text:
Talk:Turkana Boy

Morphology
This section contains speculative material on hairlessness and skin pigmentation, for which the fossilized remains provide no direct evidence one way or the other. The article should make a cleaner distinction between the consensus inferences and speculative possibilities, ,for instance by creating a subsection on hairlessness and skin pigmentation, or by removing this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liontooth (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This section mentions the 185 cm adult height estimate that the introduction suggests is outdated. They should be brought into line with one another. The 68 kg weight estimate is presumably contingent on the height one, so should also go if the latter does. Orcoteuthis (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The reconstruction image shows Turkana Boy with dark skin, and the consensus is that this is unlikely. Genetic evidence suggests that dark skin evolved ~1.2 million years ago in the genus Homo. Turkana Boy is ~1.5-1.6 million years old... so it's unlikely he had such dark skin. Since there are no other reconstructions of Turkana Boy that I'm aware of, removing the image wouldn't be the best choice. But this discrepancy should be mentioned. Bzzzing (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, but need references. Can't do it on your own correlation of data. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't read the full text of the source given, but this seems to WP:SYNTH, could someone confirm if the source about skin colour related genes emerging 1.2mya mentions Turkana boy? 90.198.253.144 (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "The reconstruction image shows Turkana Boy with dark skin, and the consensus is that this is unlikely. Genetic evidence suggests that dark skin evolved ~1.2 million years ago in the genus Homo. Turkana Boy is ~1.5-1.6 million years old... so it's unlikely he had such dark skin."
 * On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that dark skin appeared with skin pigmentation itself, when our hominid ancestors lost their fur, under the African sun. On a genetic level, having all ancestral alleles for skin pigmentation means your skin pigments black. It are the derived alleles that create the variation we see. For instance Europeans are homozygous for derived alleles on SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. East Asians have same for OCA2, as do the Bushmen. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D158:20F6:17A7:B39E (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Adolescence & Maturity
The sentence "This suggests that early childhood development was more rapid that equivalent to modern adolescents" in this section is grammatically incorrect. What is trying to be said there? Slicing 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe I've made a reasonably clarifying edit. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Theoretic Vertebrae?
"Richard Leakey also mentions in his novel Origin of humankind (1995) that Turkana Boy's theoretic vertebrae is narrower than in modern Homo sapiens's, meaning that he could not make complex speech due to less air being received into his lungs"

I pretty sure this is in reference to thoracic vertebrae, as you can see the long, sloping spinous process clearly. As well, the fact that the thoracic vertebrae form the support network to enclose the lungs. The wording of this phrase does not lead me to believe this is speculation on somthing which isn't there. Furthermore, I have only seen the term "theoretic vertebrae" in overly pompous descriptions of abstractions, such as, "the theoretic vertebrae   eeeeee   deathof Hegel's dialectics can weather the weight of analysis." 24.80.112.40 20:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)devans

 * Corrected, awhile ago. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Speech, lungs, and vertebrae
"Richard Leakey also mentions in his novel Origin of humankind (1995) that Turkana Boy's thoracic vertebrae is narrower than in modern Homo sapiens's, meaning that he could not make complex speech due to less air being received into his lungs."

Is this correct? I would have thought that body size and air received into the lung have a tight correlation.

Isn't the size of the vertebrae related to nerve control over the lungs, and that is a requirement to control complex speech?

Is there a relationship between the size of the nerves going to the lungs, and the level or complexity of 'speech' production in other animals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.162.179.218 (talk • contribs).

 * I'm sure body size and lung capacity are related, but only in so much that vertebral size contributes to body size. I would expect the correlation of vertebral size and lung capacity to be much stronger than body size and lung capacity. (A large gut contributes to body size, but does not significantly contribute to lung capacity.) As for nerves, I'm not sure. I can surmise that control of air release would be needed for long composition in a single breath, but I know plenty of people who talk way longer than a single breath. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement is in error and should be removed or rewritten. First of all, Richard Leakey's book Origins of Humankind is not a novel. To me the word "novel" implies a work of fiction. Leakey's book is an (admittedly somewhat partisan) account of the state of play in palaeontology in the mid 1990s. (A short review of the book is here - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n8_v17/ai_17596025)

Lung capacity has no real bearing on speech capacity. If this were true then smaller bodied people would be less capable of speech than larger bodied people. This is obviously not the case.

An analysis of the fossil claimed that the channel in the thoracic verterbrae through which the spinal cord passed was significantly narrower in Turkana Boy than in modern humans. This was taken to imply that there was less innervation of the muscles of the diaphragm. The diaphragm is a large muscle in the lower abdomen which expands and contracts the rib cage allowing us to breathe. Modern humans require a high degree of control over the diaphragm in order to coordinate breathing precisely with the muscular movements of the tongue and throat which allow us to speak. We achieve this by having a lot of nerves connecting to the diaphragm, and of course these pass through the spinal cord. If the channel for the spinal cord was smaller in Turkana Boy, this would mean he had fewer nerves reaching the diaphragm and so less control over the diaphragm than modern humans. This in turn led to the conclusion that he would have been less capable of precisely coordinated speech. It's briefly mentioned here - http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mchenry/AJPA94.pdf

However, another, later, study (which I can't track down right now!) claims that the channel in Turkana Boy's thoracic vertebrae was at the very low end of normal modern human variation, but still just within the normal human range.

Despite this, it's important to remember that precise control of the diaphragm is only one factor in human language - that of speech. Speech is the external productive aspect of language. Control of the diaphragm is involved in the production of most speech sounds - but not all (click sounds don't involve the diaphragm).

Some modern humans, for example people with certain types of cerebal palsy or certain neurological or muscular disorders, have extremely poor control over the organs of speech and breathing, nevertheless they are still perfectly capable of producing comprehensible language. So a small channel in the thoracic vertebrae would merely mean that the speech of Turkana Boy was less precisely coordinated in some respects than the speech of modern humans, it doesn't mean he was incapable of comprehensible speech. Equally the diaphragm has no involvement in gestural or sign language.

The evidence from Turkana Boy's vertebrae is inconclusive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anarchodandyist (talk • contribs).

Turkana Boy was disabled or malnourished. His narrow spine is not consistant with other homo erectus.Bigred58 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Monado (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm removing some of the speculation about speech abilities based on lung capacity and the opinion that Turkana Boy "seems awkward," which is a typical assumption that preceding species were inferior. It's illogical that he should be an athletic runner but without enough air to speak properly. Furthermore, running ability does not make one a hunter: it also implies ability to flee; just look at pronghorn antelope.

 * Much of this discussion was based on a misunderstanding of what MacLarnon and Walker said (Ann MacLarnon was the expert consulted by Walker on primate spinal cord function). In the photograph section following p116 of Walker & Shipman's The Wisdom of Bones is a side-by-side comparison of the third (I think) cervical vertebrae of Nariokotome boy and a modern human. The caption reads "The area for the spinal canal on the boy's neck vertebrae (left) is about half the size of a modern human's (right). His spinal cord lacked the typical human expansion in the area that commands the muscles for the fine control of breathing and speech". Chapter 13 of the book is titled "Rendered Speechless" and has extended discussion on the subject. It has nothing at all to do with the volume capacity of lungs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

New edit
I have edited and added new information. I have removed notification tags, including the chunk below, which I find inappropriate this article and also unsubstantiated:
 * However, there are different views on the origin of language:

 * 1.9 million years ago (Homo habilis had a large Broca's area able to be seen in the cranium of KNM ER 1813), possible signs of the earliest ability for speech.
 * 1.5 million years ago, on the arrival of several distinct more human-like hominins spread throughout Africa, Europe, and Asia (i.e. Homo erectus).
 * 600,000 and 150,000 years ago when archaic Homo sapiens dominated regions in the Pleistocene epoch (several members during this period are considered fully modern Homo sapiens)
 * 50,000 years ago (fully modern Homo sapiens had already spread through the Old World and slowly into the New World 20,000 BCE. Some believe language coincided solely with modern humans once culture was established by groups such as Cro-Magnon man in Europe. It is still a matter of debate whether Neanderthals had a modern form of language.

On the other hand it may be a good information for origin of language, but then again there should be supporting citations. Chhandama (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Turkana Boy"
The article needs better sourcing for the name "Turkana Boy". The one inline citation is a dead link. Matuko (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021
2603:6011:5400:B9A0:AC96:2DA4:FCF5:1BC9 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to state the edit that you wish to make. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Turkana'Boy' Height
"The Smithsonian estimates that he was 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in) tall and weighed 48 kg (106 lb) when he died, and may have been close to his adulthood height.[10] In adulthood, Turkana Boy might have reached 185 centimetres (6.07 ft) tall and massed 68 kilograms (150 lb)."

The claim about what height he might have reached in adulthood is pure speculation. What is the evidence of any tallness among even pre-Bronze Age Sapiens? What is the tallest Homo Erectus ever found? 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:C1C8:11FD:11F3:B6AB (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Turkana Boy


text:
Christian views on cloning

Christians take multiple positions in the debate on the morality of human cloning. Since Dolly the sheep was successfully cloned on 5 July 1996, and the possibility of cloning humans became a reality, Christian leaders have been pressed to take an ethical stance on its morality. While many Christians tend to disagree with the practice, such as Roman Catholics and a majority of fundamentalist pastors, including Southern Baptists, the views taken by various other Christian denominations are diverse and often conflicting. It is hard to pinpoint any one, definite stance of the Christian religion, since there are so many Christian denominations and so few official statements from each of them concerning the morality of human cloning.

There are certain Protestant denominations that do not disagree with the acceptability of human cloning. Mary Seller, for example, a member of the Church of England's Board of Social Responsibility and a professor of developmental genetics, states, "Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning humans is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses." On the other hand, according to a survey of Christian fundamentalist pastors, responses indicated a "common account of human cloning as primarily reproductive in nature, proscribed by its violation of God's will and role." Many of these pastors acknowledged the reason for this violation being rooted in the religiously motivated view that human cloning is an example of scientists 'playing God.'" It is not only this that many Christians are concerned about, however; other concerns include whether the dignity of the human person is overlooked, as well as the role of the parents as co-creators. All of these things may contribute to why many fundamentalist Christian pastors see human reproductive cloning as simply "forbidden territory."

Understanding cloning
Some scientists do argue that the plurality of views comes from the differing understandings of what exactly human cloning is. In Weasel and Jensen's survey on "Language and Values," they found that Christian pastors used a "consistent emphasis on DNA." Scientists describing the same processes used terminology such as, "insert an isolated nucleus from the donor to produce a dividing and viable embryo" into an enucleated egg" One reason why Christian fundamentalist pastors would be more apt to use terminology which includes "DNA" more prominently is that DNA is a "value-laden" term which carries religious significance. Therefore, not only is DNA often equated, in religious circles, with one's genetic identity, but also with one's singular, "God-given" identity.

Therapeutic cloning
Another point of misunderstanding arises in the separation of human reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. While most Christians do not support reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning is a branch of cloning which has garnered slightly more support from certain denominations. Some Christian traditions, such as the United Church of Christ, believe that cloning can be conducted ethically for this purpose, in order to help treat disease and improve the public health, as they do not see the fertilized ovum as constituting a person. Courtney Campbell, director of the Program for Ethics, Science and the Environment at Oregon State University, says, "Some traditions and leading figures in conservative Protestantism who were opposed to human cloning for reproductive reasons have come to see that given the ambiguity about their own views about the status of embryonic life, and given the potential for health benefits, they could be opposed to reproductive cloning, but affirm therapeutic cloning. The main reason, she says, is the tradition of emphasizing the individual choice over central dogma.

Catholic support for therapeutic cloning is conditional on the stipulation that it does not involve any kind of infringement upon human embryos. John Paul II states, "These techniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction of human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself." Thus, according to the Catholic ethical system, even a good that might come from therapeutic cloning would be morally unacceptable, as it would be the result of an act which, according to Catholics, is itself intrinsically immoral. This, for many Christians, is hard to abide by, for, as one Professor of Christian Ethics states, "Our society is preoccupied with death and the pursuit of health seems to justify anything."

The Church of England put out a statement on the Church's website which reads, "human reproductive cloning was made unlawful by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Few members of the Church of England would dissent from such a position. However, therapeutic cloning may be thought of as ethical, as it does not result in another human being." Thus, while reproductive cloning is again discouraged, therapeutic cloning is more acceptable.

In a statement given by the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, on the other hand, therapeutic cloning was rejected as "contrary to the Word of God and our 1998 resolution". For this particular group, therapeutic cloning is assumed to involve the destruction of human embryos, and is therefore against the synod's resolution to "reaffirm and celebrate life" and "protect the sanctity of human life".

Dignity of the human person
Christian organizations are challenged to respond to a number of concerns about the issue of the dignity of the human person, especially in relation to scientific study. Much of the debate has to do with the question of at what point the soul enters the body. Catholics believe that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception when the sperm and egg unite. Thus, Catholics and other Christian denominations that share this belief may see embryonic cloning as tantamount to live human experimentation and therefore contrary to God's will.

Most Christians believe that a person has intrinsic dignity based on his being created in the image and likeness of God and in his call to communion with God.

Defining dignity
Many Christians that do not agree on an exact definition of dignity, which leads some scientists to ignore this concern, seeing it as a vague excuse that some Christians use to justify cloning bans Or, if a definition is agreed upon, it may be challenged as being too weak, so that, according to Steven Pinker, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, it is "hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it".

The belief in intrinsic dignity, nonetheless, leads the Christians who hold this belief to also argue that if the soul enters the body at the moment when the sperm and the egg unite, producing cloned zygotes that are unlikely to survive is equivalent to murder. Therefore, if one believes, as Catholics do, that the zygotes have souls and are therefore human, in the words of John Paul II, "regardless of the objective for which it was done, human embryonic cloning conflicts with the international legal norms that protect human dignity." Some Christian conservatives even express concern that cloned embryos would have no soul, since it is, in their view, born outside of God's parameters, as its creation is in a laboratory setting rather than natural conception.

Certain Christians also hold that, in the act of creating a human being, his or her dignity is also upheld by the presence of a loving union between the two partners, so that "only when love exists should the creation of other persons be envisaged." Because of this, "divine creation and co-creation are similar". In the act of scientific cloning, however, the embryo is a result of the artificial union of the sperm and the egg, so that "the presence of love between the co-creators does not exist." Thus, according to this view, the dignity of the person is not upheld. Rev. Demetri Demopulos, Greek Orthodox pastor and geneticist, states, "As an Orthodox Christian, I speak out in opposition to any attempt to clone a human being because humans are supposed to be created by acts of love between two people, not through the manipulation of cells in acts that are ultimately about self-love."

Playing God
Much of the concern related to human cloning stems from a fear of overstepping the bounds of the natural order. Through the act of creating another human being, Christians have also posed the question as to whether this would be too much like playing God. Not only this, but some Christian ethicists argue that human cloning would "create substantial issues of identity and individuality". This could be seen through the confusion of the child resulting from cloning as to who his parents are, what connection he has to his genetic duplicate, etc.

Role of cloning in society
Despite the ethical gray area surrounding the act of cloning itself, most, if not all Christians, still hold that children who may result from the process should be loved and cared for as much as any other child, since they would be considered fully human and therefore reflect the Divine image, as defined by Gaudium et spes, a document of the Second Vatican Council. However, according to Richard McCormick, S.J., cloning disrupts the familial order. It "would involve removing insemination and fertilization from the marriage relationship, and it would also remove one of the partners from the entire process". According to Stephen G. Post, a Catholic journalist, "[removal] of the male impregnators from the procreative dyad would simply drive the nail into the coffin of fatherhood, unless one thinks that biological and social fatherhood are utterly disconnected".

Quotes
Rev. Demetri Demopulos, Greek Orthodox pastor and geneticist:

 * "As an Orthodox Christian, I speak out in opposition to any attempt to clone a human being because humans are supposed to be created by acts of love between two people, not through the manipulation of cells in acts that are ultimately about self-love."

Richard McCormick, a Jesuit priest and professor of Christian ethics at the University of Notre Dame:

 * "I can’t think of a morally acceptable reason to clone a human being."

Mary Seller, a member of Church of England's Board of Social Responsibility and a professor of developmental genetics:

 * "Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning humans is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses."

Pope John Paul II:

 * "These techniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction of human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself."

United Church of Christ Committee on Genetics:

 * "It is very likely that [with nuclear transfer cloning], scientists could learn a great deal about basic human developmental biology and that this knowledge might someday lead to treatments for degenerative conditions or to counteract some forms of sterility. ... Various General Synods of the United Church of Christ have regarded the human pre-embryo as due great respect [but not] regarded the pre-embryo as the equivalent of a person. Therefore, we ... do not object categorically to human pre-embryo research [under certain conditions]."

Ben Mitchellin, assistant professor of Christian ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

 * "The time is right for an outright ban on the production of cloned human embryos from fertilization to birth, regardless of how the research is funded. The vast majority of the American public favors a ban on both privately funded and publicly funded research."

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

title: Christian views on cloning


text:
Mieka Pauley

Mary Dominica Pauley (born October 22, 1980) more commonly known as Mieka Pauley, is an American singer-songwriter.

Personal and career
Pauley was born in Boston and raised in Ohio, Kentucky, South Florida, and Colorado, where she attended Cherry Creek High School. She returned to Boston to attend Harvard University, where she entered the local music scene and began performing at coffeehouses and open-mic nights.

In 2005, she won the grand prize in the first Starbucks Emerging Artist competition. In 2008, she won the grand prize in both Cosmopolitan's StarLaunch and the New York Songwriters Circle Songwriting Competition, and she was nominated for a Boston Music Award.

She has appeared on Daytrotter, PRI Mountain Stage, BBC London, and Fox25 Boston. She has gone on tour with Citizen Cope and Edwin McCain.

She married Baratunde Thurston in July 2008. Pauley and Thurston divorced in 2010.

In 2010, Pauley started dating singer, songwriter, producer and DJ, Shane Maux, who also co-wrote her song, "Wreck". Pauley and Maux were married in 2016. They have two children together, twins Lilou Dominica Lynn and Luca Rain Orion, born in 2015.

Discography

 * In November 2007, she released Elijah Drop Your Gun. The budget of $17 thousand was financed by fans. In the summer of 2012, a song from this album, "Devil's Got My Secret" was featured in the Bruce Beresford film (starring Jane Fonda, Catherine Keener and Elizabeth Olsen) Peace, Love & Misunderstanding.
 * In August 2009, she released an EP From the Mouth of Paris under the short-lived band name "The Mieka Canon" (since re-released under her own name ) via Cosmopolitan Magazine's StarLaunch.
 * In June 2012, she released The Science of Making Choices, financed completely by fans via PledgeMusic.

title: Mieka Pauley


text: Category:Parma

title: Category:Parma


text:
Schae Harrison

Schae Harrison (born Deborah Schaeffer; April 27, 1962) is an American actress. She played Darla Einstein-Forrester on the American daytime soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful from 1989–2006. She reprised the role briefly in 2007, 2014, and 2015.

Early life
Harrison was born in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. She enrolled in her first dance class at age four and for many years studied all aspects of dance from ancient theories through modern movement. Her innovative dance style and choreography led to a position with the NFL Seattle Seahawks' cheerleading-dance squad. Harrison was with the troupe for more than three years performing for over 60,000 fans each game. A California native, Harrison has worked in the fiercely competitive L.A. market as a fashion model, hosted her own cable aerobics workout program and is an active supporter of the National Special Olympics Organization. She was also a Northwest Airlines flight attendant.

Career
Harrison was studying acting at The Actors Workshop under R. J. Adams when she was discovered during a workshop showcase by CBS Casting Director Christy Dooley from The Bold and the Beautiful. The part of Darla Einstein-Forrester became Harrison's most notable role which she played for 17 years from 1989–2006. She was a contract cast member from 1989 to 1996 and between 2003 and 2006. She returned for two episodes in July 2007. Harrison has since made periodic appearances on a recurring capacity in March, April and November 2014 and in June and July 2015.

Harrison has also appeared in several feature films including Twice in a Lifetime, with Gene Hackman and Ann-Margret as well as starring as Zachery Ty Bryan's mother in the Disney feature Magic Island. In addition, she has appeared on Night Court, General Hospital, Who's the Boss?, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Freddy's Nightmares and Throb.

Harrison has also appeared in the Circus of the Stars telecast, performing the high-wire act. She performed songs on The Bold and the Beautiful Christmas Album.

Personal life
Harrison is engaged to former B&B co-star Mick Cain. The two have a son, Haven Jude Cain, born in December 2003; Haven played her character's daughter on The Bold and the Beautiful for a brief period. The family currently resides in Southern California. In February 2019, Cathy Tomas, B&B Fan Club director, said that Harrison was diagnosed with chronic fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, preventing her from working.

title: Schae Harrison


text:
Low rate initial production

Low rate initial production (LRIP) is a term commonly used in military weapon projects/programs to designate the phase of initial, small-quantity production. The term is also applied in fields other than weapons production, most commonly in non-weapon military equipment programs.

With LRIP, the prospective first buyer and operator (i.e., a country's defense authorities and the relevant military units) gets to thoroughly test the weapons system over some protracted amount of time—in order to gain a reasonable degree of confidence as to whether the system actually performs to the agreed-upon requirements before contracts for mass production are signed. At the same time, manufacturers can use the LRIP as a production test-phase where they develop the assembly line models that would eventually be used in mass production. Therefore, the LRIP is commonly the first step in transitioning from highly customized, hand-built prototypes to the final mass-produced end product. In practice, either the production capability or the weapons system itself can be unready during the LRIP phase. This can mean that systems produced during LRIP are built significantly differently both in terms of technique and cost owing to the immaturity of the production line or changes in the weapons system's design, necessitating a large degree of hand-assembly and trial-and-error typically associated with the prototyping stage. Furthermore, the cost of each LRIP system can be much greater than the final mass production unit cost, since the LRIP cost can include both the R&D and setup cost for production, although the goal is that this additional cost is spread out over future production carried out by the assembly capacity developed during LRIP.

Immaturity in a system's design or its method of production discovered during LRIP phase can result in additional LRIP phases to verify corrections/improvements, or project cancellation. The Congressional Budget Office has found that the United States Department of Defense rarely achieves projected cost savings because too many programs fail to move from LRIP to full-scale production. The Japanese Ministry of Defense similarly lists R&D and initial production as "high-risk phases" in an 2008 report.

title: Low rate initial production


text: User talk:71.240.224.122

title: User talk:71.240.224.122


text:
User talk:Lauciusa

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!

I like very much the fact that you put an edit summary each time. This is a very healthy habit, which many people were did not get :) . Oleg Alexandrov 01:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Online Javascript IDE

The article Online Javascript IDE has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Agglomerations of nouns and adjectives are not subjects in themselve; no more a notable subject than "red bus"

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin as a Ponzi Scheme
Hi there. Please be advised proposals are being solicited for replacement text for the discussion you entered at Talk:Bitcoin. prat (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Physics
Why is a petrol engine referred to as a four stroke engine? 197.239.6.130 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lauciusa


text: Category:Military terminology

title: Category:Military terminology


text:
User talk:D'Amico

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Soap opera moves of the woman's last name.
Hey, D'Amico. So that you can be further filled in on this matter, I felt that you might want to see the other discussions taking place about it, as seen with this link. I'll see you around. Flyer22 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not All Guys Named E.J. Wells are fictional
It's great that you've got the time on your hands to redirect the other E.J. Wells to the fake EJ Wells, however...E.J. Wells the musician is actually a real person, and that's his real name. Please quit hijacking the redirect page, sending folks looking for info on E.J. Wells the musician (he's had the name since 1956) to the soap opera guys page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocadiablo (talk • contribs) 10:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, E.J. Wells is also a soap character, and the majority of references in Wikipedia to the name are for the soap character. I made only one change to the redirect page (other changes were made by other users), which matched changes that had previously been made to the Talk page. What I've done this time is add the same information that many of the disambiguation pages have. Since E.J. Wells the musician is already listed as E.J. Wells (musician), it would actually be more correct for the E.J. Wells page to direct to the EJ Wells page since both are used for the character (E.J. on screen and EJ at the show's website). But now it will provide links to both pages. Wikipedia standards would have it linking to the character page -- it is incorrect for it to redirect solely to the musician. Actually, from looking at the musician's page, he seems to be refered to primarily as EJ Wells (no period), so even that page should actually be directing to EJ Wells (musician) rather than E.J. Wells (musician). D'Amico 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the real E.J. Wells should be flattered, I know I'd be flattered if my name was a soap character's name. As it is, the repeated moving and redirecting of an article that was created before the musician's article is abusive and uncalled for.  I also think that D'Amico is being treated unfairly and with no good faith by the comments of Bocadiablo.  As to the comment of "fake" ~ EJ Wells is not FAKE, he is fictional.  There is a considerable difference.  While Bocadiablo passion is admirable, it's also self-serving and disallows for the popularity of a fictional character who's page was created first.  CelticGreen 00:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ;) For whatever reason, that comment just made my day. ;) D'Amico 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!! CelticGreen 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Families/Colleen Brady page
Because the Colleen Brady page has always had all the family, as other Days characters have, that are direct decendants and other pages have far more relatives, I added back Sami's family. I have read the talk page too and it's confusing as all heck to me and until a hard and fast decision is made, I think we can leave Colleen's family that are blood relations. What do you think? By the way, check out the Lucas Roberts page if you want to see unnecessary relations listed. CelticGreen 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Character relations
You may want to put several fictional character articles on your watchlist, if they aren't already on it. I saw your recent edits to a few of the soap opera fictional character articles (Family and relationships sections), and they've already been changed either back or in a different sort of variation of their previous form by an IP editor. Because of how those sections are changed back soon, it's the reason that I didn't bother changing those sections to what you changed them to. I mean, for the ones that I edit often and am more familiar with, if I felt that it was dire to change them, I would have though. I assume you changed some of them because Jack and Erica are no longer married to each other. Flyer22 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NOT!
I WAS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT VANDALIZING ANYTHING! NO WONDER MANY PEOPLE THINK WIKIPEDIA IS PURE CRAP! THEY DON''T WANNA CREATE ACCOUNTS! I WILL NEVER CREATE A WIKI ACCOUNT---NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR THE RECORD: I WAS NOT NOT NOT VANDALIZING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT!!!!!NOT!!!!!!!NOT!!!!!!NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.108.244 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest viewing the Wikipedia guidelines for vandalism. The information that was added into the character page for Taylor Marone was a prime example -- a normally reliable magazine being claimed as a source for a false piece of information. Entries like that are one of the reasons that Wikipedia has gained a negative reputation, because on the surface it tooks legitimate. But anyone who picks up the magazines knows that most recent issue of SOD was the October 30, 2007, issue, which was printed and sent out prior to Tylo's son dying. There is no way that the October 19, 2007, issue (which did not exist, as they are always dated within 7 days of each other) could have contained an article on an event that had not yet occurred. D'Amico 06:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sami's babies
This is so going round and round. One, we have to go by the US eps because it's an American show. Second, they are calling the boy Johnny and they have officially decided on that first name for the boy. That needs to/can stay. As to issues of last name, legally Sami is Roberts at the time of birth, they can't just decide on a last name. The children are Roberts at this point. Heaven knows it's going to change, but we'll just have to roll with it. CelticGreen 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with it is that, right now, even the show itself admits that the names on the babies are up in the air. Roberts Baby Boy and Roberts Baby Girl are (as of 10/26 US) the closest we have for names. If John Roman / Johnny was the official name, that's what the bassinet would say. I have a feeling that by the time this is all said and done, the poor child will be named Stefano. (*SHIVER*) D'Amico 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jack Boscoe
I have nominated Jack Boscoe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Jack Boscoe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — TAnthonyTalk 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello D'Amico! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Derk Cheetwood -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of BethAnn Bonner for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BethAnn Bonner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/BethAnn Bonner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Derk Cheetwood for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Derk Cheetwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Derk Cheetwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Blackwood for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Blackwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Steve Blackwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Ploni (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chris Boothe

The article Chris Boothe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Doesn't meet WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:D'Amico


text:
Talk:Wavelength

More general waveforms wording
I removed the emphasis on the period T being the same at all points, since this might be misleading. While it is true that there is a period T that is common to all points, at some points the wave will repeat more than once in time T, so the "period" as conventionally defined is shorter at these locations, by some integer factor. The source location for a periodic non-sinusoidal wave is one such location: the period there is shorter (possibly by a large factor) than the period at other locations. Since in many cases this shorter period of the source wave is known, the statement that the period T is the same at all points could mislead the reader into thinking that the period of the wave equals that of the source at all points, which is not true. A more extended discussion could clarify this, but it's probably better just not to get into it.

I also removed the reference to Fourier integrals. I didn't feel that it worked where it appeared in the paragraph. It broke the flow of concepts, making the paragraph less clear.--Srleffler (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I added the mention of Fourier integral because it was part of what the source that I cited talk about, and to appease Brews a bit, but I don't mind it being gone. As for the period, I'm not sure I understand.  How can the period anywhere be other than the period of the source, that is, the least common period of all the sinusoids that are propagating by the location?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have been mistaken about the period.--Srleffler (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the period is related in only a complicated fashion to the period of the source, involving the separation of the observation point from the source and also the dispersion relation. Maybe we need a source to tie this down? Brews ohare (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With the Fourier series decomposition, it's easy to see that the wave contains only harmonics of the source period. No new frequencies are added by propagation, even if there are reflecting ends, dispersion, or whatever.  So you have harmonics of the period everywhere, and therefore the same period everywhere, no?  Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I had in mind that as the components got out of phase with one another the superposition would have a period that was longer than one cycle of the fundamental, but I see I was mistaken.--Srleffler (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Using a Fourier series begs the question as it presumes a periodic result with the same period. We need a source here, not editors' speculation. Brews ohare (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC) To add to the speculation, and emphasize the need for an explanatory source, if the driver produces two sine waves close in frequency, the resulting periodic waveform has an envelope that oscillates at the beat frequency, which can be as low (or as long a wavelength) as one can imagine if the two frequencies are close together. That seems to suggest that the period of the waveform produced by the driver is less about the period of the driver than the beat frequency. Brews ohare (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC) DickLyon's source amply demonstrates this point; see Figure 4.7.1 Brews ohare (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes the period might be very long in the two-beating-frequencies case. But the source associates "wavelength" with the components, not with a long pattern.  There's actually no "driver" or "source" that's relevant here, just periodic-in-time wave motion, which can be analyzed into harmonic frequency components.  I don't see any speculation, but then again I don't see a source that says precisely what our text says, obvious though it is.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "presumption", only definition. The paragraph we are discussing is specifically about the important special case of waves that are periodic in time. There is no need to presume or speculate; periodicity in time is the specified initial condition. The only question is how the system evolves over time, and how it behaves at other spatial locations.
 * Since the topic of discussion is waves that are periodic in time, the relevant period in the two-beating-waves case is the long period required for the full waveform to repeat. The Fourier series in this case is particularly simple, and the fact that the period of the wave as a whole is much longer than those of the nonzero Fourier components is not a problem. In my initial comments on this topic, I had presumed that there might be locations where the period of the combined wave might be short (like the periods of the components), but I was mistaken. The component waves maintain their frequencies as they propagate and there will be nowhere along their common path where they do not beat against one another, producing a waveform with the same, long, period.--Srleffler (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it might be slightly more complicated than that in wave media with reflections that can make nulls for certain frequencies at certain locations. If one of the two components in the two-component beating pattern has a null, then the response at the location of the null will be just the other component, so it will have a short period there.  However, what the article says is still true there:  the wave is still periodic with the longer period T, even if also with some shorter period.   Just to be sure, I have edited the text to try to make sure that the period T is stated as the period of the wave and can't be misunderstood as one of these possible shorter periods at a null in a corner case.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A periodic disturbance in time at a particular location will result in a disturbance at all distances from the source when steady-state is reached. So a disturbance in time repeated with period T but of duration less than T will involve many frequencies, submultiples of T. Nothing much changes as T changes, if the disturbance maintains the same form in time, but is simply spaced with larger "blank" periods in between. T is not a very useful parameter in describing matters, therefore, and it should not be framed as the key to analysis here. Brews ohare (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True, the periodicity of T is just there to make the Fourier series applicable. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

More general waveforms references
The two references to the topic of general waveforms so far do not actually describe how these calculations are done, but provide only few words of description.

The stress upon a periodicity in time in the article in preference to the propagation of a waveform seems to me misguided. For example, if one makes the analogy with a performer blowing large soap bubbles in a park, the bubbles are launched as huge spheres, and as they are carried in the wind they enlarge and become ellipsoids. At a location near the launch one sees a periodic appearance of spheroids at the period of launch T. At a remote position one sees a periodic appearance of enlarged ellipsoids with a period T. Just how long the period T is between arrivals, or between repetitions of what happens periodically in time a a fixed location, as described by a Fourier series in time, is not so interesting as the process of transformation as the spheroids change to enlarged ellipsoids, that is, the propagation phenomenon. Changing the period and spacing the bubbles differently is not really essential.

So I think what is needed is a more interesting discussion with some more detailed references tying what happens to the dispersive nature of the medium. Emphasis upon the more-or-less incidental period between events is not the really interesting point. Brews ohare (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree the section remains rather unsatisfying. I did my best to find a sensible way to incorporate the Fourier series into something to do with wavelength, cobbling what was there; but it's still a bit of a misfit.  Most sources that talk about dispersion and Fourier analysis don't do in the context of periodic waves, and usually do it in terms of wavenumber, not wavelength.  And their analysis doesn't usually conclude anything related to wavelength or to repetition in space.  Probably we should just simplify the section, since there are better articles for covering these other concepts of waves in linear dispersive media.  As for the concept of wavelength being applied to other than approximately sinusoidal waves, it's unusual at best; discussing it can easily be misleading, or spiral into contradictions, like when you get into claims that it's well-defined for arbitrary periodic functions.   Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dick: Quite possibly the easiest approach is to use wavevector, or maybe to use a simple example instead of trying the general case. As you know, however, I do not agree in the slightest that application of wavelength to a periodic wave in space of general form is in any way misleading, although the occurrence of such waves in nature is not general, but restricted to particular media. From a conceptual point of view, wavelength is what Fourier series is about in space, with the simple interpretation of the general argument ξ as x instead of angle, or time. From this stance, as I have pointed out by direct quotations from at least three sources, many authors do exactly that. Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that many authors do that. And none of them seem to reveal any reason for doing a sinusoidal decomposition of the spatial pattern.  At least in the case of the dispersive linear system there's a reason to decompose into sinusoids.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dick: Perhaps it is just argumentative, but here's a question: why do authors use Fourier series when argument ξ is interpreted as time, or angle, or whatever? Why is it automatically a wasted effort only when ξ is interpreted as a spatial variable? Why is period T more significant as a time period than λ is a a spatial period? Could it be that in fact there is no difference at all? Brews ohare (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual to use wavenumber (or reciprocal wavelength) in a Fourier transform, as a way to get a sinusoidal decomposition, especially for wave packets. But periodic-in-space waves are a relatively rare corner, seldom encountered where a sinusoidal decomposition would be helpful.  If they're also periodic in time at the same time, in a linear system, the system is nondispersive, and has a trivial wave equation, for which a sinusoidal decomposition is not needed; it adds nothing to the understanding of the system.  If they're in a nonlinear system, the sinusoidal decomposition is not particularly illuminating either.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another question: when an oboe plays a note, it sounds different than when a violin plays the same note. Could it be that the difference can be expressed as a difference in the Fourier series expressing the wavelengths of vibration supported by the general waveform in the oboe's air column for that note compared to the wavelengths present in the general waveform on the violin string when the same note is present? Would that be an interesting enough example of Fourier expansion of the general waveform in space to warrant mentioning the use of Fourier series for spatial analysis of waveforms? Or, perhaps, an article Wavelength (music) is needed? Brews ohare (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sound difference has much more to do with the waveform in air; this is what propagates and carries the pattern. The physics within the instrument gives rise to different modes, and to a temporal near-periodicity from how the signal interacts with the reed or the bow, but I haven't seen an analysis like you're describing, where the composite signal is analyzed into space-domain sinusoids.  Of course it could be done.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Once it's left the instrument the waveform is not uniform, i.e. there is no 'general waveform', even allowing for distance attenuation. The sound you hear an inch from a source is very different from the sound you hear three feet or thirty feet from it: the best example is the human voice as we're most familiar with it: often you can tell how far away someone is quite accurately by the sound of their voice. This is less noticeable with an instrument because its pure note dominates and so it depends on the particular frequency of the instrument. And of course in most cases performers don't want you to hear different sounds depending on how far away you are, and will go to great lengths to minimise effects of distance (modifying the building to compensate for example).-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To pursue this matter further, harmonics are produced on the guitar by deliberately introducing a node on the guitar string, a direct application of wavelength considerations. Brews ohare (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't produce harmonics, but kills the fundamental and certain other harmonics. Yes, it is described in terms of wavelength on the string, or the modes of the instrument.  But not in terms of a sinusoidal decomposition of a periodic-in-space pattern.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dick & Blackburne: You might find some interest in reading a source or two on this subject instead of relying on your recollections. Something interesting can be done here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of good books on the physics and psychophysics of music and musical instruments; it's not clear what you see as relevant in the page you've linked in that college physics text. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dick: Figures 14.26 and 14.27 of this source compare waveforms for a pure note on a tuning fork with the same note on a clarinet and a flute. The point, of course, is that the characteristic voice of the instrument is expressed in its peculiar waveform, which is in each case periodic with the same wavelength but of different shape. Accordingly, the differences between voices is sought in the different harmonics of the fundamental found in each. This difference can be expressed in time or in space, although the latter requires some expression of the characteristics of the medium, which cannot be unduly dispersive. Obviously, instruments usually operate in air, and the slight dispersion of sound in air is no impediment to applying a spatial analysis. The design of an instrument is perhaps even more clearly related to wavelength, as the dimensions of the instrument determine how an excitation of a particular spatial mode will be related to its various harmonics; for example, how the standing wave on a violin string is connected to the various resonances of the instrument. Brews ohare (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Fourier series in time section
I went ahead and removed the unsatisfying paragraph about the Fourier series and periodic-in-time waves, as it was not very useful, nor very germane to the topic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This removal was a good step: it tried to introduce Fourier series using the topic of Fourier series in time, applied to waveforms that have no identifiable wavelength in space. The door is now open to introduce Fourier series in a context appropriate to the subject of wavelength, that is, the context of spatially periodic general waveforms which, of course, always have an identifiable wavelength. That such waveforms can be and are analyzed using Fourier series is well documented, and the objection that such waveforms are not necessarily found in general media restricts its applicability in general, but doesn't mean it deserves no mention here. Brews ohare (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a reconsideration of the text below:

 * Brews, drop it. You've proposed this once, you've had your RfC on this, neither time did you convince other editors. Proposing yet another variation on it after failing to convince other editors multiple times is simply disruptive.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a dead issue. Brews, drop the stick and move away from the horse.--Srleffler (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Srleffler: As Blackburne has not advanced any actual argument against inclusion of this text, your "agreement" with him is only as to his cheer-leading and not about any "agreement" upon substance. Your own comments regarding the RfC on the above text were as follows:
 * "The introduction of Fourier series appears neither to make the concept of wavelength clearer nor to provide a better fundamental definition of wavelength of a general periodic wave. The current proposed text is admittedly better than the many attempts prior to this RFC, in that it doesn't belabour the issue and focuses most directly on the connection between the two topics.
 * I do see the appeal in trying to replace the definition of wavelength of a non-sinusoidal wave in terms of the wave's period of repetition with a definition that is tied directly to sinusoidal waves. I'm partial to this for the same reason that I was originally opposed to applying the term "wavelength" to non-sinuoidal waves at all. It's not clear to me that there is a non-negligible set of readers for whom this treatment would be beneficial, however."--Srleffler (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand these points you raise, your objection to including this text is that it does not clarify the concept of wavelength. However, that is not the purpose of this text. What this text aims to do is to alert readers that there is a connection of spatially periodic waveforms (waveforms with a wavelength) to Fourier series. That connection is undeniable.
 * Your further objection is that nobody cares anyway. Inasmuch as several sources mention this connection, and indeed elaborate upon it at length, your opinion is not universal. Brews ohare (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have raised this issue before, multiple times. We have spent far more time discussing it than it was worth. No further discussion of this issue is merited. Please stop trying to disrupt the editing process by repeatedly bringing forward the same issues over and over again with only slight variations. --Srleffler (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, Srleffler, that your objections are in fact against an earlier proposal to introduce Fourier series as a definition of wavelength, which is not proposed here. You may have a different opinion about the present proposal. Brews ohare (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The truth is that few sources make that connection, and they don't take it anywhere useful. You have gone back to a formulation that would be just as true and useful if triangle waves were used instead of sine waves; that is, not useful at all, since the sinusoidal components provide no help in analyzing such a situation, where the medium is either nondispersive or nonlinear.  The Schaum's Outline book that you cite introduces the Fourier series there only as a step toward getting a Fourier transform, to get a way to represent waves that are NOT period in space, which is useful; and it says it's  more common to do it in terms of k than lambda, which is true, so it's not very related to wavelength.  And your statement that "The wavelength, say λ, of a general spatially periodic waveform is the spatial interval in which one cycle of the function repeats itself" is contrary to typical usage of the term "wavelength" (that is, for the local wavelength of approximately sinusoidal waves) and is not supported by the source; in fact, your source defines the term "wavelength" only with respect to sinusoidal components, and applies it only fleetingly to a spatially periodic function.  The text (if you can call it that) is also flaky in that when it introduces sinusoids in section 1.3 it completely misses their point, again saying something that would be just as true with triangle waves or square waves or a variety of other basis sets.  We have been through all this many times.  The objections of numerous editors are in the record if you'd like to review them further.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dick: You are missing the point here. There is no attempt to propose that Fourier series is the one and only way to expand an arbitrary function in terms of other functions, which might fall under the rubric of generalized Fourier series. The point here is simply to make the connection of a spatially periodic function of general form that satisfies f(x+λ)=f(x) to the Fourier series. A Fourier series, as you must know, inevitably results in a periodic function throughout space. Fourier series is, moreover, a very well known and important aspect of mathematical analysis, and a link to make readers aware of the connection is just an ordinary use of an aside that widens the reader's appreciation of the topic wavelength and its connection to the mathematical analysis of periodicity. The text contains a direct quote from a textbook, and virtually the same language occurs in other sources as well: "Fourier's theorem states that any periodic function f(x) can be expressed as the sum of a series of sinusoidal functions which have wavelengths that are integral fractions of the wavelength λ of f(x)"
 * There is nothing misleading or inappropriate here, as you well know, and your unsupported assertions to the contrary do not reflect well upon your understanding of the subject, nor indeed, upon your appreciation of one of the major benefits of WP: helping readers widen their awareness of a topic. Brews ohare (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need in Fourier series to define what wave length is. Hence one should not tell about this in the definition. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong to mention Fourier series somewhere in the article. Bringing that kind of dispute to Arbcom seems incredibly strange to me. My very best wishes (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already crafted a paragraph to say what could sensibly be said about Fourier series, applied to periodic-in-time waves, but nobody much liked it and it wasn't particularly relevant to wavelength, so I took it out; nobody objected to that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what is exactly the problem with describing non-sinusoidal waves using Fourier series? I do not see any problems. But probably this belongs to other articles about waves. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction edit
The sentence "For example, in sinusoidal waves over deep water a particle in the water moves in a circle of the same diameter as the wave height, unrelated to wavelength" should be edited to mention that this is true for a particle on the surface, particles below the surface moving in smaller circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.138.137 (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Srleffler (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation to "Subquantum Kinetics" pseudoscience
Why on earth is there a citation to "Paul A. LaViolette (2003). Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology" (citation for "the notion of a wavelength also may be applied to these wave packets"). That book is utterly pseudoscientific (and the author is known for some way out fringe ideas), and does not belong in a science article in my opinion. Aren't there better references to use for wave packets? Rolf Schmidt (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.--Srleffler (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

First use of lambda
When was lambda first used for wavelength? I noticed Fresnel used λ in 1819 in 'Memoire on the diffraction of light' and Herschel used λ = v T in 1828 in 'On the Theory of Light'. Ceinturion (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How to calculate wavelength Hlelokuhle (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Vacuum wavelength
Presently the wikilink Vacuum wavelength goes to this article, but it is not clarified. I would suggest adding something like the following blurb. "When light passes between different materials, the wavelength changes although the frequency stays the same. In the field of optics, it is rare to refer to the invariant frequency of light, but instead to refer to the vacuum wavelength of light, which is c divided by the light frequency. This convention is commonly used even when describing light inside materials where the actual wavelength of the light is not the same as the vacuum wavelength."

(More or less?) --Nanite (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea.--Srleffler (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede doesn't provide a concise definition
The first sentence of the lede implies that wavelength is a characteristic of a sine wave only. Later in the lede it says: oh by the way, it's a characteristic of any periodic wave. The lede should be written so that it is in compliance with MOS:FIRST (...If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition). The first sentence should be something like, "In physics, a wavelength is the distance between any two successive parts of a periodic wave that are in phase, i.e., that are at idential points of its cycle."  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 06:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's better, thank you.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 15:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wavelength


text:
Talk:Actors Studio

The Actors Studio
It would be extremely helpful if some small commentary could be included which would delineate the circumstances and/or reasons underlying the move from the New School University to Pace University, and mention that an MFA acting program appparaently still continues at the New School. --24.94.19.234 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Commentary on the split, I agree, although so much of it was private contract negotiations that it's hard to know the details. I was a student while all this was happening, and I really don't have any info I can put here (I have info, just nothing I can back up with verifiable sources). As for the acting program at the New School, info on that really belongs on the New School page (folks can follow the link for that info). --Brian Olsen 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Co-presidents
I heard that Ellen Burstyn and Al pacino are nowadays presidents of Actor's Studio. Meaybe worth to mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncategorized
As of May 2005, the Actors Studio is no longer be affiliated with The New School.

Beginning in Fall 2006, the Actors Studio will partner with Pace University to offer a three-year MFA degree in lower Manhattan.

The Actors Studio is not part of New School University. The Actors Studio Drama School is NOT part of New School University. The Actors Studio Drama School (ASDS) was launched in 1994 as a joint venture between the Actors Studio and New School University (then called the New School for Social Research). James Lipton is now dean emeritus of ASDS and is not the actual dean of the school. The Actors Studio is a not-for-profit corporation. The Actors Studio Drama School is located at Pace University and has not been associated with The New School since its split in 1995. The Actors Studio has no affiliation with The New School.(Mamakagan (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)exec.dir. of The Actors StudioMamakagan (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Please do not delete founders from Actors Studio Yair-haklai (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
I'm not quite sure why there seems to be several reverts of edits, so I thought I'd spell out what the edits were that I made and according to what guidelines.

 * Further reading was broke out into it's own section, in accordance with WP:MOS guidelines. Continuity across articles makes it easier to read... and I believe that's why the guidelines were put in place. It also, then, pops up in the ToC.

In addition, further reading isn't a subsection under references or notes -- it's just that, further reading, which could be used by some editors to expand the article should they choose. So, it's a misnomer for it to be under notes.

 * Having the alpha categories in the ToC makes it easier for folks to navigate - and the Compact ToC was created just for these situations. But, it's totally a style choice.

 * Refimprove tag was removed because there's just a couple of places where citations are needed. They are tagged appropriately in the article -- and appear in Categories for clean-up.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are laboring under the misapprehension that the MoS is a policy, which must be followed, when that is not the case. MoS is a guideline.  Now, it's true that guidelines represent the collective wisdom of Wikipedia's editors over the years, but it's also true that they are intended to represent what is actually done rather then provide standards that have to be followed. -- in other words, they are descriptive and not prescriptive.  If there is not "wiggle-room" to allow editors to find better ways of doing things, then MoS is no longer a descriptive guideline, it becomes a de facto prescriptive policy, and that is not its intention. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:IAR, "Ignore All Rules", which says that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule and make the improvement.  In this case, putting "Further reading" into a separate hierarchical section helps to contribute to the unbalance in the ToC, where there's more there representing he "back of the book" (see also, notes, references, bibliography, external links etc.) than there is representing the actual content of the article.  There's nothing wrong with including "further reading" in the broad "references" category, where it can be easily found by any reader, just as there's nothing wrong with eliminating the alphabetical hierarchy of notable names.  A reader arriving here to find out if Al Pacino was a member of the Studio will have no more difficulty perusing the list now than if he had the "P" title to go to from the ToC (which entirely ignores why he's at this article instead of at the Al Pacino article; most people looking at the list of notable members are just going to be crusing it for fun anyway.) So, in short, decisions about how the article is laid out should not be dealt with robotically by slavishly following a set of iron-clad rules, we should use those rules as guidelines, follow them when it makes sense to do so, and use our own abilities as rational, thinking entities to change them when that makes sense.  Certainly, it's been said over and over again at AN, AN/I and at ArbCom, the MoS is not a valid reason for edit warring.  Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I totally get that MOS are guidelines. I am a bit confused about how the guidelines for handling MOS guidelines for section headings, for instance, would prevent you from improving Wikipedia. (From above "WP:IAR, "Ignore All Rules", which says that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule and make the improvement."

 * For the lack of better guidance, I use the guidelines to determine when articles should be tagged and how to get them into the consistent wiki format / style, based upon leadership/mentorship I've had from senior editors over the past few years. This is the first time that I can think of that what I would consider a seasoned editor has reverted content that meets guidelines with content that doesn't meet guidelines. Further, the items are reverted with out any reasoning - other than you prefer it that way.

 * Since I do spend a lot of time working on new articles, tagging them, and cleaning up - I would like to have some input on this, even though the edit changes between you and me have been essentially what I think of as pretty minor.

 * My reasoning: If I am to ignore the guidelines, then I'm a bit confused about how to copy edit and tag articles.

 * I don't know if it helps to say that I'm trying to look out for the reader - making articles as consistent as possible for readers (actually I thought of copying your "for the reader" image and message because I love it so much!!). For what it's worth (which may not be much) I am generally not a rule-bound person, I think even rules are guidelines, but when it makes sense to follow guidelines, I do so.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just posted this to Third opinion because of the amount of copyediting I do.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) I have not said "ignore the guidelines" - in the vast majority of cases the guidelines will be very good, well, guides to what's best to do. But if you see there's a better way to do something, don't let the guidelines stop you from doing so, it's really as simple as that. If you think the guidelines are the best solution when working on a new article, fine, but it's also best not to stand in the way of someone who has what might be a better idea and a cogent explanation and justification for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm disappointed that you didn't give our discussion a bit more time before going to 30 - that seems pretty passive-aggressive tome, so as far as I'm concerned, this discussion has concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things, Beyond my ken:
 * 1) I tried to explain my reasoning for asking for another opinion - it's based upon the amount of copyediting I do. I really think the edits are minor and am quite surprised that it's becomes something that evokes an emotional response. Please refrain from calling me or my behavior names, like passive-aggressive. It wasn't meant that way and I'm sorry that you took it that way.
 * 2) I was more than a little surprised that once I stated that I was posting the issue on the talk page my edits were reverted.

It may be that I am just really missing something... like why you like to have further reading under "References"... why you don't like to have an alpha look up for a long list of "notable" people... etc. Can you help me understand why you want it this way?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * FWIW, I just took down the 3O discussion...before posting to 3O one should ensure that thorough discussion has occurred here, and that was not the case at the time the 3O request was filed. There were three posts here, which to my mind does not constitute "thorough".
 * I would prefer not to express a specific opinion myself as I am unfamiliar with this subject matter, though my general advice would be to do what works best for the article as long as it doesn't violate policy. If you're unable to reach a consensus I would recommend contacting the relevant project pages (see the top of this page) to see whether you can garner additional opinions there. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand - and that helps.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I, like Doniago, am a regular at 30 and was about to take this down at 3O, for the reason he cites, above. However, I would like to offer some comments, not under the rules of 3O, but as just another editor:
 * 1) Just my offhand !vote: I don't think the alpha capitals in the notables list should be section headers. It's unnecessary and confuses the TOC; on the other hand, I think that the Further Reading header should be a section header. Not because of what MOS says, but just because it's better.
 * 2) I think that we have to be careful about IAR. IAR gives every editor the right to edit against the policies and guidelines, but it doesn't create any right to have those edits retained if another editor objects. Once that happens, then it becomes a matter for consensus decision. Beyond My Ken is absolutely right that most content based policies and guidelines do not create a right to edit war (there are a few — generally with legal implications — which do have an exemption, but this clearly isn't one of those). If consensus cannot be reached then according to this section of the Consensus policy, the last stable state of the article, if there is one, ought to be retained. If I am not mistaken, the stable state of this article for some time prior to this series of edits and reversions was with the capitals as section headers and with the further reading as a non-header (exactly opposite to my preferred position, unfortunately).
 * 3) That creates a situation which is somewhat complex, at least in regard to the further reading header. I disagree that there is no compulsion whatsoever to follow guidelines and were this a case of first consideration about the further reading heading I would argue that the MOS position ought to prevail unless a consensus can be formed not to follow it in this case. In general we follow consensus and, per the CONLIMITED policy, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." (Emphasis added.) But the fact is that it's been in the article for quite awhile as a non-header and that at least implies a silent consensus to have it that way rather than as set out in MOS.
 * 4) So even though I don't think it's the best way to do it, I think the article should keep the alpha headers and the non-header further reading title unless a consensus can be formed to do it the other way. The best way to achieve such a consensus is probably by a RFC if CaroleHension cares enough to set one up (I don't care that much). If Carole does that, then I'll probably !vote in the manner I stated above, or if Carole just wants to continue the current discussion that's where my !vote stands for now.

Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the input! I just reverted the article (based upon comments and edit summary  here), which I think takes care of some of these issues, but I'll take them one by one.-- CaroleHenson   ( talk ) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that helps. I reverted the Notable people section accordingly - and removed the Compact ToC template.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Points taken.
 * Ok, that makes life a bit harder when an article has been a mess (not this case) for some time - and people with self-serving interests contest guidelines (again, not this case)... So, back to this case.
 * ....thinking -- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There This is only one person contesting the move of the Further reading section into its own header.
 * Beyond My Ken had recently removed the section headers for the alpha values in Notable people - and I'm agreeing with your points, so I'm not sure why there's an issue there.
 * We didn't engage in discussion about removing the Refimprove tag - and my addition of a couple of citation needed tags.
 * Since BMK clearly bowed out, how about if we let this latest version and this conversation stand for a bit and obtain consensus on Further reading and Refimprove. If there is consensus that for putting "Further reading" under references - and keeping the Refimprove tag, I'll make those changes. Does that make sense?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good by me. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! I'll keep watching this page for any developments.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable actors
As this section is essentially a list, and one that's been tagged for needing citations since 2014, it should really have references added. The claim that they're "notable" is particularly troubling since it opens up the question of exactly what makes them "notable" in this context. Is notable a synonym for famous? Is it notable that they attended the Actors Studio?

In any case, a heads-up that I may start removing unsourced entries, though I'm willing to give it another couple of weeks. The "notable" question though, IMO, really needs to be addressed. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation
If proper punctuation were used, it would be Actors' Studio, would it not? Novel compound (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. Actors' Studio has been marked as a misspelling since December 2011, and the official website doesn't use an apostrophe. I don't know why. We need to get a consensus to change this though. See WP:RM if you want to formally request a change. wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Inside the Actors Studio. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And Talk:Actors Studio (TV series). wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it shouldn't be marked as a misspelling. Actors Studio is the name of the institution. Strasberg's book is Strasberg at the Actors Studio.  • DP •  {huh?} 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Templating the redirect as a misspelling – R from misspelling – puts pages that link to that redirect in Database reports/Linked misspellings which is intended to be patrolled to fix misspellings.
 * Templating with R from modification or R from alternate spelling means that it's an acceptable alternative which won't show up in the list of pages to be corrected. wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Actors Studio. 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/20030418170930/http://www.bravotv.com:80/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/ to http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable members
I made edits to include more details about the actors/playwrights that have trained there and the acting technique taught there and moved the description of the different buildings over the years into a separate section as it seems like it's the actors/playwrights rather than the building that make this studio notable. The notable members section is just a list for now, but could be expanded with the further reading list someone helpfully provided. Geelong 1985 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've listed all the "Lifetime Members" listed on the Actors Studio website by accessing the page's source code to get behind the annoying rotating gallery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Actors Studio


text:
User talk:Nonewmail~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, !

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:
 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Brilliant prose
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 01:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turkish grammar
Greetings, I noticed you had worked on Georgian grammar, but were from Turkey. I live in Turkey and have been working on Turkish grammar, though I am thinking of rewriting the article (to bring all çekim ekleri together, for example). If you are interested, please check what I have done (and am working on; new beginnings are on my user page). David Pierce 07:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

سلام
Benim adım דניאל (Türkçe: Daniyel فارسی: دانیال). Şimdi 臺灣da Türkçe ve Çince öğreniyorum. Halihazırda אידיש, çok az Fransızca, ve çok az İspanyolca konuşuyorum. (Çünkü Kalifornya'lıyım ve Kalifornya'da çok Meksikalı var, zira birinci onların ülkesiydi.) Boşnakça kitaplarım var bu yaz için. (Bosna'da olacağım) Yeni firefox'umu Gürcüce'ye değiştirdim çünkü onların alfabesini öğrenmek istiyorum. Sonra Gürcü dili öğrenmek istiyorum, ve başka çok diller. Bunun için, ben (senin gibi) dilleri öğrenmeği çok seviyorum.

Ya sen? Senin adın ne? Şimdi neredesin?

Teşekküler yardım için "List of replaced loan words in Turkish" sayfasında. Şimdi bütün Farsça sözleri Arapça sözlerden ayıracağım. Lütfen bildiğin Gürcüce'den Türkçeye geçen sözler varsa söyle, mümkün mü? Sonra, "Ottoman Turkish" sayfasına Latin alfabesinde ve Arap alfabesinde örnekler vermek istiyorum, nereden bulabilirim biliyor musun?

Sonra daha konuşacağız… selametle! סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Nonewmail. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Nonewmail~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nonewmail~enwiki


text:
Zwelitsha

Zwelitsha is a town in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. It forms part of the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality.

History
Zwelitsha was created in 1947 as corridor township to King William's Town to provide labour for the Good Hope Textile Factory of the Da Gama Group, South Africa. As a vestige of the liberal United Party government it had "middle class" pretensions in terms of neat schools, clinics, shopping centers, dairy, inhouse plumbing, bathrooms and toilets. With the entrenchment of apartheid by the early 1960s Zones 6-10 were added to the original Zones 1 to 5.

From 1972 to 1981 it served as the provisional capital of the Bantustan of Ciskei, until the capital could be moved to Alice, and then to Bisho. Also in 1972 it became the insurgent center of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) with the Mapetla Mohapi and Mongezi Sefika wa Nkomo starting a workstudy/political circle in Zone 10 area to launch later in January 1973, the Black People's Convention (BPC), King William's Town, Branch with Zwelitsha as the HQ. BCM activists and leaders including Steve Biko, Harry Ranwedzi Nengekhulu, Welile Nhlapho paid visit in early that including the launching of the National Youth Organization (NAYO) a Black Consciousness youth wing at nearby Mount Coke Hotel.

title: Zwelitsha


text: File:Cover of The Sensational She-Hulk No. 31.png


text: User talk:68.159.157.232

title: User talk:68.159.157.232


text: User talk:68.11.147.7

title: User talk:68.11.147.7


text:
File:Edward Everett - Project Gutenberg eText 15393.jpg

Authorship and date of creation from Paul Frothingham, Edward Everett, Orator and Statesman (1925).


text:
Only When I Laugh (TV series)

Only When I Laugh is a British television sitcom made by Yorkshire Television for ITV. It aired between 29 October 1979 and 16 December 1982 and is set in the ward of an NHS hospital. The title is in response to the question, "Does it hurt?".

It stars James Bolam, Peter Bowles, and Christopher Strauli as patients Roy Figgis, Archie Glover, and Norman Binns. Mr. Gordon Thorpe, their consultant surgeon, is played by Richard Wilson; and Gupte, the staff nurse from Delhi, is played by Derrick Branche.

The show was one of many successes for writer Eric Chappell, and has been repeated on ITV4 since 2019, having previously been repeated on ITV3 and was previously repeated on The Family Channel, UK Gold and on Plus (Formerly Granada Plus).

Production
Only When I Laugh was written after Eric Chappell was commissioned by Yorkshire Television to write another sitcom following the success of Rising Damp. Chappell devised the premise of a hospital comedy from the patients' perspective as he felt that previous television based in a hospital setting focused on the doctors, nurses and staff. In an interview with the Liverpool Echo in 1979, Chappell said of the three main characters, "They all come from different backgrounds. They differ in class and politics and they're all different in their attitude to being in hospital. That's what gives the vital chemistry for the comedy."

Only When I Laugh marked James Bolam's return to situation comedy following his success with Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?. The actor told the Evening Express in 1979, "I'm thoroughly enjoying making the series. We have had a lot of fun. Eric Chappell is a smashing writer with a very distinctive style and brilliantly clever lines. Hospital comedies have been done before but this is different in that it is seen from the patients' point of view."

Reception
In a discussion of Eric Chappell's work in The Guinness Book of Classic British TV, Only When I Laugh was described as "intermittently rewarding".

Cast

 * James Bolam as Roy Figgis
 * Peter Bowles as Archie Glover
 * Christopher Strauli as Norman Binns
 * Richard Wilson as Gordon Thorpe
 * Derrick Branche as Gupte

Guest appearances were made by Gwen Taylor, John Quayle, Neil McCarthy, Patrick Troughton, Moira Lister, Pat Ashton, Neil Connery, Pamela Cundell, Brenda Cowling, Reginald Marsh, Rosalind Ayres, Ann Beach, Mary Tamm, Karl Howman, Isla Blair, Ronnie Stevens, Stephen Greif, Robert Gillespie, Sylvia Kay and Frank Middlemass.

Home media

 * In region 2, all four series of Only When I Laugh have been released on DVD by Network DVD, and a complete series box set has also been released both with a george harrison music edit in episode 21
 * In region 1, series 1 & 2 have been released in individual DVDs. A complete 5-disc box set was released on 10 March 2009 by Dep Distribution under license from ITV Studios and distributed by Vivendi Entertainment.
 * In region 4, firstly the Complete Box Set was released in 2008, followed by the individual seasons in 2010. The 1981 Christmas Special is not featured on any Region 4 DVD.

 * 1) Only When I Laugh (Season 1–4) – April 12, 2008
 * 2) Only When I Laugh: Season 1 – June 9, 2010
 * 3) Only When I Laugh: Season 2 – June 9, 2010
 * 4) Only When I Laugh: Season 3 – September 8, 2010
 * 5) Only When I Laugh: Season 4 – September 8, 2010

title: Only When I Laugh (TV series)