text:
WTIX-FM

WTIX-FM is an oldies outlet serving the New Orleans area. The station is owned by Michael A. "Michael In The Morning" Costello (under the name Fleur de Lis Broadcasting) and operates at 94.3 MHz with an ERP of 100 kW. Its city of license is Galliano, Louisiana. Its studios are in Metairie and its transmitter is located near Port Sulphur, Louisiana.

History
Costello was program director at WRNO-FM from 1976 to 1991 and also hosted the morning show as "Michael In The Morning" (M&M). Additionally, he hosted the Sunday night edition of The Rock 'N'Roll Hall Of Fame. He then acquired the former KLEB-FM from the Harold Callais family which was a country music outlet in 1995 and flipped it to its current oldies format. The station is modeled after the original Top 40 AM station WTIX, which was a very successful Top 40 outlet in New Orleans from the 1950s through the 1970s. He increased the transmitted power and moved the antenna from its original location to its present location in 1998 to better serve the New Orleans metro area. Mike Costello also handles GM, PD, and also hosts the morning show. Many of the jingles used on WTIX-FM are the originals used by WTIX/690 in the 1960s and 1970s. WTIX-FM also adapts a time-honored feature from the old WTIX: the "Chime Time", wherein a chime rang whenever jocks gave the time on the air. (Coincidentally, "Chime Time" was also the staple of Musicradio WABC in its heyday.)

WTIX-FM's format, Oldies, is patterned after half of WTIX's late-1980s hybrid Talk/Oldies format (before the latter switched to All-Talk in 1988). Three of the WTIX-FM disc jockeys, "Hot" Rod Glenn, Bobby Reno, and Terry Knight, also had very minor and short-term ties to the original WTIX. Terry Knight left the station several years ago.

Sgt. T-Ben's daily segment, "The News You Need Now!," which debuted in June 2004, is a tongue-in-cheek mock news report concerning local politicians, national celebrities and various topical news stories, concluding with his signature catchphrase, "Nobody cares!" And "JD The DJ," J. Douglas, veteran DJ at such stations as WPTR in Albany, KIRL in St. Louis, and WIXO-FM, WNOE and WRNO-FM in New Orleans, hosts the "Rock and Roll Flight to Midnight".

WTIX-FM 17 Choice Oldies, an album originally released on LP by The Mighty 690 in 1967, had been reissued on compact disc in 2005. Another CD, WTIX At The Beach, a compilation of summertime-themed oldies, was released in 2008, and there is a new disc, WTIX Back To The Beach, released in July 2011.

Its current slogan is "New Orleans' Oldies Station, TIX-FM."

Jocks

 * Michael Costello (a.k.a. "Michael In The Morning" or simply "M&M" for short)
 * Ben Walsh (a.k.a. "Sgt. T-Ben Boudreaux," with "The News You Need Now!")
 * "Hot" Rod Glenn (also a DJ on the original WTIX)
 * "Your Pal" Al Nassar (also a DJ on the original WTIX)
 * J. Douglas (a.k.a. "JD The DJ"; once a DJ of WRNO-FM, WNOE, and WIXO)

Former jocks

 * "TK" Terry Knight (also a DJ on the original WTIX.)
 * Bruce Charles
 * Bobby Reno (also a DJ on the original WTIX. Reno died October 10, 2016, at age 72 )
 * "King" Bob Walker (also a DJ on the original WTIX.)

title: WTIX-FM


text:
Mount Frissell

Mount Frissell, 2454 ft, which straddles the border of southwest Massachusetts and northwest Connecticut, is part of the Taconic Range. Frissell's south slopes include the highest point in Connecticut, a popular destination for highpointers.

Frissell's summit and the majority of its slopes are within Massachusetts' Mount Washington State Forest. Its southern slopes are in Salisbury, Connecticut. Here the state line reaches to about 2379 ft. The high-point marker for Connecticut is on the border with Massachusetts at 42.04963°N, -73.48304°W. (The highest mountain summit in Connecticut is Bear Mountain, about 1.3 mi to the east-southeast of Mount Frissell.

Mount Frissell is traversed by the Mount Frissell Trail which connects with the South Taconic Trail to the west and the Appalachian Trail to the east.

The south side of Mount Frissell drains into Riga Lake and South Pond, then into Wachocostinook Brook, Salmon Creek, the Housatonic River, and Long Island Sound. The northwest side drains into Ashley Hill Brook, thence Bash Bish Brook, the Roeliff Jansen Kill, the Hudson River, and Upper New York Bay. The northeast side drains into Sages Ravine, thence into Schenob Brook, the Hubbard Brook, the Housatonic River, and Long Island Sound. Mount Frissell is bordered by Round Mountain to the southeast, Mount Ashley to the north, and Brace Mountain to the west.

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

title: Mount Frissell


text:
Battle of the Network Reality Stars

Battle of the Network Reality Stars is an American television series that aired on the Bravo cable network from August 17 until September 21, 2005. Based on the popular 1970s and 1980s television competition Battle of the Network Stars, the show consisted of thirty-three competitors from several different reality television shows. Some of the better known contestants include Adam Mesh, from the Average Joe TV series, Richard Hatch, Survivor winner, Sue Hawk, (the Survivor player who gave the infamous "snakes and rats" speech) Ryan Starr and Nikki McKibbin of American Idol fame, Evan Marriott, of Joe Millionaire fame, and Will Kirby, winner of Big Brother season 2. Chip and Kim McAllister, winners of The Amazing Race 5, also participated. Veteran NBC sportscaster Mike Adamle hosted the show and featured reality reporters Trishelle Cannatella (The Real World: Las Vegas), Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth (The Apprentice – season 1), and Bob Guiney (The Bachelor – season 4). Austin Scarlett of Project Runway made fashion commentary in several episodes.

Teams
The competitors, as divided by team (per first episode structure):

Episode 1

 * Obstacle Course – Teams Red and Light Blue advanced to the finals – winner Team Red
 * Dunk Tank – Team Green wins with 9 points, followed by Teams Blue and Light Blue with 6, and Team Red with 1
 * Jousting – Team Light Blue wins (Jonathan beats Bradford to win the final point)
 * Eliminated – Teams Green, Red and Dark Blue are forced to vote off one member each. Kim and Heidi volunteer to leave due to physical weakness, and Charla is voted out.
 * Twist – Instead of leaving, they are forced to move to a new team based on the number they choose. Charla goes to Team Red, Kim stays at Team Green, Heidi moves to Team Dark Blue.

Episode 2

 * Simon Says (conducted by professional Simon Says caller Steve Max and refereed by Jimmie Walker of Good Times fame) – Team Light Blue is eliminated first, followed by Team Red; Nikki of Team Green and Richard of Team Dark Blue are the final 2 – Richard wins
 * Dodgeball – Teams Red and Green advance to the finals; Team Green wins
 * Swimming Relay (introduced by Darva Conger of Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?) – Team Dark Blue wins, Team Light Blue second, Team Green third, Team Red last
 * Eliminated – Team Red has the lowest score of the day and must axe two players. Charla, who had volunteered to swim and then had to be replaced by Melissa at the last minute, agrees to leave; Duncan Nutter also volunteers to leave.
 * Twist – As the highest-scoring team of the day, Dark Blue get to choose which two players from another team will join Red. They pick Gervase (the leader of Light Blue) and Tina Fabulous (the "spirit" of Light Blue).
 * New arrivals – David Daskal (Average Joe – season 2) and Jerri Manthey (Survivor – Outback/All-Stars) replace Gervase and Tina for Light Blue. Light Blue was horrified that they had lost a great athlete (Gervase) and a solid competitor (Tina) in exchange for unathletic David and unimpressive Jerri.

Episode 3

 * Football – (guest referee William Katt) Team Dark Blue beats Team Light Blue, thanks mostly to David Daskal's putrid play; Team Green beats Team Red. Team Red beats Team Light Blue in consolation round. Team Green beats Team Dark Blue in the finals. 1) Green 2) Dark Blue 3) Red 4) Light Blue
 * Soapbox Derby – Red (Gervase) 35.80, Dark Blue (Burton) 34.66, Light Blue (Jonathan) 44.58 (he fell off the soapbox and lost what little respect the team had for him), Green (Theo) 34.42 – Green wins
 * Relay Race – 1) Team Dark Blue 2) Team Red 3) Team Green 4) Team Light Blue
 * Twist The team with the lowest number of overall points for that day was to have been eliminated. Instead, a member of the third place team had to face off against a member of the lowest-ranking team, and the loser's team would be eliminated. Team Red (the third place team) were allowed to choose first, and chose Gervase. Team Light Blue (the last place team) had to choose a member of the same gender, and chose Chris, in spite of his having a broken foot. Jonathan wanted to run the race but the team had tuned him out and preferred to take their chances with someone who wasn't 100% physically.
 * Eliminated Gervase handily beat Chris, and Light Team Blue (Jerri, David, Jonathan, Victoria, Wendy, Chris, Brittany, Mike Boogie) was eliminated. Jonathan complained about weight differences between the teams, got into an argument with wife Victoria, and was dubbed "the biggest mouth in America" by the announcer.

Episode 4

 * Twist – Each team had to vote out one male and female member. Team Green voted out Nikki and Brian. Team Red voted out Adam, and Rachel volunteered to leave. Team Dark Blue voted out Bradford and Mirna. Adam, Mirna and Nikki were shocked, as they were strong competitors, but their teams disliked their personalities. Bradford was well liked by his team but was voted out because Dark Blue had two of the strongest competitors in Mike "The Miz" and Burton Roberts. Mirna was presumably voted out because the team member she was most similar to athletically, Heidi, was better-liked by the team leaders than herself.
 * Twist 2 – At the start of the day's first event, Bradford, Mirna, Rachel, Adam, Brian and Nikki arrived as "Team Underdog" to compete against the three teams that voted them out.
 * Water Polo – Team Underdog defeated Team Red. Team Green defeated Team Dark Blue. In the final match, Team Green won. In the consolation match, Team Dark Blue beat Team Red to make third place.
 * Mechanical Bull Riding (guest referee Ted Lange of The Love Boat fame) – Team Dark Blue won, followed by Team Green, Team Underdog, and Team Red. Coral sprained her thumb and had to stay out of the next event.
 * Multilegged Race – Team Dark Blue won, followed by Team Green, Team Underdog, and Team Red.
 * Eliminated – Team Red (Will Wikle, Tina, Gervase, Coral, Melissa, Evan) were eliminated. Evan said afterwards he preferred losing without Adam to winning with him.

Episode 5

 * Roller Skate Derby (guest referee Loretta Swit of MASH fame) – Team Dark Blue won, Team Green trailed for much of the race, but a poor performance by Team Underdog's Brian Worth allowed Green to come in second place. Underdog was third.
 * Super High Jump – Team Dark Blue won, Team Underdog narrowly won second place and Team Green, increasingly marred by tension between Theo and Chip, came in third.
 * Kayak Relay Race – Team Dark Blue won, Team Underdog won second and Green came in third. Dark Blue advanced to the final round and left Green and Underdog to determine which team would be eliminated next.

Finale

 * Tug of War – Although Team Green had the advantage in physical strength, Bradford of Team Underdog had researched tug-of-war the night before the competition and his team managed to use strategy to defeat Green, who were rattled by angry outbursts from Theo and Sue. Team Green (Kim, Chip, Will, Matt, Sue, Theo) were eliminated.
 * The final competition to determinate the winner of Battle of the Network Reality Stars was divided into four parts:
 * Horse – Each player on each team had to sink one basketball into the hoop. The first team to sink each basket spelled out B-A-T-T-L-E and advanced to the next round. After some brief difficulty for Burton, Dark Blue won while Underdog were left with four more baskets to sink. Rachel and Bradford had some problems but the team soon advanced.
 * Golf – Each player had to make a putt, with each succeeding player being forced to stand at a greater distance than the previous player. The first team to make all six putts spells out B-A-T-T-L-E and moves on to the next round. Dark Blue finished first while Brian and then Adam still struggled to sink their putts.
 * Reality Results Board – Both teams had to remember which team placed where in every single one of the 40 challenges over the course of the series. Dark Blue started first, but since Underdog was made up of people who had once played on the Red, Green and Dark Blue teams, they finished first.
 * The Wall (with Lou Ferrigno of The Incredible Hulk, along with previously eliminated players, there to offer advice and moral support) – The first team to get all six team members up a steep wall wins. Bradford and Mirna climbed the rope, but Rachel couldn't. Nikki was then pulled up, followed by Adam. Dark Blue finally got there and Ryan and Burton finished while Underdog tied the rope around Rachel's waist and pulled her up. Miz finished, but Dark Blue still had 3 players left on the ground as Brian neared the top of the wall. Brian finished, giving Team Underdog a come-from-behind victory. After winning, Mirna--sarcastically--thanked Ryan and the other Dark Blue team members for voting her off.

Reunion
Hosted by Kathy Griffin, Bravo's All-Star Reality Reunion, which aired the same night as the finale (September 21, 2005) featured all cast members save Rachel, Theo, Melissa, Jonathan, Victoria, Wendy Pepper, Trishelle and Bob Guiney.

Alumni from other reality series also participated in the reunion. They were:

Heather (The Bachelor seasons 2 & 6), Dat Phan (winner, Last Comic Standing season 1), Erin (For Love or Money seasons 1 & 2), Cindy (The Swan season 1), Brennan (winner, Amazing Race 1), Gary (The Biggest Loser season 1), Norm (Real World season 1), Jason (Average Joe), Ivana Ma (The Apprentice season 2), Pamela (Apprentice season 2), Jay London (Last Comic Standing seasons 2 & 3), Ryan C. Benson (winner, The Biggest Loser season 1), Tara (Paradise Hotel, Life as a Model), Mark (Average Joe season 1), Reichen Lehmkuhl (winner, Amazing Race 4), Michael Tarshi (Apprentice season 3), Kyra Sundance and dog Chelsea (Showdog Moms & Dads), Brandon Kindle (Are You Hot? and Showdog Moms & Dads) and his partner Ryan Pacchiano (Showdog Moms & Dads) and their dog Liberace, Angela Dodson (Joe Schmo Show season 1), and Kara Saun (Project Runway).

Discussions included their current careers, how they were treated after their respective series aired, Omarosa's disclosure that being a villain is the best way to garner money and public notoriety, and an update on various feuds from other series (Ryan vs. Nikki on American Idol, Omarosa vs. Heidi on Apprentice and Richard vs. Sue on Survivor).

title: Battle of the Network Reality Stars


text:
User talk:Charles Matthews/Vienna

Hi, do you mean Hofmannsthal rather than Hoffmanstal? Best wishes,  23:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Charles Matthews/Vienna


text:
Engelbert I, Count of Berg

Count Engelbert I of Berg (d. July 1189 in Serbia) ruled the County of Berg from 1160 to 1189. He was the son of Adolf IV of Berg.

Through his loyalty to the German Emperor and the Archbishops of Cologne he succeeded in stabilising the county and increasing its revenues. He took Bensberg Palace, Neu-Windeck and Elberfeld.

In July 1189 he was killed near Kubin while on his way to the Holy Land with the crusade of emperor Frederick Barbarossa.

Engelbert married Margaret of Guelders (born 1157, died 1190?). They had:
 * Count Adolf VI of Berg (d. 1218)
 * Count Engelbert II of Berg (d. 7 November 1225), otherwise known as Engelbert I, Archbishop of Cologne and as Saint Engelbert.

Literature

 * Alberic of Troisfontaines (MGH, Scriptores XXIII).
 * Annales Rodenses (MGH, Scriptores, XVI).
 * Annalista Saxo (MGH, Scriptores VI).
 * Gesta Trevirorum (MGH, Scriptores VIII).
 * MGH, Diplomata.
 * REK I-II. – Rheinisches UB.
 * Hömberg, "Geschichte".
 * Jackman, "Counts of Cologne".
 * Kluger, "Propter claritatem generis". – Kraus, Entstehung.
 * Lück, D. "Der Avelgau, die erste fassbare Gebietseinteilung an der unteren Sieg". In: Heimatbuch der Stadt Siegburg I. Ed. H. J. Roggendorf. Siegburg, 1964. Pp. 223–85.
 * Lück, D. "In pago Tuizichgowe – Anmerkungen zum Deutzgau". Rechtsrheinisches Köln 3 (1977) 1–9.
 * Milz, "Vögte".

title: Engelbert I, Count of Berg


text: Category:Japanese calligraphers

title: Category:Japanese calligraphers


text:
Last Time Forever

"Last Time Forever" is the first single released from Squeeze's sixth album, Cosi Fan Tutti Frutti, and the band's first since 1982 (though main songwriters Chris Difford and Glenn Tilbrook had since recorded music as Difford & Tilbrook). The 12" version of the song, like the album version, contains brief samples from the film The Shining; the 7" version edits them out. The single reached number 45 on the UK Singles Chart.

The b-side "Suites From Five Strangers" actually consists of five separate songs, each approximately one minute in length, and each written, performed and produced by one of Squeeze's five members. In order, the songs are listed on the record sleeve and label as follows:

 * A: Jools Holland – Rock 'N Roll (That's)
 * B: Gilson Lavis – Proxy Rock
 * C: Chris Difford – The Practising Clarinet
 * D: Glenn Tilbrook – Spideey Goes To Tobago
 * E: Keith Wilkinson – Who Wants To Be A Legionnaire?

Selections B, D and E are instrumentals.

7"

 * 1) "Last Time Forever" (4:15)
 * 2) "Suites From Five Strangers" (5:24)

12"

 * 1) "Last Time Forever" (6:23)
 * 2) "Suites From Five Strangers" (5:24)

title: Last Time Forever


text:
Unwilling Emigrants

Unwilling Emigrants is a book by Alexandra Hasluck. It is both a general study of Western Australia's convict era, and a biography of a particular convict, William Sykes. First published in 1959 by Oxford University Press in Melbourne, it was for many years the only published history of the era. It was republished in 1991 by Fremantle Arts Centre Press. It was one of eleven books that Hasluck wrote. It also was produced in other formats.

title: Unwilling Emigrants


text:
User:Optichan/to do

Nothing right now.

title: User:Optichan/to do


text:
Chicago Pirates

The Chicago Pirates were a baseball team in the Players' League for a single season in 1890. The team played their home games at South Side Park (II). Their rivals were the National League Chicago White Stockings, which later became the Chicago Cubs.

The Pirates recruited most of the White Stocking's players, and for this reason the Pirates’ attendance was nearly fifty percent higher than the White Stockings. The Pirates’ owner, John Addison, was a wealthy contractor. Although Addison and his partner White Stocking second baseman Fred Pfeffer had signed mostly White Stocking players, they also signed four players from the St. Louis Browns of the American Association as well as a pitcher from the Columbus Solons of the American Association. The team was managed by Charles Comiskey.

Notable players

 * Charles Comiskey
 * Hugh Duffy
 * Silver King
 * Jimmy Ryan
 * Ned Williamson
 * Tip O'Neill

Comiskey and Duffy are members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. On June 21, 1890, Silver King pitched the only ever Player's League no-hitter.

The team had two nicknames: 1) White Stockings — the players wore white hose, which was appropriate because this PL franchise signed away many NL Chicago White Stocking players, 2) Pirates — name applied not for "pirating" away NL players but rather because the team "pirated" many victories with late inning comebacks in games in which they trailed early.

title: Chicago Pirates


text:
Talk:Dioptre

Old questions
Question: What correlation does the dioptre have with a person's 20/x vision? Is there a one-to-one correlation, and if so is there a conversion chart? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimmer (talk • contribs).
 * They are probably correlated, but not one-to-one. The "20/x" is a measure of visual acuity, which depends on the amount of refractive error (measured in dioptres), but also on other things. If you have a cataract, for example, your visual acuity will be poor, even though you may not need any dioptric correction at all.--Srleffler 05:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an unsourced chart:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Dioptres ! 20/something
 * -0.5
 * 20/25 to 20/30
 * -1.0
 * 20/30 to 20/50
 * -3.0
 * 20/300
 * -4.0
 * 20/400
 * -5.0
 * 20/600
 * }
 * 20/400
 * -5.0
 * 20/600
 * }
 * }

 * {| class="wikitable"

! Dioptres ! 20/something
 * +0.5
 * 20/25
 * +1.0
 * 20/40
 * +2.0
 * 20/70
 * +3.0
 * 20/100
 * +4.0
 * 20/200
 * }
 * I understand this doesn't account for cylindrical (astigmatism), cataracts, or other problems, but a rough guide like this is very useful. -kslays 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * +4.0
 * 20/200
 * }
 * I understand this doesn't account for cylindrical (astigmatism), cataracts, or other problems, but a rough guide like this is very useful. -kslays 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand this doesn't account for cylindrical (astigmatism), cataracts, or other problems, but a rough guide like this is very useful. -kslays 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for additional info: Diopter is also the name of a series of lenses used to increase the magnification of camera lenses in macro photography. This is the info I was looking for when I sought out this article. For instance, see this article at 8k.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.112.54.158 (Talk) (talk • contribs).
 * Sounds like somebody just misunderstood. These add-on lenses increase the optical power of the camera lens. That is, they "add dioptres" to the focal power of the lens. It's not the name of a series of lenses; it's just a description of their purpose.--Srleffler 05:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are using an older meaning of the word. While the modern meaning is a unit of measure for lens focal length, the word diopter used to refer to:

 * Any lens system (such as a telescope)
 * A theodolite or similar surveyor's angle measuring device
 * An alidade
 * A surgical speculum
 * An instrument for drawing the skull by projections.
 * Diopter in the modern sense only dates to 1872, while the general word derives from Latin (dioptra) or Greek (διοπτρον) - a spyglass.
 * Arthur Koestler states (The Sleepwalkers) that the modern use was derived from the title of Johannes Kepler's book on optics. However, I can't find a source that specifically states that (Frederick or Felix?) Monoyer stated so in his 1872 article in Annales d'oculistiques.  There is no online copy of the article and I have no access to a good French medical school library.
 * --Michael Daly 19:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Optical power
I changed the link for "optical power" back to focal length, because the page refraction does not explain this term at all, while the page on focal length does. Optical power is simply a measure of focal length, nothing more or less. (It is, of course, one over the focal length.) Refraction, on the other hand, is one physical process that can produce an optic with optical power. (Reflection being another such process.)--Srleffler 06:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand your point, but something needs to change. The introductory sentence has two links to focal length in it, thus the sentence reads: "A dioptre, or diopter, is a unit of measurement of the [focal length] of a lens or curved mirror which is equal to the reciprocal of the focal length measured in metres (i.e. 1/metres)." It's a circular definition. Edwardian 07:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with having two links to focal length in a sentence? The sentence uses two words that are best explained by that page. A link is not necessarily a synonym. Optical power is the reciprocal of the focal length. The focal length page covers two concepts: focal length and its reciprocal.

 * The problem is that it makes the definition appear circular. I think there needs to be an article entitled "Optical power" that we can link to because it is not "simply a measure of focal length". Help me with this analogy:
 * Force is an external cause responsible for any change of a physical system.
 * Force equals mass times acceleration.
 * The newton is the unit of force.

 * Optical power is one over the focal length (Srleffler 06:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Optical power equals one divided by focal length.
 * The diopter is the unit of optical power.
 * -Edwardian 15:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As I filled in above, optical power is really not an independent physical quantity. Unlike force and mass, optical power and focal length are not two different physical quantities. They are two measures of the same thing. Optical power is just a convenient mathematical shorthand for focal length. It is convenient because for thin lenses the focal length of the whole lens is approximately equal to the inverse of the sum of the inverses of the focal lengths each surface would have on its own. Because of this relationship, it is convenient to characterize surfaces and lenses by one over their focal length. "Optical power" is just the name given to this convenient representation of focal length. It has no other significance, and isn't really used much in optics outside of opthalmology. Calculations of lens combinations using optical power are not accurate. Adding powers only gives an approximation to the correct answer. --Srleffler 06:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding "[Optical power and focal length] are two measures of the same thing.": What do you consider "the same thing" to be? (BTW, the significance to ophthalmology is precisely what I have in mind here.) Edwardian 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When an optometrist or opthalmologist puts a lens of a given optical power in front of a patient's eye, what he or she is doing is adjusting the focal length of the patient's visual system. A patient with myopia has an eye lens whose focal length is too short. A patient with hyperopia has a lens whose focal length is too long when at rest. I presume that for the case of the eye+external lens system, the inverse of the combined system focal length is approximately equal to the sum of the inverses of the eye and external lens focal lengths, since otherwise "optical power" would not be very useful. Note that this relationship is not true in general: the optical power of an optical system is not always equal or even close to the sum of the optical powers of the elements. For example, one can make a simple telescope with two lenses, each with positive optical power, but with a combined optical power of zero. The system is afocal. These are very often used as laser beam expanders, since a collimated input beam produces a collimated (but larger) output beam.--Srleffler 08:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It appears that I’ve done a poor job making my point clear; that is, that “optical power” needs an article that includes a definition of the term.
 * Optical power and focal length are not two different physical quantities, but they are indeed conceptually different… otherwise two different terms probably would not exist. The optical power for a specific lens is measured as “one over the focal length”, however, that is not the definition for the general concept of “optical power”. If “one over the focal length” is the definition of optical power, then the first sentence above becomes: “When an optometrist or opthalmologist puts a lens of a given [one over the focal length] in front of a patient's eye, what he or she is doing is adjusting the focal length of the patient's visual system.” Conceptually it doesn’t make much sense.
 * Someone who works day-in and day-out with different optical systems can probably mentally switch from one abstraction or concept to the next so easily that its second nature for them. To make it easier for everyone else, would you object to something like the following?
 * Optical power is the degree to which a lens or mirror converges or diverges light. It is measured as the inverse of focal length. The dioptre is the unit of measurement of optical power.
 * Cheers! - Edwardian 06:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This looks reasonable to me, although it's not clear that this can ever really be more than a dictionary definition, which was why I didn't think there should be an article on optical power. If you think there is enough to say to merit an article, go for it.--Srleffler 17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, I created Optical power and edited the first line of this article to link to it. I may not do it immediately, but I do think there is more to add to it. Thanks again. Edwardian 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I kind of favour separating articles like this, so I say go ahead. --Bob Mellish 17:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive
Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

SI
The diopter is stated to be a non-SI unit of measurement. Is there an SI equivalent? 142.59.153.99 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The SI unit for optical power is inverse meters (m-1).--Srleffler 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Magnification and dioptres
I removed the section on converting between magnification and dioptres. It had several serious flaws:
 * 1) This "conversion" is particular to magnifying glasses and other simple magnifiers. It is not a general property. The material is better placed in the article on magnifying glasses (I will add it there). It is in fact already covered at magnification, although in different terms.
 * 2) The section (and the reference from which it is drawn) makes an incorrect distinction between magnifying power and "total power".
 * 3) The definitions given are incorrect.
 * 4) The section confuses the physical quantity (optical power) with the unit of measure of that quantity (dioptres).

The magnification of a magnifying glass is a bit complicated. As can easily be verified by playing with one, the actual magnification ("magnifying power" or "angular magnification") of a magnifying glass depends on where you put it, and where the object is. The maximum magnification possible is obtained by putting the lens very close to your eye and moving your eye and the lens together to obtain the best focus. The object will then be typically also close to the lens. The magnifying power obtained in this condition is ¼Φ+1, where Φ is the optical power in dioptres. This is the value used for the "m×" measures of magnification. It is the maximum magnifying power obtainable with the magnifier.

Magnifiers are not always used this way, however. It is much more comfortable to put the magifier close to the object (one focal length away). The eye can then be a comfortable distance away, and a good image can be obtained very easily; it isn't very sensitive to the eye's exact position. The magnifying power in this case is roughly ¼Φ.

Interestingly, the magifying power also depends on how old you are. The factor of ¼ assumes a "standard" eye, typical of an adult. A young child obtains much less benefit from using a magnifier, because the child can obtain just as good an image by moving the object closer to her eye. The actual magnifying power experienced by the child with a lens is less.

Reference: --Srleffler 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 * thank you! Openlander 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Night vision and dioptre
I've heard dioptre measurements used in the context of Night vision - does anyone know how such measurements would be calculated? ··gracefool |☺ 02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dioptres are a measure of magnifying power. As far as I can see, they have no connection to night vision at all, except that a night vision system might also magnify the image.--Srleffler 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I often see "diopter" used with night vision devices where people are specifying the focus range of the night vision device's eyepiece (-4 to +2 Diopters, for example). One can usually focus this eyepiece so that eyeglasses are not necessary when using a night vision device.  This makes them more comfortable to use, but the user must remember to remove and replace their glasses when switching between using the NVGs and not.WikimikeCA (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on measuring dioptres deleted
I removed some recent additions since it was more of a how-to guide, rather than WP style, and all the text was embedded as a diagram (and thus not editable). It could possibly be useful as an article on lens clocks, if re-written in a conventional style. --Bob Mellish 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples of how dioptric power can be measured from curvature
Conventional text doesn't offer the fonts necessary to write the mathematical equivalents necessary to describe how curvature can be used in a lens of known refractive index to give a mechanical measurement of diopters. The necessity of .jpg files to do this seemed to be the easiest solution. Although this approach is all or nothing, still it gives a valuable demonstration on the visual learning gleaned from how a lens clock measures dioptric power. StationNT5Bmedia 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed this earlier, but in case you're still around: Wikipedia has full LaTeX math markup. See Help:Displaying a formula for information on how to format math.--Srleffler (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
I added an etymology section to show that the term was originated by Kepler. This was removed and replaced with a comment that it was earlier used by Kepler. Coining a term and using a term are not the same thing. If someone can find an earlier source for the term and therefore show that Kepler was just using an accepted word then this latest edit should stand. Otherwise, I think that a section that points to Kepler as the originator is better. 99.245.248.91 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved it back into the footnote and added the comment about Kepler "using" the term, because of a few different concerns. Your "etymology" section contained only the claim that Kepler coined the term, without the statement already in the article that the usage discussed here was proposed by French ophthalmologist Ferdinand Monoyer in 1872. I could have addressed this problem by including that information in the etymology section, but in this case I felt it was better to keep the discussion of origins of the term all together in the lede, and keep it brief. (Normally I dislike having any discussion of etymology in the lede of an article, but in this case it seemed appropriate.)
 * I find the claim that Kepler "coined" the term dioptre, as used here, to be dubious. I suspect that that statement comes from some editor mis-describing Kepler's book title Dioptrice as a first use of the modern term dioptre (or diopter). This is mistaken. The person who "coined" the term is the first one to have used the modern word with its modern meaning. I highly doubt that Kepler did so, but I didn't want to remove the claim altogether so I settled for moving it back into the footnote. I will now remove it altogether. If Kepler actually used "dioptre" to refer to inverse meters, you can add it back in. A specific reference would be helpful.--Srleffler (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Approximate distance between "lens system" and retina.
The article said (about) 2/3 of total power of eye was from cornea and (about) 1/3 was from the lens. This is a total of 3/3 or 1.0. Srleffler suggested in an edit comment that the vitreous would have an effect on the actual distance from the lens system to the retina, so that it wouldn't actually be 1/(total power). Yet, the text suggests that all (2/3 + 1/3) of the approximately 60-d refractive power of the eye comes (only) from the lens combined with the cornea (the "lens system"). That suggests to me that the contribution of the vitreous must be is small, at least small enough to be unimportant to the article's purpose of explaining "diopter". And so, it would be reasonable to ignore it when asserting that the distance is "about" the same as the 1/60 meter figure obtained by the simple conversion of power to focal length.

I would also say that the "1/60" figure, which is self-evidently the result of the simple definition of "diopter" given in this very article, is not WP:OR. If it was, we would have to have to find some secondary source somewhere that said specifically that "60 Diopters corresponds to a focal length of 1/60 meter", and that would be silly. I'm not sure though if Srleffler was calling "1/60 m <-> 60 d" WP:OR or something else.

The thickness of the lens system (lens plus cornea) is obviously large compared to focal length for the eye. So, any distance to it would be approximate unless the "center" of the system were defined. However, this article's topic is "diopter" rather than "precise description of the human eye", so it's probably a distraction to get wrapped up in that level of detail. The main reason we're talking about human eye is to give some compelling examples to assist in explaining "diopter". The paragraph already used "approximately" and "about" to suggest the level of precision appropriate here. I continued that use that to appropriately "gloss over" the details unimportant to effective examples for "diopter".

108.20.176.169 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The error you're making is that you are confusing focal length with "distance from the lens to the image plane". These are not the same thing. There are at least three problems with confusing these two distinct concepts. One is that, as you know, they can only be strictly equal for a thin lens. For a thick lens, the required analysis is more complicated, and involves the principal planes of the lens (not the "center"). The second problem is that even for a thin lens the focal length is only equal to the image plane distance when the lens is focused on an object at infinity. As you sit at your computer reading this, you can be sure that your eye is imaging the text onto your retina, which certainly would not happen if the distance from your eye's lens to the retina were equal to the focal length—even if the lens were thin.
 * The worst of the three problems with confusing focal length and image plane distance, though, is that even for a thin lens focused at infinity they are only equal if that thin lens is in air. If the lens has air on one side and water or gel on the other (as in the eye), the distance from the lens to the image plane is nf, where n is the index of the medium, and f is the focal length. For a normal eye, that means that when the eye is relaxed the retina should be about 2.2 cm from the rear principal plane of the lens. Obviously, this is WP:OR and not suitable for the article, but note that the outside diameter of an adult human eyeball is about 2.4 cm.
 * This is a good example of why we have our policy on No original research and of requiring citations. Sometimes even things that seem obvious are not.
 * I recommend not trying to work focal length into the section on the eye. Focal length is easy and intuitive for simple problems involving thin lenses in air, and becomes progressively less so as one moves away from that case. You're not going to find a truthful way to incorporate focal length into the discussion of the eye that helps a naive reader to understand dioptres better.--Srleffler (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't try to lecture on OR policy. I understand OR thoroughly. You're also assuming things I didn't write, please try to be more careful. My argument is/was that a certain amount of glossing over those very good points you make (thick lens, etc.) is acceptable in greater service of giving examples of the topic at hand ("diopter"). If glossing-over (via "approx" and "about") isn't to your liking, then fix it by mentioning the things causing variations from thin-lens estimate and that the thin-lens estimate is still pretty good (which it is). Regarding the "OR" of adding that, given how informed you are on the subject, I imaging that you in particular could easily find sources for it right on your shelf. 108.20.176.169 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reread the paragraph above that starts with "The worst of the three problems..." This is not a small correction, it is not a "thin lens" issue, and it fundamentally contradicts what you are trying to do. You are trying to explain optical power by relating the focal length to the distance between the eye's lens and retina, but fundamentally the focal length is not related to that distance in the way you suppose. Claiming that the focal length is the distance between the lens and the retina is not just inaccurate—it is fundamentally wrong. --Srleffler (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dioptre. 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/20080323035251/http://www.eyeweb.org:80/optics.htm to http://www.eyeweb.org/optics.htm

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) 13:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Error? Human eye relaxed optical power
Section "In vision correction" currently says: "In humans, the total optical power of the relaxed eye is approximately 60 dioptres.[4]"

This does not seem to correspond with the reference given, nor with other references I have seen. Assuming "relaxed eye" means "minimum accommodation" (viewing infinite distance), most references give an optical power of 40 to 45 diopters. They then attribute to the crystalline lens an additional 15 to 20 diopters. Unless I am misunderstanding the current narrative, it appears to make one or other of these mistakes: suggesting that the relaxed eye incorporates the maximum power of the lens, or suggesting that the maximum optical power is 60+20 diopters. Gwideman (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 * The source cited does not say whether it is giving the refractive power of the relaxed eye (minimum accommodation), but a quick Google search finds other sources that do give 60 D as the optical power of the relaxed eye, with accommodation adding up to about 10 D to this, for a young adult. I didn't see any that claimed optical power as low as 40–45 D for an actual eye. Be suspicious of naive analysis based on the diameter of the eyeball. The eye is not a thin lens attached to a ball filled with air, and one over the eye's diameter is not the optical power of the eye.--Srleffler (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition
Article currently says "For example, a 3-dioptre lens brings parallel rays of light to focus at 1⁄3 metre.". Should it specify the distance between these parallel rays of light? Or am I missing something? cagliost (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, any parallel rays that enter the lens will be brought to focus at the same distance. That's how a lens works.--Srleffler (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Why British English?
Nishānt Omm (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not British English? See WP:ENGVAR for the guidelines. This article was originally created in British English, so that is what we use. Unless a topic is particular to one part of the world, we use whichever variety of English happened to be used when the article was created. --Srleffler (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dioptre


text:
Pinan

The Pinan (平安) kata are a series of five empty hand forms taught in many karate styles. The Pinan kata originated in Okinawa and were adapted by Anko Itosu from older kata such as Kusanku and Channan into forms suitable for teaching karate to young students. Pinan is the Chinese Pinyin notation of 平安; when Gichin Funakoshi brought karate to Japan, he spelt the kata name as Heian, which is the onyomi of 平安. Pinan or Heian means "peaceful and safe". Korean Tang Soo Do, one of 5 original kwan of Korea, also practice these kata; they are termed, "Pyong-an" or "Pyung-Ahn", which is a Korean pronunciation of the term "ping-an".

History
According to Motobu Chōki, one of Ankō Itosu's early students, the Pinan kata was created by Itosu and was originally called Channan (チャンナン) and had slightly different movements. When Motobu asked Itosu about this point in his later years, Itosu replied, "The form is somewhat different from those days, but now I have decided on the form as it was performed by the students. Everyone preferred the name Pinan, so I followed the young people's opinion."

Since Motobu (b. 1870) began studying under Itosu at the age of 12 (East Asian age reckoning), this means that the Channan was already in existence by the 1880s. The name "Pinan" was suggested by students of the former Okinawa Prefectural First Middle School (now Shuri High School) or Okinawa Prefectural Normal School, where Itosu was a karate instructor at the time, and was adopted by Itosu.

The Channan is now lost, but some believe that the Motobu-ryū's "Shirokuma" (白熊, lit. 'white bear') kata may be Channan because of its similarity to Pinan.

The Pinan kata were introduced into the school systems on Okinawa in 1895, and were subsequently adopted by many teachers and schools in the 1900s. Thus, they are present today in the curriculum of Shitō-ryū, Wadō-ryū, Shōrin-ryū, Kobayashi-ryū, Kyokushin, Seido Juku, Shinki-Ryu, Shōrei-ryū, Shotojuku, Shotokan, Matsubayashi-ryū, Shukokai, Shindo Jinen Ryu, Kosho-ryū Kempo, Kenyu Ryu, Kushin Ryu and several other styles.

Funakoshi modified the Pinan forms to Heian forms, introducing his version of Kushanku (actually renamed Kanku Dai). The 5 kata were Pinans Shodan, Nidan, Sandan, Yondan, and Godan.

Current practice
The Pinans are taught to various beginner ranks according to their difficulty. The kata are all loosely based on an I-shaped embusen or shape. These kata serve as the foundation to many of the advanced kata within Karate, as many of the techniques contained in these kata are contained in the higher grade katas as well, especially Kusanku.

In certain styles, Pinan Shodan and Pinan Nidan are inverted - what certain styles call Pinan Shodan is what others call Heian Nidan, and vice versa. For example, the kata Shotokan calls Heian Shodan, other styles, such as Shitō-ryū call Pinan Nidan. Another point to note is that Shūkōkai teaches Pinan Nidan first, and Pinan Shodan second, believing Pinan Nidan to be the easier, more beginner-friendly kata. The order that is learnt in Wado-Ryu goes as follows, In some Shito-Ryu dojos the order is different, as most Shito Ryu versions of Pinan Shodan are harder than the rest, so the order is as follows,
 * 1) Pinan Nidan,
 * 2) Pinan Shodan,
 * 3) Pinan Sandan,
 * 4) Pinan Yondan (also called Pinan Shidan) and
 * 5) Pinan Godan.
 * 1) Pinan Nidan
 * 2) Pinan Sandan
 * 3) Pinan Yondan (also called Pinan Shidan)
 * 4) Pinan Godan
 * 5) Pinan Shodan

title: Pinan


text:
Talk:Rocky Anderson

Peace rally
Thousands? I looked at reports from the local news, and some national ones, and they all said that there were beteeen 800-1000 people. I think the creator of this page went beyond neutrality here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.11 (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 2005

"I looked at reports from the local news, and some national ones, and they all said that there were beteeen 800-1000 people." I know nothing about the event but I do know about the local and national news media. What I know is that they have an unspoken consensus to misreport and misrepresent. In particular, they notoriously and grossly underestimate attendance at peace rallies. I'd go with the reports of the subsequent contributors way before believing what the mainstream media in the US have to say. ---Dagme (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Also, the citation link given seems to have nothing to do with Anderson or the rally. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I was there and there WERE thousands there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCgal (talk • contribs) 23:09, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I was also there, there were certainly thousands of people present, and not just at the specific location at the park, but along the streets and at the Salt Palace Convention Center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.250.156 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The media crowd estimates for antiwar rallies are almost always way on the low side, just as police and(in D.C.)National Park Service estimates invariably are. Thus, media numbers can't be taken as a refutation of the crowd size estimate in the story. Ken Burch 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Involvement in Legacy Highway and the Olympics
Though I have nothing but antipathy for the man and his policies, we really should add a couple of things to get his page more complete. We're missing the most contreversial part of Rocky's policies - the Legacy Highway/Davis County debate. Additionally, we really should mention his part in the Olympics, which certainly went well. I'm planning on adding some about them and look forward to feedback.--Gillespee 20:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV concerning alcohol
"Ironically, he has been viewed as one of the state's most outspoken supporters of alcohol use," is a statement that at best is open to debate and at worst is pure propogation of a rather negative view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.165.176 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * While I suppose it is open to debate (what isn't really?) I cannot for the life of me think of anyone who is more for alcohol than Rocky. Is it more the tone you dislike?  Would changing it to something like: "Ironically, Rocky is one of the most outspoken critics of Utah's liquor laws" make it sound more NPOV?--Gillespee 23:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I would say that "ironically" is a problem. Telling the reader where to find irony in not NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I myself find it ironic (and more than a little hypocritic) in the disconnect between alcohol and drugs, but you're right so I changed it.--Gillespee 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In two places, I've changed the word alcohol to liquor as it is more accurate. 3.2% or weaker beer (which is still technically alcohol...) is not sold by the state and can be bought in convenience stores, beer bars, grocery stores etc. Limes 16:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

D.A.R.E
I've added the D.A.R.E. thingamabob. It may toe the line of relevancy, but I think it's a good episode to illistrate Anderson's governing style--blunt, abraisve, and, IMHO, usually correct. Well: I was in D.A.R.E. in high school, and calling it a "waste of time and money" is being very kind the the program. They spent tens of thousands sending the kids from our high school to Lagoon, a Utah amusment part. We rode roller coasters. They gave us all free tee-shirts. Did it reduce drug use? The first thing many of us did while wearing our new D.A.R.E. tee-shirts was drugs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inappropriatecontent (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I put things a bit more NPOV in the article itself. ;-)  InappropriateContent  Talk 2:30 PM, December 12, 2005

Fox and Friends/E.D. Hill incident
Due to the coverage the incident recived, I've covered the recent interview/arguement Anderson was involved in on Fox and Friends. Whilst it's a relatively small event, it does offer further insight regarding Anderson's views on various topics from torture to Fox News and/or the "Mainstream media". The only problem is I have no idea who the guy with E.D. Hill was, so for the moment I've just listed him as an "interviewer". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edders (talk • contribs) 31 August 2006.

 * Oops, sorry. Forgot to sign. Is there a way to make wikipedia automatically sign your discussion edits? Edders 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Nope. Not if you don't sign. It really has no way to guess where to do it (people intersperse remarks, people come in and correct their own previous spelling, etc.) - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV statements
Removed this from the end of the article: "...as Anderson does not confuse patriotism or support of soldiers with the decisions of governments to place these individuals in harm's way. It seems his point is that such criticism of government action is valid especially when soldiers are dying in an unnecessary war".

Although the "as Anderson" bit was probably meant to reflect the opinions of those supporters cited, it was worded in a way that presented this opinion as fact. If it can be made NPOV I have no problem with its re-insertion. The last sentence, however; was pure POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edders (talk • contribs) 4 September 2006.

Citation standardization
This article is a mess when it comes to references. Numerous different citation styles are used and we have both a "notes" and a "references" section. Someone should go through and organize the citations and references... But I've decided that I'm too lazy to do it myself. :) Porlob 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mormon?
Is there any reason why Rocky is in the Latter Day saint category? Since he is not a mormon, I am confused why he is in this group? Reds0xfan 20:40 24 Sep 2006 (MDT)

 * It seems that he was raised Mormon, but no longer identifies as such. I agree: that should be removed. Porlob 13:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal cases
I notice that Bott v. Deland, Bradford v. Moench, and University of Utah Students Against Apartheid v. Peterson were all recently delinked in the article. If anyone thinks that any of these have article potential (I suspect they are all borderline), please feel free to relink. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased
The beginning of this article reads like a campaign speech, I think there are some serious POV issues with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.11.54 (talk • contribs).

Definite POV
Just removed the loaded term "marriage equality" and replaced it with "gay marriage". Previous posters are correct. This article reads like a campaign statement. — J M Rice 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Wait a minute. Those favoring same-sex marriage rights believe that marriage rights between gays and straights should be "equal."  What is so biased about calling that "marriage equality?"

 * Changed it back to "marriage equality." It's technically accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.74.67 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The problem, 129, is evident in your phrasing: it's that those with a specific position consider it to be "equality." The fundamental issue is simply whether or not homosexuals are permitted to marry; the term "equality" is a value judgment on that point. Furthermore, the term is less informative -- which is actually more important to an encyclopedia, where we shouldn't be assuming that the reader knows what "marriage equality" refers to. -Pete 07:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, biased
Transparently pro-Anderson, which a biographical article should not be. How do you get one of those labels that says "The neutrality of this article has been disputed"? --A. Groff 72.74.3.29 05:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 * There is nothing unusual about how Anderson is handled. See Orrin Hatch for comparison. A biographical piece on a contemporary politician — as long as his or her career has not be scandal-ridden — almost always starts with a relatively straightforward description of the progress of that career, what stands he or she is associated with, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * If you think this article is biased, read the one on Thomas S. Monson. It reads like a pamphlet from Temple Square.

Missing notes and citation section.
The newer edition of this page does not contain the original notes or bibliography. They are both absent, though I do not believe them to be completely lost in cyberspace. Morgensternen 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * They're still there. What happened is that you added a reference without a tag. This placed the whole rest of the page inside the tag, making it disappear. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly move
Unless there are serious objections, I'm moving the paragraph about The O'Reilly Factor (which, like much of this article, really needs some clarifying links and perhaps some editing) to "Criticism of the Bush Administration". I might restructure the section appropriately to make things chronological. Maxisdetermined 02:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Signature
http://www.voterocky.org/assets/pages/673/Screen_Shot_2012-11-08_at_10.01.12_AM.png AUTHORNAME. Screen shot of Rocky Anderson\'s signature. Voterocky.org. 2012-11-10. WebCite® URL: http://www.voterocky.org/assets/pages/673/Screen_Shot_2012-11-08_at_10.01.12_AM.png. Accessed: 2012-11-10. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6C5NvUqoT) Can we use it? --Pawyilee (talk)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rocky Anderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101120043241/http://backbonecampaign.org/storydetail.cfm?id=206 to http://backbonecampaign.org/storydetail.cfm?id=206
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050528212849/http://www.theglobalist.com:80/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4569 to http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4569
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151021173922/http://ballot-access.org/2012/02/09/peace-freedom-party-attempts-to-persuade-california-secretary-of-state-to-list-all-four-presidential-candidates-in-party-presidential-primary/ to http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/09/peace-freedom-party-attempts-to-persuade-california-secretary-of-state-to-list-all-four-presidential-candidates-in-party-presidential-primary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 one external links on Rocky Anderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415074238/http://www.acluutah.org/BOR08.htm to http://www.acluutah.org/BOR08.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151021173843/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/pre-election/profilesdistricts/UT02.html?SITE=WPVITVELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/pre-election/profilesdistricts/UT02.html?SITE=WPVITVELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425080320/http://web.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/elect99/electwin.htm to http://web.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/elect99/electwin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011080259/http://deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3949,70000908,00.html to http://www.deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3949,70000908,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130304092733/http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=7112&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2253&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7109&cHash=65853f8457 to http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=7112&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2253&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7109&cHash=65853f8457
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402063755/http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4569 to http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4569
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110224021406/http://www.redorbit.com:80/news/science/805073/text_of_rocky_andersons_state_of_the_city_address/index.html to http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/805073/text_of_rocky_andersons_state_of_the_city_address/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110224021406/http://www.redorbit.com:80/news/science/805073/text_of_rocky_andersons_state_of_the_city_address/index.html to http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/805073/text_of_rocky_andersons_state_of_the_city_address/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121114134024/http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1002c.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1002c.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110224021406/http://www.redorbit.com:80/news/science/805073/text_of_rocky_andersons_state_of_the_city_address/index.html to http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/805073/text_of_rocky_andersons_state_of_the_city_address/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110607041932/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100711143525/http://connect2utah.com:80/news-story/?nxd_id=87345 to http://connect2utah.com/news-story/?nxd_id=87345
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151021173913/http://ballot-access.org/2012/08/07/natural-law-party-of-michigan-nominates-rocky-anderson-for-president/ to http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/08/07/natural-law-party-of-michigan-nominates-rocky-anderson-for-president/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151021173933/http://ballot-access.org/2012/08/02/rocky-anderson-withdraws-from-peace-freedom-party-convention-process/ to http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/08/02/rocky-anderson-withdraws-from-peace-freedom-party-convention-process/

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071228153524/http://www.slcgov.com:80/mayor/bio.htm to http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/bio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131800532400/http://www.utahbar.org/members/awards_recipients.html to http://www.utahbar.org/members/awards_recipients.html#Committee
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120619020853/http://www.voterocky.com:80/ to http://www.voterocky.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060110191927/http://www.standard.net:80/standard/opinion/63922/ to http://www2.standard.net/standard/opinion/63922/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130124232000/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604145620/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rocky Anderson. 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:
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20100323043925/http://www.utahbar.org/members/awards_recipients.html on http://www.utahbar.org/members/awards_recipients.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020183627/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/members/members.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/members/members.shtml

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) 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The Justice Party page doesn't seem to have any notability beyond Anderson's 2012 presidential campaign. I haven't been able to find any evidence of party events, membership, or other candidates who have run with the party since 2012. This leads me to believe that the party isn't really notable beyond its association with Anderson, so the articles should be merged.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 12:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Notability isn't temporary. Since the multiple, independent sources cover the part in an in-depth manner, it still passes WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 16:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there something I'm missing in terms of why the party is independently notable from Anderson or his 2012 run? Notability isn't temporary, but in the case of a political party I think there needs to be some standalone notability. There's very little independent coverage of the party, and what is there pretty much recognizes the party for what it really was/is: just a vehicle for Anderson's campaign to get some more credibility. Plus, a quarter of the sources are from the same TV show.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 18:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Would oppose a merge, myself, . I just found this article. It would seem to indicate the party is going to move away from Anderson going forward, much the way the Reform Party did away from Ross Perot. It sounds like they're planning on starting more state-level parties too. I think additional notability is likely to come if this is their plan, and it sounds like they'll be running more candidates in 2022. Also it sounds like they didn't run presidential candidates during 2016 or 2020 specifically because they didn't want to feed into a spoiler effect. I guess that could happen again, but it does sound like they're going to focus on at least some less-than-presidential elections. --Chillabit (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see now. I'll withdraw my request with this information.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 11:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rocky Anderson


text:
Spring Grand Slam

The Spring Grand Slam is a series of three Thoroughbred horse races held in Australia each Southern Hemisphere spring. The series consists of the Caulfield Cup, the Cox Plate, and the Melbourne Cup.

There is no official Triple Crown for these Melbourne races, but racing fans consider these three Group 1 races to be the major interconnected component of the spring carnival package, while also acknowledging that only a superhorse could win them all in the same season to complete a grand slam.

The only horse to win the Spring Grand Slam is the New Zealand-bred champion Rising Fast.

About the Spring Grand Slam
The "Spring Grand Slam" in Melbourne is considered by some in the racing industry to be more difficult to win than the famous Triple Crown in the United States because the Australian races contain many more variables.

The Triple Crown — involving the Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes — is contested only by three-year-olds who race over distances between 1910 metres (Preakness) and 2400 metres (Belmont). The horses all carry the same weight (fillies a little less than colts and geldings), and none of the horses are being asked to race around the track in an unaccustomed direction.

In Melbourne, the races are open to all horses aged three and over, and they race between 2,040 metres (Cox Plate) and 3,200 metres (Melbourne Cup).

The weight carried by horses can vary immensely, both in each race and from race to race, because three different handicapping systems are employed. The Caulfield Cup is a handicap race, the Cox Plate is a weight-for-age race, and the Melbourne Cup is a combination of both, a weight-for-age-handicap.

Furthermore, in the U.S., horses race counter-clockwise on all tracks, but in Australia and New Zealand, there are both clockwise and counter-clockwise tracks. All "Spring Grand Slam" races in Melbourne are raced counter-clockwise, so horses domiciled in areas with predominantly clockwise tracks can be disoriented and not perform to potential.

Winners and Grand Slam tries
Only one horse has ever won the Grand Slam, the New Zealand champion Rising Fast in 1954. Might and Power also won all three races, but not in the same year.

title: Spring Grand Slam