text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Valdivia

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Valdivia
Blatant vanity. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Not so! He has become a Legend within the University and has had several articles written on him in such eminent journals as "AT501" He is becoming well known throughout Scotland and should have an entry inase people want to find out more about the legend. (comment by )

This guy is reaaly famous in Edinburgh Scotland. He should be on here. This page was not written by Carlos. (comment by )

 * Delete someone popular within a university is not encyclopedia material, if it is, why don't we all just write articles about our favourite lecturers? Even if he is notable, which he isn't, the article is very, very badly written, full of biased and vaguely racist crap. --Stevefarrell 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * By "full of" rascist crap you obviously mean "one line". That line being written in the presence of a Scot (who was laughing along with the author). Neither being Carlos Valdivia. (comment by )
 * How is he notable? What has he done? How exactly has he contributed to society? What is he? According to the article he's jst a student, big wow. Google picks up nothing that verifies a claim to notability, this is not an encyclopedia article, end of story. Delete, the sooner the better --Stevefarrell 21:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong delete, no verifiable claim to notability plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 01:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity without redemption. -Splash 01:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. Wiki is not the place for jobsearching or personals ads. --Etacar11 03:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if they are just silly jokes... --Etacar11 14:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? Then how come loads of you guys have your own pages? Whats that if not vanity my little friends? My god you guys really all need a sense of humour transplant. (Comment by )
 * You are confusing User pages with articles. We all have stuff about ourselves on our user pages.  These are not encyclopedia articles. --Etacar11 21:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. . . you win ;-)
 * Galactic Overlord? I think not. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think so. keep it. (Unsigned vote by, first edit from this IP)

How would you know? (Comment by )

"Just a job seaker"? What kind of person is going to give someone who calls himself "galactic overlord" a job, you Pleb! (Comment by )
 * Delete It's just a job seeker. --rob 05:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * See Aspergers (another comment by )

 * Delete Not notable, pure vanity (even if not written by himself), he should just post his CV off to various agencies if he wants a job, as Wikipedia is not a recruitment agency. Phantomsteve 17:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Get over yourself, its not a CV its an encyclopedia entry about a notable guy! (Comment by )
 * We need this entry! I am ready to get as many votes as it takes to keep him. In fact I am am going to run my multi agent simulation toolbox to just keep voting for him.
 * Threat of sockpuppetry by . Has anyone blocked him? As for me - delete - vanity at best, intentional vandalism at worst - Skysmith
 * Redundancy. All vandalism is intentional. Though, in the absence of any damage (certainly none was intended), this isn't a case of vandalism anyway. So no harm no foul. Hope you don't mind. I changed a typo in your bullet point. ('by  Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Sockpuppetry (ie. voting multiple times by whatever method, one of them as per 129.215.45.43's statement above) is not favored here. That constitutes potential disruption, therefore vandalism - Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't what you were refering to. Nor has anyone done it. Nor will anyone. (Unsigned comment by )
 * I like the guy, employing him right now... seems to be really smart ppl up there in edinburgh. wouldn't quite go that far to call him galactic overlord---but rockstar programmer he definitely is. Go Carlos!!! (Unsigned comment by )
 * Does anybody here even know what the term 'vanity' means? One of the nice things about the wikipedia is that you don't have to fake it as you go. You're mere key strokes away from actually knowing what you're talking about. (by again - Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Depends on whether you are Valdivia himself, one or more of his friends or someone who intends to mock him. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, meaning of the word is less imporant than policy in Vanity page. I suggest you get a LiveJournal account instead - Skysmith 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I'm glad that he's a cool guy and a good programmer. Fortunately there are a tons of cool programmers and more is needed to be notable. --Vizcarra 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But he clearly is notable. There is even a wikipedia entry devoted to him! (Circular "logic" by . Only edits to this VFD. I wonder how many WP mirrors have already absorbed this - Skysmith 07:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
 * It isn't so much circular reasoning. More of a closed curve really. ;-) (Unsigned comment by )
 * Let Valdivia keep his place in Wikipedia history. If not here then how about BJAODN? (Unsigned vote by )
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
San Teodoro

San Teodoro may refer to:

 * Italy
 * San Teodoro, Sicily, comune in the Metropolitan City of Messina, Sicily
 * San Teodoro, Sardinia, comune in the Province of Olbia-Tempio, Sardinia
 * San Teodoro, Rome, 6th-century church of Rome
 * San Teodoro, Pavia, medieval church in Pavia

 * Philippines
 * San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, a municipality
 * San Teodoro, Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, a barangay

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

title: San Teodoro


text:
4P/Faye

Comet 4P/Faye (also known as Faye's Comet or Comet Faye) is a periodic Jupiter-family comet discovered in November 1843 by Hervé Faye at the Royal Observatory in Paris. Its most recent perihelia (closest approaches to the Sun) were on November 15, 2006; May 29, 2014; and September 8, 2021.

The comet was first observed by Faye on November 23, but bad weather prevented its confirmation until the 25th. It was so faint that it had already passed perihelion about a month before its discovery, and only a close pass by the Earth had made it bright enough for discovery. Otto Wilhelm von Struve reported that the comet was visible to the naked eye at the end of November. It remained visible for smaller telescopes until January 10, 1844, and was finally lost to larger telescopes on April 10, 1844.

In 1844, Friedrich Wilhelm Argelander and Thomas James Henderson independently computed that the comet was a short-period comet; by May, its period had been calculated to be 7.43 years. Urbain Le Verrier computed the positions for the 1851 apparition, predicting perihelion in April 1851. The comet was found close to his predicted position on November 29, 1850, by James Challis.

The comet was missed during its apparitions in 1903 and 1918 due to unfavorable observing circumstances. It reached a brightness of about 9th magnitude in 2006.

4P/Faye has a close approach to Jupiter every 59.3 years, which is gradually reducing its perihelion and increasing its orbital eccentricity. In the most recent close approach to Jupiter (March 2018), Faye's perihelion changed from about 1.7 AU to about 1.5 AU.

The comet nucleus is estimated to be about 3.5 km in diameter.

title: 4P/Faye


text:
Rumble (noise)

A rumble is a continuous deep, resonant sound, such as the sound made by heavy vehicles or thunder. In the context of audio reproduction rumble refers to a low frequency sound from the bearings inside a turntable. This is most noticeable in low quality turntables with ball bearings. Higher quality turntables use slide bearings, minimizing rumble.

Some phono pre-amplifiers implement a rumble filter, in an attempt to remove the noise. A heavier platter can also help dampen this.

Rumble measurement is carried out on turntables (for vinyl recordings) which tend to generate very low frequency noise originating from the centre bearing and from drive pulleys or belts, as well as from irregularities in the record disc itself.

It can be heard as low-frequency noise and becomes a serious problem when playing records on audio systems with a good low-frequency response. Even when not audible, rumble can cause intermodulation, modulating of the amplitude of other frequencies. The ‘unweighted’ response curve is intended for use in assessing the level of inaudible rumble with such intermodulation in mind.

Turntable design

One way to reduce rumble is to make the turntable very heavy, so that it acts as mechanical damper or low-pass filter, but even with the best turntables a lot of rumble tends to be generated by warped records or pressing irregularities sometimes visible as ‘bobbles’ in the surface. An important factor affecting rumble is low-frequency resonance resulting from pickup arm mass bouncing against stylus compliance. This resonance is usually in the 10–30 Hz region, and will increase rumble as well as reducing tracking ability if not well-damped. Some pickup arms incorporate viscous damping aimed at eliminating such resonance.

Rumble filters
Because these effects generate a mostly vertical component at the stylus, which corresponds to a difference signal in stereo reproduction, the incorporation of a high-pass filter operating only on the channel difference can be very effective in reducing rumble without loss of bass. Such a filter merges the two channels to mono at very low frequencies, which is not generally considered to have any effect on stereo perception, though it can change the sound balance (often for the better) by altering the way in which resonant room modes are stimulated (reducing corner to corner stimulation). The original circuit was designed in 1978 by Jeff Macaulay and featured as a circuit idea in Wireless World. Most so-called rumble filters work by simply rolling off the low-frequency response, which is detrimental to sound quality.

Though several standards exist that define how rumble should be measured, they all have a common basis, and use the weighting curves shown here. DIN 45539 (1971) and IEC98-1964 both cover rumble measurement. BS4852: Part 1 (1972) is specific in requiring that a slow rectifier be used, which shall reach 99% of its steady indication in 5s +-0.5s with not more than 10% overshoot.

title: Rumble (noise)


text:
Farid F. Abraham

Farid F. Abraham (born May 5, 1937) is an American scientist.

He has pioneered new methods of using computer modeling in the fields of fracture mechanics, membrane dynamics and phase transformation behavior of matter. He has written two textbooks and over 200 papers published in international journals. He won the Aneesur Rahman Prize in Computational Physics, which is the highest prize given by the American Physical Society.

Biography
Abraham is a native of Phoenix, Arizona and received both his B.S. (1959) and Ph.D. (1962) degrees in physics from the University of Arizona. He spent two postdoctoral years (1962–63) at the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago and two years as a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. He joined IBM in 1966 as a staff member at its Palo Alto Scientific Center. In 1971, he was named the first Consulting Professor at Stanford University and developed a graduate course in computational applied science in its Materials Science Department. In 1972, he moved to the IBM Research Division's San Jose Research Laboratory, known since 1985 as the Almaden Research Center. During 1994, he held the Sandoval Vallarta Chair at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana in Mexico City.

For the period of 1995 to 2003, he was awarded several computer grants at the National Science Foundation Computational Centers and Department of Defence Grand Challenge Grants at the Maui High Performance Computing Center (MHPCC). He has been awarded several IBM Outstanding Technical Achievement Awards. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and, in 1998/99, was an American Physical Society Centennial Speaker. He was the Chair of the American Physical Society's Division of Computational Physics in 2000-2001. He was elected the recipient of the Alexander von Humboldt Research Award for Senior Scientists. In March 2004, he received the Aneesur Rahman Prize for Computational Physics from the American Physical Society. Retiring from IBM in 2004, he joined Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as a Senior Scientist and was named the Graham-Perdue Visiting Professor at The University of Georgia. In 2010, he retired from LLNL. For over four decades he has pursued a wide range of computational physics applications, mainly in condensed matter physics and chemical physics.

title: Farid F. Abraham


text:
Talk:Aether drag hypothesis

A note on Stellar Aberration
Perhaps this belongs in the main article on stellar aberration but the image and explanation of how stellar aberration are contradictory to aether drag may be in error. There is no angle of incidence considered at the border of entrainment. As we know through experiments with slits, light can seem to be re-emitted in a spherical fashion from what seems like a new emission point. This seems to be the model considered. Another optical effect not often considered, however, is moving mirror aberration in which it seems light is reflected with a differing angle of incidence than might be expected. (even when quantizing the re-emission as new individual spherical emanations) This effect in combination with other border condition events with light suggest a new angle of incidence would be introduced unlike the image used. IE a laser beam emitted from the source would strike the layer of entrained aether and gain a seeming bend as it gained a new angle of incidence. This is the reason why, historically, stellar aberration, when first discovered, was used as proof for an entrained ether instead of proof against it. Nemesis75 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, Young specifically introduced an immobile aether in order to explain aberration, not complete aether drag. In a similar manner, also Fresnel introduced an almost immobile aether (with partial aether drag). In contrast, it was Stokes (many years later) who considered full aether drag. See also this paper and aberration of light for a historical overview. Sure, also other effects such as "moving mirror aberration" etc. could be combined with aether drag, but this looks like original research. --D.H (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the most important thing to know about this period was that they were oblivious to photons and their momentum.
 * If there is an aether then the speed of light within it is always c, and combining this with conservation of momentum it is soon realised that crosswinds in the aether will not effect the direction of a photon. If you add a component of lateral velocity then you would need to decrease the initial velocity to satisfy c, and there is nothing in play here to diminish the original component of velocity. i.e. there is no force/wind directly opposing the photon.
 * In the general case of diagonal wind, the lateral component is ignored and the parallel component adjusts speed and frequency.
 * Btw, this also solves all issues with Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments. And Sagnac could be explained by other methods (even with absolute aether drag for moving items on the earth) anyway because of the accelerating frame. Hosh1313 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops - just realised general discussions are against the rules. I was warned about this 12 years ago too - LOL - never knew! :) My apologies. Hosh1313 (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Flat spacetime as the absence of physics?
 SR cannot easily be 'wrong', being a theorem in differential geometry. loxley 08:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to the idea that any curved-spacetime problem has to reduce to flat spacetime over small regions, I think that the consequences of this tend to be misunderstood by physicists … that geometrical result does not automatically mean that curved spacetime also has to reduce to flat-spacetime physics.

The condition of flat spacetime might instead be the limit a which all meaningful physics disappears – no physical particles to play with, no identifiable field “features” to propagate or interact, a level and uniform field as a zero-particle solution. At this zero-particle limit, you don’t have to modify a smooth metric to allow “mathematical” observers to see “mathematical” particles to be obeying the principle of relativity in the region, because the geometry of the region has already told us that no such particles or observers exist there. Applying Einstein’s early approach of concentrating on the observables in a situation we can say that perhaps it’s not a law of nature that all observers see the principle of relativity being upheld, but rather that nobody sees it being broken. No observer, no breakage. That sort of thing starts to get into QM territory, but perhaps that’s not such a bad thing.

Suppose for a moment that the sort of dragging effects that we see with particulate matter and predict for gravitational fields are a fundamental aspect of moving-body problems: we take a piece of universe, zoom in on it until it becomes effectively flat, place a pair of particles in that flat “arena”, give them a relative velocity … and predicting the shift in a light signal passed between them is no longer a flat spacetime problem, because what we did in the flat spacetime region modified it.. We can zoom in further to get “flat” again, but only by refusing to look at regions that include the particles. In this scenario, flatness does not define the limit at which GR reduces to SR, it defines the limit at which physics effectively ends. We can’t reasonably prove the kinetics of moving-body problems on the basis of a geometry that is only valid when we guarantee the complete absence of moving bodies. We certainly might try that approach in the hope that the resulting relationships will then turn out to be robust enough to stand up to the introduction of more realistic particles, but in the case of SR they aren’t.

 It might however not apply to the universe. We could, for instance, suggest as you have done that the distribution of material in the universe is finely adjusted to appear like a hyperbolic geometry. It seems a bit odd however to favour a 3D Euclidean space to such a degree that we are prepared to suggest effects that are specifically adjusted to make it look like hyperbolic space. loxley 08:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting we live in a 3D euclidean metric that just happens to look like the SR metric: I'm suggesting that, if we take dragging effects seriously, and treat them relativistically, we must be living in a velocity-warped non-Euclidean metric that generates equations of motion that must then be recognisably, measurably, physically different from those of SR. I'm saying that the whole SR-based structure of C20th physics may have been founded on an inadequate set of geometrical relationships that don't work properly in curved spacetime, and seem fundamentally incompatible with the general principle of relativity. We have GR, but it's been hacked about to stop it contradicting SR, and consequently doesn't "fit" QM or its original design brief. Experimental verifications of SR typically concentrate on showing that SR is better than a non-relativistic flat aether model, or showing then NM superimposed on a flat background doesn't work (which it doesn't), but there's no obvious test theory to tell experimenters how to test for SR being the wrong theory of relativity.

What I actually favour is a post-SR non-Euclidean metric redesigned from the ground up, in which GR concepts of local c and spacetime curvature apply not just to acceleration and rotation but also to conventional mechanics. Acceleration drags light, rotation drags light, velocity drags light, kinetic energy stored in the metric as spacetime curvature, no information transfer without geometry change. A single geometrical paradigm for everything, fully compliant with the general principle of relativity (unlike the rather Frankenstein-ey thing we have now). But it seems that in order to do that, we have to ditch special relativity and make the theory “curved” all the way down. To me it’s possibly the last major challenge in classical physics, with Einstein throwing down the gauntlet in 1950, but most theoreticians seem to get an attack of vertigo at the idea of losing their SR safety net and prefer not to look over the edge. I find this attitude unimpressive.

Anyway, back on topic: if you want a unified relativistic theory that can't be reached via SR, and your working assumption is that such a theory really exists, and has a wider range of applicability than SR, then a good way to proceed would seem to be to take all the things that SR can’t cope with, and presume that since they can’t be optional (or SR could do them), and can’t be forbidden, they must be mandatory. So you dig up all the effects that violate SR and turn them from bugs into features: you say: the hypothetical final theory hasn’t been found by the SR guys because it only works if you embrace dragging effects, and gravitational mass, and particulate behaviour, as essential parts of what makes mechanics work. And then you find that these bits do actually work very well together, moving particles do drag light, moving gravitational features really should drag light, light-dragging warps lightbeams and should count as a sort of spacetime curvature, and that’s why SR –based approaches can’t enter this territory and stay consistent. Light-dragging as a mechanism for local lightspeed constancy requires more complex geometry than SR, but it you can crack that, you’ve also probably got gravity and cosmology and gawd knows what else all working off the same mechanism. Next-generation single-layer physics.

If this hypothetical theory does exist, and has these characteristics, I don’t see how we’ll be able to find it by starting with the assumption that SR is correct. It seems instead that to get a full general theory of relativity you probably have to assume that the final theory can’t reduce to special relativity’s physics, and then that it can’t reduce to SR’s math, either.

So to me, these "non-SR" dragging effects are potentially quite important. Rather than being archaic C19th leftovers, they might be the key to post-SR C21st relativity theory. ErkDemon 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, but it seems both SR AND Ether Drag may be possible, rather like wave particle duality but with a physical explanation. See the DFM. In any case I've added a reference tag, some much needed reference citations and links.Docjudith (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's geometrically possible to support both light-dragging effects and Lorentz/Minkowski. Minkowski spacetime depends critically on the assumption that spacetime (as defined by the geometry of lightbeams) is flat and that its properties remain totally unaffected when we throw masses through the region at arbitrarily-high fractions of the speed of light. Light-dragging (as demonstrated by Fizeau, and others since) shows that there is a physical, identifiable distortion of lightbeam geometry in the proximity of moving clusters of particles (water-molecules in the Fizeau experiment). ErkDemon (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As additional data-points we have the fact that general relativity's "relativity of rotation" requires moving masses to have a velocity-dragging component (the receding side of a star pulls more strongly than the approaching side), and that the relativity of acceleration requires accelerated bodies to exert a dragging effect on nearby masses (Einstein 1921). Einstein's acceleration-dragging effect represents an intrinsic curvature of spacetime, which cannot exist unless there is also an underlying velocity-dependent dragging effect. Since acceleration can be "mocked up" using multiple velocity stages, if the relative velocity of masses is inherently a flat-spacetime problem (SR description), then an accelerated body must mark out a curved path in flat spacetime. But GR requires it to mark out a path in intrinsically curved spacetime, so Einstein's 1921 result demonstrates that if general relativity is correct, special relativity must have the wrong geometry, and therefore also the wrong equations. ErkDemon (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * General relativity doesn't mesh geometrically with special relativity. We can have one or the other, but we can't have both (at least, not as exact solutions). ErkDemon (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A further data-point is that under GR, a moving mass must drag light due to gravitomagnetism, and the gravitomagnetic dragging effect must be total for a moving horizon - this is represented in spacetime diagrams by drawing in little Minkowski light-cones, and showing them being increasingly tipped over in the vicinity of a rotating or moving black hole. If we treat fundamental massed particles as little pointlike masses enclosed by horizons, and we identify the effective particle interaction surface with the horizon surface, then those particles ought to drag light totally when they move. ErkDemon (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is messed up: it confounds two different, competing hypotheses
In the middle of the 19th century there were two competing ether models, those of Stokes and Fresnel.

The Stokes ether was completely entrained by matter ("entrained ether"), while Fresnel's was essentially a stationary ether; however, inside refractive media it was slightly dragged along, the more the higher the refractive index.

The experiment of Fizeau decided between these two models, as Fizeau explained with much elaboration (see the references of the article on Fizeau). Harald88 (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 * That's true. I wanted to rewrite the article, but afterwards I forgot about it... It will be fixed. --D.H (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks! The cause of the confusion is in the literature as the same word "drift" is used for two contrary things - a drift of ether "relative" to the earth as in Stokes' entrained ether (the extreme of fully entrained = no drift), and a partial drift of ether with matter inside transparent media as in Fresnel's stationary ether (the extreme of complete drift = full entrainment inside but none outside). Perhaps such a disambiguation would be useful at the start.

 * Another shortcoming that could easily mislead readers, is what appears to be a carefully constructed set of omissions about the Lorentz electron theory and special relativity. Lorentz's 1895 electron theory provided an alternative to ether drift: in that theory there is no ether drift at all, instead the effective speed of light is affected by moving matter. The article fails to make that clear, instead the reader is informed about less relevant aspects of Lorentz's electron theory. Also, special relativity and modern textbooks do not propose a different physical explanation. Special relativity provides a mathematical shortcut to derive "Fresnel drag" and its second postulate is based on the 1895 Lorentz electron theory. The article appears to falsely suggest otherwise on all these points. Harald88 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no "carefully constructed omissions" as I've only tried to reflect mainstream opinion about this subject. BTW: This is a wiki - so if one wants to know more about the connection of Fresnel's theory and that of Lorentz, he should click on the provided link to Lorentz ether theory and History of special relativity and then he will see the section on "local time" and the "Fresnel coefficient". Now to the "omissions":
 * 1) It is clearly said in the article (even in the lead!) that in Lorentz's theory that "there is no ether drift at all".
 * 2) The last point is unclear to me. To which "physical difference" are you referring to? To that between Fresnel and Lorentz, or between Lorentz and Einstein? Well the first is clearly explained in the article, the other (at least within current understanding of relativity) is, that in Lorentz's theory the effects of a "stationary aether" are responsible for the Lorentz transformation, while in Einstein's theory the Lorentz-transformation tells us something about the nature of space and time. As Einstein himself wrote (see 1909 paper).
 * Einstein: It is completely unnatural to distinguish the two reference frames $$K^{\prime}$$ and K by introducing an ether that is at rest in one. A satisfying theory can only be reached if we dispense with the ether hypothesis ....Superficial consideration suggests that the essential parts of Lorentz's theory cannot be reconciled with the relativity principle. According to Lorentz's theory, if a light beam propagates through space, it does so with a speed c in the resting frame K of the ether, independently of the state of motion of the emitting object. Let's call this the invariance of the speed of light principle....Hence, the hitherto prevailing transformation equations in passing from one frame to another moving relative to it rest on arbitrary assumptions. If these are abandoned, the essence of Lorentz's theory or, more generally, the "invariance of the speed of light" principle can be reconciled with the relativity principle....Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter.

So he took light speed invariance (the "essence") from Lorentz, but the aether is rejected as inconsistent with the relativity principle. As far as I know, this still reflects the opinion of leading physicists and historians of relativity. --D.H (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with you that a number of physics textbooks (which are notorious for historical accuracy) present history the way this article presented it; I did not accuse you personally, sorry if you felt it that way. The lead was just now put in by you it seems, as I did not see it last time:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aether_drag_hypothesis&oldid=377567419
 * The presentation in the lead is very good IMHO. Also the main text is strongly improved, and the summary looks fine too - thanks! The main text should normally include this information and elaborate on it. Most relevant is the still lacking precision that since Lorentz we explain the "Fresnel drag" effect as a dragging of light with moving matter instead of dragging of ether; in modern terms, the scattering of light on moving matter. That is the physical explanation of what happens, since the scattering is different for moving matter.
 * Note: Einstein as well as a number of other physicists admitted later that the Lorentz ether is consistent with the relativity principle; but that discussion is hardly relevant for this article. And I think that an encyclopedia should primarily report about facts; I see no reason here to report about opinions.
 * PS: great references, thanks! Good references are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and make it most valueable. Harald88 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Harald88. @D.H. Yes, you quote what Einstein have written in his earlier works. But that is what he thought later: (I just included it).Biophys (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Your quotation was out of context (therefore I rewrote the section and included also the 1924-paper). Einstein wrote several papers on the aether, and although he later said that the spacetime-structure of special relativity is "absolute" (in the sense that the properties of spacetime are not affected by the presence of matter), he clearly said that space is not absolute in general relativity anymore. Anyway, Einstein's subsequent definitions of "absolute space" and "aether" were not accepted by the scientific community, and are therefore of secondary importance (see Luminiferous aether) --D.H (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I am not quite sure what you are talking about. This particular view by Einstein is very much obvious and clear. He tells that the absolute space as a privileged entity from which accelerations, but not velocities should be counted, and which remains undetectable as long as everything moves by inertia. What that ever challenged or disproved? By whom and where? Note that he tells nothing about time or spacetime here.Biophys (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It was challenged by Einstein himself by inventing general relativity
 * 1924: "Thus the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not ‘absolute’ but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter.")

This is of course the same what he already wrote in 1920, after your quotation
 * 1920: What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations;

So you only have to carefully read both papers, that of 1920 and that of 1924 (both have principally the same content, but the latter is more precise). --D.H (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you! This is very instructive. So, let's look at his 1924 article. It tells:

When we speak here of aether, we are, of course, not referring to the corporeal aether of mechanical wave-theory that underlies Newtonian mechanics, whose individual points each have a velocity assigned to them....

In contrast to geometry and kinematics, the ‘space’ of Newton’s theory of motion possesses physical reality. We will call this physical reality which enters the Newtonian law of motion alongside the observable, ponderable real bodies, the aether of mechanics. The occurrence of centrifugal effects with a (rotating) body, whose material points do not change their distances from one another, shows that this aether is not to be understood as a mere hallucination of the Newtonian theory, but rather that it corresponds to something real that exists in nature. ...The mechanical aether--which Newton called ‘absolute space’--must remain for us a physical reality. Of course, one must not be tempted by the expression aether into thinking that, like the physicists of the 19th century, we have in mind something analogous to ponderable matter.''
 * (consistent with his quote I included)Biophys (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

After long and fruitless efforts, physicists became convinced that light was not to be understood as the motion of an inertial, elastic medium, that the electromagnetic fields of Maxwell’s theory could not be construed as mechanical...

But there were two difficulties that could not be overcome. Firstly the Maxwell-Loretz equations could not explain how the electric charge constituting an electrical elementary particle can exist in equilibrium in spite of the forces of electrostatic repulsion. Secondly electromagnetic theory could not give a reasonably natural and satisfactory explanation of gravitation...

the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not ‘absolute’ but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter...

But even if these possibilities do mature into an actual theory, we will not be able to do without the aether in theoretical physics, that is, a continuum endowed with physical properties; for general relativity, to whose fundamental viewpoints physicists will always hold fast, rules out direct action at a distance. But every theory of local action assumes continuous fields, and thus also the existence of an aether...

 * Thus, not only the "absolute space" exists (as a privileged entity from which accelerations, but not velocitiee should be counted), but it must appear in the theory of gravitation, although in a different manner. He does not disprove himself.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Fine. If you replace "absolute space" with "aether" in your statement, then it is correct what you say. So nobody disputes the fact, that Einstein clearly introduced (in this two papers) the word aether for all his theories (i.e. that acceleration proves that there are physically real "properties of space".) But I was alluding to Einstein's investigation, whether this aether (regarding the different theories) is "absolute" or not. Einstein's definition of an absolute aether: "we would call this aether ‘absolute’, i.e. by its nature independent of any influence". Thus he concludes for the three theories:
 * Newtonian physics has an absolute aether ("For the inertia-giving property of this aether is, according to classical mechanics, not susceptible to any influence, neither from the configuration of matter nor anything else. Hence the term ‘absolute’.").
 * Special relativity has also an absolute aether ("According to special relativity too, the aether was absolute, since its influence on inertia and the propogation of light was thought of as being itself independent of physical influence. ").
 * General relativity has a relative aether ("Thus the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not ‘absolute’ but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter.).
 * And of course Einstein "didn't disprove himself", he simply challenged the view that the aether is "absolute" (in general relativity). --D.H (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Perhaps we need to quote Einstein in this section to explain better his views.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The complication is, of course, that Einstein's "aether of general relativity" does show dragging effects when you move or forcibly-accelerate matter through it. It's a case of Wheeler's "Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to bend." Move a lump of matter through a region and you create curvature, and the curvature then influences other matter to move somewhat in the direction of the first lump. Hence gravitationally-coupled momentum exchange, and the gravitational slingshot effect. ErkDemon (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aether drag hypothesis. 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/20080404010653/http://www.digitallibrary.nl:80/proceedings/search/detail.cfm?pubid=2413&view=image&startrow=1 to http://www.digitallibrary.nl/proceedings/search/detail.cfm?pubid=2413&view=image&startrow=1

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) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Airey's disproof?
Airey is supposed to have proved that the moving Earth's influence does not drag light.

However, according to the extinction theorem (which seems to be tailored to fit known phenomena), The characteristic "extinction length" of a medium is the distance after which the original wave can be said to have been completely replaced. For visible light, traveling in air at sea level, this distance is approximately 1 mm. This suggests that ... even ignoring gravitational dragging and aether dragging and whatnot ... light approaching Airey's telescope ought to have been completely dragged along with the Earth, if only because of the dragging effect of the Earth's surrounding envelope of atmosphere! So how did he manage to prove the absence of dragging? I'm assuming that he didn't build an airtight wall around his telescope 100km high and and pump out all the air! This all seems a bit dubious. ErkDemon (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aether drag hypothesis


text:
List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal) per capita

This is a list and map of European states by GDP per capita.

The figures presented do not take into account differences in the cost of living in different countries, and the results vary greatly from one year to another based on fluctuations in the exchange rates of the country's currency. Such fluctuations change a country's ranking from one year to the next, even though they often make little or no difference to the standard of living of its population. Therefore, these figures should be regarded with caution. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living; however, this is problematic because GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income.

List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal) per capita 2021

 * The "IMF" column includes data for the year 2021 for members of the International Monetary Fund.
 * The "World Bank" column includes data for the year 2019 from the World Bank.

Data across columns are not comparable as they may refer to different years. All data are in United States dollars.

Table of non-sovereign states in Europe by GDP per capita
Note: Whether the values are nominal or PPP is unknown.

Map of sovereign states in Europe by projected 2024 GDP nominal per capita based on USD exchange rate
The map data is for year 2024 using IMF data (WEO April 2024 Edition) GDP nominal per capita - current international dollar.

Map of sovereign states in Europe by 2000 GDP nominal per capita based on USD exchange rate
The map data is for year 2000 using IMF data (WEO April 2024 Edition) GDP nominal per capita - current international dollar.


text:
Category:Red Ensigns

The Red Ensign is one of three British ensigns in use and is also the basis of the flags of numerous British overseas territories and former colonies in the British Empire.

title: Category:Red Ensigns


text:
User talk:Bhcoff01

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Spam in Walden Theatre
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Walden Theatre, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Walden Theatre is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Walden Theatre, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bhcoff01


text:
User:Dzzl/ishy

crappy.

awesome.

title: User:Dzzl/ishy


text:
Morus rubra

Morus rubra, commonly known as the red mulberry, is a species of mulberry native to eastern and central North America. It is found from Ontario, Minnesota, and Vermont south to southern Florida, and west as far as southeastern South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and central Texas. There have been reports of isolated populations (very likely naturalized) in New Mexico, Idaho, and British Columbia.

Common in the United States, it is listed as an endangered species in Canada, and is susceptible to hybridization with the invasive white mulberry (M. alba), introduced from Asia.

Description
Red mulberry is a small to medium-sized deciduous tree, growing to 10 - 15 m tall, rarely 21 m, with a trunk up to 50 cm in diameter. It can live up to 125 years.

The leaves are alternate, 7 - 18 cm long (rarely to 36 cm) and 8 - 12 cm broad (about twice as big as the white mulberry's leaves), simple, broadly cordate, with a shallow notch at the base, typically unlobed on mature trees although often with 2–3 lobes, particularly on young trees, and with a finely serrated margin. Unlike the leaves of white mulberry (M. alba) which have a lustrous upper surface, the red mulberry leaf upper surface is noticeably rough, similar in texture to fine sandpaper, and the underside is densely covered with soft hairs. The leaf petiole exudes milky sap when severed. The leaves turn yellow in autumn.

The flowers are relatively inconspicuous: small, yellowish green or reddish green and opening as leaves emerge. Male and female flowers are usually on separate trees although they may occur on the same tree.

The fruit is a compound cluster of several small achenes surrounded by a fleshy calyx, similar in appearance to a blackberry, 2 - 3 cm long. It is initially pale green, ripening to red or dark purple.

The red mulberry develops an extensive root system, containing lateral, horizontal roots that remain within the upper 24 inches of the soil and smaller, vertical roots that go off the lateral roots. This combination gives stability and allows the tree to uptake the nutrients from the soil surface where nutrients are most abundant.

Red mulberry is hardy to subzero temperatures, relatively hardy to drought, pollution, and poor soil, though the white mulberry is hardier.

The berries are widely sought after by birds in spring and early summer in North America; as many as 31 species of birds have been recorded visiting a fruiting tree in Arkansas. The red mulberry is pollinated by the wind.

Distribution
The red mulberry plant is native to the United States. M. rubra occurs from the Atlantic coast to the eastern edge of the Great Plains, south to southern Florida and north to southwestern Ontario in Canada. The native red mulberry can be mostly found in riparian areas, and is considered rare and threatened in many areas including northeastern United States and southeastern Canada.

The morphologically similar M. alba is potentially posing a threat to the existence of M. rubra because of the rapid range expansion, aggressive growth patterns, and reproductive advantages over M. rubra. The red mulberry is currently considered endangered in Canada, and in the USA, the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts as well as threatened in Michigan and Vermont.

Uses

The berries are edible and sweet. The first English colonists to explore eastern Virginia in 1607 mentioned the abundance of both mulberry trees and their fruit, which was eaten (sometimes boiled) by the native Powhatan tribes. Today, mulberries are eaten raw, used in the fillings of pastries, and fermented into wine. They are also used for marmalades, liquors, natural dyes, and cosmetics. The berries are not commercially sold because they have very short “shelf lives” and pack/ship very poorly.

The wood may be dried and used for smoking meats with a flavour that is mild and sweet. It is also used for fenceposts because the heartwood is relatively durable. Other uses of the wood include farm implements, cooperage, furniture, interior finish, and caskets.

History
Some Native American tribes used an infusion of the bark as a laxative or purgative. Infusions of the root were used to treat weakness and urinary ailments. The sap was applied to the skin to treat ringworm. Choctaw people wove clothing from the inner bark of young M. rubra and similar shoots.

Documentations of the use of red mulberry go back to 1500 by the De Soto expedition, which recorded the consumption of dried fruits by the indigenous Muskogee peoples. There were diverse uses of mulberry in different indigenous cultures. Among them, the Cherokee mixed cornmeal and sugar to the berries, to make sweet dumplings. Later on, European settlers also used the mulberry fruits to make pies or preserves. The trees were also important as a source of livestock feed and wood for furniture or boats.

The Choctaw Indians used to prepare a kind of cloth out of the bark of Morus and produce a yellow dye from the root of the same plant.

Cultivation
In an early stage, pruning is necessary to make the red mulberry tree develop a sturdy framework. Afterwards, the pruning requirements of the red mulberry involve mainly removing dead or overcrowded wood. To keep the tree in a tidy form, it is suggested to choose a few main branches and cut the laterals to six leaves in July. This allows the spurs to develop near the main branches. However, the red mulberry tree tends to bleed after pruning, so pruning should be reduced to a minimum and should be conducted when the tree is dormant, as the bleeding is less severe then. Removing branches of more than 2 diameters should be absolutely avoided. When tilling the soil, it must be paid attention not to damage the horizontal roots. Cutting them would impair nutrient uptake.

In the first year of a red mulberry's lifetime, a sufficient water supply is critical for the development of the root system. Young mulberry trees should be watered thoroughly twice a week if growing on light soils and once a week if growing on clay soils. Later, the red mulberry is drought tolerant, although under water scarcity it may drop its fruits too early which results in berry yield losses. Thus, for berry production, irrigation is recommended under dry conditions.

Mulching helps to retain moisture in the soil and to reduce the competition with grass and weeds. Thus, it is recommended to apply mulch under mulberry trees. The mulch should not touch the stem as this may lead to rotting. Mulberry trees thrive with little to no fertilizer. Fertilizing more than twice a year should be avoided and fertilizing later than July may lead to freeze damage. An NPK value of 10-10-10 is targeted and depending on the available nutrients in the soil, other nutrients like iron should be added.

Usually, the red mulberry is free from pests and diseases but in some areas the “popcorn disease” may occur. In that case, infected fruits should be collected and burned, to prevent the pathogens population to reproduce and survive for the next season. If cultivated for fruits, male and female plants must be grown, if a monoecious variety is chosen. However, there are also dioecious varieties. To harvest the fruit, branches are usually shaken and the fruit collected manually.

Climatic and soil requirements
Mulberry grows in various climatic conditions and can be found in climates between temperate and tropical. Red mulberry plants require a total annual rainfall of 1,000 - 2,000 mm and are adapted to altitudes of up to 800 msl. The native environment of red mulberry most often consists of moist forests, thickets on the floodplains, moist hillsides and river valleys.

It can tolerate short periods of flooding and can tolerate temperatures as low as -36 C. Optimal growing temperatures are between 24 and 28 C. At least 140 frost free days a year are required. Normally, the tree grows in full sun, but growth is also possible in partial shading. Red mulberry is also drought tolerant.

In its native habitat red mulberry grows in mesic hardwood forests in moist soils, although they can be found in many different moist soils. Such soils include inceptisols, alfisols, spodosols and ultisols. The plants prefer deep, well drained soils that range from loamy to clayey and have a high moisture-holding capacity. A soil pH of 5-7 is optimal.

Yield
Mulberries yield wood for timber, with an average 10–15 m height and diameter of 50 cm. The timber volume is 0.962 m³ to 1.435 m³. Mulberry wood has the same quality as oak, which can be sold for 90-150 euro per m3. Nevertheless, to achieve a quantity of 1m3, we should have to take down the whole tree, which can be counterproductive in the case of fruit production.

Nevertheless, the wood from the trimming can still be used as firewood and the biggest parts for furniture or turned objects. An additional yield of 8–12 tons/acre/year (20–30 tons/hectare/year) can be achieved with the littler parts and the leaves which serve as forage. Only 2 to 3 years after whip cultivar plantation, the tree should already start to fruit. The yields of fruits should reach 3 to 5 kg (per tree per year) on the first years until 300 kg for a mature tree.

Economic aspects
In 2015, almost 3.4 million pounds of frozen mulberries were imported to the US – a market value of 2.6 million US-Dollars. The demand for the fruit is still rising and the prices are high. This constitutes a great opportunity for mulberry producers. It takes ten years from the seedling stage, until a mulberry tree bears fruit. Thus, for the decision of building up a mulberry orchard, one needs to estimate not the current demand but the market potential of ten years later. This involves more risk and long-term planning. However, there are grafted varieties that produce fruit earlier and reduce this problem.

In future, the economic viability of mulberry production may increase even more as its drought resistance constitutes an opportunity for agriculture under climate change and as the fruit contains many micronutrients and vitamins, while people pay more and more attention to healthy nutrition.

As mulberry production is not yet mechanized well, a lot of labor is required, especially to harvest the fruit. However, there is potential for mechanizing the shaking of the branches, similar as in tart cherry harvesting. A difficulty in the commercial use of mulberries is the fragility of the berries which constitutes a challenge in storage and transport. The leading producers of mulberry fruit are Turkey and Iran. They are the main mulberry suppliers to Europe. However, they mainly produce white and black mulberry - thus, the production of red mulberry is still less widespread.

Agroforestry constitutes an opportunity to further improve the viability of red mulberry cultivation. Short-duration legume crops as intercrops improve the soil control weeds and create an additional revenue.

Nutritional aspects
Fresh mulberries are mainly water. Per 100g, they provide 1.2g protein and 0.85g fat. Dried mulberries, which is the most consumed form, contain 70g carbs, 14g fibers, 12g proteins and 3g fats per 100g.

Mulberries are rich in vitamin C, calcium, iron and potassium.

Limitations and drawbacks
Despite all mentioned opportunities and benefits, there are a few drawbacks and limitations to the cultivation of the red mulberry:
 * The red mulberry cannot be used for silk production as the white mulberry. Silkworms reject the leaves of the red mulberry.
 * The red mulberry cannot be used as a short-term solution, due to the time until the first fruit bearing. Instead, it requires long-term planning. The highest yields are obtained after 30–85 years.
 * Despite its drought tolerance, it can be problematic to cultivate the red mulberry under drought conditions as fruits fall down too early if the root system lacks water.
 * The fruits are delicate which complicates the commercial use.
 * Sensitive people may be confronted with dermatitis when touching the leaves, the stem or the unripe fruits of a mulberry tree. The leaf sap and unripe fruits can even lead to hallucinations and central nervous system disturbances.
 * Though quite resistant to many pathogens, there are some diseases that can occur in mulberry.
 * The fruits are liked by several mammal and bird species which on the one hand is beneficial for biodiversity but on the other hand leads to yield losses or high protection costs, as netting is difficult for such big trees.
 * Breeding takes long due to the long generation time.
 * Common pests and diseases that affect mulberry plants include mulberry leaf spot, bacterial blight (bacterium – Pseudomonas syringae pv. mori), powdery mildew (fungi – Phyllactinia corylea and Uncinula geniculata) or different root rot diseases.

title: Morus rubra


text:
Melampyrum

Melampyrum is a genus of about 20 species of herbaceous flowering plants in the family Orobanchaceae known commonly as cow wheat. They are native to temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. They are hemiparasites on other plants, obtaining water and nutrients from host plants, though some are able to survive on their own without parasitising other plants.

Melampyrum species are used as food plants by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species, including the mouse moth (Amphipyra tragopoginis).

Phylogeny
The phylogeny of the genera of Rhinantheae has been explored using molecular characters. Melampyrum appears as a distant relative of other genera of Rhinantheae. It is the sister group of two clades: (i) Rhynchocorys, Lathraea, and Rhinanthus ; and (ii) the core Rhinantheae containing Bartsia, Euphrasia, Tozzia, Hedbergia, Bellardia, and Odontites.

Selected species

 * Melampyrum arvense (field cow-wheat). Europe.
 * Melampyrum cristatum (crested cow-wheat). Europe.
 * Melampyrum klebelsbergianum. Asia.
 * Melampyrum koreanum. Asia.
 * Melampyrum laxum. Asia.
 * Melampyrum lineare (narrowleaf cow-wheat). North America.
 * Melampyrum nemorosum (wood cow-wheat). Europe.
 * Melampyrum pratense (common cow-wheat). Europe.
 * Melampyrum roseum. Asia.
 * Melampyrum saxosum. Europe.
 * Melampyrum sylvaticum (small cow-wheat). Europe.

title: Melampyrum


text:
Talk:First Great Western Link

 * I removed This route ran from Bedwyn to Reading central and stations on the line included: Bedwyn, Hungerford, Kintbury, Newbury Newbury Racecourse, Thatcham, Midgam, Aldermaston, Theale, Reading West and Reading as Thames trains ran the whole network, not just the Reading-Bedwyn service. Paul Weaver 00:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Class 43 removed: while FGWLink did share Class 180s with First Great Western, Class 43s were never used for Link services. 86.131.67.212 17:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Great Western Link. 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/20070807224122/http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67 to http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Great Western Link


text:
List of North American countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

This is a list of North American nations by GDP per capita. All figures are based on the gross domestic product (at purchasing power parity) per capita, i.e., the purchasing power parity (PPP) value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given year, divided by the average (or mid-year) population for the same year. The figures given are in international dollars and rounded to the nearest hundred. Names of dependent territories (not sovereign states) are in italics and are not ranked.


text: User:Kbot~enwiki

title: User:Kbot~enwiki


text:
User talk:Danithew

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Erin Mendenhall moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Erin Mendenhall, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... disco spinster   talk  14:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RichAlger
Are you also using the account ? You can only use WP:MULTIPLE accounts if you have good reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not the same user as {{u|RichAlger}. We do not share an account. It has been a very long time since I created or edited entries on wikipedia, so I was grateful that RichAlger came in and added citations and additional information to make the single sentence I had posted more robust and verifiable. But we are not the same person. I only have a single account/login with wikipedia and I do not share it with anyone else. Danithew (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Danithew


text:
User talk:Hvidberg

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Image:Strombocactus disciformis in habitat.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Strombocactus disciformis in habitat.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Lophophora williamsii.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lophophora williamsii.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hvidberg


text:
List of South American countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

This is a list of South American nations by gross domestic product per capita based on purchasing power parity.

IMF list
List according to the International Monetary Fund in current international dollars for 2024.

World Bank list
All figures are in 2021 international dollars according to the World Bank, and rounded to the nearest whole number.

CIA list
All figures are in current international dollars according to The World Factbook by the Central Intelligence Agency, rounded to the nearest hundred.


text:
User:Roche-Kerr

Details

 * Name: Nick Roche-Kerr
 * Location: Orewa

title: User:Roche-Kerr


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 17


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Carlos Valdivia

Yeah Man - I've heard of Carlos and I'm not even at the university! Don't let that hobbit girl push you off your rightful. . ..