text:
FLB

FLB may refer to:
 * Brandenburg Football Association (German: Fußball-Landesverband Brandenburg)
 * Breton Liberation Front (French: Front de Libération de la Bretagne), a paramilitary group in France
 * Faint little ball, a Drosophila gene
 * Faulconbridge railway station, in New South Wales, Australia
 * Favourite-longshot bias, in gambling and economics
 * Federal Land Bank, part of the United States Farm Credit System
 * Flashlight Brown, a Canadian punk rock band
 * Fly Linhas Aéreas, a defunct Brazilian airline
 * Frihetliga Ljusdalsbygden, a Swedish political party
 * General Aviation FLB, an American aircraft
 * Lebanese Basketball Federation (French: Fédération Libanaise de Basketball)
 * Stade Francis-Le Blé, a stadium in Brest, France

title: FLB


text:
Talk:Crystallographic defects in diamond

Untitled
A few notes regarding my expansion: Any comments or questions? -- Hadal 21:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain the theory as clearly and succinctly as I'm able, so I invite anyone with a stronger background in solid state physics to amend or expand as necessary.
 * I did not write a subsection on interstitial atoms; I may get around to this sooner rather than later, but I'm not exactly comfortable in doing so because I can't seem to find references that don't conflict with each other.
 * To Stepanovas: I've included inline references to back up statements where appropriate, so I think it would be helpful if you could do the same for your material (e.g., the C form to A form conversion).
 * I used old-style parenthetical inline refs because I don't really like the Template:Ref style nor its Note equivalent; I reference the same work more than once, which isn't something these templates can do very well.

 * Hadal, yet again great work! Regarding intrinsic defects, see dislocation for a better grounding in the materials science end (for one, edge and screw are the preferred terms to glide and shuffle). I will try to dig up my solid state physics and physical chemistry texts for some more insight and references. - Bantman 19:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I did wonder if the glide/shuffle terminology was idiosyncratic to the authors cited, but I felt it best not to contradict them in the event that the terms had a special meaning in semiconductor research. (A quick Google reveals at least a handful of related publications using the present terms.) I also forgot to link to the dislocation article; it may be best to restructure this article to reflect the former. -- Hadal 04:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * old-style inline refs are good. But references, which you added, are not primary. Those are latest works which dose not reflects initial researches and discoveries. I will work at it. Stepanovas 07:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I see you found a primary reference for Kaiser and Bond; thanks for that. The other refs are good enough though, aren't they? Secondary references are fine for Wikipedia, as we're not exactly trying to write a journal paper. Furthermore, the refs I used are considered authoritative in my field; gemmology does encompass some aspects of diamond's crystallographic defects, and to that end I've contributed what I could. Anderson and Payne are as primary as you can get when referencing gem spectra in general. -- Hadal 04:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
Stepanovas 15:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * B2 not nitrogenous defect, N3 content never high.
 * aforementioned Cape series What is it?

 * B2 was already treated as a nitrogenous defect before I arrived, so I wasn't about to contradict that placement without further research. N3 content is not precisely "high", but neither are most the others; we're talking fractions of a percentage by mass in most cases (at least in gem-grade stones). Your "up to one percent by mass" is superlative rather than typical, is it not? In my field, the N3 line is diagnostic for diamond.
 * The Cape series is explained under B1 center, as well as under Material properties of diamond. It's a common term for Type IaA + IaB mixed material, and includes nearly all (98%) diamonds. Since so many diamonds exhibit the N3 line, I thought it pertinent to mention. Do you not agree? I realise the article's emphasis is on IR spectra, but that's just one of several angles of investigation. The N3 line is (IMO) major by virtue of its presence in the visible spectrum and its orchestral relationship with the other defects. It is not major in terms of mass, but it is very persistent. (So why did you remove UV/VIS from the list of methods?)
 * Also, why did you remove my qualifying statement, "... provided the diamond is cooled to very low (ca. -180°C) temperatures"? It is my understanding that cryogenic temperatures are required (or at least a de facto standard) for accurate IR spectra, as diamond is such an efficient thermal conductor: the warmer the diamond is, the more diffuse the spectrum is (due to atomic vibrations). This isn't a new concept, but if you think it's somehow unremarkable, I'll leave it be.
 * Hadal 04:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

because spectops may be recived under different tempersatures.

 * vacansy in diamond is not F-Center because diamond is not ionic crystal.
 * Green color is due defficult defects consisting from nitrogen, vacansies and intersticials.

Stepanovas 15:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Irradiated diamonds do have F-Centers: in this context, F-Center is a synonym of color center. See page 4 of this PDF from the Mineralogical-Geochemical Institute of the University of Freiburg or page 2 of this article by Paul F. Hlava of Sandia National Laboratories for two examples of this usage. However, because some authors reserve "F-Center" exclusively for ionic crystals, I've replaced the term with "color center" to avoid confusion. In future, I would appreciate it if you could constructively edit the specific term you have a problem with, rather than simply remove a large chunk of referenced text.
 * The green (and in some cases blue) colour of irradiated diamond is the result of these color centers; the mechanism is fundamentally different than impurity-derived colour. While the vacancies do interact with interstitials, it seems irradiation alone does not produce the high temperatures needed for vacancy migration. Rather, the consensus is that nitrogen-radiation defect complexes are only likely after annealing, which also agrees with my cited references. For further examples, see and . Natural annealing via long-term geothermal heating probably does produce vacancy-nitrogen defects, but the point is that the heat is a required element for NV defect complexes.
 * We have so many references now that I'll likely stick with them when doing future expansions. There's still a bit more info to harvest, such as hydrogen in Type IIc (ooh!) diamonds.
 * I think the article's maturing nicely. -- Hadal 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Fluorescence and other questions
Agthorr June 15, 2006:

This is a great article. I've learned a lot, but I still have some unanswered questions. I'm hoping some of the authors of the article might be able to find answers for them (or point me in the right direction) and update the article with the additional information.

I've been trying to better understand the blue fluorescence seen in many available-to-the-consumer diamonds. I know its caused by the absorbtion of UV light, exciting an electron, which shortly thereafter radiates blue light. The description of the N3 and N2 centers state that they absorb UV light; are these the centers that cause fluorescence? Or is it caused by a different kind of defect?

I've heard many conflicting reports about the "oily" or "milky" look of fluorescing colorless diamonds. Everyone seems to agree that very strongly fluorescencing stones have the oily look and that mildly fluorescing diamonds are fine. For moderate and strong fluorescence I find a lot of disagreement. Some people swear up and down that all such stones appear oily. Some people swear up and down that all such stones appear oily when viewed under significant UV lightly (e.g., daylight). Some people (such as this GIA report) state that *only* very strongly fluorescencing diamonds exhibit the oily or milky appearance. Finally, other people state that the oily or milky look depends on the particular stone, and some strongly fluorescing stones have it, while others do not.

Based on what's in the article now, I get the sense that a milky look could be the result of many colorless defects (such as A or B1 centers) that don't alter the color of the stone, but nevertheless reduce transparency. Is that possible? Do A or B1 centers lead to translucency (as opposed to transparency)?

 * Milky, cloudy, or oily appearance are all things that can occur independently of fluorescence. However, in a certain percentage of very strong blue fluorescent stones (3% according to the GIA) one or more of these features appear under sources rich in uv (e.g., daylight) but not in uv-free lighting conditions. To what extent, if any, the same phenomenon may be visible in stones of lesser fluorescence (for example, under very intense filtered uv light) is something on which I have no information, although it's obviously a question that needs answering. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Delisted GA
This article has been removed from the Ga list as it has failed WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. Feel free to renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Tarret 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed 2009 GA nom
After over a month on the list, I have failed this for two reasons:

 * Uncited statements. Some serious ones, which I'll list later. In an article that cites eighty-two scholarly papers published in reputable scientific journals, so much that my printed copy requires three pages at 10 points to show almost all of them, there is no excuse for this).

 * General prose sloppiness. There are missing pronouns and articles all over the place, from non-native English-speaker edits, I'll venture. Some paragraphs seem to be disconnected collections of thematically related sentences. And the overall organization within sections is inconsistent and disorganized. I also feel it's a little heavy on the jargon, even granted that this is a fairly technical subject.

I will go into specifics later tonight on the subpage. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

N3 does not induce color on its own?
Has somebody checked multiple sources on this? Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I figured it out. N3 is apparently phosphorescent. It absorbs photons of 415.5 nm which raises an electron to a higher energy level. Then one microsecond later the electron drops back down, emitting a photon of the same wavelength as was absorbed. I was confused because the article did not specify the nature of the emission. I though maybe it was fluorescence. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * N3 has a short luminescence lifetime (nanoseconds, not microseconds), and the intensity is not strong enough to impart color under usual illumination (sunlight or office light). N3 contributes to color only via absorption. N3 concentrations are usually low, and its absorption starts roughly from its zero-phonon line at 415 nm and extends into UV, i.e. almost beyond the spectral sensitivity of human eye. However, N3 is always accompanied by N2, which absorbs green and results in straw-yellow color in a small percentage of diamonds. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crystallographic defects in diamond. 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/20050528202931/http://www.icem15.com/Documents/Diamonds.pdf to http://www.icem15.com/Documents/Diamonds.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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


text:
Trustee in bankruptcy

A trustee in bankruptcy is an entity, often an individual, in charge of administering a bankruptcy estate.

Canada
In Canada, a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT) is an individual or a corporation licensed by the official superintendent to hold in trust and, subsequently, to distribute a bankrupt's property among the creditors in accordance with the distribution scheme under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). The bankrupt and all other persons holding bankrupt's property must transfer the property to trustee. The trustee may also assist individual in preparing and submitting a consumer proposal to creditors. The trustee must arrange mandatory counselling of the bankrupt. The trustee must follow the procedures under the BIA, call creditors meetings and send the parties required notices of proceedings and documents. The trustee is responsible for preparation of pre-discharge report and may oppose the bankrupt's discharge.

Russia
To become registered as a trustee in bankruptcy (Russian: арбитражный управляющий; transliteration: arbitrazhnyy upravlyayushchiy), one must:
 * 1) to have a higher education degree,
 * 2) to have not less than 1 year of an experience as a chief executive officer,
 * 3) to complete the Single programme for the training of trustees in bankruptcy (Russian: Единая программа подготовки арбитражных управляющих) and to pass a qualification exam,
 * 4) to get two-years traineeship as assistant of trustee in bankruptcy,
 * 5) to join to one of self-regulatory organizations of trustees in bankruptcy.

Person who has finished up all above-mentioned requirements is entered in the consolidated state registry of trustees in bankruptcy (Russian: сводный государственный реестр арбитражных управляющих) which is maintained by Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography.

Russian trustee in bankruptcy can be the member of only 1 self-regulatory organizations of trustees in bankruptcy. He can carry out other activities compatible with the position of trustee in bankruptcy, for example, be an individual entrepreneur or advocate (but it must be remembered that the status of individual entrepreneur and the status of advocate are incompatible with each other).

The term "арбитражный управляющий" (transliteration: arbitrazhnyy upravlyayushchiy) means job title. After entrance in particular insolvency (bankruptcy) case, trustee in bankruptcy is called using special term depending on particular insolvency (bankruptcy) proceeding in this case:

 * interim officer (Russian: временный управляющий; transliteration: vremennyy upravlyayushchiy) in monitoring procedure (Russian: наблюдение; transliteration: nablyudeniye) in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases of legal persons,
 * administrative officer (Russian: административный управляющий; transliteration: administrativnyy upravlyayushchiy) in economic recovery procedure (Russian: финансовое оздоровление; transliteration: finansovoe ozdorovleniye) in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases of legal persons,
 * external manager (Russian: внешний управляющий; transliteration: vneshnyy upravlyayushchiy) in external control procedure (Russian: внешнее управление; transliteration: vneshneye upravleniye) in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases of legal persons,
 * settlement officer (Russian: конкурсный управляющий; transliteration: konkursnyy upravlyayushchiy) in liquidation procedure (Russian: конкурсное производство; transliteration: konkursnoe proizvodstvo) in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases of legal persons,
 * financial officer (Russian: финансовый управляющий; transliteration: finansovyy upravlyayushchiy) in all procedures in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases of natural persons.

The Federal Law of 26 October 2002, No.127-FZ «About insolvency (bankruptcy)» provides that the function of settlement officer in liquidation procedure in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases of banks, insurance companies, pension funds and other financial institutions is carrying out by Deposit Insurance Agency of Russia (with some exceptions).

United States
In the United States, a Trustee in Bankruptcy is a person who is appointed by the United States Trustee Program, a division of the United States Department of Justice. In limited circumstances, the creditors involved in a bankruptcy case can elect a trustee.

In a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy ("Liquidation") the trustee gathers the debtor's non-exempt property, managing the funds from the sale of those assets, and then paying expenses and distributing the balance to the owed creditors.

In a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy ("Reorganization") the trustee is responsible for receiving the debtor's monthly payments and distributing those funds proportionally to the debtor's creditors. The Bankruptcy Trustee will act on behalf of the debtor to guarantee that both the creditors’ and the debtor's interests are maintained in accordance with the bankruptcy laws, and will often be required to act as a negotiator between the two parties.

Since the 1990s, duties similar to those of a trustee are sometimes performed by an individual called a Chief restructuring officer (CRO), generally prior to, or subsequent to, a bankruptcy proceeding (generally, a Chapter 11 proceeding). A CRO is an official of the company who has direct contact with the creditors and who has executive power to implement changes. The advantage of using a CRO is that the arrangement gives both the creditor and debtor more say over the future of the company than might be the case where a Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee is appointed.

title: Trustee in bankruptcy


text:
Talk:Pseudoscience (physics)

Division of Articles
This dividing articles into skeptics and general is not very neutral, especially as the "general" manuscript is apparently skeptical of psuedophysics. Salsb 21:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

From PNA/Physics

 * Pseudophysics - A new article created by an anon. The article itself seems okay, but there has been dispute over the reference section Salsb 21:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Division of Main and Related and Other
Since pseudophysics is a subcategory of pseudoscience, it should be related. Salsb 21:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Salsb, many mainstream theories are untestable or cannot be falsified. String theory for one. But the Higgs Boson anf the many-worlds interpretation would be examples of this article. They probably should be includedd in the category too. 165.201.42.84 20:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * String theory is testable in principle.--Brentt 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not pseudophysics
How should we categorize and describe theories of physics (and other sciences) which are scientifically plausible, scientifically tested, but not (currently) accepted by the scientific community? "Unproven science theories"? -Willmcw 04:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Necro-posting allowed?
 * This is essentially the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience. More problematic is the distinction between pseudophysics and some 'physical' topics of philosophy. If any non-testable, non-falsifiable claim about the physics of the universe is pseudophysics, any assertion about the presence and possible properties of other universes is pseudophysical (except that they don't exist - Occam's razor applied), as is any claim about what hides inside the event horizon of a black hole (unless it is the usually presumed space-time singularity - the simplest explanation again, which however appears to break with quantum mechanics). These are questions not enitrely of a physical nature, but give rise to a lot of philosophical ideas, because they are (as of now) untestable. Similarly the question if anything has ever existed before the big bang and what that should be. Simplest answer is, the question is absurd because time did not exist before the big bang. But there are again other, untestable, options that you can boggle your mind with. At some point humans are limited and cannot 'test' everything they can logically think about. --130.83.182.66 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move back. I recommend starting a separate discussion in order to determine if the article should be merged or redirected into Pseudoscience. (t · c)  buidhe  20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (physics) → Pseudophysics – Questionable, undiscussed move by user on October 12. Firstly, the new name does not meet article title guidelines. Secondly, they dismissed the old title, without evidence, as a non-notable neologism. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved it without discussing because I did not believe there would be any objections, if you believe it should be discussed then you can revert the move. I was under the impression that it was a neologism as basically no one uses the phrase pseudophysics. I have been thinking about this page lately, I think it would probably be better to merge it into pseudoscience entirely, given its relative lack of notability. That being said, if you have reason to believe that pseudophysics is the accepted common term and there are reliable sources that use the term, then I will fully support reverting the move. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Though please note, the title does meet the WP:TITLE guidelines, if pseudoscience is the correct term rather than pseudophysics. That is how virtually all sub pages are named, it is named as its commonly known term, while a qualifier is put in parenthesis. Per that page: "Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name." I will still support the move if reliable sources are calling it pseudophysics rather than pseudoscience like I thought. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Last note for now, sorry for writing three times in a row, but to informally put into perspective the relative notability of the topics: Search for "pseudophysics" on Google scholar returns 80ish results. "pseudoscience"+"physics" returns 14000ish results. On regular Google, excluding Wiki, Youtube, etc., the former returns 3000 results, while the ladder returns 1.13 million results. JSTOR: 6 versus 999. Springer Link: 4 versus 1100. I do not think the position that "pseudophysics" is the correct term is seriously arguable here. Though, again, if I'm wrong, we should move it back. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * From what I can tell this term barely even exists. Practically all results in reliable sources are "in this study we used a pseudo-physics simulation model". What we're left with is not sufficient for an article, can't this just be redirected to Pseudoscience? – Thjarkur (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That was my point above. It should probably be merged into pseudoscience (or redirected) lets wait for other editors to respond here first and then we'll open a new discussion for merging. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has no merit whatsoever it's the definition of pseudoscience applied to physics. blindlynx (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pseudoscience (physics)


text:
Brewster Chair

A Brewster Chair is a style of turned chair made in mid-17th-century New England.

Origin
The "Brewster Chair" was named after William Brewster, one of the Pilgrim fathers who landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. In 1830, the Brewster family of Duxbury donated Elder Brewster's original chair to Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth, where it remains today. His chair was created in New England between 1630 and 1660 of American white ash. Other similar New England chairs from the 17th century have been named after this piece.

In the 1970s, Rhode Island sculptor Armand LaMontagne produced a notorious fake Brewster Chair that fooled the national experts at the Henry Ford Museum, which acquired the piece.

title: Brewster Chair


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Keywords/General

Please feel free to participate and contribute anything you can. Thanks Quinobi 21:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:JSL romanization

Dab
Maybe JSL should be made into a disambiguation, especially considering the fact that JSL (romanization) is not a very popular romaji system anyway. —Tokek 21:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Japanese, but the statement "represent long /o/ and /u/" would be better written "represent /oː/ and /uː/". --Tydaj 02:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Chart?
I have the textbook Beginning Japanese which explain's the author's system. I found it a big help dealing with kana, as a language learner.

It's not any good for writing out romaji for non-students, because TI + E + KO would not signify Chieko to anyone who's not interested in learning Japanese. You'd be tempted to read it as Tigh Koh (or Taeko)!!

The strength of her system is for expressing Japanese grammar or spelling rules, I guess.

One benefit of the clunkiness of a series like TA TI TU TE TO vs. Ta Chi Tsu Te To is that it motivates you to get off your butt and start memorizing the actual Hiragana and Katakana! :-)

Perhaps a chart would be good. I hope there are no copyright problems. --Uncle Ed 16:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rules such as pronouncing "t" as "ch" or "ts" may indeed make the system look clunky or bizarre to English speakers, but are explainable through the rules of Japanese phonology (more specifically, this section). In other words, "ch" and "ts" are written as "t"s because they perceived as "t" sounds to native speakers; they sound starkly different to English speakers only because English can contrast them as separate sounds (e.g., "tease" vs. "cheese").
 * I think JSL is intended as a means for getting students used to the sound system of Japanese, in terms of Japanese phonemes, and not as a tool for learning kana. The JSL book series never even touches kana, and the article already lists cases where kana makes orthographic distinctions and JSL does not, and vice versa.
 * A chart could be nice, but if the system is so regular, do we even need one? Maybe we could just give a list of common terms and how their spellings diverge from Hepburn romanization and kana? -- Calcwatch 22:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * No, you're right; we don't need a chart. I was thinking of a chart for a computer program I'm writing which converts Hiragana into Romaji. That would not be relevant here.

 * I'm more interested in your observations about affricatives, and about the sound system as opposed to the writing system. I do very little Japanese writing: just names of new acquaintances in Hiragana. Nearly all my Japanese communication is in speech. --Uncle Ed 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It would be really nice to have a chart comparing Hepburn, JLS, and Kunrei to get a better understanding of the differences and how JLS is supposed to work. It doesn’t matter if anyone likes it or not. It’s a question of providing information about a subject that someone is interested in learning about. Like me, for instance. Rod Lockwood (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Uselessness of JSL, or any Other "Phoneme-based" Romanization System
I find it nausiating to read about all these romanization systems for Japanese and why one is "better" than the other. What utterly useless discourse. In the end what is the purpose of JSL, Nipponshiki, Kunreishiki, Hepburn, etc? What is the purpose of ANY romanization, period? Is it to "learn" Japanese, or is it a gateway for people who don't know Japanese and would never be interested in learning it?

It is my deduction that any romanization system that is not made for non-Japanese speakers fails for any of their intended purposes. Japanese already HAS a "phoneme" system. It's called hiragana and katakana. Japanese is not in any need of a romanization system. It is those who are not Japanese speakers who need some sort of gateway into Japanese pronunciation. Why in the world must linguists learn this entirely different way of using Roman letters with pronunciation rules that apply only to JAPANESE, which they could only use amongst themselves?

JSL, Nipponshiki, Kunreishiki, or any other Romanization system that is NOT based in the Roman Letter pronunciation system of the non-native Japanese learner (IE, Spanish for the Spanish-speakers, English for the English Speakers, German for German-Speakers) is DESTRUCTIVE. It serves no other purpose than to screw up actual Roman letter usage in the learner's language, and to make scholars sound sophisticated.

Take Japanese students, for example. Today, a great majority of Japanese elementary schools still teach Nipponshiki "Romaji" to students. They learn early on that there is no difference between the tsu and tu sounds found in the English language. The language to which any kind of "Romaji" matters. No "chi," only "ti." No "shi," only "si." No ra, ri, ru, re, ro, only la, li, lu, le lo. They learn early on that the F sound doesn't matter, so just spell it "hu." WHAT IN THE ****. Young Japanese students are taught early on to mispronounce things. NO WONDER THEY CAN'T SAY ANYTHING RIGHT. This Nipponshiki crap cements incorrect associations in their heads, and they can't say anything right thereafter. No wonder they can't differentiate between L and R. This system teaches them there isn't a difference. And the kicker; their mispronunciations are "correct" according to this "phoneme" crap. Which they then try to use for actual English. They already have kana. WHY do they need to learn an entirely new and wrong way of spelling in Japanese?

Show any English-speaking person "meidiya." No, you are not going to get "meijiya," "may-jee-yah" or anything close to it. You will only get "meiDEEya." Nothing else. Ask a gaijin to read Mt. "Huzi" for you. They'll tell you that such a place does not exist in the world, but that they recommend you visit Mt. FUJI.

Hepburn still fails in many aspects, but I say it is a **** of a lot closer to Japanese pronunciation than JSL. Eleanor Jorden didn't do anyone a favor. This system is a disgrace and a disservice. It should have never been invented. It doesn't make sense to conjugate verbs in ROMAJI, because it's JAPANESE, and should be done in KANA. "tat-u?" "tat-a-?" "tat-o-?" "tat-i-?" "tat-e?" There is no physical way to spell "tat" in kana. Ta, chi, tsu, te, and to are all separate syllables in Japanese. JSL attempts to treat Japanese as if it were a language based in Roman characters. What a horrible way to teach Japanese! What a piss-poor excuse to sanction a system that sanctions blatant misspelling and mispronunciation. I feel sorry for any student of Japanese that is humiliated by a teacher that forces this crap down his throat.

As someone who learned Japanese from HEPBURN-based Romaji and has excellent command of all three Japanese writing systems, not to mention holds an 1kyuu in the JLPT, and as someone who teaches English for a living, living in JAPAN of all places, it is my deduction that JSL, Nipponshiki, Kunreishiki, and all their derivatives are utterly destructive to education, if not entirely useless. Only stuff-shirt, snob-nosed scholars use them to sound look more important, it screws up learning for native Japanese speakers that learn it, and there should be no reason why anyone else should have to learn them. Romaji was made for non-Japanese users of Roman characters (Ie, speakers of English), and no system does this better than Hepburn, or anything with actual pronunciations in the Japanese learner's language. I will gladly join any movement that wants to abolish it. Sorry for the long rant. *edited 10/15/2008, 14:13*Kogejoe (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 * From what I can deduce from your incredibly long rant, I can tell you don't like JSL. Now JSL isn't my fave either, but I'm assuming we're both biased towards it by learning Hepburn. Truthfully the r/l kana's is pronounced in between r and l. The Japanese don't have a phonetic system exactly the same as the English language does. Pronouncing "ら/ラ" as "la" is completely fine in Japanese, but yes, for an English speaker it's completely confusing. Plus if you ever heard a Japanese person say "ふ/フ" you'd be able to tell that it's also in-between f and h. Hell, I've heard it most of the time more closely sounding like "hu" than "fu". The kana's "ち/チ" are pronounced AGAIN in-betweeen Ti and Chi, along with "つ/ツ".
 * Now the one thing that I HATE about JSL is their romanization of "おう/オー". They romanize it as "Oo", and that is extremely incorrect. It's helpful to a non-Japanese speaker, because of course it might be odd to see something as "ou", and they might pronounce it as "o-u", not "ō" (of course some Japanese speakers do pronounce it as "o-u", like in songs to fill up areas where they need another syllable, or need something to rhyme, which is fine). But it just pisses me off.
 * Also the Nihon-shiki romanization has pretty much been replaced by Kunrei-shiki, which is taught in Japan (Nihon-shiki I'm pretty sure was abolished by the late 19th century).
 * In general you need to be more open towards JSL, Kunrei-shiki and Nihon-shiki, and not just Hepburn. It help to have a variety. Moocowsrule (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

title: Talk:JSL romanization


text:
Talk:By operation of law

Why is this page a redirect to itself? Smerdis of Tlön 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:By operation of law


text:
Talk:Trustee in bankruptcy

USA-centric
Trustees exist anywhere. --94.69.62.176 (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

 * This article is not about "trustees". It's about trustees in bankruptcy -- a particular kind of trustee. And the article mentions both the U.S. and Canada. Yes, the article can eventually be expanded to include treatment of trustees in bankruptcy in other countries as well. Famspear (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trustee in bankruptcy


text:
User talk:Drdequit

Hi ... Wuddup?

title: User talk:Drdequit


text:
Cycling at the Summer Olympics

Cycling has been contested at every Summer Olympic Games since the birth of the modern Olympic movement at the 1896 Summer Olympics, at which a road race and five track events were held. Mountain bike racing entered the Olympic programme at the Atlanta Olympics, followed by BMX racing in 2008 and freestyle BMX in 2020. Before the 2020 Summer Olympics, all events were speed races, but the 2020 programme featured BMX freestyle for the first time.

Women's road events were introduced to the Olympic programme at the 1984 Summer Olympics. Women's track events were added in 1988, and both types of events have been featured since then.

The 2012 Summer Olympics were the first at which men and women competed in the same number of events in all cycling disciplines, including track cycling, which previously had more men's and fewer women's events than the 2008 programme. However, women have shorter distances for some events.

Medal table
Source: Last updated after the 2020 Summer Olympics

Medal table
Source: Last updated after the 2020 Summer Olympics

Medal table
Source: Last updated after the 2020 Summer Olympics

Medal table
Source: Last updated after the 2020 Summer Olympics

Medal table
Source: Last updated after the 2020 Summer Olympics

Overall medal table
Last updated after the 2020 Summer Olympics

Medalists
The top of the lists for most successful (by gold medals won) and most decorated (by all medals won) are dominated by recently active track cyclists from Great Britain, who rose to prominence from the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics, and then dominance from the Beijing 2008 Games, winning 22 gold medals in the velodrome between 2008 and 2020, as well as single golds in road racing, road time trial, BMX freestyle, BMX racing and mountain biking in that timeframe. This sharp rise was largely thanks to significant funding by UK Sport of British Cycling. The most successful Olympic cyclists of each sex are husband-and-wife couple Jason and Laura Kenny, with Jason winning seven golds and two silver medals and Laura five golds and one silver medal. Jason also holds the record of most decorated cyclist, with nine medals, and is the only cyclist to have successfully defended Olympic gold medals in three different cycling events. Laura Kenny shares the title of most decorated female cyclist, with six medals, with Dutch legend Leontien van Moorsel (four golds, one silver and one bronze) and Australia sprint star Anna Meares (two gold, one silver and three bronze medals). Laura Kenny holds the unique distinction of winning the inaugural gold medals in three different events - women's team pursuit and women's omnium (both 2012) and women's madison (2020).

Great Britain's Chris Hoy, the first Olympic cyclist to win six gold medals, holds the unique distinction of having won gold across four different track disciplines; the Kilo, the team sprint (twice), match sprint and keirin (twice) disciplines. Three cyclists share the record for gold medals in the same event with three; Jason Kenny in team sprint, compatriot Ed Clancy in team pursuit, and American Kristin Armstrong in time trial. All three achieved the feat between 2008 and 2016.

 * Cyclists who have won 6 or more Olympic medals.
 * As of the 2020 Summer Olympics§

Riders in bold still active.

§ : currently ongoing.

title: Cycling at the Summer Olympics


text:
User talk:OliverFredericDieck

Oliver Frederic Dieck O.F.D

"accepted by president EU parliament Nicole Fontaine"

"probably the best music composer /arranger of our century"

DID YOU EVER LISTEN TO STUFF OF OFD? ITS FUCKING BULLSHIT!!!! HE IS CRAZY! PLEASE ERASE HIS NOTE

Oliver Frederic Dieck is born in Munich Germany 10 january 1964 with northern ancestors.With 4 tonal symphonies,piano concert "Strasbourg" accepted by president EU parliament Nicole Fontaine officially for Eu in 1999,church organ concert, violin concert,oratory,opera,2 serenades,jazz,musical,hip hop,pop,rock and ethno he is probably the best music composer /arranger of our century working on equal level to the old best classical musicians and the best of this century as well. Apart from that he is busy with some sciences following to his german democrats membership since 1988 and his protestant cultural roots,presented as the Some future script 2005 (pdf)with important adds to several natural and social sciences. He 's the inventor of Mariah Careys "h" selected as best composer. Finally he stayed in Europe for his other studies but founding an own label. Status quo - 2005

title: User talk:OliverFredericDieck


text:
Big Tree

Big Tree may refer to:

Trees

 * , for big trees in general
 * Big Tree (Washington tree), a Ponderosa pine tree that formerly stood in Washington State, U.S.
 * Big Tree at Victoria Falls, a large baobab near Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe
 * The Big Tree, 400 year old national champion in Missouri, U.S.
 * The Big Tree, Rockport, a live oak near Rockport, Texas, U.S.
 * Big Tree, the tallest tree known to the public in northern California's Redwoods
 * The Senator (tree), the oldest pond cypress tree in the United States
 * The Big Tree, Kirkwall, a sycamore tree in Orkney, Scotland

People

 * Big Tree (Kiowa leader) (1847–1927), Kiowa war leader
 * Chief John Big Tree (1877–1967), Seneca Nation chief

Places in the United States

 * Big Trees, California
 * Big Tree Station, Mariposa, California
 * Big Tree Station, a former name of Wawona, California
 * Big Tree, New York

Other uses

 * Big Tree (novel), a children's novel written and illustrated by Mary and Conrad Buff
 * The Big Trees, a 1952 film
 * Big Trees Lodge, a hotel in Yosemite, California, U.S.
 * Big Tree Records, a record label
 * Treaty of Big Tree, a late 18th century Indian treaty between the Six Nations and United States

title: Big Tree