text:
User:Skookumplanet

Landscape artist/writer, science aficianado since grade school [a loooong time ago]. Live in San Francisco Bay area.

Please put comments on discussion page.

...So-called Truthteller
TruthTeller [henceforth "TT"] presents a challenge to the Wikipedia process I've yet found mentioned or appreciated. As a newbie [my second post] I may be off-base about the Wiki-process, but tracking down process questions is difficult due to the quantity of work here -- in itself positive. I hope the length of this is justified -- said length itself demonstrating the potential obstacle.

I'm professionally familiar with TT-type argument, and after reflecting on TT's comments in talk:Dinosaurs, I want to share my insights with those who waded through TT's disturbing pattern of repetitious criticism, wild speculation [e.g., scientists abandoning evolution], scripted monologue, intentional distortions and falsifications, and failure to admit error. Allowing the creationist/ID crowd to focus on their apparent, versus actual, topic [science, versus politics] means, ultimately, they win and science loses.

Since I practically live on top it, for my small bit of evidentiary material I'll use TT's San Andreas paragraph in about:Truthteller and it's link, a technique TT excessively uses, out of Wikipedia. The bracketed notations will be explained after the quoted passages and the analysis.

From near the top of User:Truthteller --

"Why I Do NOT believe the Earth is Billions of Years Old

"Contrary to the beliefs of some, the age of the Earth has not been scientifically proven to be "millions" or "billions" of years old.''

"In fact there are many [A-1,D-1] other scientifically valid techniques [A-2,B-1,C-1,D-2,G-1,I-1] which yield [H-2] very young ages for the Earth, Solar System, and Universe [B-2,C-2,F-1,G-2,I-2]. For example, [I-3] there is very good [C-3,D-3,F-2,H-3] evidence [A-3,D-4,F-3] that the San Andreas Fault  [<-- link to http://www.earthage.org/continentaldrft/continental_drift.htm from which the following paragraph is the only San Andreas information] is less than 5,000 years old." [A-4,D-5,F-4,H-4,I-4]

"The San Andreas Fault: The evidence [D-6,F-5,I-5] seems to suggest that the plates [G-3] along San Andreas Fault have only been moving [E-1,H-5,I-6] for a few thousand years at most [C-4,F-6,I-7]. This can be observed by looking at a map [A-5,B-3,C-5,E-2,F-7,H-6] of the San Andreas fault, area[H-7,E-3] near Point Reyes, California, where the fault [A-6,C-6,E-4] runs directly through [A-7,C-7,E-5,I-8] two peninsulas (Sand Point and Toms Point); however, neither of these peninsulas appear [B-4,D-7,E-6,G-4,I-9] offset at all. (17) [B-5,C-8,E-7,G-5,I-10] Furthermore, since these plates [H-8] (presently) move at the rate of one to two inches per year [E-8,G-6,H-9,I-11], if we assume [E-9,H-10] that this has been going on for (only) the past 10,000 years [E-10,F-8,H-11], then these two peninsulas should be offset by more than 1/4 mile [B-6,C-9,E-11,H-12]. However we don't observe [A-8,C-1,E-12,G-7,I-12] even the slightest offset [A-9,E-13,H-13,I-13] ''of these peninsulas on the map. This strongly suggests [D-8,H-14,I-14] ''that the San Andreas fault is quite young (probably less than 5,000 years old) [E-14,F-9,I-15]. It also is an indication that the continents themselves are young [E-15,F-10,H-15,I-16] ''as well. The diagram below [A-10,B-7,C-11,E-16] illustrates this point'' [A-11,G-8,I-17]."

[TT's original map placement here]...

17) Geology of the Point Reyes Peninsula, Marin County, CA, Bulletin 202, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA 1977, by Allan J. Galloway, pp. 22-23; map is included with Bulletin.

_________________________________________

Let me now annotate those two paragraphs:

"... In fact there are many -- No, there are not. If there were, why choose a single falsified example and make deceptive rhetorical arguments from it.

"... other scientifically valid techniques -- nothing TT does or says downstream is "scientific" -- it's all rhetorical -- therefore it's not "valid" in that domain. There is a "technique" involved, however: falsification of data.

... which yield -- You can't derive something valid from a falsification. GIGO.

... very young ages for the Earth, Solar System, and Universe. -- nothing that follows presents ANY evidence for this. Zero.

... For example, -- remember, what TT follows this with is a proxy, as it were, for proof the universe, et.al., are circa 5,000 years old.

... there is very good -- consider if anything below constitutes "very good".

... evidence -- you can't call a single, falsely cited reference as evidence, let alone "very good" evidence.

... that the San Andreas Fault is less than 5,000 years old. -- TT presents no evidence for this. This is a technique advertisers frequently use: present a simple message repeatedly, surrounded by ancillary "supporting" material. But the desired take-away is not the argument, but the key, simple message.

"... The San Andreas Fault: The evidence -- one item, only, and it is a reference, not evidence.

... seems to suggest that the plates  -- TT never mentions which plates are involved, nor the nature of their movements, both important. [About 175 miles north of TT's map, beginning off Cape Mendocino and the mouth of the beautiful Mattole River, a third plate, the Gordo plate, is being smashed and consumed between the two large plates, the Pacific and the North American. A few weeks ago there was a 7.0 quake from mid-Gordo-plate and, briefly, a tsunami warning.]

... along the San Andreas Fault have only been moving -- TT makes no attempt whatsoever to show evidence that they ARE moving.

''... for a few thousand years at most. This can be observed by looking at a map of the San Andreas fault area, near Point Reyes, California, where the fault runs directly through two peninsulas (Sand Point and Toms Point)'' -- TT's map FALSELY represents the map in the reference cited, which is a monograph likely available in libraries. The San Francisco library has 2 copies. The dotted line on the TT's cited map DOES NOT represent the San Andreas fault. Instead, Galloway labels it "trace of 1906 fracture -- after Gilbert". The San Andreas Fault Zone's [henceforth "SAFZone"] terrestrial edges are labeled on Galloway's map with widely spaced dashed lines running up from the south ending in the mudflats at the head of Tomales Bay. [See third map below.]

... however, neither of these peninsulas appear offset at all.(17)  -- TT omits scale and most geology [the only terrestrial feature, "marine and non-marine beds" remains unmentioned]. The geological omission expunges from the map the fact that both peninsulas and the contiguous "mainland" are sand dunes. Such failure suggests the map is lifted from a tertiary source unexamined, at best, or intentionally edited to remove contradicting information.

The peninsulas are relatively tiny features; The Pt. Reyes peninsula, 7 1/2 times longer than what TT shows, has the SAFZone running completely across it's base and shows enormous displacement. "At the time the molten granitic material [found only west of the SAFZone -- me] was emplaced it could have been hundreds of miles south...[a] possibility not hard to envisage since granitic rock similar to that of Point Reyes is present...on the east side of the fault in the Tehachapi Mountains at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley" [Galloway, p. 59, op.cit.].

TT obviously fails to consider:

1) Both peninsulas are overwhelmingly comprised of sand dunes, and thus very fluid. Sand Point [surprise!], which I've stood on twice, is entirely made up a few wind-blown dunes.

2) The SAFZone is not a single, narrow crack as TT falsely implies, but many, mostly parallel fractures and faults. TT wrongly implies that all surface movement is parallel to the fault zone. Surface movement can also be perpendicular and can also cause subsidence and lifting. Various weathering can produce erosion and deposition. TT makes zero mention of this. The Pacific plate is also subducting under Northern California and its coastline is scattered with fossil beaches thereby lifted tens to hundreds of feet above and behind present-day beaches. Again, I've stood on these fossil beaches, just as I've stood on patches of coast where I lived in southcentral Alaska that subsided 10-15 feet during the 1964 earthquake there. That subsidence extended off the coast, displacing huge amounts of water, thus causing the '64 tsunami.

3) The entire Tomales Bay [TT shows 1/3] has been formed by the activity of the SAFZone, which one source says, " is prominent as an elongate valley separating the peninsula...from the mainland...forming Olema Valley and its drowned extensions -- Tomales Bay and Bolinas Lagoon." Indeed, the COVER of Galloway's monograph is an aerial photograph [also found on p.5 and on pull-out map, op.cit.] looking NNW from Stinson Beach. This "elongate valley" and "extensions", which Galloway calls the "Olema trough", are outlined by two widely spaced white dotted lines superimposed on the photo, impossible to miss.

Galloway says "... in this report the words "San Andreas fault zone" are used ... to designate the band of roughly parallel fractures which accompany the "fault trace," or master-fault. The words "1906 fault trace" are used to designate the actual break in the ground which occurred at the time of the San Francisco earthquake of April 18, 1906. ...At Bolinas Lagoon and Tomales Bay, the trough of the fault zone has been invaded by the ocean.... Many other shorter, more discontinuous, fault traces are to be seen in the fault zone, and some are as impressive as the 1906 trace." [p. 47-52] Conclusion: TT never held the referenced book in his hands.

4) SAFZone's had enormous movement recently, a few miles off the bottom TT's map. Let me reach over, into my desk's side-caddy, and pull out one of my two well-worn copies of the National Park Service's fold-out trail brochure for Pt. Reyes [GPO: 1985 -- 461-444/20025 Reprint 1985], and quote it:

"The peninsula rides high on the eastern edge of the Pacific plate. ..The rest of North America, except Alaska, is borne westward on the slower-moving American Plate. In Olema Valley...these two great landmasses grind together. Where one plate ends and the other begins cannot be pinpointed accurately, for a single fault line does not exist. This meeting of the plates is, quite simply, a rift zone, which contains many large and small faults running parallel and at odd angles to one another...The jumbled nature of the surface landscape is the manifestation of stress far below the surface of the Earth, often as much as 300 or 400 miles deep...This is what happened in the Olema Valley in 1906; the result was the devastating San Francisco Earthquake. At the time, the Point Reyes Peninsula was thrust five meters (16.4 feet) northwestward." [all emphasis mine]

Near the park headquarters is the Earthquake Trail. I've been on it many times. There is on this trail, near the barn on an information plaque, a photograph of the spot just after the '06 quake, so marked because there was a white, wooden fence running across the surface rupture and it's two halves are correspondingly displaced near to the 16.4 feet. Galloway cites similar size movements in 5 places on Pt. Reyes, and one each tens of miles north and south of it.

The absurdity of TT's approach is evident if I multiply 16.4 feet [which actually occurred in less that 2 minutes] times 5,000 years equals 82,000 feet, or roughly 15 miles. Nowhere in TT's discussion are the dynamics of the fault even mentioned [the creeping plates gradually build up pressure until the pressure exceeds the friction of the plates and they catastrophically lunge, then start the process over again. See ++ at end of analysis, below]

5) One map cannot counterweigh what must be hundreds of published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and, most importantly, their attendant data, that prove otherwise, even if said map wasn't falsified, which it is. There's no mention, not even a sub-sentence, about the counter-vailing evidence and the reasons for the current scientific consensus on the mechanics and history of the SAFZone.

Data is a concept TT seems ignorant of. The monograph TT falsely cites as his evidence was constructed from..."Two hundred and thirty days of field work...completed during the years 1959-1965. ...U.S. Geological Survey...photographs were studied stereoscopically and used for locating field observations. Oblique aerial photographs were used to study cliff faces. Rock samples were studied under binocular microscopes, and thin sections were made of selected igneous and metamorphic rocks for petrological study. Numerous rock samples were washed and examined for microfaunal content. [Introduction, p. 6, Galloway, op.cit.]

"The geologic map was prepared by the writer using as a base the five 7 1/2-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quad-rangles that cover the area. The mapping was done entirely on foot, using vertical aerial photographs of series GS-UX (1952) to determine and record the locations of the nearly 1500 observations. [A Note on Geological Map, p. 69, Galloway, op.cit.]".

That's DATA, rather than falsely citing references. TT dismisses all of this because a few sand dunes haven't been permanently displaced.

... Furthermore, since these plates (presently) move at the rate of one to two inches per year, -- no evidence whatsoever provided to underpin this -- nada.

... if we assume that this has been going on for (only) the past 10,000 years, then these two peninsulas should be offset by more than 1/4 mile. -- My calculations, per 4) above, indicate at 10,000 years it should have moved 30 miles. TT is piling fantasy on top of assumption on top of falsification, and then doing computations on the results! And then asks us to judge 1/4 mile of geological movement from a non-scaled map!! Clueless.

... However we don't observe even the slightest offset of these peninsulas -- "we" need to "observe" the real, physical world to counter probably tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of hours a fieldwork thereon.

... on the map. -- the map is falsified

... This strongly suggests -- antecedent reference is ambiguous -- which falsification does "this" refer to?

... that the San Andreas fault is quite young (probably less than 5,000 years old) -- Among the castles in the sky TT has built, TT provides zero evidence, calculation, etc. for reaching "5,000 years". Presumably the SAFZone could have begun just prior to, or even with, the '06 quake. Even TT can't deny the '06 quake; otherwise TT's logic dictates that since the peninsulas are not offset "even the slightest", the '06-quake ruptures did not occur.

... It also is an indication that the continents themselves are young as well. -- >>> LOOK CLOSELY HERE <<<. Another rhetorical device used to gloss over lack of any connection. As if by satanic spell TT conjures a date ["less than 5,000 years old"] out of thin air, then says, if the fault's only this old, the continents must be that old too. There's NO LOGIC here. My idea in the preceding paragraph works for TT's fantasies about continents also. And what evidence indicates movement equals age in continents? TT's use of rhetoric [unstudied as I suspect it is] puts TT squarely in league with politicians and advertisers.

... The diagram below illustrates this point."  [The "map" of the beginning of TT's paragraph has become a "diagram". While clearly a more truthful appellation, as a "diagram" it is still just as falsified.

The footnote itself,... by the way, refers to nothing. On those two pages in Galloway there's nothing remotely on-subject for TT's two sentences preceding the footnote. If TT is referencing the map below the footnote, TT fouled that up too. Galloway presents only two maps. One is a sleeved, 36" by 30", fold-out, full-color geological map, and the other an 8" by 11" black and white map in the text, but it's on page 4. If the black and white is the reference, TT's portion is about 1/64th the total map. Even at that size, it's clear that the two peninsulas are primarily sand dunes, and the dotted line carries a label that, cut by TT's cropping, would read, "1906 EARTH" ..and continues on the original ..."QUAKE TRACE". Each of the nine ways to lie listed below, one could argue, apply to this footnote which is a falsification even of the core of the reference -- there's nothing at pages 22 and 23.

I'll also point out that the sole reference TT has chosen to use to overturn everything science knows about the SAFZone is by a geologist and ex-vice president of Shell Oil -- who is long dead and can't ask/legally force TT to stop slandering his work. Does this make TT a bully? Consider the other abundant evidence.

++ Note [from above]. If I may cite and plug at the same time: "... the crust in the contact [between the plates -- me] is twisted, creating stresses that cause the rocks to snap back into their original shape at irregular intervals, rupturing along the fault plane in the process. Where slight bends in the fault lock the opposite sides together, as around San Francisco and in Southern California, the snapping occurs at intervals from a half century to several centuries, and causes great earthquakes."

-- from my trusty and beautifully rendered "Pictorial Landform Map, Point Reyes National Seashore and the San Andreas Fault California", copyright 1982 by Dee Molenaar, Wilderness Press, Berkeley, California. Hikers will salivate at the "intricate trail system" laid over the valleys, ridges, meadows, and forests of western Marin County drawn on the oblique-view map.

_________________________________________

Of the many ways to lie, here's an incomplete list. [The letters for each type refer to TT's two paragraphs above; the numerals in the notations there are a running total for that type of lie. ]

A) State in the affirmative something you know to be false [false witness]. B) Make true statements but directly/implicitly falsely represent context, [false witness]. C) Withhold accurate information when it's relevant [false witness]. D) Falsely characterize something -- the INCREDIBLE OFFERS! of the advertising industry [false witness]. E) Oversimplify fundamentally complex or nuanced reality [false witness]. F) Ignore valid counter-evidence [false witness]. G) Publicly claim/imply expertise in a domain of which wholly/partially ignorant [false witness]. H) Use of pro forma logic or math with false inputs [false witness]. I) Make conclusions not supported by evidence presented [false witness].

All of us, even children, understand these are ways of lying. So, in slightly more than 200 words, TT managed to bear false witness 30 times [single instance] to 93 times [multiple instance]! Achievement duly noted.

The point I'm making here for Wikipedia is not about the scientific validity of TT's positions, which is non-existent, but the moral issue it presents the Wiki-process. TT's position is fundamentally an AMORAL ARGUMENT and as such presents a problem.

This is, of course, the ultimate in situational ethics, so thoroughly decried by those of TT's ilk! Here, their belief in their "ultimate reality" allows them to lie about any situation in service of their "ultimate reality". They feel no obligation even to follow their own "commandments" as befitting, they dare not argue, their own "special" nature. [Anyone with more than a veneer of historical knowledge, TT not being among such group, can see this type of personality throughout history and the immense amount of grief, destruction, and misery it has caused.]

Fundamentally, they don't accept the scientific method as a valid investigative tool. Indeed, at the recent "evolution trial" in Kansas City the ID crowd made, from the podium, a plea that the 'DEFINITION OF SCIENCE be changed. ' Go check the news reports. If so inclined, they could invest themselves in Wiki dialogues in a perpetual, tag-team stream as they appear to be doing in our education system. Remember, the demarcation between "amoral" and "evil" is a very nebulous boundary.

"The politicisation of science has increased at all levels," says [Kenneth] Miller [of Brown University]. "What is happening is a political effort to force a change in the content and nature of science itself." ["A battle for science's soul", Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, July 9, 2005; Vol. 187, No 2507.]

This is a well-financed and well-conceived mass-media campaign that will, in essence, "go over the heads" of the scientific community to it's funders -- the voters of America. First evolution, then geology, astronomy and cosmology. Then perhaps physics. Finally the soft sciences will be eviscerated, starting with psychology. [Here's a prediction -- within 5 to 15 years we'll see a national assault on the university institution of tenure. That, in turn, is step one toward making all university faculty employment subject to political control.]

Don't buy that? A change of elementary and secondary teacher's tenure, from two to five years, has been put on the upcoming California ballot via initiative. The author, California Republican Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia dreamed it up after "discussing it with friends". There's no research on a connection between probationary period and teacher quality. If it passes, it will make California and Missouri the only states that require such a long probationary period. A co-chair of the committee that "spent millions collecting signatures to put the initiative on the ballot" is William Hauck, president of the California Chamber of Commerce. Hauck said, regarding this issue, "Ideally, we would have no tenure or collective bargaining" for teachers. [Information taken from "Dancing the teacher-tenure tango" by Louis Freedberg [editorial writer] San Francisco Chronicle, page B-4, May 16, 2005] By the way, it is the only one of numerous ballot measures leading at mid-summer, 2005.

One need only to have observed the last 30 years of the American political scene to have seen this approach very successfully applied. The same bankrollers have already turned their attention to science. If you think the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate gatekeeper that will keep religion out of science education, then you've been spending way too much time in the field and at the bench. Countering this campaign simply through the individual efforts of a handful of scientists is guaranteed to fail...

If TT responds to this, beware resort to rhetorical [false witness] devices:

 * creating "straw men", misattributions, etc. to subsequently demolish

 * talking off-point to referenced statement

 * links instead of concise reason, evidence, and editing (false witness as well as sloth :)

 * personal attack as deflection from TT's falsification

 * admit my personal knowledge but avoid noting TT's methodological failure

 * confessing a "map mistake" but denying it's implication to his larger argumentation

 * responding to minor elements while ignoring major elements and thrusts

_________________________________________
 * focus on my PS rather than TT's BS

Finally, to shift gears a bit, I'd like to give high commendation to all the scientists and engineers putting energy into Wikipedia. I know how demanding a scientific career is, and this extra effort should be recognized and applauded by everyone. The TTs of the world, mainly in the U.S., won't stop. They'll keep coming and coming and the public won't be bothered to look beyond rhetorical argument. The quote "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" is appropriate here.

I'd suggest that the scientific community needs to cultivate a more profound sense of professional responsibility regards communicating with the public about what it does. So then the ones that do spend time on this might receive rewards more commensurate with the importance of their task. Surely this is a persuasive argument to your highly intelligent peers.

Again, thanks to all.

_________________________________________

P.S.  The following doesn't fit the subject of this post, exactly, but most of it's from the talk:Dinosaur page. After seeing so much TT I think it's relevant observation -- the task the TTs of the world set for themselves is political, not scientific. Please excuse it as my emotional release after treating so much intentional false witness as I would the truth.

A careful reading of TT's wiki-postings reveals a grandiosity, self-absorption, and hubris of which TT is obviously unaware. In no particular order:

from TalkDinosaur:

... As a former evolutionist -- [see User:Truthteller below] and someone who knows the Creator personally -- "and TT, you must do something about these radical evolutionists. I'd smite them myself but I'm busy with the secular humanists and the Europeans right now."

...I can say unequivocally that Creationism is not only TRUE, but, (even) from a scientific (i.e. logical) perspective -- Notice not only the grandiosity of TT's knowledge here, but even more importantly TT's equation of science and logic, which is likely as far as TT's definition of science goes.

... but I also realize that I cannot force the truth on anyone, and neither will I try. -- So falsifying the truth appears to be the alternative to force. I will, however, try to reason with anyone who is willing to listen. -- In TT's hubris, only others should listen.

... I propose that the Word "Dinosaur" be withdrawn from modern Usage -- This is my personal favorite -- why not rewrite the dictionary while you're at it! Oh yeah, I appreciate the citation of great literature, but since when has "Beowulf", et. al. become data in the biological sciences?

... I don't recall deleting anyone's comments except for a few (rude and crude remarks)  -- Astonishing! As I said above, why stop with "dinosaur" and "rude" and "crude" and "million". Do the entire dictionary. Half of it's words deserve to be illegal, right? TT's subconscious is oozing out. Also note the irony -- TT's starting to sound like those misguided liberals on campuses with their hate-speech prohibitions.

... I do think that (virtually) the entire evolutionist/"scientific" community has been misled by their predecessors and is just now realizing that they took a wrong turn about a 140 years ago. -- TT, of course, has personally communicated with these -- I'm guessing here -- tens of thousands [if "evolutionists" only, hundreds of thousands if " 'scientific' community"] of scientists over their highly personal, life-shattering re-evaluation; perhaps TT uses simultaneous telepathy; perhaps they check-in with TT only once, when they've decided their entire professional lives have been a fraud. TT never expresses amazement how so many stupid, gullible people got through 7-10 years of the most demanding university curriculum -- even calculus! -- then ensconced in positions spending, well billions and billions, of tax dollars annually. And curing illness, etc., etc.

... And anyone who is vaguely familiar with the complexity of the cell, [my, incredible, emphasis] and of self-replicating organisms, if they are honest, knows that I am telling the truth -- Again, TT's communion with the scientists of the world. I propose people as dishonest as these scientists shouldn't be allowed to teach our children, or at publicly funded colleges, or get public research money, or be allowed access to public broadcast frequencies, or even be allowed to decipher genomes and control nuclear fission. No Medicine Except Creationist Medicine (Keep evolution out of Medicare)! The Big Bang Is Bullshit! Boycott Physical Letters B!

... I hate to tell you this but you were LIED to in school. -- TT's omniscience borders on the godly, don't you think, and the omnipresent in TT's postings.

... I have looked up so much of the reference information (that Creationists list) myself that I can say first hand that when they give a reference for something it is correct. -- I guess I found the only faulty reference. Hardly. TT is taking responsibility not only for TT's own 93 lies above, but those of many others', SIGHT UNSEEN! TT, I have a STEAL OF A DEAL! on a bridge in Brooklyn -- recommended by creationists.

... I can say firsthand that they -- "evolutionists" or scientists in general? -- are deceived... -- Wow! Firsthand! TT talks to a LOT of people

... Yes, I admit, that there is a LOT of undoing that NEEDS to be done, and I am only one person. -- Glad you cleared that up -- I also am working on two books myself at this time, and will only be here (on Wikipedia) for a short time. -- And besides, TT's got all these [telepathic?] conversations/updates/whatever going on with these tens of thousands of scientists.

''... Please Don't start using personal attacks. That is ONE thing I really DON'T like about evolutionists who have degrees from College.'' -- I guess personal attacks from those that don't have college degrees are OK.

... Please stop the insults or I will not respond anymore. -- TT, the respondent said the argument was stupid, not you, st. . . er, hey, let's redefine English grammar as well as the dictionary. Not to mention calling virtually all the world's biological scientists -- among many, many others -- dishonest, morons, liars, self-delusional, etc., implied or direct, as NOT being insults! TT's self-absorption breeds obliviousness to his impact on others. It goes way beyond hubris, emotionally tone deaf is closer.

... from User: Truthteller:

I am a Christian, who used to believe in evolution and that the earth was "billions" of years old, and that Radiometric dating was reliable. -- And yet TT, and TT's "sources", obsessively cite carbon-14 dating; apparently it's not radiometric. TT offers no definition of his previous incarnation as an "evolutionist". Obviously no one should "believe' in evolution. How does one come to "believe" in radiometric dating? TT reveals his rationality suspect even before conversion; afterwards is evident.

. . . . don't laugh. Their campaign is dead serious.

title: User:Skookumplanet


text: User talk:70.28.37.251

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

title: User talk:70.28.37.251


text: User talk:81.249.11.104

title: User talk:81.249.11.104


text:
Talk:Voiceless alveolar fricative

Comment
about 203.164.184.7's reversion of "vandalism". (see Vandalism for a definition, adding a paragraph on the cross-linguistic frequency of a sound is not vandalism)

(I'm not sure if this Talk: page is appropriate for this). All the human language sounds articles such as this one currently contain links in titles such as 'In English'. This is imho ugly. Moreover, the Wikipedia manual of style states:
 * "Avoid links within headers. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header."

It is quite a bit of work to change this on all these articles, but I think it should be done. I am not sure what the best way is, but I certainly do not want to go into a revert war over this. --Lenthe 21:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Fricative or sibilant?
Kwamikagami's edit of 10 August changed some, but not all, occurences of "voiceless alveolar fricative" to "voiceless alveolar sibilant". Not knowing myself which is more correct I've restored 'fricative'. If it should be changed to 'sibilant', then all occurences in the article should be changed and the page renamed. IceKarmaॐ 22:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sibilants are a subtype of fricative. However, there are alveolar fricatives besides [s] and [z]. The name of the article is appropriate, but there should perhaps be subcategories in the article. kwami 01:59, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Dental?
I see many charts listing the IPA [s] as dental. I've also seen a description of the sound that makes the person touch their bottom row of teeth while pronouncing it. I tried it and it sounds similar. What is this phenomenon? -Iopq 05:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * IPA [s] may be dental, alveolar, or postalveolar - the symbol is intentionally ambiguous. (The title of the article is misleading.)

 * No sound requires that you touch the lower teeth. This is probably a way to get you to make a laminal [s]. Which language was the description for? kwami 06:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've seen this in descriptions of Ukrainian. -Iopq 21:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it's not possible to understand the definite way of articulation of the letter "s" Here

"Its place of active articulation is usually laminal, meaning that the tongue blade (the part just behind the top) contacts the alveolar ridge, with the tongue tip resting behind the lower front teeth. However, according to Ladefoged and Maddieson,[3] an apical articulation (with the tongue tip touching the alveolar ridge) is also possible, with in fact about an equal number of English speakers using each of the two types."

which alveolar ridges (in bold) are meant (upper or lower)? And "behind the lower front teeth" above means that the tip of the tongue touches the upper alveolar ridge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.198.250.173 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Always the upper ridge in phonetics. No, it means exactly what it says; the blade (the active articulator) touches the alveolar ridge and the tip rests on/behind the lower teeth/gums (doing nothing :-). — Lfdder (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

merge with Voiceless apicoalveolar fricative
I think it's a bit excessive having a separate page for this just as having one for a palatalized uvular ejective would. Any thoughts? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The alveolar fricative and the apicoalveolar fricative are two different fricatives. For example, Basque has a laminal fricative and an apicoalveolar fricative.  Also, the occurrence of apicoalveolar fricatives is in several major languages of the world and it needs a page to describe them.  If we merge the pages with alveolar fricatives, then they need to expanded to include the various alveolar fricatives.  azalea_pomp

 * I think that the alveolar fricative pages can tolerate explaining the distinction. Would you suggest that there be a distinction like with the sibilant non-sibilant versions already on the page?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that distinction as well as one for the laminal fricatives. Since both the laminal and apical use the alveolar ridge, the laminals use the blade of the tongue while the apicals use the tip of the tongue.  The occurrence section will have to be subdivded as Basque makes a distinction between laminal and apical voiceless fricatives as well as some Portuguese dialects I believe.  Several varities of Spanish (most of the Iberia and one of Colombia), Catalan, Gascon, several Occitan dialects, and Greek have apico-alveolar fricatives.  I am not sure if you have ever heard an apicoalveolar fricative, but it does have a whistling quality as several of my sources I listed also mention. azalea_pomp
 * That seems a bit excessive; having separate sections and separate tables/lists that is. Mentioning the contrast and illuminating the reader on the distinctions is perfectly appropriate.  Also, having one table but using diacritics to show the contrast would be helpful enough to the reader.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It just seems to me that merging pages should only be done if essentially the same information exists on both pages. Since this sound is distinctly different from the other, I don't see the logic in eliminating this page.

Spanish example
I wonder about the choice of saltador and the English translation "jumper" to represent Spanish in the table. For one thing, the three-syllable word is not among the most common in Spanish, and the translation "jumper" could be mistaken for a garment (what Americans call a sweater) rather than "one who jumps." — 72.147.69.42 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What example would you rather see? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  02:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiberno-English example
I'm a native speaker of Hiberno-English and I don't pronounce "attain" with the fricative in question but with normal plosive t. I believe this is always the case when the following syllable is accented. A better example would be "better", or "slit", but I'd prefer someone more expert do the IPA rendering. — Éamonn McManus 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I used an example from the source that backs this fact up at Hiberno-English. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Voiceless apico-alveolar fricative (again)
As I proposed the last time there were two separate articles, I think we should not have two separate alveolar sibilant pages: — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 13:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In this case, keeping two separate articles does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic in any way that having one article could not do; indeed, keeping information in two different places can actually spread the knowledge too thin.
 * 2) The apico-alveolar and the lamino-alveolar sibilants are similar acoustically, such that there is free variation between them in English. Very few languages contrast them and linguistic descriptions are often vague enough to not clarify which alveolar sibilant is being referred to here.
 * 3) It's not clear exactly what title would suffice for the non-apical alveolar sibilant.

 * Unfortunately what you say here isn't quite true, as I wrote in Talk:voiceless apico-alveolar sibilant. There is evidently free variation between a grooved apical alveolar sibilant and a grooved laminal alveolar sibilant, but certainly not between latter and the retroflex apical alveolar sibilant of (northern peninsular) Spanish, Basque and Catalan.  Possibly "grooved" and "retroflex" aren't the best terms.  Perhaps "flat" (SOWL's term) is better than "retroflex".  Neither term is usually found in the Spanish literature, and "retroflex" is more commonly used overall.  The basic problem seems to be that the phonetic understanding of tongue shape is still pretty basic, probably because (a) there's no way to see what's going on by looking into the mouth, (b) it's extremely hard to figure out what's going on by introspection, (c) traditional tools like palatography don't help much either.  Only x-raying helps.  However, this isn't easy to do in field work, and understandably not everyone wants their head x-rayed.

 * However, since the apico-alveolar fricative sounds like a higher-pitched retroflex (or "flat postalveolar") fricative, and hardly like English /s/, it's likely that few if any languages whose sources don't specifically describe a sound as "apico-alveolar" or "retroflex" have this sound. Benwing (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 * BTW I wrote to Ian Maddieson asking him to clarify what's going on with the apico-alveolar and apico-dental sibilants, and what the actual feature is that distinguishes "hissing" from "hushing" sibilants (as well as a host of other sibilant-related questions, some of which concern objections that kwami seems to have had to my new sibilants article). Hopefully he'll respond soon. Benwing (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting more confusing. If it's retroflex, what is the difference between this and the retroflex sounds of Russian, Polish, and Mandarin Chinese? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Polish mysz has a depalatalized  element to it, which is absent in european Spanish, european Portuguese, etc. It just sounds different. I'm not saying it deserves a different IPA symbol (though I'd be very happy to see one), but it's considerably different from English and German, , and Polish ,  and . None of the five aforementioned consonants sound like european Spanish  in saber . --89.76.168.131 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 * This is a very complicated problem and sibilants are clearly in urgent need of further research. Although I am very unsure of all the phonetic detail involved, my preliminary impression is as follows: The standard alveolar sibilant is formed at the sockets immediately behind the teeth (the alveoli), the retracted sibilant at the post-alveolar place, which is the edge or rim (limbus alveolaris = alveolar crest?) of the part behind the teeth where the curvature of the bottom of the upper jaw ascends into the roof of the hard palate (I think the part behind the teeth I mean is called the processus alveolaris – and identical with the alveolar ridge? – and more pronounced in the upper jaw; interestingly, Khoisan do not seem to have this ridge). The apical sibilants are formed with the tip of the tongue (the foremost part, not literally the tip) as active articulator, the laminal sibilants at a spot slightly further back, but not much further back, because if you articulate the retracted laminal sibilant closer to the centre of the tongue, it turns into (alveolopalatal) [ɕ]. My impression is now that the tongue is really flat in those sibilants and not actually retroflexed, although I could be wrong, of course. I have come to this conclusion mostly through experimentation. The apico-alveolar sibilant sounds like the typical (British?) English hissed sibilant to me, the lamino-alveolar one like the typical German hissed sibilant, the apico-post-alveolar one like the sibilant of many Peninsular Spanish varieties and the lamino-post-alveolar one like the Greek sibilant. The palatoalveolar [ʃ] combines a palatal (or even velar) with a post-alveolar contact (I've also seen [ʃ] called post-alveolar, which is only half-correct) and thus resembles an apico-post-alveolar Spanish [s] combined with [ç] (or even [x]). (This double constriction explains the distinctive manner in which the tongue is arched up when articulating an [ʃ]). That is, the apical region of the tongue touches the post-alveolar place of the upper jaw and the (post-)laminal region of the tongue touches the hard palate, the tongue roof (or even the velum, the soft palate). However, the back contact is apparently more loose and more like an approximant; still, this explains why ([sk] >) [sx] tends to change into [ʃ]. Which, for its part, does indeed resemble [ʂ] a lot, and [ʂ] is difficult to distinguish from [ʃ] if [ʂ] is only apical or laminal and not sub-apical. Finally, [ɧ] is similar to (a labialised) [ʃ] in combining a palatal (or even velar) with a labial contact. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case my syntax was unclear, the relative clause "where the curvature [...]" is supposed to determine "edge or rim", not "the part behind the teeth"; I don't know how to phrase it in an unambiguous way. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Peter Schrijver's observation is, and I agree with him here, that post-alveolar ("retracted", "dull") sibilants occur (mainly, or precisely?) in those languages where there is no second contrasting sibilant (in regard to place of articulation; I generally ignore voicing here), i. e., only a hissing /s/-type sibilant and no hushing /ʃ/- or /ʂ/-type sibilant; moreover, those languages also have, or recently used to have, contrasting interdental fricatives of some kind. This indicates that the choice of using alveolar or post-alveolar sibilants is determined by the need for contrast maximisation. This is similar to the way [ʃ] often features some kind of lip-rounding in German (and also English and French and perhaps further languages?), or is retroflexed in other (such as Slavic) languages, to maximise contrast with other sibilants or fricatives such as [ç] (which is often turned into unrounded [ʃ] or [ɕ] in German dialects and accents), [ɕ] (for example in Slavic) or even [s] itself. (Of course, [ʃ] with lip-rounding resembles [ɧ] even more closely. The origin of [ɧ] in Swedish is apparently a cluster of [s] and [ç] or [ɕ], so the intermediate step would appear to have been some kind of [sç] or [ʃɕ] with additional, non-contrastive lip-rounding as well.)
 * Given that Proto-Indo-European, and many older Indo-European languages (like modern languages spoken in the peripheries of Europe) are of the type with only one kind of sibilant and only interdental fricatives in addition sometimes, one should expected that Proto-Indo-European and many older Indo-European languages had post-alveolar /s/. And indeed that's what some scholars have argued based on other reasons, see here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Florian, Thanks for the article on Proto-Indo-Euro *S. Now, I was reading the comments here and I'm not sure if there are a (1) VOICELESS ALVEOLAR RETRACTED APICAL sibilant [s̺] or "voiceless apico-alveolar sibilant" aka "Roman S" (apical) vs "Greek S" (laminal) voiceless alveolar retracted laminal sibilant and (2) VOICELESS POSTALVEOLAR RETRACTED APICAL [no symbol or s̠]. Can anyone clarify this? I know it's an "old" thread but this is still relevant... (1) happens scatteredly across Europe but mostly on Northern Iberian Peninsula. If there is a postalveolar retracted apical sibilant, maybe it's an allophone of the alveolar one? To my perceptions, one sounds more like a weakly whistled s and the other like a faint ʃ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.159.233 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"Alveolar" is confusing
I actually think this article should not have "alveolar" in its name at all, or at the very least should say "alveolar/dental". Same goes for all the other anterior coronal sounds. The alveolarness is not the relevant factor here.

On top of this, there are at least six separate voiceless alveolar fricatives, all of which can equally be "dental" (or at least "denti-alveolar"):

Benwing (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Laminal alveolar and denti-alveolar
In this article, a laminal alveolar fricative is listed; in voiceless dental fricative article, a denti-alveolar fricative is listed. (It was previously described as corono-dentoalveolar, but that's idiosyncratic terminology and I changed it to denti-alveolar, the terminology used on Wikipedia.

I'm curious, is there a difference between the two, and what is it? Is it the precise position on the alveolar ridge: directly behind the teeth as opposed to a little farther back from the teeth? — Eru·tuon 19:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter sounds like a strong and by definition has a lisped, kind of "distorted" quality, which is considered normal for some Andalusian dialects. I suppose that at least sometimes it is in free variation with . On the other hand, an alveolar  of lisped quality is universally considered a speech defect. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Toda apical post-alveolar sibilant retracted?
Does anybody here know if the Toda sibilant described as "apical post-alveolar" here is comparable to the retracted sibilants found in European languages and dialects? The description "apical post-alveolar" sounds like it to me ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Audio for voiceless laminal fricative
Hi Nardog. Any easy way you can explain this edit -- 22:38, January 18, 2019 Nardog talk contribs m 67,252 bytes -160 removing audio to ensure consistency with Module:IPA symbol/data? I'm not sure I'll understand the technicalities, but isn't having audio better than not? Wolfdog (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing this and bringing it to my attention! The problem was that Module:IPA symbol/data didn't include the audio. Fixed here. Nardog (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh great! Thanks so much! Wolfdog (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, you meant retracted, not laminal, right? Nardog (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah -- thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Icelandic example has messed up it's addition to voiceless dental fricative
In Icelandic, the letter Þ is pronounced identically to the voiceless dental fricative /θ/ in English (example: thin). Icelandic makes use of the voiceless alveolar fricative too, but in more in words like "maður" and "móðir" where the word uses the VAF at ur/ir. The sources indicated on the page are referring to other sounds in Icelandic, and one of them is completely incorrect. Frankly, it is impossible to make the Þ sound while pressing the tongue to the alveolar ridge, the tongue must be flat along the teeth with air pushed over the top. If your tongue is on the alveolar ridge, it is not possible to push air over the top of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaanders (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Diaphragm
" ... it is articulated by pushing air solely with the lungs and diaphragm ... "

It is physically impossibly for the diaphragm to push air out of the lungs. Generations of voice teachers have perpetuated this myth, but the diaphragm is a muscle of inhalation only. When exhaling, the best it can do is to relax. and allow the intercostal muscles to force the air out of the lungs. The human diaphragm muscle cannot force air out of the lungs. It's basic anatomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.69.80 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Should this article not be split into smaller ones?
It is rather unwieldy at the moment. عُثمان (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Voiceless alveolar fricative


text:
Talk:Saaya Irie

inaccurate forums?
"If you stop the riot, I show my tits by uploading photos!" The above is particular problematic as both the Chinese wiki and the Japanese wiki do NOT have that line added at the end of her "plea". So I will remove it. Hanfresco 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

あのね、うそを言うことが止めて下さい. 原文は

「日本の１１歳の巨乳ロリドル入江沙綾が中国人民のみなさんに言うお！　大好きなお兄ちゃん、日本の美少女沙綾のおねがいです、反日のおいたをしないでください. そうじゃなきゃ、あなたを？いになっちゃうかも. もし反日さわぎをやめて、中国の民主化のために努力してくれるなら、すぐにわたしのおっばいうPします！！！　中国人民よ団結してください！！」

ですけど、同じ雑誌の中国語原文は　「日本11歲豐乳小妹入江沙綾向所有中國人民布告!!親愛的哥哥,日本美女沙綾求求?,中國人民團結起來!」

Nowhere does the Chinese original contain "If you stop the riot, I show my tits by uploading photos!" This sentence first, and ONLY appeared in the Japanese "translated" (imagined) version. If you don't believe me, I'd be more than happy to link you to a scan of the page. The only way for the contended sentence to appear is to clearly indicate the fact that it was added onto the translation. But that's only gonna happen if you respond to this discussion page to indicate to me that you understand what's going on. Until then, the improper sentence will be removed. Mind you again that, neither the Chinese nor Japanese wiki found it a place in their articles. Hanfresco 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an OR that you did.
 * You've got the Japanese-sentence wrong.
 * Let me explain.
 * The term "私の" means "my"
 * The term "おっぱい" means "tits"
 * The term "うｐ" is a japanese internet slang term that means "uploading something" (in this case, "uploading photos")
 * 59.128.68.180 20:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is not fact. The point is how the event was written in the citation.WP:VERIFY
 * Any problems ?
 * 59.128.68.180 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what the Japanese is saying. You do not need to translate for me what I already know from reading. Just as you said you're reporting a citation, SO AM I. Except, I'm reporting the un-defiled Chinese translation. Conveniently, you chose to ignore this sentence: The only way for the contended sentence to appear is to clearly indicate the fact that it was added onto [Japanese] translation. And Yes, there is a problem. You are pushing your own POV while refusing to compromise. Are you willing compromise? You may add the sentence back in when you're ready to, once again, compromise. Hanfresco 06:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I get it. Any complaints ?
 * 59.128.65.112 11:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 59.128.68.180

I agree! wikipedia has chosen to report from a scandalous magazine again and again ! Saaya's management has been contacted! none of what wikipeda has posted is factual! I hope Saaya sues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airrunwesker (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

VfD results
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Votes for deletion/Saaya Irie. -- BD2412 talk 21:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

not sure if this was covered in the discussion, but the article is either a direct copy of or directly copied by the answers.com site about Saaya - www.answers.com/topic/saaya-irie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.217.213 (talk)

 * It is the other way around, Answers.com copies from Wikipedia, which is fine. --Pmsyyz 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this picture legal?!?!?!?
Is this picture legal?!?!?!? shes only 12. Job E  6   00:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC) I got banned from 4chan for posting the image a month ago :( --Alexie 05:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's quite legal - everything that is required to be covered is covered. -- BD2412 talk 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

4chan reserves the right to ban users for literally anything.

Quitting modeling?
According to http://nozomionline.com/entertainment/sweetkiss.html she is quitting modeling.

on her next CD cover, she was again wearing a bikini, so i do8ubt that has any relevance.Gimmiet 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, Quote: "...have also considered no longer posing in bikini’s." Saying that the band INCLUDING Saaya is "considering" this. I hope she doesn't, It'll be quite sad if she goes! It is/was a proud moment for japanese pre-teens. Unknown 00:32, 14 December 2006 (NZST)

Fake Myspace?
Quite possibly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.249.120 (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2006

 * Good point. It's not really encyclopedic anyway, and need not be linked, even if it is real. – Mipadi 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Playboy
Should someone mention her being on the cover of Playboy magazine of Japan? She wasn't nude or anything, but I think there was an interview with her or something.

Insert Pedobear here. --Alexie 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It was actually a japanese magazine called Weekly Playboy. --louciano

"Second category" magazine?
I've tried to clean up the English usage in the As a gravure idol section. One expression, however, has me confused. Can someone please explain what a "second category magazine" is?

I assume that this means a magazine of lower quality and less respectability than a "first category" magazine, but it is difficult for me to find an analagous usage in American English. The word “tabloid” already has perjorative connotations (tones of lower quality) in standard American and British usage. In Japan, are there just "first category" and "second category" magazines, or are there also "third category", etc.? Is a "second category" magazine something that most people wouldn't buy, or would be embarrassed to be seen reading?

I would appreciate anyone helping me to understand this concept better. If so, then I can try to offer a better translation of the phrase in the article.

Thanks. --Eliyahu S Talk 07:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Account
Why doesn't this mention her Yahoo! Account? Is it because her Yahoo! Account is fake? http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile?show=D4waR5kLaa --69.234.205.38 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit late, but I do believe most stuff that brands celebrity names on it (even online profiles, like MySpace, Facebook, and the like) are, indeed, a hoax. No way Saaya actually has time for this stuff. Also, some celebs do keep actual profiles (I had Jin, Natalise, Kaila Yu, and Natasha Yi added on Facebook, for example), however they would make it quite obvious, with exclusive photos and such. Usually it's social networking; the ones on YA are just the Martha Stewart types and you may see a few on the front page from time to time. ★ Dasani ★ 17:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations
I am disputing the factual accuracy of this section because there is no solid proof that she herself has said any of those things. Anyone on the Internet can claim to be anyone else and even though her pictures may have 'eased tensions', the fact remains that she has never personally admitted to making such a claim.

Shuukan Bunshun is also known for a number of litigation's involving defamation and other articles about the demonstrations are the Japanese equivalent of tabloid magazines. 75.70.232.234 (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 * http://www.thisistrue.com/saayairie.html

 * That article (originally published in True) adds further credence to the claims made in this page, even if the individual in question only has a small citation to support the claims made here. -- 209.51.86.128 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo on Thai wikipedia page
Should this be transferred to the English wiki? http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9F%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%8C:Saaya_Irie.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.185.65 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) that magazine where wiki got the info is a scandle magazine! may artist are suing it and the services that host it! I tried to edit wiki over and over, and members keep reporting the lies! i have contacted Saaya's management and I hope she sues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airrunwesker (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad ISBN
Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #72. ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

アクアガール2 入江紗綾 [Aqua Girl 2] (February 2007, Elk Heart Promotion) ISBN 4-903590-43-1

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. The Japanese version of this Wiki article does not specify any identifier for the DVD. The ISBN for version 1 of this film, while valid (i.e. does not cause any errors), fails to produce hits anywhere except Wiki articles. In my experience, DVDs usually do not have an ISBN; if anyone can provide an Amazon identifier or EAN, that would suffice. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential sources

 * http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2011-08-19/toei-posts-rebellions-demo-by-power-rangers-sakamoto
 * http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2011-10-06/toei-streams-2nd-making-of-video-for-rebellions-pilot

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Saaya Irie. 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/20070313231308/http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/geinou/200606/graph/25_2/ to http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/geinou/200606/graph/25_2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220161853/http://broadband.cplaza.ne.jp/shibuya/ to http://broadband.cplaza.ne.jp/shibuya/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006055737/http://www.kani-gk.com/ to http://www.kani-gk.com/

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) 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saaya Irie


text:
Category:Government of feudal Japan

This category is meant to include political positions and government offices of feudal Japan (1185-1868).

title: Category:Government of feudal Japan


text:
Coles Sports and Recreation Center

The Coles Sports and Recreation Center was the main athletic facility at New York University, located at 181 Mercer Street in New York City, in the U.S. state of New York. The building was named in honor of Jerome S. Coles, an alumnus and benefactor of NYU. The facilities accommodated a wide range of individual and group recreational sports and fitness activities, including over 130 different courses at various skill levels serving 10,000 participants, as well as club sports and an intramural program enjoyed by approximately 3,500 students. Coles was renovated with a new dehumidification system in 1999 to solve problems of corrosion.

Up to 3,000 members used the facility daily, while 1,900 spectators could be seated in the fieldhouse bleachers and 230 could be seated in the natatorium bleachers. The Coles Sports Center was barrier-free and accessible to physically challenged persons.

Coles was also the home to most of New York University's NCAA Division III intercollegiate teams. Some teams that competed in the facility include: men's and women's basketball, diving, swimming, volleyball, and men's wrestling. The fencing team also used Coles facilities, but participated in NCAA Division I.

Club sports housed at Coles Sports and Recreation Center included badminton, cheerleading, martial arts, squash, racquetball, baseball, and waterpolo.

Coles was closed in February 2016, and will be demolished as part of the NYU 2031 plan.

Tournament hosting
The center also has played host to the following events: NCAA Basketball National Championships, NCAA Regional Wrestling Championships, ECAC Regional Basketball Championships, Metropolitan Wrestling Championships, International Wrestling events, International Fencing events, University Athletic Association Championships and National Collegiate Tae Kwon Do Championships. In 1994–95, Coles hosted the Intercollegiate Fencing Association Championships and the UAA Wrestling Championship. In 1998, the UAA Women's Volleyball Round Robin took place at Coles, and the women's basketball team hosted the Sweet Sixteen and the Final Four during the NCAA Division III Women's Basketball Championships.

Facilities
The following facilities were open to all students:
 * A multi-purpose arena with five courts.
 * Two batting cages.
 * A roof with a 1/6 mile, three-lane running track plus six tennis courts.
 * A natatorium with an NCAA-regulation 25-meter swimming pool, diving tank, and saunas.
 * Five squash courts and five handball/racquetball courts.
 * Weight training facilities.
 * An aerobic fitness room.
 * Individual rooms for wrestling/judo, fencing, physical fitness and calisthenics, exercise prescription, dance, and free play activities.
 * Rock climbing wall.

title: Coles Sports and Recreation Center


text:
User:RL0919

My name is Richard Lawrence. I created a userid as of July 10, 2005, although I contributed a few edits anonymously prior to that. I became an administrator on the English Wikipedia on December 25, 2009 (local time).

As of August 2019, my most frequent areas of editing are around the following topics:

 * Late 19th and early 20th century theater, mostly the creation and expansion of articles about plays, writers, and actors
 * Ayn Rand and her writings, as well as related ideas, people, and organizations
 * Admin handling of deletion requests, primarily at Articles for deletion and Miscellany for deletion.

I have a currently-unused alternative account under User:NATE Account, which was used exclusively (and rarely) for testing.

Tools, lists, and admin stuff
Useful tools/links:
 * Updated location for Checklinks, Altviewer, etc: User:Dispenser
 * Citation templates
 * Template messages

Featured articles
Articles where I was a major contributor to achieving featured article status:

 * 1) Night of January 16th - Promoted: 20 November 2016 - TFA: 16 January 2017
 * 2) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1887 play) - Promoted: 18 March 2017 - TFA: 9 May 2017
 * 3) The Demi-Virgin - Promoted: 14 May 2017 - TFA: 3 June 2017
 * 4) The Blue Flame (play) - Promoted: 31 July 2017 - TFA: 21 September 2017
 * 5) The Fountainhead - Promoted: 24 October 2017 - TFA: 7 May 2018
 * 6) The Bat (play) - Promoted: 27 November 2017 - TFA: 23 August 2018
 * 7) The Unconquered (1940 play) - Promoted: 24 July 2019 - TFA 13 February 2020

Articles where I was a major contributor to keeping featured status for an article under review:

 * 1) Harriet Tubman - Kept: 18 November 2023

Good articles
Articles where I was a major contributor to achieving good article status (most later became featured articles):

 * 1) Ayn Rand - review
 * 2) Night of January 16th - review
 * 3) The Demi-Virgin - review
 * 4) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1887 play) - review
 * 5) The Blue Flame (play) - review
 * 6) The Fountainhead - review
 * 7) The Unconquered (1940 play) - review

GA review log
Articles I reviewed for GA status:
 * 1) Talk:Lizabeth Scott/GA1 - 7 July 2014 - failed
 * 2) Talk:Michael Kidd/GA1 - 8 July 2014 - passed
 * 3) Talk:Joss Whedon/GA1 - 8 July 2014 - passed
 * 4) Talk:Merian C. Cooper/GA1 - 8 November 2016 - passed
 * 5) Talk:Peter Dinklage/GA1 - 15 November 2016 - passed
 * 6) Talk:Brothers Poem/GA1 - 22 November 2016 - passed
 * 7) Talk:Battle Royale (novel)/GA1 - 19 December 2016 - passed

Major expansions
I didn't create these articles, but I expanded them from short stubs to full articles.

 * 1) Ayn Rand and the World She Made - a biography of Rand
 * 2) The Romantic Manifesto - a book by Rand
 * 3) Verna Hillie - an American actress
 * 4) Philosophy: Who Needs It - a book by Rand
 * 5) The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers - a posthumous book of Rand's lectures
 * 6) The Early Ayn Rand - a posthumous book of Rand's unpublished writings
 * 7) Linda Taylor - an American criminal

Templates created

 * 1) Template:Createdwith - flexible way to indicate what software was used to create an image, replacing multiple hardcoded templates
 * 2) Template:Inactive admin - template for notifying admins who are losing their permissions due to inactivity
 * 3) Template:Nathaniel Branden - navigation box
 * 4) Template:Avery Hopwood - navigation box
 * 5) Template:Mary Roberts Rinehart - navigation box
 * 6) Template:Jørgen Leth - navigation box
 * 7) Template:Mae West - navigation box
 * 8) Template:Star of Sophia - barnstar for contributors to WikiProject Philosophy

Kind regards from other editors
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

title: User:RL0919


text:
Edaphology

Edaphology (from Greek ἔδαφος, edaphos 'ground' + -λογία, -logia) is concerned with the influence of soils on living beings, particularly plants. It is one of two main divisions of soil science, the other being pedology. Edaphology includes the study of how soil influences humankind's use of land for plant growth as well as people's overall use of the land. General subfields within edaphology are agricultural soil science (known by the term agrology in some regions) and environmental soil science. Pedology deals with pedogenesis, soil morphology, and soil classification.

History
The history of edaphology is not simple, as the two main alternative terms for soil science—pedology and edaphology—were initially poorly distinguished. Friedrich Albert Fallou originally conceived pedology in the 19th century as a fundamental science separate from the applied science of agrology, a predecessor term for edaphology, a distinction retained in the current understanding of edaphology. During the 20th century, the term edaphology was "driven out of [pedology-centric] soil science" but remained in use to address edaphic problems in other disciplines. In the case of Russian soil scientists, edaphology was used as an equivalent term to pedology, and in Spain, soil scientists adopted edaphology in preference to the term pedology. In the 21st century, edaphology is recognized by soil scientists as a branch of soil science necessary and complementary to the pedology branch.

Xenophon (431–355 BC), and Cato (234–149 BC), were early edaphologists. Xenophon noted the beneficial effect of turning a cover crop into the earth. Cato wrote De Agri Cultura ("On Farming"), which recommended tillage, crop rotation, and the use of legumes in the rotation to build soil nitrogen. He also devised the first soil capability classification for specific crops.

Jan Baptist van Helmont (1577–1644) performed a famous experiment, growing a willow tree in a pot of soil and supplying only rainwater for five years. The weight gained by the tree was greater than the weight loss of the soil. He concluded that the willow was made of water. Although only partly correct, his experiment reignited interest in edaphology.

Agricultural soil science
Agricultural soil science is the application of soil chemistry, physics, and biology dealing with the production of crops. In terms of soil chemistry, it places particular emphasis on plant nutrients of importance to farming and horticulture, especially with regard to soil fertility and fertilizer components.

Physical edaphology is strongly associated with crop irrigation and drainage.

Soil husbandry is a strong tradition within agricultural soil science. Beyond preventing soil erosion and degradation in cropland, soil husbandry seeks to sustain the agricultural soil resource though the use of soil conditioners and cover crops.

Environmental soil science
Environmental soil science studies our interaction with the pedosphere on beyond crop production. Fundamental and applied aspects of the field address vadose zone functions, septic drain field site assessment and function, land treatment of wastewater, stormwater, erosion control, soil contamination with metals and pesticides, remediation of contaminated soils, restoration of wetlands, soil degradation, and environmental nutrient management. It also studies soil in the context of land-use planning, global warming, and acid rain.

Industrialization and edaphology
Industrialization has impacted the way that soil interacts with plants in various ways. Increased mechanical production has led to higher amount of heavy metals within soils. These heavy metals have also been found in crops. While, the increased use of synthetic fertilizer and pesticides has decreased the nutrient availability of soils.

Changes in agricultural practices, such as monocropping and tilling, as a result of industrialization have also impacted aspects of edaphology. Monocropping techniques are efficient for harvesting and business strategies but lead to a decrease in biodiversity. Decreased biodiversity is shown to decrease the nutrients available in soils. Furthermore, monocropping leads to an increased dependency on chemical fertilizer. While intensive tilling disturbs the community of microorganism that live with in soil. These microorganisms help maintain soil moisture and air circulation which are critical to plant growth.

title: Edaphology


text: Category:Sicilian popes

title: Category:Sicilian popes


text:
Talk:Edaphology

Article initiated by
Paleorthid 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Edaphology and Plants
Soil has 3 primary functions in sustaining plant life:
 * It supplies mineral elements, serving both as a medium of exchange and as a place of storage.
 * It supplies water and serves as a storage reservoir.
 * It serves as a medium within which the roots of terrestrial plants, as well as those of many aquatic plants, anchor themselves.

Edaphic influences also include the following:

 * soil temperatures determine the rates at which chemical reactions proceed.
 * soil acts as a conduit for the exchange of soil gases with the atmosphere.
 * microbial soil life influences a myriad of effects, including decomposition rates of pesticides and plant ability to absorb micronutrients and trace elements.

Changes in these edaphic conditions affect plant productivity as well as plant composition and response to inputs. For example, variations in soil can produce grasslands or shrub-steppe where otherwise forests might grow.

Edaphology and Man's Overall Use of the Land
Soil resources affect the health, functioning, and total productivity of all land uses, be they urban, rural  or natural. Potential side effects of soil management and land-use decisions abound. Urban development follows soil resources and, in general, the best agricultural soils are preferentially converted to nonagricultural uses by urban growth. Regulatory efforts to divert urban growth to less productive soils can impair economic efficiency and threaten soil diversity.

Edaphology and Land Use

 * Assessing the Impact of Urban Sprawl on Soil Resources in the United States Using Nighttime "City Lights" Satellite Images and Digital Soils Maps

Edaphology is a Part of Pedology
I believe that edaphology can be placed under pedology and has been placed alongside due to a misconception of what pedology is.

First, Buol et al. (1997) states that "pedology is a collective term used to refer to the combination of the two phases [of soil science] - soil genesis and classification. It has also been used to refer to the combination of the the entire subfield of soil genesis and classification, morphology, survey and interpretations." This authority then lists the following subareas of pedology:

* Soil Genesis * Soil Classification * Soil Morphology * Soil Survey * Soil Geomorphology * Soil Characterization and Analysis * Soil Interpretation

Wikipedia states that Edaphology "is concerned with the influence of soils on living things, particularly plants. The term is also applied to the study of how soil influences man's overall use of the land."

I contend that this Wikipedia statement is a misconception of what pedology encompasses. The soil forming factors climate, organisms, parent material, relief, and time include plant organisms (Jenny, 1994). Jenny (1994) states that plants have an intimate continuing interaction with the soil. Plants, as the most pronounced expression of organisms interaction with soils, should be viewed as a soil forming factor and a subset of pedology; Soil Genesis, Soil Characterization and Analysis, and Soil Interpretation. Plants alter the soil by removing inorganics, contributing to the dissolution of soil minerals by exuding protons and organic acids. Plants also exude other organic compounds to chelate inorganics either for uptake or to sequester them to avoid or mediate uptake. Soil influence on man's overall use is covered in Soil Interpretation, and the Soil Survey is a product that does just that.

Pedology is integrative of other soil science disciplines. A pedologist must be conversant with other sub-disciplines of Soil Science such as Soil Chemistry, Soil Physics, and Soil Biology (sometimes referred to as Soil Microbiology or Soil Ecology). The intensity of study within these sub-disciplines often precludes the time, resources, and understanding of other soil sub-disciplines that is necessary to link the findings of their investagations to the soilscape. However, these sub-disciplines are marked by being allied to one or more of the subareas of pedology, but, again, they often do not rely on the integration if the findings into an understanding of the soilscape for acceptance of the findings by the scientific community. Pedological results always link back to the soilscape.

soilman 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Edaphology can't be both a sub-discipline of pedology (contended above) and one of two main branches of soil science, per the reliable cited source used in the article. I accept that pedology is integrative of the other disciplines of soil science, but that doesn't mean that edaphology loses it's equal branch standing. The integrative position is the same logic that is used to dismiss soil science's equal standing with geology as a branch of the earth sciences, something which pedologists reject. Pedology is the study of soil in a natural setting, edaphology is the study of soil effects on (and from) plants, animals and man, some of which cannot occur in a natural setting.  There is considerable overlap, but it is not complete. Regarding edaphology as an equal branch is necessary to allow soil science to cover the study of soil that exists outside of a natural context. -- Paleorthid 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It is particularly useful to maintain edaphology as a sister of pedology within the context of Wikipedia. Pedology, as distinct from edaphology, is accepted here as a sub-discipline of Category:Physical geography, a placement that has a long and substantial history to it. Vasily Dokuchaev, the father of modern soil science, was a geographer.  What existed before Dokuchaev was edaphology sans pedology, and agricultural geology.  This focus, soil science sans pedology, ie sans geography, continues to thrive, and will not conform to sub-discipline standing under pedology.  See especially Agrogeologist, Agrogeology, Agroecology, Agrology, Agrominerals, Biogeochemistry, Biogeology. -- Paleorthid (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Edaphology. 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/20081217054036/http://soil.msu.ru/downloads/sswebresources_eng.pdf to http://soil.msu.ru/downloads/sswebresources_eng.pdf

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) 01:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing merge from Edaphic to Edaphology

 * Merge - Edaphic is an unsourced stub that is the adjective for Edaphology. These could easily be combined. --Nessie (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Using an adjective as an article title seems weak in and of itself. The term edaphic is used to contrast soil influences from climatic influences in descriptions of natural phenomenon, but, tellingly, the term climatic don't warrant its own article in WP. I support using the template and redirecting the edaphic article to either soil (similar to how climatic redirects to climate, biological redirects to oh never mind)) or to edaphology (as geologic redirects to geology). Paleorthid (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sustainable Futures
— Assignment last updated by JeremyRack (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edaphology


text:
Sonic Advance 3

Sonic Advance 3 (ソニックアドバンス3) is a 2004 platform game developed by Sonic Team and Dimps and published by Sega for the Game Boy Advance. It is part of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, and the sequel to Sonic Advance 2. The game stars the characters Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, and Cream as they seek to keep Doctor Eggman and his robot assistant Gemerl from building empires on each of seven chunks Eggman has divided the Earth into.

The game is a fast-paced 2D platformer that takes place across seven zones, each divided into three acts and a boss fight. It allows one or two players to control any two of the five characters; each one has different abilities that allow players varying access to parts of levels. While the graphics are mainly 2D, the game features some 3D rotation effects. It sold quickly upon release and received positive reviews from critics, who praised its gameplay and aesthetics, though they were more divided on the team-up dynamic. The game was later released for the Wii U's Virtual Console in Japan in May 2016.

Gameplay
Similarly to Sonic Advance 1 and 2, Advance 3 is a fast-paced 2D platformer. The player controls one of five characters simultaneously with a second one as a sidekick; alternately, a second player joins and one controls each character. The two characters run and jump through a series of seven levels, destroying robots along the way. The player collects rings in levels and boss battles as a form of health: upon being hit by an enemy or harmful obstacle, the player's rings will scatter and can be recollected. The player starts the game with three lives, which they lose if the character is hit with no rings in their possession, crushed, drowns, falls into a bottomless pit, or exceeds an act's ten-minute limit; losing all lives gives the player a game over.

The levels contain features like vertical loops, springs, and rails that the player can grind on. Each level is divided into three acts, punctuated by a boss fight with Doctor Eggman at the end; all three acts, the boss fight, and two minigames that grant the player extra lives are bound by a hub world. Within each act, the player collects Chao creatures; finding 10 in all 3 acts in one zone grants the player access to a special stage, where a Chaos Emerald can be found. Collecting all seven Chaos Emeralds, which can be done after completion of the main campaign, allows the player to fight an extra final boss for the game's true ending.

The player can select any two-member permutation of its five playable characters: Sonic the Hedgehog, Tails, Amy Rose, Knuckles the Echidna, and Cream the Rabbit, provided the two desired characters have been unlocked; only Sonic and Tails are available at the beginning, while the other three must be rescued from Eggman over the course of the game. Each character has a unique ability: Sonic can perform a spinning attack in mid-air, Tails can fly using his two tails as a propeller, Amy can smash enemies with her hammer, Knuckles can glide long distances and climb walls, and Cream can fly using her ears as wings and attack enemies with her Chao friend, Cheese. The second player character can also give powers to the first by pressing the R button; for example, pressing and holding R while Tails is the sidekick blasts both characters into the air. In addition, the second character will collect rings and destroy enemies the first has not. Outside the main game, there are two battle modes for two to four players, in which any of the characters can be selected: racing and Chao collecting.

Plot
Prior to the game's events, Doctor Eggman builds a robotic assistant named Gemerl, using parts from the robot Emerl who was destroyed in Sonic Battle. Eggman attempts an experiment using the Chaos Emeralds to perform the Chaos Control technique, but it goes awry and tears the world apart. This action separates Sonic and Tails from Amy, Knuckles, and Cream, all of whom Eggman finds and captures, intending to create a segment of his impending empire on each chunk of the planet. Sonic and Tails travel through the game's seven levels to recapture their friends and retrieve the Emeralds.

The final boss fight takes place at the Altar Emerald temple. If the player defeats Eggman there without having all seven Chaos Emeralds, Eggman and Gemerl escape and fall off the edge of the temple. Peace is restored to the world, and Omochao snaps a picture of the five heroes. However, the game alerts the player that the Emeralds must still be collected for the true ending. If the player defeats Eggman at the temple with all the Chaos Emeralds, Gemerl stops running away with Eggman and attacks Sonic, causing the Emeralds to scatter. Gemerl uses them to take on a giant, orb-shaped form, but Sonic also uses their power to attain his Super Sonic form. With Eggman's help, Super Sonic destroys Gemerl. Cream and Vanilla later find Gemerl's broken body on a beach. Gemerl's body is brought to Tails, who repairs and reprograms it. The game ends as Cream plays with the now non-aggressive Gemerl at her mother Vanilla's house.

Development and release
Sonic Advance 3 was published by Sega in Japan and THQ in North America and Europe. Like Advance 1 and 2, its development was shared by Dimps and Sega subsidiary Sonic Team since the latter was understaffed on employees familiar with the Game Boy Advance hardware. Yuji Naka, then President of Sonic Team, had limited involvement in the development of Sonic Advance 3, and he conceived of the team-up dynamic. While the game is fundamentally 2D, it features some Mode 7 3D rotation effects. THQ announced the game in a press release on September 11, 2003. The game was later exhibited at E3 2004.

Reception
Sonic Advance 3 received positive reviews from critics, with respective scores of 79% and 80% at review aggregators Metacritic and GameRankings. GameSpot named it the best Game Boy Advance game of June 2004, and nominated it for the year-end "Best Game Boy Advance Game" and "Best Platformer" awards. It later won Handheld Game of the Year at the 2004 Golden Joystick Awards and sold over 100,000 copies in the United Kingdom alone.

Critics gave mixed opinions to the team-up dynamic. Nich Maragos from 1UP.com celebrated that Sonic Team had "finally [come] up with a way of introducing teamwork and variance between characters that doesn't overwhelm Sonic's bread-and-butter gameplay." Maragos singled this out as the main divider between Advance 3 and Sonic Heroes, a game that he found surprisingly linear in level design considering that it, unlike Advance 3, was in 3D. Maragos, GameSpot's Frank Provo, IGN's Craig Harris, and Game Informer's Lisa Mason appreciated the increase in replayability Sonic's friends brought. However, Mason, as well as reviewer Stardingo from GamePro, thought that they played too much like Sonic and did not add much to the experience. Darryl Vassar of GameSpy took a different point of criticism: he acknowledged the presence of genuinely different character abilities, but perceived that their only purpose was to find Chao, whom he called "pointless". Maragos noted that the "mid-air trick" system from Advance 2 was optional in Advance 3, but spoke positively about its usefulness in locating "hidden areas". Harris argued that such varying team abilities contributed to occasional "cheapness" in the level design, because "most of the characters have absolutely no defense when hopping off items like springboards".

However, the gameplay was mostly well-received otherwise. Vassar acclaimed the level design: he both called the levels "enormous and fast" and praised the slower, smaller sections for "keeping the levels distinct and adding short interludes to the constant running and loops." Harris also praised the "clever" level design. However, Mason found it "simplistic", while Stardingo saw "repetition" in the typical formula. Maragos criticized the bipolar difficulty of the bosses and some minor control issues. Vassar, however, appreciated the return from Advance 2's running-based boss battles to more traditional ones. Further praise from Harris, conversely, went to the multiplayer mode and—along with Stardingo—to the presence of a hub world, which Harris and Stardingo thought gave the game structure.

The game's aesthetics were also well received. Provo stated that "in terms of graphics and sound, Sonic Advance 3 is on par with the best that companies like Nintendo and Konami have had to offer this year". He specifically complimented the character animations, simulations of underwater waves, and in-depth background effects. Vassar praised Advance 3 for continuing Advance 1 and 2's emulation of the "colorful, angular, and stylized look" of the original Sonic the Hedgehog for the Sega Genesis, as well as its "twangy, upbeat tunes". Stardingo thought similarly overall but criticized the "garish" themes of the level Toy Kingdom.

title: Sonic Advance 3


text:
Talk:Milltown Cemetery attack

ENGL 212 class from Saginaw Valley State University
This article is going to be expanded and have all the facts and sources checked by an ENGL 212 class from Saginaw Valley State University. Please do not make any large changes to the article while it is being updated. 4/3/06

split into paragraphs
This article could really do with being split into paragraphs or sections.

Contradiction
Stone himself has gone on to renounce violence and accepts that peaceful discussion is the only way forward for the Northern Irish political situation, although he remains in the UDA, and in 2005 said he would fully support and take part in a campaign of violence if the UDA ended its ceasefire.

Isnt this a contradiction? (Khanada 08:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Beating, torture, mutilation etc.
We now have a reference to a brief BBC article that uses the word 'torture', but what did the toture involve, other than the beating? If they were tortured in some other way, then there should be a reference to a source that gives details. If not, the word is redundant and POV, as was 'mutilated'. Scolaire 07:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd have to agree with you there. (Derry Boi 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
 * It's not POV, it's referenced from a reliable source. As to details, the BBC probably wouldn't want to print what happened to them, and I'm certainly not going to say it here. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The BBC isn't actually a terribly reliable source for Northern Irish news. It's written by people from Northern Ireland for the majority of the NI related news and as such, often expresses POV. -- Pauric ( talk-contributions ) 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the BBC is an unreliable source, but I've added another one. Stu   ’Bout ye!  10:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

POV attributed
WP:NPOV mandates journalistic sensationalism should not be presented as fact, as was happening in this article.

 * - "Corporal Wood and Cpl. David Howes were dragged from their car, stripped, beaten and shot by members of a Roman Catholic funeral procession Saturday in Belfast, Northern Ireland" - no mention of "torture"
 * - "The men were dragged from the car and taken to a nearby sports ground where they were stripped and beaten. They were then taken to wasteground by Murphy and Maguire and shot repeatedly - no mention of "torture"
 * - "who took part in the torture and shooting" - aha, the first mention of torture. Now read further on in the same article and see what the torture consisted of - "The men were bundled into a nearby sports ground, where they were stripped to their underwear and beaten. Murphy and Maguire then took them to wasteground, where they were shot repeatedly by two gunmen" - so it's the exact same as the other sources; stripped, beaten and shot.

Just one newspaper has decided to call the events "torture" but according to policy that doesn't make it a fact. Opinions attributed to the people that hold them, as policy mandates. Freegan 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Waving guns around?
Where is the claim that "Scenes relayed on live television showed the two corporals waving their guns before being cornered by black taxis" coming from? It's completely untrue. Neither man drew his weapon until AFTER they had been blocked in by the mob, at which point Cpl Wood drew his and fired a single warning shot into the air. To claim that they were "waving guns around" is straightforward invention. To write that you either a) Haven't seen the video and therefore shouldn't be explaining what it shows or b) Are lying. Please don't reinsert it. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Expansion (March 2013)
This has been rated as a "Start-class" article since 2007. However, it has been greatly expanded since then and I think it now deserves a higher rating. I added a lot more (reliably-sourced) information today, tho I think it could do with more sources. ~Asarlaí 04:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Milltown Malbay Massacre
Milltown Malbay Massacre should be added to the See also due to the name similarities. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think so. 1) It was not a massacre as there where only three people murdered; 2) it took place in the context of another conflict (Irish revolutionary period) and 3) it took place in another country. It has not even the slightest connection between them, except the name of the place where it took place.  The Banner  talk 08:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Milltown Cemetery attack had 3 deaths and it is known as the "Milltown Cemetery killings or Milltown Massacre." The similarities in the name are precisely why there should be an addition to the "See also." Or a note on top. The name can be "Attack on Milltown Malbay" or "Milltown Malbay police shooting", "British attack at Milltown Malbay" - Thats Just Great (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In Milltown Malbay it is known as the "Shooting at Canada Cross". Not even remotely connected to your proposed titles. The Banner  talk 18:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfect! The see also entry could be: Milltown Malbay's Shooting at Canada Cross -- Thats Just Great (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? What you propose is not a real existing name but a made up one. The Banner  talk 08:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I thought you claimed "Milltown Malbay it is known as the 'Shooting at Canada Cross'." I think it is important to have an entry in the see also because the names are so similar. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia is from Ireland. When I was researching, as you claim the "Shooting at Canada Cross," all searches tried to direct me to this article instead. It would have been incredibly useful for people outside of Ireland to have clear information like Battles that take place at locations that in similar sounding places like this article: Milltown Massacre and Milltown Malbay Shooting. They both have the same amount killed and they have similiar names -- Thats Just Great (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you are just staring at a similarity in name and because of that you think the incidents are related? You even fail to notice that the title of this article is Milltown Cemetery attack and not Milltown Cemetery Massacre? A title you totally have invented for the shooting in Milltown Malbay? The Banner  talk 16:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same article? The first line says "The Milltown Cemetery attack (also known as the Milltown Cemetery killings or Milltown Massacre)." Yes, exactly I am pointing out the similarity in the name! That is the whole point. I know they are not related! BUT they have similar names. This causes confusion to people who don't like in Ireland. Look at Wikipedia article for "Apple." The fruit and the company are mentioned in both articles because they have similar names not because they are related. It should be the same here.-- Thats Just Great (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that Milltown Massacre will create even more confusion, but if like to put it in... Happy days. The Banner  talk 17:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath
I added an incident described by Michael Stone in the "Milltown" chapter of his autobiography None Shall Divide Us to the Aftermath section. If anyone has anything to add to this, feel free to discuss it here first.

--NelsonEdit2 (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Milltown Cemetery attack


text:
Talk:Coles Sports and Recreation Center

New page
Just created the Coles article. It's my first one; hope it's up to standards. TommyP

Rooftop tennis courts
While the line "six rooftop tennis courts that NYU refuses to fix up" made me laugh and is completely true, I was thinking that for the purposes of an encyclopedia it should be rephrased to something like "six rooftop courts currently closed due to overdue maintenance/repairs".Avman89 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coles Sports and Recreation Center


text:
Lawn (disambiguation)

A lawn is an area of land planted with grass and sometimes clover and other plants, which are maintained at a low, even height.

Lawn may also refer to:

Places

 * The Lawn (Harlow), the first residential tower block built in the UK
 * Lawn, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
 * Lawn, Pennsylvania, United States
 * Lawn, Texas, United States
 * Lawn, West Virginia, United States
 * The Lawn, Lincoln, a grade II listed building in the Greek Revival style, in Lincoln England
 * The Lawn Ground, a former football ground in England

People with the name

 * Chris Lawn (born 1972), former Tyrone Gaelic footballer
 * Edward Lawn, a Canadian politician from Campbell's Bay, Quebec
 * John C. Lawn (21st century), FBI agent
 * John J. Lawn, an American politician

Other uses

 * Lawn cloth, a plain weave textile
 * LAWN, a wireless LAN (local area wireless network)
 * Bacterial lawn, a concept in microbiology
 * The Lawn, a court at the University of Virginia in the United States

title: Lawn (disambiguation)


text:
User:Brianreading

Brianreading, also known as Brian Reading in real life, is an American Wikipedian and software engineer, having contributed since 2005.

Contributions to Wikipedia
Note: Articles that I have created are denoted by an asterisk (*). Articles that I created as stubs are denoted by a cross (†). Articles that became a good article after I significantly contributed to it are denoted with a good article logo.

Software-related

 * Windows Mobile [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]]
 * Jellyfin*
 * Rocky Linux*
 * Phosh*
 * Adwaita (design language)*
 * GNOME 1*
 * GNOME 2*
 * GNOME 3*

University of Houston-related
{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|
 * University of Houston [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]]
 * Shasta*
 * Houston Cougars football
 * List of University of Houston people
 * Edison E. Oberholtzer*
 * Renu Khator*
 * Houston-Rice rivalry*
 * Robertson Stadium
 * TDECU Stadium*

Houston-related

 * Founders Memorial Cemetery*
 * Houston Buffaloes
 * Herald Park
 * West End Park (Houston)
 * Buffalo Stadium
 * Houston Astros Radio Network*
 * Aveva Stadium*
 * Minute Maid Park
 * Sims Bayou*

Texas-related
}}
 * Brazosport College*
 * List of largest Texas universities by enrollment*
 * Gulf Coast Conference*
 * 1838 Republic of Texas presidential election*
 * 1st Congress of the Republic of Texas*
 * UTSA Roadrunners football*

Awards
Barnstars

Ribbons

Did You Know?
--Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Interests
• Linux

• Software development

• History of computing

• History of Texas

• Houston

• Baseball

• American football

Contact

 * Talk page

title: User:Brianreading


text: User talk:85.70.92.38

title: User talk:85.70.92.38


text: User talk:70.187.211.39

title: User talk:70.187.211.39


text:
Talk:Heraclonas

Untitled
Why Heracleonas? The usual recent spelling seems to be Heraclonas. Adam Bishop 21:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Part of the great Wikipedia debate about whether to name Byzatine emperors by their Greek or Latinized names. Perhaps also a plot to confuse the uninitiated (presumably the intended readership on an encyclopedia).--Iacobus 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Coinage
I've been reviewing the articles on the brothers of Heraklonas, David (son of Heraclius) and Martinus (son of Heraclius). I'm not sure if I'll have the energy to review this one too but anyone doing so could probably use some of the work that has taken place at the other articles.

For now I just want to note here that the coin currently displayed in the article does not necessarily represent Heraklonas but rather Constans II. Haukur (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heraclonas