text:
Talk:Penile plethysmograph

Regarding
Regarding stimuli, there are still plenty of researchers using explicit depictions of sexual activity in their stimuli sets. Do a quick topline on Pubmed for citations. Granted, it is hackwork by a clique at Northwestern University led by J. Michael Bailey, but they are using explicit stimuli nonetheless. Jokestress 14:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the Jokestress would like to expand on her denouncement of the Bailey clique - why is it that she views the research as "hackwork"? 66.241.140.2 20:10, 19 May 2005

 * Bailey and friends are engaged in modern-day phrenology. They have used pseudoscientific methodology and devices to promote their pet theories. Real scientists are looking at the brain, not the groin, for data on sexual differentiation in sexual orientation. The best example was Bailey and friends' 2003 science by press release heralding findings using transsexual women as a control group. The Northwestern press release asserted these subjects had "the brains of men but the genitals of women." Obviously, those who are transsexual do not have typical "brains of men" (whatever that means), and they are poor controls because their brains may have been altered by exogenous hormones. Note that the press release is no longer available in the Northwestern online PR archives. Those interested in a serious discussion of sexual orientation research should look at the work being done via fMRI and other legitimate biometric devices. Jokestress 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not exactly "real scientists" looking at the brain. It's "rich scientists". 65.34.186.143 1 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

 * Since Bailey's "bonerology" work has been taxpayer-funded, and he is involved in a $2.1 million NIH study of homosexuality, I wouldn't exactly call him a "poor scientist," unless we are talking about ethics and methodology. In that instance, I'd say he's one of the poorest scientists working today. Jokestress 2 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Use in Employment Screenings (?)
Does any part of the world use such devices to screen job applicants for jobs that involve working with children? (So when they view a slideshow of attractive women, then attractive men, then attractive underage girls, then attractive underage boys, this PPS graph indicates who they're attracted to)

If yes, what parts of the world and why? --Shultz 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * From one of the sources listed in the entry:

 * "Some of the uses of the device raise constitutional issues. For example, submission to the PPG test as a condition for employment, for enlistment into the armed forces, or for granting custody of children. Some penal institutions have made submission to the PPG a condition of parole, even though the device's usefulness as a predictor of behavior is unproven. The practice has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (1995). Parole Boards have great latitude in establishing conditions for parole. These conditions do not have to meet the same rigorous standards as are required before something allegedly scientific can be admitted as evidence in a trial. Nor do the normal liberties and constitutional protections of citizenship automatically apply to one being paroled."

 * "From a scientific, moral and legal point of view, what should matter is whether a person gives in to perverse desires and commits sex crimes. It is neither immoral nor a crime to get aroused." Jokestress 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced claims on evidence-gathering capabilities
The US section makes some very strong claims on definitiveness of the results, giving no specific sources. I've tagged them with citeneeded's, but unless someone actually goes and finds reliable articles to support them, I'd suggest removing those claims. Strong statements regarding credibility in criminal cases simply cannot go without verifiable sources. mathrick 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The statements are from the Smith citation in the references. I'll pull the quotes sometime soon unless you want to. Jokestress 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This IP editor injected all the unsourced original research. I removed all of it and will source the rest appropriately. Jokestress 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarke Institute editors
I see several SPA editors are busy going through any article containing criticism of Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and removing information that contradicts findings and philosophies of Clarke Institute employees. Throughout 2008, I will add back the information they are trying to suppress, such as the statements about Kurt Freund's use of PPG on military personnel in the former Czechoslovakia as part of government-sponsored programs to identify and "cure" gay males:

"Freund (1957) developed the first device, which measured penile volume changes... to distinguish heterosexual and homosexual males for the Czechoslovakian army." W O'Donohue, E Letourneau. The psychometric properties of the penile tumescence assessment of child molesters. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 1992

"Freund made a large-scale attempt in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s to change the sexual orientation of homosexuals to a heterosexual orientation through the use of behavioral aversive therapy." Brzek A, Hubalek S. Homosexuals in Eastern Europe: Mental Health and Psychotherapy Issues. in Psychopathology and Psychotherapy in Homosexuality, Ed. Michael W. Ross, p. 160.

Jokestress (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Were any reliable sources deleted or just unsourced claims? —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, the Smith and several others you deleted are reliable sources. Jokestress (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you mean? The only Smith I see is an external link to a private lawfirm that was hired to provide an opinion. Are you saying that that is reliable? What are the other references you're thinking of? —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The Smith is a legal document presented in limine which has extensive references to the literature regarding unreliability and inaccuracy of PPG. The Carroll is from a book. There are others you deleted that appear to fall under WP:RS. Jokestress (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure; anything submitted in court can be called a legal document. That doesn't make them any more reliable or true, however; they are still just opinions-for-hire. If you want to cite the actual evidence, I would certainly have no objection. What do you mean by "The Carroll"? I can't find anything I deleted with that name. And what are the others? Isn't the point of this page to discuss them so that we (and anyone else interested) can decide which (if any) are reliable and which (if any) are not? There is not way to discuss what is not getting named. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth. As such, a legal memorandum presented in court regarding the scientific unreliability of PPG is both verifiable and a reliable source. "The Carroll" is Robert Todd Carroll's The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. (Wiley 2003). That book and the companion website dismantle many of the arguments put forth by proponents of PPG. You deleted both sources. I am going to be away for a few days, but perhaps during that time you will heed the requests of numerous editors who suggest that you familiarize yourself with key policies before making extensive (and often erroneous) edits to controversial articles. It's not uncommon for people to edit articles which are of interest to them or in their area of knowledge, but your activity to date is characteristic of an SPA POV warrior whose goals are quite clear to any seasoned editor. You may also want to read WP:COI since I believe it is relevant in your case for CAMH-related articles. Jokestress (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Verify" means to prove the truth. Using primary sources instead of secondary (and teriary) sources is how a scholar gets closer to the truth. Otherwise, one is not learning or teaching, one is merely reiterating other peoples' POVs. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * As other editors have already explained to you, secondary and tertiary sources are often preferred on Wikipedia. Please slow down and take some time to familiarize yourself with how things work here. You will find the editing experience much more pleasant and productive if you do. This ain't academia (thank goodness). It's a collaborative encyclopedia where everyone works together when it's at its best. People who want to pick fights and be POV warriors usually tire of the process quickly, so take a deep breath and learn to work with other editors. You have lots to contribute, but you need to dial it down a bit without losing your enthusiasm. See you in a few days. Jokestress (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree entirely that secondary and other sources can be useful in certain circumstances. That circumstance is not for merely citing someone else's POVs to get around the admonition of expressing one's own. If you look more closely at my record, you will find not only those who think I should change, but also those who apologized to me and those who have thanked me for helping others find a consensus. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Regarding lawyers’ opinions as a source, I have posted the question on WP:Verifiability. The only person to respond so far agreed with me that “a lawyer's memo in court is easily not WP:RELIABLE.” You might want to post your own comment on that page in order to provide your own side of the question. Moreover, one would also seem to have to indicate what the lawyer for the other side said in court order to avoid a violation of WP:NPOV. Phallometry, as you've said yourself here and on tsroadmap (which skepdic links to), is controversial, increasing the need to use the best of sources available. Finally, it is legal decisions made—not arguments presented—that are reliable sources.
 * Regarding Carroll, there is nothing near a consensus that skepdic.com is reliable, according to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#The_Skeptic.27s_Dictionary and WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Skeptic.27s_dictionary. Although there are individual people who say that skepdic is always reliable as a source and some who say it’s never reliable as a source, the bulk of opinions offered that it could be appropriate only in some circumstances, such as if it were noted merely as an opinion in the text, if no primary sources on the topic were available, if the reference was about a skepdic entry on which Carroll was actually an expert (such as philosophy), etc. The link I deleted from the PPG page was neither noted as an opinion nor about philosophy, and there exist many primary resources on the topic, some of which I have added to the PPG page.
 * So, I believe I am on very firm ground in having removed both Smith and Carroll. Additional conversation on this might be taken to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
 * I have no basis or motivation to say that PPG is perfect, and I would have no objection to anyone adding reliable primary sources that say so. Perhaps you might locate some by going to the actual medical literature on which the tertiary opinions were based.
 * Finally, I have not violated COI nor any other policy. If you have any evidence to the contrary, feel free to report it to whomever you see fit. All I can do is to promise to cooperate fully with whoever has the authority to investigate it (which I do promise).

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I was away when this came in. Wikipeidia's verifiability, not truth tenet states that it doesn't matter if Carroll is right or wrong, what matters is that his statements can be verified. In this case, since they appear in a published book, they are verifiable and thus reliable. Jokestress (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Merely being published does not qualify a book as a reliable source. WP:Verifiability indicates that is "books published in university presses; university-level textbooks" that are reliable sources, but that "self-published books" are not.  The Skeptic's Dictionary is neither, making it a questionable source.  The consensus made made in WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9 and WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8 make no distinction between the web version and the printed version and show a lack of consensus for inclusion.  Without such a consensus for inclusion, one cannot meet the Verifiability rule that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (That is, there must a consensus for inclusion, not a lack of consensus for exclusion.)

 * Referring to me as "SPA" is a violation of the recommendations in WP:SPA and the policy in WP:NPA. I have pointed this out to you previously.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Oopsie. I typed in "reply" and hit Enter - must've auto-filled "reply to SPA" from the drop-down. So we are agreed the Carroll book meets WP:V? Jokestress (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * No. In the discussions I have been able to locate and which I have inserted above, the WP consensus was repeatedly that Carroll does not meet WP:RS, which makes assessment of WP:V moot.  If I have missed any WP indication of otherwise, you have not cited yet it.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be a properly referenced reference to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
Outside the Canada section. John Nevard (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * There was; it was removed. I just added it back. There were several external links that discussed Daubert, also removed as "unreliable" by MarionTheLibrarian. Jokestress (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I guess the reliability of that source for claims of fact may be questionable. This might be a good start for further investigation. John Nevard (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * That is correct. Court findings are reliable, arguments made by a lawyer are not.  In court, a lawyer can make any kind of an argument, but those arguments are not reliable sources: Lawyers are, of course, paid specifically to argue for one (and only one) side of a case.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Article organization
I am trying to figure out a way to organize the extensive literature which is either supportive or critical of this device. There appear to be two basic types: Interestingly, the conclusions are oppositional. Also, as it stands, the United States and Canada sections are essentially about legal status only. We could either make two sections as named above, or put all the clinical reliability under the current Uses section, divided by applications. Right now the Uses section consists almost entirely of publications asserting reliability, which certainly needs to be expanded to describe how reliable (in some cases not very), preferably with statistics. If we go this way, maybe the other section could be called Legal status, with subheads for each country (since it certainly has been considered outside North America). Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Clinical reliability
 * 2) Legal reliability

 * Your question would be easier to answer if more precise language were used.
 * Accuracy of diagnostic tests are expressed as sensitivity and specificity.
 * Legal questions are admissibility.
 * The term reliability refers to getting the same result when someone is tested twice.

 * The conclusions I am aware of are actually pretty consistent. I suspect that if one separates properly the specific issues, the patterns will become clearer: PPG results are sufficiently sensitive and specific for clinical purposes, inadmissible for determining guilt, but admissible for the sentencing and subsequent phases of legal proceedings.  There are only very few studies of reliability.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In Daubert, the language regarding admissibility is relevancy and reliability. One of the issues with controversial devices like this is the disconnect between clinical and legal definitions, because reliability in the legal sense has a much broader meaning than merely a reproducible/predictive result. That said, perhaps "Diagnostic accuracy" and "Legal admissibility" are sufficient? Jokestress (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, sounds good to me.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * For now, I have put in "Reliability and validity," which is taken from the DSM citation. I believe that is more encompassing of the clinical issues. We can discuss the merits of that vs. "Diagnostic accuracy." Jokestress (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * For diagnostic purposes, accuracy is a synonym for validity. The term reliability in that context is more complicated and perhaps too complicated for a non-expert.  Specifically, reliability puts a ceiling on the validity statistics of a diagnostic test.  Because there are several studies that jump right to the chase and give the validity stats (that is, the sensitivity and specificity rates) and only very few studies that isolate the reliability of the tests, it might be wise to stick to validity findings which are necessarily bound by the reliability already.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * For whatever reasons, one should take care to separate the literatures on volumetric and circumferencial PPG. Volumetric PPG has been more examined scientifically, but circumferencial PPG has been more examined legally.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

cleanup
It also does not provide the definition of operative trauma.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think the term needs to be defined. A certain familiarity of the common vocabulary in the relevant subject is necessary for understanding any article. If we happen to have an article on operative trauma, a link to it would be helpful. It should not be a goal to embed dictionary definitions of all the technical terms in an article. --71.162.233.193 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I think an explaination of the term in the context of this article is warranted, of course Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have wiktionary for that.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

52%!?
52% accurate is about as accurate as tossing a coin. How can that be claimed to be 'proven'?

Disclosure
I have added an external link to the main page: http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/Phallometry_Lecture.html. Because the author of that document is a colleague of mine, I thought it prudent to indicate it here.— James Cantor (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliability/validity section
The following recent additions by User:Psychofilia are original research without any reliable sources. I have moved them here for discussion.

 * There are multiple types of psychometric validity (e.g., discriminant, predictive, diagnostic, concurrent) in the study of psychosexual instruments, including the PPG. Many phallometric studies report findings regarding one example of discriminant validity, which entails comparing the erectile responses of a group of known sex offenders to those of a control group composed of nonsexual offenders or of nonoffenders.  Research demonstrates that the capacity of the PPG to distinguish, in a predictable manner, between certain types of sex offenders (e.g., extrafamilial child molesters) and controls (e.g., non-molesters) is good.

 * However, some experts would argue that this particular example of discriminant validity constitutes a fairly weak test of the overall validity of PPG, at least in applied settings, and does not say anything about the instrument’s diagnostic validity (which may also be considered a more refined example of discriminant validity). In many North American sexological clinics, a salient assessment question in child sexual abuse cases is, "Does this client have a sexual interest in, or sexual preference for, prepubescent children?"  This question follows from the generally accepted finding that a sizeable portion of men convicted of molesting a child is not pedophilic.  Moreover, if a new client's self report is not known to be credible, a phallometric assessment is one of a very few alternatives to a standard clinical/forensic interview for the detection of deviant erotic interests.  Of course, the true meaning of such an assessment is highly contingent on the ability of PPG to distinguish pedophilic from nonpedophilic child molesters, or its diagnostic validity (a much stronger test of the instrument’s overall validity).  Nevertheless, there is little published empirical research on the diagnostic validity of PPG.  This is likely because of the difficulty in constructing – without using phallometric testing – an adequate (and large enough) sample of clearly pedophilic men that would constitute the ultimate criterion.

 * Seriously?? Just offer anonymous paid studies to various fetishist communities (fetlife, sexualized fanfiction sites, erotic comic book/ hentai manga communities, etc etc etc). Key words: paid, anonymous, self-identification.....dont even need to stick to recruiting self professed non offending paedophiles, since a test for any self-admitted taboo fetish could give validity data, and a control for a more acceptable fetish off a questionaire (say, breast size, hair colour, or race) could act as control.  However, all itll ever give yiy is their fantasies, not a prediction of any sort of actions. Most of those you call "deviant" are painfully shy, passive, and additionally have a propensity for swlf flagellation - very much like the "bisexual in denial homophobes" the test claims to find in droves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.70.219 (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Ultimately, the PPG can be said to have a high level of face validity (both a blessing and a curse), and its specificity is impressive (i.e., its false positive rate is low); indeed, there are few conceivable reasons why a man in a laboratory setting would become erect during the presentation of a deviant stimulus except that he is sexually excited by that stimulus. Yet, the instrument’s less-than-ideal sensitivity – with its associated high false-negative rate – is poor; this is due largely to the ability of some test-takers to suppress and thereby distort their true erectile responses to deviant stimuli.

 * Attempts at measuring reliability of the PPG entail their own conceptual limitations. It makes little sense to expect to obtain a high test-retest reliability coefficient in a population of men who are both motivated to distort their responses and, in all likelihood, more skilled at such distortion – due to a practice effect – during the second test administration than during the initial administration.

I also added back the quotation from the DSM-IV. If you have citations for the above statements, please add them before adding them back to the article. Jokestress (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this section of the page can use a lot of work, as there is some research on the sensitivity and specificity of phallometry with sexual offenders, specifically those with child victims. In the coming months I will work to improve this section of the page to add in this research so that the page contains an indication of the sensitivity and specificity of certain phallometric measures.Ian V. McPhail (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting information/tone in the article
The wording in the section for reliability and validity to me seems to be mostly sufficiently neutral. Though I still feel I have unanswered questions when reading it. Namely that it's not exactly clear how useful or accurate the tool actually is in regards to testing different things relating to sexuality.

Also, two sections of the article seem to be at odds. The Utility section and the legal admissibility section. One painting it as an accurate instrument for determining heterosexuals from homosexuals, pedophiles from non pedophiles and so on...and one section stating that it's extremely unreliable and inadmissible in court due to it's unreliability, and it's high danger for false negatives/positives. If it's not good enough for court, doesn't meet the Frye Standard, and is unreliable...why are scientific studies performed with this instrument included on this page? That seems somehow...backwards? Especially when the tone in the section these studies are included in aren't worded in such a way that questions it's reliability.

This part is also worded poorly and does not coincide with the findings of the study it references: "One study showed that homophobic men who have claimed to be heterosexual undergo arousal when given homosexual stimuli." The study found that a significant number of men who self identified as homophobic heterosexuals experienced varying levels of arousal when exposed to homosexual video and audio stimuli, but not all did. The study also offered several theories on why the men experienced arousal and one of their theories included the possibility that they were not necessarily homosexual/bisexual, and that their reaction could have been triggered by other factors. This sentence also doesn't note that a significant number of men who identified as non-homophobic heterosexuals also experienced varying degrees of arousal. Just not as significant of a portion as the homophobic men. Just as a personal gripe, the study only includes 35 homophobic males which is simply not a large enough sample to make conclusive statements like the one above. Anyways, the point is: The wording of this particular phrase gives the impression that all homophobic men are actually homosexual, which is not the conclusion the study reached. Also, the link to the PDF is dead. I'm not sure if there's another one up somewhere.

So I know that's a lot of random ranting, but I think the article needs to be a little clearer and I'm not sure how to best balance it out. If the instrument is currently deemed unreliable in accurately determining sexuality, should we be including studies on this very same page that use the instrument for their research? Perhaps a separate page for research conducted with Penile Plethysmographs should be created to avoid this issue? Or simply word the section regarding it's accuracy to be more...well, accurate. BeardedScholar (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EL's
An anonymous editor has twice re-inserted external links to commercial and non-expert websites. Although I am sure that discussion can be had over whether any particular external link meets WP:ELNO, the anonymous editor has not responded to my talk requests to justify how/why the deleted sites should in fact be included on this page.

Because the anon editor started re-adding the sites at the same time (and with the same edits, accusations, and lack of response to talk requests) as user:Jokestress (who maintains lengthy off-wiki attack sites on this topic and every scientist associated with it), particular caution should be applied in deciding what is and is not encyclopedic and why.— James Cantor (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I recommend that you stop adding links sitewide that promote you and your work and removing links critical of you and your work. It's a clear conflict of interest, as are nearly all the edits you have ever made. There is a substantial amount of sourcing that questions the validity, reliability, and ethics of your life's work, as well as your non-notable role in the perpetuation of some ideas deemed problematic by others. Your manipulation of these topics is a clear conflict of interest violation. Jokestress (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * 1. I have been DELETING links from this page...making the accusation rather silly. (Although I note that I did misdescribe a deletion as an addition in an edit summary.)  If you believe that the links I removed should in fact appear on the page (despite that they consist of someone's term paper and some lawyer's online ad), then you should be making that argument instead of making personal attacks.  Personally, I believe the EL's in question should be removed.
 * 2. My being a recognized authority on this topic does not disqualify me from editing this page. In fact, as Jimbo Wales said, "Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a 'multiplier effect', says Wales. Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. 'Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way,' he says."
 * 3. COI is not a synonym for expert editor. If any edit I made has been inappropriate, feel free of course to report it to WP:COI/N.
 * 3. Your off-wiki attacks against phallometry and off-wiki attacks against any scientist associated with it, however, would reasonably constitute a COI problem.
 * 4. WP is not the place to bring your long-standing battle against professional sex researchers in your belief that you are righting a great wrong.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a self-promoter, not an expert. There is a difference between science and quackery. Stay tuned. Jokestress (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, so tuned. I'll add it to your other unfulfilled promises:, , etc.
 * Meanwhile, if we can get back to mainpage: You and the anon editor (assuming no puppetry) have added EL's directing readers to a term paper and to a lawyer's website advertising his services. I have asked four (?) times how/why these links should be included, despite their clear violation of WP:ELNO, and the only response either of you provide is that the edit came from me (which is not a valid reason, even if I did have a conflict here.)  Do you have a WP-valid justification?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversial
The sentence in question: "Penile plethysmography (PPG), or "phallometry", is a controversial type of plethysmograph that measures changes in blood flow in the penis."

First off, "plethysmography" is not a "type of plethysmograph". The use of a device is not the device itself. Normally I'd just correct the grammatical error without comment, but I think it's instructive, considering that the real issue here also deals with a contrast between a device and its use.

Specifically, I see no way in which a little piece of rubber and wire can be inherently controversial. Citations say that it has been used on sex offenders of old age and young, and whatever my opinions on such usage, I won't claim it's uncontroversial. This is not, however, the only standard usage of the device, and should not be the exclusive focus of this article The initial paragraphs already discuss the issue of accuracy, and there are well-established sections on legal admissibility and ethics, which seem to me quite sufficient to discuss issues surrounding its use. To stick the word "controversial" into the opening sentence of an article on a tool of measurement, though, with nothing to support it but a citation on an isolated, extreme case of controversial use, strikes me as nothing more than FUD. Salvar (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you point out, the article title describes the device, but the first sentence describes the use. Analogues are polygraph, where our article makes it clear that the device is generally considered pseudoscientific. Perhaps we should have separate articles, as we do with calipers and phrenology. As you note, calipers themselves are not controversial. Measurements taken with PPG are not controversial, but claims made based on those measurements, and the conditions under which the measurements are taken, are quite controversial. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be controversial since it specifically targets men. That is, unless you can measure a woman's state of arousal in a test. 24.237.46.217 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What the..?
no sexual interest or preference, UNLESS ACTED UPON IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER, is in any way damning. Its unconstitutional. And yes, even the oft-mentioned paedophiliac or incestuous desires are 100% legal, while judging one for such is not.... Men and women can be attracted to kids (or whatever else) until the cows come home if they: a) reign in their desires, b) roleplay with consenting adults, c) engage in relationships with consenting adults of petite or short stature, youthful apprarance, dwarfism, etc etc to their hearts' content... In fact, frowning upon such would constitute undue discrimination also against persons of such appearance or stature, as it would essentially create a taboo to deem attractive or engage in personal relationships with short/petite/little people, thus infringing greatly on their right to "the pursuit of happiness". All for being born with a juvenile appearance or small size lasting unto adulthood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.70.219 (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

homophobic?
"A phallometric study indicated that men who are more homophobic show greater penile arousal to stimuli depicting gay sex than do less homophobic men."

I feel offended by the above statement. Is it by chance an act of vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.153.13 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not an act of vandalism, it is indeed a real finding. Part of the idea behind this research is that for men who are more homophobic (that is, have stronger negative feelings toward homosexual men), a least some of their dislike of homosexual males or homosexuality is caused by their own sexuality that might include some sexual arousal to other men. This research was published in one of the top journals for psychopathology research, so we can safely assume the study had solid methodological rigor and theoretical grounding. As well, I know that other researchers are continuing this line of research currently. I cannot speak to your offence, but I thought I would share these thoughts about the science. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

'Utility' Section
I have been overhauling and updating the 'Utility' section on this page. Specifically, I've added a number of findings from the empirical literature on the sensitivity and specificity of different phallometric tests designed to assess for pedophilic, hebephilic, and pedohebephilic arousal. Having someone who is knowledgeable in this area review these sections would be useful. In addition, I am relatively new to being a Wikipedia editor and while I've tried to be neutral and succinct in presenting the research studies, reviewing and revising how this information is presented will likely be very helpful. Thanks. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Ian V. McPhail, I've seen your edits to the article. For this topic, we should be using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. But, per WP:MEDDATE, we can also relax the strict WP:MEDRS standard in cases "where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Editors other than myself who can help you with this material include James Cantor (I saw you cite his work in the article), Legitimus and KateWishing. Editors at WP:Med can also help. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the message Flyer22! And I was unaware (being a newbie) of WP:MEDRS and the source standards for the medical content area, so thanks for bringing this WP page to my attention.  Your point about relaxing the standard makes perfect sense in this domain.  I'm doing a lot of research in the area of phallometry and know of no meta-analyses looking at pedophilia, hebephilia, and pedohebephilia as assessed by phallometry.  Though there are a great many narrative reviews on the research in these areas, but they seem like they just simply review a select few studies instead of being systematic reviews in any sense of the term; so I don't know if these would be of value to cite.  And thanks for the mention of different editors who might be interested in helping on this page!  James Cantor and I do research together (lucky me!) and the article of his I cited was a bit of self-citation (I'm second author on the in-press JSM paper), so I hope it's okay to include work that I'm an author on.  If you have any other suggestions on how better to incorporate the information I have included thus far, feel free to share your thoughts and I will make edits and changes as necessary (seems like you're a pro editor, so I bow to knowledge and experience!). Ian V. McPhail (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi, Ian. It's permitted to include one's own work, but other editors will trust it/you/us better if you declare your interest (such as on the talk page) and invite others to check it, or post the suggested text and cite it on the talk page, and ask others to review it and post it themselves.  Take a read through WP:COI (especially WP:SELFCITE). — James Cantor (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info about self-citation, James. I tried to simply state the findings from our study, instead of giving it undue weight or description compared to the other articles I've included. For other editors, here is the full citation info for the article I mentioned:
 * Cantor, James; McPhail, Ian (2015). "Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for hebephilia". Journal of Sexual Medicine. In press.
 * And here is the link to the Journal of Sexual Medicine website: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1743-6109. Last, I will provide a link to the article once it is posted on the JSM website so that other editors can track it down easier. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Excellent! You can also put on your talk page the offer to email a reprint to folks who ask.  (The copyright prevents us from distributing it widely, but we can send individual copies to individual requesters.) Also, remember to sign your talkpage comments with four tilde's (~)! — James Cantor (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Other editors that would like to receive a copy of the Cantor & McPhail article can send me a message with their emails and I will send them a copy. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

More info on different types of stimuli required?
I am wondering if this Wiki page would be improved if a section/subsection or two were added that provide mare detail about the different types of stimulus sets that are used during a penile plethysmograph test to assess different sexual interests (e.g., pedophilic, gynophilic, androphylic, transvestic fetishism). I have this information readily available to me and would be willing/able to add this information into this page. However, I'd like some input from other editors, like James Cantor, prior to doing so. Thanks. 71.17.29.227 Ian V. McPhail (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I think you're right on the mark. Any stimuli can be used (in theory), but the only valid phallometric tests have data to to demonstrate that their results reliably distinguished people with versus without interest in those stimuli.— James Cantor (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penile plethysmograph. 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/20081013110843/http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf to http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.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) 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penile plethysmograph. 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/20081002000446/http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc51/2000scc51.pdf to http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc51/2000scc51.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) 03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Penile plethysmograph


text:
The Wisdom of Crowds

The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, published in 2004, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.

The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members).

The book relates to diverse collections of independently deciding individuals, rather than crowd psychology as traditionally understood. Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts, draws many parallels with statistical sampling; however, there is little overt discussion of statistics in the book.

Its title is an allusion to Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, published in 1841.

Types of crowd wisdom
Surowiecki breaks down the advantages he sees in disorganized decisions into three main types, which he classifies as
 * Cognition: Thinking and information processing, such as market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees.
 * Coordination: Coordination of behavior includes optimizing the utilization of a popular bar and not colliding in moving traffic flows. The book is replete with examples from experimental economics, but this section relies more on naturally occurring experiments such as pedestrians optimizing the pavement flow or the extent of crowding in popular restaurants. He examines how common understanding within a culture allows remarkably accurate judgments about specific reactions of other members of the culture.
 * Cooperation: How groups of people can form networks of trust without a central system controlling their behavior or directly enforcing their compliance. This section is especially pro free market.

Five elements required to form a wise crowd
Not all crowds (groups) are wise. Consider, for example, mobs or crazed investors in a stock market bubble. According to Surowiecki, these key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:

Based on Surowiecki's book, Oinas-Kukkonen captures the wisdom of crowds approach with the following eight conjectures:

 * 1) It is possible to describe how people in a group think as a whole.
 * 2) In some cases, groups are remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.
 * 3) The three conditions for a group to be intelligent are diversity, independence, and decentralization.
 * 4) The best decisions are a product of disagreement and contest.
 * 5) Too much communication can make the group as a whole less intelligent.
 * 6) Information aggregation functionality is needed.
 * 7) The right information needs to be delivered to the right people in the right place, at the right time, and in the right way.
 * 8) There is no need to chase the expert.

Failures of crowd intelligence
Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

Causes and detailed case histories of such failures include:

Connection
At the 2005 O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference Surowiecki presented a session entitled Independent Individuals and Wise Crowds, or Is It Possible to Be Too Connected?

"The question for all of us is, how can you have interaction without information cascades, without losing the independence that's such a key factor in group intelligence?"

He recommends:
 * Keep your ties loose.
 * Keep yourself exposed to as many diverse sources of information as possible.
 * Make groups that range across hierarchies.

Tim O'Reilly and others also discuss the success of Google, wikis, blogging, and Web 2.0 in the context of the wisdom of crowds.

Applications
Surowiecki is a strong advocate of the benefits of decision markets and regrets the failure of DARPA's controversial Policy Analysis Market to get off the ground. He points to the success of public and internal corporate markets as evidence that a collection of people with varying points of view but the same motivation (to make a good guess) can produce an accurate aggregate prediction. According to Surowiecki, the aggregate predictions have been shown to be more reliable than the output of any think tank. He advocates extensions of the existing futures markets even into areas such as terrorist activity and prediction markets within companies.

To illustrate this thesis, he says that his publisher can publish a more compelling output by relying on individual authors under one-off contracts bringing book ideas to them. In this way, they are able to tap into the wisdom of a much larger crowd than would be possible with an in-house writing team.

Will Hutton has argued that Surowiecki's analysis applies to value judgments as well as factual issues, with crowd decisions that "emerge of our own aggregated free will [being] astonishingly... decent". He concludes that "There's no better case for pluralism, diversity and democracy, along with a genuinely independent press."

Applications of the wisdom-of-crowds effect exist in three general categories: Prediction markets, Delphi methods, and extensions of the traditional opinion poll.

Prediction markets
The most common application is the prediction market, a speculative or betting market created to make verifiable predictions. Surowiecki discusses the success of prediction markets. Similar to Delphi methods but unlike opinion polls, prediction (information) markets ask questions like, "Who do you think will win the election?" and predict outcomes rather well. Answers to the question, "Who will you vote for?" are not as predictive.

Assets are cash values tied to specific outcomes (e.g., Candidate X will win the election) or parameters (e.g., Next quarter's revenue). The current market prices are interpreted as predictions of the probability of the event or the expected value of the parameter. Betfair is the world's biggest prediction exchange, with around $28 billion traded in 2007. NewsFutures is an international prediction market that generates consensus probabilities for news events. Intrade.com, which operated a person to person prediction market based in Dublin Ireland achieved very high media attention in 2012 related to the US Presidential Elections, with more than 1.5 million search references to Intrade and Intrade data. Several companies now offer enterprise class prediction marketplaces to predict project completion dates, sales, or the market potential for new ideas. A number of Web-based quasi-prediction marketplace companies have sprung up to offer predictions primarily on sporting events and stock markets but also on other topics. The principle of the prediction market is also used in project management software to let team members predict a project's "real" deadline and budget.

Delphi methods
The Delphi method is a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of independent experts. The carefully selected experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the experts' forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, participants are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of the group. It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the "correct" answer. Many of the consensus forecasts have proven to be more accurate than forecasts made by individuals.

Human Swarming
Designed as an optimized method for unleashing the wisdom of crowds, this approach implements real-time feedback loops around synchronous groups of users with the goal of achieving more accurate insights from fewer numbers of users. Human Swarming (sometimes referred to as Social Swarming) is modeled after biological processes in birds, fish, and insects, and is enabled among networked users by using mediating software such as the UNU collective intelligence platform. As published by Rosenberg (2015), such real-time control systems enable groups of human participants to behave as a unified collective intelligence. When logged into the UNU platform, for example, groups of distributed users can collectively answer questions, generate ideas, and make predictions as a singular emergent entity. Early testing shows that human swarms can out-predict individuals across a variety of real-world projections.

In popular culture
Hugo-winning writer John Brunner's 1975 science fiction novel The Shockwave Rider includes an elaborate planet-wide information futures and betting pool called "Delphi" based on the Delphi method.

Illusionist Derren Brown claimed to use the 'Wisdom of Crowds' concept to explain how he correctly predicted the UK National Lottery results in September 2009. His explanation was met with criticism on-line, by people who argued that the concept was misapplied. The methodology employed was too flawed; the sample of people could not have been totally objective and free in thought, because they were gathered multiple times and socialised with each other too much; a condition Surowiecki tells us is corrosive to pure independence and the diversity of mind required (Surowiecki 2004:38). Groups thus fall into groupthink where they increasingly make decisions based on influence of each other and are thus less accurate. However, other commentators have suggested that, given the entertainment nature of the show, Brown's misapplication of the theory may have been a deliberate smokescreen to conceal his true method.

This was also shown in the television series East of Eden where a social network of roughly 10,000 individuals came up with ideas to stop missiles in a very short span of time.

Wisdom of Crowds would have a significant influence on the naming of the crowdsourcing creative company Tongal, which is an anagram for Galton, the last name of the social-scientist highlighted in the introduction to Surowiecki's book. Francis Galton recognized the ability of a crowd's averaged weight-guesses for oxen to exceed the accuracy of experts.

Criticism
In his book Embracing the Wide Sky, Daniel Tammet finds fault with this notion. Tammet points out the potential for problems in systems which have poorly defined means of pooling knowledge: Subject matter experts can be overruled and even wrongly punished by less knowledgeable persons in crowd sourced systems, citing a case of this on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Tammet mentions the assessment of the accuracy of Wikipedia as described in a study mentioned in Nature in 2005, outlining several flaws in the study's methodology which included that the study made no distinction between minor errors and large errors.

Tammet also cites the Kasparov versus the World, an online competition that pitted the brainpower of tens of thousands of online chess players choosing moves in a match against Garry Kasparov, which was won by Kasparov, not the "crowd". Although Kasparov did say, "It is the greatest game in the history of chess. The sheer number of ideas, the complexity, and the contribution it has made to chess make it the most important game ever played."

In his book You Are Not a Gadget, Jaron Lanier argues that crowd wisdom is best suited for problems that involve optimization, but ill-suited for problems that require creativity or innovation. In the online article Digital Maoism, Lanier argues that the collective is more likely to be smart only when
 * 1. it is not defining its own questions,
 * 2. the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result (such as a single numeric value), and
 * 3. the information system which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree.

Lanier argues that only under those circumstances can a collective be smarter than a person. If any of these conditions are broken, the collective becomes unreliable or worse.

Iain Couzin, a professor in Princeton's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Albert Kao, his student, in a 2014 article, in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, argue that "the conventional view of the wisdom of crowds may not be informative in complex and realistic environments, and that being in small groups can maximize decision accuracy across many contexts." By "small groups," Couzin and Kao mean fewer than a dozen people. They conclude and say that “the decisions of very large groups may be highly accurate when the information used is independently sampled, but they are particularly susceptible to the negative effects of correlated information, even when only a minority of the group uses such information.”

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

title: The Wisdom of Crowds


text:
Castelldefels railway station

Castelldefels is a Rodalies de Catalunya railway station serving Castelldefels, in Catalonia, Spain. It is served by Barcelona commuter rail service lines and, as well as some trains on regional lines ,  and.

The station has five platforms: platforms 1 and 2 are the through platforms, platform 4 is for trains terminating or starting at the station, and platforms 3 and 5 are bay platforms, sometimes used by trains at the beginning or end of service.

The stations on either side are Gavà (heading towards Barcelona) and Platja de Castelldefels (heading away from Barcelona).

title: Castelldefels railway station


text: Category:Military of Hungary

title: Category:Military of Hungary


text:
Mhing

Mhing is a card game published by Suntex in 1982.

Gameplay
Mhing is an abstract family card game based on Mahjong.

Reviews

 * Games #32
 * 1982 Games 100 in Games
 * 1983 Games 100
 * 1984 Games 100
 * 1985 Games 100
 * 1986 Games 100
 * Jeux & Stratégie #46

title: Mhing


text:
Talk:Roux-Ga-Roux

Bother, I thought I was logged in when I created this article, but apparently I wasn't.

Anyhow, I don't know much about this legend. I only stumbled across it on the web and decided to add it to Wikipedia. So, if anyone here is an expert on Roux-Ga-Rouxs, please feel free to embellish. Thanks. [unsigned, but by User:Nortonew ]

I don't know if this article should even be here. A Google search only gets the two links listed on this article and Wikipedia (and affiliates) itself. The websites don;t provide that much information (one is just a sentence or two long, basically). That sounds to me like it may not actually be authentic. I'd like some real sources so this can be verified. DreamGuy 21:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to legitimacy
Simply because this legend only produces two hits on the web doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In fact, the fact that it is mentioned on two unrelated sites shows that the legend does exist. I don't know exactly how you would define an "authentic legend", but as legends are basically just stories, if it exists anywhere, then it exists.

Also, as noted in the article, the roux-ga-roux may simply be the product of some tour guide's imagination. Even in that case, there is no reason why this article should not be here. Its not as if this article is claiming that a roux-ga-roux actually exists in reality.

In regards to your editing, some of your changes were WRONG. The paragraph you removed regarding the lack of description for the roux-ga-roux was neither redundant nor inaccurate. It was there to explain why no description of the creature exists. Just because you are supposedly a "published author" doesn't mean that you should be editing ever article on Wikipedia to fit your own, quite obviously capricious, tastes.

Unless you want to waste a great deal of your own time, and the time of others, by getting into reversion wars, I strongly suggest you limit your edits to whatever is absolutely necessary. [unsigned, but by User:Nortonew

 * First, please sign your comments. Any easy way o do this is to use four of hese symbols in a row: ~

 * Second, two solitary web references does not prove the legend exists, as it is quite easy for people to create pranks and get them up on websites, or have misheard rumors, and so forth. Wikipedia policy requires verifiability and notability. This article does not cut it in either criteria.

 * Third, you don't understand the meaning of the word "legend". Some one simply telling a story somewhere does not make something a legend. This particular article sounds more like fakelore instead of folklore.

 * Fourth, it's your opinion that my edits were wrong, but then you, like a lot of new or infriequent users here, seem to have the ideo that your opinion should overrule other editors with more experience. Note the submission page says that you must accept that other editors with edits and change your article mercilessly and you must agree to that before you submit. If you think my changes or comments were horrible then you are probably way too thin-skinned to be participating at Wikipedia. DreamGuy 21:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

More regarding legitimacy
Sorry if the roux-ga-roux story doesn't meet your definition of "legend". However, the roux-ga-roux story is apparently something that exists at least in some form or another. From the two references I found, I see absolutely no reason to suspect that they were both set up by some prankster or someone trying to somehow fool the public.

Whether it is fakelore or folklore, people will probably come across it, and will quite possibly try to find more information on it here on Wikipedia. There is no reason not to have an entry on it that at least provides what little information we have so far found on the subject.

As for being thin-skinned, I invite you to take a look at another article I initiated, the Caganer. Since I started that article, it has been edited significantly. Quite frankly, I welcomed those edits and additions because they improved the article. You, on the other hand, seem to like making changes that simply change articles to fit your personal tastes.

Granted, some of your changes were warranted, such as correcting some capitalization, and such. However, other changes were unnecessary. While I expect articles to be edited, seemingly random, unnecessary changes are irritating, both to myself, and every other reasonable person participating in Wikipedia. Obviously, I can't stop you from editing, but I strongly suspect you are going to become rather unpopular here if you continue these kind of activities. If you enjoy spending your time irritating others, then go ahead and waste your life as you see fit.

Nortonew 22:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition of legend
The roux-ga-roux definitely meets at least one of the definitions for the word "legend" shown at Dictionary.com

legend n 1: a story about mythical or supernatural beings or events

Nortonew 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roux-Ga-Roux


text:
Geometry of Love

Geometry of Love is the fifteenth studio album by French electronic musician and composer Jean-Michel Jarre, released by Warner Music in October 2003.

This album has more in common with the preceding Sessions 2000 album than releases prior, but the style here is still more electronica than jazz. The music was to be lounge music, played in the background or in the chill-out area of a club. The album was commissioned by Jean-Roch, as a soundtrack for his 'VIP Room' nightclub in France. The CD was initially meant to come out in only 2000 copies. However, it was later released as a generally available CD. The physical CD was a long time out of print (available only in digital download format), but in 2018 remastered reissue was released on CD again.

The album cover is a pixelated and turned counter-clockwise photo of the pubis of Isabelle Adjani, Jarre's girlfriend at the time.

The track "Velvet Road" is a remake of the unreleased composition "Children of Space" created by Jarre for the "Rendez-Vous in Space" concert in Okinawa, in 2001. Some of the sounds in Geometry of Love were used earlier on Interior Music released in 2001. Several tracks from Geometry of Love were included on Jarre's 2006 compilation release Sublime Mix.

Equipment

 * Roland XP-80
 * Eminent 310U
 * ARP 2600
 * Minimoog
 * Korg KARMA
 * Novation Digital Music Systems Supernova II
 * microKORG
 * Roland JP-8000
 * Korg Mini Pops 7
 * Digisequencer
 * E-mu Systems XL7
 * Roland HandSonic
 * EMS Synthi AKS
 * EMS VCS 3
 * RMI Harmonic Synthesizer
 * Pro Tools

title: Geometry of Love


text:
Talk:Squall Leonhart

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Squall Leonhart. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://technology.inquirer.net/infotech/infotech/view_article.php?article_id=47164
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/features/6118460/p-2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edge-online.com/features/week-japan-final-fantasy-special/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Squall Leonhart. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://playstationjapan.tripod.com/ff8iview2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q1-2001/012001a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509194555/http://www.gamezone.com/editorials/top-10-final-fantasy-characters to http://www.gamezone.com/editorials/top-10-final-fantasy-characters
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/news/snake-beats-mario-coolest-video
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/10/greatest-final-fantasy-characters-all-time/cloud-strife
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211123532/http://psx.ign.com/articles/153/153847p1.html to http://psx.ign.com/articles/153/153847p1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/top-5-final-fantasy-character

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) 04:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Squall Leonhart


text:
Talk:Geometry of Love

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geometry of Love. 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/20120725054042/https://jarreuk.info/discography/studio-albums/geometryoflove to http://jarreuk.info/discography/studio-albums/geometryoflove

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) 15:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geometry of Love


text:
Tom Turner

Tom Turner is an English landscape architect, garden designer and garden historian teaching at the University of Greenwich in London. He is the author of books and articles on landscape and gardens and is the editor of the Garden History Reference Encyclopedia. Educated at the Universities of St Andrews and Edinburgh, he studied landscape architecture under Frank Clark.

Published works

 * Suez Canal Regional Plan Volume 4 Environment (United Nations Development Programme, Cairo, 1977)
 * Landscape Design for the Middle East, Chapter on 'The design of open space' in book edited by Jane Brown and Timothy Cochrane (RIBA Publications, 1978)
 * Colour Schemes for the Flower Garden, Preface to 1982 edition of Gertrude Jekyll's book (Antique Collectors Club, 1982)
 * Loudon's stylistic development Journal of Garden History 1982, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 175–188.
 * Landscape planning: a linguistic and historical analysis of the term's use, Landscape Planning 9, (1982/3) pp. 179–192.
 * London Landscape Guide (Landscape Institute, 1983) with Simon Rendel.
 * Landscape planning: the need to train specialists' Landscape Planning 11 (1984) pp. 33–36.
 * Comment on Philip Dearden "Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation", Landscape Planning 12, (1985) pp. 93–94.
 * English Garden Design: history and styles since 1650 (Antique Collectors Club, 1986). ISBN 0-907462-25-1
 * Landscape Planning (Hutchinson Education, 1987). ISBN 0-09-164710-X
 * Urban Parks, The Landscape Institute, December 1992.
 * Open space planning in London: from standards per 1000 to green strategy, Town Planning Review October 64 (4) 1992 pp. 365–386.
 * GIS and the "Future of Planning"' Planning Practice and Research Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 347–351 December 1994
 * Greenways, blueways, skyways and other ways to a better London Landscape and Urban Planning 33 (1995) pp. 269–282
 * GIS and the rebirth of ‘planning’ Urban Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 Autumn 1995
 * River reclamation, with GIS Built Environment, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1995
 * Western Europe, current city expansion and the use of GIS Robert Holden and Tom Turner, Landscape and Urban Planning 36 (1997) pp. 315–326.
 * City as Landscape: a post-Postmodern view of design and planning (Spons, 1996) ISBN 0-419-20410-5
 * Public Open Space: planning and management with GIS (Greenwich University Press, 1998) ISBN 1-86166-100-2
 * Landscape Planning and Environmental Impact Design (UCL Press 1998) ISBN 1-85728-321-X HB
 * Garden History Reference Encyclopedia CD (2002) ISBN 0-9542306-0-4
 * Garden Design: Philosophy and Design 2000 BC-2000 AD, Routledge (2005) ISBN 978-0-415-31749-8
 * Asian Gardens: history, belief and design (2010) ISBN 978-0-415-49687-2 Routledge
 * European Gardens: History, Philosophy and Design (2011) ISBN 978-0-415-49684-1 Routledge
 * London Gardens Walk - Design & History Tour (2012)
 * British Gardens: History, philosophy and design (2013) ISBN 978-0415518789 Routledge

title: Tom Turner


text:
User:Talrias/Templates

Please comment on the talk page. I've also half-made a paler version. If people like the two colours which I've done, I can finish the rest off.

Featured article after PR and VFD and part of a WikiProject

 * Note: I'm not sure if the Wikiproject templates should be redone. See the talk page.

title: User:Talrias/Templates


text:
Talk:Paul Kelly (criminal)

Untitled
Regarding your the recent edits on this article I should point out that Jay Robert Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime, as well as Robert J. Kelly's Encyclopedia of Organized Crime, state conflicting dates for Paul Kelly as 1871 and 1859 respectivly. While the gravesite link I listed is, I believe, a valid source it is also one which casts doubt if the grave is the actual grave of Paul Kelly. Also the removed links of Razor Riley and James Ellison, prominent gunmen of the early 1900s, as well as those of existing articles of gunmen Richie Fitzpatrick and Johnny Spanish, and the removal of much of the former text including the details of the Fourth Ward election and assasination attempt leading to the closing of the New Brighton club, I feel are of particular importance to the article. I certainly greatly appreciate the recent edits however I would ask that further major edits be first discussed on the Discussion page before hand. Thank you. 209.213.71.78 15:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nash's books are not reliable sources. While the birth date on the grave stone may or may not be correct, the death date on it is. Kelly's obituary in the April 5, 1936 edition of the New York Times is proof of that. Additionally, Kelly was born in the United States and his parents came from mainland Italy, not Sicily.RickW7x2 (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with lack of citations
Editors have written about the criminals with zest, but it is too bad they didn't bother to add the required inline citations, especially on disputed issues, so that people might know where the content comes from. The entire article could be deleted, as it is effectively unsourced. Parkwells (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paul Kelly (criminal)


text:
Battle Chasers

Battle Chasers is an American fantasy comic book series by Joe Madureira, launched in April 1998. It was characterized by scheduling problems, with an average of about six months between issues, including a delay of 16 months for issue #7. Madureira produced a total of nine issues in four years (publishing two to three a year), a pace for which he was criticized, before leaving the comic industry to pursue a career as a video game designer. The cliffhanger ending of issue #9 was not resolved for over 20 years; issue #10 was originally scheduled for November 2001, put on indefinite hiatus with Madureira's exit from the industry, and returned only as abstract plans and concept drawings from 2017 to early 2023. Issue #10 was published in June 2023 and continued the plot after a two-page recap.

Originally published by WildStorm under its Cliffhanger imprint (founded by Madureira with J. Scott Campbell and Humberto Ramos), the series moved to Image Comics in 2001.

Publication history
Battle Chasers was one of the initial three comic book series published under the Cliffhanger label, which Madureira founded with fellow artists J. Scott Campbell (Danger Girl) and Humberto Ramos (Crimson) for Jim Lee's Image Comics imprint, WildStorm. When, effective in 1999, Wildstorm was sold to DC Comics, the Cliffhanger titles moved along, and issues 5 through 8 of Battle Chasers were published by DC, until Madureira left the publisher, and released Battle Chasers #9 through Image Comics. Madureira canceled Battle Chasers #10, and placed the series "on hold" after forming a game development company called Tri-Lunar with Tim Donley and Greg Peterson.

When it was revealed in August 2005 that Madureira would return to the comic industry, working on a then-unspecified project with Jeph Loeb for Marvel Comics (which was later revealed to be The Ultimates 3), he also stated that a conclusion to Battle Chasers is "one of those things that I think about every once in a while, and not having finished it bums me out… I would love to do it at some point, but it would be very far out". Joe Madureira said that he planned to release issue #10, starting directly where issue #9 ended, and two more issues as part of a 3-part story arc some time after the release of Battle Chasers: Nightwar in October 2017. After several years of further delays, he posted unlettered preview pages to Twitter in March 2021. Nearly two more years passed, and Image Comics published it in June 2023, featuring art by Lullabi and a new story arc.

Plot
The story takes place in an "arcanepunk" setting. The story stars five main characters, including a ten-year-old girl named Gully, whose father mysteriously vanishes, leaving behind a pair of magical gloves. A rogue named Red Monika tries to enlist Garrison, a swordsman haunted by the death of his wife, to assist in freeing a prisoner, which Garrison turns down. Red Monika accidentally releases four extremely powerful villains during the breakout. Garrison overcomes his grief and joins Gully, the wizard Knolan, and the towering war golem Calibretto to stop the villains' rampage.

Characters

 * Garrison
 * At the beginning of the series, Garrison is drunk in despair with the passing of his wife. He is a legendary swordsman and owns a powerful magical sword. He is trained in swordplay by Red Monika and mentored by Aramus. From Joe's original concept sketches of the characters, Garrison's sword was able to open similar to the Thundercats' Sword of Omens.

 * Gully
 * Gully is a ten-year-old girl whose father, Aramus, mysteriously vanishes leaving a powerful set of magical gloves behind. Through the series she shares a friendship with Calibretto and Knolan while searching for her father.

 * Calibretto
 * An outlawed war golem with a very gentle personality. He is the last of his kind after all previous war golems were ordered to be destroyed. His arms can fire projectiles.

 * Knolan
 * A powerful wizard, approximately five hundred years old, who takes Gully under his wing. His companion is Calibretto, a war golem.

 * Red Monika
 * A voluptuous bounty hunter who originally trained Garrison, and has an apparent history with him. Joe's concept sketch notes refer to her as "sort of the Jessica Rabbit of the Battle Chasers world".

Reception
Although issue #10 of Battle Chasers was not released, it was 14th in the Top 300 comics list with an estimated pre-order of 60,860.

Film adaptation
In March 2003, Twentieth Century Fox optioned feature rights to the fantasy comic book series with Gil Netter attached to produce. Stuart Hazeldine was considered to adapt the screenplay.

Battle Chasers: Nightwar
In September 2015, Madureira started a 30-day Kickstarter campaign for a turn-based role-playing game called Battle Chasers: Nightwar that serves as a continuation and jumping-on point of the original comic book series. The game was developed by Airship Syndicate and published by THQ Nordic. Madureira was the CEO and Creative Director along with Ryan Stefanelli as President and Lead Designer; Steve Madureira as Animation Director; Christopher Brooks as Technical Director and Jesse Carpenter as Environment Lead. 2D animation scenes in the game were developed by Powerhouse Animation Studios. Nightwar was released for PC and Mac, both on Steam and DRM-free on GOG, Xbox One, PlayStation 4 in October 2017, with Nintendo Switch and Linux versions releasing in May 2018. During the Kickstarter campaign, new issues of the Battle Chasers comic book were offered with pledges starting at $90 and higher.

Calibretto also had been announced as a playable character in the game Indivisible before the dissolution of developer Lab Zero Games.

Core issues

 * Battle Chasers Prelude (1998, Image Comics/Wildstorm)
 * Story in Frank Frazetta Fantasy Illustrated #2 (1998, Quantum Cat Entertainment)
 * Battle Chasers #1–4 (1998, Image Comics/Wildstorm)
 * Battle Chasers #5–8 (1999–2001, DC Comics/Wildstorm)
 * Battle Chasers #9 (2001, Image Comics)
 * Battle Chasers #10 (2023, Image Comics)

Reprints

 * Battle Chasers: Collected Edition #1 (reprints Battle Chasers #1–2)
 * Battle Chasers: Collected Edition #2 (reprints Battle Chasers #3–4)
 * Battle Chasers: A Gathering of Heroes (ISBN 1-56389-538-2; reprints Battle Chasers #1–5, the Prelude and the story from Frank Frazetta Fantasy Illustrated #2)
 * Battle Chasers Anthology HC (reprints #0-9, featuring a few sketches and pages of the unprinted issues 10), April 2011

title: Battle Chasers


text:
North Queensland Broomball Association

The North Queensland Broomball Association (NQBA) is the governing body for broomball in north Queensland, Australia. It is based in the city of Townsville and is a founding member of the national body, Broomball Australia.

The NQBA is a not-for-profit organisation that was formed in 1992, the third incorporated broomball club in Australia after the Broomball Association of South Australia and Australian Capital Territory Broomball Association. Broomball had been played in Townsville since the late 1980s.

As at August 2006 the club has around 120 members, both male and female, ranging in age from 8 to 70. Three divisions are played in local competition: A Grade (elite), B Grade (intermediate), and C Grade (social, beginners and juniors). Training sessions are also run from time to time.

All local competition games are played at the Warrina Ice Rink in the Townsville suburb of Currajong.

The organisation is run by an Executive Committee consisting of seven members. All administrators and officials within the association are also current players.

The NQBA represents the state of Queensland at the annual Australian National Broomball Championships; the state representative squad is the Queensland Cyclones.

Seasons
As of 2006, the NQBA runs two playing seasons per year, called the Summer and Winter seasons. The summer season generally runs between January and June, while the winter season operates between July and December.

Champions
Each season there is a round robin competition, where every team in each division plays against each other an equal number of times. At the end of the round robin season, the final standings are used to determine those teams that qualify for the play-offs (or finals). The winners of the play-offs are crowned champions.

title: North Queensland Broomball Association


text:
User talk:Carlsmith

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events
Hi. I noticed you have edited some Hong Kong-related articles. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 17:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ne reverting
Please no more reverting of the entry (i.e. HKALE) for the following reasons:
 * Raison detre has become a commonly used vocabulary in the English language (see Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary, Extended Fourth Edition). In the entry entirely written English, "raison detre" should be regarded as English which must go along with the article "the", intead of the Franch article "la".

--Mcy jerry 09:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Certain part of the article about the CLC exmaination comprehension test is meaningless. The grammar used in the article is not satisfactory, and the concept is rather confusion (e.g. what do you mean by "pouring of saliva").

Hello Mcy_jerry, Please read your talk page for your feedback.

--Carlsmith 04:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply
First I would like to apologise for my unintented deletion of your work ([[HKALE]) without appropriate notifications. I don't mean it, to be frank, and don't realise it could be regarded as an act of vandalism in your book. Hope you can accept my apology with my deepest regrets.

Certain arguments were made as you wish. Please feel at ease to consider them, and, if neccessary, drop me a line so as to have further collaboration on editing. Not a single man wants to have nonsense debate and ridiculous attack, and I deeply believe that both of us have enough intelligence to avoid this.

Have a nice day. =)--Mcy jerry 09:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheers
So pleased to see that you have been so dedicted in further improvement. I must say that the controversy is "legally dead" to me! You may remove the dispute template next time, Carl. Again, please applause to our laborious contributor.

PS I did further edit your materials. Some footnotes were added, but yet in a mess somehow. Do you mind cleaning up that stuff for me? =) --Jerry Crimson Mann 15:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there again. Busy with certain new articles, or revieing some old stubs? Tell me if you wish.

Hi
Hi there again. Busy with certain new articles, or reviewing some old stubs? Tell me if you wish.--Jerry Crimson Mann 15:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Author data box format
I've seen that you've changed the author data box of Christopher Woo's. In fact, I made the box following the format of that implemented in Jinyong's page. Recently, I've been trying to increase the number and unify the format of the data pages of Hong Kong writers, as Xi Xi's page has clearly exemplified. So if you determine to change the box format, please don't hesitate to alter the formats of all others data boxes; otherwise it's appropriate for you to retrieve the orginal format. Jerry Crimson Mann 14:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need your help
I don't know the Cantonese pronunciation of Wan Chai. Can you please do it for me in the page? =) --Jerry Crimson Mann 07:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh.. seems like I did it while Jerry was seeking your help. :-D — Instantnood 05:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Templates for the colours of MTR and KCR lines
I guess it would be nice to have templates for the colours of the lines. What's your opinion? — Instantnood 05:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm highly aprreciated the way you combine the station names and their coresponding livery. Bravo! =D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Replied

 * A template for tables may be difficult, as they're rather complicated, with some cells spanning across a few rows. But templates for colours of the lines would definitely be helpful, relieving much of the trouble to type the long string like  KCR East Rail . — Instantnood 06:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Name issue for KCRC Rail lines
The KCRC brands its systems as "KCR East Rail", "KCR Ma On Shan Rail" and so on. In fact it was part of an earlier discussion with Mailer diablo and Juntung (well, quite long ago, gotta find out where it was done) to change the titles according to how they're branded by the company. The KCR and Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation was also split accordingly.

I used both KCR West Rail and KCR West Rail, depends on whether a link to KCR is necessary.

For the titles of the articles on stations, there was an earlier discussion at the talk page of WP:HKWNB. — Instantnood 06:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

MTR naming conventions
I guess you'd be interested to join a discussion on MTR naming conventions. :-D — Instantnood 09:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Miriam Yeung
Probably rewriting would be more appropriate, instead of translation. :-) — Instantnood 06:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Pictures
Thanks for telling. :D --Jerry Crimson Mann 16:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
So appreciated that you've devoted to taking photos of MTR stations as well. :) Btw, the dimension of your photos are rather strange; the ratio of width to height is much smaller than normal. Why? -- Jerry Crimson Mann [17:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

 * Replied

HKD
I think we should rearrange this impoartant article of Hong Kong. I see the USD page would be a good example to follow; there're some points which are highly appreciated, particularly those shipshape tables -- spic-and-span. I see you're an endeavourous HK wikipedian, and I hope you can help with the article of much significance! :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sheung Wan MTR
I love your wonderful pic and the Rumsey contents. Nice job!~ :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

Your Help is Needed!
Hi Carl Smith!

So happy that we have our Hong Kong article promoted to be an WP:FAC, gaining an overwhelming popularity. I think it's not the time to cool down our ambition. The page flag of Hong Kong is now asking for your helping hand! I have greatly modelled it on flag of South Africa and flag of India, plus some brand-new illustrations added which is drawn by me with Flash, and the standard of the article has been greatly boosted, and, nearly, lived up to the feature article's standard. Still, some crucial information is absent, and that's whay your help is urgently needed!

What you can help
The following information are still missing:
 * Symbolism, e.g. the meaning of the design, the bauhinia flower, the red-coloured background, etc.
 * History
 * Photos, e.g. Flag raising ceremony at Golden Bauhinia Square, Flags in parade, desecration cases (I think Long Hair have tried that before ;-P), etc.

Being an active and endeavourous wikipedian, you are now asked to collaborate on this project at full stretch — and to show your pride of being a HK wikipedian!

Yours sincerely, Jerry Crimson Mann 6 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Re:Siu Sai Wan
Fine. I'll take a look on it later. :-D PS Yeah...I'm an HKAL candidate of 2005, and just have had got my results...how's yours? What's your first choice after all? :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 8 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
 * Anyway, take care. :-)

PS My results...ok la...overall, I've got 2 distinctions and 2 credits. I hope it can make my first choice come true. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

Meetup
I hope you can join the meetup later~ =) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Avoid auto-reverts
Please try to show more respect to fellow editors than auto-reverting when there has been no previous discussion. Contesting the lead title is one thing, but simply reverting the entire edit smacks of reflex nay-saying, not reasonable doubt. This goes for both Hong Kong and pronunciation of Hong Kong. You need to show that you've actually read and understood the discussion and objections before upholding the status quo by claiming there is no consensus.

Peter Isotalo 17:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Replied Carlsmith 17:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Need your help
Pleasure. :-D In fact I've been watching for a while... it's not easy to convince each other.. — Instantnood 07:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's now settled. :-) — Instantnood 21:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Carl Peter Isolato got a message for you at my my talk page. :-) — Instantnood 07:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

What had happened? — Instantnood 08:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Panoramic view
Hello Carlsmith may I know how to take these pictures? :-) — Instantnood 08:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I see. Sounds too technical for me.. :-P Thanks. — Instantnood 15:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Kashmir earthquake
Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Please keep it up!!! Pradeepsomani  ( talk )

Copyedit on Siu Sai Wan
Please check my copyedit on Siu Sai Wan. I've been to HK a few times so I know a bit about it, but you might want to check the factual details, especially in the transport section, because the grammar was a little bit unclear and I had to guess what you were implying : ).  freshgavin TALK  07:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: {{HKCrownCopyright}}
 I've voted against its deletion. Do you think we've to request for its undeletion on Chinese Wikipedia as well? — Instantnood 10:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project
Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong
encyclopedist 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Meetup Summer 2006
Have fun. :-) — Instantnood 12:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the diaoyutai flag image, thanks
--Yeahsoo 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Town Station
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kennedy Town Station, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Kennedy Town Station. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First Anniversary Celebrations of Wikimedia Hong Kong
Invitied by Sith lord darth vader (talk), 15:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Legends of China
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Legends of China, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Legends of China has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Legends of China, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Celebrations for 2nd Anniversary of Wikimedia Hong Kong

Dear:  ：

Wikimedia Hong Kong has been founded two year ago. Today, we would like to invite you to a great event for our second anniversary celebrations, that is co-host by us - Digital Content Jam 1.0, which is belongs to The 3C Digital Creativity Dialogue Series -- Creativity, Content, Community.

This is the information of the event：

 * Date: 31, July, 2009 (Friday)
 * Time: From 7:00pm to 9:30pm
 * Venue: eTech Centre Meeting Room M2 &3, 4/F Opulent Building, 402-406 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai（Google map）
 * '''Language: Cantonese
 * Free snacks and drinks will be served!

'''Please register via the link below to tell us if you would like to join the event. Registration Form'''

Regards, Hong Kong Wikimedian Tango Chan 13:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 58
SusanLai (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 58
SusanLai (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Carlsmith,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 83
SusanLai (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 84
SusanLai (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 86
SusanLai (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 87
SusanLai (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 87
SusanLai (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 89
SusanLai (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup 90
SusanLai (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  04:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:MTR templates
Wikipedia:MTR templates, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:MTR templates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:MTR templates during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:MTR templates
Wikipedia:MTR templates, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:MTR templates& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:MTR templates during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Carlsmith


text:
System resource

In computing, a system resource, or simply resource, is any physical or virtual component of limited availability that is accessible to a computer. All connected devices and internal system components are resources. Virtual system resources include files (concretely file handles), network connections (concretely network sockets), and memory areas.

Managing resources is referred to as resource management, and includes both preventing resource leaks (not releasing a resource when a process has finished using it) and dealing with resource contention (when multiple processes wish to access a limited resource). Computing resources are used in cloud computing to provide services through networks.

Major resource types

 * Interrupt request (IRQ) lines
 * Direct memory access (DMA) channels
 * Port-mapped I/O
 * Memory-mapped I/O
 * Locks
 * External devices
 * External memory or objects, such as memory managed in native code, from Java; or objects in the Document Object Model (DOM), from JavaScript

General resources

 * CPU, both time on a single CPU and use of multiple CPUs – see multitasking
 * Random-access memory and virtual memory – see memory management
 * Hard disk drives, include space generally, contiguous free space (such as for swap space), and use of multiple physical devices ("spindles"), since using multiple devices allows parallelism
 * Cache space, including CPU cache and MMU cache (translation lookaside buffer)
 * Network throughput
 * Electrical power
 * Input/output operations
 * Randomness

Categories
Some resources, notably memory and storage space, have a notion of "location", and one can distinguish contiguous allocations from non-contiguous allocations. For example, allocating 1 GB of memory in a single block, versus allocating it in 1,024 blocks each of size 1 MB. The latter is known as fragmentation, and often severely impacts performance, so contiguous free space is a subcategory of the general resource of storage space.

One can also distinguish compressible resources from incompressible resources. Compressible resources, generally throughput ones such as CPU and network bandwidth, can be throttled benignly: the user will be slowed proportionally to the throttling, but will otherwise proceed normally. Other resources, generally storage ones such as memory, cannot be throttled without either causing failure (if a process cannot allocate enough memory, it typically cannot run) or severe performance degradation, such as due to thrashing (if a working set does not fit into memory and requires frequent paging, progress will slow significantly). The distinction is not always sharp; as mentioned, a paging system can allow main memory (primary storage) to be compressed (by paging to hard drive (secondary storage)), and some systems allow discardable memory for caches, which is compressible without disastrous performance impact. Electrical power is to some degree compressible: without power (or without sufficient voltage) an electrical device cannot run, and will stop or crash, but some devices, notably mobile phones, can allow degraded operation at reduced power consumption, or can allow the device to be suspended but not terminated, with much lower power consumption.

title: System resource


text:
Bellpuig railway station

Bellpuig is a Rodalies de Catalunya station serving Bellpuig in Catalonia, Spain. It is owned by Adif and served by regional line.

The station is served daily by six trains to Lleida and five trains to Cervera, three of which continue towards L'Hospitalet de Llobregat via Barcelona.

title: Bellpuig railway station