to believe it is a charitable enterprise," says Robert Shillman, president of an East Coast high-tech firm. "It's not a charitable enterprise. It gives a small percentage to charity to paint a veneer of kindness and philanthropy on top of what is a rotting piece of material."

 * You replaced "it" with "(the Lemelson Foundation)". I think it arguable (if not clear) that Shillman is referring to the Lemelson operation as a whole, not just the endowment. Also I don't think the $90 million number is appropriate to cite without including the number of years the foundation has been in operation. The article says that in "2002, the foundation's gifts totaled more than $8 million." I think it is reasonable to call that a small percentage of any of the numbers we are talking about. I am not criticizing the foundation or the family. It's laudable that they have chosen to give some of their money away. Many foundations give out just the minimum the IRS requires each year. But you are the one calling Shillman dishonest for pointing that it is small on a percentage basis.

 * Finally you say "This entry is on Jerome Lemelson, not Robert Shillman and Cognex." Fine, but you are the one who brought Shillman into the article. I am happy to take him out all together. Mr. Lemelson passed on in 1997. How much money his foundation currently disperses has nothing to do with him.--agr 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Reinhold, not to belabor a point, but it seems you are deliberately misreading the entry. Of course charitable donations are not subject to federal tax. But the assumption has to be that the family assigned the royalties to the Lemelson Foundation, in essence giving this money to a charitable entity. That, as stated, is currently worth 300 million, plus the 90 million dollars already granted to other charities. So who is the dishonest one? I believe that calling the Foundation a rotting piece of material whose charitable giving is small (e.g. 7%) is significantly dishonest and defamatory, and belied by the record, whether the number is 50 or 60%. The differences between 7% ( obviously a small number, which if true [ it isn't] would make your point) and 50-60% is significant. Next, engaging in denial or minimization( "I am not criticizing the family or foundation") after your extended discussion implying that the family is over inflating its charitable activities does seem somewhat disengenuous.

Finally, your comment about how the foundation currently disperses the funds having nothing to doing with Jerry Lemelson, 8 years deceased, is obviously accurate, but ignores the fact that as soon as Lemelson was financially able, he set up the Foundation and clearly defined its mission, which has directed its activities since. The direction was evident for the (many) years when Lemelson was a struggling, unrecognized inventor (see, for instance, section in Tom Wolfe's article written in 1986, for Lemelson's vision for the Foundation). All of this extended discussion is meant to refute Shillman's charges that the Lemelson Foundation had some sort of Machiavellian motivation to "paint a veneer of kindness etc", an ugly and defamatory statement that speaks of a man desperate to paint his opponents as evil-doers, while himself as a white knight ridding the world of evil. I can understand Dr. Shillman's pride in his accomplishments and skills, yet remain perplexed why he has continuously needed to personalize his legal struggles by engaging in continous character assasination, rather than "sticking to the facts". The Lemelson Foundation has dedicated itself to helping struggling inventors ( such as both Mr. Lemelson and Dr. Shillman once were) and improving the standing of inventors and innovation in American society, and after all its hard work and accomplishments does not deserve such innuendoes such as Shillman's statements reflect. I wonder why a man of Shillman's obvious intelligence and talents feels that he needs to stoop to such underhanded and dishonest characterizations...

 * You choose to focus on the amount set aside for potential future giving, Shillman has focused on the amounts actually disbursed. Both are legitimate ways of looking at the record. Neither is "dishonest." As for Shillman's strong language, it is not uncommon for patent disputes to provoke intense feelings, as each party believes the other is trying to take something to which they are not entitled. --agr 16:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup request
Hi! Please could you be more specific with respect to what needs cleanup in this article. I'd like to help. Cheers. --Edcolins 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The table of contents is in the wrong place.
 * Out of place quotes.
 * Two sections with neutrality disputes.

Does that help? lol Cwolfsheep 17:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Cleanup done. Thank you. --Edcolins 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Thanks! Cwolfsheep 11:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Lemelson patents and controversy
I made a few edits to restore some balance to this story. In particular, I corrected an incorrect quote from the CAFC appeal ruling (04-1451) that had said "a pattern of unjustifiably delayed prosecution" which does not appear at all in the judge's ruling to "unreasonably long … delays in prosecution," which is what the ruling actually says. I abbreviated the sentence to fit the context. The complete sentence from the ruling says, "Thus, all of the subject matter in the patents in suit was pending for an unreasonably long period of time, and the delays in prosecution to issuance of the asserted 76 claims applied to all of the remaining claims." Nowhere in the ruling does any form of the word "unjustifiable" appear. This was clearly inserted by someone with an axe to grind. An unreasonably long delay, may or may not be justifiable. I also added a reference to a Strategy+Business article which attempts to place the Lemelson story in the context of the ongoing struggle between small inventors and big companies and the role of the US Patent Office in mediating that struggle. I updated the number of patents granted and attempted to remove adjectives and statements that were clearly biased in favor of more neutral ones. 74.67.180.35 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)bs

I have removed the following sentence:
 * While the controversy over the hundreds of millions he made over the machine vision patents is understandable, the fact that he made many millions more in legitimate, uncontested licenses with a number of the world’s most successful companies including IBM and Sony, among others, lends credence to his impressive record as an inventor.

Please cite your sources. Otherwise, it sounds like pure speculation and original research, thank you. --Edcolins 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed. I have reinstated the section on patents and controversy you removed after having added several additional supporting references. bs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.180.35 (talk • contribs)

 * Thank you. I have added the tag . I think the references may still need to be carefully verified to see if the whole sentence correctly reflects what is in the sources. I have however no time to do that right now. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The verification for the IBM and Sony license can be found in the Design News Article "Lone Wolf of the Sierra's" on page 5,paragraphs 3 and 4. Please remove the verification needed tag. Thank you.

Brief Biography
I removed the following recent addition because it is mostly puffery and the substantive parts are already in the article:
 * The holder of more than 600 patents, Lemelson and his remarkably creative intellect touched almost ever facet of our every day lives. He received an average of one patent a month for more than 40 years — all on his own, without support from established research institutions or corporate R&D departments. He devoted much of his life to championing the rights of the independent inventor, and to ensuring an enabling environment for invention and innovation to flourish, leading to a prosperous economy and improved lives.

I think more substantive, sourced biographical info (schools, employment,etc) would be helpful. --agr 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Separating out patents and controversy
Ed- what do you think about separating out the patents from the controversy section. There is enough info on Lemelson's patents, separate from the legal controversy, to justify this distinction. AS it is written now the reader could assume that all of his patents were contested or controversial, whereas only a fairly small number were the subject of litigation. Any thoughts on this appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.76.202 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

 * I concur. It could be a good idea. Ok, but only if both positive and negative statements are removed from the section. The remaining section on patents should not be biased. --Edcolins 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of quote
Ed- I think the following quote should be deleted"

"To his many detractors, (...) Lemelson's patents were in fact worthless. Lemelson, they say, was one of the great frauds of the 20th century"

Should this be considered a POV? Calling his patents "worthless" and Lemelson a "fraud" is obviously a strong ( and defamatory) POV, regardless of whether it appeared in a newspaper article or not. His patents, at least from a financial stance, were obviously not "worthless", as belied by the 1.3 billion dollar licensing, but also ( in a less contested form) his other history of licensing patents to Sony, IBM and other companies. Similarly points could be made about Lemelson being a "fraud". Does receiving over 600 patents make you a fraud? I think we should eliminate this sentence, as being not only unfair, but being factually wrong. Any thoughts or policies by Wikipedia? Thanks very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.76.202 (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

 * Thanks for your question. I don't think the quote should be removed: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I think the two following sentences as a whole represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias:
 * "To his many detractors, (...) Lemelson's patents were in fact worthless. Lemelson, they say, was one of the great frauds of the 20th century". To his proponents, "(...), Jerome Lemelson [was] a great philanthropist, [but] the value of his charitable work could not possibly match the value of his contributions to American society as an innovator and entrepreneur."
 * Take the time to read Neutral point of view, quite interesting guideline. The article may need improvement, but Wikipedia does not require to adopt a sympathetic point of view: "the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." --Edcolins 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Ed- Thanks- I accept your guidance in this, particularly in regard to "sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject". Lemelson had many enemies,and many people, justifiably or not, really hated him or what they thought he stood for and did. Many of these opinions and biases have been reflected in this Wikipedia entry. But I am glad to see that a balanced approach to the subject can be found, at least in the long run... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.76.202 (talk • contribs)

On the latest comments changning the introduction to this piece, I do feel the need to point out that Arnold Reinhold, who has made frequent changes to this article, was a witness for Cognex at the Cognex Symbol trial. It is therefor hard to "assume good faith" with someone who was both friends with Lemelson's most vociferous and vehement critic (Robert Shillman of Cognex) and believe that somehow Mr. Reinhold is a neutral evaluator of Lemelson's legacy. I would leave to the reader to derive some possible negative motivations to put Lemelson's legacy in the worst possible light by directing them to the trial transcripts of Mr. Reinhold's testimony, and particularly his reponses to his cross examination by Lemelson's lawyers. I would not have made this personal but I believe that Mr. Reinhold is far from being a fair judge of Lemelson's life work, in that he seems to have both a personal and professional animus to Lemelson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.109.14 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I testified in the 2003 Cognex Symbol trial about work done at Automatix Inc., another small machine vision and robotics company that I helped found in 1980. My testimony demonstrated that Automatix had products on the market for more than two years before the Lemelson organization filed patents with claims that purported to cover our inventions. That timing was key to establishing "prosecution latches," one of the reasons the district court cited for invalidating the patents in question and the principal reason the the Appeals Court for the DC Circuit cited for affirming that decision.

 * The sentence in question now reads "A series of patent litigations and subsequent licensing negotiations made him a controversial figure, seen as a champion by the community of independent inventors while criticized while criticized by patent attorneys and directors of some of the companies with whom he was involved in litigation." This suggests that inventors love him while his detractors are big corporate interests. In fact his detractors included other small inventors who built companies based on their inventions and patents. Shillman started Cognex about the same time as Automatix. He was one of our competitors. We visited him once early on to see if there was a way to work together. That didn't happen, but I remember his entire operation at the time consisted of a single, largely empty room with a desk, a few chairs and a folding table with a PDP-11 on top. Shillman's was a classic small inventor success story. Jerome Swartz and Symbol Technologies is another such story. I think my edits are fair. The well sourced views of small inventors who developed their inventions into successful companies belong in this article.

 * I'd also call your attention to the No personal attacks policy, which says, in a nutshell: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --agr (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Reinhold, you seem to be focused entirely on the symbol cognex case material. If you look at the whole course of the criticisms from Lemelson (predating the Cognex case by many years) there was a continued drumbeat of articles criticizing Lemelson and his licensing program. Most of the people cited were large corporate directors and their attorneys (e.g. from Ford, Mitsubishi, etc). By focusing on the Goldman article ( written years after Lemelson had passed away) and not the previous pieces ( which Lemelson always believed were part of an orchestrated attack on him and other small inventors attempting to stick up for their rights) you distort the record. I am in agreement with the neutrality section, and that is why I framed by criticism above. But it is very clear, from your extended comments and changes to the article, that YOU have an extremely negative POV about Lemelson. Almost of your changes have been to place Lemelson in the worst possible way. I think it is highly unfair that someone who has such an animus to a subject would take such a strong stance against him, in a work like Wikipedia, while cloaking themselves in a mantle of "neutrality". So either try to be a bit more balanced in your depiction of Lemelson ( or own up to the fact that you disliked him and what you believe he stood for), or if you are unable write your negative and biased commentary and changes in a venue that is more suited to partisan pieces. You can't have it both ways and expect other people with differing points of view to believe you are being neutral, balanced and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.151.198 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Final judgement was entered in the case where I testified years ago. I have no current connection with the principals in that matter. I never met Mr. Lemelson and I have nothing against him. I believe he tried to use the patent system to his maximum advantage, which is what most inventors attempt, and that problems that I and others see associated with his activities are primarily due to faults in the patent system. Some of the faults  have since been corrected by Congress and the courts. I want to see a fair article here and have primarily focused on machine vision the Cognex Symbol case because I am familiar with those areas and they are important to the story. I have also tried to remove POV editorializing, some pro Lemelson and some bitterly anti. Again I call your attention to the No personal attacks policy. If you have problems with my edits I'm happy to discuss that here. --agr (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. In relation to the edits ( in the future sense) I would be more than happy for them to be neutral, fact based, fair and balanced, and would also be happy to have the discussion stay entirely on that level also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.109.14 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous info in this article
The article states that Lemelson, with 600 patents, was the second most prolific American inventor after Edison. That is not correct. My grandfather, Carleton Ellis, had over 850 patents.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.148.245 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I have started an article called Prolific inventors. I would like to include Carleton Ellis in this list, but can't find any references to the actual number of US Utility patents that he held. (Total number of patents is not adequate, as Design patents are not for inventions, and international patents is essentially "double counting", as they are typically for the same invention as a corresponding US patent). If you know of any such reference, please post to Talk:Prolific inventors. (It appears that Lemelson was the 16th most prolific inventor of US Utility patents. Some of the inventors are not American, so Lemelson is the 12th most prolific American inventor. Although many of these inventors are recent, Lemelson was never the second most prolific American inventor - During his time, Melvin De Groote, Francis Richards, and Elihu Thompson (and possibly Carleton Ellis, to be verified) were ahead of him) AlexBartlett4 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section
This section has no evidence that would support the argument that Lemelson was 'controversial'. Who cares what some 'journalist' at Ars Technica thinks about him? Show evidence of criticism by a similar inventor or somebody with more credit.

Also, this section was updated the day that an article about Newegg defeating a patent troll was published (as shown in the references). Lemelson is mentioned in the article by the author but, again, there is no evidence that we should care that the author of this article thinks Lemelson is a patent troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.191.83 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, whoever this "unsigned" user is, didn't read the article correctly, and may have an agenda, consider his summarily dismissing that this Lemelson article is not controversial.

Secondly, the praise in the first section of the Jerome H. Lemelson article appears over the top, for any Wikipedia article, and wreaks of biased editing.

The ARS Technica article in question can be found here:

The second to last paragraph contains the quote in question, and it's clear that the statement about Lemelson is made by Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng, and reads: "It's actually surprising how quickly people forget what Lemelson did. [referring to Jerome Lemelson, an infamous patent troll who used so-called "submarine patents" to make billions in licensing fees.] This activity is very similar. Trolls right now "submarine" as well. They use timing, like he used timing."

Further, this wikipedia article talks about Lemelson's use of this submarine tactic:

It's my opinion, that at the very least, this article should be labelled controversial. ElectroDrache (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source for the controversy section. This 2001 Fortune article goes into quite a bit of detail: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/05/14/302986/index.htm "one of Lemelson's former attorneys, Arthur Lieberman, questions whether Lemelson was an inventor ... "In many cases, Lemelson didn't patent inventions," says Lieberman. "He invented patents." Qwy47 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901024921/http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103 to http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aOmqPqs3330E&refer=us.
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1055043&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111055745/http://invention.smithsonian.org//downloads/fa_cohc_tr_mauc730223.pdf to http://invention.smithsonian.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928120841/http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf to http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jerome H. Lemelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523232446/http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=529 to http://invention.smithsonian.org/resources/online_articles_detail.aspx?id=529
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011646/http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct04/features/downbut/downbut.html to http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/oct04/features/downbut/downbut.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011110354/http://cognex.com/pdf/corporate/Lemelson_decision.pdf to http://www.cognex.com/pdf/corporate/Lemelson_decision.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216063102/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827112403/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451o.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/04-1451o.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418232137/http://ipmall.info/news_activities/news_rines/rines039.asp to http://ipmall.info/news_activities/news_rines/rines039.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225150642/http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151329.html to http://www.designnews.com/article/CA151329.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050201071047/http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=i050202 to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=i050202
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050923183748/http://www.cognex.com/corporate/lemelson/patent_king.asp to http://www.cognex.com/corporate/lemelson/patent_king.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson


text:
Talk:The Poem of Seven Steps

Untitled
I question the translation of a few characters in the article
 * Note: Cao Zhi uses several characters to describe the various processes of cooking and refining beans. Among those mentioned are: 煮 (boil), 漉 (filter), 燃 (skewer or char), 泣 (a pun on 蒸汽 "steam", the qi4 here actually means "to cry"), and 煎 (to pan-fry using oil).

Is bean a new-world food? When I learned this poem as a kid, my teacher said the poet was cooking peas, not beans.

燃 means burn which is quite different from charring. Where does skewer come from? In the imagery of the poem, the peas are being cooked in the pan by burning the beanstalk in the stove under the pan. The translation does not convey such imagery at all.

煎 does not necessarily mean frying with oil. For example, 煎藥 means simmering in water to reduce the volume of the herbal tea.

I have a feeling that the term 蒸汽 is modern, so it couldn't have been a pun. 泣 means shedding tears. I argue that the poet meant the liquid in the peas were leaking out during the cooking which resemble sobbing.

Kowloonese 19:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

豉 should be pronounced Chi3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.214.104 (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing Pinyin for classical poetry
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China.174.23.230.220 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Poem of Seven Steps


text:
Bauta, Cuba

Bauta is a municipality and town located 40 km southwest of Havana City, in the Artemisa Province of Cuba since 2010 as a result of the division of what was the Province of Havana (Havana Countryside).

Geography
Part of the Havana metropolitan area, the municipality includes the villages of Anafe, Cangrejeras, Cayo La Rosa, Comunidad Ben Tre, Corralillo (Félix E. Alpízar), Lazo de la Vega, Machurrucutu, Playa Baracoa, Pueblo Textil (Ariguanabo), Rosa Marina and San Pedro (General Antonio Maceo). Baracoa River crosses the municipality, and Playa Baracoa is established at its mouth at the Gulf of Mexico.

Demographics
In 2022, the municipality of Bauta had a population of 51,300. With a total area of 157 km2, it has a population density of 330 /km2.

Economy
Bauta is a regional trading center for the local farm community. Regional crops include sugarcane, pineapple, tobacco, root vegetables, and citrus fruits. In recent years Bauta has become a haven for Cuban artists and musicians.

Transport
Bauta, crossed by the Carretera Central, is served by A4 motorway, passing some km north. From 2014, it counts a railway station on the new Havana-Guanajay-Artemisa/Mariel line, part of the Havana-Artemisa-Pinar del Río line. Playa Baracoa Airport, serving Havana, is located in the neighboring municipal territory of Caimito, but lies in front of the village of Playa Baracoa.

title: Bauta, Cuba


text:
Treatment and control groups

In the design of experiments, hypotheses are applied to experimental units in a treatment group. In comparative experiments, members of a control group receive a standard treatment, a placebo, or no treatment at all. There may be more than one treatment group, more than one control group, or both.

A placebo control group can be used to support a double-blind study, in which some subjects are given an ineffective treatment (in medical studies typically a sugar pill) to minimize differences in the experiences of subjects in the different groups; this is done in a way that ensures no participant in the experiment (subject or experimenter) knows to which group each subject belongs. In such cases, a third, non-treatment control group can be used to measure the placebo effect directly, as the difference between the responses of placebo subjects and untreated subjects, perhaps paired by age group or other factors (such as being twins).

For the conclusions drawn from the results of an experiment to have validity, it is essential that the items or patients assigned to treatment and control groups be representative of the same population. In some experiments, such as many in agriculture or psychology,  this can be achieved by randomly assigning items from a common population to one of the treatment and control groups. In studies of twins involving just one treatment group and a control group, it is statistically efficient to do this random assignment separately for each pair of twins, so that one is in the treatment group and one in the control group.

In some medical studies, where it may be unethical not to treat patients who present with symptoms, controls may be given a standard treatment, rather than no treatment at all. An alternative is to select controls from a wider population, provided that this population is well-defined and that those presenting with symptoms at the clinic are representative of those in the wider population. Another method to reduce ethical concerns would be to test early-onset symptoms, with enough time later to offer real treatments to the control subjects, and let those subjects know the first treatments are "experimental" and might not be as effective as later treatments, again with the understanding there would be ample time to try other remedies.

Relevance
A clinical control group can be a placebo arm or it can involve an old method used to address a clinical outcome when testing a new idea. For example in a study released by the British Medical Journal, in 1995 studying the effects of strict blood pressure control versus more relaxed blood pressure control in diabetic patients, the clinical control group was the diabetic patients that did not receive tight blood pressure control. In order to qualify for the study, the patients had to meet the inclusion criteria and not match the exclusion criteria. Once the study population was determined, the patients were placed in either the experimental group (strict blood pressure control <150/80mmHg) versus non strict blood pressure control (<180/110). There were a wide variety of ending points for patients such as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, etc. The study was stopped before completion because strict blood pressure control was so much superior to the clinical control group which had relaxed blood pressure control. The study was no longer considered ethical because tight blood pressure control was so much more effective at preventing end points that the clinical control group had to be discontinued. The clinical control group is not always a placebo group. Sometimes the clinical control group can involve comparing a new drug to an older drug in a superiority trial. In a superiority trial, the clinical control group is the older medication rather than the new medication. For example in the ALLHAT trial, Thiazide diuretics were demonstrated to be superior to calcium channel blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular events in high risk patients with hypertension. In the ALLHAT study, the clinical control group was not a placebo it was ACEI or Calcium Channel Blockers. Overall, clinical control groups can either be a placebo or an old standard of therapy.

title: Treatment and control groups


text:
Category:Dog breeding

This category collects information about how dogs breed and how and why people breed dogs.

title: Category:Dog breeding


text:
Salvador E. Felices

Major General Salvador Enrique Felices (August 13, 1923 – July 14, 1987) was the first Puerto Rican to reach the rank of major general in the United States Air Force. In 1957, he participated in "Operation Power Flite", the first round-the-world nonstop flight by a jet airplane.

Early years
Felices was born in the Santurce section of San Juan, Puerto Rico the capital city of island. There he received his primary and secondary education. After graduating from the Santurce Central High School, he enrolled in the University of Puerto Rico and joined its Air Force ROTC program.

West Point
In 1943, Felices was granted a congressional appointment to West Point, the U.S. Military Academy in New York. While he was a cadet at the academy, he undertook flying lessons at Curtis Field, Texas and Stewart Field in New York. On June 4, 1946, he was awarded his pilot wings and the following day he graduated from the academy and was commissioned as a second lieutenant.

Military service
On September 18, 1947, he became part of the newly formed branch of the armed forces, the United States Air Force. Felices received training in multi-engines and also completed the weapons training course. He was assigned in 1952, to the 303rd Bombardment Wing as the 359th Bombardment Squadron operations officer. Felices participated in a bombing competition, using a B-29 Superfortress equipped with an APQ-7 radar set and a Norden bombsight rate head. This eventually led to the development of the current techniques of synchronous radar bombing.

Korean War
In 1953, Felices flew 19 combat missions over North Korea, during the Korean War, as combat operations officer with the 344th Bombardment Squadron. In 1954, he was reassigned and stationed at Castle Air Force Base, California. In 1955, Felices completed the instructor course for the B-52 In January 1957, he participated in a historic project which was given to Fifteenth Air Force by the Strategic Air Command headquarters known as "Operation Power-Flite". "Operation Power-Flite" was the first around the world flight by an all-jet aircraft. He later completed a course on the KC-135 aircraft at the Boeing Company Ground School and participated in its flight test program. He wrote the first flight curriculum and initial qualification requirements for future SAC pilots.

In July 1957, Felices delivered the first KC-135 to SAC Headquarters and was the first to pilot the initial flight of a KC-135 made by the then-Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In 1958, he was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal for landing a B-52 without the right rear landing gear.

Vietnam War
Felices held various positions within the military and rose in rank. From 1964 to 1965, he attended the National War College. In June 1968, he was named commander of the 306th Bombardment Wing. He flew 39 combat bombing missions over North Vietnam during the Vietnam War in a B-52 aircraft. In 1969, he became the commander of the 823d Air Division at McCoy Air Force Base, Florida, which covered SAC bases and operating locations in Florida, Puerto Rico, North Carolina and Georgia. In May 1970, Felices was named Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff at Headquarters, Strategic Air Command at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. In this capacity, he was responsible for SAC's intercontinental ballistic missile operational testing programs.

Later years
Felices was promoted to the rank of major general on April 2, 1973, and in August of that year became the vice commander of Sixteenth Air Force, U.S. Air Forces in Europe at Torrejon Air Base, Spain.

Major General Salvador E. Felices retired from the United States Air Force on September 1, 1974.

He died of natural causes on July 14, 1987, while vacationing in Vienna, Austria. He was buried with full military honors in the United States Air Force Academy Cemetery at Colorado Springs, Colorado on July 31, 1987.

Felices was married to Shirley C. Gross with whom he had three children, Sherryl, Mark and Steven.

In 2020 Salvador E. Felices was posthumously inducted to the Puerto Rico Veterans Hall of Fame.

Awards and decorations
Among Felices' decorations and medals were the following:

Badges:
 * COMMAND PILOT WINGS.png Command pilot
 * United States Air Force Missile Badge.svg Missile Badge

title: Salvador E. Felices


text:
Freundlich (crater)

Freundlich is a lunar impact crater that is located on the far side of the Moon. It lies midway between the craters Trumpler to the north-northwest and the irregular Buys-Ballot to the south-southeast. This crater has a circular rim that is more heavily eroded at the northern and southern ends. Groups of craters lie across the floor to the southeast and the north, and individual small craters lie elsewhere within the interior. The crater was named after Erwin Freundlich by the IAU in 1970.

The crater lies within the Freundlich-Sharonov Basin.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Freundlich.

title: Freundlich (crater)


text:
For Boston

"For Boston" is the traditional fight song of Boston College and Boston College High School. It was written and composed by T.J. Hurley, a member of the Boston College Class of 1885.

Lyrics
For Boston, for Boston,

We sing our proud refrain!

For Boston, for Boston,

'Tis Wisdom's earthly fane.

For here all are one

And their hearts are true,

And the towers on the Heights

Reach to Heav'ns own blue.

For Boston, for Boston, Till the echoes ring again!

For Boston, for Boston,

Thy glory is our own! For Boston, for Boston,

'Tis here that Truth is known.

And ever with the Right

Shall thy heirs be found,

Till time shall be no more

And thy work is crown'd. For Boston, for Boston,

For Thee and Thine alone.

The lyrics were modified in the 1980s to reflect coeducation: the 5th line, "For here Men are Men," and the 16th line, "Shall thy sons be found," were changed to "For here all are one" and "Shall thy heirs be found," respectively.

In popular culture
In 2001, the song was performed by the Boston punk rock band Dropkick Murphys for their third studio album, Sing Loud Sing Proud. The Dropkick Murphys' version is often played at Boston College football games. An instrumental version of the song is briefly featured in the Season 28 Episode of The Simpsons, “The Town” during a parade for the fictional “Boston Americans” football team.

In 2021, Netflix's Moxie, directed by BC alumn Amy Poehler, uses the BC fight song in a high school pep rally scene.

title: For Boston


text:
Tenerife North–Ciudad de La Laguna Airport

Tenerife North–Ciudad de La Laguna Airport, formerly Los Rodeos Airport, is the smaller of the two international airports on the island of Tenerife, Spain. It is located in San Cristóbal de La Laguna, 11 km by road from Santa Cruz and at an elevation of 633 m. It handled 3,717,944 passengers in 2012. Combined with Tenerife South Airport, the island gathers the highest passenger movement of all the Canary Islands, with 12,248,673 passengers, surpassing Gran Canaria Airport. Today TFN is an inter-island hub connecting all seven of the main Canary Islands with connections to the Iberian Peninsula and Europe.

In 1977, the airport was the infamous site of the deadliest accident in aviation history, when two Boeing 747s collided on the runway in heavy fog conditions, causing the deaths of 583 passengers and crew.

Early years
Many years before the airport had even been built, the field at Los Rodeos was hastily prepared to accommodate the first (though unofficial) flight into Tenerife operated by an Arado V I (D-1594) aircraft operating from Berlin on behalf of Deutsche Luft Hansa.

In May 1930, the Compañía de Líneas Aéreas Subvencionadas S.A. (C.L.A.S.S.A.) established the first air link between the Spanish mainland and the Canary Islands using a Ford 4-AT Trimotor (M-CKKA), which took off from Getafe, Madrid to the Los Rodeos field via Casablanca, Cape Juby and Gando in Gran Canaria.

After the final location of the airport had been decided, funds were gathered between 1935 and 1939 to build a small hangar and begin expanding the airstrip which would become Los Rodeos.

Operations into Los Rodeos recommenced on 23 January 1941 with a De Havilland DH89A Dragon Rapide operating an Iberia flight from Gando in Gran Canaria. By 1946, more hangars, a passenger terminal and an 800 m paved runway had been built, and the airport was officially opened to all national and international traffic. The runway was stretched at various times during the 1940s and 1950s, reaching a length of 2400 m in 1953, by which time the airport was also equipped with runway edge lighting and an air-ground radio, enabling night operations.

Development since the 1960s
By 1964, runway 12/30 had been stretched to 3000 m to accommodate the DC-8, new navigation aids were installed, and the apron was expanded to provide more parking spaces for aircraft. In 1971, with the prospect of the Boeing 747 flying into the airport, the runway was reinforced and an ILS (Instrument Landing System) was installed.

On December 3, 1972, Spantax Flight 275 crashed during take-off, killing everyone on board.

A new airport, Tenerife South Airport, was inaugurated on 6 November 1978. It was built because Tenerife North is very often covered with thick fog, and this was impacting safety, as shown by the Tenerife airport disaster, in which visibility was a contributing factor.

On 25 April 1980, Dan-Air Flight 1008 Boeing 727 crashed near the airport, killing all 146 on board, in a controlled flight into terrain accident.

A new terminal was opened at Tenerife North Airport in 2002, comprising car park, motorway access ramps, and four-story terminal building, with 12 gates, reopening the airport to international traffic. Until this point, the airport had been closed to international flights ever since Tenerife South had opened in 1978. In February 2003, Santa Bárbara Airlines transferred its Caracas service from Reina Sofía Airport to Tenerife North. An inter-island domestic area was opened in 2005.

In June 2009, Air Europa introduced a route to Miami using Airbus A330s. The service was supposed to end in October 2009, but high demand convinced the airline to shift the end date to January 2010. Air Europa then decided to continue flying to Miami on a seasonal basis. The flight resumed in June 2010; however, the carrier discontinued it four months later. Amid economic problems in Venezuela, SBA Airlines, formerly known as Santa Bárbara Airlines, terminated its flights to Caracas in February 2014. In June 2018, Plus Ultra Líneas Aéreas began flying the same route with Airbus A340s.

Airlines and destinations
The following airlines operate regular scheduled and charter flights to and from Tenerife North:

Tenerife airport disaster
On 27 March 1977, Tenerife North Airport (then Tenerife Los Rodeos) was the scene of the deadliest accident in aviation history, which claimed the lives of 583 people. While attempting to take off, KLM Flight 4805, a Boeing 747-206B, collided with Pan Am Flight 1736, a Boeing 747-121, which was taxiing along the runway. All 248 passengers and crew on the KLM flight were killed, along with 335 occupants of the Pan Am flight; however, 61 of the passengers and crew on board the Pan Am survived. Neither of the two airliners was originally scheduled to land on Tenerife, as both flights were bound for Gran Canaria Airport but had been diverted to Los Rodeos as a result of a terrorist bombing at Gran Canaria.

Ground transport
Bus routes 20, 30, 103 and 343 serve the airport.


text:
Benedict Arnold (disambiguation)

Benedict Arnold (1741–1801) was an American Revolution general who defected from the American to the British side.

Benedict Arnold may also refer to:
 * Benedict Arnold (congressman) (1780–1849), American politician from New York
 * Benedict Arnold (governor) (1615–1678), early governor of the Rhode Island colony and great grandfather of General Benedict Arnold

title: Benedict Arnold (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:RescueHero

HELP IS ON THE WAY! May 14  > hug a tree day                 hug one..... did anyone hug a tree?

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 01:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Mystery Strange
You started the article Mystery Strange (one of the cats of Emily Strange). Can you expand it enough to make it obvious why there is an entire article on this character? (Maybe something about a distinctive personality?) RJFJR 01:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) ya, i really do need to make it longer, and thanks for the advice. im going to make it longer, but i dont have enough time to this minute, but it will be done RescueHero

Emily Strange
All of the articles for Emily's cats were marked as stubs and it did not appear that they could be expanded further. The imformation from the articles was merged into the article on Emily and the titles were redirected to the site on Emily. The general consensus is that characters in fictional works should not, except under certain circumstances, have separate articles (see WP:FICT). Indeed, I believe that combining the information on the cats into the article makes for a more informative article as a whole. I apologize that you took offense over my edits. I hope this is a good explanation for my actions. Please leave any response you may have to this on my talk page. Thanks! Ganymead 22:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

just testing
la la lala  --RescueHero 02:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:RescueHero


text:
Talk:Aliens (film)

Panic
Please check. I have watched the film repeatedly. Gorman doesn’t panic. Vasquez panics and opens fire, causing confusion and the squad loses cohesion quickly. Gorman, being inexperienced, is unable to restore control. I have made a simple amendment to reflect this.Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I love comments like this, experts who've watched the film but did so with a blindfold. We've already gone past the part in the plot with the Marines, the sentence is "When the inexperienced Gorman panics, Ripley assumes command, takes control of their armored personnel carrier, and rams the nest to rescue Corporal Dwayne Hicks and Privates Hudson and Vasquez." It's about the APC carrier at this point and Ripley taking charge because Gorman is panicking. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting attitude. I love it when people watch a film with a blindfold and then remain fixated with their prejudice. Let’s try again ;)
 * As the squad patrol, they are attacked. In between the attack and the eventual movement of the APC by Ripley, Vasquez panicking causes the loss of cohesion that leads to disaster. It is Vasquez panicking that becomes the defining moment.
 * Of course, we could have discussed it without resorting to childish retorts but that does seem to be the wiki way. You take care now :p Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting any more time on this, that isn't what happens. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the script, on page 95 during the scene where the team is fighting aliens, it says "Gorman is ashen. Confused.  Gulping for air like a grouper.  How could the situation have unravelled so fast?" Obviously the writer is telling us that Gorman has panicked. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Name
Isn't there any discussion on why the name Aliens, so similar to Alien, was chosen (pros and cons)? What about other languages? In Polish, both Alien and Aliens render as the same word ("Obcy"), so Aliens had was given a different title, effectively a subtitle ("Obcy: Decydujące Starcie"). I wonder if some other languages had to do something similar? Wikidata suggests this would be the case ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104814). I think this could merit a section, or a paragraph, if of course reliable sources tackle this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * It is talked about in the Revival section Lankyant (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lankyant I presume you mean "the title Aliens reportedly came from Cameron writing "Alien" on a whiteboard during a pitch meeting and adding a "$" suffix."? That's good but it does not address the international market titles. What I am proposing to look into would help with the usual sysbias issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Alien 2" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_2&redirect=no Alien 2] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision 1214818042
Since another editor defended the questionable writing and unsourced claims, I'm adding why I changed them below:

About "along with those of Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein". Article only states: "Most of the cast was also praised, particularly Biehn, Goldstein, Henriksen, Henn and Reiser". As one can see, no point of highlighting Biehn and Goldstein when there are others mentioned with them.

As for the image: "Sigourney Weaver's performance as Ellen Ripley received critical acclaim ( unsourced claim ), earning her a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actress. Her nomination was considered a milestone since the Academy paid little attention to science fiction films since its inception." This text is mentioned again in Accolades section, where it actually belongs: "Weaver's (pictured in 1989) Academy Award nomination for Best Actress was considered a milestone when the Academy paid little attention to science fiction." The editor insists on writing the same thing over and over with different pictures.

And lastly, "mostly rave reviews" is directly taken from the source, it's a verbatim quote. "generally positive reviews" is actually an "interpretation" of it. ภץאคгöร 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why have you posted the same discussion across two pages? I said remove Paxton and Goldstein if you wanted, just stop changing the rest. Generally positive reviews isn't an interpretation, it's a neutral statement, whereas your edit note said it should be interpreted as "critical praise". Generally positive and generally negative are the terms we tend to rely on because they're neutral. "Mostly rave" doesn't mean the same thing to every person. If you have an issue with text in the image, remove the text not the image? I didn't add the text or notice it but I know I don't need to remove the image to remove the text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My note didn't say that, I use directly from the source, not "generally positive", which is nowhere to be found in the ref. Why keep the image without text, even though Weaver's picture is already on the page? Should we fill the page with images that have no description? What empty excuses... ภץאคгöร  14:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The image had and now has a different text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick aside for everyone, the Reception section on most film articles uses somewhat standardized terminology - positive, negative, or (rarely) mixed. It's meant to be in Wikipedia's voice, so we wouldn't normally quote something like "mostly rave reviews" as the sum-up. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aliens (film)


text: Template:Canada-poli-stub

title: Template:Canada-poli-stub


text: Category:Sport in Wiltshire

title: Category:Sport in Wiltshire