text:
Richard Bulstrode

Sir Richard Bulstrode (1610 – 3 October 1711) was an English author, diplomat and soldier, a son of Edward Bulstrode (1588–1659).

Life and family
Richard Bulstrode was born at Astley, Warwickshire, and educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge. After studying law in London he joined the army of Charles I on the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642. In 1673 he became a resident agent of Charles II at Brussels; in 1675 he was knighted; then following James II into exile. The king gave him a pension of 166 kivres per month. He died at St. Germain on 3 October 1711.

Bulstrode is chiefly known by his Memoirs and Reflections upon the Reign and Government of King Charles I (1721). He wrote the Life of James II, and Original Letters written to the Earl of Arlington (1712). The latter consists principally of letters written from Brussels giving an account of the important events which took place in the Netherlands during 1674.

His second son Whitelocke Bulstrode (1650–1724), remained in England after the flight of James II; he held some official positions, and in 1717 wrote a pamphlet in support of George I and the succession of the House of Hanover. He published A Discourse of Natural Philosophy, and was a prominent Protestant controversialist. He died in London on 27 November 1724.

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

title: Richard Bulstrode


text: User talk:69.230.191.36

title: User talk:69.230.191.36


text:
Talk:An elegant rearrangement of a conditionally convergent iterated integral

First-time user, don't know how to enter equations, but I'd like to make a point verbally: this "example" fails. Bear with me, I'll address both the trig version and the quotient rule inspiration. I'll show only the dydx case.

On the trig version, if you express x and y in polar coordinates, differentiate, and manipulate away r keeping all other terms, you get dy=x*sec^2(theta)*dtheta+tan(theta)*dx. You have 3 variables constrained in how they co-vary: x, y, and theta. You can add a constraint to hold x constant, and that will zero out the tan(theta)*dx term everywhere except on the y-axis, where you cannot assume that infinity*0=0. So, the integral over y is 1/(1+x^2) everywhere except at x=0, for which the integral is undefined (but diverging to neg infinity). Thus, the integral over x is also undefined (but less than or equal to pi/4).

On the quotient rule inspiration, take d/dy y/(x^2+y^2), get (x^2-y^2)/(x^2+y^2)^2, infer that the indefinite integral w/r y is y/(x^2+y^2) + c. So far so good. But now the move to the definite integral is again only warranted when x is not 0. Where it is warranted, substitute 1 and 0 for y, subtract, get 1/(1+x^2), as before. But for x=0, the substitution produces division by zero, and thus an undefined definite integral over y, and therefore also an undefined integral over x.

kristo dot miettinen at us dot army dot mil

Is this really the best way to integrate $$\int \int \frac{x^2-y^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2} dxdy$$ ? Another way is to see that it is what is obtained from the quotient rule when evaluating $$\frac{d}{dx} \left( \frac{-x}{x^2+y^2} \right) = \frac{-(x^2+y^2)-(-x)(2x)}{(x^2+y^2)^2} = \frac{x^2-y^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2}$$. The squared term in the denominator is the give-away. This is a lot cleaner than the messy trig substitution used on this page. Mark.howison 06:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this should be merged with Fubini's theorem. Examples in matheamatics are often worth separate articles, listed in the list of mathematical examples. Michael Hardy 21:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I was thinking about the Proofs Project wich is structured like, e.g,:

 * Laplace operator/Proofs

 * and I tough something similar could be done with the examples, like this:

 * Fubini's theorem/Examples

 * You at least have to agree that Fubini's theorem/examples is shorter (and thus easier to link) than An elegant rearrangement of a conditionally convergent iterated integral. The same way you don't have separate proofs, you don't have separate examples. I'll be bold and merge the article in 72 hours if no one complains. User:Mdob | Talk 22:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mdob. The Fubini's theorem has an applications section with currently has only one example.--Banana04131 22:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Merging in 24 hours
I've done a partial move to FT/Examples. If nobody complains I'm going to make a full merge in [FT, since the article is pretty empty and a separate page with examples, in this case, seems wasteful somewhat. --User:Mdob | Talk 20:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

subpage?
Some say there should be no subpages on Wikipedia, and my gut reaction is to agree. But "examples of Fubini's theorem" is not a good name for this article that gives only one example which, while clearly relevant to Fubini's theorem, is not really an example of Fubini's theorem (except the part where the fact that the two values of the iterated integral differ is used to infer that the integral of the absolute value is infinite). It's certainly not the kind of thing one thinks of when one hears the phrase "examples of Fubini's theorem". I'd suggest "examples relevant to Fubini's theorem", but two objections arise: (1) it's too much like the title that this page had originally ("an elegant rearrangement of a conditionally convergent integral) and would succumb to similar objections, and (2) one might not think of that title when searching. "Fubini's theorem/examples" seems immune to both objections. Michael Hardy 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is the following line in the article

 * $$\int_0^1\int_0^1

\left|\frac{x^2-y^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2}\right|\,dx\,dy=\int_0^1\left[\int_0^y \frac{y^2-x^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2}\,dx+\int_y^1\frac{x^2-y^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2}\,dx\right]\,dy$$

Two questions:

1) Why is the leading sign in
 * $$\int_0^y

\frac{y^2-x^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2}\,dx$$ switched? That is, why isn't it
 * $$\int_0^y

\frac{x^2-y^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2}\,dx$$ ?

2) Is it allowed to freely split the integral at y, even if y may lie outside the space between 0 and 1? Thanks, --Abdull 16:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * (1) Because we're taking an absolute value. The absolute value of a − b is b − a if a < b.  In the first integral y is bigger than x, and y2 is bigger than x2, so the absolute value is y2 − x2, and in the second integral, the order is reversed.

 * (2) Not necessarily--it may depend on integrability. But that has no relevance here, since it is clearly stated that y is between 0 and 1.

 * Michael Hardy 21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why can't this just be merged into the Fubini's Theorem page, instead of giving it a series of awkward titles?

 * Just today I removed the "mergeto" notice that sat there for many months. I think this deserves a separate article.  Wikipedia is quite extensive; we don't need to make it cramped. Michael Hardy 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Er...I just added that mergeto yesterday. Why should this deserve a separate article? Every page that links here could just as well link to Fubini's theorem. This article specifically relates to Fubini's theorem. --Stlemur 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (sorry I forgot to sign last time)

 * Every page that links here could just as well link to Fubini's theorem.

 * Not true. List of mathematical examples certainly could not just as well link to Fubini's theorem. Michael Hardy 00:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * ... and, generally, examples often deserve their own pages. Otherwise there could be no list of mathematical examples, which is listed at list of mathematics lists and clearly serves a useful purpose. Michael Hardy 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Also: the "mergeto" notice was added to this page on October 14th, 2005. Michael Hardy 00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that examples deserve their own Wikipedia pages. Short examples should go in the originating articles. More complicated demonstrations should go in Wikibooks. In this specific instance, we have two short incomplete articles instead of a more-complete medium-length one. --Stlemur 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Which of the items listed at list of mathematical examples would you delete or merge? What makes you think there's generally an "originating page"?  What if there are 20 different pages to which an example is equally relevant?  Michael Hardy 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why I just changed this article's title back to what it was originally
I have changed the title back to what it was originally, "an elegant rearrangement of a conditionally convergent iterated integral", because I think the misleading nature of any title that explicitly mentions Fubini's theorem is in large part the cause of Stlemur's misunderstanding. He actually thought that "Fubini's theorem" was this page's "originating page" and that because of that, the article should get merged into that one.

One could with equal plausibility say that absolute convergence is the "originating page", but the title mentioning Fubini's theorem obscured that.

Stlemur said that all of the pages that link here could just as well link to Fubini's theorem. That is wrong: the article titled absolute convergence could not "just as well link to Fubini's theorem.

I suspect Stlemur may have thought I was proposing that ALL examples in math articles should be in separate articles by themselves. I was not. Routine examples, e.g., illustrating how to use partial fractions to find a particular integral, should not normally be articles by themselves. But anyone who looks at the list of mathematical examples will find mathematical objects that may be relevant to multiple different articles, not just one, that link to it, some of which are unusually elegant or enlightening, some of which are substantial discoveries in their own right. Michael Hardy 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * PS: I'll take care of the links tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it)..... Michael Hardy 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is, this article should be part of Fubini's theorem. I'm away this weekend but will get back to it later. In summary: I'd appreciate a third opinion on this. --Stlemur 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There is nothing that this article can do that could not be better-served, that is, have more information more readily accessible, in an extended Fubini's theorem article incorporating this one;
 * 2) "An elegant rearrangement..." is simply a bad article title: Unwieldy, unencyclopedic, and let's throw in POV too.

 * There is not now an article titled conditional convergence; that is just a redirect page to absolute convergence. If anyone were to create an article collecting examples of conditionally convergent sums and integrals whose values change when they get rearranged, this would fit right in, just as well as it would if anyone collected examples relevant to Fubini's theorem.  If this material is all moved into the Fubini's theorem article, then it would also have to get copied into the conditional convergence article as well. Michael Hardy 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic?
My instinct is to say this belongs in a wikibook, with a link from the Fubini's theorem wp article. It's not as though this is a notorious example with a history. Or is it? Then I would like to see that in the article. 128.135.60.26 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it's in some of the standard counterexamples books, such as (and, I suspect, including) Counterexamples in Analysis. Definitely I think a reasonably simple example such as this one should appear in Wikipedia, since we should be clear about when Fubini's theorem applies and when it doesn't. Michael Hardy 01:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


text: Portal:Ancient Egypt/Selected picture

title: Portal:Ancient Egypt/Selected picture


text:
Ignacio Pichardo Pagaza

Ignacio Pichardo Pagaza (13 November 1935 – 14 April 2020) was a Mexican politician who served as Governor of the State of Mexico.

Early life
Pichardo served in the Cabinet of President Miguel de la Madrid as general comptroller and in the cabinet of President Ernesto Zedillo as Secretary of Energy. He has also served as Mexican Ambassador.

He was a member and former President of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

He is father of Alfonso Pichardo, lead singer of Mexican electronica group Moenia. And he is a nephew of Juan Josafat Pichardo Cruz, who was the first Rector or the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México UAEM.

He died on 14 April 2020, aged 84.

title: Ignacio Pichardo Pagaza


text:
Hucknall station

Hucknall station, also formerly known as Hucknall Byron station, is a railway station and tram stop in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire, England. It is located on the Robin Hood railway line, 5 mi north of Nottingham, and is also the northern terminus of the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) tram system. The station has park and ride facilities, with nearly 450 parking spaces for use by both tram and train passengers.

TrentBarton's Connect Red/Blue bus services transport passengers to the town centre and the western estates, stopping adjacent to the tram stop. The Stagecoach-operated 141 bus service connects passengers to the town centre, the eastern estate and the surrounding villages, stopping on the road bridge above the station or adjacent to the Tesco.

The Tesco Extra and the Ashgate Retail Park, including Argos, Home Bargains and Kennelgate retailers, are located close to the station.

History
Hucknall station first opened as Hucknall on 2 October 1848, with the opening of the Midland Railway's line from Nottingham to Mansfield. It was located some 4 chain from the current station site and was the first of several stations to serve the town, including the Great Northern's Hucknall Town and the Great Central's Hucknall Central.

Hucknall station was relocated to its current site on 22 December 1895 and was renamed Hucknall Byron on 11 August 1952, to avoid confusion with the town's other stations. It was closed to passenger traffic, along with all the other stations on the line, on 12 October 1964; the railway line itself was retained for goods traffic.

On 17 May 1993, this line was reopened by British Rail to passenger traffic, as part of the new Robin Hood Line, and the station was reopened under its original name; the other Hucknall stations having closed in the meantime.

The tram stop opened on 9 March 2004, along with the rest of Nottingham Express Transit's first phase.

Stationmasters

 * James Nutt ca. 1858 - 1861 (afterwards station master at Water Orton)
 * Samuel Butler 1861 - 1864 (afterwards station master at Alfreton)
 * J. Hey from 1864 - 1872
 * W.F. Foster 1872 - 1876 (afterwards station master at Alfreton)
 * John Clarke 1876 - 1908 (formerly station master at Rawmarsh)
 * Charles Chapple 1908 - 1921
 * T.S. Richards 1926 - 1931
 * E. Hallows 1931 - 1936
 * Albert Ernest Short 1936 - 1946 (also station master of the LNER stations in Hucknall)
 * J.H. Thomas from 1946

Railway
The railway has a single line and platform through the station, with the platform on the same side of the railway track as the tram stop. There is direct access from the railway platform to the tram platforms. Services are operated by East Midlands Railway.

During the weekday off-peak and on Saturdays, the station is generally served by an hourly service northbound to Worksop and southbound to Nottingham. During the peak hours, the station is also served by an additional two trains per day between Nottingham and Mansfield Woodhouse.

On Sundays, the station is served by a two-hourly service between Nottingham and Mansfield Woodhouse, with no service to Worksop. Sunday services to Worksop are due to recommence at the station during the life of the East Midlands franchise.

Tram
The tram stop has two side platforms, flanked two terminal tracks. To the south the line becomes single track as far as Butler's Hill tram stop.

With the opening of NET's phase two, Hucknall became the terminus of NET line 1, which runs through the city centre to Beeston and Chilwell. Trams run at frequencies that vary between 4 and 8 trams per hour, depending on the day and time of day.

title: Hucknall station


text:
Agasaya

Agasaya is a Semitic war goddess. Her name is thought to translate to "the shrieker", though there is no solid proof of this. Agasaya later got merged into Ishtar, a Babylonian goddess, along with many other goddesses; this is likely due to conquering. Agasaya became the warrior aspect of Ishtar and lived on in history this way. There is also some speculation that Ishtar, and therefore Agasaya, influenced/merged into the Egyptian Goddess Anut. Not much is known about Agasaya but her weapons may have been a bow and arrows and a scimitar.

title: Agasaya


text: Portal:Ancient Egypt/Selected picture/Archives


text: User talk:82.8.205.87

title: User talk:82.8.205.87


text:
Area codes 208 and 986

Area codes 208 and 986 are telephone area codes in the North American Numbering Plan for all of Idaho. Area code 208 is one of the 86 original area codes created by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) in 1947, and was Idaho's sole area code for seventy years. In 2017, 986 was added as a second area code to the same numbering plan area by creating an overlay complex.

History
Because of its small population, Idaho was among a declining number of North American jurisdictions with only one area code. It is also one of the few whole-state area codes split between multiple LATAs—Southern Idaho (centered in Boise and spilling into Nevada, Wyoming and Malheur County, Oregon) and Coeur d'Alene (spilling into Montana and Washington). Additionally, the Spokane, Washington LATA spills into central Idaho.

In 2001, the Federal Communications Commission projected that demand would exhaust the numbering pool of area code 208 in 2003. The number shortage was a result of the proliferation of landlines, cellphones, and pagers, particularly in urban areas, in the 1990s. However, in 2002 the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) successfully delayed a split by implementing number pooling in Boise; this was later applied in 2007 to the rest of Idaho to stave off projected exhaustion in 2010.

In the summer of 2013, NANPA projections suggested exhaustion in 2018. By this time all conservation measures had been exhausted. With Idaho's population growing closer to two million, a second area code became necessary; eleven other states with single area codes all have populations of about one million each. Ultimately, a statewide overlay was recommended. This would have had the effect of assigning 15.6 million numbers to a state of just over 1.7 million people. However, the Idaho PUC wanted to spare Idahoans, particularly in rural areas, the expense and burden of having to change their numbers. An area code split would have also required en masse reprogramming of cell phones. In the overlay plan, subscribers with numbers in the original area code can keep it.

On November 2, 2015, the Idaho PUC approved the addition of area code 986 as a statewide overlay. 986 officially entered service on November 5, 2016. On that date, a permissive dialing period began during which it was possible to make calls with either seven or ten digits. Ten-digit dialing became mandatory across Idaho on August 5, 2017. 986 is the second statewide overlay, following the example of area codes 304 and 681 in West Virginia in 2009.

Service area and central office codes

 * Aberdeen (208) 397 844
 * Albion (208) 654 673
 * American Falls (208) 220 226 269
 * Arco (208) 527
 * Ashton (208) 652
 * Blackfoot (208) 604 643 680 681 684 690 782 785 789
 * Boise (208) 202 229 246 247 248 258 272 275 279 283 284 286 287 288 297 302 319 321 322 323 327 330 331 332 333 334 336 338 340 341 342 343 344 345 348 350 353 361 362 363 364 367 368 371 373 375 376 377 378 379 381 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 391 392 393 395 396 401 407 409 412 422 424 426 429 433 439 440 441 445 447 460 472 473 474 484 485 488 489 492 493 514 515 545 559 562 567 570 571 573 575 577 581 602 608 629 631 639 658 672 685 692 693 694 695 703 706 713 723 724 728 730 761 780 789 794 822 830 841 846 850 853 854 855 859 860 861 863 866 867 869 870 871 880 884 887 888 890 891 893 895 898 901 906 908 914 917 918 919 921 922 938 939 941 947 949 954 955 957 968 975 977 978 979 988 991 994 995 999
 * Bonners Ferry (208) 267 295
 * Burley (208) 203 219 261 312 586 647 650 670 677 678 808
 * Caldwell (208) 402 453 454 455 459 649 779 965
 * Carey (208) 823
 * Challis (208) 879
 * Clark Fork (208) 266
 * Clayton (208) 838
 * Coeur d'Alene (208) 215 218 277 292 415 416 444 446 449 620 625 640 641 651 659 660 661 664 665 666 667 676 691 699 704 714 755 758 763 765 769 770 771 797 818 819 889 929 930 952 956 964 966
 * Council (208) 253
 * Emmett (208) 365 369 398 477 963
 * Firth (208) 346
 * Fruitland (208) 452 566 570 707
 * Garden Valley (208) 462
 * Glenns Ferry (208) 366
 * Grace (208) 425
 * Grand View (208) 834
 * Grangeville (208) 983
 * Hailey (208) 209 450 471 481 578 594 622 720 721 725 726 727 788 806
 * Homedale (208) 337
 * Idaho Falls (208) 200 201 204 206 227 243 313 403 419 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 528 529 533 534 535 542 552 557 569 592 709 719 757 818 821 881 932 980
 * Jerome (208) 210 316 320 324 329 593 595 644 933 944 948
 * Lewiston (208) 298 299 305 413 503 553 621 717 743 746 748 750 790 791 792 798 799 816 848
 * Mackay (208) 588
 * Malad (208) 766
 * Marsing (208) 896
 * McCall (208) 271 315 469 491 630 632 634 905
 * Melba-Murphy (208) 495
 * Meridian (208) 288 401 412 631 695 706 822 846 855 870 871 884 887 888 893 895 898 955
 * Middleton (208) 585
 * Montpelier, Idaho (208) 847
 * Moore (208) 554
 * Moscow (208) 216 301 310 596 669 874 882 883 885
 * Mountain Home (208) 580 587 590 591 598 599 828 832
 * Nampa, Idaho (208) 463 467 880 899
 * New Plymouth (208) 278
 * Orofino (208) 476
 * Parma (208) 674 722
 * Paul (208) 438
 * Paris, Idaho (208) 945
 * Payette (208) 642 741
 * Pine-Featherville (208) 653
 * Plummer (208) 686
 * Pocatello (208) 213 220 221 223 226 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 244 251 252 254 269 282 317 339 380 406 417 425 427 478 479 530 540 547 565 589 637 646 648 705 708 747 760 775 776 833 840 851 852 897 904 909 915
 * Ponderay (208) 263
 * Post Falls (208) 457 773 777 618
 * Potlatch (208) 875
 * Rexburg (208) 351 356 359 360 390 656 716
 * Rockland (208) 548
 * Rigby, Idaho (208) 745
 * Ririe, Idaho (208) 538
 * Rupert, Idaho (208) 436
 * Saint Anthony (208) 624
 * Sandpoint (208) 255 263 265
 * Shelley (208) 357
 * Soda Springs (208) 547
 * St. Maries, Idaho (208) 245
 * Stanley, Idaho (208)
 * Teton (208) 372 458
 * Tipanuk (208) 796
 * Twin Falls (208) 210 212 280 293 308 316 320 324 329 352 358 404 410 420 421 423 490 536 537 539 543 544 593 595 644 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 749 751 814 825 829 837 886 933 934 944 948 961 969
 * Wallace (208) 556 752 753
 * Weiser (208) 414 549 550
 * Wilder (208) 482
 * Premium numbers: 1+(208/986) 976.

title: Area codes 208 and 986


text:
Seecamp

L. W. Seecamp Co. was an American manufacturer of pocket pistols located in Milford, Connecticut from 1981 to 2014. In 2014, Whalley Precision purchased the company and took over production of the pistols from their facility in Southwick, Massachusetts.

History
L. W. Seecamp Co. was started as a pistol smithing company in 1973 by Ludwig (Louis) Wilhelm Seecamp who trained as a gunsmith in pre-World War II Germany. Seecamp immigrated to the US in 1959 and was a gun designer for shotgun maker O.F. Mossberg. He also specialized in double-action conversions for the 1911 Colt .45.

In 1978, Seecamp specialized in the miniaturization of pistols. As a result, Seecamps are among the very smallest semi-automatic pistols ever produced. The LWS-32, for example, is smaller than pocket pistols produced by Beretta, such as the Model 21 Bobcat in .22 Long Rifle. It is only marginally larger than the old .25 ACP Baby Browning, or modern versions thereof, such as the PSA-25 made by Precision Small Arms.The Seecamp patented spring system is currently used in almost every locked breech miniaturized semi-auto pistol.

In 1981 Seecamp started firearms manufacturing, beginning with the LWS-25.

The elder Seecamp died in 1989. His son, Larry, kept the company going, before selling the company in 2014 due to failing health.

Models
All Seecamp pistols are double action only (DAO), and are similar in size. Barrel length is 2.06 in, and weight is 11.5 oz. Grips are glass-filled nylon and checkered. These pistols are not equipped with sights because they are intended for use at close range. The Seecamp, like the Czechoslovakian CZ 45 pistol from which it drew inspiration, utilizes a very compact and reliable DAO trigger mechanism. Each pull of the trigger first cocks then releases the hammer. The hammer follows the slide after each shot and rests in the down position.

The original Seecamp model was the LWS-25 chambered in .25 ACP and manufactured from 1981 through 1985, with a total production of about 5000 units. It used traditional blowback operation with a magazine capacity of 7 rounds. Collectors have driven the price of these original Seecamps to as high as $3000.00(US). The .25 ACP model was dropped shortly after the introduction of the .32 ACP version.

Seecamp's second model, the LWS-32 was designed around the only hollow point .32 ACP ammunition available at the time, Winchester Silvertips. Ammunition with an overall length exceeding 0.910" (23.1mm) may not feed or chamber correctly. Operation is through chamber-ring delayed blowback where a raised ring at the rear of the chamber retards the rearward motion of the slide.  This model uses a magazine with a capacity of 6 rounds.  The LWS-32 remains Seecamp's most popular firearm.  During the height of demand, production guns were selling out years in advance with individual guns selling for up to US$2000.

There were 20 sets made in both .25 ACP and .32 ACP with matching serial numbers in 1988.

In 1999 Seecamp introduced a third model, the LWS-380 chambered in .380 ACP. The LWS-380 is the same size as the LWS-32.

Influence
In 1997, North American Arms introduced their Guardian pistol in .32 ACP attempting to compete with the smaller sized Seecamp and Rocky Bannister of Autauga Arms released a near clone of the Seecamp LWS-32. Seecamp sales remained unaffected despite the availability of a near clone alternative. Further competition is provided by Kel-Tec in the form of their P32 and P3AT polymer-framed pistols which are bigger in profile but lighter and thinner. Unlike the Seecamp, the North American Arms and Kel-Tec versions have rudimentary sights.

Media
On 26 May 2022, Bernie Ecclestone, former CEO of the Formula One Group, was arrested for carrying an undocumented LW Seecamp .32 whilst attempting to board a private jet in Brazil bound for Switzerland.

title: Seecamp


text:
Saint Quentin

Quentin (Quintinus; died c. 287 AD) also known as Quentin of Amiens, was an early Christian saint.

Martyrdom
The legend of his life has him as a Roman citizen who was martyred in Gaul. He is said to have been the son of a man named Zeno, who had senatorial rank. Filled with apostolic zeal, Quentin traveled to Gaul as a missionary with Lucian, who was later martyred at Beauvais, and others (the martyrs Victoricus and Fuscian are said to have been Quentin's followers). Quentin settled at Amiens and performed many miracles there.

Because of his preaching, he was imprisoned by the prefect Rictiovarus, who had traveled to Amiens from Trier. Quentin was manacled, tortured repeatedly, but refused to abjure his faith. The prefect left Amiens to go to Reims, the capital of Gallia Belgica, where he wanted Quentin judged. But, on the way, in a town named Augusta Veromanduorum (now Saint-Quentin, Aisne), Rictiovarus decided to interrupt his journey and pass sentence: Quentin was tortured again, then beheaded and thrown by the soldiers into the marshes around the Somme.

First inventio
Five years later, a blind woman named Eusebia, born of a senatorial family, came from Rome (following a divine order) and miraculously discovered the body, and a certain blind woman recovered her sight by the sacred relics. A small chapel was built nearby.

Second inventio
The life of bishop Eligius (mainly written in the seventh century), says that the exact place of the tomb was forgotten and that in 641, the bishop, after several days of searching miraculously found it. When the relics were discovered, together with the great nails with which the body had been pierced, Eligius distributed these nails, the teeth, and hair in other places, and enclosed the rest of the sacred treasure in a rich shrine of his own work, which he placed behind the high altar.

Eligius distributed the nails with which Quentin's body had been pierced, as well as some of his teeth and hair. As he was a skillful goldsmith, he placed the relics in a shrine he had fashioned himself. He also rebuilt the church (now Basilica of Saint-Quentin).

Devotion
The devotion of Saint Quentin was important during the Middle Ages, especially in Northern France—as evidenced by the considerable number of place names derived from the saint's (see Saint-Quentin).

title: Saint Quentin


text:
Portal:Egyptology/Museums

 * Austria
 * Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria
 * Canada
 * Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario
 * Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal
 * Egypt
 * Cairo Museum of Egyptian Antiquities
 * Gayer-Anderson Museum
 * Grand Egyptian Museum
 * Imhotep Museum
 * Luxor Museum
 * Luxor Mummification Museum
 * France
 * Louvre
 * Germany
 * Egyptian Museum of Berlin – Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung
 * Staatliche Sammlung für Ägyptische Kunst in Munich
 * Roemer-und-Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim
 * Ägyptologische Sammlung der Universität Heidelberg
 * Kestner-Museum Hannover
 * Ägyptisches Museum Leipzig
 * Italy
 * Museo Egizio, Turin
 * Palermo Archeological Museum
 * Turkey
 * Istanbul Archaeology Museum
 * Russia
 * Pushkin Museum
 * United Kingdom
 * Ashmolean Museum
 * British Museum
 * Manchester Museum
 * Petrie Museum of Egyptology
 * United States of America
 * Brooklyn Museum of Art
 * Carnegie Museum of Natural History
 * Field Museum of Natural History
 * Metropolitan Museum of Art
 * Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
 * Oriental Institute
 * University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

title: Portal:Egyptology/Museums


text:
Codnor

Codnor is a village and civil parish in the Amber Valley district of Derbyshire, England. Codnor is a former mining village and had a population of 3,766 (including Cross Hill) taken at the 2011 Census. It is approximately 12 miles from Derby and 14 miles from Nottingham. Codnor forms a built up area with nearby Ripley.

History
Codnor is listed in an entry in the Domesday Book of 1086, the great survey commissioned by William the Conqueror; a mill and church were mentioned, and also the fact that "Warner holds it". Coalmining had a long history locally, and was, at one time, responsible for subsidence damage to some buildings. Opencast mining is still in operation today within the area and the land around the castle has also been subject to this.

1 mi east of the village centre is Codnor Castle; the original Norman earthwork motte and bailey was built by William Peveril, (Peveril of the Peak, who also built the better known Peveril Castle at Castleton). The 13th-century stone structure which replaced it is now in ruins. The castle was formerly held by the powerful de Grey family. The castle overlooks the valley of the little River Erewash, which forms the county boundary between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and the now defunct section of the Cromford Canal. The castle was the subject of an investigation by archaeological television programme Time Team - first aired on 6 January 2008 - which discovered many new facts about the structure, as well as unearthing a solid gold coin, a 'noble' of Henry V.

At one time the village had a railway station (Crosshill and Codnor) which was operated as part of the Midland Railway. The branch line was torn up when colliery traffic waned, and the only signs of it that are now left are a converted station yard and some embankments.

Codnor had three Methodist chapels, all in the Ripley Circuit, as well as the Anglican church of St James, at Crosshill. The village was also the birthplace of the noted Victorian phrenologist 'Professor' Joseph Millott Severn, who authored the book My Village: Owd Codnor and funded a set of alms houses in the centre of the village, which still stand to this day.

In recent years Codnor has had traffic problems, because the A610 (the main road to/from Nottingham) goes through the village, carrying traffic to Ripley, and further places such as Matlock. Codnor also used to be served by trams; the 'Ripley Rattler' (so-called), used to travel between that town and Nottingham. These were quite notorious, and were even the subject of a short story - "Tickets Please" - by local writer D. H. Lawrence (born 4 miles away, in Eastwood). The standards, which had carried the electric power lines for the trams, and the later trolley buses, were not removed until the early 1960s.

Geography
Codnor is close to the larger communities of Ripley and Heanor.

Sport
Codnor has its own golf club, Ormonde Fields.

Codnor has a cricket club which has been in existence since 1924. Whilst having some difficult times in the early stages of the club, the club now plays at a competitive standard in the Derbyshire county league and fields both a 1st and 2nd eleven as well as two youth teams. The club currently play on Goose Lane, which used to be home to Codnor Miners Welfare before it was shut down in 2007.

Codnor also has three football teams. There is Codnor FC, who play in the Derby City Football League, Codnor Athletic Fc who play in the Alfreton QTS League and Codnor Miners FC - who play in the East Midlands Senior League

Red, White and Blue Festival
The British National Party held its Red, White and Blue festival from 2007 to 2009 off Codnor-Denby Lane, to the south of Codnor. It was cancelled in 2010.

Notable buildings
There are three structures in Codnor civil parish that are listed by Historic England for their historical or architectural interest. These are the Church of St James beside the A6007, Home Farmhouse on Alfreton Road, and No.37 Nottingham Road. These are all listed as Grade II. Codnor Castle is also Grade II but is in the neighbouring parish of Aldercar and Langley Mill.

Notable people

 * James Woolley Clockmaker
 * Joseph Millott Severn, phrenologist, was born here.
 * Nick Wright, a former professional footballer, was born here.
 * James Hunt, footballer, was born here.
 * Chanel Cresswell, actress, grew up here.
 * Arnold Warren, fast bowler, lived here.
 * Fred S Thorpe, local historian, lived here.

title: Codnor


text:
Macronucleus

A macronucleus (formerly also meganucleus) is the larger type of nucleus in ciliates. Macronuclei are polyploid and undergo direct division without mitosis. It controls the non-reproductive cell functions, such as metabolism. During conjugation, the macronucleus disintegrates, and a new one is formed by karyogamy of the micronuclei. Macronuclei contain hundreds to thousands of chromosomes, each present in many copies. There is no mechanism to precisely partition this complex genome equally during nuclear division; thus, how the cell manages to maintain a balanced genome after generations of divisions is unknown.

title: Macronucleus


text:
OpenEye Scientific Software

OpenEye Scientific Software is an American software company founded by Anthony Nicholls in 1997. It develops large-scale molecular modelling applications and toolkits. Following OpenEye's acquisition by Cadence Design Systems for $500million in September 2022, the company was rebranded to OpenEye Cadence Molecular Sciences and operates as a business unit under Cadence.

Scope
Primarily geared towards drug discovery and design, areas of application include conformation generation, docking, shape comparison, charge/electrostatics, cheminformatics and visualization. The software is designed for scientific rigor, as well as speed, scalability and platform independence.

OpenEye makes much of its technology available as toolkits suitable for custom development. The toolkits are available in multiple languages: C++, Python, Java and C#.

Application software

 * AFITT - Crystallographic refinement and analysis.
 * BROOD - Bioisostere identification using shape, chemistry and electrostatic similarity.
 * EON - Chemical similarity analysis via comparison of electrostatics overlay.
 * FastROCS - Real-time 3D molecular shape searches, using GPU technology.
 * FILTER - Molecular screening and selection based on physical property or functional group.
 * OEDocking - Molecular docking tools including FRED (fast docking), HYBRID (ligand guided docking) and POSIT (ligand guided pose prediction).
 * OMEGA - Fast, accurate conformer generation, for linear and macrocyclic molecules.
 * pKa Prospector - A database of high quality pKa measurements.
 * QUACPAC - Tautomers, protonation states and charges for small molecules and proteins.
 * ROCS - Chemical similarity analysis via rapid 3D molecular shape searches.
 * SZMAP - Identify water sites in a protein binding site for improving ligand potency.
 * SZYBKI - Fast forcefield optimization of ligands in gas-phase, solution, or within a protein active site.
 * VIDA - Graphical user interface that visualizes, analyzes and manages corporate collections of molecular structures and information.

Toolkits
Programming libraries providing other applications with object-oriented accessibility to a given set of capabilities.

 * OEChem TK - Cheminformatics and 3D molecular data handling.
 * OEDepict TK - Elegant 2D structure rendering of compounds.
 * OEDocking TK - Docking and scoring.
 * Grapheme TK - Advanced structure rendering of compounds.
 * GraphSim TK - 2D molecular fingerprints and similarity calculations.
 * Lexichem TK - State-of-the-art compound name and structure interconversion with support for multiple languages.
 * MolProp TK - 2D molecular property calculation and filtering.
 * QuacPac TK - Tautomer generation.
 * Omega TK - Conformer generation.
 * Shape TK - Molecular shape comparisons based on 3D overlays.
 * Spicoli TK - Rapid molecular surface generation and manipulation.
 * Szmap TK - Water interactions in the binding site.
 * Szykbi TK - Generalized function optimization, e.g. molecular structure optimization.
 * Zap TK - An efficient Poisson-Boltzmann electrostatics solver.

title: OpenEye Scientific Software


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Red guitar

Feldspar is the name of an important group of rock-forming minerals.

DELETE


text:
Talk:Timeline of file sharing

Update?
This seriously needs an update. Shortly after the last entry here, Alan Ellis was cleared of conspiracy to defraud, surely that is notable? I actually find the lack of information on OiNK to be kind of disappointing; it was only the largest private tracker ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, just add what needs to be added and provide some reliable sources and none will object...
 * mfg, OldDeath (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

eMule
what, no word about eMule?!? it remains one of the largest p2p networks today. 62.0.186.85 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Shouldn't there be something about IRC on here? 80.177.208.41 21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

i agree, it was once a common way of sharing mp3 and warez.62.0.186.85 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The article already mentions IRC, DCC and XDCC. What more would you expect? --Easyas12c (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And USENET and Audiogalaxy...
...should be on here somewhere.

then put it there

Initial Publication of Some Software
What should one cite when he states that a specific piece of software was originally published/announced at some time? Is it good enough to cite some web page were the developers state it. Maybe a link to some download site with an old time stamp be a good source? The article has lots of these and they will not get fixed unless someone states out the requirements. --Easyas12c (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything will suffice. Some of the information I added is based on posts in obscure forums unrelated to file sharing. The information isn't at all controversial, and is minor, so just about anything will do (though more credible sources are preferred). –MT 03:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of logos in the article
I've used the following as rationale for non-free logos on the pages of those logos:

"Given that the company or technology the use of the image is covered by the relevant fair use laws."
 * is important to the chronology,
 * is identified by many readers in such contexts primarily by its logo or brand, and
 * does not limit the owner's rights, or profitability,

I should probably clarify more, though. A good timeline should be supplemented by images. Two examples of this are Timeline of Apple products and Timeline of Apple II family. This article is not about physical products which we can take pictures of, so we use logos instead. This is what a logo does - it identifies a company or product in the same way a face identifies a person. The Kazaa ruling story in wikinews uses the logo for exactly the same purpose. It is about that company, so it uses the logo to identify the company. So, and further,
 * In this context, using logos to identify companies/programs important to a chronology is fair use
 * No one company is given favor, and logo use is based on popularity.
 * There are many readers who will remember and identify the subjects of this timeline by mascot, colors, and logo. The reaction we want is "hey, I remember using that thing", and not "Sharman? FastTrack? Kazaa? ... hmm, I remember, but is it talking about the same thing I used back in 2004?".
 * Some of the logos used are under free licenses.

This doesn't mean that we should plaster the timeline with logos, but the major networks, programs, and services (mp3.com, audiogalaxy, napster; gnutella, edonkey, fasttrack; bittorrent, suprnova, piratebay, mininova) should be identified. –MT 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree, the time line can be augmented with images like any other article, example are the crowds protesting for something at the trials. Logo's don't convey much extra information to the time line, they just repeat the entity name, in fact they detract and focus attention needlessly on particular entities. How is No one company is given favor, and logo use is based on popularity not favoritism? Kbrose (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the criteria are impartial, and based on notability. If logos did not convey extra information, then why do we use them prominently in infoboxes?   M   05:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Not only that, it's our general practice to avoid using logos and other non-free media in list articles or list-like elements. The name of the company is sufficient to identify it; the logo may look nice but is unnecessary. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Timeline of Apple II family uses images to identify those specific manufactured goods. Logos are used to identify companies.   M   05:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But all of the images on that other timeline are free. That's a critical difference. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided a valid fair use rationale on the image page of each of the included images (my first three points above). This makes them as free as when we use them at the top of their articles. Does that cover the objection, or did I misunderstand?   M   20:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

8-inch floppy diskette is first removable media?
What about IBM punchcards? Sure, they hold a tiny amount of information: but they are storage media, and definitely are removable. President Lethe (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Floppies can be cited as removable media in the context of p2p file sharing, which isn't the case for punch cards.–MT 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OR cuts both ways - there is no source making that assertion and as noted it can't be defended. Even within the narrow context you draw (which the article does not) it is easily disproved by earlier examples using open reel tape.
 * Six years, no source and no defence - time for that to be deleted. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk)
 * True, and there were numerous other media in olden days. Objective3000 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Date formatting
I think the currently used date formatting looks just riddiculus and unproffessionnal. We shoudl go back to what it was before because it a) looked better and b) gave a better overview and c) was generally more professionnal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Death (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 * You mean on the left side? I went through a very large number of other timelines to find out which were the easiest to read. In particular, have a look at Timeline of algorithms. There are two 'before' headings there, look at which one is easier to read. The idea is that the keyword for every line should be in the exact same place. This is similar to how we make the article title the first word, and make it bold. In the previous format, the dates destroyed the ability to skim. The reader would pause and scan horizontally at every single line because of months like May and February. Other timelines have tried to solve this by putting the dates into footnotes. Tables have also been used to solve this alignment issue, but they a) are ugly because they add more things to look at for no good reason, b) turn data that is inherently a list into tabular data, and c) are impossible for newcomers to edit. You'll also notice that each line, unless it is the inception of a major network, has been kept short and to the point, with the keyword coming first. This leaves us with one line per event on most screen resolutions.
 * You might want to avoid words like riddiculus and unproffessionnal when talking about work that another editor has done (besides being hostile, their spelling is incorrect). I don't like abbreviations either, but this is absolutely trivial. The filesharing articles - networks, clients, ideas, events - are as a whole very poorly written and organized. There is plenty to do and it's usually easier to find something to work on, rather than to wait for someone else to do some work and then argue about how they should have done it. Citations are probably the biggest issue, and it would be great if we could get some usage statistics on the various networks, too. –MT 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, I am sorry. When saying it in that way, I didn't intend to hurt you. In fact, I really appreciate your work and the efford you put into amelioring the articles. Also, I was in a hurry when writing this comment, because I had to leave. Probably, I should have been a bit more constructive. What about writing the dates in blood font and not abreviating the month names? Since they come in their respective order, it shouldn't be too problematic to not abreviate them.
 * As you may have seen, most of my contribution are rather of a small nature or add only some sentences... It's not because I am too lazy to write longer texts (just writing a book in German^^) but because my english is often not good enough... ;)
 * The problem with network size and documentation is an old one. There are only very few reliable statisitics (such as the G2 network crawler for example), since most of them are done by surveys and are simply not representative as for their data, because most of them are eiter influenced from the pro-filesharing side or from the anti-filesharing camp. I remember there was a similar crawler online for gnutella, but appearently it has been taken down, so similar statisitics are not anymore available. I don't even know if the KAD developpers have thought about adding support for network analysis to their network, but I am sure there is no crawler for eD2k right now. The only 3 things there is available data are: a) client downloads b) G2 (see crawler) and c) tracker statistics from the pirate bay, which should be representative for the entire BT 'network', since TPB controlls anyway most BT swarms.
 * Greetings and a good evening, Old Death (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem :) I think I tried bolding, but it distracts too much from the actual text, which is much more important than the dates. I also tried numbers, like 2006/04/24, but this is hard to read. Even biased statistics might be good, because they can show how networks are in relation to each other. There are also search stats that I linked at the bottom, which show how popular they are relative to each other. –MT 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I like the Timeline of algorithms page and it's format. but we're not dealing with more than a millennium, just 40 years. I think having the year as a heading, and then the month it occurred is enough for this article to look good. It has two different types of date formatting in it currently and just looks not so good. I'll go through and reformat it tonight if I find the time. JguyTalkDone 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor networks and statistics
http://www.google.com/trends?q=shareaza,+limewire,+bearshare,+mininova,+pirate+bay

Statistics for Shareaza don't really matter on their own - it could have 3 million users, but if the other networks have 7 million, it's just not notable enough. Mute is the single biggest client on the mute network, but that doesn't mean we should include it. Shareaza might be popular, etc., but it's not in the same league. –MT 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Shareaza has about 200k users. Bpringlemeir (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Prior Work Before Napster
I put in my source for prior works. Linker which came out in 1994 was used for peer to peer file sharing of mp3 files and other files years before napster. Source is sited so if people have any integrity in wiki they will defend this properly sited information. The rewrite would seem like a blatant attempt to remove this properly sited prior work in an attempt to establish Napster as the first of its kind. Deathmolor (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it out for now. That citation doesn't contain "linker" or "jayson". A google search for it turns up 600 irrelevant results. Also, a google group is not an acceptable source. I'm very interested to learn more about linker, but that just doesn't seem correct, from looking at your link. –MT 07:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is linker34.zip, the file is in the simtel archive and has been there since 1994. Take a closer look. Deathmolor (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i think we need to stop using revisionist history here, just because someone wrote a book saying napster was the first does not mean it was the first. the Simtel archive might as well be a vault in the Smithsonian, it can not be erased or changed. You can download the file and look at its documentation and read the name itself. I think people who doubt this need to do a search for linker34.zip on the google. Deathmolor (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Source code for linker34 can also be found on sourceforge, combining the simtel archive from 1994 and the source code submitted to sourceforge with all the file sending and list sending code sitting right there its impossible to deny. The book sited as a source for first p2p application is flat out wrong. Deathmolor (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:V. Wikipedia does not care about truth, it cares about verifiability. You've deleted a published book, in favor of a mailing list. You cannot cite a mailing list. You cannot cite source code. You have to provide a legitimate published work that states that linker was the first p2p file sharing client. Nobody is going to trust the mailing list, and nobody is going to look through source code. Before you keep going with this, you should probably start a wikipedia page on Linker32 - but have your sources ready. M  11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all source code is a valid source. Valid enough to stand up in court and so is an executable file you can download that was archived in 1994. What your saying is references to the Mona Lisa are more important then the actual work. That is absolutely unfounded drivel. Do you work for napster? It would seem you do. the Simtel archive is just that. An archive. Those were not mailing lists those were cites of the lists of a data archive. I do believe a Simtel archive does constitute a published work. So does source code. There is no better form of source. Deathmolor (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok you just strangled yourself your reference WP:V specifically states electronic publications are valid sources and Simtel is a valid source. Deathmolor (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all electronic sources are valid, and yours is not.  M  19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are absolutely wrong. Walnut Creek CDROM has been a publisher for decades, with millions of copies distributed and mirrors all over the world. Really who are you anyway and what makes you the authority on a credible source? You really need to check the ego at the door when you contribute. Deathmolor (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If linker was in fact the first p2p system, then I would love to get it on the page. The early 90s don't have nearly enough info. But the problem is, there are certain things we can't add. What if I wanted to say "joiner was the first p2p network in 1992". Could you give me a link that proves that linker was the first peer to peer file sharing system, and that it was released in 1994? M  00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say the archived file of Linker34.zip existing within a published Walnut Creek CDROM archive is like a time machine. The CDROM is a permanent imprint made in 1994 on a plastic disk which cannot be faked or lied about. Its archived like a time capsule for all of history. Combined with the source code freely available it is rock solid proof your looking for. But instead it would seem your looking for some reporter or educational institute to say something about it. Am i correct? Since I am sure we could get cnet involved and get them to do an article but that seems a little over the top since the archive is a much better source then any book or article. The simtel archive was distributed world wide with hundreds of thousands of copies. I really don't understand what the problem is here. Deathmolor (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link to this archive, and say what statement you think it supports? M  01:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you go to the source cited within the page and search for the word linker34 and please indicate what about its distribution in 1994 do you not understand and maybe i can better answer that question. See below. if you want me to overload this entire section with over 1000 sources i will. Deathmolor (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious then which of the following sources do you find reputable then i could go on to list hundreds and hundreds of sources. Newsgroups on usenet i take it are not acceptable for you. how about a publication by a reputable university http://www.scribd.com/doc/14246676, or maybe russian archive group, or possibly usenet newsgroup post from 1998 discussing the p2p file sharing ability of Linker http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bbs.wwiv/browse_thread/thread/e8788c3d73837ac3/5e47eeb98a3a6104?hl=en&q=p2p+file+sharing+jayson+cowan#5e47eeb98a3a6104 if you didn't know google groups is an archive of USENET. Deathmolor (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that but in the USENET Source you can view us discussing the file sharing of Linker34 being there for years and the usage of it over the Internet in a WWIVnet packet. Which actually makes linker34 the first p2p file sharing application on the Internet as WWIVnet by then was only used as a subpacket standard. By now you will begin to see that i can drown you in sources that predate the 1999 release of Napster. Deathmolor (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Well, it's not about them being reputable, it's about them being acceptable as wikipedia sources: WP:V. You can't submit a chat that you and your friends had as proof, even if it was over 10 years ago. The google groups links prove that "people were talking about a file sharing program in 1994" - but it doesn't prove that it got off the ground, or that it's really "file sharing" as we now know it, and not just a shared resource. Who is the publisher of the document (book?) you linked on scribd? Self-published books are not permitted. You should double-check that you're logged on before posting, your ip address is visible.      M    03:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Now your accusing me of self publishing? I didn't publish that. As for USENET Reference i think you actually have to read it. You will see numbers of users and file sharing discussed being in place for years. I don't understand why you would not just read it. All the source information is overwhelming and you yet still continue try and rebuke it. I think at this point your just getting out of hand and need to stop Deathmolor (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Combining the insane number of sources What picture does it paint. 1. Usenet articles of the simtel upload (empirical information not subjective information) 2. the simtel archives themselves with down loadable executable. 3. usenet articles indicating discussions of linkers file sending being present since version 3.4 release or linker34. 4. the source code complete with copyright notice from 1993. You can combine with the simtel archive. Absolutely none of this can be faked. Its impossible. M your being completely unreasonable. What your asking for is not a combination of articles your asking for a quote from the president of the united states that linker was there first. I am completely stunned this discussion has gone on as long as it has. I trying to be civil with you but its hard to see you more then just someone looking to argue. Deathmolor (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC). In fact i know your looking to argue since you have already indicated you wanted to argue here in a previous article, why is your intent to argue about this? And is it also your intent to argue needlessly forever? I am not likely to ever let this information be removed from Wiki. I believe the sources i provided are more then sufficient. Deathmolor (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another article http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/ICENEWS/news9501.txt from 1995 talking about linker. Icenet news periodical. Deathmolor (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I'm asking you who published the book. 100 invalid sources do not combine to create a valid source. You need one valid source. Usenet is not a valid source. A text file is not a valid source. A scribd link is not a published book, even if it has the word "book" in the title. What is the isbn or title of the book?     M    04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * how convenient that every source you see is not valid. What i am saying is your flat out and out wrong. That all of them are valid sources. USENET is a valid source if the source is credible. It says it right in the documentation and apparently if the author of a work himself is in USENET discussing his own work backed by many other people who are discussing it also is valid. I am going to quote the excerpt for you to read because if i give you a link you wont read it. "One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on Usenet, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources.". So in the case of early pre-internet software not in scientific fields. All you have from that period recorded is from text files which are archived, cdroms that are archived, and USENET newsgroups that are archived. What you propose to do is erase a whole piece of history entirely because you don't see scientists or universities endorsing its existence. What does it take to be an expert in the field? Here is what i think is interesting. Wiki under the reliable sources section denounces every source available on the internet. Yet the only way to source something is on the internet. That simple thing precludes all sources. For instance you cited a source of a book on google books. I could just say thats not reliable because it was altered from its original format to pdf and pdf's can be edited just as easily as a text file. Its ridiculous at some point is just making up reasons to deny everything you see. Experts in the field of BBSes in the 90's are all over the USENET and those people back up each other. So when you see a forum of people talking about BBSes they are all experts and a dying group as well as soon there will be no one that remembers them and they will disappear from history. Deathmolor (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry that you feel that BBS experts will disappear from history, but this is not the place to ensure that they (you) have left their (your) mark. Your claim that a usenet posting shows that someone is a 'bbs expert' is unacceptable. This 'linker' program that you're trying to add is of dubious notability. You've refused to provide anything near an acceptable source, though you've tried to cite zip files, old (and irrelevant) usenet postings, and an apparently self-published pdf. You need to calm down, to stop attacking me across several pages, to stop writing pages and pages of replies, and to provide a source that is acceptable by Wikipedia's standards.     M    13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked me for a review. There is exactly one of the sources that counts acording to the wiki guidelines: the 'book'. Although, there are several problems: Neither do we have an ISBN, nor author name or year of release, for example. Also, the book cites a source with a [2] behind the respective sentence, but the reference cannot be found somewhere in the document, nor can it be clicked on. Also, the book tells only 'it was the first one', but it gives no information about when it was released. If you could at least provide the ISBN and author of the book, it would probably be sufficient to keep the part on linker in the timeline, if you manage to prove the date somehow (which should not be too difficult).

As for the rest of the article, we should clean up the 'anti-napster entry'. "Some people say it was the first peer-to-peer software because Napster claimed it was." sounds really unprofessionnal and is certainly not a neutral statement. Also, the formulation of the passage could be changed in to something like 'although Napster used a central server to coordinate its network and proceed search requests, it was (the first (?) << see my earlier comments) system to implement a P2P structure for the decentralized distribution of its shared files.' or something with a similar meaning.
 * Greetings, Old Death (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS.: I've added a request for sources also to the page about the linker network.

 * Looking further, it seems that the "book" (a pdf file with the word 'book' in it) was uploaded very recently and is actually a copy-paste of a much older version of the file sharing article, a mirror of which is available at answers.com. So we've seen Zero reliable sources.     M   16:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Per request at WP:3O, I have come here to render a third opinion (although it appears one was sort of already given - I am guessing this is because you already asked for advice on the sources.

In any case, here is the way I see it... There are several claimed sources here & I will address each separately:
 * File Archives: These prove only that a file "linker34.zip" existed in 1994. They do not show that it was a p2p program and even if they did they would be primary sources. Invalid
 * Source Code: The source code could theoretical prove that this program enabled true file sharing. However, even if it did this would be original research. Invalid
 * Scribd book: This document is at least partially copied from Wikipedia - notice the tiny [2] next to the fact in question? Well this document doesn't use notes or citations, so this is clearly a poor copy & paste job.  Zero credibility: Invalid
 * Usenet archive: This only demonstrate that the software claimed to be able to share information in some fashion. This is not equivalent to true file sharing.  In any case, Usenet chat is not a reliable source. Invalid
 * The Journal of IceNET: IMO, this is the best source you have. Unfortunately, it 1) doesn't make any claim of file sharing that I see, and 2) I don't see any reason to believe this journal has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and thus it likely fails WP:RS. Invalid

Thus I don't see any way the claims regarding Linker can be put into the article at this time. If this software is truly what you claim it to be, surely it would not be hard to get a reliable source to publish the information. Try contacting some major computer magazines, heck minor computer magazines, with this story about "the first p2p software" that has now been forgotten. I am sure many magazines would love to write an article about this, if it is true.

Until the time that these claims are verified by reliable source, however, this is complete original research and doesn't belong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your feedback. Since all three editors who have checked this newly-inserted 'linker' information seem to agree, I've returned the page to its prior state. (This includes the disruptive-to-prove-a-point edit that calls sneakernets "p2p file sharing", and the edit that claims that increased file sizes on usenet prove an increase in popularity.)     M   17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 * more sources coming but M tried to revert edits which were not vanity based and were related to his vanity over napster. Since i suspect he is the creator of napster or an employee so i reverted his edits which was an attempt to place napster as the first of its kind. which is it was not. Deathmolor (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't care if anyone's actions are done in "vanity," so that is a futile argument.
 * Reverting at this time is a completely inappropriate action. As has been explained to you, none of the existing sources are acceptable.  Please read through WP:Reliable sources and then if you find something that meets the definition found there you can re-add the material.  However, you can't just re-add it with the promise to find sources later.  Improperly sourced material doesn't belong.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now that you removed the Linker stuff after you reverted, so you can disregard what I said above. I did remove the "usenet is getting more popular" bit, but I also didn't restore to "becoming less popular."  It doesn't really matter to this article either way. Hopefully that ends that mini-dispute.
 * I also don't see a need to say the first item on the list is the first known way to transfer files, so I removed the extra words.
 * I left the rest of the edits intact - I am not taking a position on whether Napster is a true p2p network or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you shouldn't have to the science of that speaks for itself M on the other hand is another story. he has an axe to grind. I am happy with this until something is written by a reputable source which actually is interested in the real history of file sharing. Its all out there if people take the time to look. Deathmolor (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I, as usual, really hope that you will stop attacking me. I have put significant time and effort into this entire article. I've researched and added the histories of several of the networks on that list. The stats tool (very unfortunately, since this article needs more editors) lists me as contributing to this article 'a whole bunch'. The majority of the sources were added by me, and the way the article looks in terms of style is my doing. You, on the other hand, have raked up an edit count by injecting your program, changing cited information, adding inaccurate information, adding inaccurate citations, and so on - the latter in an apparent attempt to troll me (I've tried to assume good faith for a while now), along with your certain attempts to provoke me on this page. So again, I'm asking you to please stop.    <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * actually your the person who has gotten personal. In fact to the point where you are trying to pull me out of my anonymous position. I on the other hand have not personally attacked you if anything i have only insulted your anonymous identity. And the work i have seen you put into this article is removing a lot of the writing of other contributors and adding your own. I am considering this time line to be apart of the file sharing article as a whole. Look above. People are not happy with what they see and its not just me. To be honest the research you did could be done by most wiki contributors within 15 min. And again you should see WP:OWN for further clarification on your works. i agree though it appears as though you are protecting your work. Deathmolor (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest all parties stick to discussing the article instead of trying to figure out each other's motives. Attacking the source of the information (the editor), is a logical fallacy and doesn't disprove their point in the slightest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, back to the article: I have copy edited the whole thing. I trimmed some excessive detail or irrelevant detail in parts and added some missing info. I attempted to neutrally word the Napster dispute - it is not really relevant to this timeline whether you call it a p2p network or not. Further work needs done in the following areas:
 * 1) Many of the later entries do not explain their importance, or in many cases even what the program is.  I corrected a few.
 * 2) The article is way overlinked.  You don't need to link to every file sharing device every time it is mentioned.  I removed a few, but there are still way too many.
 * 3) The article needs more references, as many items are not references in any way. These sources can probably be easily found in the articles of the various software mentioned.

I strongly urge all parties to work toward consensus rather than merely reverting back and forth. This means, if you don't like a change someone made to try and hash out a mutually acceptable version rather than just changing back to your preferred version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you did a very good job with the cleanup, and I agree with your points    <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway thank you for coming by and taking a neutral stand. Deathmolor (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am loving these wiki Etiquette WP:EQ edits going on here. Your basically taking everything we say and removing all the bull. Absolutely loving it. I feel like a kid getting my hand slapped. Lol.. thanks for putting it into perspective. As for legal action that was not serious in any way shape and form. And i am absolutely sure M didn't take it seriously either. So zero chance of that happening. retraction Lets move on to the topic now. Deathmolor (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please excuse me answering my own edit but ThaddeusB Could you bring your master editing skills to bear on the above article deterioration section and remove all the bull please? Deathmolor (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean at File sharing, I did at about the time that ThaddeusB cleaned up this page (though this was reverted by an editor who I think was not aware of the situation and comment-removal policies). The other stuff above about sources, though it's long, is relevant to the article, so it should probably stay. Maybe we can work on getting more sources for the article now? Do you agree with the three points above?    <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As another editor commented on we need more legal in this article, for instance the origin of pirate comes from the file sharing people did in the 70's. The whole legality of file sharing has evolved a lot over the years and this article is missing that a lot. I remember file sharing in the 70's and 80's and we did this on sneakernet we did it alot and it was all illegal. We need to cover more history. but the above 3 points are great too. I am not happy with this topic starting with late p2p applications like napster. The legalities of file sharing started long before 1999. I could cite numbers of cases as well. Deathmolor (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A note on sources.
I have only briefly skimmed the talk page, but there are 2 things which might be interesting for you. 1. Mailing lists are in fact usable as sources, please see the discussion on exim4. 2. Please see the WP:BLP section regarding self published sources, in a nutshell it states that selfpublished are permissible in some cases where they are autobiographical in nature. There is also the issue of parity of sources. Enjoy Unomi (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is out of the blue, i didn't expect someone would come by and support at least in part some of my sources. Thank you very much. So if i am correct in reading WP:BLP original research is acceptable if submitted by the person himself and like a house of cards everything from USENET to all the details listed above are acceptable as autobiographical. That's if I interpreted this correctly. I thought there was a key element missing to argument that these sources were unacceptable. Its not ok for others to use these sources but it is ok for the person mentioned to use. Since then the source can be verified. Makes total sense to me. I will do nothing yet until there is a consensus. Deathmolor (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Unomi: 1) No such discussion exists at that page that I see. Even if there was, some article talk page doesn't override official policy. 2) Um, this article isn't a BLP, or even remotely about a living person.
 * Policy is that primary sources are only acceptable if the general ideas in them are confirmed by secondary sources or if they are "autobiographical" (by a company or person) and not used to confirm either verifiability or notability. What we have in the linker34 case is no reliable source verification that this software was used for file sharing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One sticky point that itches me is why would source code on sourceforge be considered original research anyway. First of all the publisher is sourceforge not wiki. Source code could easily be considered a work of english writing for that matter and sourceforge could be considered a book publisher. Sourceforge even though is a sort of s self publisher it does have oversite in that copyright material is protected and they do insure the works on the site fall into copyright laws of originality. They would remove anything that would have legal issues. So citing source code only seems to be defined as original research here because there is some concept that wiki is going to be the publisher of this work. Also what is stopping anyone from just going over to wikinews and making an autobiographical article and using it as a source? I know its a lot but please bear with me and if you could be so kind please help with the questions asked. Deathmolor (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not original research, it's just A) self-published, B) not reliable, and C) not a secondary source. It depends on what you want to say. If you want to say "it's hosted on sourceforge", sure, it's good. If you want to say "it's hosted on sourceforge, and that means it's important" then no.    <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  01:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourceforge has had an impeccable history of publishing source code. With an oversight committee as well. I am not sure of defined standing of Sourceforge as a publisher of works but developers must agree to grant SourceForge.net a perpetual license before they can host code on its servers. You can read that on the page and investigate on your own. Does that not constitute as reliable source? I am asking questions because it seems like it might me useful elsewhere as well. Deathmolor (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify the terms here. Original research is information that isn't found in reliable sources. This may take the form of drawing a conclusion from facts presented or it may stating one's own opinion as fact. Reliable sources are sources independent of the subject that have a history of publishing accurate information, primarily because they have editorial oversight to prevent the publication of false information.

The reason we can't use primary sources to verify (important) information is because the primary source has a clear motive to exaggerate or lie. Now, using the source to determine that Linker was a file sharing system is original research because it is a form of taking the facts and drawing a conclusion. Whether it is a primary source or not is irrelevant. If the source makes a claim about itself, it is a primary source because it is not independent of the final product.
 * An example, might help hash out these ideas. Let's say I found ThaddeusSoft and write a really awesome p2p program.  It quickly gains market share and is written up in a reliable source as a hot new p2p program.  The article doesn't mention market share.  Some fan of ThaddeusSoft comes here and creates adds ThaddeusSoft to the list of p2p software.  No problem so far since this can be verified by the reliable source.
 * The editor in question goes to ThaddeusSoft.com and sees that my software is claiming a 20% market share and 10 million users. They add this information to Wikipedia.  Now we have a problem because this new claim can't be verified independently.
 * Suppose instead that the article mentioned also said ThaddeusSoft had gained 20% market share, but didn't mention a specific number of users. In this case, it would be OK to use the 10 million user number on Wikipedia since the primary jist of the claim had been verified, just not the specific details.

Hope that helps. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i am not sure yet and clarification is really helping here i see where this is all going. Thank you very much for continuing to discuss this and thank you for your time. So from what i see is the issue is interpretation of what you see. Although its obvious for a C (programming language) programmer what the software does its not obvious for the lay person. So lets say for the moment sourceforge is a reliable publisher with oversight. Lets also say for a moment that the language used in the document is not understood by the layperson. Is this still considered to be inappropriate? Is there an obligation for all sources to be understood by everyone? I say this because much of the medical sources used in Wiki are self published with oversight and not understood by someone in the field of medicine. C (programming language) is an English language standard just not understood by all. Deathmolor (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Medical sources are or should be peer reviewed, so they're not self-published. We don't interpret primary sources at all. It doesn't matter if it's source code, the Book of Genesis, or Spot the Dog. We just look at what other people say. SF definitely does not guarantee that all software is open source, so they actually don't say anything about particular software projects at all. To hold up a contested claim, one needs to find an established authority on the subject that has published that contested claim.    <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  04:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that i completely agree with that assessment of what sourceforge does. They secure the rights to publish the project. They are a company. Within just this screen shot which is on wiki http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/SourceForge_Home.png you can see that they review projects available, publish summaries and take any and all claims as far as copyright and remove any offending works. I am no expert but that seems to be a peer review process to me. I am not even sure that SF constitutes self publishing either because to setup a project it must be authorized by the SF team where they approve the project and check for possible conflicts. Although Linker would seem to have been put up within hours it was not the project was actually approved by the SF team at Sourceforge.net to be published. Deathmolor (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the approval form for an open source project to be published. https://sourceforge.net/register-project/stage1.php it takes several business days for approval from Sourceforge.net corporate. They indicate 1) Publish 2) Open Source 3) approval. Sourceforge.net is the authority in open source. If they are not then no one is. Deathmolor (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately what does not help is that google has now been polluted with linker34 hits to wikipedia content. Considering the absence of sources which will not be challenged I would suggest that you concentrate on 'the next thing' rather than dwell on the past. Unomi (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Acutually i would rather focus on SF because i do believe it is not what people believe it to be here. If you want to do a more specific search you need to search for WWIV and Linker. USENET is also a much better source for that information and you can search that by selecting groups on google. Using WWIV and Linker in your search you will get a number of hits which are non-wiki related. Please take the time to look. Deathmolor (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion needs to go to your talk page, it's no longer relevant to the article.    <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * sourceforge.net corporation as a reputable publishing source is important as there are other projects in the p2p field which also predate napster on sourceforge besides linker which i may be interested in citing here. So i would like to get a consensus that this is a source with oversight and takes legal responsibility over any and all claims of software they publish. Recently sourceforge.net was named in a law suit for its participation in p2p software.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmolor (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's already a consensus, the sourceforge ref is invalid. As your link clearly states, sourceforge does not take responsibility.    <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  21:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one persons opinion and out of context the link is to show proof of the case, the legal context is completely wrong. M please stop for a short time and let other voice their opinions please. You are pushing that button but i am interested in other editors opinions right now. Could i have a discussion with other editors please? I suspect the other editors have already been scared off though. Constant and repeated responses in a disruptive nature seems to deter others from comment. Its sad because i think a very valuable source of information has been silenced I will see what more i can find out to add to this though. Deathmolor (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you guys are still interested in this. Any source (Usenet, sourceforge) might be reliable for establishing a time line.  Generally an announcement made on source forge or Usenet can establish a chronology.  I would say that they are weak references.  Given no other sources, they are better than none.   They are also better when supported by a more traditional reference.  Any source can be wrong.  It is up to someone to prove/disprove this with other sources.   Hopefully a reliable source would itself provide references.  I have seen many references from reliable source tied to wiki statements that have nothing to do with the article (or at least none that I can find).  I think it is up to editors to be reasonable and not to have a personal opinion in the first place.  If a usenet posting contradicts a refereed journal, then it is pretty clear which one is likely to be right. WP:V WP:NOR WP:NPOV  Usenet and sourceforge may not establish notability, but that is another concept.  Don't beat people up with rules! Bpringlemeir (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Stats
If you find any sort of semi-reliable stats, for any network, add them directly to this list the list in the article. <b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b> 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates
The dates in the MMM dd format do not increase readability of the date over MMM/dd format, but the do make it harder for the reader to pick out concretely where the date ends and the sentence begins. The date is not beautiful, but short of turning the whole thing into a table (which makes editing very difficult), it's the best way to separate the date from the wording. <b style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee"> </b><b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b> 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 * yes, mmm dd is much more readable, in addition no one writes dates the way you did, no one has trouble reading dates in every day life this way. This has been complained about before it seems. Dates are clearly separated from the text by hyphens. Kbrose (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 * You can't distinguish it from the surrounding text, while mmm/dd, for its slash, is immediately obvious as a date. This isn't everyday life. <b style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee"> </b><b style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> M </b>  12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

EZTV
EZTV (www.eztv.it) continues to be a very important source of torrents related to television. This is especially true for Television produced in the United States.

Because of this, it should be added to the timeline.

Supexcellency (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WinMX
Uhm... wow.. No one got the bright idea of including a mention of WinMX? One of the oldest networks. Pretty lazy and pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.194.195 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, just do it ;)
 * mfg, OldDeath (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First BBS
There is a claim in the article that CBBS was the first BBS. Clearly incorrect as there were numerous BBSs in the previous decade on ArpaNet. Although I was a moderator on one and used others, I can't use that as a source as that would violate WP:OR. I don't know any sources since the ArpaNet was little talked about prior to the DARPA creation. That is why I softened the language to say "an early" instead of "the first." My language is correct no matter what the facts. The current language is debatable. Objective3000 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I wonder what you define a BBS as? I generally think of it as a dial-in modem pool that is connection oriented with a simple text interface.  I know that there were several telnet session type 'BBS's that existed on the Internet.  The idea of this reference is that IP based connectivity was not available to many people prior to the 1990s.  There were only about 10,000 hosts on the Internet in 1989.  Things like AOL, CompuServe, and FidoNet had many more active users.  There is a claim in the CBBS article that it is the first BBS.  Part of this may be due to a definition of what a BBS is.  Some of the pages support this with references; although they do not appear to be high quality references.  I think that CBBS could be the first 'direct dial BBS'.  As this applies to the history of file sharing, I think that direct dial BBS's were more important to file sharing prior to 1990, especially when combined with phreaking and protocols like ZModem, Sea-link, kermit, etc.  If you can find a terse version of this to put in that entry, that is fine by me. Bpringlemeir (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 * See the article on Bulletin board systems. Most of my points above are noted in the introduction of that article.  So if this small claim in the timeline of filesharing is wrong, then so are the articles CBBS and Bulletin board system.  If so, we should fix all of them, but I think you need a good rational.  Bpringlemeir (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:EDonkey2000 logotype.gif
The image File:EDonkey2000 logotype.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Updates?
2014 had some pretty notable news to do with filesharing: ·Pirate Bay raided and down for the longest time in its history. Devs unsure of its future. ·UK ISPs such as BT block hundreds of filesharing sites Some sites only available through TOR network ·ISOhunt shutdown ·Mininova shutdown https://torrentfreak.com/archives/ contains hundreds of very notable stories and events in the filesharing world Elliott Stanley Music (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

YoutubeTV
Promo catalogs company kingdom credit 24.129.191.170 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

AppleJuice redirects to literal Apple Juice as in the fruit Apple's juice
The name got me curious and the link led to this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_juice

Maybe the Wiki page was deleted? And so it's redirecting to literal apple juice instead of the software 49.37.159.55 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Timeline of file sharing


text: User talk:82.33.201.219

title: User talk:82.33.201.219


text:
Template talk:Infobox language game

Use
I adapted this template from Template:Language for use on pages about language games.
 * –Benjamin

Colours
Here are some suggestions for colours to use for "familycolor" (the colour of the top bar of the infobox):

Faux science
I find the similarity of this infobox template to Template:Language, especially the use of colors for "classification", pretty disconcerting. It gives the appearance of language games being on some kind of equal footing with real languages, which is very inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please consider a design that is more distinct from the one used for actual languages.

Peter Isotalo 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Infobox language game


text:
SciTegic

SciTegic was a San Diego-based software company that developed and marketed informatics software to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

History
The company was founded in February 1999 by Mathew A. Hahn and David Rogers. Mathew Hahn and David Rogers came from the bioinformatics software company Molecular Simulations.

In 2004, it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Accelrys after a 21.5 million dollar deal.

Pipeline Pilot
Pipeline pilot was designed to reduce the manual data entry and transfer steps required of computational chemists and project chemists in screening and modeling workflows. A streamlined workflow could then be used by bench scientists and reduce the need to interact with multiple software packages to one interface.

Creating Pipeline Pilot, SciTegic has pioneered a technology approach called "Data Pipelining" to flexibly process drug discovery data. This software uses a visual and dataflow programming language much like LabVIEW for piping input and output of commands together to build a pipeline to transform any number of inputs (raw data) into any number of outputs (e.g., a spreadsheet tying together the results of multiple experiments).

Mathew Hahn assumed technical leadership roles, including Chief Technology Officer, for Accelrys after the acquisition.

title: SciTegic


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything Linux

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 keep. Rob Church Talk 01:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything Linux

 * Delete - This article fails the Company inclusion guidelines. The company retails Linux.  There has been some discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, however, it came to no conclusion.  There are a number of other companies with similar notability.  I believe that if this shop retailed lingerie or books it would be deleted, retailing computer software, even Linux, should not be treated differently.  The article is an advertisement currently freely hosted by Wikipedia. User:AYArktos |  Talk 21:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment Is this a single retail outlet or a chain? Delete if former, keep if latter. Not perfectly clear in entry. Marskell 21:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep based on below. Why don't you expand this Chug to note the on-line importance/success? Marskell 21:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have any stats or references to back it up. I *know* it is, but that doesn't really help.  I'm working on it :P -- Chuq 22:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an online retailer as well as a shop front.  So far as the online side of it goes, it also happens to be one of the largest in Australia - I can only think of two (this and LSL) off the top of my head.  (If someone wants to write about one of the countries biggest lingerie or bookstore, such as Bras N Things or Angus & Robertson, that would probably be less likely to be nominated for deletion as they have a bigger market than an online Linux store.) -- Chuq 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - although no published statistics are available, I believe it would pass Company inclusion guideline #4. -- Chuq 22:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Guideline 4 can be met by almost any corner shop for a suitably narrow definition of "market area". Bras N Things and Angus & Robertson are both chains/franchises, not a single store.  The chain may be notable, but an individual shopfront is not. The best argument I've heard for notability for this one is if it can really be a profitable business running on online store selling freely-downloadable software! --Scott Davis Talk 00:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Revoked delete vote based on expansion --Scott Davis Talk 02:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Market area" in this case is "Australia" - wide enough? This isn't just a single corner shop somewhere - it is an online retailer - therefore its market/scope is as wide as a nationwide chain. -- Chuq 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (Answering since you felt ignored below) Their website claims their market area is the entire western Pacific including China and Japan. If I want a book about Debian Linux (for example), I'll shop at a bookshop. If I want Debian Linux, I go to debian.org and download it (or install online). If the article is extended to show how they can make a profit from selling things online that people can just as easily download for free, then I might change my vote. --Scott Davis Talk 13:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * People who don't have broadband; people who have low quotas; people who like the fancy pressed CDs; people who want to try several different distros and would rather receive the CDs overnight instead of wait for a week to download them all; people who want to purchase one of ELX's custom people who want a distro AND a book, or other merchandise in one order; people who want to buy hardware guaranteed to work with Linux; but seeing as they have been in business for 6 years, I don't think discussing their business model is really relevant - it obviously works fine for them and several others. -- Chuq 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no indication/proof that this meets Guideline 4. It definatley doesnt meet any other guideline. Agnte 11:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional comment (moved from above because it appear people didn't see it) - this is VERY informal research, but of 7 out of 12 10 out of 16 people who replied to my post on an Australian Linux forum said Everything Linux was the first Linux retailer they thought of.  It shows high notability in it's target market (Australian Linux users)  Very informal, but 62.5% is a lot higher than 20%. -- Chuq 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. at least the article does not mention anything encyclopaedic in it. Xtra 00:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the article still needs much improving. Xtra 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Chug, prove it. Marskell 00:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have commented/replied to many of the objections here, but been ignored. I don't want to repeat myself, but I will. 62.5% of Australian Linux users, when asked to name a Linux online retailer, name Everything Linux as the first and sometimes only one they know.  Yes, its a very small sample size, but 62.5% is significant, qualifies (for me) as the biggest in the country, and implies that the store definitely passes company inclusion guideline #4.  It's a bit hard to prove what is common knowledge in a certain circle, but no-one has gone out of their way to prove in the past.  This might help:  -- Chuq 12:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It is the only linux retailer I know of within Australia. I have bought from them several times. The article should be expanded instead of being removed, it definatelty has a large percentage of the market within it's niche. --Martyman- (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: significant Australian Linux shop. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete reads like an ad, looks like an ad. Nothing noteworthy in the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:21, 20 October 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.