text:
Talk:Dharma Initiative

Station Numbering & the Lamp Post
Given that "[station] One (the first built) is in California," that "The Lamp Post is [...] located in Los Angeles," and that since the Lamp Post was used to find the island it was, of necessity, built before the others, is it not then extremely likely that the Lamp Post is station One? Should the numbering in the article show that? mennsa (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, the Flame is #4 and it had clearly been finished long before the Swan (#3), so I'm guessing the numbers don't correspond to the order in which they were built. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to go on whatever they are refered to as in any Dharma Film as our primary source. If a number is not given, it has to be classified as a "?" as we still don't know. The Blast Door map mentions more stations that don't seem to correspond to any stations we have been shown yet (for example, there is a reference to a light manufacturing faciliy, amongst others). I noted that in HES OUR YOU, there were 14 department heads present for the meeting where Sayid's fate was decided. Assuming we have Sawyer as head of Security, Amy as head of administration (but both would be considered BARRACKS station), Chang was not even there, Horace for the Arrow, Radzinski for the Flame, then we still seem to have undiscovered stations out there.

 * well, the blast door maps have a lot more stations. According to the blast door map there is a "light manufacturing facility" as well as a "meteorological observation station" that are directly cited on the blast door map that have yet to be shown.  There is a "CVII", which conceivably could be station 107 if you believe in roman numerals, or could be some combination thereoff.  Agree with where this is heading, if it were up to me, there would be a 'Oldham's Station' to reflect the nature of Oldham's station, that seemed to be the designated interrogation area, even if not a permanent facility.  Whippletheduck (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Marvin Candle/Edgar Haliwax/Pierre Chang
I am sure that by Season 6, there will be a better reason given why the same man claims in no less then three different Dharma Initiative films/documentaries that he is whom he says he is. And while it is still possible that at this point, anything could be true, but I think we need to address him by whatever film he appears in in the context we saw it on the show By that, in the Swan Station, he needs to be refered to as Dr Marvin Candle; on the Orchid, as Dr Edgar Halliwax; and in the Pearl Station by Pierre Chang name he used; (and possible in the FLAME station as well, I don't remember his name in that computer thing). Whippletheduck (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is still no real answer for why Pierre Chang uses synodymns two other times (and maybe he has other names at other station orientation films). My theory right now is these "name" changes derive from the incident and changes to the time stream that we the viewers will notice and so will the Survivors but not the DI for some reason. my two cents. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Linus Credibility
In this show, it has become all but impossible to take Ben at his word on ANYTHING he says. The man lies as his first, second, and third resort thru out the show (and is a complement to actor Michael Emerson). Wiki is not a place for deliberate discussions on the pros and con's of what a fictional character may or may not say or do. So my two cents is that we need to let it be at some point with the simple statement of "Ben cannot be taken at his word on anything he says" as it is impossible to do so. I can think of a hundred ways Ben's "not always" statement could be twisted so that he gets himself off the hook for ordering the purge to him flat out lying to Locke and Hurley about it. Whippletheduck (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The trigram itself is NOT the DI logo
Out of curiosity, why is Cloverfield's inclusion of the Bagua "clearly the Dharma logo"? Are we changing history now? One of the beauties of wikipedia is how researching one topic can lead you to research many other connected ones. In this case the bagua reference is a dead end --217.14.11.181 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed! When I clicked on the image of the "Dharma" logo from Cloverfield included in this article, I thought it looked like a simple bagua instead.  It's a small image, but when I enlarged it, I didn't see any symbols in the center circle, as a Dharma Initiative logo would have. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move
DHARMA Initiative → Dharma Initiative — Okay, I'll try this again since the page got moved with no discussion and then the redirect accidentally edited so it couldn't be moved back. The title is an acronym, however according to Acronym and initialism, acronyms pronounced as words or of a certain length are not necessarily always written in all capitals. Also this is the name of a group from a television show, and the show itself does not in fact use all capitals, as can be seen in this screenshot. --DocNox 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ERROR
The article refers to the planet Mercury as the Morning Star and Evening Star in the discussion "Station ? : the Staff = Caduceus which in greek/roman mythology refers to mercury (morning/evening star)." Venus, not Mercury is the morning/evening star. See: morning star and hesperus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.21.231 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Temple is a Station?
I don't remember there ever being any confirmation on the temple being a station. I thought the Temple was an actual Temple, and I don't think it has ever been classifed as a station. If this is true then there should be some kind of confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alotofsparetime (talk • contribs) 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * On the map which whos the temple, there is a dharma logo. Tabor (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

as of the conclusion of season 5, it is 100% unknown what the Temple is or is not. THe only facts we know is that it is NOT open to just "the Others" as neither Karl nor Alex had any idea it even existed. The Swan Station's Blast Door map makes it clear there are many places out there, and are facinating to read and ponder if they even exist or are real or what. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Connection to Sharks
In the section about the Hydra station, a possibility is mentioned of a connection between the station and a shark seen in a previous episode. The episode featured a shark with the DHARMA logo near its fin. However, in the article about the aforementioned episode, it is stated that the creators of Lost wanted this to be nothing more than an easter egg. So shouldn't the part about sharks be amended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.152 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I do remember hearing the creators of LOSt saying that. However in the current LOST 2.0 presentation that takes place on G4TV cable channel, they make it a point for the fans to look for the DI logo on the Shark. Add that to that in the video game LOST: VIA DOMUS, when you are exploring the Hydra station, you encounter the corpse of a Shark that was being experimented on by the Dharma Initiative. The creators of LOST have said you are supposed to view the game as something that took place while other events were going on in the island. So to me...well, I think the Shark Tattoo has to stand, solely on the grounds that it is indeed there and there is now evidence to conclude that at least the old Dharma Initative prior to the Purge were conducting experiments on Sharks as part of their zoological research mandate they had from the Hanso Foundation. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In the episode when young Walt, his father, and Sawyer were aloft on the raft, a shark pursued them, and caused their vessel to topple. The shark bored a "Dharma" logo on it. One can even 'reliably'speculate that the shark was probably manipulated by either Jacob, or "Smokey", or even the "The Others", using leftover "DI" animal control equipment!!! --184.207.7.195 (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

The Staff - Mothers that have given birth?
The section for The Staff states "It is a room, as told by Juliet, used for the mothers that have given birth on the island. It is where the mothers are taken to die."

Near as I can tell, these women that die haven't actually given birth - they generally die while still pregnant and in their second trimester ("Most of the women made it into the middle of their second trimester, nobody made it to their third." - Juliet in D.O.C.). I don't think a single woman that ever actually gave birth on the island died in that room - the only two women known to have given birth on the island lived on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.202.64 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that room may have been used to deliver the children that were conceived PRIOR coming onto the island (ala, both claire and I imagine Sun would have ended up there as well.  It's possible that there have been other women on the island whom had their children delivered there and then God only knows what happened to them or the children.  It's speculated that charlotte lewis may well have been born on the island if you believe some of the hyperbole out there. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

dharma
Perhaps the meaning of the Dharma Initiative is to research the absolute truths and meanings of the universe. The word Dharma is "an Indian spiritual and religious term, that means one's righteous duty, or any virtuous path in the common sense of the term. In Indian languages it contextually implies one's religion. Throughout Indian philosophy, Dharma is present as a central concept that is used in order to explain the "higher truth" or ultimate reality of the universe."

The symbol of Dharma is "The Wheel". If you look at the center of the wheel. It quite resembles the Dharma Initiative logo doesn’t it?

Simply look at the wikipedia article on Dharma.

63.127.8.130 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)RadicalxEdward

Security System
Should this be "Cerebus Security System" or "Cerberus Security System?" I've never watched the show, so I don't know, but the latter seems a bit more likely. Unless, of course, the writers are having a little joke.

Nah, that's unheard-of among TV show writers...

Anyhow, someone conversant with the show might want to check this.

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 14:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost appearences on pop culture
I can't seem to remember where/when there was a Half Life mention on Lost's Season 1. If someone could please citate some references, I might remember. Otherwise, that piece of info should receive the [cit nedded] tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.253.180 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In Cloverfield, DARPA is probably a reference to DARPA rather than a semi-homophones. --ScottieB (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lamppost or Lamp Post?
It's both within this article and Lamp Post within the 316 (Lost) article. Consensus please?

 * ABC's official summary of the episode uses Lamp Post. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Wikicow666 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

University of Michigan facts relating to Dharma
[User:Rogue Penguin]: read more carefully. There is *no* speculation in the facts I added regarding the Ann Arbor context for the DHARMA Initiative. They are simply facts. Draw your own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfzimmerman (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that by itself, Ann Arbor is a very unremarkable city. The University of Michigan is the only thing that Ann Arbor is known for. Therefore, Radzinski saying he will "call Ann Arbor", what do you think he is calling, the Mayor or Police Chief? No, he is calling whomever it is that is behind the DHARMA initiative, and they almost certainly are tenured professors at the university.Whippletheduck (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 * It's both speculation and opinion.
 * "Thus, the connection between DHARMA and U of M is plausible and adds some flavor to the description of DHARMA." This is your opinion.
 * "ERIM's assets, including its classified contracts, were sold and the company essentially went out of business only a few years after the Purge." This attempts to draw a connection between real-world history and the show history, also speculation and your opinion.
 * So yes, there is speculation there. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to the edit that was made where I stated that it would be University of Michigan that would be calling the shots, not Ann Arbor itself. You swtiched it over to Ann Arbor, which technically is what Radzinksky said but it not what he meant. He was calling whomever is in charge of the DI and they clearly are at the University. Agree with you on the stuff you said againstWfzimmerman or whatever. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll concede that the base connection to the university is not much of a stretch. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not that big a deal which is why I have not put it back in myself. Ann Arbor the city by itself would be nothing without the University of Michigan there. While continuity would tell us that Karen Degroots and that other guy may be involved in this process (and may be directly whom Radzinski was talking about), and while it is correct to say that Radzinski did say "Ann ARbor" (I could claim he was talking about a person but that would be dumb) and did not say "Univ of Mich', the fact is, they often refer to Michigan as Ann Arbor, for example, if you watch a college football game from Univ of Michigan, they say it is from "Ann Arbor". Again, not that big a deal.  Whippletheduck (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"With Dharma at the forefront of the current season, the Michigan references have been coming at a greater frequency, with a Dharma resident in a recent episode threatening to "call Ann Arbor" to settle a dispute." --  Wikipedical (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• As this is true which it apparently is... Then the movie Red Notice has referred to both the Dharma Initiative and U of M in its latest design of the hatch of Hitler's hidden bunker. As you can clearly see, it is a reference to all the Dharma symbols and U of M memorabilia (LOST) ~ Wikicow666 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Date of purge and Danielle's team reaching the island
This article has the purge taking place in 1992, whereas Danielle reached the island in 1988. However, the latter was the same year that Alex was taken as a baby, when Ben and Ethan had already joined the others, meaning that the purge had already taken place four years before the given date. Given that the link to that date is dead, I question the accuracy of the given date. It would certainly explain why the Dharma never picked them up given they were already dead. 86.177.111.33 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your off on your timeline. Danielle did reach the Island by 1988 sometime (how early or late was not clear). We know that the events from the time she arrived on the Island to the time Jin witnessed her execute Robert was probably a month or two. A few months after that, the abduction of Alex took place. We don't REALLY know what happened on the Island from the time of the Incident to the time of the Purge....our only REAL source is the Swan Station blast door map, and while a very good source, even that is cryptic at times. The map has annotations regarding additional incidents on it, if you have not read that part. We also don't know why Dr Chang became Dr Whickman/Halliwax/Candle, which I personally believe it has something to do with things being changed but the universe correcting things (per Eloise Hawking in season 3). In any case, the only thing we need know is that the Purge took place in 92. We don't know what REALLY happened, which is why it is notable that we note that the DI made no attempt to locate Danielle. Since we know the DI has some smart people there, someone would have been able to interpret what Danielle was saying. We know all stations have communications abillity, even if the Flame station had fallen to the Hostiles. Bottom line, the accuracy of the dates of what you are saying are accurate. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You know you haven't actually given any concrete evidence as to why we should believe the date 1992 being that of the Purge.

Dates aside, let's compare the events, shall we? Why the Dharma never picked Danielle up suggests that they were already dead. This is further supported by the fact that had Danielle been on the island before the purge, she should have been killed by the gas. When Ben took Alex, it was clear that he and Ethan had already join the Others. Ask yourself this: Wouldn't the Dharma have found it odd that Ben suddenly had a baby with him out of nowhere, and four year old Alex was nowhere to be found during the purge? (86.176.85.95 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

We know the purge took place on Ben Linus's birthday because on the day of the Purge there was that scene where Ben called his dad out on forgetting his birthday yet again. That is pretty much a slam dunk that ben's birthday is on December whatever. Slam Dunk proof on it. As far as your points go in order....

 * The fact that Danielle had been on the Island BEFORE the purge is also proof she was there in 1988. The show has already concluded that there are parts of the island that the DI is firmly in control of; and parts of the Island that the Hostiles were in firm control of.  It seems Danielle was stranded in a sector of the island that the Hostiles were in control of.

 * Danielle was no where near the Barracks, which as far as we know, is the only station that they used gas to attack with. We don't know what happened to the rest of the stations per se.  Maybe they stormed them by force.  Maybe then sent the Smoke Monster to directly attack other stations.  Lots of things oculd have happened.

 * Ben and Ethan being members of the Others was probably not something that they advertised. They probably pretended to be normal members of the DI, all the way up to the moment they betrayed them.

 * I agree that where Alex was raised, at least in her first four years, is up in the air.  She did NOT know about the Temple until Ben revealed it existed to her in season 4, so I don't think she was raised there.  Maybe Ben brought her back to the Barracks.  Maybe Ben left her in the Other's camp. Dunno, and I doubt we are going to get an answer.  Heck, for all we know, with the INCiDENT, we don't even know if time has been changed or not.  For the record, I do believe that the existence of the Dr Candle/Whickman/Halliwax videos are somehow connected to the other named incidents on the island, where Time was changed, but Eloise Hawkings 'the Universe Corrects Itself" theory bringing him back somehow.

Overall while I appreciate where you are coming from, the facts are that the Purge took place on Ben's Birthday, 1992, which is known to be mid to late decemberWhippletheduck (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed unsourced info
Removed it because it was unsourced, but to be re-incorporated if it is found to be true. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dharma Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805210042/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_30/b3994072.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_30/b3994072.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dharma-Initiative-Ice-Cream.jpg

title: Talk:Dharma Initiative


text:
User talk:Zazer

Please stop
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Friday (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * PS. I see that your entire history of contributions is vandalism. You could be subject to an immediate block for this, so if you wish to contribute constructively, I suggest you stop with the vandalism immediately.  Friday (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Zazer


text: Category:Military equipment of Germany

title: Category:Military equipment of Germany


text:
Talk:100,000,000

Untitled 2005 comment
This is the page to jot down interesting facts about 9-digit numbers. If enough (at least three) interesting facts are gathered about a particular 9-digit number, it could possibly warrant its own article. PrimeFan 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus to move. — Mets 501 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 100000000 (number) to hundred million. Similar to how 1000000 (number) was moved to million, this article should be at hundred million. See also similar proposal for ten million and billion. Voortle 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~

 * Support per my reasons above. Voortle 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "million" is about the same length as "1000000", but "hundred million" is significantly longer than "100000000".  (I opposed the first move to "million", for what it's worth, and I still oppose this move.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hundred million is longer than 100000000 but shorter than 100000000 (number). Voortle 00:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Factorial Of 100,000,000
Does any body knows the value of 100000000 factorial?

Is it possible to calculate the value of 100000000 factorial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.197.2 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes it is. It would take some time, would be very large and not very interesting.  The last 20,000,000 digits are 0.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC).

 * The last 24999999 digits are 0. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. And you can find the number of trailing zeros for other powers of 10, in sequence A173228 of OEIS. number of trailing zeros in 10^n!. Furthermore, factorial 100,000,000 has approximately 710,330,400 digits, so good luck on calculating it. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 100,000,000 (non-admin closure). SST flyer  11:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

100000000 (number) → 100,000,000 (number) – it's hard to tell how many zeroes there are from the present title. Fish567 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, it makes no lexical difference but helps from a readability standpoint Deelay58 (talk)
 * Support, argument makes sense and is better than the current title, also makes WP:consistency sense (see 1,000,000,000).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as both comments above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to 100,000,000 as an unnecessary disambiguator. Otherwise, Support. P p p er y 02:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to 100,000,000 to make it easier for the reader. Andrewa (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

These languages do not have single words for a thousand to the second
A million (a thousand to the second) in Chinese is 百萬 bǎiwàn --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:300 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

232,792,560
There is a discussion at Talk:10,000,000 that may affect this article. Meters (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:100,000,000


text:
Talk:Rita Mae Brown

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ramcharitar30. Peer reviewers: BecksZimberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Verifiable 3rd party citations needed
This article is nearly entirely sourced from Brown's autobiographical materials. Without other third party references the question of a neutral POV is called into question. For example, Brown's participation in Stonewall is questionable since it is well documented that Martha Shelley was not at the scene despite the cited reference to Brown's autobiography...there is no mention of Brown in David Carter's Stonewall at all and only references to Brown's other activities (Redstockings and Lavender Menace) in Duberman's Stonewall. I'm willing to help to properly verify this article. Pjefts (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky Pie Brown series
I'm surprised that there's not a page devoted to this series. AusJeb (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A Plain Brown Rapper
Many years ago, in the early 70s I think, Brown published a collection of essays titled A Plain Brown Rapper. I read it, so I know it existed but I have not been able to locate a copy. The one I read came from a University library and since I was at that University from 1982 - 1983, it could not have been published after that time. The essays dealt with Brown's time as a member of the Furies and other subjects. This book might shed some light on her activities during the Stonewall era.Elfonleft (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Additions I made to article today and yesterday
I apologize that I made so many edits in order to get everything right. By "everything" I mean all the references and text. I had a copy of our subject's 1997 memoir in hand while typing and clicking with my mouse. Still, it was tough. I promise you all the page citations are correct. You can find Ms. Brown's memoir, which is titled Rita Will: Memoir of a Literary Rabble-Rouser, at a library near you, and you can confirm I got the page numbers right for each piece of her information that you find in the article.

If you echo the complaint that another editor added some years ago on this Talk page, a complaint that the article relies heavily on this one source Rita Will, then you should know that it is our only source on her college education and early life. She keeps her own life out of her books, which are all fiction except for a guide for aspiring writers that she issued in the 1980s, and that is ... a guide for aspiring writers, not at all about her life.KathrynFauble (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rita Mae Brown.jpg

title: Talk:Rita Mae Brown


text:
File:Davros.jpg

Summary
Big Finish Doctor Who 48 cover by Clayton Hickman.

Fair use in Davros (Doctor Who audio)
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a CD/album cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD/album in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist.

Source

 * 1) Derived from a digital capture (scan/photo) of the album/CD cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the record company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless.

title: File:Davros.jpg


text:
User talk:Yofiued

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Qaz  ( talk ) 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I moved your article on your own username to your userpage which you had not yet made. I am assuming that is what you were trying to do in the first place. Qaz ( talk ) 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yofiued


text: Category:World War II ships of Germany

title: Category:World War II ships of Germany


text:
Claude Brousson

Claude Brousson (1647–1698) was a French Huguenot lawyer and preacher. His work for the Huguenots is explained in the book by Dr. Samuel Smiles.

He returned to France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and was broken on the wheel in 1698.

title: Claude Brousson


text:
Old Man Gloom

Old Man Gloom is an extreme metal band originally formed in Santa Fe, New Mexico, but now based in Massachusetts. The group, formed by Aaron Turner of Isis and Santos Montano, expanded to become a sort of supergroup in the Boston hardcore and metalcore scene.

First four albums (1999–2004)
In 2001, a year after the release of their first album Meditations in B, the band released two albums simultaneously: Seminar II and Seminar III. For these records, Luke Scarola joined to use electronics. On Seminar II, Stephen Brodsky of Cave In wrote the lyrics for one song, and Jay Randall of Agoraphobic Nosebleed contributed on electronics. On August 24, 2004, Christmas was released.

Inactive years (2004–2011)
Shortly after the release of Christmas in 2004, Old Man Gloom's activity significantly died down. The members insist that the band did not break up or go on hiatus during this time, but for about eight years none of the members' schedules allowed for any writing or recording time.

Aaron Turner's main band Isis released three more studio albums — Panopticon (2004), In the Absence of Truth (2007) and Wavering Radiant (2009) — before breaking up in 2010. During this time Turner also joined, formed or continued work in other projects, including Greymachine, House of Low Culture, Jodis, Lotus Eaters, Mamiffer, Ringfinger and Twilight. Nate Newton's main band Converge also released three more albums — You Fail Me (2004), No Heroes (2006) and Axe to Fall (2009). He also founded the band Doomriders in 2004 and reunited with one of his earlier bands Jesuit in 2011. Caleb Scofield's main band Cave In released one more studio album Perfect Pitch Black (2005) before going on hiatus in 2006, then reunited in 2009 and released White Silence (2011). Scofield, who had never before been the primary writer for his other bands, formed the band Zozobra — whose name was inspired by Old Man Gloom and its third studio album Seminar III: Zozobra — in 2006 after Cave In went on hiatus. Santos Montano briefly joined Zozobra in its early years and also performed with Stephen Brodsky's (Cave In, Converge) new band New Idea Society for a while.

Return, No and The Ape of God (2012–2017)
Old Man Gloom abruptly ended an eight-year period of silence by announcing that they would resume touring and release a new album titled No in 2012. The announcement gave little notice that a new album would be coming out and the album itself received minimal promotion. The announcement was made on May 1, 2012, on the band's official Facebook page that No would receive a wide release on June 26 through Hydra Head Records, or fans could pick up a copy of the album at Old Man Gloom's upcoming tour dates, beginning the following day on May 2, 2012. The band and label tried to keep the new album quiet before the announcement, but in 2011, an Easter egg in a magazine advertisement hinted at a new Old Man Gloom being released in 2012, and producer Kurt Ballou tweeted about work on the new album, but later retracted his statement by claiming it was a late April Fools' Day joke.

In late 2014, Old Man Gloom announced the release of a follow-up to No titled The Ape of God for November 11, 2014, through Profound Lore Records and also the release of an unofficial documentary directed by Kenneth Thomas about the band's history leading up to (but not including) The Ape of God titled Here is a Gift for You. The band promoted the album with online streams of "Predators" and "The Lash" prior to the official release date. For several months, The Ape of God was marketed and promoted as a single album, but the weekend before the official release date, Old Man Gloom announced that they were actually releasing two different studio albums both with the name The Ape of God, and that the version of the album sent to the press to review (which also subsequently leaked online) was a "fake" album that featured songs from both albums in a different sequence and edited down to shorter versions. One album, The Ape of God (PFL145) features eight songs in a similar composition to other Old Man Gloom albums, and the other album The Ape of God (PFL145.5) features four songs that are longer and more atmospheric than other Old Man Gloom songs — similar to the band's 2001 albums Seminar II and Seminar III.

A remastered version of Meditations in B was released on April 7, 2015, on Hydra Head Records. The band's first live album (recorded in London at April 3, 2014) was released in early 2016 through Ektro Records.

Death of Caleb Scofield (2018)
On March 28, 2018, Scofield died at the age of 39 in a car accident in New Hampshire, after his car hit a concrete barrier at a high speed. Montano, Turner and Newton agreed to keep performing as Old Man Gloom to honor Scofield following his death. In a Facebook statement, Montano said:

"In a quiet moment, in a very loud room filled with more people than I could count, Aaron and I were sitting across from one another, totally drained, zombiefied, just looking at each other. He leaned towards me, and I leaned towards him. He quietly said 'Santos, do you still want to do Old Man Gloom?' My stomach dropped, and I responded 'we have to now. We don't have a choice.' We spoke to Nate and he agreed. I don't know what it means, or how it will manifest itself, but we will continue and do our best to honor Caleb, and that means we must exist. I share this very private moment because I truly feel after this week you are all a part of our story so much more than I ever realized. Thank you for showing us that. We love you all."

The band enlisted long-time friend and Scofield's Cave In bandmate Stephen Brodsky to perform with them at the late bass player's tribute show on June 13, 2018, in Boston, MA.

Prior to Scofield's death, Old Man Gloom planned to record a new album in 2018. Unbeknownst to Scofield and Newton, Montano and Turner also had secret plans to record a second new album as a duo (a "sequel" to Meditations in B) and release it on the same day. About the secret plans, Mantano said: "Yes, we were going to troll ourselves this time. I mean, half of ourselves. We figured it was the only place left to go, to fully shit on our own bandmates AND the general public with more gloom." In December 2018, Old Man Gloom began working on a new studio album with Brodsky, who was also reported as becoming an official member of the band.

Current members

 * Aaron Turner (Isis, Mamiffer, Sumac) – guitar, vocals (1999–present), bass (1999, 2018) , electronics (1999–2001, 2004–present)
 * Santos Montano – drums, backing vocals (1999–present)
 * Nate Newton (Converge, Doomriders) – guitar, vocals (2000–present)
 * Stephen Brodsky (Cave In, Mutoid Man) – bass, vocals (2018–present)

Former members

 * Caleb Scofield (Cave In, Zozobra) – bass, vocals (2000–2018; died 2018)
 * Luke Scarola – electronics (2001–2004)

Timeline

Studio albums

 * Meditations in B (2000, Tortuga)
 * Seminar II: The Holy Rites of Primitivism Regressionism (2001, Tortuga)
 * Seminar III: Zozobra (2001, Tortuga)
 * Christmas (2004, Tortuga)
 * No (2012, Hydra Head)
 * The Ape of God (2014, Profound Lore)
 * The Ape of God (2014, Profound Lore)
 * Seminar VIII: Light of Meaning (2020, Profound Lore)
 * Seminar IX: Darkness of Being (2020, Profound Lore)

Extended plays

 * Christmas Eve I and II + 6 (2003, Tortuga)
 * Willing Vessel / Storms in our Eyes (2020, Sige)

Live albums

 * Mickey Rookey Live at London (2016, Ektro)
 * Zozoburn: Live at Fiesta Roadburn w. Zozobra (2020, Sige)

Music videos

 * "The Lash" (2015)

title: Old Man Gloom


text:
User:Mcarmody

Micah Carmody received a Bachelor of Science degree in Kinesiology from Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada in 2005. He specialized in ergonomics. He has put his understanding of human factors to good use for Ontario Power Generation, the Canada Revenue Agency and the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, among others. Now he is in law school.

title: User:Mcarmody


text:
Talk:Ayman Nour

Article Rating
It's outrageous that your article on Ayman Nour would be rated of "low" importance to an understanding of Egypt. This is a guy who finished second to Mubarak in Egypt's only competitive presidential election, who is mentioned repeatedly by President Bush and SecState Rice, whose imprisonment has prompted at the very least a rethinking of US policy to Egypt and he's of "low importance"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waverly57 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it to High. It's a very important topic to a lot of Egyptians. -- Egyegy (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ayman Nour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083538/http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070123-052001-9488r to http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070123-052001-9488r

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

surveillance of his smartphone
His phone was infected with Pegasus Spyware and software from Cytrox according to this article.

https://marsad-egypt.info/en/2021/12/16/pegasus-egypts-ayman-nour-had-phone-hacked-by-israeli-and-european-spyware/ PS2801 (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ayman Nour


text: Category:World War II military equipment of Germany


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pyramids (music)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 06:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Pyramids (music)
Delete as a hoax. IP that created this (144.132.45.148) has created several pages today and appears to be the IP of Slimy earthworm. Information in this article is completely unverifiable and even if it was the band would not meet WP:MUSIC. I considered listing this speedy for CSD:G3 page creation vandalism as all pages created by Slimy earthworm and 144.132.45.148 today contain unverifiable info (barring a late edit done to the Stephen Silvapulle page to add some verifible info that is irrelevant to the subject's notability claims.--Isotope23 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Google on various search terms came up empty (for instance, zero hits on "Kloukinis". -- Curps 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Kaura~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Qaz  ( talk ) 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kaura~enwiki


text:
Talk:1,000,000,000

trivial
This is the page to jot down interesting facts about 10-digit numbers. If enough (at least three) interesting facts are gathered about a particular 10-digit number, it could possibly warrant its own article. PrimeFan 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit too trivial to be mentioned here that a certain number is repdigit. It is trivial for numbers in he decimal representation to decide if it is repdigit or not. If we include this, divisibility by seven would be less trivial and should be mentioned. So I am going to delete repdigit now. Andreask 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

error
Error: factorization of billion is 2^9 * 5^9

It should be 2(5^9); it is almost too trivial to have I guess. BMF203 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Nope. 2^9 5^9 is correct.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote: About 10^9 years ago, the first multicellular organisms appeared on Earth.

They appeared before that, I didn't want to change this though as I don't have a reference to the real figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.62.154 (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Changed "multicellular organisms" to "multicellular eukaryotes", per our article evolution of multicellularity. Thanks.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Billion definition
In English (in the UK) and the rest of Europe 1 billion is 1,000,000,000,000.

It is logical. Viz. 1 million                               1,000,000 1 billion    (bi=   2 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000 1 trillion   (tri=  3 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 quadrillion (quad= 4 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 quintillion (quin= 5 sets of millions) 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc.

Why count any differently?

 * It has to do with the long and short scales. Voortle 01:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * In the UK, 1 billion _was_ 10^12 but is currently very widely understood to be 10^9 - see long and short scales for the discussion. If you believe your version to be true, please find any recent supporting definition from, say, a BBC or government or national newspaper website and post the link to Talk:long and short scales. Thanks, Ian Cairns 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The long scale comes from the Latin. But if we have mille (thousand), millione (million), and milliard (109), why not bille (1012), billion (1015), billiard (1018), trille (1021), etc.? Neither the "short" nor "long" scale is entirely internally consistent. It's better to go with the more concise naming system, in either case. Why use two words when one will suffice? --Eideteker (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2006
no move. — Mets 501 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

100000000 (number) to billion. Similar to how 1000000 (number) was moved to million, this article should be at billion as it's the most common name for the number in English speaking countries, it's easier to read than 1000000000 (number) and most links referring to the number link to billion. Then when the move is completed, make a link in the article to billion (company) and the older meaning of billion. See also similar proposal for ten million and hundred million. Voortle 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~

 * Support per my reasons above. Voortle 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is unwieldy but unambiguous.  Why upset the minority who use the other definition of billion?  It's not that hard to read.  Your point about "most links referring to the number link to billion" is totally inaccurat: see my counts below.  jnestorius(talk) 00:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (following comments by me and Voortle moved up from after the counting subsection jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Pretty conclusive. jnestorius(talk) 00:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but usually those links almost always link originally from billion. If we can have List of billionaires, we can have this article at billion. Voortle 14:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody uses "billionaire" to mean "someone with 10E12 dollars". As for moving links, that's why disambiguation pages exist. jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there are two definitions for things over 999,999,999. 132.205.44.134 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for you billion may have a unique meaning, but for much of the world the word is ambiguous. 1000000000 is uniquely understood by both sides. This was the whole reason for creating the article Long and short scales. Ian Cairns 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As Voortle said, we can link to the other, less common meaning of billion meaning "1,000,000,000,000" at the top of the article so that there won't be any confusion. How do we expect people to know how many zeroes this has? 1000000000 (number) will confuse even more people than billion, because many people won't know how many zeroes it has without having to stop and count them. 64.194.47.34 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A billion is a million of millions for many people. Renaming this to billion would be an example of Systemic bias-- Asterion talk 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Asterion, Ian Cairns, etc. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * billion has two defintions:
 * thousand million and billion can mean 10E9
 * billion and trillion can mean 10E12
 * 132.205.44.134 04:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * "billion" is the usual name for the number in English speaking countries. The other meaning of "billion" is generally used in other European languages. There's no reason to have a hard to read title to accomodate nonnative English speakers. This is the English Wikipedia after all. We shouldn't pretend like it's not. If you want to accomodate nonnative speakers, go to the simple English wikipedia. Voortle 14:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (preceding Voortle comment moved up from after the counting subsection jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

 * I would support a move to 1000000000, which redirects here anyway. The "nnnnn (number)" suffix is a convention useful for small numbers, so 1776 is the year rather than the number, but the year 1 billion [sic] is unlikely to have a Wikipedia article for a looong time. jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * For the sake of accuracy, all of the articles mentioned below should be disambiguated to 1000000000 (number).-- Asterion talk 10:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1836311903 is not a prime number
1836311903 is listed as a fibonacci prime, but it is in fact divisible by 139.

 * You're quite right, anonymous user. 1836311903 = 139 * 461 * 28657, as I've just double-checked with Mathematica. It's still a Fibonacci number, however. I will amend the article accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. PrimeFan 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

a billion seconds ago
How bout,

"About a billion seconds ago the first episode of Saturday Night Live was aired" a billion seconds is 31 years? if so thats 1975! EDIT: whoops forgot sig Triangl 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 * What's Saturday Night Live and where is it shown? Isn't this US-centrism? Can you find some other event that the whole world will recognise? Ian Cairns 08:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Also that gets more and more inaccurate with a short amount of time, at least the others are over a great enough time span to make any inaccuracy unimportant. Wheatleya 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

US Dollars
I think this...

"In finance, the possession of one billion United States dollars allows one to be ranked among the world's wealthiest individuals."

is not only a strange thing to have in this article (what does it mean by 'allows'?), but it irrelevant (If I had one dollar less, wouldn't I still be considered weathy?). If there's no objection, I'd like to remove it.

 * Well the same could be said about any of the facts (eg)109 - 1 km is still over six times the earth-sun distance. The fact it is wikilinked to a page which gives further details means, IMO, it can stay, though I've taken out the 'allows'. The Yeti 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, possession of one billion Zimbabwean dollars probably won't buy you a cup of coffee. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
If one accepts that the (almost) universal defininition of Billion is the "American" one, however logical/illogical it can said to be,there remains two related issues.

1) older documents of non-American origin, especially UK/European ones may well have been written using the "British" definition. For accuracy, one needs to be aware that pre early 1970's (a personal approximation) the term would most probably refer to the non-American definition needs to be understood.

2) historical interest and fact should document and acknowledge the alternative definition. Oxford English Dictionary. Reference: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion

The above clearly also affects higher number naming (as the OED notes)

Niceandtidy 13:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * This is covered in the article Long and short scales and would be useful here - or linked. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Short and Long scale billion
My understanding was the a short scale billion (that which is used in the USA and almost always in the UK nowadays) is 1,000,000,000 and a long scale billion (the traditional billion from British English and most other languages) is 1,000,000,000,000. But the introduction (until I changed it a minute ago) claimed that they are exactly the same (1,000,000,000). Surely not otherwise why would they be called 'short scale billion' and 'long scale billion' if they're exactly the same? I found it very confusing.--Xania talk 00:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only Europe, in Estados Unidos Mexicanos the number 1,000,000,000 is named "One thousand million" and billion is 1,000,000,000,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deplanonose (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do the 10-digit numbers belong here?
They seem unrelated to the actual subject of the article (1000000000). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2^3x3^2 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

42
The one billion page reads as "is the natural number following 999,999,999 and preceding 1,000,000,001", while the fourty-two page reads as "is the natural number immediately following 41 and directly preceding 43." Why the absence (or appearance) of the words "immediately" and "directly"? The numbers pages should have consistency here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonkhortisan (talk • contribs) 03:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to 1,000,000,000. There's clear consensus to remove the parenthetical, and this appears to have the best support among the suggested titles. Cúchullain t/ c 15:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

1000000000 (number) → 1000000000 –

The (number) prefix is not necessary. Wikipedia is not likely going to have an article about a year 1000000000. Voortle (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I would call this uncontroversial. Apteva (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. For reasons I stated above. Voortle (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment aren't bare numbers reserved for AD year articles? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We could always restore the current title circa AD 999999900. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Question - why not 1,000,000,000? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that 1000000 redirects to million, and 1,000,000? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason that 1000000000 (number) doesn't redirect to billion is due to long and short scales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 February 2013

 * Oppose, for the moment. In additional to violating the convention agreed on betweein WikiProject Numbers and WikiProject Years, we do have a few year articles with rediculously large years.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless this is one of them there is no reason to not do the move. Apteva (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (consistency)? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reported to WikiProject Numbers and WikiProject Years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the largest year we have an article for is 2059. We don't even have articles for most four-digit years, let alone extremely large years similar to 1000000000. We're not like to have an article on such a year for a long time, if ever. Voortle (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. 4.238.0.139 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose should be 1,000,000,000 IMO. Proposed title is an improvement over status quo. Red Slash 22:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. (number) is not necessary. Year 1000000000 is in the very distant future. I'd also support a move to 1,000,000,000.RightGot (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it should just be 1 billion. Unreal7 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or billion. I'd support a move to that as well. English speakers don't really use the long scale these days. RightGot (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support no reason to disambiguate in this case. 1,000,000,000 would be also acceptable.--Staberinde (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aping
The description "aping US English" in the first section is political commentary and does not belong in an encyclopedia. But I'm not sure what to replace it with. "Unifying with" sounds somewhat positive to me and could incite people to change it again. Can a native speaker of English decide, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompoko (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Billion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Millions, Billions and Trillions
A Billionaire has 1,000,000,000,000 or more pounds, dollars, whatever. Therefore Billion is defined by having 12 (not 9) 0's after the 1. It seems that this definition of Billion has been replaced by an AMERICAN definition of Billion, which has only 9 0's after the 1. How are we to teach our children correctly, or even know anything about numbers if our definitions of value are constantly changed?

"After several decades of increasing informal British usage of the short scale, in 1974 the government of the UK adopted it, and it is used for all purposes including official."

We only used it "informally" because we were constantly bombarded by that version from Americans. Thats just one MORE thing the Americans have managed to force on us.

"The original meaning of the word billion is a bit complex. The prefix bi- means two, and the suffix -illion comes from the word million. But the origin of million itself is obscure."

"The original French definition of million-million was adopted by other European countries, notably England and Germany, and spread around the world through European colonialisation."

Case closed, and subject dismissed, I believe. A Billion is one million million, (1,000,000,000,000) and always will be. Any attempt to screw with that fact is pointless! Bluddy americans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.158 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Indeed, in Mathematics, one Billion is one Million to the Power of 2. However, you're up against those who pronounce 'drawing' as 'droring', so you'd may as well give in.

Aping and Unifying
The persone above who mentiond Aping...? I am English, and the term "aping" would actually be correct. Unifying would mean a two-way agreement, like both countried came to a mutual understanding, a compromise. Aping means "copying", which is what some did..."informally" apparently. However, just because SOME people decide to copy others, it doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to...especially against our will. Stupid government!

SOME people like Hitler's ideas, and still copy this "way of life" that he preached...that doesn't mean EVERYONE in the world should do the same...does it?

FRANCE created the billion, and we spread it around a lot. Why does this "new" (american) definition overtake the original? Why dont we just start calling a car a modusbrum and eventually force the world to comply...WHERE DOES IT END? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.158 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

European Abbreviations
In the European Union, the abbreviation for milliard is "mrd". This is used even in those papers written in the commonly-used language, English. Please hunt this down and put it on the web page. Also, they use "mio" for million. This is done because the ill is common to both, or something like that. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There seems to be consensus at commas should not be removed for readability. There does not seem to be consensus for adding the "number" disambiguator... possibly it was emerging not to add it. In any case, page stands at its title. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 04:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

1,000,000,000 → 1000000000 (number) – The previous move goes against, which states that the article title should end in "(number)" and have no separators, therefore it should be at. This was also the case at the time of the move request. I can understand why the current title might be more reader-friendly and the disambiguation suffix seems unnecessary for such big numbers, but consistency is preferable and requested moves cannot overturn wider project consensus. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support move to 10^9. Without commas, it's hard to read the line of 0's. Georgia guy (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I prefer the current title. The separators make it far easier to identify the number and I don't really understand why it needs a disambiguation term when it is obvious it is a number. The only reason I am not opposing the move is because it would contradict the titling guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Replying to both of the above comments – despite the article title the lead can still say "1,000,000,000" according to that guideline. This is the only outlier in, there is another similarly long one with just zeroes – 100000000 (number) – though some other big ones in that category lack the "(number)" suffix too. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't add parentheticals when they aren't needed for disambiguation, and in this case, there aren't any other articles to distinguish from. The WikiProject Numbers conventions seem to be mostly talking about shorter numbers that may be confused with years (eg 496 (number) distinguishes from the year 496. Additionally, removing the commas makes it harder to read.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is no reason to disambiguate per WP:AT and the commas make the title readable.  Calidum   ¤   03:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The new name is more confusing, as it's not obvious from the first glance how many zeros there are (and, indeed, if it's the correct number of them). At least with the comma after every three zeros, it is clear.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppoooooooooooose removing commas per readability. Support adding (number) per nom. Randy Kryn 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose comma removal and oppose insertion of (number). The commas are useful, and the disambiguator is unnecessary. There will presumably eventually be a year 1000000, even if humans are no longer around to see it, but it's not really of any relevance as a year. — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Adding the descriptor '(number)' doesn't pertain to just years. See 10000000 (number) (which could really use some commas) and other number articles. Adding '(number)' is consistent with other pages. Randy Kryn 21:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the addition of unnecessary disambiguators. -- Tavix ( talk ) 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose the addition of (number) per an rfc on Wikipedia talk:Disabmiguation. No opinion on dropping the commas. P p p er y 22:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the above RfC. Honestly, I have no idea at this point. The naming of number articles is a huge mess. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'eon'
According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eon, an eon is a billion years; should it be added? Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

1,000,000,000 seconds
"More precisely, a billion seconds is exactly 31 years, 8 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 17 hours, 46 minutes, and 40 seconds."

Does this allow for leap years? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am guessing not because the number of leap days will vary over the duration. Years, months and weeks should ideally be converted into weeks. That would still give readers a sense of time. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Question
Is a trillion page here? Tinkerbell72311 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "trillion" pages are at Trillion, depending on which trillion you want. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Can
What do you call 1,000,000,000🤔🤨 2402:4000:20C1:D04D:80FA:B4A5:9D54:9560 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually, a billion. Please see the first sentence of the article for other terms. Certes (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See Long and short scales. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

1,023,456,789
1,023,456,789 is not the smallest number without repeating digits. That would be -9876543210. If we only count whole numbers, it's 0. Should that entry be changed? Qwerty3521 -- Message me here 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've clarified it.  I think "smaller" means "closest to zero" here.  –1,023,456,789 is equally small, but I think it's implied that we only consider positive integers. Certes (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

1,000 = 10^3 = 1 million 1000,000 = 10^6 = 1 billion 115.98.232.13 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 1,000,000,000 = 10^9 = 1 trillion 115.98.232.13 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

10^6 = 1 billion
Tell me more about: 1,000 = 10^3 units = 1 million 1,000,000 = 10^6 units = 1 billion 1,000,000,000 = 10^9 units = 1 trillion 1,000,000,000,000 = 10^12 units = 1 quadrillion 1,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^15 units = 1 quintillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^18 units = 1 hexillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^21 units = 1 septillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^24 units = 1 octillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000= 10^27 units = 1 nonillion or 1 nanillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000 = 10^30 units = 1 zillion 115.98.232.13 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 10^3=thousand 10^6=million 10^9=billion 10^12=trillion 10^15=quadrillion 10^18=quintillion 10^21=sextillion 10^24=septillion 10^27=octillion 10^30=nonillion 10^33=decillion Semen2 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, it depends where you are located. See Long and short scales. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:300 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

5,354,228,880
There is a discussion at Talk:10,000,000 that may affect this article. Meters (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1,000,000,000


text:
User:Paxse

Ieng Thirith, Khieu Ponnary, Oudong, Son Sann, Indochina Communist Party, Anlong Veng, Dien Diel, Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party, Ieng Mouly, Khmer Issarak, Son Ngoc Thanh, Khmer Serei, Lycée Sisowath, Royal University of Phnom Penh, In Tam, Ke Pauk, Useful links: List of Cambodia-related topics and WikiProject Cambodia
 * Ongoing cleanup:

- links to DAB pages: Khmer, Preah Vihear, Cheung Prey, Cambodian, Kamboja, Samraong, Kampong Cham, Koh Kong, Kandal, Kampot, Riel, Kratié, Sambour, Kampong Speu, Varin, Batheay, Bavel, Mongkol Borei, Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Tralach, Rolea B'ier

I didn't say 'done fast' did I?
 * Khmer Rouge wrong flag - need careful discussion to explain why + correct Samphan's family ties
 * Norodom Monineath Sihanouk need to work up at least a stub for project Cambodia
 * History of Cambodia plagiarised entirely? need to check and rewrite
 * Cambodia prune links again
 * Indochina Communist Party - currently a redirect. Needs to be delicately separated from the Vietnamese Communist Party article and given a place of it's own
 * State of Cambodia currently a redirect to Cambodia needs its own article
 * Kota Kinabalu on its way to GA, I hope.

Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, Ieng Thirith, Khieu Ponnary, Bun Rany, Anlong Veng, Ke Pauk, Pchum Ben, Indochina Media Memorial Foundation, Public Holidays in Cambodia, Saukam Khoy, Srok, Krong, Khan, Neak Leung, Jayavarman III, Khmer People's National Liberation Armed Forces, Koh Kong (city), Phnom Voar, Ang Trapaing Thmor

 * 1) Pursat Province - Bakan (district), Kandieng (district), Krakor (district), Phnum Kravanh (district), Sampov Meas (district), Veal Veang (district)
 * 2) Kampong Speu Province - Basedth (district), Chbar Mon (district), Kong Pisei (district), Aoral (district), Odongk (district), Phnum Sruoch (district), Samraong Tong (district), Thpong (district)

 * welcome short version
 * To add the wikiproject tag to the talk page of an article, use WikiProject Cambodia
 * To add the Wikiproject User Box to your own page, use User WP Cambodia
 * To add the Wikiproject User Box to your own page, use User WP Cambodia

 * To add the stub template for Cambodian biography articles use Cambodia-bio-stub
 * To add the stub template for Cambodian biography articles about politicians use Cambodia-politician-stub
 * To add the stub template for Cambodian geography articles use Cambodia-geo-stub
 * To add the stub template for Cambodian building or structure articles use Cambodia-struct-stub
 * To add the stub template for Cambodian schools useCambodia-school-stub
 * To add the stub template for Cambodian film use Cambodia-film-stub
 * To add the stub template for Cambodian political parties use Cambodia-party-stub
 * To add the stub template for general Cambodia articles use Cambodia-stub

 * To add a language request to the talk page of an article, use Khmer
 * To add a small warning box indicating that the article contains Khmer script, use Khmer characters
 * To add an even smaller warning box - with no image - indicating that the article contains Khmer script, use Contains Khmer text

title: User:Paxse


text:
User talk:Manos1394

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

--TheParanoidOne 19:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Teknis.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Teknis.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Manos1394


text: User talk:209.147.192.50

title: User talk:209.147.192.50


text:
Cosmological horizon

A cosmological horizon is a measure of the distance from which one could possibly retrieve information. This observable constraint is due to various properties of general relativity, the expanding universe, and the physics of Big Bang cosmology. Cosmological horizons set the size and scale of the observable universe. This article explains a number of these horizons.

Particle horizon
The particle horizon, also called the cosmological horizon, the comoving horizon, or the cosmic light horizon, is the maximum distance from which light from particles could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe. It represents the boundary between the observable and the unobservable regions of the universe, so its distance at the present epoch defines the size of the observable universe. Due to the expansion of the universe, it is not simply the age of the universe times the speed of light, as in the Hubble horizon, but rather the speed of light multiplied by the conformal time. The existence, properties, and significance of a cosmological horizon depend on the particular cosmological model.

In terms of comoving distance, the particle horizon is equal to the conformal time that has passed since the Big Bang, times the speed of light. In general, the conformal time at a certain time is given in terms of the scale factor $$a$$ by, $$\eta(t) = \int_{0}^{t} \frac{dt'}{a(t')}$$ or $$\eta(a) = \int_{0}^{a} \frac{1}{a' H(a')} \frac{da'}{a'} \, .$$The particle horizon is the boundary between two regions at a point at a given time: one region defined by events that have already been observed by an observer, and the other by events which cannot be observed at that time. It represents the furthest distance from which we can retrieve information from the past, and so defines the observable universe.

Hubble horizon
Hubble radius, Hubble sphere (not to be confused with a Hubble bubble), Hubble volume, or Hubble horizon is a conceptual horizon defining the boundary between particles that are moving slower and faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at one given time. Note that this does not mean the particle is unobservable; the light from the past is reaching and will continue to reach the observer for a while. Also, more importantly, in the current expansion models, light emitted from the Hubble radius will reach us in a finite amount of time.

It is a common misconception that light from the Hubble radius can never reach us. In models assuming decreasing $$H$$ with time (some cases of Friedmann universe), while particles on the Hubble radius recede from us with the speed of light, the Hubble radius gets larger over time, so light emitted towards us from a particle on the Hubble radius will be inside the Hubble radius some time later. In such models, only light emitted from the cosmic event horizon or further will never reach us in a finite amount of time.

The Hubble velocity of an object is given by Hubble's law, $$v = x H .$$ Replacing $$v$$ with speed of light $$c$$ and solving for proper distance $x$ we obtain the radius of Hubble sphere as $$r_{\text{HS}}(t)=\frac{c}{H(t)} \, .$$ In an ever-accelerating universe, if two particles are separated by a distance greater than the Hubble radius, they cannot talk to each other from now on (as they are now, not as they have been in the past). However, if they are outside of each other's particle horizon, they could have never communicated. Depending on the form of expansion of the universe, they may be able to exchange information in the future. Today, $$r_{\text{HS}}(t_0) = \frac{c}{H_0} \, ,$$ yielding a Hubble horizon of some 4.1 gigaparsecs. This horizon is not really a physical size, but it is often used as useful length scale as most physical sizes in cosmology can be written in terms of those factors.

One can also define a comoving Hubble horizon by simply dividing the Hubble radius by the scale factor $$r_{\text{HS}, \mathrm{comoving}}(t)=\frac{c}{a(t) H(t)} \, .$$

Event horizon
The particle horizon differs from the cosmic event horizon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached the observer by a specific time, while the cosmic event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future. The current distance to our cosmic event horizon is about 5 Gpc, well within our observable range given by the particle horizon.

In general, the proper distance to the event horizon at time $$t$$ is given by $$d_e(t) = a(t) \int_{t}^{t_{\text{max}}} \frac{cdt'}{a(t')}$$ where $$t_\text{max}$$ is the time-coordinate of the end of the universe, which would be infinite in the case of a universe that expands forever.

For our case, assuming that dark energy is due to a cosmological constant Λ, there will be a minimum Hubble parameter He and a maximum horizon de which is often referred to as the only particle horizon: $$\max(d_e) = \frac{c}{H_e} = c\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} = \frac{c}{\sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda} H_0} = 17.55\ \textrm{Gly}.$$

Future horizon
In an accelerating universe, there are events which will be unobservable as $$t \rightarrow \infin$$ as signals from future events become redshifted to arbitrarily long wavelengths in the exponentially expanding de Sitter space. This sets a limit on the farthest distance that we can possibly see as measured in units of proper distance today. Or, more precisely, there are events that are spatially separated for a certain frame of reference happening simultaneously with the event occurring right now for which no signal will ever reach us, even though we can observe events that occurred at the same location in space that happened in the distant past.

While we will continue to receive signals from this location in space, even if we wait an infinite amount of time, a signal that left from that location today will never reach us. The signals coming from that location will have less and less energy and be less and less frequent until the location, for all practical purposes, becomes unobservable. In a universe that is dominated by dark energy which is undergoing an exponential expansion of the scale factor, all objects that are gravitationally unbound with respect to the Milky Way will become unobservable, in a futuristic version of Kapteyn's universe.

Practical horizons
While not technically "horizons" in the sense of an impossibility for observations due to relativity or cosmological solutions, there are practical horizons which include the optical horizon, set at the surface of last scattering. This is the farthest distance that any photon can freely stream. Similarly, there is a "neutrino horizon" set for the farthest distance a neutrino can freely stream and a gravitational wave horizon at the farthest distance that gravitational waves can freely stream. The latter is predicted to be a direct probe of the end of cosmic inflation.

title: Cosmological horizon


text:
BTR-D

The BTR-D is a Soviet airborne multi-purpose tracked armoured personnel carrier. It was introduced in 1974 and first seen by the West in 1979 during the Soviet–Afghan War. BTR-D stands for Bronetransportyor Desanta (БТР-Д, Бронетранспортер Десанта, literally "armoured transporter of the Airborne"). It is based on the BMD-1 airborne IFV. NATO gave it the designation BMD M1979.

Development history
In 1969, the BMD-1 airborne IFV entered service with the Soviet Army. The vehicle had many flaws, but the biggest one was that the troop compartment was extremely cramped and could only transport up to four infantrymen. This number was often reduced to three because it was impractical for four infantrymen to operate inside the troop compartment and dismount from the vehicle.

At the beginning of the 1970s, the Volgograd Tractor Factory design bureau, who designed the BMD-1, began designing a new airborne APC based on the BMD-1. The prototype was completed in 1974. The same year it entered production and service with the Soviet Army as the BTR-D.

Overview
While the BTR-D is based on the BMD-1, it is 60 mm longer and lacks a turret. Instead, it has a small flat superstructure with a hatch on top.

Crew
The crew consists of the driver, the commander and the left bow mounted machine gun gunner, all of whom are in the same positions and have the same equipment as in the BMD-1.

Armament
The turret with all of the main armament was removed. The two bow mounted machine guns were retained. The original PKT tank machine guns were replaced by PKB general purpose machine guns. The vehicle can also be fitted with pintle-mounted automatic grenade launchers (AGS-17, AGS-30 or AGS-57) and/or machine guns (PKM, 6P41 "Pecheneg", NSV-127 "Utyos" or 6P49 "Kord").

Maneuverability
The BTR-D is powered by the same engine as the BMD-1. Its suspension is longer because the entire vehicle has been lengthened by 60 mm. Because of this, the vehicle has six roadwheels on each side instead of five. It has five return rollers on each side unlike the BMD-1, which has four.

Armour protection
The armour protection is slightly better on the BTR-D than on the BMD-1 due to the upper front armour having a dual slanted angle.

Troop compartment
With the turret removed, the troop compartment was enlarged and can carry up to ten equipped soldiers. It's also linked with the crew compartment in the front. There are two firing ports in the sides and one in the rear, two of which are for RPK-74 light machine guns.

Equipment
The BTR-D has all the same equipment as the BMD-1, with added towing equipment for a ZU-23-2 twin AA autocannon.

Service history

The BTR-D entered service with the Soviet Army in 1974. It was used by Soviet airborne troops during the Soviet–Afghan War, where it was seen for the first time by the West in 1979.

As of now, the BTR-D and vehicles based upon it are used by the following units of the Russian Army or are stationed in following bases:

 * 76th Guards Air Assault Division from Pskov, which is part of Western Military District (90 BTR vehicles, 30 BTR-RD and 49 BTR-ZD as of 2000), the subunits of this division include
 * 104th airborne regiment from Pskov (34 BTR-D, 6 BTR-RD, 13 BTR-ZD and 6 BMD-1KSh)
 * 234th airborne regiment from Pskov (32 BTR-D, 6 BTR-RD, 12 BTR-ZD and 5 BMD-1KSh)
 * 1140th artillery regiment from Pskov (14 BTR-RD, 3 BTR-ZD, 1 BMD-1KSh and 18 2S9 Anona)
 * 165th independent air defense division from Pskov (4 BTR-ZD and 1 BMD-1KSh)
 * 656th independent engineer battalion from Pskov (8 BTR-D and 1 BMD-1KSh)
 * 728th independent communications battalion from Pskov (2 BTR-D, 6 BMD-1KSh, 3 BMD-1R and 2 R-440-ODB )
 * 7th independent repair battalion from Pskov (2 BTR-D).

 * 98th Guards Airborne Division from Ivanovo (92 BTR vehicles, 27 BTR-RD and 38 BTR-ZD as of 2000), the subunits of this division include
 * 217th airborne regiment from Ivanovo (32 BTR-D, 6 BTR-RD, 11 BTR-ZD, 7 BMD-1KSh and 1 BMD-1R)
 * 331st airborne regiment from Kostroma (33 BTR-D, 6 BTR-RD, 15 BTR-ZD, 5 BMD-1KSh and 1 BMD-1R)
 * 1065th artillery regiment from Kostroma (15 BTR-RD, 3 BTR-ZD and 2 BMD-1KSh)
 * 318th independent air defense division from Ivanovo (4 BTR-D, 8 BTR-ZD and 1 BMD-1KSh)
 * 661st independent engineer battalion from Ivanovo (7 BTR-D and 1 BMD-1KSh)
 * 674th independent communications battalion from Pskov (2 BTR-D, 6 BMD-1KSh, 4 BMD-1R and 3 R-440-ODB )
 * 15th independent repair battalion from Pskov (7 BTR-D).

 * 106th Guards Airborne Division from Tula which is a part of the Western Military District (132 BTR vehicles, 33 BTR-RD and 49 BTR-ZD as of 2000), the subunits of this division include
 * 51st airborne regiment from Tula (32 BTR-D, 6 BTR-RD, 13 BTR-ZD, 2 BMD-1KSh and 1 BMD-1R)
 * 137th airborne regiment from Ryazan (38 BTR-D, 6 BTR-RD, 13 BTR-ZD, 7 BMD-1KSh and 1 BMD-1R)
 * 1182nd artillery regiment from Yefremov (4 BTR-D, 3 BTR-ZD, 2 BMD-1KSh and 18 2S9 Anona)
 * 107th independent air defense division from Donskoy (18 BTR-D, 6 BTR-ZD and 1 BMD-1KSh)
 * 332nd independent engineer battalion from Tula (8 BTR-D and 1 BMD-1KSh)
 * 731st independent communications battalion from Tula (2 BTR-D, 6 BMD-1KSh, 5 BMD-1R and 2 R-440-ODB )
 * 15th independent repair battalion from Tula (4 BTR-D and 1 BREM-D).

 * 7th Guards Mountain Air Assault Division from Novorossyysk, Southern Military District (121 BTR vehicles, 27 BTR-RD, 38 BTR-ZD and 55 2S9 Anona as of 2000), the subunits of this division include
 * 108th airborne regiment from Novorossyysk (35 BTR-D, 9 BTR-RD, 13 BTR-ZD, 7 BMD-1KSh and 19 2S9 Anona)
 * 247th CDO regiment from Stavropol' (26 BTR-D, 9 BTR-RD and 13 BTR-ZD)
 * 1141st artillery regiment from Anapa (5 BTR-D and 9 BTR-ZD)
 * 30th independent air defense division from Novorossyysk (4 BTR-D and 8 BTR-ZD)
 * 629th independent engineer battalion from Starotitarovskaya (8 BTR-D)
 * 743rd independent communications battalion from Novorossyysk (2 BTR-D, 8 BMD-1KSh and 3 R-440-ODB)
 * 6th independent repair battalion from Novorossyysk (4 BTR-D and 1 BREM-D).

 * 31st independent airborne brigade from Ul'yanovsk which is a part of the Central Military District (57 BTR-D, 24 BTR-RD, 19 BTR-ZD, 8 BMD-1KSh and 2 BMD-1R as of 2000).
 * 45th independent Spetsnaz regiment from Kubinka, Moscow (1 BTR-D).
 * Ryazan airborne troops institute (6 BTR-D, 5 BTR-RD, 2 BTR-ZD and 2 BMD-1KSh).

Variants

 * BTR-D (Ob'yekt 925) – Basic model.
 * BTR-DG (Ob'yekt 925G) – Cargo variant without bow machine guns, firing ports and periscopes. The troop compartment was modified to serve as a cargo compartment.
 * BTR-DG converted into an airborne SPAAG fitted with a specially built three-legged ZU-23-2 twin anti-aircraft autocannon mount over the roof of the cargo compartment.
 * BTR-D San – A BTR-D converted into an airborne armoured ambulance.
 * BREM-D (BREM-D stands for bronirovannaya remonto-evakuatsionnaya mashina desanta – armoured maintenance-recovery vehicle of the airborne) (Ob'yekt 932) – A BTR-D converted into an airborne ARV. It carries specialized equipment for the repair and recovery of BMD-1 type vehicles. This equipment includes a light collapsible crane stored on the roof of the personnel compartment, which can be traversed through 180°, a recovery winch, a combination spade and dozer blade, a generator, towing equipment, electric welding system, tools and ready use spares. One of the 7.62 mm bow PKT tank machine guns was eliminated. This entered service in 1989 in very small numbers.
 * BTR-RD "Robot" – A BTR-D converted into an airborne ATGM team carrier with two 9P135M-1 ATGM launchers capable of firing 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5 Spandrel), 9M113M Konkurs-M (AT-5B Spandrel B), 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 Spigot) and 9K111-2 Fagot (AT-4B Spigot B) ATGMs. They can be used by the dismounted ATGM squad or fitted on a pintle mount on the right side of the hull. This is basically a BTR-D with a pintle mount added and with missile racks inside the troop compartment.
 * BTR-ZD "Skrezhet" (ZD stands for Zenitnaya ,Desantirymaya) – A converted into an airborne air defense vehicle for carrying two MANPAD teams. The vehicle is fitted with racks for spare MANPAD missiles. It is fitted with external stowage rails for a MANPAD on the right hand side of the roof of the troop compartment. It can carry a complete ZU-23-2 twin anti-aircraft autocannon mount on the roof of the troop compartment.
 * NPDU "Sterkh" (NPDU stands for nazemnyj punkt distantsionnogo upravleniya) – A BTR-D converted into an airborne unmanned aerial vehicle carrier and launch vehicle of the "Stroy-P" set. It is used to launch Yakovlev Pchela-1T UAVs for reconnaissance or jamming at ranges up to 60 km. The single-rail launcher is mounted on left hand side of the roof of the hull. It has a large three-piece tube on the forward right hand side of the roof of the hull. It entered service in 1990.
 * Malakite – An improved NPDU Sterkh.
 * BMD-1KSh "Soroka" (Ob'yekt 926) (KSh stands for komandno-shtabnaya – command and staff) – an airborne command post equipped with the R-123M, R-111 and R-130M or R-134 radio sets, as well as an AB1 portable 1 kW generator, the TNA-3 navigation system, folding CLOTHES HORSE type antennae around the superstructure and two slim antenna masts. Bow mounted machine guns and firing ports were removed. The commander's hatch is offset to the left and does not project forward. It's sometimes called BMD-KSh or KShM-D.
 * BMD-1R "Sinitsa" (R stands for radiostantsiya – signals vehicle) – A division-level command and signals vehicle equipped with a R-161A2M radio set, one heavy telescopic antenna mast stowed along the left hand side of the roof of the hull and one slim elevatable antenna mast on the rear right hand side of the roof of the personnel compartment. Only a small number were delivered.
 * R-440-ODB "Kristall-BDS" – A BTR-D converted into an airborne satellite communications vehicle with a R-440 system with a range of 15,000 km. The vehicle has a roof-mounted satellite dish AK-12 that is covered with a cage-like structure during transport.
 * 1V119 "Reostat" – A BTR-D converted into an airborne artillery battalion fire direction vehicle. The vehicle is fitted with a turret equipped with NNP-21 and V-7 observation devices, three R-173 and R-159 radio sets, a PAB-2AM aiming circle, three antennae mounts, DSP-30 and DAK-2 rangefinders. The turret was equipped with PSNR-5K (1RL-133-1) "Tall Mike" ground surveillance radar mounted on the roof of the turret. Located over the turret front sights were visors hinged in the centre.
 * 2S9 Nona-S (Ob'yekt 925S) – An airborne self-propelled mortar, armed with a 120 mm 2A60 mortar. Entered service in 1981.

Current operators

 * 🇧🇾 – 117 in 1995, 22 in 2000, 2003 and 2005.
 * 🇲🇩 – 44 BMD-1, BMD-1P and BTR-D.
 * 🇷🇺 – 280 in active service.
 * 🇺🇦 – 40 in 1995, 42 in 2000 and 44 in 2005.
 * 🇺🇿 – 70 in 1995, 50 in 2000 and 2005.

Former operators

 * – Passed on to successor states.

title: BTR-D


text:
Ashwood University

Ashwood University is a diploma mill in Pakistan. It claims to award academic degrees based on "life experience." Ashwood University is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.

Recognition and accreditation status
The website "onlinelearning101" lists Ashwood University among examples of degree mills, and suggests that the name was selected because it "sounds like the very reputable Ashford University." Degree mills have been dubbed by John Bear, an ex-FBI consultant, as a "huge crime wave...and almost no one has noticed."

The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization states that Oregon "has no evidence that this is an accredited or otherwise acceptable provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards." The location of the organization's offices is not known with certainty; no address is given on the website or the whois record; a 2003 Usenet posting indicated that the company is based in a California strip mall, but all diplomas are mailed from Pakistan or Dubai, United Arab Emirates. It has been listed as a diploma mill by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Incidents of fraudulent degrees
In a 2008 article in the Chicago Tribune, a reporter described his experience obtaining a series of "bogus academic credentials" from Ashwood, including a "Doctorate Degree in Medicine & Surgery." He wrote: "All I have to do is persuade my editors to pay $699 'tuition,' including a $75 surcharge guaranteeing me a 4.0 grade-point average."

Several journalists and entertainers have publicized their experiences when they applied for and received bogus credentials from Ashwood in order to investigate its practices.

Television producer Tom Kenny won an Ohio Valley Regional Emmy Award (Service News Story - Consumer/Financial) in 2005 for his documentary on online diploma mills entitled, "Degrees of Deception." During his research for the documentary, Kenny bought a degree from Ashwood University; he chose a degree in aerospace engineering, a field he knew nothing about. The diploma he received had been sent from Pakistan.

In 2008, news media reported that the recipient of a doctorate degree from Ashwood University had resigned from her position with the Tacoma, Washington, school district amid an investigation into her use of that degree to obtain a promotion. School district officials said she had resigned due to personal issues. In 2010, the principal of Sir J. J. College of Architecture, Rajan Lakule resigned from his position as it was discovered that he had a doctorate degree from Ashwood University.

An Australian satirical TV program, The Chaser's War on Everything, reported receiving a medical diploma from Ashwood University in the name of a dog named Sonny. The diploma, displayed on the program, was issued one week after they paid 450 dollars. The presenters claim that in the "life experience" part of the application for the diploma, they listed "has eaten out of hospital rubbish bin for 5 years (35 dog years) ... has significant proctology experience sniffing other dog's bums." The academic transcript, reportedly given together with the diploma and shown on TV, listed that the dog received grades of A in "Immunology," "Zoo Preceptorship," and "Medical Bacteriology" and an A− grade in "Oral Communication and Presentation Skills."

In 2012, the Serbian magazine Novi magazin reported the discovery that the dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Niš claimed a degree in medicine from Ashwood University, whose degrees it described as "worthless".

Connections
Affordable Degrees (affordabledegrees.com), Belford University, Rochville University, and Speedy Degrees (speedydegrees.com), are operated by the same people. Other sources link speedydegrees.com to Ashwood University.

The World Online Education Accrediting Commission (WOEAC), which lists this particular university as accredited, is itself not recognized or accredited by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

title: Ashwood University


text:
File:Doctor Who - Zagreus (album cover).jpg

Summary
Big Finish Doctor Who 50 cover by Clayton Hickman.

Fair use in Zagreus (Doctor Who audio)
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a CD/album cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD/album in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist.

Source

 * 1) Derived from a digital capture (scan/photo) of the album/CD cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the record company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless.


text: User talk:209.7.118.199

title: User talk:209.7.118.199