text:
User talk:Unsquare

Welcome
Hello,, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

 * You can sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~.

 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! — Hoary 10:56, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

title: User talk:Unsquare


text:
Fergus Suter

Fergus Suter (21 November 1857 – 31 July 1916) was a Scottish stonemason and footballer in the early days of the game. Arguably the first recognised professional footballer, Suter was a native of Glasgow and played for Partick before moving to England to play for Darwen and Blackburn Rovers F.C.

Football
Suter initially played for Partick (not the same club as the modern Partick Thistle). His first moves below the Scottish border into English football were with Partick. On 1 January 1878, he played for them against Darwen at Barley Bank, and against Blackburn Rovers at Alexandra Meadows the following day. Towards the end of that year, he began to play for the Lancashire club Darwen, following shortly after the arrival of fellow Partick player Jimmy Love.

One source states that Suter left Partick for Rangers in 1877, then coming to England in 1878 and signed for Turton. He left Turton and joined Darwen also in 1878.

Although the game was officially amateur at the time, Suter's move to England to play for Darwen in 1878 was shortly followed by him giving up his job as a stonemason, allegedly claiming that English stone was too difficult to work and fuelling criticism that he was being paid to play.

During the summer of 1880, he caused still more controversy by moving to Blackburn Rovers, a local rival of Darwen. The move again stirred up accusations of professionalism amid claims that Blackburn had offered him improved terms. Suter's move inflamed an already testy local rivalry, and bitter games and crowd trouble dogged future Darwen–Blackburn matches for years.

Suter's career was all but over by the time the Football League formed in 1888. He made only one appearance for Blackburn Rovers in that competition, on 22 December 1888 against West Bromwich Albion as a replacement for the goalkeeper Herbie Arthur. He appeared in four FA Cup finals and after Blackburn were runners-up to Old Etonians in 1882, he collected three winner's medals in 1884, 1885, and 1886.

Personal life
Suter was born in Glasgow on 21 November 1857, the son of David Suter and his wife Catherine ( Cook). He married Martha Almond in Blackburn on 22 November 1883. He died of cancer at Branksome, 8 Seafield Road, Blackpool on 31 July 1916. He was survived by his wife, a son Fergus Alexander and a daughter Jessie who later married a Frank Cumberbirch. In later life Suter ran the Millstone Hotel in Darwen.

Portrayals
Suter is one of the main characters in the Netflix mini-series The English Game (2020), played by Kevin Guthrie. The series depicts him leaving Darwen to join a Blackburn-based club and winning the FA Cup in the same season with victory over the Old Etonians.

Blackburn Olympic did defeat the Etonians to become the first working-class team to lift the cup, but this was not the club which Suter joined and the win did not come until 1883, three years after Suter left Darwen.

Suter later joined Olympic's local rivals Blackburn Rovers in 1880 and was in the team which lost in the 1882 Cup Final against the Old Etonians. He would later go on to star in three consecutive Cup Final victories in 1884, 1885, and 1886.

Having watched the Netflix series, viewer Jacqueline McAleese noticed that Suter's grave in Blackburn Old Cemetery had become dilapidated with the gravestone fallen and the plot just a mound of grass. After she contacted Blackburn Rovers they funded a restoration of his grave which was completed in 2021.

Honours
 Blackburn Rovers
 * FA Cup : 1884, 1885, 1886

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

title: Fergus Suter


text:
USS James K. Paulding

USS James K. Paulding (DD-238) was a Clemson-class destroyer in the United States Navy during the period between World War I and World War II. She was named for former Secretary of the Navy James Kirke Paulding.

History
James K. Paulding was laid down 31 July 1918 and launched 20 April 1920 by New York Shipbuilding Corporation; sponsored by Miss Mary Hubbard Paulding, great granddaughter of James K. Paulding; and commissioned 29 November 1920.

After shakedown James K. Paulding was assigned to the Atlantic Fleet, and commenced tactical exercises with destroyer squadrons along the coast. She arrived at Newport, Rhode Island, 31 May 1921 for summer maneuvers and reserve training. Later that year she cruised to Charleston, South Carolina, for squadron exercises, and continued operations there until late winter 1922.

James K. Paulding joined the Scouting Fleet January 1923 and throughout the year engaged in tactical war problems designed to maintain the fleet in the best possible fighting condition. She continued these operations in addition to reserve training until she sailed in February 1925 to San Diego, California for war problems in the Pacific. Upon her return to Newport 31 August, she resumed her duties with the Scouting Fleet. While engaging in gunnery exercises in Caribbean waters November 1926, James K. Paulding sailed to Nicaragua to protect American interests in the wake of political turmoil in that country. During March and April 1927 she remained off Nicaragua to prevent any smuggling of arms.

For the remainder of her career James K. Paulding continued reserve training and tactical exercises in the Atlantic and Caribbean. During her service with the Navy she conducted peacekeeping operations, reserve training, and fleet problems all to maintain the United States' seapower, and provided a base upon which more powerful naval forces were built.

Fate
The destroyer arrived at The Philadelphia Navy Yard 31 October 1930, and decommissioned there 10 February 1931. She was reduced to a hulk 28 December 1936 in accordance with the provisions of the London treaty for the limitation and reduction of naval armament, scrapped, and struck from the Navy List 25 January 1937.

As of 2005, no other ship of the US Navy has been named James K. Paulding. USS Paulding (DD-22) was named for Hiram Paulding.

title: USS James K. Paulding


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-25/The Sanger memoirs

Looking back to the early days
Last week, Larry Sanger published two lengthy excerpts from an upcoming memoir, in which he looked back at the early days of Wikipedia and how it evolved from the now-defunct Nupedia project. The memoir was published in two parts on Slashdot, and will also appear later this year in Open Sources 2.0, a collection of essays by people from the open source movement.

Sanger was originally employed by Jimmy Wales as editor-in-chief of Nupedia, and later played a key role in starting up Wikipedia. He introduced his retrospective by noting that there has been much debate recently on the credibility of Wikipedia as a reference work, with Sanger himself being a negative voice. Sanger stated that despite being recently cast as an enemy of the project, he remained "one of Wikipedia's strongest supporters". However, he said that "if a better job can be done, a better job should be done".

Sanger went on to correct what he saw as a number of common misconceptions about his role in the project, with journalists misquoting the system under which Nupedia ran, how it was funded, and how it led to Wikipedia, saying that this had motivated him to tell his side of the story.

Could Nupedia have worked?
One of the themes of the memoir was Sanger's disappointment that the rigorously reviewed, expert-driven Nupedia model didn't work. He outlined his original idea that Wikipedia could have generated content quickly (Nupedia's primary failing), from which the best could have been creamed off to be released in Nupedia. But the success and rapid early growth of Wikipedia left little time for Nupedia to be developed, and in early 2002 Sanger was laid off due to tightening financial circumstances at Bomis, then the owner of the project.

Culture and evolution
As Wikipedia began to decisively replace Nupedia as a viable project, Sanger originated many of the rules and conventions which were adopted, a large proportion of which are still in use. He notes his surprise that one rule he wrote as a joke, Ignore all rules, has been taken by some as the very essence of Wikipedia, and that the Neutral Point of View policy led to the adoption of POV as a neologism to replace the word bias.

Considering what policies could have been better formulated, Sanger wrote that the policy of extreme tolerance of 'difficult' contributors caused the most problems. He noted that when he had tried to use what authority he had to counteract abuse of the system, troublemakers had made sport of challenging his authority, and suggested that Wikipedia could have evolved in a multitude of different ways, if slightly different policy decisions had been taken early on.

Lively discussion shows that recollections differ
The memoir triggered lively debate on blogs and mailing lists. Clay Shirky, writing on the Many-to-Many blog, disagreed with the idea expressed by Sanger that Wikipedia could have evolved very differently, considering instead that any consensus-based encyclopaedia-building community would have ended up broadly similar.

Discussion on Many-to-Many also included criticism of Sanger's description of himself as 'co-founder' of Wikipedia, with one poster accusing him of alternately distancing himself from and then associating himself with the project, according to how he thought it would affect his reputation.

Sanger rejoins the mailing list
The issue of whether Sanger could call himself co-founder of Wikipedia was also taken up on the wikipedia-l mailing list. Larry Sanger himself resubscribed after an absence of three years, to question Jimmy Wales' assertion that the original idea for a wiki encyclopaedia had come from another Bomis employee, Jeremy Rosenfeld. Sanger declared himself "extremely disillusioned" by what he saw as an attempt to write him out of the history of the project. Wales said he did not want to start a war, and was only pointing out interesting historical trivia. He "enthusiastically seconded" a post describing Sanger as "the main person that held things together long enough for the community to be strong and oriented enough to take care of things on its own". With a final post suggesting a valid description of the origins of Wikipedia, Sanger once again left the mailing list.

Sanger's essays appeared at an auspicious time; Wikipedians have recently been gathering their own reflections of Wikipedia's early history for a special Retrospective section of the next Wikimedia Quarto.

Also this week: Editor's note — Papal scoop — Writing contest — T.R.O.L.L. — Features and admins — Press coverage — The Sanger memoirs | Newsroom


text:
Wrockwardine

Wrockwardine is a village and civil parish in the borough of Telford and Wrekin and ceremonial county of Shropshire, England. It lies north of The Wrekin and the M54/A5, and west of Wellington.

There is a Church of England parish church, St Peter's, dating back to Saxon times.

The Village

The place-name 'Wrockwardine' is first attested in the Domesday Book of 1086, where it appears as Recordine. It appears as Wroch Wurthin in 1169, and Wrocwurthin in 1196. The name means 'homestead by the Wrekin'.

Wrockwardine is a small village, and St Peter's Church is the main central feature but there are a number of other buildings of historical interest. Wrockwardine Hall stands by the church, on the north side. From the south are the Alms-Houses, and the Old School House, both now private houses. There is a more modern village school opposite the church, used until 2014 as a private nursery but has also been converted into private houses.

On a small green to the north is an unusual war memorial, unveiled in 2006, consisting of a large boulder from the nearby Leaton Quarry, listing the village's dead from both World Wars.

The Alms-Houses were built in 1841 by tenants and neighbours of Edward Cludde of Orleton Hall, "in testimony of their respect for a man who was an eminent example of pure and undefiled religion, visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and keeping himself unspotted from the world." A cedar tree was planted in 2011, to commemorate the 170th anniversary of the building.

Armorial Bearings
Wrockwardine Parish Council adopted (assumed) armorial bearings at its meeting of 12 December 2018 (Minute 18/104)

Blazon: Armorial bearings

Vert, issuing from base a Saxon Church Or, and in chief two Fountains thereon a helmet with mantling Vert doubled Or and on a Wreath of the Liveries is set for Crest Issuing from a Mural Coronet an Owl Or perched upon a Gate Sable and in an Escrol below the achievement this Motto "Servimus Ultro".Wrockwardine Parish Council Armorial Bearings and Rationale

St Peter's Church
The church is believed to be of Saxon origin, being mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086, but the current building is of Norman origin with later modifications. It is of unusual plan in having a cruciform layout, with the tower at the cross-point rather than at the east or west end of the building. This dates from the 12th century, but the addition of The Cludde Chapel on the north transept at the end of the 14th century modifies this shape.

The building shows various evidences of its thousand-year history, beginning with the Norman features. These include a walled-up doorway suggestive of plans for future expansion. An original Norman window in the Chancel was restored in the 19th century with stained glass depicting Holman Hunt's painting of Christ as The Light of the World. The church has several very fine stained glass windows. Some, like the one portraying St Peter, are miniatures at high level. Two windows are war memorials: one, at the east end of the south wall, portraying Joan of Arc and St Margaret of Scotland, is inscribed to the memory of Edith Mary Leake who died "in the service of her country" in July 1918 during World War I, the other, in the north wall of plain glass with inserted coloured fragments and uninscribed, is dedicated to the memory of Lieutenant-Colonel Oldham, 4th Gurkha Rifles killed in action in Burma in World War II, who also has an inscribed stone plaque on the left side of the chancel arch.

A brass plaque commemorates men "associated with the parish" who served during the First World War, including four who died, one of whom, Midshipman David Frank Davies, Royal Navy, has his own stone memorial plaque on the south wall.

A kitchen and disabled toilet has been built. Because of the Listed Building status, there were severe restrictions as to how this could be built. It was constructed in one corner, but no alteration to the existing walls was allowed, including for ventilation. This was covered by means of an ionisation air purifier. This method is widely used in Europe, but this is believed to be the first such use in Britain.

In 2015 a scheme of restoration and reordering was proposed. This will include repairs to stonework and roofs, upgrading of the heating system and the building of new community and meeting rooms. Work should begin in 2016. Funding will come from English Heritage and local fundraising.

The church is equipped with an audio induction loop system installed as part of a customised sound system.

Wrockwardine Church is a popular venue for weddings.

Transport
Wrockwardine is located between the B4394 and B5061 roads, and north of junction 7 of the M54 motorway/A5 dual carriageway. Wellington is located directly to the east, whilst Admaston is to the north.

title: Wrockwardine


text: User:Brooke Vibber/Sandbox

title: User:Brooke Vibber/Sandbox


text:
Talk:FlashGet

Spyware? Certainly
Isn't FlashGet spyware? -- Toytoy 11:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sure that FlashGet is partly malware because Avast! detected the FlashGet toolbar used in Internet Explorer as adware. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * way to bump dead conversations --1698 06:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What they said "Optional" adware. I have never seen anything overthere about this option. Moreover, Lavasoft's adaware always detect it as a piece of malware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.12.112 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2006

Okay, I just installed the latest version and there's nothing optional about the 3 IE Add-in's the program installs. The wiki article is somewhat mislead in this regard, and I would not have installed this software if I knew it would automatically, without asking, install add-ins. Urbanriot 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethic.. crack link !?
Is it okay to link to a site that distributes crack/serial information? 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.202.172.138 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2005
 * Of course it is NOT okay. --Anthony Ivanoff 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

advertisments
isn't it wrong to show a way to get rid of ads without paying a shareware software?It is not much different from giving crack method to get rid of ads

I've removed the "how to remove advertisements" section; it is unencyclopedic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 03:22Z

Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

not very encyclopedic...
Is it really "encyclopedic" to write sections about how to remove a piece of software, whatever it is? External links would've been more appropriated Omega Said 20:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Flashget is now Freeware. is it?
Version 1.72 (2006.5) whatsnew quote: "* All free !!! * Context menu add to Opera 8.x"

I am not 100% sure if it has gone free. The licence.txt file (found after installation) is dated back in 29/7/2005, and still states "The SOFTWARE isn't free". I did a clean uninstall, and installed the new version, then in the About box says "this copy is licenced to ". I did not see any banners, and registration nags (forwarded my clock some years to the future :) ) Randomgrk 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * its really always been freeware... they just used to try to get some money from ppl who didnt know anything about software... they probably took it out cuz ppl complained --1698 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

screenshot
its a gif

whoever was brave (or stupid) enough to install this should retake it in png--Froth 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. Cynical 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Speaking of the screenshot, it should be updated to show off its new look. (Zero3K)

 * I've uploaded a newer screenshot. Matt489  Talk  03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

about last revert
the older versions of flashget is not more ad free the the current one, and the references was duplicate so i removed it. --1698 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

flashget website unavalible
There is a weird problem i cant access flashget website as of 29/12/2006, i am not sure when this as started but does anyone else experience this issue or know something about it?--88.153.65.18 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to access the website just now and it works. As of accessing the website yesterday, I don't know (since I switched over to Free Download Manager). You might have been affected by the international link failure in Taiwan or the website was taken down for maintenance... I don't know.--Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * well i think it is the link failure since i tryed pinging it and i just get the packets lost, so that means that the website isnt blocked but has connection trouble, well if you know a place where i can get updates on the link failure repair status then thanks (p.s: my ip changed because i restarted my router)--88.153.48.205 12:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the ip adress has to be origional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aladden (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 December 2006

Mystery connections possible spyware
I can see in my firewall (comodo firewall 2.4) that flashget is connecting the internet even when its not active to various strange ip addresses can someone please use something like wireshark and analyze what is behing sent from this connection. --88.154.136.53 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent discussion about this on the FlashGet forums: http://bbs.flashget.com/viewthread.php?tid=8723&pid=30526&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid30526 Cdean 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"FlashGet 1.7.x are better than newer versions..."
On 8 December 2007 200.120.100.48 added the comment "FlashGet 1.7.x are better than newer versions 1.8.x or 1.9.x as they have a lot of bugs and the downloads probably stop at 99%." Aside from being ungrammatical, I think the comment is untrue. I downloaded and used the latest version of FlashGet a week or so ago with no problems. So I'm going to revert (remove) 200.120.100.48's insertion.

200.120.100.48, if you disagree with this action, please explain here. NCdave (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This section appears to be endorsing the product as if affiliated to the company: "Take a note, FlashGets "adware" and "spyware" is both harmless and safe to use. AdWare frame could be easily disable in the View options of the program (view-(uncheck) Enable Recommend page)"

Is ths true? Is it still appropriate for this section to be in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.173.178 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs: multiple downloads
I run a web server and have had repeated incidents whereby FlashGet-using clients have accidentally downloaded the same file multiple times: today one chap downloaded the same file 5,089 times (transferring 1.7TB before I noticed). I have a hard time believing I'm the only afflicted by this, and thus am wondering if there is other discussions/validation of potentially bugginess on the part of FlashGet that should be added to the article. 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachdms (talk • contribs)

 * You forgot to mention whether your web server and its content are really “cache-friendly”. If your server does not supply “Last-Modified” HTTP header, or if it supplies inadequate “Expires” header, no wonder that a client will re-download the same file again and again each time it checks for file modification. The same is especially true for script-served files, when document is given away by a server-side applet rather than by standard web server mechanism: applets often forget to provide “Last-Modified”, “ETag” and “Expires” headers.

 * Moreover, your server can implement other “anti-proxy / anti-cache” techniques without your implicit knowledge of it. For example, your web server (or script applet) can dishonor “ranged” downloads, when client request only a part of file (maybe for downloading in parallel threads), and your server always send the whole file, until one client thread manages to get it all in a single try. Again, this is especially true for self-made script applets which are often incompatible with HTTP protocol standards. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Versioning
While article states that the most recent stable version is 2.3, the official site itself is very unclear about it. So it looks like if you want to get the latest 2.x version, you have to, at first, know of its existence, and, at second, to scroll through the mentioned forum topic, which already counts 32 pages of 10 messages each. I took a glance on some pages from the start and the end of this topic and was unsuccessful with finding any useful information, except massive unmoderated spam messages and off-topic discussions. Moreover, no official posting proves the existence of version 2.3 or alike.
 * Quick “Download” link on the title page offers the last “pre-2.x” version (1.9.6).
 * “Downloads” page leads to either the last “pre-2.x” or the last “classic” version (1.7.3).
 * Only a side-banner on the title page advertises 2.0 (sic!), and the links to files are provided inside forum topic.

But when I visited chinese version of official site, it had a big “Quick download” link for 3.0 and a side-banner for 2.4. Well, I remember some postings in the before-mentioned topic where users complained about being unable to “translate chinese FlashGet” and asked about where to get localization pack.

Maybe this is it: FlashGet is currently developed in Chinese primarily, and there are no official localized releases newer than 2.0. I think, this needs thorough clarification in the article by people who are familiar with the subject. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * By the way, the article “Comparison of download managers” is much more clear on this than the “main” FlashGet article. But it would still be nice if someone explained the official position on releasing localized version. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The previous statement is no longer true: the article “Comparison of download managers” has also been wiped out of details about existence of separate version branches, and now lists 1.9.6 as the only available latest stable release. 213.234.235.82 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FlashGet Support
If destroy the image of company or of product what is protected of copyright is illegal, what is being written by you, I changed only the fake product image and if you have any complaints about the product write your opinion in "Discussion", but do not change in "Article".Stuff what says here is illegal and we will take legal action against you unless you stop to change the "Article". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flore bv ro (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm unsure what you're referring to. The images in the article, have fair use rationales. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * For those that want to know the real problems of the program, solutions and updated information about the program, enter into the official website FlashGet http://www.flashget.com/index_en.htm, in international forum http://bbs.flashget.com/en/index.php , or the Chinese forum http://bbs.flashget.com/index.php . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.224 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Flashget on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/flashget.manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.83.230 (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Updated information?
If you do not allow others to update information about this program, why do not do it you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.201 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing that would prevent others from editing the article. DMacks (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the poster is referring to this removal of content which I reverted. The poster's IP is almost identical to, who registered the account last year for the express purpose of removing content in this article about malware concerns. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 * This encyclopedia is a fake encyclopedia, almost nothing is truth here, and the information here is too old to be considered credible and is without arguments, to demonstrate what you say, with recent information. It seem that is made it by kids, sure, no one believes anything that is written here. Read the article and you, and you give me the reason, is made it with negligence and none encyclopedic. Almost all the information about the program is no longer true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.224 (talk • contribs)

 * If you have new information that is supported by reliable sources, you are free to add it to the article. However, you cannot simply remove sourced content you disagree with, or add unsourced content. And if you have any personal affiliation with this product, you are required to disclose it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I will not complicate my life with stupid things for free, is not my job, I come here just to see the details about this program, but maybe I'll see in other pages or forums, where is better detailed and renewed this information. My God, we are in 2011, and here the latest update, about the program, in the article, it was in 2010, in these 1 year have changed many things in the world and in the program, I tell you this, in case if you did not know. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.224 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Hey Guys, calm down a bit :) 95.16.82.224, you are free to contribute in any manner you like to this project. However, if you would like to remove content that has a source somewhere else, you need at least to provide some sort of proof that what you changed is true. Else, everyone could come here and change articles just like they want it.
 * Just imagine for a moment I was an Al Quaida terrorist. Now there are lots of sources in the Al Quaida article stating it is a terrorist organization. If I were then allowed to change the article about that organizaion to tell that it is a worldwide free organization to protect human rights and to spread peace around the world, without having to source this, it wouldn't be very credible, right? And it is the same thing you do: Removing information that has a proof and replacing it with contradictory - and unproofed - information.
 * So if you would like for your content to stay, you will need to provide a (credible) source for that information.
 * mfg, OldDeath - 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You want source, use google, is very easy. If you read, you see that here, in this encyclopedia, is only lie! Source about the latest version international flashget: http://flashget.softonic.com/, http://flashget.uptodown.com/ , http://www.filehippo.com/es/download_flashget/ , http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Download-Managers/FlashGet.shtml , http://gratis.portalprogramas.com/FlashGet.html , http://bbs.flashget.com/en/ , and many more ... So this encyclopedia sucks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.118 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, see Gyrobo's comment above. If you have information you would like to see in this article and you have a source that supports it, it can be added. But we're not here to do research at your command, we're all here to help each other, adding content as we find the time and interest. You obviously have interest in this article's topic and its content and claim to know something about it, so here's an opportunity for you spend 2 minutes of your time and help every other reader with a similar interest in seeing current, verifiable information about this topic. It's free because we all contribute what we know--there is no hidden endless source of "someone else with time and sourced information" to do it. I also note you haven't even ever explained what specific statements you want to see in this article. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is FlashGet a BitTorrent free rider?
It seems that FlashGet downloads through the BitTorrent protocol but does not upload. If this is indeed so, FlashGet should be shunned, and the article should clearly point out this anti-social behavior. Can anybody please confirm or refute this? Hgmichna (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:FlashGet


text: User talk:81.130.146.16

title: User talk:81.130.146.16


text:
Charles IV of Anjou

Charles IV, Duke of Anjou, also Charles of Maine, Count of Le Maine and Guise (1446 – 10 December 1481), was the son of the Angevin prince Charles of Maine, Count of Maine and Isabelle of Luxembourg-Saint-Pol.

He succeeded his father as Count of Maine, Guise, Mortain and Gien in 1472. He succeeded his uncle René I of Naples in 1480 as fourth Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, according to the will of René, who had no surviving son. René's surviving daughter Yolande received Bar and was already Duchess of Lorraine.

He also used the title of Duke of Calabria, in token of the claims to Naples he inherited from René.

In 1474 he married Joan of Lorraine (1458 – 25 January 1480), daughter of Frederick II of Vaudémont, but they had no children. He died on 10 December 1481.

He willed his inheritance to his cousin Louis XI of France, whose heirs thus obtained a claim to the affairs of Italy, pursued in the next decades.

title: Charles IV of Anjou


text:
Richard Vincent, Baron Vincent of Coleshill

Field Marshal Richard Frederick Vincent, Baron Vincent of Coleshill, (23 August 1931 – 8 September 2018) was a British Army officer. After serving with British Army of the Rhine he served with the Commonwealth Brigade in Malaysia during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. He commanded the 12th Light Air Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, for which he was appointed a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, and later commanded the 19th Airportable Brigade. Although he never served as one of the individual service heads, he went on to be Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in the late 1980s and then Chief of the Defence Staff in the aftermath of the Gulf War. He subsequently became Chair of the Military Committee of NATO in the mid-1990s.

Military career
Vincent was born in Uxbridge, the son of Frederick Vincent and Francis Elizabeth Vincent (née Coleshill). He was educated at Aldenham School in Hertfordshire. Vincent joined the British Army, initially in the ranks. Still, after attending Mons Officer Cadet School, he was commissioned as a National Service officer with the rank of second lieutenant in the Royal Artillery on 7 July 1951. He served with the British Army of the Rhine for the first few years, securing a short service commission in the Regular Army on 16 February 1953. Promoted to lieutenant on 13 March 1953 and to captain on 23 August 1958, he became a gunnery staff officer in 1959. He was seconded to the Radar Research Establishment in Malvern in 1960 and returned to the British Army of the Rhine as a troop commander in 1962. He attended the technical staff course at the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham in 1963. He attended Staff College, Camberley in 1965, following which he was promoted to major on 23 August 1965 and deployed with the Commonwealth Brigade to Malaysia during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.

Vincent was appointed to a staff officer role at Department of the Master-General of the Ordnance at the Ministry of Defence in 1968 after which he became commanding officer of the 12th Light Air Defence Regiment on 27 February 1970 with promotion to lieutenant colonel on 30 June 1970. He commanded the Regiment in Germany and in Northern Ireland during the Troubles for which he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order. He returned to Camberley as an instructor there in August 1972 and then attended the Administrative Staff College at Henley late in 1973.

Vincent obviously found his niche in the academic area of military life, as he became Military Director of Studies at the Royal Military College of Science in January 1974. Promoted to colonel on 30 June 1974 and to brigadier on 30 June 1975, he became commander of 19th Airportable Brigade in December 1975 and then attended the Royal College of Defence Studies in Belgrave Square, London in 1978. He became Deputy Military Secretary at the Ministry of Defence in January 1979 and following promotion to major general on 1 April 1980, he became Commandant of the Royal Military College of Science in July 1980. He was appointed promoted to lieutenant general on appointment as Master-General of the Ordnance at the Ministry of Defence on 1 September 1983. He was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in the 1984 New Year Honours. Promoted to full general on 3 November 1986, he went on to be Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in October 1987. He was advanced to Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in the 1990 New Year Honours.

Vincent was promoted to field marshal and became Chief of the Defence Staff on 2 April 1991 in the aftermath of the Gulf War. His final appointment was as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee in October 1993, before retiring from the British Army in 1996. He was also Colonel Commandant of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) from 1981 until 1987, Colonel Commandant of the Royal Artillery from 1983 until 2000, Colonel Commandant of the Royal Horse Artillery from 1996 until his death in 2018 and Honorary Colonel of 100th (Yeomanry) Regiment Royal Artillery from 1982 until 1991.

Later career
In retirement Vincent became Chairman of Hunting Defence Limited and a Non-Executive Director of Vickers Defence Systems Limited. He was ennobled in the 1996 Birthday Honours, being created life peer on 3 September 1996 with the title Baron Vincent of Coleshill, of Shrivenham in the County of Oxfordshire, and he held the ceremonial role of Master Gunner, St. James's Park from 1996 until 2000. He retired from the House of Lords on 9 March 2016.

Vincent was Chancellor of Cranfield University, with which the Defence College of Management and Technology had an academic partnership, from 1998 to 2010. His interests included looking after his seven grandchildren. He died on 8 September 2018.

Personal life
In 1955 he married Jean Paterson Stewart (d.2019) : they went on to have two sons (one of whom died young) and a daughter.


text:
User:Denis Diderot

Denis Diderot

title: User:Denis Diderot


text:
The Feelers

The Feelers are a New Zealand pop rock band formed in the early 1990s in Christchurch by James Reid (singer/guitarist) and Hamish Gee (drums/guitar).

History
The Feelers were signed by Warner Music and released their first album, Supersystem. The album went to number 1 in New Zealand in September 1998, and became the second biggest selling album in the country that year. An instrumental version of single "Pressure Man" featured in 1999 American film Drop Dead Gorgeous during Kirsten Dunst's tap-dancing act. At the 1999 New Zealand Music Awards Supersystem won Album of the Year, Song Writer of the Year (James Reid), Band of the Year, and Producer of the Year (The Feelers and Malcolm Welsford). The band was also awarded the most played song on New Zealand Radio two years running, with "Supersystem" 1998 and "Venus" the following year.

After extensive touring the band started work on their next album, recording demos with Des Broadbery (U2) before starting production with British producer Gil Norton.(The Pixies, Foo Fighters) Released in 2001, Communicate debuted at Number 1.

The band's 2003 album Playground Battle was seen by the band as a new direction. Hitting the number 1 spot again, the album earned The Feelers their third award for the APRA most played song on New Zealand Radio, for "Stand Up".

The band wrote the song "Venus", which, in 1999, won an Apra Silver Scroll award for Most Performed Work.

After further touring around Australasia, USA and Europe, the band started on their fourth album, One World. Released on 13 November 2006, the self-produced album debuted at number one on the New Zealand Album Charts, and also went Platinum in its first week of release, their fourth album to hit the number 1 slot.

In July 2008, The Feelers played a sellout show at the Octagon in Dunedin before an All Blacks vs South Africa test match at Carisbrook. The band performed two new songs, "Beautiful Feeling" and "Narrow Lanes". That October The Feelers embarked on a national "Heartland" Tour, playing acoustic shows in 18 small towns away from the cities, as a way of saying thanks to those who had supported it over its first ten years.

The Feelers released a greatest hits album entitled The Feelers: The Best: '98–'08 in November 2008, which contained 18 songs including two brand new tracks; "Beautiful Feeling" and "Whoever Said". In October 2009 the album earned The Feelers a Tui in the Vodafone New Zealand Music Awards for the highest selling album.

In May 2009 The Feelers members announced that a new album was in production. In September they released details of a competition with MasterCard, where two winners would fly to the Cook Islands, and sing and appear in the video of their single "Blue Skies". In an interview with radio station The Rock FM from Rarotonga that October, The Feelers mentioned that the new album would not be released for several months, but the album did not appear. After extended delays, a new album was finally announced for release in August 2011.

In November 2009, the Feelers announced an annual summer tour, adding an as yet unreleased song to the live gigs, "Open Up The Ground".

In March 2010, the band released a cover version of Jesus Jones hit, "Right Here, Right Now", as the anthem to the 2011 Rugby World Cup advertising campaign. The New Zealand Herald wrote that the announcement had been "widely panned by New Zealanders posting on the social networking site Twitter", though the newspaper added that some had expressed relief that The Feelers had been chosen, over other Kiwi bands.

In 2011, the band released the album Hope Nature Forgives. Their song "Stand Up" featured as the campaign song for the New Zealand National Party during the 2011 New Zealand election.

James Reid's brother is singer-songwriter Donald Reid. Matt Thomas' brother is Gareth Thomas, keyboardist in New Zealand band Goodshirt.

Solo careers
In November 2013, Reid released his first solo album, Saint.

Members
From its formation in the early 1990s until 2008, The Feelers consisted of the same members. In 2008 bassist Matt Thomas departed, replaced by Matt Short and shortly after, long time friend of the band Clint Harris from Opshop joined the band. Guitarist Andy Lynch, who had played guitar for The Feelers on some previous tours, was added permanently to the line-up in 2006.

Current

 * James Reid – vocals, guitar (1992–present)
 * Hamish Gee – drums, guitar (1992–present)
 * Andy Lynch – guitar (2008–present)
 * Clinton Harris – bass (2011–present)

Previous

 * Matt Thomas – bass (1993–2008)
 * Tim Skedden – Guitar (1993–2007)
 * Matt Short – bass (2008–2011)

The Feelers

 * Supersystem (1998)
 * Communicate (2001)
 * Playground Battle (2003)
 * One World (2006)
 * Hope Nature Forgives (2011)
 *  larger than life - reimagined (2023)

James Reid

 * Saint (2013)

title: The Feelers


text:
Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people

The history of Wikipedia is more than the story of the development of its external face. There is also the story of the development of its processes and the people who contributed to that development. This is the part of the history that is likely to be of interest only to editors. This is still an incomplete history, and missing topics are continually added.

Featured articles

 * Originally created in 2001, and moved from Brilliant prose to the current title in March 2004.
 * Originally, anybody could add an article to the list; there was no review process at all.
 * Raul654 was ratified as the Featured Article Director in a poll ending 12 August 2004. Sixteen users voted to ratify Raul654 into the position he was already occupying, four voted for a community wide open election and four voted to have an election only if Raul654 didn't want the job.

Featured article candidates was created as "Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates" by Eloquence on 24 June 2003 as a place to vote for or against proposed new featured articles. Updated every few days; articles now stay for 5 days or more (previously a week) and now use transcluded subpages

Peer review was created by Wapcaplet on 17 July 2003 as a central place to list articles for comments from the community. It now uses transcluded subpages.

In June 2003, Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose was created as the first article removal system for the "brilliant prose" page. On 25 March 2004, Featured article removal candidates was split from the main FAC page by Timwi. On 12 June 2006, Raul654 merged it with Featured article review, which was created by TUF-KAT on 8 November 2005.

Stubs

 * Questions to answer: How did the term evolve, how it came to be split in topic stubs, when was the first substub discovered... Also, founding of WP:SFD.

According to Manning, "the term 'stub' in the Wikipedia context was created by Larry Sanger, and existed since day one of the 'pedia." Manning states that he began to collect a personal list of stubs in September 2001 and subsequently moved them to Wikipedia utilities:Find and fix a stub, later moved to Find or fix a stub. The oldest surviving version of that page is from 21 November 2001. Stub was created in October 2002 as a redirect to that page. In November 2002, Tarquin added a stub notice to the Boilerplate text. It was eventually realized that editors were not consistently updating the "Find or fix a stub" page and in August 2003, Angela proposed that it be discontinued. Rather than making everyone update that page, she proposed that it be replaced by a list of links linked to Find or fix a stub. This received support from MyRedDice, who noted that a similar system had already been implemented at NPOV dispute.

Here is an example of a stub tagging in November 2003 by Mattworld. On 6 December 2003, Mattworld created a personal sandbox with the text: ''This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by fixing it.'' Three days later, Mattworld used this text to create msg:Stub (since moved to Template:Stub). The earliest discussion shows that it was widely adopted. However, it appears that it was at first substituted, not transcluded. (It is unclear when transcluding became the norm.) In March 2004, Ausir stated that he had created Template:Tolkienstub (since moved to Template:Tolkien-stub), what appears to be first stub for a sub-topic, and suggested creating more such sub-topic stubs, though this was not done in any systematic way.

On 17 June 2004, Ssd created Category:Stub. He took the lead, with help from Caliper, in lobbying to add the category to the template. There were technical difficulties - the database timing out before completing adding the category to all 15,000 stubs in existence at this time. It was not until after the technical difficulties were overcome that Sverdrup noted that it should probably be at Category:Stubs. (A category transition was finally made in December 2005.) In July 2004, Krik noting the creation of poke-stub and suggesting that other stub sub-types be created, following the categories already on the articles. His two suggestions were "lang-stub for stubs on languages or auto-stub for automobiles". This was basically a restatement of Ausir's earlier post, but seems to have been misinterpreted to be a proposal to create stub sub-categories. This de facto proposal was met with approval and its implementation largely brought stubs to their current form and structure.

On 20 July 2004, Mike Storm created Substub to tag those articles that were so short that they could not reasonably be called stubs. Critics immediately noted several arguments why the template and category were unnecessary. Despite being deprecated, use of the template continued. The Stub sorting WikiProject (see below) eventually moved all substubs to a stub tag and on 10 May 2005 a deletion discussion was started, resulting in the deletion of the template.

The proliferation of stubs prompted AllyUnion to start WikiProject Stub sorting on 15 November 2004, stating, "This WikiProject aims primarily to sort stubs and stub categories in the Wikipedia." In May 2005, WSS participant Sn0wflake turned Stub from a redirect into a page using project content. Also in May 2005, the "stub types for deletion" process was started by Grm wnr.

Collaboration of the week
Collaboration of the week (COTW) was created as Article of the week (AOTW) on 29 April 2004 following a proposal by Tom- on 26 April 2004. The first COTW (then AOTW) was Situs inversus, which was selected on 6 May 2004 having received 12 votes over 8 days.

The idea was to provide a central location to identify, select and improve non-existent (red link) or very short (stub) articles, mobilising the resources of the whole Wikipedia community to cooperate on a single selected article and create as close as possible to a featured-standard article within one week. Following a vote, the name of this process and the winning pages changed to "Collaboration of the week" after Diplomacy was selected as the last AOTW on 22 August 2004.

COTW has always used approval voting, that it only votes in favour of a nominee with votes against not being allowed. As of 21 April 2005, only one vote has been tied, when Renaissance was tied with Baghdad with 21 votes each. After an extension of 24 hours, Renaissance gained 5 more votes and was selected, although Baghdad was selected the following week. Following a close vote, the present procedure was adopted of extending voting by 24 hours, and then selecting the article by seniority (that is, the article that was nominated first).

Since June 2004, COTW nominees have been pruned (that is, removed and archived in Collaboration of the week/Removed) if they fail to generate sufficient interest and votes. The pruning threshold is set at 5 votes per week, increased from the original 4 votes per week in late 2004 because there was consensus that nominees were taking too long to be selected as COTW, disspiating the goodwill of nominators and voters. Previously, nominees were pruned on an ad hoc basis.

Years before COTW was created, the very first organized collaboration to improve an article was started when a short "article-a-day" e-mail on the Milgram experiment sent on 30 August 2001, when only 145 people had user pages. Thus this article was the very first precursor to the Collaboration of the week (see Wikipedia:Announcements August 2001).

Although COTW has proven to be an effective way to generate interest (with typically tens of votes for the selected articles, and tens or hundreds of edits to the selected articles) and expand articles (with most expanding by hundreds or thousands of percent), it has been rather less successful than hoped in producing featured articles: as of 21 April 2005, 49 articles have been COTW but only five been become featured (Academia, Siege, Space Race, League of Nations and Military history of the Soviet Union).

Past proposals to improve COTW include having two COTWs, having subsidiary COTWs for special interest areas (many of which were created in fits of enthusiasm in late 2004, but few of which have retained enough interest to remain active), listing the COTW on the main page.

On 14 August 2006, COTW was merged with the Article Improvement Drive to form the Article Creation and Improvement Drive, which became the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive in May 2007, which has been semi-active at best since early-mid 2009. The last COTW article appears to have been Lee Smith (baseball).

Countering Systemic Bias
Created by Xed on 22 September 2004 to identify and correct systemic bias in Wikipedia, manifested by the poor state of articles on important topics, such as countries and cultures in the Third World, and based largely on the theory that this neglect was a product of the demographics of the participants.

In September 2004, the foundations of CSB were laid at User:Xed/CROSSBOW (now located at CROSSBOW), an acronym for Committee Regarding Overcoming Serious Systemic Bias Of Wikipedia. The page was the immediate result of a discussion on the Village Pump. Much initial work was done by User:Xed, User:Jmabel, User:Filiocht, and User:Solitude. A draft manifesto was produced by Jmabel at Sept 23, 2004. After a poll it was decided to remould the initiative into a Wikiproject and to name the project Countering Systemic Bias.

Although CSB has been focused mainly on highlighting areas and topics that lack sufficient coverage, early on there was much discussion of the possibility of this project being involved more in recruiting participants from currently underrepresented demographics.

[TBC]

Article improvement drive
Article improvement drive (AID) was created in early 2005 as a counterpart to COTW. COTW limits itself to non-existent or stub articles, and many articles, while wholly deficient in themselves, were rejected as COTW nominees for not meeting the relatively strict criteria. Non-stub articles in need of collaborative improvement

[process - TBC]

Translation into English
Although translation of materials across Wikipedias has happened from early on, some discussions led to the February 11 2004 creation of the current Translation into English (WP:TIE) page, which was created and continues to be informally managed by User:Jmabel; the related Translators available was spun out in September 2004 by HappyDog. The page allows a systematic way for Wikipedians to request, coordinate, and announce translations of articles (or portions of articles) from other Wikipedias to the English Wikipedia.

At about the same time as WP:TIE was created, we also reworked Pages needing translation into English, a place to coordinate work on material in foreign languages that is added to the English-language Wikipedia. This material is usually added anonymously; it can come in the form of new articles or additions to existing articles; and it contains a disproportionate number of copyright violations.

Deletion
Articles for deletion (AFD), originally started as Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted, went through many changes before reaching its present form of 3-level-templates.
 * discussion period changed from 5 days to 7 as of May 02, 2009 WT:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_52.

The GRider case.

WP:PROD
 * proposed January 27, 2006
 * Became policy April 4, 2006
 * Due to a Toolserver breakdown, PROD was suspended from 12 April to 13 April 2006, until workarounds were instituted.suspension notice, restoration notice
 * delay period changed from 5 days to 7 as of May 02, 2009 discussion.
 * "Sticky PROD" for Biographies of living people was introduced on April 3, 2010 special:Permalink/353718006, for articles created after March 18, 2010. The policy was proposed on January 20, 2010.

WP:CSD evolution

VFD to AFD

VFU to DRV

creation of MFD

current process is outlined at Deletion process

Administrators
An anon on 2 April 2002 notes on the historical page Wikipedia talk:Blocked IPs that Brion VIBBER, Lee Daniel Crocker, Tim Shell, Larry Sanger, Koyaanis Qatsi appear to be the de facto editorial/censor board. In the following exchange the anon noted ''Presumably some political process for deciding this must evolve... "electing sherrifs" or whatever...''

Info from User:NoSeptember/crat stats:
 * In the early days (2001 through early 2003) Jimbo approved sysop promotions. Requests were either emailed to Jimbo or done on the mailing list, a fairly ad hoc process during this period. (the actual flagging was done by a developer, this could be Jimbo, Eloquence, Ed Poor or others)
 * From March 2003 through mid-June 2003 promotions became more numerous and routine and were done through the mailing list (a request and few thumbs up were sufficient to get promoted by a developer). Ed Poor and Eloquence did most of these. Only the contentious cases with an objection to promotion required a final OK by Jimbo.
 * In mid-June 2003 the process was moved from the mailing list to WP:RFA and Eloquence and Ed Poor continued to do the flagging for a few months. Then the job of flagging new sysops was assumed by Tim Starling almost exclusively until the advent of the bureaucrat system.
 * In mid-February 2004, the new bureaucrats system went live and from that point until now it has continued. As can be seen in the chart above, Angela was the most active in the early days of bureaucrats, and then Cecropia became the most active until he resigned in 2006. Throughout the period many bureaucrats have participated in the promotion process, some more actively than others.

The records of early promotions from the mailing list can be harder to find. Links to the mailing list emails about promotions through mid-June 2003 can be found at NoSeptember/RfA chronological.
 * User talk:NoSeptember/Early admins (20 Sept 2002)
 * WikiProject on Adminship/Role of admins

Bad image list

 * Goatse.cx
 * The Autofellatio debacle

Notability
See Notability/Historical

Projects

 * Esperanza

Notable contributors
This section identifies editors who are prominent for something other than number of edits.
 * User:Jimbo Wales – one of the founders of Wikipedia.
 * User:Larry Sanger – the other founder of Wikipedia, an early employee of Jimbo Wales who helped shape the early Wikipedia. Since leaving the project, he has been visible chiefly for criticizing what he sees as its failings.
 * User:BenKovitz – played a role in Wikipedia's early history.
 * User:Magnus Manske – author of the precursor of the current software that runs Wikipedia (a PHP script named "phase II").
 * User:Lee Daniel Crocker – author of the initial version of the current software that runs Wikipedia – MediaWiki.
 * User:Brooke Vibber – first employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and its original CTO.
 * User:Angela – Angela Beesley was one of the first two user-elected members of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia.
 * User:Essjay – claimed to be a university professor but was not – see Essjay controversy.
 * User:Raul654 – the Featured Article Director (see above). He is variously referred to as 'Raul' and 'Mark' (his real name).
 * User:Ta bu shi da yu – created the famous exploding whale unusual article, the Wikipedian Administrators' noticeboard, and the "citation needed" template, and converted the Peer review page to use transclusions.
 * User:Ed Poor – who, among other things, deleted Articles for Deletion.
 * User:Betacommand – created several major bots and scripts.
 * User:Qworty – hid his true identity as author Robert Clark Young and was permanently banned for tampering with articles on rival authors.

Other stories

 * The user whose only contribution to Wikipedia was to use his/her webpage to exchange flirtation with other Wikipedians.
 * The user who posted sexually-explicit pictures of (supposedly) herself sparking a lengthy debate.
 * An editor left a note that she was going to commit suicide, which prompted a flurry of concern on EN-wikipedia back in 2003.
 * In what some saw as a sign that Wikipedia had grown to a state where few could keep track of all of the goings-on, Michael Snow created The Signpost, a community newspaper, in January 2005. Pages that were previously used for this purpose included Goings-on, Announcements, and the village pump. The Wikipedia mailing lists were, and still are, used to make important announcements about Wikipedia.

Yearly timelines

 * 2001
 * 2002
 * 2003
 * 2004
 * 2005
 * 2006
 * 2007
 * 2008
 * 2009
 * 2010

 * Press coverage 2001
 * Press coverage 2002
 * Press coverage 2003
 * Press coverage 2004
 * Press coverage 2005
 * Press coverage 2006
 * Press coverage 2007
 * Press coverage 2008
 * Press coverage 2009
 * Press coverage 2010


text:
Wikipedia talk:History of Wikipedian processes and people

Initial credits
This article was started in response to suggestions made on Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost between April 19 and April 21 2005 by llywrch, cesarb, Sam Spade, and ALoan. --Theo (Talk) 11:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

 * Maybe History of Wikipedia should have more of this sort of information?
 * Btw, the ==notable contributors== section will be a nightmare to get right. Pcb21| Pete 11:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that this article will go into greater detail than is appropriate to History of Wikipedia. Getting ==notable contributors== right seems like a challenge to which the wiki process is ideally suited; it does need to say why each entry is notable, however. --Theo  (Talk) 13:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The article on meta is well, just an article on meta, so there is no reason why this sort of detail is inappropriate. Maybe this page should mention that this sort of page used to go meta, but now tends to end up on en: :-). Pcb21| Pete 14:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I see this article being specific to EN-WP, whereas Meta is about the broader picture and just happens to be wriiten in English. I would welcome opinions from other editors more experienced than I. --Theo  (Talk) 14:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Re notable contributors, how do you envisage the list comparing (in size and overlap) to the list of wikipedians by number of edits (~1100 names)?. Pcb21| Pete 14:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I see this section being mainly about editors who are notable for something other than making many edits or being around a long time. The section title is probably too broad.  "Notable gnomes" is an appealling oxymoron—and also too narrow. I imagine it to contain 50-100 names and I expect it to spin off into its own article. --Theo  (Talk) 14:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the list until someone can go in and give descriptions about why those users are especially notable in a way not reflected by List of Wikipedians by number of edits. -   BanyanTree 14:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

should this page exist?
Ok can anyone tell me how this page fits within policy?Geni 15:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you can tell us what policy you think prevents it? Pcb21| Pete 15:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Project namespace defines the wikipedia namespace as "a namespace that provides information about Wikipedia." wikipedia is defined as "a Web-based, free-content encyclopedia". Other than that I think in time there are pretty good odds the desruption rule may become an issue Geni 21:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting that meta was invented for pages like this. Pcb21| Pete 21:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * ones that are praticaly garentted to cause trouble and disstact from the aim of creating an enclyopedia?Geni 21:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow that's a lot of typos :) And yes lots of pages on meta have caused controversy, and if you knew more of the history of Wikipedia, you'd know that :). Pcb21| Pete 22:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * err no I need to know about the last 3 weeks on wikipedia to know thatGeni 22:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that this article is tantamount to a history of the culture of Wikipedia. Such a history is "information about Wikipedia" just as an article about Henry Ford and the production line is information about the motor car.

A super-trivial bit of trivia
Ordinarily I would be far too modest (yeah right :-) to mention this, but the parallels with the mailing list debate "who thought of Wikipedia", make me think I can get away with it. Tu ba su is currently listed as the creator of the exploding whales theme... the original content was actually in Sperm Whale and written by me way back in the day. Tu ba of course had the creative brilliance to expand that little nugget into a comprehensive survey of whale explosions. Pcb21| Pete 20:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * ! Create a new section about the history of that famous article and tell the whole history of how it was created. It is probably one of the most influential articles on Wikipedia, and deserves its own section. --cesarb 21:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stub History
The term "stub" in the Wikipedia context was created by Larry Sanger, and existed since day one of the 'pedia. When I arrived in Sept 2001 I began to collect stubs in my private notes. Bear in mind that we had no categories, namespaces, or any other useful organisational tools, so in November 2001 I began a period of major organisational development.

During this time (Nov 2001) I transferred my collection of stubs to Find or Fix a Stub. I also created Wikipedia Utilities which was the first collection of a number of editor resources (mainly created by Larry Sanger).

FWIW, my two other major contributions were Page Titles to be Deleted (prior to that, getting a page deleted involved emailing Tim Shell or Jimbo himself, as the concept of administrator didn't exist) and the Wikiproject.

A sidenote - the page history logs at Nostalgia are not entirely reliable - Ive just noticed that I am not recorded as the creator of Page Titles to be deleted (and conversely I am given credit for the creation of other pages where I certainly don't deserve it). See my userpage for a discussion of this if you're interested. Manning 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals
Radiant, WP:DENY is not policy, and some of these vandals did have an impact on Wikipedia's history and culture. To make them a "secret" history that only the "in crowd" is allowed to know about is assigning them importance they don't deserve. Treat them with contempt, not reverence. --Random832(tc) 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Change of focus, or suggestion for a related article?
I was pointed to this talk page from the Drawing Board, where I suggested a project-specific article giving an overview on the history behind all policies and guidelines that make Wikipedia work as it does. This current page seems to be cherry-picking notable (to the "in-crowd") processes to describe, but is 'lacking', in that I (as an outsider) am not gaining any understanding of the growth over time of the way wikipedia works, nor of why most "basic" policies were put in place, nor of how existing policies might have shaped newer ones. I don't know if this current article could be expanded / have a change in focus to be that article that I'd like to see, or if that information is distinct enough that it should be its own article. I'm hoping that people interested in this page would have an opinion, and ideally the knowledge to write such an article (as, being a complete outsider, I obviously don't have that knowledge myself). It's also conceivable that an article with such a focus would already exist, in which case I'd be very grateful for a pointer, as I haven't been able to find one. —71.57.109.108 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that anyone besides me is watching this page, but I'll take a stab. The "outsider" history of Wikipedia is in the main namespace at History of Wikipedia. The "in-crowd" bias you note here is intentional as, this being in the project namespace, there are some things that are fascinating to Wikipedians that may seem boring to others.  That said, I'm not sure anyone could give you "an overview on the history behind all policies and guidelines", given the radically decentralized nature of the project and the turnover of editors.  Such an overview would be a full time research project and need to be book-length to give an understanding of the trends, personal drama and personalities at work.
 * This is definitely a work in progress. (The only bit that I feel is moderately complete is the section on stubs that I worked on, tooting my own horn.) I think simply adding a section with a list of questions you want answered would be well in line with this page.  Note that you may want to sharpen your questions to get a response, e.g. "How did the Five Pillars become the Five Pillars?" might prompt a response, but there are only a handful of wiki-greyhairs who would be able to address general questions spanning multiple policies in the formative years.  Another related page that is great for seeing how much policy formulation and modification comes from some really nasty arguments is Historic debates. Cheers, BanyanTree 05:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That historic debates page is awesome. Meanwhile I guess I'll need to go do some research to figure out the entire structure of pillars, policies and guidelines to then be able to ask those specific questions. (If, knowing that structure already, you feel you could take a first stab at setting up the structure for questions that need answering, I'd be cheering for you all the way.) To clarify (perhaps needlessly) where I'm coming from: All I know is that - somehow - wikipedia works (more or less, reportedly) and can deal with controversy and has guidelines for solving whatever issues crop up. It is possible to find what makes it work; there's a (slightly overwhelming) multitude of pages on the various policies and guidelines (and those pillars). But there's no (accessible) history of why they were formed, and thus no chance for others to learn from the choices made (dooming them to repeat history), nor to be able to say "okay, the reasons behind these policies would apply to our project as well, and so we shall copy them, but the reasons behind these other policies combined with our specific circumstances means that we should use different policies there instead."
 * It scares me that barely five (six?) years into the history of wikipedia, this information is already that obscure that only those "greyhairs" would know about it. I also fear that unless we can get the information dug up now (can you think of any way to somehow get those specific people contacted and interested?), this will lead to major problems for the project a decade or two down the road, when all that's known about most policies will be "it's always been this way", and making changes would thus (?) be nearly impossible.
 * I realize this is all very meta, and I hear you about it probably being a major research project; but hey, so is writing an encyclopedia article. :) —71.57.109.108 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't presume to say that I know the structure. I'm pretty sure the proliferation of policies, guidelines and essays passed beyond mortal ken sometime in late 2005.  An attempt would be interesting, but that would require a sort of structured narrative by a knowledgeable and patient user, precisely the sort of Wikipedians who are in short supply.  Fuzheado's upcoming book on Wikipedia might cover some of this, so you might want to ask him.  For the formative influences on the basic structure of Wikipedia, you could do much worse than The Atlantic piece from last September.  If you're interested in other evidence of what fools we Wikipedians be, check out Lamest edit wars.  This page here has received relatively little interest from editors who would actually know what they are talking about, I think partly because  the sort of user who is still around after five years of aggravation is focused on building the encyclopedia and may view discussing how one discussed how to build the encyclopedia as a bit of a frivolity.  Though I'm half tempted by this discussion to try to create an essay in my user space on this topic... - BanyanTree 08:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, I think at least the first half of User:Raul654/Raul's laws gives a pretty fair overview of observed behavior on the wiki. - BanyanTree 08:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Gastric acid

Untitled
Contradictory statements: "Chemically it is an acid solution with a pH of 1 to 2 in the stomach lumen" and "The pH of gastric acid is 2 to 3 in the human stomach lumen, the acidity being maintained..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.5.142 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Could do with something saying why stomach acid is produced. nbmnbmnbvmnvbmbmbnvmvbmvbnmbmbmbnm

Chlorine atoms
Where does the body get chlorine atoms to make HCl from? From salt (NaCl)? If so, does this mean that while eating too much salt may be bad for your blood pressure, eating too little may make it impossible for you to digest your food? --Angr/comhrá 06:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Eating too high salt quantities will most certainly increase your blood pressure. Eating too little amounts of salt will reduce the amount of salt your kidneys excrete. When gastric acid is neutralized by NaOH from de pancreas NaCl is obviously formed, from which it can be absorbed again. I am not 100% sure whether or not NaCl is the only possible source of chlorine ions, but I am certain it is impossible not to receive it as it is in everything Redtails (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bicarbonate or sodium bicarbonate
The section named neutralisation uses sodium bicarbonate. Both in the text: "In the duodenum, gastric acid is neutralized by sodium bicarbonate.", and in the equation. The rest of this article uses the bicarbonate ion, and the article about the duodenum also uses bicarbonate. I have not been able to find a reference to sodium bicarbonate anywhere else. Since HCl is already split into H+ and Cl-, the equation can be written without the chloride and the sodium ion. I get that introducing the H+ instead of HCl adds complexity (the reader must be familiar with acid solutions) and that the charge probably is maintained closed to neutral by some positive ion. However, the introduction of sodium bicarbonate should have a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haugstve (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

is this article wrong?
Gastric acid refers to the hydrochloric acid predent in gastric juice. gastric acid does not include enzymes etc. as far as i can work out from googling it. Bluemoose 10:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * In fact, parietal cells secrete (besides the intrinsic factor) an acid solution that contains hydrochloric acid and the salts: KCl (15 mEq/L) and sodium chloride (small quantity). It's true that it does not contain enzymes. I'm gonna rephrase it. --Eleassar777 10:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too confusing
Gaak, too much jargon! Somebody translate this article into English, please! --66.159.69.132 15:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gastric acid as disinfectant
The article mentions that many bacteria cannot survive exposure to gastric acid. What about other living contaminants, like fungi and viruses? --71.39.6.137 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Some species are capable of converting the urea present in the stomach to a base to protect themselves against the low pH levels. Most are not capable of surviving below a pH of 4 and ultimately die from protein denaturation. Redtails (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Control of secretion
Review: JFW |  T@lk  09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Acidity in other animals
The article stresses that the stated pH of gastric acid is that measured in humans. Do other animals have gastric acid of a different acidity? Shinobu (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I would support the merge between Gastric acid and Gastric juice. The two articles seem to cover almost identical subject matter. Scientific29 (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

rewrote the lead
We were saying an acid was an acid in the first sentence. Then later that it was an acid. Also not really covering the sections of the article. Also poor communication to laypeople.

Probably a lot more needed in the whole article. It is a mass of definition by blue-link. I have a Ph.D. and have taken biochem (admittedly a long time ago) and found the article did not really describe the subject well.

Also only one source.

TCO (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No HCl, no NaHCO3, no NaCl, etc
It is tricky to describe salts in any solution. Gastric acid does not contain hydrochloric acid. You can think of these solutions in such a way, but its probably technically incorrect. There are ions in these solution, but the idea that the cations "know" their anions is silly, although perhaps harmless. To describe the composition of gastric acid, one should probably quote the solutes: a lot of ions (including pH).--Smokefoot (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 * While the cations don't know what anions are the anions do have an effect. For example bicarbonate ions and hydrogen+ will limiting out acidic a solution will be. Qtplatypus (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Gastric acid → Gastric juice – Gastric acid is one component of gastric juice not an aka. Iztwoz (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 * The components of stomach acid are primarily hydrochloric acid, various digestive enzymes and mucous sugars/proteins. It's my understanding that gastric acid refers to this mixture rather than just the hydrochloric acid, and that would make it an acceptable title. The pageviews for gastric juice also seem a little low (108 over 30 days) even compared to stomach acid (238 over 30 days) to be the primary topic name. Gastric acid has 100s of internal links while stomach acid and gastric juice each have fewer than 50, making me doubt gastric juice is really the most common name in-use as well. ― Synpath 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Syn, have made some edits to the page and shall ask for move request to be removed. The use of gastric juice was added as an uncited aka some time ago. The page Gastric juice was merged to the page several years before the 'aka' was added. It had never been a question of renaming gastric acid but of simply citing it as a component but there is a lot more content on the acid.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Withdraw I should like to withdraw the move proposal.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did some searching and this chapter explicitly defines gastric juices as the stomach fluid mixture and uses gastric acid to refer to the acidic component(s). Perhaps that one can be added. I still think that the terms are probably used interchangeably in the broader population, but I suppose it doesn't matter much. ― Synpath 18:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks but relevant refs were already included in Secretion section. Gastric acid is probably more often referred to as it is involved in conditions such as acid reflux or GERD.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Gastric acid


text: User talk:210.55.81.107

title: User talk:210.55.81.107


text:
Talk:Edinburgh South (Scottish Parliament constituency)

Untitled
I have added "Scottish Parliament constituencies" to the list of categories, thinking it should become a sub-category of "Government of Scotland". Laurel Bush 11:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Edinburgh South (Scottish Parliament constituency). 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/20070921124603/http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/ to http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/

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) 08:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


text: User talk:82.194.213.236

title: User talk:82.194.213.236


text:
Linda (singer)

Svetlana Lvovna Geiman (Светлана Львовна Гейман; born 29 April 1977), known professionally as Linda (Линда), is a Russian singer and songwriter. Her style incorporates trip hop, electronic, and ethnic music. Since January 2012, she has been married to Greek composer Stefanos Korkolis.

title: Linda (singer)


text:
Talk:Exercise physiology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MStearns21. Peer reviewers: Tamrynjade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Exercise Physiology is NOT sports medicine, sports science, or exercise science. Exercise physiology is also much more than endurance exercise. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, resistance training is also exercise. Therefore the claim or emphasis that exercise physiology is ONLY endurance exercise is simply untrue and misleading.

One thing to remember: Exercise Physiology is not sports medicine. Look up the definition of sports medicine and it becomes obvious. ASEP has the best and most complete definition of exercise physiology. Exercise Physiology is not exercise science. Exercise science is a general term that includes multiple fields of study including athletic training, physical therapy, and exercise physiology.

Exercise Physiologists will have to decide if they want to be grouped in with multi-disciplinary organizations or have their own professional organization. Other professions such as athletic training have their own organization, as do physical therapists. They can also choose to be a part of other umbrella organizations such as ACSM if they wish. The same logic should hold true for exercise physiology.

 * Homepage of the ASEP - the professional organization (founded 1997) offering board certification for exercise physiologists in the United States. http://www.asep.org/

 * Homepage of the AAESS - the professional organisation (founded 1991) offering accreditation for Exercise Physiologists in Australia. http://www.aaess.com.au/

 * What is Exercise Physiology? - from The British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (founded 1984). http://www.bases.org.uk/newsite/physiology.asp

 * The Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs reports "no accredited programs" in the area of Exercise Physiology as of 2004-2005. More research in this area is probably needed. http://www.caahep.org/documents/Archives/2004-05%20Annual%20Report.pdf

As the above comment notes, exercise physiology is not the same as sport science, nor is it about organizations and url links to them. Separate pages should be created for them.

I am preparing three more sections to follow to be added to this rewrite:
 * the long term effects of exercise upon the body (muscle development; heart, bone),
 * the physiology effects of the lack of exercise (plasma lipids, BDNF; risk to health)
 * the special issues that apply to exercise in children (metabolic differences; relationship with brain development).

I am slightly dyslexic—I usually elsewhere get my work checked over-- so there may need for some copy editing and rewriting. LittleHow (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to defend the content integrity of this article
Exercise physiology is an important Wikipedia article. Many articles link to it. Many people want to read clear, comprehendible information about the biological processes involved when they engage in exercise. That puts a responsibility upon Wikipedians to make sure that this page is informative and interesting to read as a proper encyclopedia article.

That has not been the case in the past—look back at this page’s history and talk history before 14 December 2008 and it has been edited with a view largely to promote an organization “American Society of Exercise Physiologists” and its practice-orientated definition of “exercise physiology”. None of these edits had provided much useful information suitable for an encyclopedia article.

Encyclopedia content was put on--but now much of it has been removed. The reasons given are inappropriate. For example, “removed sentence including lactic acid because, at physiologic pH, there is no lactic acid”. However, the passage removed summarized directly from recent research by Thomas H. Pedersen in Science. To quote from them (Pedersen TH, Nielsen OB, Lamb GD, Stephenson DG. 2004 Intracellular acidosis enhances the excitability of working muscle. Science. 305(5687):1144-7.): “intracellular acidosis increases the excitability of the T system in depolarized muscle fibers, thus counteracting fatigue at a critical step in ECC. In this model of working muscle, acidic pH reduced Cl– permeability, thereby reducing the size of the Na+ current needed to generate a propagating AP. Thus, down-regulation of T system Cl– permeability by intracellular acidosis is important for preserving a fully operational T system in working muscle.”

There are many ways the content can be improved but this editing is not constructive. If the physiology of resistance training should be added, then it should be added with appropriate references. None of the deletions made have been discussed on this talk page. Grammar can be improved rather than whole sentences removed. Changes can also be made without leaving inappropriate comments upon an editor's talk page. I have reinstated the page before this changes.--LittleHow (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many ways the content can be improved, however, little how removed everything before his updated version. Adding and/or improving the article is in the spirit of Wikipedia. So, it's o.k. for little how to remove entire pages but it is not appropriate for others to add/delete or improve upon the article? What makes little how the ultimate expert in exercise physiology? As you can see from the edits, I did not remove the entire page like little how did. My degree is in exercise physiology and I am currently completing my Ph.D. If I were to go on to neuroscience, physics, etc., erase everything that was written, and re-insert what I believe, would that be right? C'mon little how to be real! As for lactic acid/lactate, many, many scientists still incorrectly use the term lactic acid when at physiologic muscle pH (6.1-7.05)the proportion of the unbound or proton dissociated form (i.e. lactate) is 99.06 to 99.08 meaning there are trivial amounts of lactic acid inside the body. This is basic chemistry...perhaps look this up in a Lehninger text or other biochem books. I made no mention of organizations although ASAP does indeed have the best definition put forth by any organization. I'm not sure if other organizations have a definition of exercise physiology. I did not use their definition but was hoping others would add/edit what was there, not erase the entire page and insert their definition of exercise physiology. The opening sentence/paragraph as it is written by little how is terrible, plain and simple. Now, let's try to work together and improve the page, not hijack it by a non-exercise physiologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realep1 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the last few conversations concerning exercise physiology and what was recently posted by "little how", I do have to agree with "RealEP1". As an exercise physiologist and also completing my Ph.D. in exercise physiology, I am quite puzzled by the fact that someone would go through all the trouble and relay information and proceed with various sections on this site that do not in any way form the basis and foundation of exercise physiology. Specifically, the former definition wrote with a "biology" emphasis, etc is simply incorrect. Also, much of the information in the 'content section' (brain, glucose, fatigue, etc)simply does not flow very smoothly and sounds like it was taken straight from multiple sections of a textbook, or perhaps copied and pasted from somewhere. What is most striking is that much of the content information by "little how" is written by an individual in Neuroscience or Physics. Does this make sense? It does not to me. I am very passionate about exercise physiology and it's core values, and would prefer and appreciate that persons who are not trained and/or uneducated in exercise physiology and it's related content just stay within their intended "scope of practice". - RockSD1

Here is the problem: People who are uneducated and not trained in exercise physiology need to stay away from their content. Only exercise physiologists should strive to increase the standards and professionalism of the field, and not by QUACKS, especially those from Neuroscience or Physics. Do you see other people from other fields change information on Neuroscience? Wouldn't that piss you off? Why do you think (whoever you may be "little how")you have the right to alter information from other areas of study to which you HAVE NO PREVIOUS EXPOSURE OR KNOWLEDGE OF? Did you ever think more than one person is changing the information on this site that understands exercise physiology? - RockSD1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksd1 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Little How,

I thought I might join in the discussion. After several views the last few days, I have noticed a battle of exchanges of information. It is from my understanding that you have a background in Neuroscience or Physics? With that said, and I'm sure that is true from some of the information you have posted. I am curious as to how that qualifies you to add, and especially remove other information that is rather informative and that encompasses more to exercise physiology than your 'introductory' paragraphs. As a person working on their Ph.D. in exercise physiology, I would like to add some things:

1). Why do you feel the need to constantly override other people within their field of study? Shouldn't they be the ones to decide that? You are not an exercise physiologist, so why waste your time.

2). Exercise Physiology is NOT biology and how it is affected by skeletal muscle contraction!! Muscle Contraction is a whole area of study. When you state that, it is obvious that your understanding of exercise physiology and its related components is extremely limited in scope.

3). Nobody is promoting anything. However, the ASAP organization is the only one that has defined what is exercise physiology. The ACSM has never done so. And to my knowledge over the last 10 years, I have never seen any other organization besides ASAP give an overall detailed definition. Definitions such as " exercise physiology are the study of exercise and it's acute and chronic effects". That vague statement displays ignorance and unwillingness to adapt to 21st-century thinking.

4). Since it is obvious that have nothing else to do besides annoy others who are trained in exercise physiology and who have a degree in the subject. I think your time would be better spent doing other tasks that would promote your own self interest- NOT exercise physiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:1bestall|1bestall]] ([[User talk:1bestall|talk]] • contribs) 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was informed by a colleague that there was a heated discussion on this website. I joined this site yesterday in hopes of clarifying and adding information to this page. I have agreements with both sides of the discussion. I believe that exercise physiology organizations can create their page and that only links should be left here. I also believe (if I understand Wikipedia correctly) that others are allowed to edit this page. No one person or organization should be the sole voice for the definition of exercise physiology. I have no problem with most of the information provided by little how and agree that some edits are necessary. I made minor edits yesterday and added and deleted a sentence from the opening paragraph. The deleted sentence referring to Watts could be reinserted in the new section "exercise physiology measurements" or quantification of workload section...or something like that. The biological and evolutionary approach to this article is unique, at least from the way exercise physiology is taught in the U.S. I would like to add a "history of exercise physiology section," "resistance training", and improve upon environmental physiology by inserting more on exercise hypoxia, effects of microgravity, and heat/cold stress. I am insanely busy and will strive to make any edits respectful. I hope to have 'my talk' section up along with some background info on myself. Please feel free to contact me with any constructive criticisms or comments. Thanks. [[User:1bestall|1bestall]] (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First sentence sees a bit off
The first sentence reads: "Exercise physiology is the study of the acute responses and chronic adaptations to a wide range of physical exercise conditions."

Why "acute" and why "chronic"? Does someone have a quote from a good source that defines "Exercise physiology" in that manner?

A more reasonable version might be: "Exercise physiology is the study of the responses and adaptations to a wide range of physical exercise conditions," after all, the vast majority of the time we are concerned with a description of the response of the body to ordinary exercise regimes not the extremes to which atheltes take it.Zedshort (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exercise physiology. 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/20150416185146/http://www.procalcdiet.com/storage/Predictionofenergy.pdf to http://www.procalcdiet.com/storage/Predictionofenergy.pdf
 * Added tag to http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/k51611345m783727/fulltext.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Does exercise burn fat?
The section doesn't mention  "fat burning", even using more technical terms. Yet for years we've been told that "exercise burns fat". Does it, or not? I had hoped this article might offer at least basic information on how body fat is affected by exercise. yoyo (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article from the beginning seemed very well thought out and like a promising article. The lead section of this article gives a good introduction to the article and the different sections in it. The lead is pretty simple and doesn't overcomplicate things or go into too many details.

The content of the article is good but I think it could use some improvement. I think the article contains most of the important information that is needed when discussing this topic. I think too much information was included in the section about education in exercise physiology. It was the second largest section of the article, but I feel like it is not as important as the other sections so it didn't need that much information. I think most of the content is up-to-date, but this may be untrue after looking at the talk page. There really is no conversation about equality or any specific ethnic group in this article.

This article seems mostly neutral or unbiased. A couple of sentences seem to be coming from a biased source, but most of the content was informational and unbiased. The sources are thorough, there were many from many different sources that varied from different countries also. Not all of the information/sources are current, only one of them seems to have been written within the past 10 years, and when it comes to some health topics, these could be information that is out of date. I think there are sources that are more accurate or current compared to some of the ones that were used in this article. I did click on a few of the links and they did work.

The organization of the article was good, the similar things were grouped together one section after another and the flow of the article was good. The article didn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article was fairly easy to read, it might be harder to read for a beginning or someone not in that field because of some of the medical terminology and medical knowledge but it was for the most part good.

There was very few images used in this article and I feel like the ones used weren't necessarily needed or there could have been better images selected. The images were briefly captioned but I feel like better images could've been used and captioned.

The talk page discussion was very interesting to read. There were a lot of comments about how some of the information as not the most current or accurate and some comments of some great things that were added to the article. This article is part of some WikiProjects and was part of Wikipedia Education Foundation Article.

My overall impressions of this article were that it is good but I think it could be more updated to use current information and more current articles. The article was well written and the format was good, I think it could just use some more images that are more related to the topic and I think the article is well-developed.Sleepychicken4938 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Sleepchicken4938

I am happy to see an article on exercise physiology. The second paragraph of the section entitled "Energy expenditure" refers to "≈24 W of mechanical energy". I thought watts were a unit of measurement for power, not energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirca palustris (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Exercise physiology