text:
Livewires (comics)

Livewires is a six-issue comic book limited series published by Marvel Comics in 2005. The series was written by Adam Warren, who also provided layouts, and pencilled by Rick Mays and Jason Martin.

The series stars a group of fictional androids who are members of a covert black ops program code named Project Livewire. These androids are on a mission to seek out and destroy other black ops.

Characters

 * Cornfed looks like a big farm boy and seems to be the team's muscle, but he is actually in charge of all mechanical repairs. He can usually be found behind the scenes giving support and coordinating the team's missions.
 * Gothic Lolita is the actual muscle even though she does not look the part. Social Butterfly used the term "Ben Grimm in black babydoll lace" to describe Gothic Lolita. Her code-name and look are both in reference to the Gothic Lolita fashion style popular in Japan. Gothic Lolita herself has described her role as "smashing and bashing duty."
 * Hollowpoint Ninja is the team's infiltration agent. His description of his role is short but to the point: "stealth, weapons, ambushes."
 * Homebrew was the team's tech specialist before Stem Cell. He was killed just before the beginning of Livewires #1.
 * David Jenkins is the main supporting character. Throughout the series, Stem Cell is educated in her abilities by her teammates through the use of their memory archives. Jenkins is featured in most of these. Apart from being the main person behind the construction and programming of Project Livewire's androids, Jenkins is also shown to be chiefly responsible for their education and training. He was a kind of father figure to them.
 * Social Butterfly's role is to extract information from individuals. She uses a variety of means to achieve this purpose. These include micromanagement of her facial expressions and body language, subliminal vocal clues, artificial pheromones, and force field-induced direct brain manipulation.
 * Stem Cell is the tech specialist. She has a nanofactory where a human stomach would be. She uses this to quickly manufacture any technology that her teammates might need.

Backstory
Project Livewire was founded by S.H.I.E.L.D. as a means of testing the next generation of S.H.I.E.L.D. androids. These androids are based on the long-standing S.H.I.E.L.D. android, the Life Model Decoys (LMDs), and the LMD successors, the Mannites. The androids of Project Livewire combine the super-human abilities of the Mannites with the human appearance of the LMDs. Most of the work for Project Livewire was done by David Jenkins, the assistant chief designer of the project.

In total, ten androids were created for Project Livewire. By the beginning of the limited series, there were only five left functioning.

Issue one: "See These Eyes So Red"
The series opens in the middle of a mission with Stem Cell's activation as a replacement for Homebrew. The team has located one of their targets at a facility operated by a company named Thermogentech. The rogue Black Op is using cells secretly taken from the original Human Torch. These cells have been used to create a hive race of giant burning nanomachine-based robots called Pyronanos. The Pyronanos have gone rogue and have taken over the Thermogentech lab where they were created. Project Livewire assaults the building and discovers the Pyronanos attempting to build a nuclear fusion cannon to spread themselves across the land. After a long fire-fight, the members of Project Livewire manage to destroy both the facility and the Pyronanos.

Since Stem Cell is straight "out of the box", she still has her default human emotional responses in place and has difficulty adapting to the experiences.

Issue two: "Clockwork Thugs, Yo"
After escaping the site of their battle in Issue 1, the team uses a plasma grenade to destroy Homebrew's remains, buries them, and then proceeds to their next two missions.

The first of these missions is the intimidation of a rogue AIM scientist. The second mission is carried out solo by Gothic Lolita. To succeed in her mission she has to steal an experimental Sentinel antimatter power core that is being transported aboard a civilian cargo plane.

Issue three: "Mammalian Verisimilitude"
The team infiltrates a night club that is the evening hang-out of a research scientist who is a known employee for one of their targeted black ops. Inside, Social Butterfly dances with the scientist and while doing so, uses her abilities to get his security codes. Meanwhile, Hollowpoint Ninja distracts the scientist's robotic bodyguard and makes sure it records nothing out of the ordinary.

Using the codes, Cornfed sabotages the black op's computers and in the process uncovers information that indicates a location where they could gain access to the highest priority target on their list. This target is a black op so secret that even its true code-name is unknown. It is known only by the nickname The White Whale.

Issues four to six: Battle With The White Whale
The team stows aboard a tanker truck containing a shipment of inert nanofluid that is being delivered to the White Whale by AIM. At the arrival point, a huge black robot appears and takes the entire tanker up to the White Whale's headquarters. The headquarters is revealed to be a massive flying structure that was built around the frame of an "officially wrecked" S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier. The White Whale itself is revealed later to be a hive mind made up of modified Nick Fury-based LMD's.

Once aboard, the White Whale discovers their existence very quickly, and the team's plans begin to fall apart. In the resulting turmoil there is a scramble to find safety as their enemies open fire. Team members begin to drop at this point. One of the huge outer guns is turned inward to shoot at the area of the fire-fight. Cornfed is hit and the blast disintegrates most of his body; his head and right shoulder are the only parts left intact. Gothic Lolita is caught by one of the White Whale LMD's and thrown into the Helicarrier's electromagnetic launcher. The launcher is designed to put a 10-ton payload into orbit, but Gothic Lolita is launched down instead of up. The impact is enough to cause a significant explosion. The last member to fall is Social Butterfly. She is cut to pieces by one of their foes using a high-tech monowire whip. Hollowpoint Ninja is captured shortly after pushing Stem Cell into the relative safety of a fuel pipe. Stem Cell is then forced to hack herself so that she can alter her emotions at will.

The battle ends when Stem Cell uses plans stolen from Thermogentech's files to create an upgraded version of the Pyronanos. Stem Cell designs these Pyronanos to run even hotter than the originals; she plans for the resulting explosion to destroy the Helicarrier. Lost in the resulting fight between the Pyronanos and the White Whale, Stem Cell recovers the remains of Cornfed and Social Butterfly. She then rescues Hollowpoint Ninja, who had lost one arm and both legs in the meantime, and launches an escape pod. Fleeing to safety, the two survivors watch as the Helicarrier explodes behind them.

Final pages of issue six: The Aftermath
After reaching the ground, Stem Cell recovers the fused remains of Gothic Lolita and sets out for Project Livewire's headquarters with what is left of her teammates. Instead of the high tech building she is expecting, she finds a huge hole and demands Hollowpoint Ninja tell her what happened. He then shares a memory archive showing the events that took place when Project Livewire's mission orders were activated.

Unknown to the other members of the Project, David Jenkins had a hidden agenda. He predicted that the robot's programmed machine logic would lead them to the conclusion that humans were likely to compromise the Project and that they would believe it to be within mission parameters to kill everyone else in the Project. Jenkins adapted their mission so that it would lead to the destruction of other black projects funded by the US government from a list he made himself. His reasoning for all of this was 'The sociopaths in suits can't be trusted.' Using the base's gamma reactor and more personal means, the robotic members killed all the human members of Project Livewire. Jenkins was voluntarily included in this killing. Before his death, he asked them to give his glasses to one of their own; they gave them to Stem Cell.

The series ends with Stem Cell trying to decide on a new name as she sets out to find a place to rebuild her teammates.

Publication history
Livewires #1-6 were published February - August 2005. A "digest format" trade paperback titled Livewires: Clockwork Thugs, Yo was published on October 10 of the same year. ISBN 0-7851-1519-6

title: Livewires (comics)


text:
User talk:James26

Sydney Andrews
Hey, sorry for the late reply. If you want I can upload a better quality screenshot? -- Detroitpiston (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossip Girl
Thanks for answering :) Someone963852 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Breakout character
I've finally found a source for the other part of the definition and retained your edits (as well as, prompted by your edit summary, purging all unsourced entries from the list).

Sorry to have aggravated you, but you may (blissfully perhaps) be unaware of the history behind this article. It came out of this AfD, where we all sort of agreed the phenomenon was encylopedic but the name was not. So when the article was started (and wasn't officially a list), the idea was to focus on characters like Fonzie, Urkel or Alex Keaton who had actually displaced their shows' intended main characters, or one of them. The secondary definition was characters like Stewie Griffin who became fan favorites and went from minor characters to major ones. I put it on my watchlist and it has been there ever since.

It has since occurred to me that the term also seems to be used by TV critics and fans to mean a character who emerges from an ensemble cast to become virtually identical with the show, such as Spock. Blair certainly qualifies, although I'd also like to see the entry note that she is the main character of the books (and being billed second in the show doesn't necessarily mean you're not the main character; SAG rules usually specify everyone gets credited alphabetically after the show's star, unless the producers and the actor agree otherwise (as Henry Winkler did by going second after Ron Howard).

Actually, just looking at the articles on the characters ... you'd have a strong case under the original "Fonzie" definition for Blair in the (currently-deleted) books section based on this source: " ' Originally my heroine was Serena,' Cecily says. 'But she's so beautiful and nice and everybody loves her that she's just boring. She doesn't have all the flaws and complexities that Blair has, so later on in the books she just took over and became the main character." For the TV section, given that she's the main character of the books, do we have something by the producers or someone saying that they intended it to be more of an ensemble show?

I'm thinking of perhaps breaking the article up so that the section heds distinguish between characters who took over their narrative from another one and characters who just emerged from the field. That might prevent more future edit wars like the one we just had. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you were busy while I was typing this. Good ... this is just what we need. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sequel
User:Drolz09 and I have been revert warring over your addition of Blair to the list, with discussions on our respective talk pages (my comments to him here, and his responses here). Since you had been as passionate about her meeting the definition as he seems to be about her not, perhaps you can weigh in? You also probably know more about the subject than I do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Clark
There seems to be a lot going on there. I personally hate protecting pages but maybe requesting a short one is a possibility? You're more involved in the situation so I'll leave that thought with you. Cheers, RaseaC (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Children's Literature Project banner and assessment
Thanks for your requests for review. I or another project member will review your pages shortly. For new articles one way you can help is by inserting the project banner on the discussion page by inserting. This will automatically alert us, when the bot next runs, that there is a page in the project with-out an assessment. I look forward to reading your articles. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
No problem! :) --SilentAria talk 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, no problem! I just realized that I may have been too hasty since I was rifling through a lot of Unassessed articles, so I backtracked a bit and figured I gave the Need (novel series) article a wrong assessment. :) --SilentAria talk 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Jones
If you haven't planned to do so already, consider nominating the article for DYK. The nomination page is at Template talk:Did you know. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carrie Jones
Hello! Your submission of Carrie Jones at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Jones
Have you considered submitting something from the article to Did you know? You have done a lot of work in a short time. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So I looked up the DYK nomination. Basically the problem was that what you put in the statement (hook) didn't have an explicit source in the article. I attempted a new hook which has in-line citation. We'll see how that goes. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK appears on the main page (en.wikipedia.org). On the left side there is a Featured Article and right beneath that there are DYK facts meant to entice people to find out more about a newer or newly revised article. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carrie Jones

 * Congrats on this! Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for everything you did. -- James26 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your peer review of Pilot (Parks and Recreaton). I'm going to give it one more proofread myself and incorporate your changes, then hopefully in the few days nominate it for FAC. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if you'd make some comments there and voice your support when and if the time comes. My last FAC failed despite having passed a GA and a peer review in the past, so I'd hate to see it happen again. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Naomi Clark
At a glance, it appears to be in very good shape. I haven't read through it for any prose or grammatical issues, but if it's gone through a peer review, that's already more than can be said for many articles that are nominated for GA (including most of my own). The external links for all the sources seem to be OK. Most importantly, it avoids two problems I've seen with character articles in the past: it's not written in a primarily in-universe way, and it doesn't rely on primary sources (meaning cited episodes). All of your sources appear to be reliable secondary sources, which is really important. I'd have to take a closer look to see if the structure is right for this episode, but WP:TVMOS allows for a lot of flexibility when it comes to the structure of character articles. So, in other words, yeah, looks good! lol. If you nominate it, let me know, maybe I can give it a review. I've been trying to cut down the TV/movies/theatre-related GAN backlog the bit in recent weeks, although it keeps growing and growing. (Which is a good thing! lol) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm pretty sure anybody could assess it. According to WP:Assessment, anybody can rate an article as long as they don't rate it GA or FA, which obviously has to be done through those review processes. If there was a dispute with the rating (some other user felt it should be rated lower), they could change it, and then it might have to go to a WikiProject or something to be resolved. But I'm pretty sure any user at all, even you, could be bold and add an assessment rating and it's no problem. If you want, I could take another more careful look at it and assess it myself. Or you yourself could look at the quality scale and give it the grade you feel is warranted. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I think to give it an A grade, you need to have somebody independent of the article review it. But a B grade or lower I think anyone can do... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jackson Pearce
Thanks for cleaning up the article. Are you a fan of Jackson Pearce? UncoolJohn (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Taylor
Please discuss things before you revert, so avoid edit warring. First of all, your latest edit, I've added too as she was mentioned in last nights episode so I think that's good to have. The only reason I added the note in the first place was because it's weird how she was quite a big character then not written out, so it should be noted, but I'm willing to wait until the end of the season, just incase. Also, please don't remove the latest piece of info. Jayy008 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I'm happy to wait until the end of the season, when it comes around the source I'll use for "her being mentioned" is a link to the episode video itself n the CW website. Jayy008 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Urban fantasy Page
^^;; Some of the examples seem to be Paranormal fantasy in the category, can you please clean this up so it is focused on Urban fantasy and its definition? i.e. Instead of saying Vampires are featured, mention the life of the city, etc. I noticed you made the recent additions, so I thought I would notify you. A lot of the examples list things like "going to an Academy" but that's not Urban Fantasy... unless it's Kids in an Inner City going to school and dealing with say magic and going to the school. It is OK to mention that in recent times that Paranormal and Urban fantasy have been paired more often, but I think the definitions should be kept distinct... Thank you.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Example:
 * Kim Harrison's Rachel Morgan novels, taking place in an alternate history setting, feature a bounty-hunting witch who battles numerous supernatural foes.[9]

 * This example is cited, but it doesn't mention the CITY or the CITY problems that that the book features. Rather, it talks about the paranormal elements, which is a witch. This may give a false impression that Paranormal Fantasy and Urban Fantasy are the same thing... but for it to count, it has to have Fantasy and Urban... Urban is a WHERE part of the who-what-where-when how. So which city did it take place in? I hope that clarifies. I'm not disputing they are Urban fantasy, I'm disputing that the way the example is given is misleading. Thanks. I hope that's not too harsh. ^^;; Don't mean it to be.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Can you make sure to give an example of the city or city problems for each of the examples listed in the article? Many of them focus on the paranormal, etc, but then fail to mention where its set... Something like It's set in Chicago, as in the Definition section. Or it deals with an inner city social worker who is dealing with the Homeless and finds out they are Witches. Beyond that point it can clarify the plot, say Teen Urban Fantasy tends to also use Paranormal Romance and set up love triangles (Give an example, that uses a city and paranormal), but it should mention the city used in each of the examples... I think that will clarify the page a bit better. Thanks. I'd do the clean up, but I'm not familiar with the examples and I thought it would be better for you to do it since you invested time into it. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 * What I'm afraid of is without the mentioning of the city, the genre definition doesn't look like it matches the article. There is too much emphasis on Paranormal, the romance angles, etc. But that's not really Urban Fantasy. Urban Fantasy CAN be paired with other subgenres and isn't mutually exclusive, but without the city mentioned as a major feature of the story in the genre, it really doesn't count as Urban Fantasy. I'll give this as an example, the Country Fantasy of Smallville is set in Smallville, which is a major element in the story. Without Smallville, the story falls apart. You can't mention Smallville without the fact its a small town that has a disaster happen to it and the Clark Kent who discovers he has strange powers is trying to solve the problems in Smallville. You *could* describe it as Smallville is a story of how Clark Kent became Superman, but then if you are defining Country Fantasy, and are trying to find the definition and clarification for the definition and the range that its currently and in the past paired with, it really is confusing. In another words, is the definition of Urban Fantasy mean that it is automatically werewolves, Vampires, and so on with romance triangles? Or is it the city... it would seem to clash. You have to take it from the POV of someone who NEVER read the books and is trying to find out what Urban Fantasy is. You can list various trends in a new section like what Urban Fantasy's history and what other subgenres its paired with... but that should be separate.

 * What sets Urban fantasy as a definition is that it focuses on the setting of the city as a major character in the book. The city's ups and downs, and does it in the context of Fantasy. Yes, the examples can be varied, but without mentioning the city involved and how it relates to the definition, it really doesn't seem to hold the article together. I'll give an off-hand example of how this can be done from a book I know is Urban Fantasy. While many Urban fantasy may pair up with Paranormal, Spellbinder by Melanie Rawn, which is set in Manhattan, focuses on witches and the sex lives of the individuals that live there. The focus of the book is on the witches, not on the vampires.

 * And so on... Let's put it this way, if you define a dog as a canine, are you going to introduce that cats also wear collars? It really doesn't have to do with the definition of what a dog is that they wear a collar. I believe in variety, but as the article stands without mentioning the city in the examples, it makes the definition look like its confused with the given examples. There is a way to mention the city and also the various trends, but to make the example work, you really need to mention the city. You can't define a definition and then fail to give examples related to that definition. This isn't for the "List all the Urban Fantasy for readers" But to clarify what Urban Fantasy is by giving examples that fall into the definition and give them in a way that makes it clear to the reader who doesn't know about the genre at all nor has read those books.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Naomi (90210)
I just wanted to drop by and say nice work on the article; however, I also have a few suggestions: --  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is quite short, and should be expanded. The lead should basically serve as an introduction and summarize the main information of the article, like at Alexander Mahone.
 * The image in the infobox is a little fuzzy. I think the image at The CW looks a lot better.
 * The format of the subheadings is different to most other character articles, but that isn't necessarily bad. Have a look at this revision for an alternate format.
 * Well I'm not an expert on images, but I thought that screenshots are just as copyrighted as promo pics, ie. using that pictures from the CW would create no more copyright infringement than the current sreenshot has already, if that makes sense. Most characters articles use promo shots so I would encourage it. I have no preference over the format, it's just that the alternate version I proposed is how most character articles are presented. Seeking consensus would be a good idea.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   04:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the hard work certainly paid off; the lead looks great now! I think the promo pic looks a lot better, but whatever you decide. Also, is the Tonight Show image really warranted? I'm not sure the GA reviewer will be happy with three non-free images.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   06:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, well it really comes down to the GA reviewer. Most reviewers are quite strict and that article would never get past FAC; plus, I notice that the review is being questioned so... ;) Are you planning to expand any more character articles? I did a bit on Adrianna Tate-Duncan a while ago, and if you're interested in writing episode articles you could use "We're Not in Kansas Anymore" as a template, which I got to GA a while ago.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Well good luck with everything!  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pilot (Community)
Thanks for your help! I'm certainly not perfect when it comes to the dashes, I'll have a look. Thanks again! Lampman (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One Tree Hill
Hello. I agree with your redirects of all characters of One Tree Hill because none of them have any third party coverage. However, you've done it very sloppy. One a "list of..." page there needs to be a brief description of the character. The page didn't have these because they had a direct link to their main articles for all the information you'd need. But you simply deleted the pages without adding any descriptions. Jayy008 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, James26. I would say I have to disagree with your redirecting any of the original main teenage (now adult, depending on what season a person is watching) characters. I restored the Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer articles, because I will fix those up soon. I only ask that you give me some time, maybe a month to finish up both. Sometimes I can move fast when I plan to fix up an article; others time I do not, due to being busy or whatever else. So that is why I say give me at least a month in this case; it does not mean that it will actually take a month, though. As for the others, such as Brooke Davis and Nathan Scott, I will worry about those later. I like that you have not yet redirected them, though, and instead put a notability tag on them. Likewise, I suggest you put a notability tag on Lucas and Peyton's articles...in the meantime.

One thing is certain to be done very soon... I will be fixing up the One Tree Hill (TV series) article in quite a little bit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 * That's okay, I only meant that when I delete things, I always make sure everything that I'm going to affect is changed too. Also with 90210 I think only Naomi should have her own article because she's the only one with a lot of media coverage, thanks for keeping an eye, I like what you've done with her page too. As above I think we should leave the main 5, Lucas, Nathan, Peyton, Haley and Brooke with their only if we can find references with reception to the characters etc. As Flyer22 said, he wants a month. I think that's a good enough time frame, I'll try do the same to the pages within this month too. After a month if we judge the pages and see if there if enough references etc, we can revist the deletion issue of those? Jayy008 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, glad to have you helping out, Jayy. I'm female by the way, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 * That's fine, I'll personally delete them in one month if they're not sourced enough. And oh, I'm sorry LOL. Jayy008 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * James, I replied again on my talk page, but you probably already know that I will most likely respond there (seeing as the tag on my talk page even says so). But I just wanted to let you know, just in case. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Becky McDonald
Thankyou for reading over that section, I made the correct changes to the issues you had found. I should have made it more clear, that in 2006 she became a permanent cast member, then she later signed a 12 month contact, after that she signed a contract that would keep her with the series until 2011, then she signed a brand new contract, forgetting the old one, with a brand new producer. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 17:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking at the article, I think I'll leave it until the actual review now though. I've lost interest in it tbh, It's been number 1 waiting for ages now, but reviewers are carrying out favours for friends and reviewing number 30 and so on. Thankyou though, you made good points. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 15:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Clark
Hi, yes you're right I didn't read it. I always put sources after full stops but it does flow better as one sentence. The other thing I don't agree with, it looks tidyer to have to source in the lead, it's not like I've used the source twice, when something is used twice in an article, the ref name field is what should be used, that's what it's there for. Jayy008 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol yes, I do think that part does need all those citations, it shows the majority of people that consider it. so you don't have an objection to the ref name method? If you don't I'll add it, just for preference. Jayy008 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I think having everything sourced in the lead makes the article better, but I'll use ref name instead. I'm going to leave the article to you after that though, I was going to watch list it but there's no point as you're a good editor and always make sure the article is perfect. I'll focus on something that needs the work. Jayy008 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have made a few changes to the page, despite my earlier withdrawal. I have changed the infobox image to one of her from season 2 as usually the infobox is what the character looks like most recently (Unless they make a dramatic change). I've also added a image of the season 2 finale of her and Cannon w/source in the image caption about character direction. Take a look and let me know any objections. Jayy008 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a mistake on my part, I thought the Tonight Show image was off Wikipedia Commons. I would never have uploaded the third image if I knew, I agree though, I think the tonight show image should stay. Jayy008 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree for normal citations. But that's what these ref names are for, what's the point in having them otherwise? As for asking someone else, I don't know anybody else who extends their editing of television shows the characters. Jayy008 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * No no, I know it's not just for TV. The ref name I just think should be used anywhere in the article that uses the information from the source, because it's not repeating the ref. Also I don't understand, I remember a while back with the Kelly article (I just took a look at it, that's why I'm bringing it up) about the thing you wanted sourced or you'd keep removing it. Which, I did. However above that in the Melrose Place section there's the same type of info about a different story yet you haven't removed it or sourced it in the whole time I've been editing Kelly Taylor article? So I'm wondering why it's just the 90210 bit you keep an eye on. Also about the image, there's no difference about the licensing about the lead image, most tv shows on here that are edited frequently use a recent image of the character, why should Clark be different? Jayy008 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand now. I think I will bring the image up for discussion, even though I know your opinion is different, I still think you should get involved with the discussion. By the way, I'm temporarily deleting your discussion off my page, something has happened to all my stuff :S. I'm not being rude! Jayy008 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * In response to your comment on my talk, yes after a GA is passed the assessments change to GA-class. Usually I change them but missed that one. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Community pilot
Thanks for your help with Pilot (Community) (finally got around to looking at it.) I think I got the dashes under control now; I really don't use m-dashes normally. They were just in the "Cast and characters" section because I had imported the format by cut-and-paste from somewhere else, but now it's n-dashes throughout. Lampman (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, I've tried to address your issues. Lampman (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Characters.
Hello, just to keep you updated. I have done some work on Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer to which Flyer22 is taking over. I will be doing the other 3 gradually but they are a lot of work so bare with me. Any websites you can think of to get reception of characters? Jayy008 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I also think Naomi Clark should be nominated for GA. Do you know how to do it? Jayy008 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You're welcome :) Jayy008 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * As I stated to Jayy, I am just letting you know that I will probably be cutting it very close to improving the Peyton Sawyer article. I need to get to a library. The deal about that is currently stated on my talk page. As for the other articles, the Lucas Scott article is pretty much fine, though I will be adding more to it when I can. The other three articles may be redirected by you before I get to them, but make no mistake that I will significantly fix them up (either way). Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Adrianna
Hey, James. I'm not really planning on expanding the article or anything, but I did have a quick look online and added some stuff to the article. There's a lot more out there, and once the next season starts I'll sure there will be a lot more. I think the article is notable enough to be kept. (PS - I've noticed that the Naomi article has been on top of the GAN list for a while. No luck with reviewers?)  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol - well I've been "semi-retired" for a while now, but I still haven't been able to quit completely for long periods of time. Here's hoping to one day ;) Good luck with your future endeavors,  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, well good luck with the review! Oh and you can find lots of templates at Wikibreak if you're interested.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   07:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming
The character is billed as "Silver" by the CW. No "Erin" about the matter, she's hardly ever been called Erin on the show. Isn't there another rule about what's been used to most? For example in One Tree Hill Haley James changed to Haley James Scott from Season 2 onwards and should be called Haley James Scott. Jayy008 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Oh, my god. I've seen it, and it's annoying. Very annoying! As for the naming thing, I'm not saying I know better, I just always go by what the network names her. In the press release it says Jessica Stroup as Silver. So what do you think? I'll await your reply before making any more changes. Jayy008 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blake's 7 LOBC removal
Whatever. I just generally prefer to give the user a hint that way, especially since he went to the trouble of reverting your removal. Maybe we could leave a note on the IP talk page? (And, I also prefer to do those removals from the list in bulk every few months. But maybe it's time for one of them anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

90210
It wasn't a prediction. Jennie Garth has confirmed she won't return. Tori Spelling left the show because they wouldn't pay her enough, was supposed to be return but plans were scrapped because of Rebecca Sinclair. Shannen Doherty is signed on for two more episodes but those plans have also been scrapped thanks to Sinclair. Do you need sources? Jayy008 (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Maybe we could say: "However, after the conclusion of second season, there are no plans for them to return."

Brooke Davis
Woops, if they specified in their edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted. I think I jump to conclusions regarding IP's. And great, I'll take a look at what you've done, I'm trying to get around to that article, but if you're working on it, I'll move on to Nathan Scott? Jayy008 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Does this mean you're coming out of retirement? :) Jayy008 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay. I'll keep you updated with how they're coming along. Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blair Waldorf
From a skim, it looks like it should do well enough at GAN; nothing looks missing. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Since I don't know a single thing about Gossip Girl, I might not be the best person to ask. :P But from what I can tell, nothing major seems to be lacking. Andrea  ( talk ) 02:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Darla (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Hey there. I just fixed up pretty much everything you noted in the peer review. Could you possibly look those over when you get the chance? Thanks, HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, whenever you get the chance. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Quick opinion?
I'd recommend starting with GA and then moving on the FA later on. At a glance, it looks like a shoo-in for good article; it seems to cover all the broad aspects of the subject and is well sourced with reliable secondary sources (which is good, as many fictional character articles are sourced by tons of primary sources like TV show episodes, but this one doesn't have that problem). But the FAC process is a tough one and I suspect this article might still need a bit of beefing up before you nominate it for featured article. Some of the sections seem pretty small, the prose could probably use a good once-over, and there are a few nit-picky things (for example, off-line sources like Zap2it and Perezhilton.com should not be italicized, and book sources should have page numbers) that would become an issue during FAC. I suggest go for GAN first, and having a review there might help identify problems that could be addressed before the FAC. Good luck, and nice work with the article! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard
Hello! Your submission of Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note
I didn't know if you were still watching my page or not, and I again thank you for your noticing my efforts. I just thought I would pass something along however... this edit of yours (1) does technically violate WP:TPO. Under WP:UP users are (unfortunately) allowed to remove warnings and notices from their own pages. Personally, I think this is a bad idea - and to make it even worse, anonip's are allowed to do it as well, despite their being dynamic most of the time and not having the same user for more than a few hours or a day at a time. The only things that are not allowed to be removed are expired block notices on anonip talk pages. I have been trying to get this clearly problematic situation rectified... but just wanted to let you know that unless/until it is - you will need to exercise caution when doing edits like this, especially on registered user pages. Then again - with all the blatant TPO vios that have been getting ignored and even harbored by admin, you might be ok anyhow, LOL. (see here). Srobak (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of Winesburg, Ohio
Thanks for looking over Winesburg, Ohio I've posted my responses to your review. Just letting you know. Cheers, --Olegkagan (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

GS review of Hellblazer
Wow! Thanks. I'll take a good look at the issues raised tomorrow! Much appreciated sir.  Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I've posted on the GA review, I think I've covered all but one of what you've mentioned, and hope that this can be sorted! And again, 'semi-retired'? With that level of work? In that case I must be in a wikicoma!  Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 11:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * And hello again, I've left a reply on the GA page, although I think it shows my lack of experience at this...  Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 07:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review for Blair Waldorf
Check out my GA review and, if possible, provide improvements while the review is on hold. The article is almost there! AstroCog (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankie Edgar
FYI, the last match between Edgar and Maynard was a knockout, not TKO as the ESPN article lists. Sherdog correctly lists the result as KO as reported by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, who was the regulatory agency overseeing that fight card. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Caps
I didn't see that. I was spoofing the entire page and missed that part. Thanks for noticing it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Tennis Edits
Hi, you stated my additions lack reliable sources, can you give me an example?. Do you really expect someone to list sources to verify the final score of a tennis match?. As for the adjectives you mentioned such as "devestating", I've since removed the majority of those desriptive terms, something you should have noticed when reading my edits.

As for the Gabriela Sabatini page, I can't understand why you keep removing her 1993 section?. 1993 was a pivitol year for Sabatini, and she was still near the top of womens tennis. For those reasons her results in the 1993 Grand Slam events are completely relevant, and I've since reinserted those results, so please stop removing them.

Finally, regarding the use of first names and surnames, I have seen them used interchangeably on wikipedia and other sources of information. Don't cite Tom Brady as an example, as he is generally referred to by his last name. I followed womens' tennis for many years, and certain players(Monica Seles, Steffi Graf, Jana Novotna, and Mary Joe Fernandez) were commonly referred to by their first names and in no way reflects any bias. On the other hand, Gabriela Sabatini was mostly referred to by her surname. Once again, I see no harm in referring to someone by their first name or surname. Mainstrike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstrike (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Radwanska
It's clear no scores, please check [|Radwanska's Talk page], for a better way to reach a consensus. Dencod16 (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open
Hi, please note that the article 2004 Estoril Open has been nominated for deletion along with the subarticles Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. Discussion can be found here: Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Blogs aren't usable on Wikipeida
The reason I removed TSS is that ultimately, it's a book blog. While it is popular, being popular does not automatically make a blog usable. It's not like it's Publishers Weekly or the SLJ. It's ultimately a book blog and the people running it aren't really considered to be recognizable authorities. They're just average people running a book blog.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... it's gotten a reputation lately for not being as reliable, mostly due to claims of plagiarism over some of their blog posts. It's unknown as to the extent of what they've plagiarized, but they'd definitely been caught plagiarizing some "how to" blogs out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

Cut and paste moves
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give The Ricki Lake Show (2012 TV series) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into The Ricki Lake Show. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Sorry if it caused you any difficulties. -- James26 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miesha Tate vs. Ronda Rousey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rival (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tate vs Rousey
It was already pretty much a C quality wise - I usually like to let new articles cook a bit. Well referenced and with picis - clearly a C. To get to B not sure I can offer any advice. The article clearly is well written but again it probably needs more time to grow. Both ladies have their own article and personally (subjectively) I don't think a separate article on the rivalry has a place. Still because if was so well done I wont push that point of view.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture
That is fine but that picture you put in does not show the court. And the general overall principal for infobox pics is to use ones that best show the face. I won't change it as its not that big a deal but I thought it odd that you mentioned the court when it doesn't show the court. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Agnieszka Radwańska
ok, thanks for letting me know about that. I don't suppose you know of a quick way to make all the changes throughout the article? JayJ47 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Petra Kvitova
Hi James, thanks for the explanation on the issue. I just can't get what you meant by scroll over the top of the women's bar. Dont mind to explain? Thank you and good day. Silaslej (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Tate-Eye
Hey James, could you add some of the quotes from the Road to the Octagon episode to the articles? Mainly, how Eye explained a previous meeting between her and Tate, where Tate allegedly shunned her? Just asking you because you seem well-versed in this kind of thing. WWE Batman131 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miesha Tate
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Miesha Tate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miesha Tate
The article Miesha Tate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miesha Tate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC) --> --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Agnieszka Radwańska edits
Heads up that the editor you're disagreeing with here is a banned long-term vandal and can be blocked and reverted on sight without discussion. You can request article protection at WP:RPP if they continue to revert the article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mona Vanderwaal PLL2.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mona Vanderwaal PLL2.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

File:GL Tavis.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Children's Literature Project Relaunch
Hi, I'm ! You're receiving this message because at one time you had signed up for the Children's literature project. While the project has been largely inactive, I'm hoping make the project active once again. I think there are a lot of exciting directions we could take the project and I would love if you would join me by adding your name back to the active members list.
 *  Children's Literature Project Relaunch  December 2018

Congrats to the following editors for having newly recognized content in November and December:
 * Recognized Content

Have some ideas of activities for the project? Need some help? Join in at the project talk page
 * Join the Discussion

Unless you sign-up as a member at the project you will not receive any future newsletters. If you would like to sign-up for just the newsletters or want to be an active member but not get the newsletters you can do that here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GGBlaircover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GGBlaircover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ivy
I'm glad to hear that image of Poison Ivy led you to discover the Poison Ivy: Cycle of Life and Death storyline. Images used in articles can have a powerful effect, as humans tend to be very visual by nature, and the use of these images is often under appreciated. Sorry to hear you won't be editing anymore. I will look forward to hearing from you if you choose to come back. All the best. DrRC (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GGBlaircover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GGBlaircover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OBMBQ.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:OBMBQ.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GGBlaircover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GGBlaircover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BWaldorf lead.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BWaldorf lead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Julia Sarah stone
I noticed you restored most of her page that was deleted. I have it under good authority that she/her team wrote the page herself to promote herself, which does not seem fair as Wikipedia is not a promotional business. That is why there were so many praising quotes on her and her acting style, even though she is an unknown actor. Nfhh5 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Good Leader Tavis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Good Leader Tavis, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Good Leader Tavis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GL Tavis.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GL Tavis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:James26


text:
Mark Warawa

Mark Warawa (May 7, 1950 – June 20, 2019) was a Canadian politician. Formerly a businessman and loss prevention officer as well as a city councillor in Abbotsford, British Columbia from 1990 to 2004, Warawa was the Member of Parliament for Langley—Aldergrove (originally called Langley) from 2004 until his death in 2019.

On February 10, 2006, Warawa was named parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment. Less recently, he served as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Warawa introduced a private member's bill in the House of Commons, condemning discrimination against females in sex-selective abortion.

He and his wife, Diane, lived in Langley and had five children. His son Ryan was the Conservative candidate in Vancouver East in the 2008 election, losing to Libby Davies of the NDP.

Warawa died of pancreatic cancer on June 20, 2019.

title: Mark Warawa


text:
Talk:Dolby Pro Logic

Last edit and my removal
The fact that Pro-Logic IIx can make 6.1 and 7.1 channel audio from "smaller" sources is already noted in the description. IIx is not a replacment for the EX codec. - Flash-Gordon 08:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am curious as to if there are any articles on Wikipedia as of yet that are related to the subject of "servo circuts"? They are an intregal part of the DPL II system, but not many may understand the influence and effect of the chips, or how they work. - -Ritz 18:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but you can create one. Please feel free to add a bit about the circuits to this article, just be careful to keep it brief, because the focus of this page is the codec, not tha hardware that makes it work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash-Gordon (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 July 2005

Matrices
What the nun-sandwich do those numbers in the matrices mean? Are they a measure of the discreteness of each decoded channel(with 1.0 being a fully discrete channel), or are they some kind of reference as to where in the matrixed audo each channel can be found? boffy_b 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

They are relative signal levels.

The Pro Logic II "matrix"
Assume that a full-scale, 100%, 0dB signal is 1 volt.

If you want to send a 0dB signal to the left channel, you send a 1 volt signal to the left channel only, nothing to the right.

If you want to send a 0dB signal to the center channel, you send identical in-phase 0.707 volt signals to both left and right channels.

If you want to send a -6dB signal (50%) to the center, you send identical in-phase 0.354 volt signals to both left and right channels.

If you want to send a 0dB signal to the right-rear, you send a 0.8196 volt signal to the right, and the same signal to the left, but 180 degrees out-of-phase and decreased to 0.5774 volts.

Note that the rear-channel 180 degree phase shift is actually achieved by applying a +90 degree phase shift to the right rear, and a -90 degree phase shift to the left rear.

Pro Logic II decoding and "steering"
When a signal is present only in the right channel, it is routed to the right front.

When a signal is present only in the left channel it is routed to the left front.

When identical in-phase signals are present in both channels, the audio is routed to the center.

When identical, but out-of-phase signals are present in the left and right, the audio is routed to the rear speakers. If the out-of-phase signals have different levels, the audio is routed to the dominate channel.

When there is a mix of the above conditions, the steering effect may reduced or turned- off completely. --DougDbug 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Automatic detection
Some receivers can automatically switch on their DPLII decoder only if they detect a DPLII signal from the source. How does this detection work? Balfa 18:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (bump) Good question, as Dolby Surround tracks don't carry a discrete "flag" like DD and DTS do. Most receivers that I've worked with will switch to a user-preselected decode mode based on the number/type of inputs the source is sending. E.g., optical/coaxial digital, the receiver will switch to DD or DTS as appropriate ... analog, 2-ch input, receiver switches to PL, PLII Movie, PLII Music, PLIIx Movie, blah blah blah. Just my guess. YMMV. --~D BS Talk / Contribs 20:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my old amp (a cheap Amphion Mediaworks) used to turn on DD/DTS when necessary (straightforward to do) but if I gave it a standard analogue stereo signal, it would either leave it unprocessed or pass it through its DPLII processor, based on... something. Of course I could override it to always use DPLII or always bypass DPLII in the settings, but it was this "Auto Detect" option that has me confused. Balfa 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe stereophonic and monophonic programming? Easy enough for a receiver to switch on that. I just played with a low-end Sony, and it had an A.F.D. mode which auto'changed, ... pretty much DD or DTS for those (coaxial, digital) inputs, then PLII for stereo analog. Didn't try mono sources. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First use of Pro Logic
I have a memory that the first film to use Pro Logic was a remake of the Jazz Singer - which, of course, would have a nice symmetry, could someone confirm or deny that? What was the first film to be encoded with Pro Logic (presumably the first surround sound system)? -- Apepper 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Are you talking about in the theatre, or home video release? BTW, Dolby Pro Logic refers to the decoding circuitry, not a media encoding. Perhaps the first paragraphs of the article will answer your question. -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC) updated 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It was really the first cinema release I was interested in; if it was in 1976 then its too early for the Jazz Singer. It may not be the right article, but I'd be interested to know about the impact of the surround sound systems on cinemas who, presumably, had to make a fairly major investment to equip for surround sound.Apepper 23:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro Logic encoding matrix?
The Dolby Pro Logic Encoding Matrix table appears to have five channels. I thought that Dolby Pro Logic was a four-channel format, and that five channels were not added until Pro Logic II? Am I confused and do I misread the article text? jhawkinson 05:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The back channels both have the same information, but are considered separate channels on the standard. So on the matrix you have Surround Left and Surround Right, but the data is exactly the same, actually the same as in Dolby Surround. Ricnun 08:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * But the article states it's an encoding matrix, and only one surround channel is encoded. Listing two surround channels for Pro Logic is confusing. I am with jhawkinson on this. It should be changed. 216.123.197.25 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I was satisfied with Ricnun's explanation. jhawkinson 02:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dolby surround.jpg
The image Image:Dolby surround.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the matrix of Dolby Pro Logic IIz ??
I saw the matrix rules about Dolby Pro Logic II but where is the IIx and the IIz please ? In what manner do they are coded ? What are the VST, Plug-Ins, Stand alone programs that are capable to ENCODE 9.1 channels in 2 ? ( Pro Logic IIz ) or 7.1 channels in 2 ? ( Pro Logic IIx ) ?

Thank you very much Iw2mln (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Nobody answered so that I investigated and found the answer directly with Dolby Labs. The extra channels in Dolby Pro Logic IIx and IIz are NOT discrete channels. I mean: they are not encoded. Those channels are onlyextrapolation of not correlated signals, that are sent to extra 2 back channels in IIx and 4 extra channels ( 2 back-side and two Upper-front ) in IIz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iw2mln (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Software encoder
The article states that liba52 and HandBrake provide a DPL compatible downmix, which I think is incorrect and highly misleading statement. If you check the source code, neither project implements a Hilbert transformer (the rotation by the complex j, which is indicated in the matrix just a few sections above), and this is needed to avoid center to rear signals pan over to the left. See also a discussion at Doom9:, which cites the requirement in Dolby Labs' manual. – Ylai (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Source of the DPLII encoding matrix?
I wonder where are the Ls, Rs to Lt, Rt DPLII encoding coefficients (for the 5.1 downmix) coming from? Is there a reliable source from Dolby Labs where they can be checked against?

From the DP563 Dolby Pro Logic II and Surround Encoder Quick Start Guide and Xbox 360 Audio Mixing and Monitoring Best Practices (Word format), the DPLII attenuation for the stereo surround channels are given as -1.2 dB and -6.2 dB. Due to rounding, 0.489779² + 0.870964² = 0.998462, which suggests that a unitary normalization is desired.

Combining the two attenuation into an angle is therefore the better approach to deduce the exact form. To obtain a rounded value that matches (-1.2 dB, -6.2 dB), 29°.1414 ≈ 0.508614 < φ < 0.515082 ≈ 29°.512. This is suggestive that the attenuation is not expressed trigonometrically using some exact angles.

Now take φ = tan-1(0.489779/0.870964) ≈ 0.512269. Expanding sin²(φ) as continued fractions gives the sequence

 * $$\left( 0,\; \frac{1}{4},\; \frac{6}{25},\; \frac{37}{154},\; \ldots\right)$$

(with the third value roughly corresponding to the two digit significant figures in the manual). So it appears that when expressed in rectangular coordinates, Dolby is using something that is, or is very close to:

 * $$\left( \pm j\frac{\sqrt{19}}{5}, \; \pm j\frac{\sqrt{6}}{5} \right)$$

or (-1.19186 dB, -6.19789 dB), i.e. matching well the rounded decibel values.

Here someone tested several coefficients, and obtained as result what corresponds to the second value in the continued fraction expansion above. However, the corresponding (-1.2 dB, -6.0 dB) would seemingly contradict both documents.

– Ylai (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pro Logic II Game
Google took me here when searching for "Pro Logic II Game" but the one line sentence on Game mode doesn't really tell how Game mode works and how it's different from Music or Movie, just that it's for video games and featured on some gaming consoles. A bit vague? Could this be expanded more? Perhaps into it's own section, along with Movie & Music modes? Music mode has many options such as Panorama mode which is not discussed at all. 173.52.78.210 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I could find on Game mode was "game mode is identical to movie mode, but it directs all bass information to the sub-out, while movie mode just directs bass from the front channels" not a reputable source though. 173.52.78.210 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical definition of matrix
It is not clear from the article what mathematical operation is represented by the phase shift. If you have any comments, please discuss this on Talk:Matrix decoder. Han-Kwang (t) 22:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

New Logo for Dolby Pro Logic II
I know that at first Dolby Pro Logic II was in the market going by "Dolby Surround Pro Logic II", but now it goes by straight "Dolby Pro Logic II". According to the official site of Dolby Pro Logic II, it has a new logo now, and I have already remade it into vector format. Am I going to upload to File:Dolby-Surround-Pro-Logic-II.svg, or upload to Dolby-Pro-Logic-II.svg? The first file name is very misleading.Timothy Gu (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

DPL II from Dolby Digital 5.1 - does that make sense?
»The extra channel content is extracted using the difference between the spatial audio content between two individual channels of stereo tracks or Dolby Digital encoded 5.1 channel tracks and outputs it appropriately.«

Not an expert, just a bypassing reader here … but does that make sense, to derive DPL II from Dolby Digital 5.1? I wouldn't have thought so. Why derive five channels if you already have five plus one? Did the author mean DPL II is derived from Dolby Digital 2.0, not 5.1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.214.26 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DPLII does 5->2->5, it can take Dolby Digital, matrix encode that into a stereo file - with the surround channels encoded phase-shifted, and then a decoder can take that stereo track and upmix it to 5 speakers using the phase information. 176.24.117.227 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Old logo missing from article!
Where is the old logo? It is missing from the article and should be added as soon as possible in vector format. Here's a reminder how it looked like: http://imageshack.com/scaled/large/600/7pp.gif -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are digital methods also being presented?
The title of this article is "Dolby Pro Logic". Why are digital methods also being presented? Is the intention to confuse readers? --24.166.91.73 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization
Reorganized the information to focus on the topic: Dolby Pro Logic decoding. So removed all talk of digital surround (other than a mention to current day software or hardware that outputs DPL compatible LtRt tracks). Still some redundant mentions to Dolby Surround as encoding and decoding techniques, etc, but it's a clearer article I think. 4throck (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Dolby Pro Logic. 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/20160305051647/http://www.popenmedia.nl/themas/Readers/Geluid/209_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_II_Decoder_Principles_of_Operation.pdf to http://www.popenmedia.nl/themas/Readers/Geluid/209_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_II_Decoder_Principles_of_Operation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121235836/http://www.dolby.com:80/about/who_we_are/history_4.html to http://www.dolby.com/about/who_we_are/history_4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108063018/http://www.hometheaterfocus.com:80/surround/dolby-surround.aspx to http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/surround/dolby-surround.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dolby Pro Logic. 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/20140326110501/http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf to http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/US/Doc/Professional/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122042418/http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic-IIz.html to http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic-IIz.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dolby.com/about/who_we_are/history_4.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/surround/dolby-surround.aspx

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) 02:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of opening paragraphs
The opening paragraphs appear to be ambiguous or contradictory:
 * Dolby Sound "was adapted for home use in 1982 as Dolby Surround".
 * Dolby Sound "was replaced by the improved Pro-Logic system in 1987".
 * "The term "Dolby Surround" describes the encoding technology or matrix-encoded soundtrack, whereas Pro Logic refers to the decoding technology and processor."

Did Dolby Prologic replace Dolby Sound, or do the two technologies work together (with Dolby Surround referring to the encoding, and Pro Logic referring to the decoding)? Ubtree (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

technical details obfuscated
for my liking, there's nowhere near enough maths in the article, explaining how the matrixing works. I was taught a great deal about the workings of the various "quadraphonic" systems that emerged in the 70s, & this article touches on them just enough to raise a suspicion that there's a technical overlap that dolby would prefer we didn't examine too closely. I'll have to do some research into the various patents, but the involvement of jim fosgate in both technologies caused a raised eyebrow here. basic dolby pro-logic is nothing more than hafler effect, pulling a false surround channel from the stereo pair. the later developments, as described here seem to resemble the techniques used in SQ quad processing. any & all of these systems were in any case made redundant the minute it became possible to distribute discrete channels properly (i.e. digitally, for the most part) & only exist now as legacy technology, or to create false surround channels from stereo. this latter, deriving or synthesizing surround information from stereo, is where I feel that the article loses focus, for the reasons above- there is a lot of overlap between the techniques marketed as dolby technology, & the SQ decoding used in quad systems. duncanrmi (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dolby Pro Logic


text:
User:ZZq

*Grumble* *Grumble*

http://www.zzq.org

User Name Change
I put in a namechange request to switch to username A. This user account has zero edits, but current wikipedia policy says that one cannot take over a zero edit user. So I will now be editing under the username of А. For anyone who can't see that character, it is the Cyrillic letter A. You can find my new user page here. A 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User:ZZq


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlspace

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy-delete

=Girlspace= This article seems useless. --Der Sporkmeister 08:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete it's so poorly written that it borders on nonsense, but what sense i can make of it suggests it's a personal attack. Nateji77 08:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete I'm with Nateji77. --Der Sporkmeister 08:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I speedy deleted this for being patent nonsense before I saw the VFD. Nohat 08:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Girlspace sucks. LL Rules!

VIVA LA LUESHI!


text:
Wallach (disambiguation)

Wallach or Vlach is a blanket term covering several modern Latin peoples descending from the Latinised population in Central, Eastern and Southeast Europe.

Wallach may also refer to:

 * Wallach (crater), a small lunar impact crater
 * 6670 Wallach, a main-belt asteroid
 * Wallach IX, a fictional planet in Frank Herbert's science fiction universe of Dune
 * Wallach Hall, a dormitory on the campus of Columbia University

People with the surname

 * Benjamin Wallach (1873–1935), South African cricketer
 * Chad Wallach (born 1991), American baseball player
 * Clarrie Wallach (1889-1918) and Neville Wallach (1896-1918), Australian rugby union players who were awarded the Military Cross during World War I
 * Eli Wallach (1915–2014), American actor
 * Evan Wallach, American judge, expert on war crimes
 * Hanna Wallach (born 1979), computational social scientist
 * Ira Wallach (writer) (1913–1995), American screenwriter and novelist
 * Ira D. Wallach (1909–2007), American businessman and philanthropist
 * Joe Wallach (born 1923), American businessman. television broadcasting executive and author
 * John Wallach (1943–2002), American journalist, author and editor
 * Lori Wallach, director and founder of Global Trade Watch
 * Maxim Litvinov or Max Wallach (1876–1951), Russian revolutionary and Soviet diplomat
 * Moshe Wallach (1866–1957), German Jewish / Israeli physician
 * Otto Wallach (1847–1931), German chemist, Nobel Prize winner
 * Richard Wallach (1816–1881), American politician
 * Steve Wallach (born 1945), American computer architecture engineer and company founder
 * Theresa Wallach (1909-1999), motorcyclist, engineer, and author
 * Tim Wallach (born 1957), American former baseball player
 * Van Wallach (born 1947), American herpetologist
 * William Douglas Wallach (1812–1871), American surveyor and newspaper entrepreneur
 * Yochanan Vollach or Jochanan Wallach, (born 1945), Israeli former footballer
 * Yona Wallach (1944–1985), Israeli poet

title: Wallach (disambiguation)


text:
List of mayors of Anaheim, California

Below is a list of mayors of Anaheim, California since its incorporation in 1870.

title: List of mayors of Anaheim, California


text:
Semiosphere

The semiosphere is an idea in biosemiotic theory proposing that, contrary to ideas of nature determining sense and experience,  the phenomenal world is a creative and logical structure of processes of semiosis where signs operate together to produce sense and experience.

Overview
Biosemiotic theorists regard the idea of the semiosphere as beginning with continental philosophers' recognition of an epistemological gap between the ontological and the ontic, where it is initially difficult to conceptualize the way that subjectivity is created in between them. The study of the semiosphere has often overlapped into research made by symbolic interactionists and field theorists. The subject's narrative boundary-understanding of its environment—the lifeworld as proposed by Edmund Husserl, or umwelt as proposed by Jakob Johann von Uexküll—is derived through abstract processes of making a phenomenal world of symptoms, signals, icons, indexes, symbols and names—as proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce —from the semiosphere's code for interacting with and creating meaning from other umwelt. An analogical concept is Deleuze and Guattari's societal extraction of surplus value of code, where subjects sporadically extract signs—which are externalized as acts and traits—from the code that makes up their environment.

Semiospheric theory
One proposed solution to the socio-spatial problem of mind–body dualism is of a narrative structure within four-dimensional space, which the idea of the semiosphere makes cohesive. The concept of the process of semiosis has foundations in a variety of continental philosophers; in particular, the common denominators between Freudian unconscious and Jungian unconscious are mythic structures.

Roland Barthes' definition of myth is the semiological self-mythology derived from everyday life (news, entertainment, advertisements), with its own codes and "whistles". The present-I-sign interacts with others through the future-You-interpretant to retroactively form the past-Me-object.

A diagram of the semiospheric relation could be rendered as: "Signifying Act [present-I]: Sign: $Symbolic Meaning [interpretant]⁄Vocal Gesture [future-You]$ $Meaning [Connotation]⁄Object [past-Me]$"

Mikhail Bakhtin's chronotope, or time-space (deterministic) makes outside-the-semiosphere (unintelligible) information relevant to the semiosphere through narrative structure. Time (affects-passing ) takes on a protagonist's sensory nervous system (Umwelt), based on the "difficult journey" of the monad-sign-operator actively reading and interpreting co-occurring ontological text (signs) that parallel the co-occurring ontic (unintelligible) objects.

"The adventure chronotope is thus characterized by a technical, abstract connection between space and time, by the reversibility of moments in a temporal sequence, and by their interchangeability in space. ...Every concretization, of even the most simple and everyday variety, would introduce its own rule-generating force, its own order, its inevitable ties to human life and to the time specific to that life. ...Biographical time is not reversible vis-à-vis the events of life itself, which are inseparable from historical events. But with regard to character, such time is reversible[.]"

In the semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce, there are trichotomic phenomenological categories: Firstness (feeling), Secondness (relatability) and Thirdness (representation and interpretation). The lifeworld or umwelt is a cognitive space of semiosis (hermeneutic circle of text (signs))—generating polysemy from processing multiple sets of code (semiotics). Jesper Hoffmeyer has suggested a conscience collective variation of the semiosphere derived from parasitism and not bound by linguistics, devoid of the social alienation of mind–body dualism.

A type of dysphoria, or symptom, occurs from cognitive dissonance created by a harmonic dissonance occurring between the semiosphere and the umwelten (or, the here-and-now umwelt). A metatext can form out of a historical object/sign, like tea, and the mythopoetics surrounding it.

Semiosphere sub-scapes
The emergent soundscape is a facet (geometry) of the semiosphere, or plane (geometry) of the Umwelt.

Existential therapy
Existential therapy utilizes the following sub-dimensions of Dasein (or Being-in-the-world):
 * Lebenswelt (beings-in-the-world)
 * Umwelt (physical world)
 * Mitwelt (social fate-world)
 * Eigenwelt (self-relatedness world)
 * Überwelt (spiritual world).

Soft architecture
A semiosphere includes "physical, energetic and material phenomena" that get turned into neural signals and which contribute to processes of neuroplasticity. Common representations of the semiosphere are as universes, arts museum halls, or mind palaces. Semiotics studies aesthetics and architecture, among many other fields.

Influenced by Office for Metropolitan Architecture, acting as a type of post-modern flâneuse, the 'pataphysical poet Lisa Robertson has researched the aboutness of a city's semiosphere by parodying "reductionist scientific analysis". Another notable figure is Erín Moure.

Atmosphere
Soft architecture's observational focal point is the observer's sense organs. The self-world can have an atmosphere that has a mood. Meaning can come from atmosphere. The origin point of a semiosphere etherealizes itself in the atmosphere of its environment; the umwelt uses monosemy to derive polysemy from the process of encoding and encoding. An implication of the semiosphere is also the emergence of something that is more than the sum of its parts; at its largest, it becomes a global village, or second-degree semiosphere.

The room
The concept of the room in stand-up performance is a specific artistic rendering of the sociology of space within a specific social space and has historically been used in casual social interactions and niche places such as pleasure gardens and traversable art installations.

Digital semiosphere
John Hartley, Indrek Ibrus and Maarja Ojamaa built on the original concepts of biosphere (Vladimir Vernadsky) and semiosphere (Juri Lotman) and linked these to the studies of cultural globalisation, datafication, platformisation, mediatisation and the evolution of digital culture. They demonstrated how the semiosphere could be seen as a causal force shaping not only global communications and political fluctuations, but also the biosphere and geosphere and such also the evolving Anthropocene.

History
The term semiosphere is a neologism coined by Juri Lotman in response to Vladimir Vernadsky's concepts of biosphere and noosphere and Mikhail Bakhtin's concept of logosphere; Lotman proposed that the concept of the semiosphere can account for all relations between humans.

The study of the cultural semiotics was furthered by the concept of the semiosphere. Lotman had difficulties abstracting semiosphere from biosphere. Lotman characterizes semiospheres as feminine and inert, needing to be penetrated with information.

The concept is treated more fully in the collection of Lotman's writings published in English under the title "Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture" (1990).

Discussion
Kalevi Kull argues that this suggestion is not consistent with the nature of semiosis which can only be a product of the behaviour of the organisms in the environment. It is the organisms that create the signs which become the constituent parts of the semiosphere. This is not an adaptation to the existing environment, but the continuous creation of a new environment. Kull believes that it is only possible to accept Hoffmeyer's view as an analogy to the concept of an ecological niche as it is traditionally used in biology, so that the community develops according to the semiotic understanding of the processes which are responsible for the building of Umwelt.

Discussion bibliography

 * Kull, Kalevi. "On Semiosis, Umwelt, and Semiosphere". Semiotica vol. 120(3/4), pp. 299–310. (1998)
 * Lotman, Yuri M. "Universe of the mind: a semiotic theory of culture" (Translated by A. Shukman) (1990)London & New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd.
 * Lotman, Yuri M. "O semiosfere". Sign Systems Studies (Trudy po znakovym sistemam) vol. 17, pp. 5–23. (1984)
 * Lotman, Juri On the semiosphere. (Translated by Wilma Clark) Sign Systems Studies, 33.1 (2005)
 * Tataru, Ludmila, and José Angel García Landa (eds.). Семиосфера нарратологии: диалог языков и культур / Semiosphere of Narratology: A Dialogue of Languages and Cultures. Balashov: Nikolaiev. (2013)

title: Semiosphere


text: User talk:81.213.168.152

title: User talk:81.213.168.152


text:
They Made Me a Fugitive

They Made Me a Fugitive (also known as They Made Me a Criminal; U.S. title: I Became a Criminal) is a 1947 British black-and-white film noir directed by Alberto Cavalcanti and starring Sally Gray and Trevor Howard. It was written by Noel Langley, based on the 1941 Jackson Budd novel ''A Convict Has Escaped. '' Cinematography was by Otto Heller.

It is set in postwar England.

Plot
Clem Morgan, demobilised from the Royal Air Force and unemployed after the war, helps in the stealing and transporting of black market goods in coffins to crime boss Narcy's (short for Narcissus) headquarters in a funeral parlour. Clem finds the activity harmless enough, until one day he finds drugs in the latest coffin. Clem objects and tells his girlfriend, Ellie, that he will quit after one last job that night, the looting of a warehouse. Narcy betrays him, triggering the burglar alarm while he is inside. Clem manages to get back in the car with Narcy and another member of the gang, Soapy, before they drive off. When Narcy orders Soapy to run down a policeman, Clem grabs the wheel in an unsuccessful attempt to save the man's life and the car crashes into a lamppost. Narcy knocks him unconscious and has him moved to the driver's seat before fleeing with Soapy. Inspector Rockliffe arrives on the scene with other police officers to find the police officer dead and Clem injured in the car.

Clem is convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen years in prison in HM Prison Dartmoor. Sally Connor, Narcy's girlfriend, visits him in prison, telling him that Narcy is now with Ellie (who has not visited Morgan in prison) and that she knows he was framed as she was told so by Cora, Soapy's girlfriend. Sally offers to try to persuade Soapy to give evidence but Clem tells her to go away.

Back in London, Sally tells Cora that she has seen Clem and wants to go and speak to Soapy to get him to tell the police what really happened, but Narcy has found out that Sally has gone to see Clem in prison and brutally beats her up.

Clem escapes from prison and the police start a manhunt for him. He seeks shelter in a remote farmhouse, where Mrs. Fenshaw lets him bathe, shave and change his clothes, and also cooks him some food. Mr. Fenshaw comes into the room, but turns out to be a hopeless drunk who is hardly aware of his surroundings. Mrs. Fenshaw then tries to get Clem to shoot her husband, stating that as he is already a murderer it won't make any difference to him. Clem refuses and leaves, but he has handled the gun, leaving his fingerprints on it, and Mrs. Fenshaw uses it to shoot her husband dead.

Clem is now wanted for the murder of Mr. Fenshaw as well, but makes his way back to London and goes to stay with Sally; he then manages to escape both the police and Narcy, but Sally is kidnapped by Narcy and his gang and taken to their hideout, where Cora is already being held. Cora is forced to tell Narcy where Soapy is hiding out (in a room in a rundown hotel nearby) and Narcy sends Jim to go and kill Soapy, which he does.

Clem, whilst trying to find Cora and Soapy, is caught by Rockliffe, who tells him that he is not convinced by Mrs. Fenshaw's story, the first indication that the police might believe in Clem's innocence. In order to use him as bait, Rockliffe lets Clem go, and he goes to the Valhalla funeral parlour to meet with Narcy's gang. After knocking other members of the gang out, Clem and Narcy end up fighting on the roof of the parlour, before Narcy falls to the ground. Rockliffe, Sally and Clem gather round, begging Narcy, who is dying, to tell the truth about who killed the policeman but Narcy sticks to his story and repeats that it was Clem, before dying. Rockliffe leads Clem away, whilst Sally promises to wait for him. The ending is rather ambiguous, as Clem presumably has to return to prison, and he is also facing a possible murder charge; all that Rockliffe can do is promise to look at any new evidence that comes up.

Cast

 * Sally Gray as Sally
 * Trevor Howard as Clem Morgan
 * Griffith Jones as Narcy
 * Rene Ray as Cora
 * Mary Merrall as Aggie
 * Charles Farrell as Curley
 * Cyril Smith as Bert
 * Phyllis Robins as Olga
 * Vida Hope as Mrs. Fenshaw
 * Eve Ashley as Ellen
 * Jack McNaughton as Soapy
 * Maurice Denham as Mr. Fenshaw
 * Ballard Berkeley as Inspector Rockliffe
 * Michael Brennan as Jim
 * Bill O'Connor as Bill
 * Lyn Evans as lorry driver
 * John Penrose as Shawney
 * Derek Birch as P. C. Murray
 * Peter Bull as Fidgity Phil
 * Gordon Court as Sergeant
 * Enid Cruickshank as Club Hostess
 * Sebastian Cabot as Club Proprietor
 * Ida Patlanski as Soho girl
 * Howard Douglas as Chief Warder
 * Sam Kydd as Eddie (uncredited)

Box office
According to trade papers, the film was a "notable box office attraction" at British cinemas in 1947.

Critical
The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote: "The film's makers seem to have determined to out-Hollywood Hollywood in sordid sensationalism, and there seems nothing to be said in favour of this fulfilment of their ambition. The degradation and violent beating-up of women as witnessed in the film may possibly serve some useful purpose if it should act as a deterrent to foolish girls who may be potential victims of this country's ever-increasing band of criminals, but can scarcely be regarded as enjoyable entertainment. Trevor Howard, as Morgan, is adequate in the part, but though starred is completely outshone by Griffith Jones, who steps right out of the ranks of second-grade heroes to give quite an impressive performance as the villainous Narcy. The ladies of the cast struggle gamely to perform their unedifying roles with some appearance of conviction but with no resounding success. Some of the most heavily dramatic moments and one or two ill-timed gags evoked ominous tittering from the audience."

"Artfully sculpted and suspenseful," wrote TV Guide, "They Made me a Fugitive makes for gripping, adult cinema."

title: They Made Me a Fugitive