text:
Talk:Cricket/oldpoll

Note: This poll is no longer active, and is presented here for informational purposes.

Poll on where "Cricket" should be disambiguated
This poll will be closed in 2 weeks, September 2, after which the consensus (or lack thereof) will be noted.

Preamble
There has been a long-standing debate on whether:
 * 1) the article cricket should be about the sport, with a link to the insect article and a separate disambiguation page (as is the case currently), or
 * 2) the article cricket should itself be a disambiguation page. (In addition to the sport and the insect, the disambugiation page also lists Cricket (darts), Cricket (airplane), Cricket (magazine), Plymouth Cricket, Cricket (software), Chrząszcz, and The Crickets).)

See the discussion above.

For this vote, the first option will be called "the Sport option", and the second option will be called "the Disambig option".

History

 * Historically, in October 2001, the main cricket article was a disambiguation page (, now in the page history of page of cricket (disambiguation)).
 * The pages that are now cricket (insect) and cricket date back to February 2002 (then at cricket (insect) and cricket (sport)  respectively, with cricket being a simple disambiguation page )
 * The sport article was renovated by User:Nichalp and others in August 2004, and moved to the main cricket article, with the old cricket article moving to cricket (disambiguation) - see Talk:Cricket (disambiguation).

Arguments for the Sport option

 * Please keep these brief. One line, if possible.

 * The vast majority of articles (2300 out of 2500) that link to cricket refer to the sport. These would all have to be changed.  (All links were changed from cricket (sport) when the sport moved to cricket.)
 * Among the first 20 google hits for "cricket", 17 are about the sport and none is about the insect. The first google hit for the insect is at #101 -   - while the American Cricket Association (related to the sport in the United States) is #39.
 * In most areas of the world, the word "cricket" primarily refers to the sport.
 * When counting "English speakers" as those who speak English regularly, even if not as a first language, roughly 2/3 of English speakers live outside the U.S. and would consider the word "cricket" to primarily refer to the sport.
 * Precedents include London (the capital of the UK, as opposed to the other places called "London") and Napoleon.
 * For those looking for the insect, it is one extra click either way. Therefore there would be no benefit to the reader from the change.
 * It is the status quo ante, has been for a year with little dispute, and change should not be made without consensus.
 * The overwhelming number of searches for "cricket" are likely to be for the sport. The sport is popular in England, Wales, India, Pakistan, the West Indies, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Very few actual searches for "cricket" will be for the insect (it's not that popular a critter!)

Arguments for the Disambig option

 * Please keep these brief. One line, if possible.

 * When counting "English speakers" as only those who speak English as a first language, excluding those who speak English regularly as a second language, roughly 2/3 of English speakers live in the U.S. and would not consider the word "cricket" to primarily refer to the sport.
 * Precedents include Georgia, football, and America.
 * The policy Disambiguation says "Where there is no … consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself (Table, for example)."
 * The articles which link to cricket can be changed automatically via a bot to link to cricket (sport) (as was done a year ago).

Votes for the Sport option

 * "The page cricket should contain the information about the sport, with a link to the insect and the disambiguation page at the top."

 * 1) [[smoddy ]] 14:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Thryduulf 14:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Joolz 14:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --Ngb 14:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC) -- can't believe we're even having this discussion
 * 5) ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Ian ≡ talk 15:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --RobertG ♬ talk 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Dunc|☺ 18:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) jguk 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC) I can't believe we're even having a vote on this.
 * 10) MRSC 19:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC) I thought at first this was a joke.

Votes for the Disambig option

 * "The page cricket should contain the disambiguation page, with links to both the sport and the insect."

 * 1) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Nereocystis 14:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I can't believe we're having the discussion either. A vanishingly small percentage of the US is even aware the sport exists. —Cryptic (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * Please do not leave long comments in the vote sections above.

 * Feel free to reword the common arguments, but please do not reword the voting statements. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why did this have to come about like this? There was no discussion about the poll before it was launched into, there was no agreement about duration or anything similar, and inaccurate statements were included. Why could the poll not have been discussed before it happened, as per Survey guidelines? [[smoddy ]] 14:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, I mentioned it above, and several people commented on the possibility (including you). Sorry about the Google innacuracy -- I could swear #18 was about the insect yesterday -- but I see it was quickly fixed. Do you think the duration (2 weeks) is problematic, or are you just being difficult? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't get difficult in order to annoy. I was just generally highlighting how this poll was mismanaged.  It feels to me as if you have taken the poll over, and are treating it to confirm your own point of view.  You would have lowered animosity if you had structured this properly, with proper pre-poll debate. I know that isn't in vogue, but it would still have helped.   [[smoddy ]] 17:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it listed on WP:RM too? -- Joolz 14:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's listed at Current surveys. If you think it belongs on WP:RM too, be bold! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been bold. And voted :) ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more point. The default with no consensus is not necessarily to go to the disambig. That was for when there was dispute of the primary meaning. That is not applicable here. There is no relevant policy to fall back on with no consensus. [[smoddy ]] 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The default with no consensus is that we keep the status quo ante. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, the applicable Wikipedia policy is at Disambiguation. It clearly states: "Some topics have a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning for the term (Rome, for example). In this case the disambiguation page is named Rome (disambiguation), and the primary topic keeps the topic word or phrase. . . In other cases, where there is no such consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself (Table, for example)." Do you think this policy should be changed? Or do you think it's not applicable? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a guideline. I don't think it's applicable here, no.  If you do, fine.  I don't really want to debate the matter, as I don't believe it will be necessary anyway.   [[smoddy ]] 17:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The majority of people coming to the page will be looking for the sport. In vast areas of the English-speaking world, the sport is both prominent and the primary meaning. In other areas, the insect is the primary meaning, but is not prominent. Therefore, most people coming to the page will be looking for the sport. (moved from arguments above, since it is partially included in other reasons, and it makes arguments about what is "primary" and "prominant" that are asserted by an author but not "commonly argued".) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC))
 * I am, in all honesty, staggered that 'Most U.S. residents think of the insect' is seriously being advanced as a rationale here. The worldwide anglophone population dwarfs that of the U.S.. Why are the interests of one particular demographic being foregrounded here? --Ngb 16:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll probably be equally staggered to learn that the non-U.S. anglophone population is smaller than the U.S. anglophone pouplation. Of the 377 million people who use English as their mother-tongue, 244 (65%) are U.S. residents. See English language for details. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * What about the other 600m people who speak English as a second language, including 300m who "use English regularly". There are plenty of en-wiki editors in Category:User en who are not in Category:User en-N. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A fair point. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * A lot of people think of the sport first; a lot think of the insect first. We're dealing with a large number of people in both cases. Sounds like disambiguation to me. Nereocystis 19:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Quadell, as a linguist myself I wouldn't be staggered. However, I said 'anglophone', not 'mother tongue anglophone'. --Ngb 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That was my argument. I don't see why it needs to be removed from the section which is labelled "arguments", rather than "common arguments".  May I ask you a question?  Why is this move necessary?  What does it add to the encyclopedia?   [[smoddy ]] 17:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If that was your argument (that the worldwide anglophone population dwarfs that of the U.S.), then your argument was incorrect. It sounded like your argument was the same as "In most areas of the world, most people think of the sport when they hear the word" as above, with additional assertions about the difference between "primary" and "prominant" meanings. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * By "my argument", I meant that I had argued that. I had written it.  Anyway.  Would you answer my question?  (Incidentally, the worldwide anglophone community does exceed that of the US, though I am not sure by how much.)  [[smoddy ]] 19:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry - to answer your question, I gave my reasons for moving the section above, to wit: "(moved from arguments above, since it is partially included in other reasons, and it makes arguments about what is "primary" and "prominant" that are asserted by an author but not "commonly argued".)". As to whether the worldwide (non-U.S.) Anglophone community exceeds the that of the U.S., it depends on whether you include people who speak English as a second language as part of the "Anglophone community". I do not. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I have a habit of flow-of-consciousness comments on talk pages, which can be very confusing.  I meant, "what would be the benefit of the move?"  As to the other point, Anglophone means English-speaking, with no reference to whether it's a first or second language.   [[smoddy ]] 20:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I have voted, it is clear we shouldn't be doing so and the vote (as with most WP votes) is seriously flawed: there's no general agreement on what any result means. I certainly object most strongly that Quadell should be allowed to change this well used page to a disambiguation page if he gains at least 20% of the vote (taking "consensus" to be 80%). I also object that my preferred option of not mentioning the insect at all specifically in the link the disambiguation page is not even up for the vote.

What Quadell is forgetting is that this is a worldwide, not an American encyclopaedia. Most North Americans will have the insect as the primary meaning. Most non-Americans will have the sport. But the sport is much, much, much more popular a subject to look up in Wikipedia than the insect. Quadell forgets entirely that the propensity of people to search for "cricket" is far greater amongst non-North Americans than North Americans. This is evidenced by Quadell's own google search, by the popularity of WikiProject Cricket, and by the number of links to this page, jguk 19:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Jguk, I'm not forgetting that - I added that to the list of reasons for the Sport option. Why do you think I forgot it? I looked at all the evidence, and came to the (not-terribly-strongly-held) opinion that, since the majority of English speakers do not think of the sport when they hear the word "cricket", that the page should be a disambig page. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * On a separate note, what did you mean by your statement that begins "I certainly object most strongly. . ."? (I'm not contesting your statement - I'm just trying to understand it.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, as far as I can see, this poll is simply a finger in the air - This poll will be closed in 2 weeks, September 2, after which the consensus (or lack thereof) will be noted.. Period.  Chances are we will end up with no consensus for anything: then what?  Quadell will [presumably] point to the "lack of consensus" as a reason for changing things around; others will use the "lack of consensus" as a reason for leaving things exactly as they are.

 * If we really want to resolve this issue with a poll (remembering that polls are considered evil), what we need is a preliminary period to decide (i) what the questions should be, and (ii) what the criteria for deciding whether a question passes or fails should be. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You state what I will do if there is no consensus. That's quite bold of you. I would not, for the record, make such changes. I would let an uninvolved admin decide what the consensus is, and what to do about it. If this poll is considered improper, I don't object to it being cancelled and re-started. Do you think that's necessary? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we are enjoined to be bold (in editing at least), but I am not a mindreader: I should have said "presumably" and have added such above.  Please accept my apologies if I have caused any offence.  However, I didn't say you would make any changes: I said you would point to the "lack of consensus" as a reason for changing things around.  I think this is a reasonable inference, since you have already on two occasions pointed to the statement at Disambiguation that as "the applicable Wikipedia policy" where there is "no such consensus":  if you think that is the applicable policy, then presumably you think it should be applied in the event that there is no consensus here.  It is notable that that guideline refers to what should happen if there is no agreement on what is the "primary topic". I would assert that the sport is the primary topic.  Do you think the insect is the primary topic?  Or would you say that there is no primary topic? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, lack of consensus is a reason for using a disambiguation page.Nereocystis 20:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * By this wonderful rationale, a 70-30% split in favour of the sport ends up with a disambiguation. I must say, that really is brilliant reasoning.   [[smoddy ]] 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved admins are for VfDs or really really contentious page moves where all efforts to find a consensus together have failed. This doesn't even try to make efforts. I personally would rather this poll be restarted, though I guess many others wouldn't. Admins are, after all, just users with buttons. We should attempt to make a survey fairly and without the bias that an uninvolved admin would bring (a British one would tend to sport, an American to disambiguation). Surely we can manage that together.  [[smoddy ]] 20:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What would be different if the poll is restarted? We should try to be fair.  Though I don't see a problem with the poll, restarting the poll isn't a big cost.  Let's do it one more time, if everyone can agree on how to conduct the poll. Nereocystis 20:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cricket/oldpoll


text:
Category:Synallaxis

Synallaxis is a bird genus of the family Furnariidae.

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

title: Category:Synallaxis


text:
Samuel Houghton

Samuel Houghton (16 August 1870 – 17 August 1920 ) was an English rugby union and professional rugby league footballer who played in the 1890s and 1900s. He played representative level rugby union (RU) for England and Cheshire, and at club level for Runcorn RFC, and Birkenhead Wanderers, as a fullback, i.e. number 15. and representative level rugby league (RL) for Cheshire, and at club level for Runcorn RFC, who he rejoined in January 1896, and who had switched to professional rugby league in 1895.

International honours
Sam Houghton was born in Runcorn, Cheshire, England, and he also died in Runcorn, Cheshire, England.

International honours
Sam Houghton won first selected to play for England (RU), while representing Runcorn at club level, for the encounter against Ireland in the 1892 Home Nations Championship. Despite England winning 7–0, Houghton was replaced for the next match of the tournament by Thomas Coop, who himself was uncapped before the match. It would take almost four years for Houghton to win his second cap, when he was chosen for the 1896 Home Nations Championship. This was a key match for England, as it was the first international after the formation of the Northern League, and the selectors were now unable to call upon a large number of former players who had now turned professional. Houghton by this time had switched clubs from Runcorn to Birkenhead Wanderers, and on 4 January 1896 he was called upon to face Wales in the opening game of the Championship, the match was a one-sided affair after the talented Welsh three-quarters, Owen Badger, broke his collar bone within the first fifteen minutes and was forced to leave the pitch. England went on to win 25–0.

Despite being called back into the England team, and then being selected for the second match of the 1896 Championship against Ireland, Houghton switched codes before the 1 February fixture, joining his old club Runcorn. Runcorn who were previously a union team had turned professional in 1895, and by signing back to the club, Houghton was now considered a professional footballer, and could therefore never represent a rugby union team at club, county, or country level.

Note
ESPN states Samuel Houghton's date of birth as 16 August 1870, whereas FreeBMD quotes the birth as being registered during first ¼ 1870.

title: Samuel Houghton


text:
User talk:Exsanguinator

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Exsanguinator, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:36

Please do not remove sppedy deletion templates from articles. If it has been tagged for deletion, it is up to an administrator to decide wether it should be deleted or not. Viridae Talk 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I read "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice," but I must have misunderstood something. --Exsanguinator 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I thought you were the pages creator. That said, the article still does not give any reasons why the article should remain on wikipedia under wikipedia guidlines. Read WP:BIO and if you think it should remain, edit the article suitibly. However, having taken a look at the YouTube profile of the subject, I find it very unlikely that there will be any reason why the article should not be deleted. 2000 channel views does not make an internet celebrity, especially on YouTube. Viridae Talk 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nuodai.jpg
You say you are the owner of the video. If you mean you are the owner of the 'copyright' in respect of the relevant footage then please say so in the image summary, otherwise the license tag would need to be changed to a, and a fair use rationale provided. ShakespeareFan00 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Exsanguinator


text:
User talk:Johnk

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Johnk, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:37

Image Tagging Image:Gameheadstand.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gameheadstand.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Johnk


text:
User talk:Para45

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Para45, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:37

title: User talk:Para45


text: User talk:69.139.85.183

title: User talk:69.139.85.183


text:
Southern Studios

Southern Studios is a recording studio in the Wood Green area of London. It was founded in 1974 by John Loder, and came to be the recording studio of choice for Crass and their record label Crass Records. Southern Studios Ltd. continues to grow its label and provide label management and distribution services throughout Europe.

Background
In the 1980s and 90s, Southern Studios Ltd. (SSL) started a record label and a distribution company. The label used the name Southern Records. The distributor uses the name Southern Record Distributors Ltd. (SRD) and took over UK distribution. The distributor is now independently owned.

SSL continued to serve the needs of Europe, as well as signing and supporting artists on the Southern Records.

During the massive growth of the independent music industry in the mid-1990s, Loder decided to establish Southern Records Inc. (SRI) in Chicago, which added artists to the roster and operates a distribution business for labels in the US and elsewhere.

Technical details
Steve Albini, a long-time friend and associate of John Loder, has described the set up at Southern Studios as being completely analog. Although not entirely analogue, the vintage Raindirk Series III 24-channel desk dominates the studio control room. The studio retained two key time-based signal processors: an EMT 140 plate reverb and an AMS RSX-16 digital reverb. The studio today is owned by Southern Records and continues to operate under the guidance of sound engineer Harvey Birrell.

Artists
The following is an incomplete list of artists who have recorded at Southern Studios:
 * And Also The Trees
 * The Jesus and Mary Chain
 * Carter USM
 * Chelsea Wolfe
 * Crass
 * Therapy?
 * My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult
 * Sonic Youth
 * Neil Leyton
 * Mark Stewart & The Maffia
 * African Head Charge
 * Big Black
 * Lee Perry
 * Shellac
 * Fugazi
 * All About Eve
 * Grails
 * Shit and Shine
 * Lungleg
 * Danielle Howle
 * Babes In Toyland
 * Bauhaus
 * The Fall
 * Ministry
 * No Age
 * Dananananaykroyd
 * Pulp
 * The Flaming Lips

Distribution
The following is an incomplete list of record labels that have been manufactured & distributed or distributed by Southern Studios in Europe between 1978 and the present.
 * Adult Swim Records
 * Bluurg Records
 * Constellation Records
 * Coptic Cat
 * Corpus Christi Records
 * Crass Records
 * Dischord Records
 * Durtro Jnana
 * Ipecac Records
 * Kranky
 * Neurot
 * Outer Himalayan Records
 * Southern Lord
 * Spiderleg Records
 * Touch & Go Records
 * Trance Syndicate Records
 * Upset the Rhythm
 * Wrong Records

title: Southern Studios


text:
User talk:Cconrad~enwiki

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Cconrad, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:38

Merger discussion for Fee tail
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Cconrad. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Cconrad~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cconrad~enwiki


text:
User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive06

= styles =

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles on royal and papal articles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think if we suggest either that it should be used, or that that it shouldn't, we are going down a POV path. That is why I just stated by implication that these are the styles used in diplomacy and religion. I deliberately phrased them to be neutral so that we are not saying you must or you must not, you have to or you cannot use them, just "these are the form of words formally used. It is up to you, if you bump into the Pope or the Prince of Wales in your local bar, to decide whether you want to call them Your Holiness and Your Royal Highness or Ben and Charlie! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That is how I would expect it to work. But because the page is locked I deliberately didn't tamper with the text, so the style there was left untouched. But if that template goes live, the opening line would of course lose the style completely. I think in the text HMs, HRHs, HHs, etc would have to be used very sparingly, only really where it is useful to show for historical reasons the status of someone, for example in lists, but even then sparingly. I find endless styling of individuals OTT. FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint) 04:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Tone
I'd say I'm sorry my "tone" bothers you, but I'm not. I see no reason to make nice with a user who's been spraying groundless personal abuse in my direction for the last 3 months, including, on occasion, cutting other user's contributions out of the article and telling them I was responsible for the edit. [And who ran the same abusive routine on other editors before I came along.] And I see no reason not to describe something that's plainly incorrect as "wrong." Monicasdude 16:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That's utter nonsense about "misclaiming an edit." The whole edit history of articles is easily accessible, so anyone can easily see who actually did any given edit.  As to tone... well, you've managed to earn yourself yet another person who is a whole lot less likely to agree with you on any given edit point; if what you really want is to be right in your own mind, but disliked by all other WP editors, I'm sure you'll be able to accomplish that.  It's not what I would go for myself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:47, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

 * You're the one who's putting out utter nonsense. All you have to do is work back through the Dylan talk page to the "Christian Conversion" section and you'll see just what I referred to. The fact that someone tells an easily traceable lie doesn't make them any less a liar. Monicasdude 20:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sexual orientation
Hello :). I read through those websites you provided and further summarized the information. Please check it's accuracy if you find a second. Thanks. 70.57.82.114 16:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read your own citation?
You wrote:
 * "or acquired in utero—by "subsequent inevitable developmental pathway" produce the childhood experiences"

Your citation:
 * "For example, they are supportive of an idea developed by Daryl Bem that children are aroused by peers who are different from them (in play, for instance) and that this arousal eventually leads to formation of erotic attraction and sexual orientation. Their argument that the play interests of children are directed by the prenatal hormonal environment serves as an explanation of how earlier events can influence later development. Jack Drescher (1) described this approach as emphasizing a possibly pathological early event (such as alteration in prenatal steroid exposure) with a subsequent inevitable developmental pathway that is not itself pathological."

The "subsequent inevitable developmental pathway" refers to the childhood experiences not the cause thereof. And the American Psychological Association clearly states on their homosexuality FAQ that the nurture debate has been discredited: "It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's." and "considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." Perhaps your understanding of the subject is outdated? 70.57.82.114 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand what "subsequent inevitable..." means. A pre-birth thing leads to childhood experiences; I wasn't trying to suggest a different meaning.

 * Read your own cited APA quote, BTW: they claim only that biology plays a "significant role." That's a very long way from "inevitable pathway."  Still, even most of the bio studies (e.g. Levay's) do not separate cause from effect: are brain regions different because someone is gay, or is someone gay because brain regions are different.  Mere correlation doesn't answer that (even if the correlation stands up, which most has only very weakly). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Reducing biological reductionism
Hey, I caught some major reversions of your contributions on homosexuality and restored them, then did a little copyediting so hopefully what you've writte is more clear to people who see "malleability" and have an aneurysm or break out in hives or whatever. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll do a little more work later, maybe split out a new sub-subsection or something. -Seth Mahoney 01:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate page
I do not disagree with including some information on explanations of sexual orientation associated with fetal hormone exposure. But let's please move the editorial discussion to the talk pages of Homosexuality and Sexual orientation rather than do it on my personal talk page. Other editors should have ready access to the discussion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:54, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Hormones
The hormonal theory of homosexuality holds that, just as exposure to circulating sex hormones determines whether a fetus will be male or female, such exposure must also dictate sexual orientation.

After birth, there may be, physiologically-based differences present at birth that lead girls and boys to perceive the world or behave in slightly different ways. Some children exhibit childhood gender nonconformity (CGN) and research indicates that seventy five percent of these cases will be homosexual as adults.

Cornell psychologist Daryl Bem has proposed a theory called “the exotic becomes erotic”. In it he suggests children with CGN (a biologically caused attribute) are often ostracized by their own sex for their atypical behavior and this leads to physiological arousal of fear and anger in their presence, arousal that eventually is transformed from exotic to erotic.

William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with the University of Oklahoma has evaluated more than a hundred cases of children born with sexual differentiation disorders. For decades, the standard medical response to boys born with severely inadequate penises was to castrate the boy and have his parents raise him as a girl. However this practice as come under attack because even though these boys were raised as girls they nearly all report as adults that they are sexually attracted to women, suggesting that their sexual orientation was determined at birth. The only cases he has found where children born with a X and Y chromosome are attracted to males as adults are those when the receptors were absent and prevented the male sex hormones from masculinizing the fetus.

There is substantial evidence showing correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are set when a baby is in the womb. Breedlove in 2000 found that finger length, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in people of distinct sexual orientations. Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations. Homosexual men were found to have more older brothers in 1993 and the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen exposed to fetuses. In 1991 a study by Simon LeVay discovered that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus – which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones – was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. Initially he could not rule out that this may be due to AIDS since all of his homosexual male subjects had died from it before the autopsies were performed. However in 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that it replicated his findings in homosexual sheep. Other studies regarding pheromones, penis sizes, circulating androgen levels, number of sex partners over a lifetime and MRI brain scans also found differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals all related to prenatal hormones. In freemartins it has been detected that a clearly casual relationship exists between sexuality and prenatal hormones.

The evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality as led Amherst College biologist Paul Ewald to argue that it might be caused by a as of yet undetected virus working in the utero that triggers the hormonal responses. In response to recent findings the National Institute of Health in 2005 announced a 2.5 million dollar five year study of sexual orientation. One prominent evangelical leader, Rev. Rob Schenck, who used to advocate reparative therapy was quoted after speaking with scientists about homosexuality as saying that homosexuality is not a choice and that to continue opposing homosexual sex conservative Christians need to drop the choice argument, "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."

The sources are WEBMD: Pointing the Finger at Androgen as a Cause of Homosexuality and [Boston Globe: "What makes people gay?"

I suggest we add it under the three sexual orientations section. Do you have any corrections? Or input? This theory certainly has more scientific backing than the nurture and reparative therapy schools of thought. 70.57.82.114 01:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

live
Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. It is probably the easiest page to start with. Is that OK with you? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine by me. Like I said, all I care about is use versus mention.  Probably I'd ideally like the box tweaked to be a bit smaller and less flashy; but that's tertiary. The pope seems like a good starting point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:54, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

3RR violation reported
Regarding 4 reverts in 13 hours to the Bob Dylan article; appropriate notice added to admin notice board. Monicasdude 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:204.122.8.2

September 2014
Hello, I'm Anaxial. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jack Quaid, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David Woo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:204.122.8.2


text:
Talk:Quantum dot

What?
"Stated simply, quantum dots are semiconductors whose electronic characteristics are closely related to the size and shape of the individual crystal." "the" crystal? Which crystal? What electronic properties does the size or shape of "the" crystal impart? Since when are crystals confined to a specific size? There's a cave in Mexico with crystals the size of a bus, could those be quantum dots too? This makes no sense. There's nothing simple about this statement at all. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of "zero dimensional"
I think that needs to be qualified in some sense, since the dots themselves are obvious not zero dimensional. Perhaps state that "their unique behavior is due (in part) to the relatively small number of atoms they are composed of, and can be explained with models that treat them as zero dimensional". I'm not sure if this proposed statement is actually correct. Maneesh (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Zero-dimensional is merely a reference to the number of directions in which the confined charge carrier can act as a free carrier. In a similar vein, quantum wires might be known as one-dimensional potential wells, and quantum wells as two-dimensional potential wells. I'm currently looking for a good place to put this but can't decide where would be best.
 * While the dots/wires/wells are small, they still have dimensions in the nm range - indeed it's hinted at in the introduction and stated explicitly in the production section. --  Newty   14:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Developments concerning bulk manufacture
I've added a section in the main article concerning the bulk manufacture of quantum dots. For transparency: I am affiliated with one companies involved, this I've added to my edit in the history section as well. I've tried to strike a tone as neutral as possible in my contribution, including a reference to a press release and an article about current prospects of quantum dots from The Economist. There is as yet no independent news article using the press release as a source. If so, it should replace the original press release as a source. If there are any thoughts, additions or objections please discuss them here in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.223.101.162 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

now can be dissolved in water
'The researchers therefore developed an amphiphilic coating, i.e. one with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties. The "water hating" side of the polymer material attaches to the surface of the quantum dot. Its exposed hydrophilic side then makes the quantum dot/coating combination soluble in water'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111026091008.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"experimental proof" vs. controversial
"According to an experimental proof from 2006 (controversial results[33])," How does that sentence make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.165.35 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in Quantum Confinement
"since no two nearby electrons can share the exact same energy level according to Pauli exclusion principle"

I have never heard of this interpretation of Pauli's exclusion principle. If this were true, the term "degeneracy" wouldn't exist. Pauli exclusion only says, that they cannot exist in the very same quantum state. They have to be distinguishable, but not necessarily in energy.

Gflaesch (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * That whole paragraph is unclear and poorly written. By all means, feel free to be bold and fix it up yourself!  If you have any questions about editing I'm happy to try and answer them. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Confinement Energy
I am pretty sure that the equations for the confinement energy should contain the "effective electron mass" and the "effective hole mass" and not the "free electron mass" and the "hole mass" (while "free electron mass" is definetly wrong, "hole mass" might not be all that bad since there is no such thing as a free hole mass and thus in cannot be misinterpreted...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.157.49 (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy in an illustration title
The figure titled "Quantum Dots with emission maxima in a 10-nm step are being produced in a kg scale at PlasmaChem GmbH" displays QD solutions producing luminescence from violet (470 nm) to orange (610 nm) and thus has an inaccurate title. However, WikiCommons provides correct description as follows "Quantum dots with vivid colours stretching from violet to deep red are being currently manufactured at PlasmaChem GmbH at a large scale". The manufacturer data sheet for whole QD kit validates this. I suppose a new title "Quantum Dots with gradually stepping emission from violet to deep red are being produced in a kg scale at PlasmaChem GmbH" Hardman Feidlimid (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Be bold: if you see a mistake like this, click "Edit" and change the text so that it is more accurate.  KDS 4444  Talk   11:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are overused in this article
The intro paragraph to this article has at least three references (enclosed in "ref" tags) that point to the primary source of the information they are referencing— this is not the way that citations are supposed to be used in Wikipedia. Citations should point to the place where the statement of fact is published or discussed, not to where the actual information itself is published. For example, when I write in an article "John Smith discovered gravity" and I provide a reference for that fact, the reference should point to a source, normally a third party, stating that John Smith did, in fact, discovered gravity, NOT to John Smith's journal article or the book he wrote in which he explained all about the nature of gravity. References should point to where the statement of fact is verified, not to the place where the fact itself is discovered nor where it was first stated. I know that may seem confusing, but if you can figure out quantum physics then this can't be much harder to grasp! KDS 4444  Talk   11:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 * This is a good point. In this particular page, the ref to Reed et al, 1988, as the "primary" source of the phrase "quantum dots" is actually superceed by a previous paper on which Mark is the lead author: Reed et al. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 4(1), Jan/Feb 1986 pp. 358-360. In fact, without actually having gone through the entire set of literature, I'm more confident that this 1986 paper is more believable as the most-extant use of this phrase given that the phrasing in this paper is: "Here we present data on a completely spatially quantized system (which by extrapolation we define as 'quantum dots') where ...". Indeed, the author explicitly notes that it is "defined" here. On the other hand, the paper cited on the present page is merely a parenthetical note in the abstract: "('quantum dot')". TJ LaFave (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I further agree that citing the most-extant (or "primary" source) is not a sufficient proof of the claim mentioned. I haven't looked closer at the other citations in the introductory paragraph, however, if references 1-3 are of issue, I think the sentence is found in various forms elsewhere on the web, but with different cited sources! E.g. Sigma Aldrich's page on quantum dots. (Apologies if my signature here doesn't work. I don't interact with Wikipedia much -- yet.) TJ LaFave (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs needs work, operating principle unclear
The introduction says that quantum dots are nanocrystals made of semiconductors, but doesn't explain what useful features they have. Numerous applications are mentioned, but it remains obscure what the underlying principle is. The first sentence of the third paragraph mentions "emitted light" in passing. Is that the point of quantum dots, that they emits light? Under what conditions will they emit light? Are there other use cases besides emitting light? AxelBoldt (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Artificial atom
The only known examples of artificial atoms are quantum dots. Llightex (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) ✅

Statement about quantum confinement in the sun is unclear and unsupported by references
In the section "Band cap energy" is a sentence ending:

"which is precisely what happens in the sun, where the quantum confinement effects are completely dominant and the energy levels split up to the degree that the energy spectrum is almost continuous, thus emitting white light."

to which I added a "Citation required" note. "in the sun" is not specific enough. Perhaps "in the photosphere of the sun" might be better. If a statement such as this remains in the article, I think it should be more self-explanatory, perhaps have its own section (if it is relevant to quantum dots directly - otherwise it should be somewhere else) and should cite references. A quick Google for sun and "quantum confinement" didn't produce anything which seemed relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Whittle (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Large literature on quantum dots
According to Chemical Abstracts today, here are some figures: 73443 papers, patents, whatever refer to quantum dots 52226 have appeared in the past 10 years 2286 of these recent articles are classified as reviews Conclusions: the literature is so massive we really need to not only stick to secondary sources, and even then the situation is almost impossible.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Spectral image comparison uses a disastrously poor set of index colors
The colors of the spectral curves really should match the perceived color for each spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.124.87 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quantum dot. 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/20060613194320/http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_quantumdot_led.htm to http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_quantumdot_led.htm

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) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible equation error?
The equation for the confinement energy seems not to agree with the version given in the Brus equation page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brus_equation The factor in the denominator is 2 in one, 8 in the other, both state that a / r is the radius of the dot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.19.27 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

QD Periodic Table
Can someone add more to the the QD Periodic table section? All the images I found didn't explain anything - they pretty much listed a bunch of abbreviations that were not at all useful. So if someone could clear this up (and list the molecules instead of names that tell you nothing about the chemical itself), that would be very helpful.

Strange statement/link: For a similar biological technology, see Luciferase.
"For a similar biological technology, see Luciferase." I do not see any similarities between these mechanisms. The reverse link from Luciferase to Quantum dots also seems to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.63.225.199 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree that the link to Luciferase does not belong there and should be removed. If the analogy between the two is made in the literature it could be added (with appropriate citation) further down in the text, but at this prominent place and without explanations it is misplaced and confusing. Likewise the backlink seems unsuitable as luciferase does not only (and not even mostly) have to do with record keeping. Qcomp (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quantum dot


text:
Varchar

A VARCHAR or variable character field is a set of character data of indeterminate length. The term varchar refers to a data type of a field (or column) in a database which can hold letters and numbers. Varchar fields can be of any size up to a limit, which varies by databases: an Oracle 11g database has a limit of 4000 bytes, a MySQL 5.7 database has a limit of 65,535 bytes (for the entire row) and  Microsoft SQL Server 2008 has a limit of 8000 bytes (unless varchar(max) is used, which has a maximum storage capacity of 2 gigabytes).

is a variation of, and which is more suitable depends on the use case.

title: Varchar


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blow Brothers

 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Blow Brothers
Delete A small, non-notable company limited to the Maine area, it gets only 340 Google hits. Also another of Maoririder's stubs Soltak 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ghey Erwin Walsh
 * Delete the article without using homophobic slurs. ESkog 21:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CanadianCaesar 06:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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: User talk:63.19.142.76

title: User talk:63.19.142.76


text:
User talk:BukkWylde

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, BukkWylde, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:41

Moon Knight
Nice citations on the Moon Knight page! Bhissong 23:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

title: User talk:BukkWylde


text:
User talk:DougRisk

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, DougRisk, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:41

US private vs. public college tuition
Hi there,

I posted a note here: talk. Can you take a look? Thanks. Jkiang 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:DougRisk


text:
Talk:Benjamin Franklin Parkway

Photos
If we can get a photo of the parkway on this page that would be awesome! Please help with any historical details if you have any. --Pastricide 20:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reducing Traffic?
Why would completion of I-676 to the bridge reduce traffic, since this new section isn't parallel and adjacent to the Parkway? Hillsboro 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite son?
Does Franklin count as a "favorite son" of Philadelphia, even though he's from Boston? -- Akb4 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, William Penn and Benjamin Franklin are by far the most important persons in the history of Philadelphia. I can think of other significant people, like Stephen Girard and Betsy Ross and Dolley Madison, but those two are the big names, no doubt.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Benjamin Franklin Parkway. 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/20080215055121/http://www.philamuseum.org/ to http://www.www.philamuseum.org

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) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Benjamin Franklin Parkway


text:
User talk:Gertschneider~enwiki

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Gertschneider, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:41

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Gertschneider. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Gertschneider~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gertschneider~enwiki


text:
Raphia Decree

The Raphia Decree is an ancient inscribed stone stela dating from ancient Egypt. It comprises the second of the Ptolemaic Decrees issued by a synod of Egyptian priests meeting at Memphis under Ptolemy IV of the Hellenistic Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt from 305 BC to 30 BC. The slab dates itself to 217 BC, and celebrates Ptolemy IV's victory at the Battle of Raphia.

Like the Rosetta Stone, this decree is inscribed in three writing systems. It is bilingual, in ancient Egyptian language and Greek, and written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, Egyptian Demotic and Greek. A partial copy is on the stone known as the Memphis Stele, and a nearly complete copy is found on the Pithom Stele II.

title: Raphia Decree


text:
User talk:Besselfunctions

Welcome from Brian0918
Hello, Besselfunctions, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * 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.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:41

Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina
I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

U. Miami
Thank you for clearing that up for me. Ryulong 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilson Hall Photograph
Remember to take the photos. Thanxs! =D  Jumping  cheese  Contact 21:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Upload the pics and make the page look better. =D   Jumping  cheese  Contact 03:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanxs for the pic! Keep up the good work!  =)   Jumping  cheese  Contact 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism
Did you know that User:Lucaas considers you as being on his side in an ongoing content dispute at Modern geocentrism: ? I thought you should be aware of this. --Lambiam Talk 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I didn't know that he considered on his side of the dispute. I knew nothing about it until you directed me. I assure you that I had done nothing more than fixed a spelling error of his. Besselfunctions 04:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess
You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:RPI-seal-t.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:RPI-seal-t.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL my bad
LOL I can't believe I wrote November, I was reading the sentence before it. hehe thanks! Fedayee 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

RSE
Yeah, I took RSE off the template. I was surprised they even had a page, and it needs to be expanded. Otherwise, I am fairly pleased with it. Danski14 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Besselfunctions
I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Besselfunctions Besselfunctions 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the IP address under which your vote was made - Alvesgaspar 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that you are not signing with the commons username, but with the IP address! - Alvesgaspar 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick CSD comment
Heya Besselfunctions, and thanks for doing some patrolling for bad pages. Just wanted to let you know that H1 was a disambig page and an IP replaced it with a nn-band description, so i reverted and declined the speedy. It's helpful to check the page's edit history to make sure it needs to be deleted and not reverted. Thanks and keep up the good work! ~ Eliz 81 (C)  18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to bicycle and bicycle performance articles
Although the actual change to the text of bicycle appears benign, I believe the explanation you gave is mistaken: "the drag would increase linearly with speed, since the drag is proportional to the square of the speed". Proportionality to the square of an input variable is one of the most common examples given for a nonlinear relationship.

I reverted the change to the text of bicycle performance "aerodynamic drag, which increases linearly with speed" because drag increases with the square of speed, and that is not a linear relationship. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't quite understand what the problem was. Drag is quadratic in speed, so it increases linearly with speed. Power is cubic in the speed, so it would increase quadratically. The source says that the drag is ρAV2, so when one speaks of the drag's increase with speed, not the drag itself, why is it not the derivative of that expression, i.e. the drag increases linearly with speed? Besselfunctions (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndrewDressel")

 * Ah, now I see. It appears to be just an issue of semantics, not mathematics. You are interpreting "is quadratic in" to be equivalent to "increases linearly with". However, the cited source, in discussing air drag explains that "the force exerted by the drag is seen to increase as the square of the velocity." The author does not use the derivative of the derived expression to describe how a change in velocity translates into a change in drag. Instead, he uses the original, quadratic relationship. For example: doubling speed results in a four fold increase in drag, even though the derivative of the drag with respect to velocity is proportional to the velocity and not its square. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

New WP:UNI/COTF!
The article you nominated/supported to be Round 4's COTF Editor Nominated Topic has been selected and WP:UNI/COTF Round 4 has begun! Best of luck to you! - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll
There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed
Bessel:

 * Dunno, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

 * After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

 * I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

 * They simply ignore all this.

P.S., Do you know Prof. John Reppy at Cornell? Calamitybrook (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Science Debate Forum
Hello,

I am electricRush and I would like to invite you to join the Science Debate Forum. It is open to anyone who has an interest in science, and is completely free. We have a welcoming community and discussion forums in all subjects ranging from cosmology to physics to politics. In general it is a great discussion board that fits all scientific interests.

Thanks, - electricRush (  T   C  )Sign! 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Boston Wiknic
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

FA review?
Hello,

I noticed that you are involved with the physics articles on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could help me out. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. So far, people have had many good suggestions and many positive things to say about the article, but I'm having trouble getting people to support or oppose the nomination.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Please note that you do not have to be an expert on the subject. The article has already been checked quite carefully by other reviewers, and at this point, I'm just looking for people who can check that it meets the FA criteria.

Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry biting on CFM56 talk page
Sorry for biting you here for a good faith addition at Talk:CFM International CFM56. I should know better. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
Hey, a fellow New Englander! I noticed you were the primary author for 2018 NDAA wiki page. By the looks of it further up your talk page, seems like the effort can be thankless at times. My friend and I are trying to help US constituents form opinions on bills, vote on them, track their representation, and influence the decisions of their reps. The legislation summaries we're getting from the Library of Congress aren't very approachable. As an example, we already edited down the LoC summary of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 on our site, and it's still not great. Our goal with summaries on our site is to help an average American form an unbiased opinion on a piece of legislation in 3-10 minutes of reading. Would you have any interest in helping us simplify these summaries for an average American? Vf-lee (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gasoline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gasoline check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gasoline?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Giulia (952)
pls dont remove stuff from articles with vague comments like "limited edition specifications failed verification)" if you need source add tag for it, and this was already cited in bread text -- >Typ932 T·C 14:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry, what is bread text?Besselfunctions (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bread text is the article main text (body text), not tables or pictures etc ,actually Im not sure if this word is used at all in english :) -- >Typ932 T·C 00:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Not naked girls
I’ve undone your edit at Donald Trump re naked women and girls. The RS cited doesn’t say that, and if you follow the cite link to the Buzzfeed article, it has “in an adult pagent” for the person saying “we were all naked” (Miss Universe contest). There’s a separate story of Miss Teen USA saying “while girls were changing” and “rushed to cover up their bodies”, with one of the accusers being 17 at the time. So ‘naked girl’ isn’t directly in the RS, and also doesn’t seem the underlying report, and the long-standing content seems better. It also is open to misreading as being about the Jeffrey Epstein association speculations. I see archive 30 had some TALK of the 15 year old, but doesn’t seem a big consensus on wording here. A “naked teens” rather than “women and girls” might be an alternative, but I recommend not. If you want to reword the line I would suggest a TALK discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Besselfunctions

Thank you for creating Stellantis Hurricane engine.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Besselfunctions