text:
Talk:Domain hack

neologism claim / verifiability
I just made an edit that references secondary sources that explain the concept, rather than sources that use the concept, to address the neologism claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domain_hack&oldid=658993449 Xonatron (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit was to address the verifiability claim as well. Please move ahead with this if it is acceptable. Xonatron (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

bogus and dubious claims of invention?
The deletion discussion on this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domain_hack showcases very well that the claims of coining the term "domain hack" are not "bogus" or "dubious". There were never any claims about inventing domain hacks, so that's an invalid reason to delete content about coinage. Invention and coinage are two different things. Please do your research! 24.224.184.12 (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bogus claim because the term itself was in widespread use well before 2004. The expression "domain hack" is bogus as it was in widespread use before that and the Linuxmafia.com link shows some of these domain hacks and e-mail hacks. The link dates from 1997 and is a mirror of a 1995 document. Citing what may be your own article on a website is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source. The domain hacks search may be acceptable as a link. However the domain "domainhack.com" was in use in 2000 which would go some way towards establishing its use before 2004. Jmccormac (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cite examples of all these claims. The term "domain hack" was used before 2004, but not to described "domain hacks" as we know them today as described by this article. "domainhack.com" was not used for "domain hacks" as we know them today, and was in no away associated with domain hacks until the current owner launched a website on it this month (October 2009). "Domain hacks" existed before 2004, such as inter.net, but were left unnamed and unrecognized, until "domain hack" was coined as a necessity in 2004. All of what I say here is true, and I am not sure why you think otherwise, but my guess is you have just made an assumption that this is all spammer-inspired too quickly. This is not the case. Please do your research... 24.222.205.6 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that domainhacks.com (S) some how went unregistered until 2004 and until 3 days before the name "domain hacks" was claimed and recorded to be coined is an indication that the term was not in widespread use well before 2004. Thought you may find that interesting since you are using the registration date of domainhack.com (no S) to make your case. 24.222.205.6 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Plural registrations tend to follow the initial singular registrations (where a registrant does not register both versions at the same time). Perhaps in your attempt to attribute the coining term you neglected to look at the title of the article. It is "domain hack". I also checked the registration history of domainhacks.com. It is quite laughable that the same article on the xona.com site also claims to have coined the term "e-mail hack". As I pointed out earlier, a reference to what may be a self-authored article on a website with the intent to promote a website search engine is not what is considered, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source. The term "domain hack" was widely known and used in the domain business well before 2004. Are there any reliable sources (please read the Wikipedia explanation of the term) that attribute the coining of the term to Matthew Doucette? If you are making a claim or attributing the coining of the phrase or term then you have to provide reliable sources to verify that claim. That's the way that Wikipedia works. Jmccormac (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if "email hack" did not take off as "domain hack". It does not matter if "domainahck.com" was registered before, as it was never used in this context. a "domain hack" before was security hack of a domain name. Do you realize that? Not until 2004 was "domain hack" popularized to mean something else. Whoever first used and sparked popularization of a term is the one who coined it. Isn't that how it works? You have not shown any sources before xona.com to have used the term (none exist). Correct me if I am wrong, PLEASE. I am not here to argue, I only want truth. You just seem to be making very bad assumptions with no evidence or research to back it up (which I have done.) 24.222.205.6 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The term "domain hack" was widely known and used in the domain business well before 2004." This statement is completely untrue. I challenge you to prove me wrong. 24.222.205.6 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is more reliable that checking the history of the Internet itself and finding no usage of the term before the 2004 search engine which claimed to coin it in 2004? I'm not sure what type of source you require to realize the claim is a truth (and not spam inspired). 24.222.205.6 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a start (a google search showing no usage of the term, in the manner as we know it today, before 2004): http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1980&as_user_hdate=2009&q=%22domain+hack%22&scoring=n&hl=en&ned=ca&um=1&q=%22domain+hack%22&lnav=od&btnG=Go 24.222.205.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC).
 * It is not a reliable source. Read the Wikipedia explanation of what constitutes a reliable source. If you want to claim that someone coined a phrase then you've got to provide reliable sources to verify that claim. All you've provided is what may be a self-referential article. Domain hacks have been widely used, especially in ccTLDs and they predate the claim to have coined the phrase. The term itself was also used in the domain and hosting business before the supposed coining in 2004. It is rather unfortunate that Google has missed the coining of the phrase in 2004. Jmccormac (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delicious.com showing no activity before 2004: http://delicious.com/search?p=%22domain+hack%22+OR+%22domain+hacks%22&chk=&fr=del_icio_us&lc=1&atags=&rtags=&context=all%7C%7C I could go on and on, as what I am saying is the truth. (You should start with me there, on this issue. Assuming I am not lying and we can solve this easier.) 24.222.205.6 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot accept that I am telling you the truth. Why not start there with me? "The term itself was also used in the domain and hosting business before the supposed coining in 2004." This statement is completely wrong. There is absolutly no evidence that the term was in use before 2004. I have done the research. Tell me what reliable source is needed in this case. 24.222.205.6 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept that you are telling the truth as you see it. The problem is that without reliable sources (read WP:RS) all we have is your word for the claim. And it seems that the domainhacks.com domain was registered for the domain hacks search. So what have we got? A claim to have coined the phrase "domain hack". A site with a domain hacks search facility. A domain "domainhacks.com" registered within days of the article being posted along with the claims of having coined the terms "e-mail hack" and "domain hack". And no reliable sources other than that article. Jmccormac (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have all that, plus proof of no usage before that article and search site. And wouldn't this fit into the Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source, because xona.com was actively involved with the topic at hand? I don't think the article claims it coined email hack, as email hack is not popular, but I think it just says something to the effect of "we call them email hacks" and "we call them domain hacks" which is how terms get coined in the first place, if and only if they take off and become popular, which in this case they did. 24.222.205.6 (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Xona.com fits wikipedia's definition of a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves How else do you get a reliable source about something someone did who is not recognized by third parties, when it clearly is the truth? 24.222.205.6 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this many years later, I would just like to note we settled this argument off the record via private email. 24.222.78.57 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

History
We should mention cr.yp.to as well as ma.tt, too very popular domain hacks. 24.224.184.2 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Use Popular Domain Hacks as Examples
Shouldn't we use the most popular domain hacks as examples? Such as ma.tt and blo.gs, and then del.icio.us and cr.yp.to for examples for 3rd level domains? 24.137.115.73 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * domain hacks can so easily be explained, directly right off the bat, by exmaples. i think we should do this, and use commonly used domain hacks as examples (as mentioned above) in the first paragraphs or in a table with larger text that showcases what they are immediately 24.224.184.2 (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Code as expression
This section makes good points, but perhaps data.ma is not notable enough and another example should be used? 24.222.121.193 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I replaced the data.ma (spam?) with del.icio.us. I do not see the point in using an unknown domain hack as an example when there are plenty of well known examples to use (del.icio.us, blo.gs, cr.yp.to, rome.ro, etc.) 24.222.121.193 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * fair point, but del.icio.us is a English word and the point I was making with the data.ma project is that creativity is in the construction of new 'word objects' by using such devices like domain hacks. The intention of the del.icio.us domain hack was not expression (it's never beendiscussed as by Joshua), unlike data.ma. The data.ma name was designed under the notion of expression and thus is a better example of 'code as expression'. I appreciate that you may see it as spam (I work on the datama project), but the project is a non profit exercise, very open and is a plstform to explore expression in code. If we keep refering to del.icio.us, the creative paradigms wont appear. I've reverted the text to include data.ma. Please comment below before reverting again. Thanks. Zeroinfluencer 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think what you are trying to showcase is great, but what I'm not sure about is how data.ma conveys that info better than del.ici.us. I automatically assumed del.icio.us was some form of expression, but maybe I am missing your point.  Maybe cr.yp.to would be better?  Do whatever is best for the article. (BTW, when replying use four tildas in a row to show your info.) 24.222.121.193 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * http://data.ma/ is a bad example for at least this one point: it forwards to another URL. If the URL was so important, why is this happening? This really makes data.ma look like spam (not something you wish for I assume.) 24.222.121.193 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * data.ma forwards to a wordpress account as we are try to keep the project as flexible as possible at present; maybe we'll move it to our own hosted environment at some point when we're a bit more organised, but we are talking about the domain name, not the hosting environments here.

 * Apols if it looks like spam (I really see your point about this - I withdrew/left the wiki entry on datama based upon this point). The datam.ma domain name is different to del.icio.us or cr.yp.to as it moves away from the instantly recognisable english or slang/nickname and begins to indicate that objects of expression can be born out of code. The pronouciation of del.icio.us doesn't conjour emotion like the word data.ma (try saying them both outloud and you'll hear the difference). This transferance of expression from object to human does make it unique - at least I haven't seen anything like it.

 * Being able to transfer emotion through code-objects is the nature of the project; del.icio.us on the other hand is far more banal, literal and maybe irrelevent considering the service that is currently delivers. data.ma also is an accessable word across many languages - it's simplicity/refinement is yet another case in mind when designing code-objects - del.icio.us (as stated in the Criticisms section) can be difficult to remember where the periods go, thus as a domain name it partially fails as at being as useful object. Perhaps I should use these points and expand upon the Code as Expression entry...Zeroinfluencer 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe there is a more notable (and used) domain hack to convey this same information? Is there?  There are thousands of domain hacks registered (most of which are not used and/or not notable).  I'm not sure if notability matters, but I think it does as it helps the reader understand quicker if they already have a piece of prior knowledge that places them one step in the right direction beforehand. 24.222.121.193 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * We've added a load new content to the data.ma site, so anyone clicking though should understand what 'code as expression' will mean by reading about the project. I wish I knew more notable examples too..Zeroinfluencer 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The point of using a notable example is to avoid extra research, isn't it? We should try to explain the information to the visitor as quickly and effeciently as possible. 24.222.121.193 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section from the article. More than just "original research", it seemed to me highly speculative and un-encyclopedic. Fluff, to put it bluntly. John Kugelman 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename article?
Since this article was concidered for deletion, and most google searches for "domain hack" return hackers gaining control of domains, this article should be renamed to "Domain renaming techniques" jraspiprojects 11:33 (PST) 12/21/2018

Should These Domains be Added to Domain Hacks list?

 * domain hacks list deleted

Note: As per "List of active or registered domain hacks" section (in this discussion article), the domain hacks list no longer exists. 24.222.121.193 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are currently two lists, both located off-Wikipedia: As far as I know, these are still being maintained. --66.102.80.239 16:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * UnSource:List of domain hacks
 * Internet Wikia's copy of the list that was deleted from this wiki

 * www.dot.cotton.com?

www.dot.cotton.com???? Saccerzd 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a domain hack. 24.222.121.193 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dot_Cotton was a character in the BBC soap Eastenders. -- RND   talk  21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this because you believe that makes it a domain hack? It would only be a domain hack if the url was http://dotcott.on/ (which is not a possible example) or something similar where the TLD is a part of the title, and all the letters used are a part of the title.  I see what you are getting at though.  It would be like Dr. Phil using http://dr.phil.com/, where you are somewhat hacking the domain name system.  However, only http://dr.ph.il/ (or http://drph.il/, etc.) would be considered a domain hack.  It's important for all the letters to be used. 24.222.121.193 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps domains like http://dr.phil.com/ could be considered "minor domain hacks". This would be along the lines of domains like http://stop.spamming.us/ being considered "perfect domain hacks" (as the periods are perfectly placed as word separators.)

That is like when I owned deleted.com and used the email, no.spam.it.will.be@deleted.com Joseph Slabaugh

 * fuckthe.eu?

 * fuck.it?

I'm not really sure that *.it or *.to using the words "it" or "to" would be a domain hack. cr.yp.to is a domain hack, this is an expansion of "crypto", similarly if there were a bullsh.it, or (Warning: slashdot-themed suggestion) hotgr.it. Thus propose to remove all those simply using the TLD as a word from the list. Chris talk back 21:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Domains like redirect.to should not be domain hacks, as they are not the full title. However, domains like i.am/canadian should be domain hacks, as they are the full title.  Along with that type of classification, fuck.it would be a domain hack.  My two cents. 137.186.22.71 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * http://meta.uncyclomedia.org/wiki/UnSource:List_of_domain_hacks lists i.am as being operated through the same entity (Fortunecity V3) as most of the generic redirect.to/whatever domains. There are many of them. --205.150.76.14 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * tcl.tk?

I know, it's not strictly a domain hack in some definitions, BUT... It's about a language/toolkit combo named TCL/TK! Isn't that clever enough?
 * This fits the definition of a domain hack. 137.186.22.11 22:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As a non-techie, this one makes no sense to me, so I'd like to remove it. If someone can find a way to integrate it into the article in an understandable fashion, that'd be great. Even on the talk page, I don't understand the 'trick'.. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, normally it would have to be called tcltk.com, and the domain hack version is tcl.tk. That's all there is to the trick.  Please let me know if I'm missing your point. 24.222.121.193 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * dau.pl?

Should dau.pl be in the 'notable' list?

 * .to & .tv ccTLDs?

Perhaps the .to's and .tv's can be excluded from the list (whenever they are used as the word "to" and the word "tv") and described elsewhere with a few notable examples. They are almost too abundant to list and not quite as innovative and as rare as using the ccTLD for only a part of the word. So, listing .to's and .tv's, when they are used as full words, almost degrades the quality of the list. Thoughts? 137.186.22.203 14:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Notables...BUBL@bath.ac.uk?

Probably not a strict "domain hack", but it was registered in 1990, when Glasgow University built the site to train UK Librarians to use JANET (UK's Joint Academic Network). The Bulletin Board for Libraries was hosted at the University of Bath, making it BUBL@bath.

If others think it fits, please add.

k.greenhill@murdoch.edu.au 10 June 2006

 * whocalled.us?

Whocalled.us is a list of caller ID numbers displayed on telemarketing calls - a consumer complaint site. It is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion here.

 * sp.am?

Registered to the net abuse clearinghouse http://abuse.net but not actively in use. (.am is Armenia) --66.102.80.239 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * youtu.be?

Redirects to youtube.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.4.44 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 * abc.de

Company that hosts the German mirror of project Gutenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.222.77 (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Most Popular Domain Hack
"The most popular domain hack is del.icio.us." — what's the source for this claim? My gut feeling is that cr.yp.to is more popular, because it's been around longer and Dan Bernstein's tools (qmail, ezmlm, tinydns, etc.) are widely used. What's more, I'm not sure what the proper measure of popularity should really be. Given the nature of the site, I'll grant that del.icio.us almost surely gets more pageviews, but I have no doubt that cr.yp.to has received (and continues to receive) far more unique visitors, most of whom simply download one of the tools and never return. --158.130.16.191 20:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I decided the most popular based on alexa rank. I anticipated that I might be wrong if there was a domain hack I was unaware of or if it were to be measured by different methods.  The best is to explain exactly what you said.  Give the highest alexa ranked domain hack, and also give the views on cr.yp.to.  Perhaps only the most popular domain hacks should be kept in the list below. 137.186.22.19 03:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, I believe the del.icio.us article has this same comment in it, unless it has been changed. Just wanted to make a note of this while it was on my mind, as it is related. 137.186.22.19 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And .us has the same comment about del.icio.us being the mose popular domain hack. 137.186.22.244 14:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe that del.icio.us might be more popular than cr.yp.to because the average user/blogger/website owner may not have heard of their tools. Only if you get real into Mr. Bernstein's tools like I have or if you have heard of Qmail on a fora such as The Planet's fora. Simply put, while cr.yp.to might be more established than del.icio.us, I urge all of us not to get susp.icio.us on this and let's just let this be. The Coldwood 08:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

List of active or registered domain hacks
It would be nice if this information were placed into an easy to read table, which would take far less space, and not require scrolling to browse through them. 137.186.22.143 22:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think a table would be the proper solution, although I personally feel the domain hacks should be listed in a seperate article, like, say, list of active or registered domain hacks. jareha 23:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a very good idea (although I still like the idea of just linking to the website that maintains a list of them, instead of trying to keep a copy of that list here). — mendel ☎ 01:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned above, perhaps only the most popular domain hacks should be kept in this list. How do we measure popularity?  See discussion on most popular domain hack above. 137.186.22.19 03:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe list of domain hacks should be the article. Should I go make it?  Then, how do we decide what domain hacks remain in the orignal domain hack article? 137.186.22.101 19:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * A seperate list of domain hacks article has been created. jareha 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This has been deleted and moved to Wikiasite:Internet:list of domain hacks. A.nge.la.

 * As far .as I can .tel, the list on the Inter.net wiki does include some which are registered but don't resolve? There's another li.st whi.ch exclud.es anything that doesn't have any content (although some were marginal, like personal sit.es with ju.st a title page). --205.150.76.42 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

List of hacks
A few years ago I generated this list of possible domains, with a parser that looked for all valid english scrabble words that could be extended to a second valid english scrabble word with a TLD or SLD. I'd be willing to submit it to en.wp under PD, anyone think it could/should be incorporated? Note: That this is not a full list of all possible english TLD hacks, just ones that are valid both before and after the TLD is added. Also this is a list of only one word hacks. Even so, this list is rather large. Splarka (rant) 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian and .net sites
Domain hacking was at one time (cca 2000-2001) quite popular in Russia simply because "net" means "no" or "there isn't". So, we have sites like anekdotov.net - "there are no jokes", piva.net - "there is no beer", fishki.net - "there's no point" (slang term) and many others.
 * you forgot :) --86.4.62.200 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is already talk of domain hacking in other languages in the article, so I do not see why this would be a problem to add. 24.222.121.193 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

oldest domain hack?
i remember dis.org, re.org and theb.org from c. 1992, so inter.net might not be the oldest. Benwing 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * WHOIS results for those domains creation dates of:
 * dis.org: 24-Nov-1992 05:00:00 UTC
 * re.org: 22-May-1995 04:00:00 UTC
 * theb.org: 16-May-1997 04:00:00 UTC
 * WHOIS for inter.net shows 22-Nov-1992. The others could possibly be older, as their registration might have lapse and thus reset the creation-date when they were re-registered. Still, given our currently-available sources, inter.net seems to beat out dis.org by two days. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What about ja.net? WHOIS shows registered on 17-May-1991.
 * Not a domain hack, in that JAnet = "joint academic network", so this one does keep ".net" in exactly its original meaning as "network" instead of cleverly re-purposing it to construct something unique. Certainly there are many possible plays on words with .net (naming a network alter.net, infi.net and the like is not a new idea - except maybe back in the dialup-BBS days) but I wouldn't group ja.net in with pla.net, cabi.net et al. --carlb 04:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section
The "controversy" section doesn't really seem controversial... I mean, who's to say what good domain naming conventions are? In fact, the existence of this article proves that a variety of naming standards can work. But most of all, domains are anyone's to buy, name, and use... so what does it matter if they follow "conventions"?? The section seems more like one person's reaction than an actual "controversy"

Why is there no mention of the effects of domain hacks on web searches, specifically how they make it harder to narrow a search by adding a whitelist or blacklist of TLDs. For example, if I want to find information about sofas, but I'm not looking to buy one, I can search "sofa -site:com -site:biz", or to find scientific information on sex instead of pornography, I can search "sex site:edu". Isn't this an issue with domain hacks? Bostoner (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

goatse.cx
Should be noted that GOATSE most likely an acronym for "Guy Opens Ass To Show Everyone", though most people read it as Goat Sex.

 * Most likely "...to show everyone" is a backronym, see backronym and list of backronyms. There are many of these created as jokes, such as F.O.R.D. to be "Found On Road Dead" (cute, but actually Ford is a person's name)... --205.150.76.41 03:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

plutoni.um
The .um TLD (US Minor Outlying islands) is not in active use, but due to wildcard DNS a long list of names like http://deuteri.um http://triti.um http://urani.um do (or did) resolve to the same one page. Typing site:.um into a search engine yields many of these, but are they of any real significance? --205.150.76.14 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason they are in a search engine is because of this page. Myself and a colleague have applied for .um domains but the registrar are not taking registrations at this time. -Indolences 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That site does have its flaws, such as listing second-level names for .tld's that only issue third-level, as well as listing some that are not internationally available or not available at all (.so, for instance, has been down since ml.org folded at the end of 1998). Unfortu.net, as otherwi.se it does make a useful tool. --66.102.80.239 01:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ARE.US
I removed this reference as the link no longer works:

 * 1) CNN Tech. 9], 2007.

I did do a search on CNN Tech but couldn't find the original article anywhere.

As the reference no longer works, I removed this sentence from the article as it is not verifiable:

"The domain are.us which together with a subdomain can be read as an entire sentence (domains.are.us, computers.are.us, etc) is up for sale for a reportedly unprecedented $250,000."

Feel free to put the above 2 back if you can find another source. Erwinloh 05:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Undid revision 152917522 by 195.56.31.104 (talk) - there is no reference to this and no reference 4, so I removed that line again. Erwinloh 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortest domain name on record
What does "i.am the shortest domain name on record" mean? There are lots of SLDs registered that contain 1+2 letters, so that's not it. What is it? -- Jao 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The shortest existing TLD is two-characters, the shortest name under an individual TLD could be no less than one character. As such, there is currently no way to make a shorter domain name than "i.am", although it is possible to create something of equal length like "u.nu" ('you knew' is a travel photo album) or "c.la" («c'est là», a redirector - "it's there"). So yes, "i.am the shortest name" but as part of what is inevitably a tie for first place. :) A short name is valuable if building a redirector or issuing subdomains, so as the shortest complete sentence in English, "i.am" is perfect. --66.102.80.239 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I refer you all to: http://to/ a top-level domain, and url shortener —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.127.197 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 * That domain is actually « to.com » and is likely relying on individual browsers to attempt to add extensions to an incomplete address. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The shortest domain name is "i.is", it is only 4 mm long. The above mentioned domain ". i.am" is on the other hand at least 5 mm long :) Jens 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (talk).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenspeturjensen (talk • contribs)

rammste.in
New domain hack added; Rammste.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquinn (talk • contribs) 07:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tried it. Two days after its original registration, that domain still does not resolve. --66.102.80.239 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's dead, Jim. --205.150.76.42 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

panssarivau.nu
A finnish comedy site, means "tank". (panssari means "armor" and vaunu means "vehicle" - "armored vehicle") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.39.178 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Speaking of comedy, itsnotlup.us was made after the "Finding Judas" episode of House, taking its name from a line in the show that became a small meme. The meme isn't really notable, but that just provides an example with the .us ending.  Zchris87v  19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As a joke ccTLD, .us is almost too ea.sy a target. It see.ms to host more sil.ly domains than mo.st other two-letter dictionary word ta.gs, including .it and .me --66.102.80.212 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ma.tt
The most famous "Matt" on the internet has registered "ma.tt". Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it in, got deleted, I just put it in again. I bet it's the second or third most visited domain hack on the net. Deserves a mention. 24.215.121.195 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Don't worry, it's not you .. there are some real idiot power-tripping admins who have ruined Wikipedia. It's the reason why I hardly edit anymore. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Added to this list... odd there's nothing else on there for .tt, but the high cost of registration there may be a factor? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

whocalled.us
I note that one user seems to have an axe to grind with respect to the inclusion of telemarketing consumer complaint site "whocalled.us" as a well-known domain hack. I did check Alexa, and that site does report "whocalled.us" as being near the top 40,000 most-used websites out of however million are online, so it would appear to be a notable example if it is indeed a domain hack. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is nothing to do with the site. It is just that there are many examples of domain hacks in the text. Alexa is not a reliable statistical resource as it can be influenced by anyone with the Alexa toolbar installed on their browser. A domain hack, to some, would be where the TLD is used to with the domain name to make a complete word. However it has been expanded to expressions (such as "whocalled.us"). If it means so much to you, then put it in the examples table rather than just linking to the DomainTools whois copy. Jmccormac (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The table of examples is in the "other languages" section; is "whocalled.us" in another language? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Domain hack Vs. Domain name hack
I propose that we keep expression domain name hack — the one used in the original article from Wikia — instead of domain hack which I think should be the one between parentheses given that the word domain can refer to many things and not just domain names and therefore can be confusing for people who are not familiar with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDumier (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * This article did not originate on Wikia. They are the ones who are copying info deleted on Wikipédia. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow this edit went back up and I removed it. To repeat a quick google search of "domain name hack" shows it is unused. To put it in this article makes no sense. It's just someone renaming something already named. However inappropriate you may feel "domain hack" is, it's what it was coined and what is now being used. I appreciate the want for a better name. 173.252.33.69 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam
This whole article seems to be a one sentence topic that is only growing longer because of the miracle of advertisement. I.e. 90% of article bulk is "examples." --Bxj (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems unusual to include all these languages. They do not make the example any more easy to understand - and is in my opinion just advertisement and SEO. Atomicbre (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

mec.ca
User 75.145.190.85 left the following message on my talk page on 5 August 2011: "I see you originated the mention of "mec.ca" on Domain hack. I've tagged it cn because I'm unaware of any intention of the word "mecca" by MEC. If they only meant it as MEC (their initials) + ca (ccTLD for Canada), then it's not really a domain hack and doesn't belong there. But if they also play it as a pun (e.g. advertising themselves as "the mec.ca for sportsmen" or so, then it would be ok; hoping since you added it you'll know where to start..."

I replied on 75.145.190.85's talk page on 7 August: "Thanks for your message re Mountain Equipment Co-op and mec.ca. I have no inside knowledge of their marketing strategy, I only know what I can see on their posters (where they prominently give their address simply as "mec.ca", with no www) and the fact that it's simply not credible to suppose they wouldn't have been aware of it. Of course it started because it happened also to be their initials, but there are plenty of other ways to make a URL out of "Mountain Equipment Co-op", and they chose this one no doubt largely because of the delicious conjunction with a well-known name that also had connotations of a centre to which people flock in large numbers. They don't need to make any more of it than that precisely because the connotation is self-evident. The fact that it's their name doesn't cancel out its value as a domain hack, as your comment suggested; if anything, it enhances it by providing an additional layer of pleasing coincidence. Google "Mountain Equipment Co-op" plus Mecca and you'll see that many reviewers of their products are also pleased by this coincidence, describing it as a mecca for outdoor enthusiasts etc. To require a citation is a bit like asking for a citation that Austin Powers is meant to be a spoof of James Bond. If you couldn't find a quote where Mike Myers says "Austin Powers is a spoof of James Bond" would you consider that statement to be unsupported or conjectural? No. It's self-evident"

But on 25 August 75.145.190.85 went ahead and deleted my reference from this article anyway, citing "mec.ca's domain hack status not WP:V, removed".

The removal strikes me as petty because the requirement for some specific authority is, in this case, misconceived --  i.e. irrelevant to the nature of the information. What do other people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathandore (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

International names section, ccTLD#Commercial and vanity use
In the international names section, there is a link "Further information: ccTLD#Commercial and vanity use" which currently points to a non-existing section in the destination article. Anyone care to dig out what it was pointing to and thus what the point of the reference is? Katana (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

.ch
The article says: «Family names in many Slavic languages end with ch (i.e. -ich, -vich, -vych, -ovich), so .ch (ccTLD for Switzerland) are very interesting to them.», on to which I added citation needed. The thing is, no Slavic language actually uses "ch" for the mentioned ending, but rather "cz", "ć", "č", "ч", or "ћ". Using the Swiss TLD in this manner makes only sense for emmigrants and their descendents in English or Spanish speaking countries, where said name ending is trivially assimilated as "ch". I suspect that this sentence in the article is nothing but original research, and a sloppy one, too. Tuvalkin (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Pictomain
I'm sorry for coming out of nowhere with this issue. In my defense, I have to say that I have never wrote anything to the Wikipedia encyclopedia before. So if I came across in an inappropriate way, I would like to apologize at this point, but it's due to my lacking wiki skills. While writing this right now, I'm not even sure if this is directed to the expected recipient. I thought that wiki was the right source to pronounce this subject. I'm a media designer located in Germany and very interested in this theme. As you can imagine, I can not post or name a source, actually proving what I'm trying to define, because it's new. The term pictomain has never been mentioned in this, or any other context before. The possibility to create a so called "pictomain" has never occurred before! Therefore I would truly admire your companionship and innovative vision. The domains mentioned in the text are not commercial! To speak for ix0xi.islam in particular, it is a preordered domain, not officially available yet, but soon will be. It does not have any relation to religious orientation. I'm unaffiliated with any religion.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piktomain (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Domain hack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081021013937/http://cocca.cx:80/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3 to http://cocca.cx/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309092950/http://blo.gs:80/for-sale.php to http://blo.gs/for-sale.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Domain hack search online
I think it would be useful to list in this article some online resources helping to find domain hacks. I've checked several ones and looks like the best I found for now is tld-hack.com (link). It works with the latest TLDs including IDNs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikipikiwiki (talk • contribs) 07:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Promotional links are not acceptable, and certainly not one that attempts to collect GPS data from visitors by default. Mind  matrix  18:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

TehSpe.de listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TehSpe.de. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Domain hack


text: User talk:64.200.124.189

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

title: User talk:64.200.124.189


text:
YMA

YMA may refer to:

 * Young Muslim Association, an organization for people of all ages that promotes Islam in America
 * Mayo Airport, the IATA code for the airport in Canada
 * Yilan Museum of Art, a museum in Yilan County, Taiwan
 * Yma Súmac, a noted dramatic coloratura soprano of Peruvian origin, born September 13, 1922
 * Young Mizo Association, an organization for the people of Mizo

title: YMA


text:
Secretariat of Energy (Mexico)

The Secretariat of Energy (Spanish: Secretaría de Energia) is the government department in charge of production and regulation of energy in Mexico, this secretary is a member of the Executive Cabinet.

The current Secretariat of Energy under Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is Rocío Nahle García.

History
On December 7, 1946, the Secretaría de Bienes Nacionales e Inspección Administrativa (Secretariat of National Assets and Administrative Inspection) was created with Alfonso Caso Andrade serving as secretary. In 1958, the name was changed to Secretaría de Patrimonio Nacional (Secretariat of National Assets, SEPANAL). In the late 1970s and 1980s it changed names two more times, being known as the Secretaría de Patrimonio y Fomento Industrial (Secretariat of Assets and Industrial Development) during the presidency of José López Portillo and as the Secretaría de Energía, Minas e Industria Paraestatal (Secretariat of Energy, Mining and Semi-Public Industries) until obtaining its current name in 1994.

Three individuals served as Secretary of Energy under President Felipe Calderón : Georgina Yamilet Kessel Martínez (December 2006-January 2011), José Antonio Meade (January–September 2011), and Jordy Herrera Flores (September 2011-November 2012).

title: Secretariat of Energy (Mexico)


text:
Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane

Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane (5 August 1973 – 16 February 2013) was a Danish citizen who was held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba. His Guantanamo Internment Serial Number was 323. The US Department of Defense reports he was born on 5 August 1973, in Roskilde, Denmark. His mother is Danish and his father is Algerian. When he was eight his family returned to Algeria, but his mother moved back to Denmark a year later. Then he lived with his paternal grandmother.

In 1993 Abderrahmane left Algeria and settled in Randers, Denmark, where he joined a music group and worked as a DJ in a club. He attended Aarhus University until 1998, but he did not complete his studies.

He is reported to have been inspired to travel to Afghanistan in the late 1990s in a mosque in Grimhøjvej, founded by an Algerian refugee named Athme Meheri. Danish journalist Morten Skjoldager described Meheri's mosque as a "radical mosque" in his book "Truslen indefra" ("the threat from within"). Abderrahmane was captured, in December 2001, in Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border. He was transferred to Guantanamo on 10 February 2002. He was repatriated to Denmark on 24 February 2004.

Abderrahmane's explanation for how he came to be captured was that he had traveled there to enroll in an Afghan military training camp to undergoing training so he could go fight with Muslim rebels in Chechnya. Abderrahmane was held in Guantanamo Bay for over two years. According to an article in U.S. News & World Report he was released in spite of reservations from US security officials because the Danes had threatened to withdraw their troops if he was not released. Abderrahmane was the subject of a 2004 book entitled Den naive terrorist.

After his release, Abderrahmane announced plans to travel to fight in Chechnya. He said he regarded the document he signed promising not to take part in terrorist activity as "toilet paper". Danish security officials talked him out of his trip. He has said that Denmark's role in the Occupation of Iraq meant that he thought Danish leaders were legitimate military targets. On 10 October 2007, in the Copenhagen suburb of Greve, Abderrahmane was sentenced to 10 months in jail for the theft of two passports and three credit cards which he used to withdraw more than 110,000 Danish kroner (approximately US$20,000). The items were stolen from the mail sorting office where Abderrahmane was working under a new Danish name. Police only recovered a small proportion of the stolen money and it is unknown where or how the remainder of the money was spent. During the trial, Abderrahmane refused to testify. He also refused to speak to or co-operate with his assigned lawyer.

In 2013, it was reported that he had been killed after joining the Syrian Civil War against Bashar al Assad. According to the Copenhagen Post Slimane was believed to be one of a number of Danish Muslims who had traveled to Syria to volunteer to help overthrow Assad. Reason and Long War Journal wrote that Slimane's death underscored the International contribution to the Syrian opposition.

On 25 August 2014, the High Court of Eastern Denmark refused to issue a legal finding of death regarding Slimane Hahj Abderrahmane. The appeals court did not find any facts sufficiently substantiated an assumption of death.

title: Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane


text:
Pygostyle

Pygostyle describes a skeletal condition in which the final few caudal vertebrae are fused into a single ossification, supporting the tail feathers and musculature. In modern birds, the rectrices attach to these. The pygostyle is the main component of the uropygium, a structure colloquially known as the bishop's nose, parson's nose, pope's nose, or sultan's nose. This is the fleshy protuberance visible at the posterior end of a bird (most commonly a chicken or turkey) that has been dressed for cooking. It has a swollen appearance because it also contains the uropygial gland that produces preen oil.

Evolution
Pygostyles probably began to evolve very early in the Cretaceous period, perhaps 140 – 130 million years ago. The earliest known species to have evolved a pygostyle were members of the Confuciusornithidae. The structure provided an evolutionary advantage, as a completely mobile tail as found in species such as Archaeopteryx is detrimental to its use for flight control. Modern birds still develop longer caudal vertebrae in their embryonic state, which later fuse to form a pygostyle.

There are two main types of pygostyle: one, found in Confuciusornithidae, Enantiornithes, and some other Mesozoic birds, as well as in some oviraptorosaurs like Nomingia, is long and rod- or dagger blade-like. None of the known fossils with such pygostyles show traces of well-developed rectrices. The tail feathers in these animals consisted of downy fuzz and sometimes 2–4 central "streamers" such as those found in some specimens of Confuciusornis or in Paraprotopteryx.

By contrast, the function of the pygostyle in the terrestrial Nomingia is not known. It is notable however that its older relative Caudipteryx had no pygostyle but a "fan" of symmetrical feathers which were probably used in social display. Perhaps such ornaments were widespread in Caenagnathoidea and their relatives, and ultimately the oviraptorosaurian pygostyle evolved to help support them. The related Similicaudipteryx, described in 2008, also had a rod-like pygostyle, associated with a fan of tail feathers.

The other pygostyle type is plowshare-shaped. It is found in Ornithurae (living birds and their closest relatives), and in almost all flying species is associated with an array of well-developed rectrices used in maneuvering. The central pair of these attach directly to the pygostyle, just as in Confuciusornis. The other rectrices of Ornithurae are held in place and moved by structures called bulbi rectricium (rectricial bulbs), a complex feature of fat and muscles located on either side of the pygostyle. The oldest known species with such a pygostyle is Hongshanornis longicresta.

As evidenced by the oviraptorosaurian cases, the pygostyle evolved at least twice, and rod-shaped pygostyles seem to have evolved several times, in association with shortening of the tail but not necessarily with a retractable fan of tail feathers. In other words, the pygostyles of oviraptorosaurs and Confuciusornis were likely weight-saving measures, and the specialized "true" pygostyles of ornithurans were adapted from these later to improve flight performance.

The bird clade Pygostylia was named in 1996, by Luis Chiappe, for the presence of this feature and roughly corresponds to its appearance in the bird family tree, though the feature itself is not included in its definition. In 2001, Jacques Gauthier and Kevin de Queiroz (2001) re-defined Pygostylia to refer specifically to the apomorphy of a short tail bearing an avian pygostyle.

Etymology
"Pygostyle" is formed from Ancient Greek words, literally meaning "rump pillar".

The insulting equation of the pygostyle with the noses of dignitaries dates back to 18th century Britain where pope's nose first appears (in 1786). The form parson's nose appears much later, dated to 1839. The usage is somewhat dependent on either a Catholic or Protestant viewpoint.

The forms bishop's nose and sultan's nose are 20th century variants.

As food
Turkey tail or turkey butt has an international exportation market in places such as Micronesia, Samoa, and Ghana. The turkey tail is commonly exported from America because it is considered unhealthy and cut off the normal turkey. After World War II, cheap imported turkey tails became popular in Samoa. Because the cut has a very high fat content, it was banned from 2007 to 2013 to combat obesity, only allowed back when Samoa joined the World Trade Organization. The meat is otherwise used in pet food.

title: Pygostyle


text:
User talk:Papayoung/Archive 1

Welcome, Papayoung!
Hello Papayoung, Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia.

Here're some handy links:
 * How does one edit a page gives editing help.
 * Manual of Style gives formatting info.
 * Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
 * Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
 * Help desk is a good place to ask questions.
 * Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving, which is often an important feature.

Remember to sign your name on talk pages by typing " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp (which is mostly preferred).

Feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

All the best, --Blackcap | talk 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Blackcap--it's nice to be welcomed. I'm doing a lot of reading (how-tos, policies, etc.), look forward to digging in.
 * Papayoung 20:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good to hear you're doing well, and you're very welcome. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or difficulties. --Blackcap | talk 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Papayoung/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Big Brutus

Images
The image on Terraserver shows Brutus's shadow better than it does Brutus. However, it looks like the picture was taken at local noon, and the angle of the sun is reasonably close to 45 degrees, so that should give an idea of how big Brutus is. N0YKG 15:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What was Big Brutus used for?
The article doesn't mention anything about what the machine was used for - mining, construction, whatever? Any particular projects of interest? -- stillnotelf   is invisible  17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Company" donated it for a mining museum. That might give a clue :) Vsmith (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's so big, it was probably assembled onsite and too big to move - so what mine was it used for? Then again, it's got treads, and the picture is in a museum not a mine, so I guess it can be moved - which means it could have been used for lots of things over its lifetime.  The Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Company is a redlink so that's not too helpful.
 * It's not hugely important. I've taken to putting questions like these in article talk pages when there isn't a feedback prompt at the bottom of the page. --  stillnotelf   is invisible  18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Big Brutus


text:
Pachystoma

Pachystoma, commonly known as kunai orchids or 粉口兰属 (fen kou lan shu), is a genus of two species of flowering plants in the orchid family, Orchidaceae. They are deciduous, terrestrial herbs with one or two linear, pleated or veiny leaves and more or less drooping flowers which do not open widely, on a thin, wiry flowering stem. Species in this genus are found in tropical and subtropical Asia to Australia and islands of the southwest Pacific Ocean.

Description
Orchids in the genus Pachystoma are deciduous, terrestrial herbs with a branching underground rhizome and one or two linear, papery, pleated or veiny leaves. A thin, wiry flowering stem bears smallish, pink drooping flowers that are hairy on the outside. The sepals and petals are similar in size and shape, the lateral sepals having a hump at their base. The labellum has three lobes, the middle lobe projecting forwards and the side lobes unusually large.

Taxonomy and naming
The genus Pachystoma was first formally described in 1825 by Carl Ludwig Blume and the description was published in Bijdragen tot de Flora van Nederlandsch Indie. The name Pachystoma is derived from the Ancient Greek words pachys meaning "thick" and stoma meaning "mouth",  apparently referring to a thickened callus on the labellum.

Species
As of November 2022, Plants of the World Online lists the following two species of Pachystoma:
 * Pachystoma nutans S.C.Chen & Y.B.Luo - Myanmar
 * Pachystoma pubescens Blume - between tropical and subtropical Asia to the southwest Pacific

In 1879, Heinrich Gustav Reichenbach described Pachystoma thomsonianum in The Gardeners' Chronicle, now known as Ancistrochilus thomsonianus (Rchb.f.) Rolfe. The specific epithet (thomsonianus) honours the Victorian botanist George Thomson.

title: Pachystoma


text:
Category:R.E. Mouscron players

Current and former players of R.E. Mouscron.

See also: Category:Royal Excel Mouscron managers

title: Category:R.E. Mouscron players


text:
Talk:HIV/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 13 October 2003 to 11 August 2005

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Cure for HIV on the horizon?
ppl, perhaps there is hope... a team of japanese researches figured out a way to prevent HIV from entering human cells by blocking the receptors that the virus uses to enter.

Asahi news article

 * Ok, first of all, an *HIV* vaccine (article refers to an AIDS vaccine -- AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus) is NOT akin to what they are talking about here. Although the article is woefully unsourced, the drug they are talking about is probably what they call a Fusion inhibitor. It basically keeps the virus particles on an HIV viron from interacting with the CCR5 receptor on the outside of a macrophage cell. Normally a HIV viron would be able to shut down the cells functioning by attaching to the CCR5 and thus gain an easy target to penetrate and infect.

 * This drug class, while becoming more popular and good for those extremely drug resistant who are being treated with anti-retroviral meds, is not going to do anything but supress the virus a bit in it's current state in an already infected person. Once infected, you always have HIV. Fact. HIV has far to many ways to attack the body (cell-to-cell mediation, inducing an autoimmune response, etc). There is also no big trials mentioned. I'd like to know what stage theirs is in, but 40 people is NOT a big test group. It takes a much bigger one to test a drug, and even then, 'AIDS miricle drugs' don't have a great history (google for AIDSVAX).

 * Sorry, but this isn't the answer we're looking for. :/ JoeSmack (talk) 12:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

HIV deniers, check in here!
Despite the hype, and based on years of personal research, I am now of the strong belief that the HIV 'virus' does not in fact exist! The blood test to check for HIV is the only one that doesn't actually look for the actual virus!! Medicos say the virus is too small to see, but can't we see atoms?? AZT, the most common AIDS drug is a toxic chemotherapy shelved in the 60s due to it's toxicity, yet this is given to help the patient's immune system? As if! Maintaining the world's 'belief' of this ghost disease is for the the purpose of keeping this 2 billion dollar income running, and to keep disadvantaged people disadvantaged by killing their societies with these drugs. Try giving 'AIDS sufferers' nutritious food, clean water and cut the drugs. The only 'epidemic' will be one of health!

D.

 * D. you are most welcome to put your health where your mouth is and receive an injection of my HIV positive blood (or, because you may wish to plead the risk of other dangers present in the blood of an adult, the blood from a HIV+ newborn - tip: there are thousands of such babies you could source from in Africa). HIV is one of the trickiest viruses we've ever encountered. As such, there is much uncertainty and confusion among those studying it. On the positive side (excuse the pun) there have been enormous advances in our overall understanding of both viruses and the human immune system. Now, perhaps you are one of the 1%-3% (exact percentage unkown) who are immune to this "non-existent" virus? Your opinion is very strong - what's the risk then? My offer is genuine - I'm sure you'll attract a lot of media attention for your anti-HIV cause should you decide to take it up.
 * occamster

Other discussion
I'm going to change "HIV can infect anyone. Babies, women, senior citizens, teenagers, and people of any ethnicity can contract HIV." to "Though the risk for infection is indeed greater for individuals partaking in such behaviors, HIV can infect anyone. Babies, women, senior citizens, teenagers, and people of any ethnicity can contract HIV." Is this OK? GWC W57.05 W2.8.8 UT 17.15 EDT
 * i clarified it a bit. a marijuana smoker for instance is NOT at risk nearly as much as a heroin user. similarily, a female homosexual is NOT at risk nearly as much as a male homosexual - or heterosexual for that matter either. there is a famous comedian who used to joke that 'if g-d gave gay men HIV because he hated their immorally sexual activity, then he really loved lesbians, because they get HIV far less than even straight people.' - i wish i remembered his name... JoeSmack (talk) 04:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The structure of the virus needs to be described here: shape, genome, enzymes, structure proteins. Life cycle is also missing. See the excellent article in Everything2. History of its discovery would also be interesting. AxelBoldt 10:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The statement Certain types of infections must be present for a person to be diagnosed as having AIDS. is simply not true. You can have CDC-defined AIDS simply by have a CD4 T-Cell count of 200 or less plus an HIV infection.

The statement HIV causes disease by infecting the CD4+ T cells. is too limited since HIV infects macrophages and causes damage that way too. Kstailey 21:22, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The statement When the cell divides and the DNA is copied, the virus is copied too. is dubious since I question that a HIV infected cell could perform mitosis at all since it would have to manufacture protiens to do it and in the process would start to make more HIV virons and bring about its destruction. Kstailey 21:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is proved today, that Robert Gallo got the strain of HIV, he claimes to have discovered fom Luc Montaigner in order to assure Montaigner's results. Gallo then published the results, clainin he had discovered the virus. Read Discovering the Cause of AIDS by Stanley B. Prusiner and see also Stanley B. Prusiner. 145.254.193.184 15:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An article is needed on the History of HIV, and its zoonosis, not just on its history of discovery, and the theory of the polio vaccine. Duncharris 12:48, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

There's a story at Wired saying that two researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are developing a virus which attacks HIV and mutes its ability to become AIDS. -- Jim Regan 01:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I suggest this is not included in Wikipedia until it has been reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Even the best "news" reports contain inaccuracies, many of which end up not being corrected. I suggest we search Pubmed in a few months (Arkin A, Schaffer D) to see if this has been published in Science (journal), Nature (journal) or somewhere else. JFW | T@lk  07:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I added a new website to the external links, CME on HIV. It's an educational website for healthcare providers. -- Eridanis 9 June 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not completely sure why the link was reverted. Perhaps you should provide even more context; it might be a useful resource. On the other hand, some Wikipedians have grown weary over anonymous editors sticking links in articles. I hope it will stay this time... JFW | T@lk  15:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Did you look at the site? If you want to access anything contained within it, you must register; in order to register, you must be up to snuff. A quote from their website:

 * "Only healthcare providers treating HIV/AIDS patients can subscribe and become members of CMEonHIV.com."

 * This link was added along with a slew of others, all to the same company's website(s). I'm getting tired of people defending the value of external links which have little or no use to Wikipedia's readership. This is an encyclopedia, and not a place for healthcare providers or educators to subscribe to or peddle services. The link might be helpful to those professionals specifically seeking "CME" on the subject, but that's not what Wikipedia is here to present. Am I the only one who sees this? -- Hadal 02:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * No, you are exactly, 100% right. →Raul654 02:44, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Beg your pardon, but who do you think are the readers of Wikipedia? If you look at the bio of JFW, you will notice that he's a doctor. Has a doctor, he found this link useful. As you said, I added a bunch of other websites to specific section of Wikipedia : ADHD, organ transplantation, spasticity and insulin resistance. All websites were clearly targeting these specific medical fields. I think that you're sharing my point of view about the fact that ADHD, diabetes of type 2 and spasticity, for example, are subjects that most doctors will be glad to read about and not the general public. It's not like if I added a car website "for car dealers only" on a general wikipedia car page, don't you think? Regarding the fact that all websites were coming from the same company, yes it is right. To create online presentations and travel around the world to record them, you must have the funds to do it. But they are all free to healthcare providers and the speakers presented on their homepages are some of the most respected in their medical fields. And "CME" stands for Continuing Medical Education; each doctor must get credits for learning sessions each year to keep its practice license, it's mandatory. - Eridanis

Eridanis, you've managed to misread my intentions. I stated that adding links is not everybody's idea of productive contributions, and many wikipedians are weary of endless dumping of links on pages. You have managed to justify adding HIV-CME, but this way it looks too much like linkspam, especially from a newcomer. You would do readers a bigger pleasure to abstract useful information from these websites and update the articles you've mentioned. JFW | T@lk  20:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Jfdwolff. - Eridanis

Microbicides
Can someone add to the AIDS catagory microbicides? They are usually intervaginal substances (gels, cremes, sprays) that disable the HIV virus. It is an interesting new avenue towards fighting aids.

--ShaunMacPherson 23:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Immunity
I have recently heard that some people are immune to HIV (it's been confirmed through lab tests) because of a genetic mutation known as Delta 32 on a certain gene. Apparently, this also causes immunity to the Bubonic Plague! I know it sounds kind of insane, but its true, and I'm probably not the only person who knows about it. It sounds like a bit of interesting info to put on the page.

 * I'm trying to find out if this is just a newspaper report or if this has reached the professional literature yet. CCR is a gene known to be involved in the pathogenesis of AIDS, and apparently 10% carry the delta-32 mutation. Oh, I just saw that Kahn & Walker discuss it in their 1998 review in the NEJM - it is actually a deletion of 32 base pairs from the gene. This should definitely be in the article. JFW | T@lk  21:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, in Hole's Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology, Chapter 4, p. 87, it states, "About 1% of the individuals in Caucasian populations have a mutation that makes HIV infection impossible. The gene that is mutant normally encodes a protein to which the virus must bind on the immune system cells to enter them. Without this protein, the virus cannot bind to and enter human cells. Asian and African populations do not seem to have this mutation." Now if only if we could use gene therapy to stamp out HIV... Jordan Yang 18:46, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
This article needs a lot of work, but I don't have the energy right now. A couple of points: AxelBoldt 04:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * there needs to be a section on the ways to transmit HIV
 * why is "Aids reappraisal" and "criminal HIV infection" in the History section?
 * the pathogenesis and life cycle sections should be combined

Lify Cycle
Hello all. I've just found this article and I've made a couple of changes: added a bit to the Life Cycle section. I'll try to do more e.g. shape, history, CCR5-delta32 etc as I have time.

Cheers

Bennett

 * Bennett, you are most welcome. Enjoy. JFW | T@lk  22:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I have just added more detail to this section, but not enough to make it too complicated for the average reader. I tried to use simple language. --Grcampbell 23:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

New development - 3-DCR HIV
It seems a new strain known as 3-DCR HIV have been detected.

the section on Common Misconceptions, "AIDS and HIV are the same thing" is very poorly written. if no one has a problem with me changing it, i'd like to distinguish the difference between the two highlighting that you can get AIDS without having HIV. the current discription throws in some stuff about HIV longterm non-progressors and "many HIV-positive individuals may never develop AIDS" due to advancement in treatments. not only do these two things not belong under this Common Misconception, but no treatments have ever been proven to successfully stave off AIDS forever. HIV longterm non-progressors as far as people can tell have to do with Hep G, but we really know very little. JoeSmack (talk) 03:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Question about HIV...
How does HIV actually destroy the T-cell that it has infected?

 * Remember how viruses work: They are merely little bits of genetic material that "hijack" the host cell's mechanisms and cause the host cell to start cranking out many, many new copies of the virus. Eventually, the host cell bursts, releasing all the new virions (virus particles) to go infect new hosts. It's simply this rupturing of the host cell's membrane that kills it, and it's pretty-much the same story with any virus, from good old cold viruses (rhinoviruses) to HIV.

 * Atlant 11:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually read a couple of pubmed articles that said HIV infected cells don't make up the majority of the t-cells that die. Instead HIV somehow sends a signal to the CD4, CD8, etc. to begin apoptosis (cell suicide). -- 128.62.118.63

 * Uh-oh, I don't know about that so that could also be true! Perhaps a better-informed person will be along to help out here...
 * Atlant 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have added more detail on this aspect of HIV inducing apoptosis of bystander T cells, I only hope that SciGuy doesn't come along and delete it because it doesn't fit with his belief system. --Grcampbell 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you!

 * Atlant 18:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Does HIV cause AIDS?
The facts are that in the United States and Europe antibodies to HIV must be detected for a diagnosis of AIDS. The same diseases without HIV antibodies are simply not called AIDS.

In places like Africa, where HIV antibody testing is not widely available, about half the diagnosed cases of AIDS have antibodies to HIV. Cleary HIV cannot be causing AIDS in the other half who do not have HIV antibodies. -- Fred2005

 * Please state your source for those contradictory statements. -- Ec5618 13:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * the sources are WHO and CDC and UNAIDS Fred2005 14:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't get it. If AIDS is defined as the disease that causes HIV antibodies, how can AIDS not be caused by HIV? -- Ec5618 17:16, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * Considering that there are many scientists who disagree that HIV is the cause for AIDS, shouldn´t this be noted in the article?
 * Those scientists are in a miniscule-but-vocal minority. →Raul654 21:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it's good that they are vocal, because the article is incomplete unless it can address any scientific criticisms from NPOV. It would be wonderful if a qualified person could address specific claims of immunologists and the more general ones of (eg) Christine Maggiore.   Tribune 17:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Lead
I have just reverted a well-intentioned edit by Bhny, which may the first sentence state that, "HIV/AIDS denialism is the non-scientific view held by a loosely connected group of people and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." The "non-scientific" part was Bhny's edition. I understand the reason for the edit, but I'm afraid it's really no different from adding something like "Hitler was evil" to the first sentence of the article on Adolf Hitler. Aside from being inelegant writing, it's unnecessary. Anyone can see that Hitler was evil. Anyone can also see, from the existing material in the lead, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. I'd like to ask Bhny to refrain from adding unnecessary verbiage to solve a problem that does not exist: no one is going to think that AIDS denialism is scientific simply because the words "non-scientific" are not there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't understand your reasoning at all. AIDS denialism unfortunately is a weird thing believed by too many people, and some of these people do think there is a scientific basis for their denial. The first paragraph has to make it clear that it is not scientific. (There is no reason to call denialists "drooling idiots" or to godwin this discussion before it begins) Bhny (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 * No, the first paragraph does not have to make it clear that it is not scientific. Realistically, no one is going to read only the first paragraph of the article and somehow come away with the impression that AIDS denialism is scientific. It is impossible to avoid noticing the other paragraphs, which make it crystal clear that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. Your addition is poor writing, and it is an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. And for what it's worth, I didn't call denialists "drooling idiots" - you simply misunderstand what I wrote. Rather, the "drooling idiots" part referred to people who would read only the first paragraph of the article and then imagine that AIDS denialism is scientific. You seem to think that such people actually exist. Sorry, I don't think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Please note, by the way, that no article about a theory that has been rejected by the scientific community is written the way you think that this article should be written. Thus, the first sentence of Creationism, is "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation", not "Creationism is the non-scientific belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation." Try looking at other articles and you will get a better impression of what is and what is not considered acceptable writing on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Pseudoscience is, by it's very definition, unscientific, so I have no problems whatsoever with using the terminology to describe them. As to it being unnecessary because any rational person could not possibly identify it as anything else? You have more faith in humanity than I do. The fact that AIDS Denialism exists at all is testimony to how people can pathologically take a vacation from reality. You can also take a cursory examination around these very talk pages as exhibit B to this phenomenon.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I pointed out that the lead already states, emphatically and clearly, that AIDS denialism isn't considered scientific. That's why the extra "non-scientific" language isn't needed. "Faith in humanity" has nothing to do with it. Nothing that you said above qualifies as a rational response to what I said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I am not going to bother worrying about it for the inclusion of one word, particularly when it appears you choose to be condescending to anyone who does not share your views. You can be sanctimonious to somebody else.--Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 * You made an irrelevant reply that didn't even touch on what I actually wrote. I am sorry if you find it "condescending" of me to point that out, but I do prefer to be honest. There would be better ways of replying than making whiny comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph should make it clear. There are many readers who only read the first paragraph and many websites/search engines that display only the first paragraph or sentence. Why should the first sentence not make it clear? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but one needs to consider how to do such things properly. The lead needs to use appropriate language, and any statement has to have a proper source. I suppose you could use the first sentence of the Intelligent design article as a model. Yet the language used there is not quite a perfect model for this article. "HIV/AIDS denialism" is not a "theory" as such; it is, as the article calls it, a view. A theory can be called pseudoscientific, but I don't think it makes sense to call something as loosely defined as a view pseudoscientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the content. If a point is adequately made in the content it can be summarized without additional sourcing. I think a view that A does not cause B can be called pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience as the belief HIV does not cause AIDS is. The foundation of the belief is pseudoscience, the content of the belief is pseudoscience, it has been called and described as pseudoscience by reliable sources thus calling it a pseudoscientific belief is valid. It's not like the advocates of this belief don't all rely on pseudoscience, this isn't a religious belief or a philosophical opinion, this is a belief that the science that says A causes B is wrong and other (pseudo)science is right. Pretty clearly a pseudoscientific belief, view, proposition, notion, idea whatever noun employed. I agree that good writing should prevail whenever possible, propose something good! Concise and razor clear without sounding awkward or pointed with as much detail as necessary to explain and provide context with nothing extra. As you might have noticed that is not exactly my strength as an editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience is by definition something that claims to be science but isn't. A "view" does not automatically equate to a scientific claim, and it doesn't have to be based on something that is claimed to be science; views can be based on anything. "Pseudoscience" is thus not, in my opinion, a useful label. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This view claims to be scientific. The fact that "a view doesn't automatically equate" is irrelevant. This particular view is based on (what is claimed to be) science. This is a view on a scientific subject. Being a "view" does not exclude the possibility of being a pseduoscientific view. Doesn't the article make clear that this view is argued using pseudoscience and based on pseudoscience? Doesn't stating that in the lead make it a fair summary? What in the article would not be described as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific? All the legal and political stuff refers back to the (in)validity of the science. If a majority of the conduct of the individuals discussed in an article is engaging in, and arguing using pseudoscience, how is it not useful to label the view they are arging for as pseudoscientific? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a view doesn't claim anything. Only people who maintain views claim things. I'm not especially impressed by your arguments for the appropriateness of the "pseudoscientific" label. Other editors may well agree with you, of course, and I've no interest in trying to impose my personal preferences here. If a consensus develops in favor of using such language, then so be it, but let's wait and see. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A weak attempt at semantic distraction. A position doesn't make claims either but a position can be pseudoscientific. I view is scientific if it based on and argued from science and relates to a scientific concept. I view is religious if it is based on and argued from religion and relates to a religious topic. A view is pseudoscientific if it is based on pseudoscience and argued from pseudoscience and relates to a scientific topic. The cause of a disease is a scientific topic, denialism is based on and argued from a pseudoscientific basis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think mentioning pseudoscience in the lead is a fine idea. I agree with MrBill3.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Agreed --Supaflyrobby (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

Etc...

Obviously any of these would need an appropriate source linked at the point where I've inserted the '?'.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the original phrase "non-scientific view" is bad for all sorts of reasons. Firstly lots of views are "non-scientific" (including the view that Hitler was evil, or even that Hitler was Chancellor of Germany). Science is only one way of determining truth. Secondly, a view may be scientific but also wrong. Many scientific theories have been disproved, and it's fair to say that some early versions of HIV-AIDS denialism were based on legitimate scientific models, or at least were genuinely consistent with scientific method. Balaenoptera musculus's suggestions  ("not supported by medical science" etc) avoid both these problems. I do understand that some editors wish to get the disclaimer-terms in as early as possible, but I think that can be counter-productive. It makes readers feel they are been preached at, or hit over the head with an "official" POV. I'm all in favour of saying in the first paragraph  that scientists overwhelmingly reject denialism, but it does not have to be pushed as far forward as possible in the very first sentence. We could even leave it to the second sentence! Paul B (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks Paul B.
 * In other articles with the same problem, it's been useful to try to move the article text 'up' the hierarchy of disagreement, i.e. giving reasons why we think something is invalid rather than just saying that it's invalid. In Ken Ham we ended up with His claim (blah blah) is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records."
 * So something more specific than the "medical evidence" or "mainstream science" that I've used above would be even better. E.g. something like:

 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 * ✅: As no objections have been raised, I've made this change. Please revert and discuss here if I'm wrong. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I am not convinced this is strongly worded enough, since epidemiology is only the tip of the iceberg as to what puts AIDS deniers at odds with the scientific mainstream. They are, after all, factually wrong, and we should portray them accordingly. The introductory sentence is what sets the tone for the article, so I would be more comfortable calling these folks precisely what they are, pseudoscientists, right from the get go  (Per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS). Thoughts?Supaflyrobby (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * If you have particular fields or sources of evidence in mind, then we could add them thusly: "contradicted by evidence from A, B and C".
 * I agree that the denialist view is factually wrong (of course), but I think that the tone is more encyclopaedic if we just present the evidence to the reader.
 * To me it seems higher up Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to present the evidence that the denialist view is wrong, rather than to label it as wrong.
 * BTW I find this essay provides a useful reference for this type of topic.
 * Best, Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Since we already have numerous sources within the article which prove the scientific reality of viral isolation, epidemiological association, transmission pathogenesis, etc., why not just add, "despite conclusive medical and scientific evidence". This does not flat out label them as incorrect, per your concerns on Graham's hierarchy, but presents a more accurate assessment of the reality of the situation. Supaflyrobby (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Sure, good plan, go for it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * ✅Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, you shouldn't have done it. What you added to the lead (let me be frank) is illiterate, inept, confused writing. It now reads, "HIV/AIDS denialism' is the belief, desipte conclusive medical and scientific evidence, that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." I understand what it is supposed to mean. You are trying to say that HIV/AIDS denialism is contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence. That is not, however, what the words you have added actually state. Taken literally, they imply that "conclusive medical and scientific evidence" does not show that HIV/AIDS denialism is something other than the belief that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Think about it very, very, carefully, and you will realize that such a statement does not make sense. I do object in the strongest terms to incompetent edits like the one you just made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * So fix it instead of devoting your energy to borderline personal attacks. VQuakr (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I would have fixed it already, but unfortunately, in an editing environment like Wikipedia, where anyone can register an account, I cannot be sure that an edit removing or correcting inept writing will not be reverted. Talk page discussion thus seems to be needed. The discussion having happened, I will correct the error and use the language I suggested in my most recent edit summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, please review WP:Personal and WP:Civil. This is now the second time you have resorted to such measures instead of simply offering constructive commentary to work towards a better article. If you find an edit problematic, fine, that is what these talk pages are for, not as a means for you to assert your self-proclaimed superior intellect over the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm glad that you've accepted the correction. I wasn't trying to assert anything about my intellect (I don't think it requires great intellect to insist on correct English). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * While I also prefer 'contradicted by', I too find FreeKnowledgeCreator's condescension unnecessarily rude.
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator: Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour. That means it's usually a good thing to avoid describing text or edits in terms more usually applied to persons (such as 'inept', 'illiterate' or 'incompetent') as you could very easily be understood to be deploying childish name calling against your fellow editors.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 * For goodness sake call it HIV/AIDS skepticism. Nowadays the believers refer to 'HIV disease' and not AIDS anyway. The changing of definition for this whole 30+ year charade is proof enough that the dissident/skeptics might be correct on a basic level. MLW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.83.214 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Unless you present a WP:RS, and one that conforms to MEDRS, this will go nowhere. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:HIV/Archive 1


text: User talk:208.60.7.9

title: User talk:208.60.7.9


text:
Mundelein High School

Mundelein High School (MHS) is a public four-year high school located in Mundelein, Illinois, a northern suburb of Chicago, Illinois, in the United States. The school serves the Village of Mundelein and parts of surrounding villages, include Vernon Hills, Grayslake, Hawthorn Woods, Round Lake, Wauconda and Libertyville. Its feeder schools include Carl Sandburg Middle School, Fremont Middle School, West Oak Middle School portions of Hawthorn Middle School North and Hawthorn Middle School South.

History
The school was contracted in 1960 and commenced classes in 1961. The school was expanded in 1973, 1977, 1987 (including a new pool), 1997, and 2016 (including a new STEM wing). A 2023 referendum for a renovation of the school failed to pass that would have costed over $225 million, $175 million of which would have been funded by a raise in property taxes.

Academics
At one time, the school was home to an "Aviation Technology" class from 1980 until the early 2000s in which students constructed an airplane from a kit for private sponsors. The class prepared future aviation technicians. It was one of the few aviation technology programs in a high school. It was removed from the curriculum due to lack of sponsors and a lack of accredited teachers, as the school required teachers to not only hold an Illinois teaching certificate but also either a pilot's license or an airframe-and-powerplant mechanic certificate from the FAA.

During the 1992-93 school year, Mundelein High School was awarded the Blue Ribbon School Award of Excellence by the United States Department of Education.

Athletics
The Mundelein Mustangs compete in the North Suburban Conference. The boys' gymnastics team won state championships in 1989, 1990, 1993, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the school has "one of Lake County’s most successful high school baseball programs", being the runner-up in the 2016 and 2022 for the IHSA Class 4A baseball tournament. The program had to postpone several games in 2023 due to allegations of hazing and violations from several students of the school's athletic code of conduct.

Demographics
According to the 20232024 Mundelein High School fact sheet, 47.6% of students for that year were Hispanic, 39.4% were White, 6.0% were Two or More races, 4.8% were Asian, and 2.1% were Black.

Performing arts
MHS fields two competitive show choirs: the varsity/open division "Sound" and the JV/prep division “Reverb”. The program formerly hosted an annual competition.

Mundelein also has a competitive dance team, which hosts an annual invitational.

Mundelein has a band program. In 2020 and 2021, the Jazz Ensemble performed at the Midwest International Band and Orchestra Clinic. Its Jazz Ensemble also won first at the Purdue Jazz Festivals in 2019, 2020, and 2022.

Notable alumni

 * Ryan Borucki, professional Major League Baseball player for the Toronto Blue Jays, Seattle Mariners and Pittsburgh Pirates
 * Sean McNanie, professional football player for the Buffalo Bills, Phoenix Cardinals, and Indianapolis Colts

title: Mundelein High School


text:
Esprit

Esprit or L'Esprit may refer to:
 * the French word for spirit; as a loanword:
 * Enthusiasm, intense interest or motivation
 * Morale, motivation and readiness
 * Geist "mind/spirit; intellect"
 * Esprit (name), a given name and surname
 * Esprit (magazine), a periodical
 * L'esprit, a 1990 album by In the Nursery
 * Lotus Esprit, a car
 * Esprit Holdings, a clothing manufacturer
 * Esprit D'Air, a Japanese metal band
 * European Strategic Program on Research in Information Technology, a cooperative government program
 * Estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance techniques, a signal processing method
 * European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications, a planned module of the Lunar Gateway
 * Esprit Systems, defunct computer terminal manufacturer

title: Esprit


text:
Keyston

Keyston is a village and former civil parish, now in the parish of Bythorn and Keyston, in Cambridgeshire, England. Keyston lies approximately 12 mi west of Huntingdon, near Molesworth. Keyston is situated within Huntingdonshire which is a non-metropolitan district of Cambridgeshire as well as being a historic county of England. In 1931 the parish had a population of 151.

The village lies at the western end of Huntingdonshire and the parish's western border coincides with the Cambridgeshire county boundary with Northamptonshire. The village is built around the brook that runs through its centre with the brook at about 148 ft above sea-level.

Known as Chetelestan in the Domesday Book, the name Keyston means "Boundary stone of a man called Ketil". By the 13th century it was known as Keston, and Keyston from the 16th century.

History
In 1085 William the Conqueror ordered that a survey should be carried out across his kingdom to discover who owned which parts and what it was worth. The survey took place in 1086 and the results were recorded in what, since the 12th century, has become known as the Domesday Book. Starting with the king himself, for each landholder within a county there is a list of their estates or manors; and, for each manor, there is a summary of the resources of the manor, the amount of annual rent that was collected by the lord of the manor both in 1066 and in 1086, together with the taxable value.

Keyston was listed in the Domesday Book in the Hundred of Leightonstone in Huntingdonshire; the name of the settlement was written as Chetelestan and Ketelestan in the Domesday Book. In 1086 there was just one manor at Keyston; the annual rent paid to the lord of the manor in 1066 had been £10 and the rent was the same in 1086.

The Domesday Book does not explicitly detail the population of a place but it records that there were 32 households at Keyston. There is no consensus about the average size of a household at that time; estimates range from 3.5 to 5.0 people per household. Using these figures then an estimate of the population of Keyston in 1086 is that it was within the range of 112 and 160 people.

The Domesday Book uses a number of units of measure for areas of land that are now unfamiliar terms, such as hides and ploughlands. In different parts of the country, these were terms for the area of land that a team of eight oxen could plough in a single season and are equivalent to 120 acre; this was the amount of land that was considered to be sufficient to support a single family. By 1086, the hide had become a unit of tax assessment rather than an actual land area; a hide was the amount of land that could be assessed as £1 for tax purposes. The survey records that there were twelve ploughlands at Keyston in 1086. In addition to the arable land, there was 86 acre of meadows and 75 acre of woodland at Keyston.

The tax assessment in the Domesday Book was known as geld or danegeld and was a type of land-tax based on the hide or ploughland. It was originally a way of collecting a tribute to pay off the Danes when they attacked England, and was only levied when necessary. Following the Norman conquest, the geld was used to raise money for the king and to pay for continental wars; by 1130, the geld was being collected annually. Having determined the value of a manor's land and other assets, a tax of so many shillings and pence per pound of value would be levied on the land holder. While this was typically two shillings in the pound the amount did vary; for example, in 1084 it was as high as six shillings in the pound. For the manor at Keyston the total tax assessed was 4 geld.

In 1086 there was no church at Keyston.

The poet John Donne was granted the living to the Rectory in 1616.

Government
The civil parish of Keyston was abolished on 1 April 1935 in creating the larger parish of "Bythorn and Keyston", and the ecclesiastical parish followed a year later. Bythorn and Keyston has a parish council which is elected by the residents of the parish who have registered on the electoral roll; the parish council is the lowest tier of government in England. A parish council is responsible for providing and maintaining a variety of local services including allotments and a cemetery; grass cutting and tree planting within public open spaces such as a village green or playing fields. The parish council reviews all planning applications that might affect the parish and makes recommendations to Huntingdonshire District Council, which is the local planning authority for the parish. The parish council also represents the views of the parish on issues such as local transport, policing and the environment. The parish council raises its own tax to pay for these services, known as the parish precept, which is collected as part of the Council Tax. The parish council has three councillors.

Keyston was in the historic and administrative county of Huntingdonshire until 1965. From 1965, the village was part of the new administrative county of Huntingdon and Peterborough. Then in 1974, following the Local Government Act 1972, Keyston became a part of the county of Cambridgeshire.

The second tier of local government is Huntingdonshire District Council which is a non-metropolitan district of Cambridgeshire and has its headquarters in Huntingdon. Huntingdonshire District Council has 52 councillors representing 29 district wards. Huntingdonshire District Council collects the council tax, and provides services such as building regulations, local planning, environmental health, leisure and tourism. Keyston is a part of the district ward of Ellington and is represented on the district council by one councillor. District councillors serve for four-year terms following elections to Huntingdonshire District Council.

For Keyston the highest tier of local government is Cambridgeshire County Council which has administration buildings in Cambridge. The county council provides county-wide services such as major road infrastructure, fire and rescue, education, social services, libraries and heritage services. Cambridgeshire County Council consists of 69 councillors representing 60 electoral divisions. Keyston is part of the electoral division of Sawtry and Ellington and is represented on the county council by one councillor.

At Westminster Keyston is in the parliamentary constituency of North West Cambridgeshire, and elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first past the post system of election. Keyston is represented in the House of Commons by Shailesh Vara (Conservative). Shailesh Vara has represented the constituency since 2005. The previous member of parliament was Brian Mawhinney (Conservative) who represented the constituency between 1997 and 2005.

Population
In the period 1801 to 1901 the population of Keyston was recorded every ten years by the UK census. During this time the population was in the range of 175 (the lowest was in 1901) and 237 (the highest was in 1881).

From 1901, a census was taken every ten years with the exception of 1941 (due to the Second World War).

All population census figures from report Historic Census figures Cambridgeshire to 2011 by Cambridgeshire Insight.

Church
The village church of St John the Baptist dates from the 13th century, with the present nave and aisles having been built in around 1250. The chancel followed in around 1280 and the tower in around 1300. It is a Grade I listed building. Church records, dating from 1637 to 1994, are held by Huntingdonshire Archives.

The church is known for its oak cadaver, a memorial consisting of a wooden skeleton taken from a 15th-century tomb, and one of only two such carvings in the country. The baptismal font has a modern bowl on a 13th-century base and plinth. The original bowl was found in the rectory garden in the 1890s, and now stands separately in the south aisle. The first pew on the right, on entering the church, is carved with the date 1608.

The church is part of the West Leightonstone benefice, in the deanery of Huntingdon, the archdeaconry of Huntingdon & Wisbech and the Diocese of Ely. Since 2008 the interior of the church has suffered from a severe infestation of Natterer's bats, a protected species and therefore requires thorough cleaning before services and ceremonies can take place.

Bells
The Victoria County History records details of the bells' inscriptions and history as follows: "Feare the Lorde 1592; William Marks churchwarden I, Eayre fecit. 1743 gloria Deo soli Francis [?] Clitherow Esquire; Remember the ende 1592; Give God the praise 1592. Thomas Rvssell of Wootton near X Bedford made me in 1733 Thomas Simonts churchwarden; The first, third and fourth are by Watts of Leicester. In 1552 there were four bells and a sanctus bell. By about 1709 there were five bells but whether this includes the sanctus bell is not clear".

Culture and community
The village has a public house, the Pheasant. Keyston also has a small airfield.

title: Keyston