text:
Participatory action research

Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach to action research emphasizing participation and action by members of communities affected by that research. It seeks to understand the world by trying to change it, collaboratively and following reflection. PAR emphasizes collective inquiry and experimentation grounded in experience and social history. Within a PAR process, "communities of inquiry and action evolve and address questions and issues that are significant for those who participate as co-researchers". PAR contrasts with mainstream research methods, which emphasize controlled experimentation, statistical analysis, and reproducibility of findings.

PAR practitioners make a concerted effort to integrate three basic aspects of their work: participation (life in society and democracy), action (engagement with experience and history), and research (soundness in thought and the growth of knowledge). "Action unites, organically, with research" and collective processes of self-investigation. The way each component is actually understood and the relative emphasis it receives varies nonetheless from one PAR theory and practice to another. This means that PAR is not a monolithic body of ideas and methods but rather a pluralistic orientation to knowledge making and social change.

Overview
In the UK and North America the work of Kurt Lewin[21] and the Tavistock Institute in the 1940s has been influential. However alternative traditions of PAR, begin with processes that include more bottom-up organising and popular education than were envisaged by Lewin.

PAR has multiple progenitors and resists definition. It is a broad tradition of collective self-experimentation backed up by evidential reasoning, fact-finding and learning. All formulations of PAR have in common the idea that research and action must be done 'with' people and not 'on' or 'for' people. It counters scientism by promoting the grounding of knowledge in human agency and social history (as in much of political economy). Inquiry based on PAR principles makes sense of the world through collective efforts to transform it, as opposed to simply observing and studying human behaviour and people's views about reality, in the hope that meaningful change will eventually emerge.

PAR draws on a wide range of influences, both among those with professional training and those who draw on their life experience and those of their ancestors. Many draw on the work of Paulo Freire, new thinking on adult education research, the Civil Rights Movement, South Asian social movements such as the Bhumi Sena, and key initiatives such as the Participatory Research Network created in 1978 and based in New Delhi. "It has benefited from an interdisciplinary development drawing its theoretical strength from adult education, sociology, political economy, community psychology, community development, feminist studies, critical psychology, organizational development and more". The Colombian sociologist Orlando Fals Borda and others organized the first explicitly PAR conference in Cartagena, Colombia in 1977. Based on his research with peasant groups in rural Boyaca and with other underserved groups, Fals Borda called for the 'community action' component to be incorporated into the research plans of traditionally trained researchers. His recommendations to researchers committed to the struggle for justice and greater democracy in all spheres, including the business of science, are useful for all researchers and echo the teaching from many schools of research:

 * "Do not monopolise your knowledge nor impose arrogantly your techniques, but respect and combine your skills with the knowledge of the researched or grassroots communities, taking them as full partners and co-researchers. Do not trust elitist versions of history and science which respond to dominant interests, but be receptive to counter-narratives and try to recapture them. Do not depend solely on your culture to interpret facts, but recover local values, traits, beliefs, and arts for action by and with the research organisations. Do not impose your own ponderous scientific style for communicating results, but diffuse and share what you have learned together with the people, in a manner that is wholly understandable and even literary and pleasant, for science should not be necessarily a mystery nor a monopoly of experts and intellectuals."

PAR can be thought of as a guiding paradigm to influence and democratize the creation of knowledge making, and ground it in real community needs and learning. Knowledge production controlled by elites can sometimes further oppress marginalized populations. PAR can be a way of overcoming the ineffectiveness and elitism of conventional schooling and science, and the negative effects of market forces and industry on the workplace, community life and sustainable livelihoods.

Fundamentally, PAR pushes against the notion that experiential distance is required for objectivity in scientific and sociological research. Instead, PAR values embodied knowledge beyond "gated communities" of scholarship, bridging academia and social movements such that research and advocacy — often thought to be mutually exclusive — become intertwined. Rather than be confined by academia, participatory settings are believed to have "social value," confronting epistemological gaps that may deepen ruts of inequality and injustice.

These principles and the ongoing evolution of PAR have had a lasting legacy in fields ranging from problem solving in the workplace to community development and sustainable livelihoods, education, public health, feminist research, civic engagement and criminal justice. It is important to note that these contributions are subject to many tensions and debates on key issues such as the role of clinical psychology, critical social thinking and the pragmatic concerns of organizational learning in PAR theory and practice. Labels used to define each approach (PAR, critical PAR, action research, psychosociology, sociotechnical analysis, etc.) reflect these tensions and point to major differences that may outweigh the similarities. While a common denominator, the combination of participation, action and research reflects the fragile unity of traditions whose diverse ideological and organizational contexts kept them separate and largely ignorant of one another for several decades.

The following review focuses on traditions that incorporate the three pillars of PAR. Closely related approaches that overlap but do not bring the three components together are left out. Applied research, for instance, is not necessarily committed to participatory principles and may be initiated and controlled mostly by experts, with the implication that 'human subjects' are not invited to play a key role in science building and the framing of the research questions. As in mainstream science, this process "regards people as sources of information, as having bits of isolated knowledge, but they are neither expected nor apparently assumed able to analyze a given social reality". PAR also differs from participatory inquiry or collaborative research, contributions to knowledge that may not involve direct engagement with transformative action and social history. PAR, in contrast, has evolved from the work of activists more concerned with empowering marginalized peoples than with generating academic knowledge for its own sake. Lastly, given its commitment to the research process, PAR overlaps but is not synonymous with action learning, action reflection learning (ARL), participatory development and community development—recognized forms of problem solving and capacity building that may be carried out with no immediate concern for research and the advancement of knowledge.

Organizational life
Action research in the workplace took its initial inspiration from Lewin's work on organizational development (and Dewey's emphasis on learning from experience). Lewin's seminal contribution involves a flexible, scientific approach to planned change that proceeds through a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of 'a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action', towards an organizational 'climate' of democratic leadership and responsible participation that promotes critical self-inquiry and collaborative work. These steps inform Lewin's work with basic skill training groups, T-groups where community leaders and group facilitators use feedback, problem solving, role play and cognitive aids (lectures, handouts, film) to gain insights into themselves, others and groups with a view to 'unfreezing' and changing their mindsets, attitudes and behaviours. Lewin's understanding of action-research coincides with key ideas and practices developed at the influential Tavistock Institute (created in 1947)) in the UK and National Training Laboratories (NTL) in the US. An important offshoot of Tavistock thinking and practise is the sociotechnical systems perspective on workplace dynamics, guided by the idea that greater productivity or efficiency does not hinge on improved technology alone. Improvements in organizational life call instead for the interaction and 'joint optimization' of the social and technical components of workplace activity. In this perspective, the best match between the social and technical factors of organized work lies in principles of 'responsible group autonomy' and industrial democracy, as opposed to deskilling and top-down bureaucracy guided by Taylor's scientific management and linear chain of command.

NTL played a central role in the evolution of experiential learning and the application of behavioral science to improving organizations. Process consultation, team building, conflict management, and workplace group democracy and autonomy have become recurrent themes in the prolific body of literature and practice known as organizational development (OD). As with 'action science', OD is a response to calls for planned change and 'rational social management' involving a normative human relations movement and approach to worklife in capital-dominated economies. Its principal goal is to enhance an organization's performance and the worklife experience, with the assistance of a consultant, a change agent or catalyst that helps the sponsoring organization define and solve its own problems, introduce new forms of leadership and change organizational culture and learning. Diagnostic and capacity-building activities are informed, to varying degrees, by psychology, the behavioural sciences, organizational studies, or theories of leadership and social innovation. Appreciative Inquiry (AI), for instance, is an offshoot of PAR based on positive psychology. Rigorous data gathering or fact-finding methods may be used to support the inquiry process and group thinking and planning. On the whole, however, science tends to be a means, not an end. Workplace and organizational learning interventions are first and foremost problem-based, action-oriented and client-centred.

Psychosociology
Tavistock broke new ground in other ways, by meshing general medicine and psychiatry with Freudian and Jungian psychology and the social sciences to help the British army face various human resource problems. This gave rise to a field of scholarly research and professional intervention loosely known as psychosociology, particularly influential in France (CIRFIP). Several schools of thought and 'social clinical' practise belong to this tradition, all of which are critical of the experimental and expert mindset of social psychology. Most formulations of psychosociology share with OD a commitment to the relative autonomy and active participation of individuals and groups coping with problems of self-realization and goal effectiveness within larger organizations and institutions. In addition to this humanistic and democratic agenda, psychosociology uses concepts of psychoanalytic inspiration to address interpersonal relations and the interplay between self and group. It acknowledges the role of the unconscious in social behaviour and collective representations and the inevitable expression of transference and countertransference—language and behaviour that redirect unspoken feelings and anxieties to other people or physical objects taking part in the action inquiry.

The works of Balint, Jaques, and Bion are turning points in the formative years of psychosociology. Commonly cited authors in France include Amado, Barus-Michel, Dubost, Enriquez, Lévy,  Gaujelac, and Giust-Desprairies. Different schools of thought and practice include Mendel's action research framed in a 'sociopsychoanalytic' perspective and Dejours's psychodynamics of work, with its emphasis on work-induced suffering and defence mechanisms. Lapassade and Lourau's 'socianalytic' interventions focus rather on institutions viewed as systems that dismantle and recompose norms and rules of social interaction over time, a perspective that builds on the principles of institutional analysis and psychotherapy. Anzieu and Martin's work on group psychoanalysis and theory of the collective 'skin-ego' is generally considered as the most faithful to the Freudian tradition. Key differences between these schools and the methods they use stem from the weight they assign to the analyst's expertise in making sense of group behaviour and views and also the social aspects of group behaviour and affect. Another issue is the extent to which the intervention is critical of broader institutional and social systems. The use of psychoanalytic concepts and the relative weight of effort dedicated to research, training and action also vary.

Community development and sustainable livelihoods
PAR emerged in the postwar years as an important contribution to intervention and self-transformation within groups, organizations and communities. It has left a singular mark on the field of rural and community development, especially in the Global South. Tools and concepts for doing research with people, including "barefoot scientists" and grassroots "organic intellectuals" (see Gramsci), are now promoted and implemented by many international development agencies, researchers, consultants, civil society and local community organizations around the world. This has resulted in countless experiments in diagnostic assessment, scenario planning and project evaluation in areas ranging from fisheries and mining to forestry, plant breeding, agriculture, farming systems research and extension, watershed management, resource mapping,  environmental conflict and natural resource management,    land rights, appropriate technology,  local economic development,  communication,  tourism, leadership for sustainability, biodiversity  and climate change. This prolific literature includes the many insights and methodological creativity of participatory monitoring, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and participatory learning and action (PLA)  and all action-oriented studies of local, indigenous or traditional knowledge.

On the whole, PAR applications in these fields are committed to problem solving and adaptation to nature at the household or community level, using friendly methods of scientific thinking and experimentation adapted to support rural participation and sustainable livelihoods.

Literacy, education and youth
In education, PAR practitioners inspired by the ideas of critical pedagogy and adult education are firmly committed to the politics of emancipatory action formulated by Freire, with a focus on dialogical reflection and action as means to overcome relations of domination and subordination between oppressors and the oppressed, colonizers and the colonized. The approach implies that "the silenced are not just incidental to the curiosity of the researcher but are the masters of inquiry into the underlying causes of the events in their world". Although a researcher and a sociologist, Fals Borda also has a profound distrust of conventional academia and great confidence in popular knowledge, sentiments that have had a lasting impact on the history of PAR, particularly in the fields of development, literacy, counterhegemonic education as well as youth engagement on issues ranging from violence to criminality, racial or sexual discrimination, educational justice, healthcare and the environment. When youth are included as research partners in the PAR process, it is referred to as Youth Participatory Action Research, or YPAR.

Community-based participatory research and service-learning are a more recent attempts to reconnect academic interests with education and community development. The Global Alliance on Community-Engaged Research is a promising effort to "use knowledge and community-university partnership strategies for democratic social and environmental change and justice, particularly among the most vulnerable people and places of the world." It calls for the active involvement of community members and researchers in all phases of the action inquiry process, from defining relevant research questions and topics to designing and implementing the investigation, sharing the available resources, acknowledging community-based expertise, and making the results accessible and understandable to community members and the broader public. Service learning or education is a closely related endeavour designed to encourage students to actively apply knowledge and skills to local situations, in response to local needs and with the active involvement of community members. Many online or printed guides now show how students and faculty can engage in community-based participatory research and meet academic standards at the same time.

Collaborative research in education is community-based research where pre-university teachers are the community and scientific knowledge is built on top of teachers' own interpretation of their experience and reality, with or without immediate engagement in transformative action.

Public health
PAR has made important inroads in the field of public health, in areas such as disaster relief, community-based rehabilitation, public health genomics, accident prevention, hospital care and drug prevention.

Because of its link to radical democratic struggles of the Civil Rights Movement and other social movements in South Asia and Latin America (see above), PAR is seen as a threat to their authority by some established elites. An international alliance university-based participatory researchers, ICPHR, omit the word "Action", preferring the less controversial term "participatory research". Photovoice is one of the strategies used in PAR and is especially useful in the public health domain. Keeping in mind the purpose of PAR, which is to benefit communities, Photovoice allows the same to happen through the media of photography. Photovoice considers helping community issues and problems reach policy makers as its primary goal.

Occupational health and safety
Participatory programs within the workplace involve employees within all levels of a workplace organization, from management to front-line staff, in the design and implementation of health and safety interventions. Some research has shown that interventions are most successful when front-line employees have a fundamental role in designing workplace interventions. Success through participatory programs may be due to a number of factors. Such factors include a better identification of potential barriers and facilitators, a greater willingness to accept interventions than those imposed strictly from upper management, and enhanced buy-in to intervention design, resulting in greater sustainability though promotion and acceptance. When designing an intervention, employees are able to consider lifestyle and other behavioral influences into solution activities that go beyond the immediate workplace.

Feminism and gender
Feminist research and women's development theory also contributed to rethinking the role of scholarship in challenging existing regimes of power, using qualitative and interpretive methods that emphasize subjectivity and self-inquiry rather than the quantitative approach of mainstream science. As did most research in the 1970s and 1980s, PAR remained androcentric. In 1987, Patricia Maguire critiqued this male-centered participatory research, arguing that "rarely have feminist and participatory action researchers acknowledged each other with mutually important contributions to the journey." Given that PAR aims to give equitable opportunity for diverse and marginalized voices to be heard, engaging gender minorities is an integral pillar in PAR's tenants. In addition to gender minorities, PAR must consider points of intersecting oppressions individuals may experience. After Maguire published Traveling Companions: Feminism, Teaching, And Action Research, PAR began to extend toward not only feminism, but also Intersectionality through Black Feminist Thought and Critical Race Theory (CRT). Today, applying an intersectional feminist lens to PAR is crucial to recognize the social categories, such as race, class, ability, gender, and sexuality, that construct individuals' power relations and lived experiences. PAR seeks to recognize the deeply complex condition of human living. Therefore, framing PAR's qualitative study methodologies through an intersectional feminist lens mobilizes all experiences – regardless of various social categories and oppressions – as legitimate sources of knowledge.

Neurodiversity
Neurodiversity has contributed to scholarship by including neurodivergent populations within research, by asking neurodivergent adults to get involved in discussing the various stages of the scientific methodology, which allows them to provide a better understanding of the research priorities within these communities. This research can challenge the ableist structure within academia where general assumptions (e.g. neurodivergence is inferior to neurotypicality), promote neurodivergent individuals as active collaborators, thus involving them in knowledge generation and ensure the theories of human cognition include strengths and weaknesses, together with lived experiences.

Civic engagement and ICT
Novel approaches to PAR in the public sphere help scale up the engaged inquiry process beyond small group dynamics. Touraine and others thus propose a 'sociology of intervention' involving the creation of artificial spaces for movement activists and non-activists to debate issues of public concern. Citizen science is another recent move to expand the scope of PAR, to include broader 'communities of interest' and citizens committed to enhancing knowledge in particular fields. In this approach to collaborative inquiry, research is actively assisted by volunteers who form an active public or network of contributing individuals. Efforts to promote public participation in the works of science owe a lot to the revolution in information and communications technology (ICT). Web 2.0 applications support virtual community interactivity and the development of user-driven content and social media, without restricted access or controlled implementation. They extend principles of open-source governance to democratic institutions, allowing citizens to actively engage in wiki-based processes of virtual journalism, public debate and policy development. Although few and far between, experiments in open politics can thus make use of ICT and the mechanics of e-democracy to facilitate communications on a large scale, towards achieving decisions that best serve the public interest.

In the same spirit, discursive or deliberative democracy calls for public discussion, transparency and pluralism in political decision-making, lawmaking and institutional life. Fact-finding and the outputs of science are made accessible to participants and may be subject to extensive media coverage, scientific peer review, deliberative opinion polling and adversarial presentations of competing arguments and predictive claims. The methodology of Citizens' jury is interesting in this regard. It involves people selected at random from a local or national population who are provided opportunities to question 'witnesses' and collectively form a 'judgment' on the issue at hand.

ICTs, open politics and deliberative democracy usher in new strategies to engage governments, scientists, civil society organizations and interested citizens in policy-related discussions of science and technology. These trends represent an invitation to explore novel ways of doing PAR on a broader scale.

Criminal justice
Compared to other fields, PAR frameworks in criminal justice are relatively new. But growing support for community-based alternatives to the criminal justice system has sparked interest in PAR in criminological settings. Participatory action research in criminal justice includes system-impacted people themselves in research and advocacy conducted by academics or other experts. Because system-impacted people hold experiential knowledge of the conditions and practices of the justice system, they may be able to more effectively expose and articulate problems with that system. Many people who have been incarcerated are also able to share with researchers facets of the justice system that are invisible to the outside world or are difficult to understand without first-hand experience. Proponents of PAR in criminal justice believe that including those most impacted by the justice system in research is crucial because the presence of these individuals precludes the possibility of misunderstanding or compounding harms of the justice system in that research.

Participants in PAR may also hold knowledge or education in more traditional academic fields, like law, policy or government that can inform criminological research. But PAR in criminology bridges the epistemological gap between knowledge gained through academia and through lived experience, connecting research to justice reform.

Ethics
Given the often delicate power balances between researchers and participants in PAR, there have been calls for a code of ethics to guide the relationship between researchers and participants in a variety of PAR fields. Norms in research ethics involving humans include respect for the autonomy of individuals and groups to deliberate about a decision and act on it. This principle is usually expressed through the free, informed and ongoing consent of those participating in research (or those representing them in the case of persons lacking the capacity to decide). Another mainstream principle is the welfare of participants who should not be exposed to any unfavourable balance of benefits and risks with participation in research aimed at the advancement of knowledge, especially those that are serious and probable. Since privacy is a factor that contributes to people's welfare, confidentiality obtained through the collection and use of data that are anonymous (e.g. survey data) or anonymized tends to be the norm. Finally, the principle of justice—equal treatment and concern for fairness and equity—calls for measures of appropriate inclusion and mechanisms to address conflicts of interests.

While the choice of appropriate norms of ethical conduct is rarely an either/or question, PAR implies a different understanding of what consent, welfare and justice entail. For one thing the people involved are not mere 'subjects' or 'participants'. They act instead as key partners in an inquiry process that may take place outside the walls of academic or corporate science. As Canada's Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans suggests, PAR requires that the terms and conditions of the collaborative process be set out in a research agreement or protocol based on mutual understanding of the project goals and objectives between the parties, subject to preliminary discussions and negotiations. Unlike individual consent forms, these terms of reference (ToR) may acknowledge collective rights, interests and mutual obligations. While they are legalistic in their genesis, they are usually based on interpersonal relationships and a history of trust rather than the language of legal forms and contracts.

Another implication of PAR ethics is that partners must protect themselves and each other against potential risks, by mitigating the negative consequences of their collaborative work and pursuing the welfare of all parties concerned. This does not preclude battles against dominant interests. Given their commitment to social justice and transformative action, some PAR projects may be critical of existing social structures and struggle against the policies and interests of individuals, groups and institutions accountable for their actions, creating circumstances of danger. Public-facing action can also be dangerous for some marginalized populations, such as survivors of domestic violence.

In some fields of PAR it is believed that an ethics of participation should go beyond avoidance of harm. For participatory settings that engage with marginalized or oppressed populations, including criminal justice, PAR can be mobilized to actively support individuals. An "ethic of empowerment" encourages researchers to consider participants as standing on equal epistemological footing, with equal say in research decisions. Within this ethical framework, PAR doesn't just affect change in the world but also directly improves the lives of the research participants. An "ethic of empowerment" may require a systemic shift in the way researchers view and talk about oppressed communities — often as degenerate or helpless. If not practiced in a way that actively considers the knowledge of participants, PAR can become manipulative. Participatory settings in which participants are tokenized or serve only as sources of information without joint power in decision-making processes can exploit rather than empower.

By definition, PAR is always a step into the unknown, raising new questions and creating new risks over time. Given its emergent properties and responsiveness to social context and needs, PAR cannot limit discussions and decisions about ethics to the design and proposal phase. Norms of ethical conduct and their implications may have to be revisited as the project unfolds. This has implications, both in resources and practice, for the ability to subject the research to true ethical oversight in the way that traditional research has come to be regulated.

Challenges
PAR offers a long history of experimentation with evidence-based and people-based inquiry, a groundbreaking alternative to mainstream positive science. As with positivism, the approach creates many challenges as well as debates on what counts as participation, action and research. Differences in theoretical commitments (Lewinian, Habermasian, Freirean, psychoanalytic, feminist, etc.) and methodological inclinations (quantitative, qualitative, mixed) are numerous and profound. This is not necessarily a problem, given the pluralistic value system built into PAR. Ways to better answer questions pertaining to PAR's relationship with science and social history are nonetheless key to its future.

One critical question concerns the problem-solving orientation of engaged inquiry—the rational means-ends focus of most PAR experiments as they affect organizational performance or material livelihoods, for instance. In the clinical perspective of French psychosociology, a pragmatic orientation to inquiry neglects forms of understanding and consciousness that are not strictly instrumental and rational. PAR must pay equal attention the interconnections of self-awareness, the unconscious and life in society.

Another issue, more widely debated, is scale—how to address broad-based systems of power and issues of complexity, especially those of another development on a global scale. How can PAR develop a macro-orientation to democratic dialogue and meet challenges of the 21st Century, by joining movements to support justice and solidarity on both local and global scales? By keeping things closely tied to local group dynamics, PAR runs the risk of substituting small-scale participation for genuine democracy and fails to develop strategies for social transformation on all levels. Given its political implications, community-based action research and its consensus ethos have been known to fall prey to powerful stakeholders and serve as Trojan horses to bring global and environmental restructuring processes directly to local settings, bypassing legitimate institutional buffers and obscuring diverging interests and the exercise of power during the process. Cooptation can lead to highly manipulated outcomes. Against this criticism, others argue that, given the right circumstances, it is possible to build institutional arrangements for joint learning and action across regional and national borders that can have impacts on citizen action, national policies and global discourses.

The role of science and scholarship in PAR is another source of difference. In the Lewinian tradition, "there is nothing so practical as a good theory". Accordingly, the scientific logic of developing theory, forming and testing hypotheses, gathering measurable data and interpreting the results plays a central role. While more clinically oriented, psychosociology in France also emphasizes the distinctive role of formal research and academic work, beyond problem solving in specific contexts. Many PAR practitioners critical of mainstream science and its overemphasis on quantitative data also point out that research based on qualitative methods may be theoretically-informed and rigorous in its own way. In other traditions, however, PAR keeps great distance from both academic and corporate science. Given their emphasis on pluralism and living knowledge, many practitioners of grassroots inquiry are critical of grand theory and advanced methods for collaborative inquiry, to the point of abandoning the word "research" altogether, as in participatory action learning. Others equate research with any involvement in reflexive practice aimed at assessing problems and evaluating project or program results against group expectations. As a result, inquiry methods tend to be soft and theory remains absent or underdeveloped. Practical and theoretical efforts to overcome this ambivalence towards scholarly activity are nonetheless emerging.

title: Participatory action research


text:
User talk:LOserV1lle

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

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

title: User talk:LOserV1lle


text:
User talk:Boboyer

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Boboyer


text:
User talk:JHinchey

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Hello, JHinchey, and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created,, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. NawlinWiki 21:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:JHinchey


text:
User talk:Minara~enwiki

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * 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 Minara. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Minara~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 01:33, 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) 16:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Minara~enwiki


text:
Talk:Sith Academy

Untitled
Would a sith academy be coll in the real world if sith were real?

title: Talk:Sith Academy


text:
Hyaenodon

Hyaenodon ("hyena-tooth") is an extinct genus of carnivorous placental mammals from extinct tribe Hyaenodontini within extinct subfamily Hyaenodontinae (in extinct family Hyaenodontidae), that lived in Eurasia and North America from the middle Eocene, throughout the Oligocene, to the early Miocene.

Description

Typical of early carnivorous mammals, individuals of Hyaenodon had a very massive skull, but a small brain. The skull is long with a narrow snout—much larger in relation to the length of the skull than in canine carnivores, for instance. The neck was shorter than the skull, while the body was long and robust and terminated in a long tail. Compared to the larger (but not closely related) Hyainailouros, the dentition of Hyaenodon was geared more towards shearing meat and less towards bone crushing.

Some species of this genus were among the largest terrestrial carnivorous mammals of their time; others were only of the size of a marten. Remains of many species are known from North America, Europe, and Asia. The average weight of adult or subadult H. horridus, the largest North American species, is estimated to about 40 kg and may not have exceeded 60 kg. H. gigas, the largest Hyaenodon species, was much larger, being 378 kg and around 10 ft. H. crucians from the early Oligocene of North America is estimated to only 10 to 25 kg. H. microdon and H. mustelinus from the late Eocene of North America were even smaller and weighed probably about 5 kg.

Tooth eruption
Studies on juvenile Hyaenodon specimens show that the animal had a very unusual system of tooth replacement. Juveniles took about 3–4 years to complete the final stage of eruption, implying a long adolescent phase. In North American forms, the first upper premolar erupts before the first upper molar, while European forms show an earlier eruption of the first upper molar.

Paleoecology
The various species of Hyaenodon competed with each other and with other hyaenodont genera (including Sinopa, Dissopsalis and Hyainailurus), and played important roles as predators in ecological communities as late as the Miocene in Asia and preyed on a variety of prey species such as primitive horses like Mesohippus, Brontotheres, early camels, oreodonts and even primitive rhinos. Species of Hyaenodon have been shown to have successfully preyed on other large carnivores of their time, including a nimravid ("false sabertooth cat"), according to analysis of tooth puncture marks on a fossil Dinictis skull found in North Dakota.

In North America the last Hyaenodon, in the form of H. brevirostrus, disappeared in the late Oligocene. In Europe, they had already vanished earlier in the Oligocene.

Taxonomy

 * Tribe: †Hyaenodontini (Leidy, 1869)
 * Genus: †Hyaenodon (Laizer & Parieu, 1838)
 * †Hyaenodon brachyrhynchus (Blainville, 1841)
 * †Hyaenodon chunkhtensis (Dashzeveg, 1985)
 * †Hyaenodon dubius (Filhol, 1873)
 * †Hyaenodon eminus (Matthew & Granger, 1925)
 * †Hyaenodon exiguus (Gervais, 1873)
 * †Hyaenodon filholi (Schlosser, 1887)
 * †Hyaenodon gervaisi (Martin, 1906)
 * †Hyaenodon heberti (Europe, 41–33.9 mya) (Filhol, 1876)
 * †Hyaenodon leptorhynchus (Laizer & Parieu, 1838)
 * †Hyaenodon minor (Lange-Badré, 1979)
 * †Hyaenodon neimongoliensis (Huang & Zhu, 2002)
 * †Hyaenodon pervagus (Matthew & Granger, 1924)
 * †Hyaenodon pumilus (Lavrov, 2019
 * †Hyaenodon requieni (Gervais, 1846)
 * †Hyaenodon rossignoli (Lange-Badré, 1979)
 * †Hyaenodon weilini (China, 23–16.9 mya) (Wang, 2005)
 * †Hyaenodon yuanchuensis (Young, 1937)
 * Subgenus: †Neohyaenodon (paraphyletic subgenus) (Thorpe, 1922)
 * †Hyaenodon gigas (Dashzeveg, 1985)
 * †Hyaenodon horridus (Leidy, 1853)
 * †Hyaenodon incertus (Dashzeveg, 1985)
 * †Hyaenodon macrocephalus (Lavrov, 1999)
 * †Hyaenodon megaloides (Mellett, 1977)
 * †Hyaenodon milvinus (Lavrov, 1999)
 * †Hyaenodon mongoliensis (Dashzeveg, 1964)
 * †Hyaenodon montanus (Douglass, 1902)
 * †Hyaenodon vetus (Stock, 1933)
 * Subgenus: †Protohyaenodon (paraphyletic subgenus) (Stock, 1933)
 * †Hyaenodon brevirostrus (Macdonald, 1970)
 * †Hyaenodon crucians (Leidy, 1853)
 * †Hyaenodon microdon (Mellett, 1977)
 * †Hyaenodon mustelinus (North America, 38–30 mya) (Scott, 1894)
 * †Hyaenodon raineyi (Gustafson, 1986)
 * †Hyaenodon venturae (Mellett, 1977)

title: Hyaenodon


text:
Ehrenfest paradox

The Ehrenfest paradox concerns the rotation of a "rigid" disc in the theory of relativity.

In its original 1909 formulation as presented by Paul Ehrenfest in relation to the concept of Born rigidity within special relativity, it discusses an ideally rigid cylinder that is made to rotate about its axis of symmetry. The radius R as seen in the laboratory frame is always perpendicular to its motion and should therefore be equal to its value R0 when stationary. However, the circumference (2$\pi$R) should appear Lorentz-contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual factor γ. This leads to the contradiction that R = R0 and R < R0.

The paradox has been deepened further by Albert Einstein, who showed that since measuring rods aligned along the periphery and moving with it should appear contracted, more would fit around the circumference, which would thus measure greater than 2πR. This indicates that geometry is non-Euclidean for rotating observers, and was important for Einstein's development of general relativity.

Any rigid object made from real material that is rotating with a transverse velocity close to that material's speed of sound must exceed the point of rupture due to centrifugal force, because centrifugal pressure can not exceed the shear modulus of material.

 * $$ \frac{F}{S} = \frac{mv^2}{rS} < \frac{mc_s^2}{rS} \approx \frac{mG}{rS \rho} \approx G $$

where $$c_s$$ is speed of sound, $$\rho$$ is density and $$G$$ is shear modulus. Therefore, when considering relativistic speeds, it is only a thought experiment. Neutron-degenerate matter may allow velocities close to the speed of light, since the speed of a neutron-star oscillation is relativistic (though these bodies cannot strictly be said to be "rigid").

Essence of the paradox
Imagine a disk of radius R rotating with constant angular velocity $$\omega$$.

The reference frame is fixed to the stationary center of the disk. Then the magnitude of the relative velocity of any point in the circumference of the disk is $$\omega R$$. So the circumference will undergo Lorentz contraction by a factor of $$\sqrt{1-(\omega R)^2/c^2}$$.

However, since the radius is perpendicular to the direction of motion, it will not undergo any contraction. So

 * $$\frac{\mathrm{circumference}}{\mathrm{diameter}}=\frac{2\pi R \sqrt{1-(\omega R)^2/c^2}}{2R} = \pi \sqrt{1-(\omega R)^2/c^2}.$$

This is paradoxical, since in accordance with Euclidean geometry, it should be exactly equal to π.

Ehrenfest's argument
Ehrenfest considered an ideal Born-rigid cylinder that is made to rotate. Assuming that the cylinder does not expand or contract, its radius stays the same. But measuring rods laid out along the circumference $$2 \pi R$$ should be Lorentz-contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual factor γ. This leads to the paradox that the rigid measuring rods would have to separate from one another due to Lorentz contraction; the discrepancy noted by Ehrenfest seems to suggest that a rotated Born rigid disk should shatter.

Thus Ehrenfest argued by reductio ad absurdum that Born rigidity is not generally compatible with special relativity. According to special relativity an object cannot be spun up from a non-rotating state while maintaining Born rigidity, but once it has achieved a constant nonzero angular velocity it does maintain Born rigidity without violating special relativity, and then (as Einstein later showed) a disk-riding observer will measure a circumference: $$C^\prime = \frac{2\pi R}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}.$$

Einstein and general relativity
The rotating disc and its connection with rigidity was also an important thought experiment for Albert Einstein in developing general relativity. He referred to it in several publications in 1912, 1916, 1917, 1922 and drew the insight from it, that the geometry of the disc becomes non-Euclidean for a co-rotating observer. Einstein wrote (1922): 66ff: Imagine a circle drawn about the origin in the x'y' plane of K' and a diameter of this circle. Imagine, further, that we have given a large number of rigid rods, all equal to each other. We suppose these laid in series along the periphery and the diameter of the circle, at rest relatively to K'. If U is the number of these rods along the periphery, D the number along the diameter, then, if K' does not rotate relatively to K, we shall have $$U/D=\pi$$. But if K' rotates we get a different result. Suppose that at a definite time t of K we determine the ends of all the rods. With respect to K all the rods upon the periphery experience the Lorentz contraction, but the rods upon the diameter do not experience this contraction (along their lengths!). It therefore follows that $$U/D>\pi$$. It therefore follows that the laws of configuration of rigid bodies with respect to K' do not agree with the laws of configuration of rigid bodies that are in accordance with Euclidean geometry. If, further, we place two similar clocks (rotating with K'), one upon the periphery, and the other at the centre of the circle, then, judged from K, the clock on the periphery will go slower than the clock at the centre. The same thing must take place, judged from K' if we define time with respect to K' in a not wholly unnatural way, that is, in such a way that the laws with respect to K' depend explicitly upon the time. Space and time, therefore, cannot be defined with respect to K' as they were in the special theory of relativity with respect to inertial systems. But, according to the principle of equivalence, K' is also to be considered as a system at rest, with respect to which there is a gravitational field (field of centrifugal force, and force of Coriolis). We therefore arrive at the result: the gravitational field influences and even determines the metrical laws of the space-time continuum. If the laws of configuration of ideal rigid bodies are to be expressed geometrically, then in the presence of a gravitational field the geometry is not Euclidean.

Brief history
Citations to the papers mentioned below (and many which are not) can be found in a paper by Øyvind Grøn which is available on-line.

 * 1909: Max Born introduces a notion of rigid motion in special relativity.
 * 1909: After studying Born's notion of rigidity, Paul Ehrenfest demonstrated by means of a paradox about a cylinder that goes from rest to rotation, that most motions of extended bodies cannot be Born rigid.
 * 1910: Gustav Herglotz and Fritz Noether independently elaborated on Born's model and showed (Herglotz–Noether theorem) that Born rigidity only allows three degrees of freedom for bodies in motion. For instance, it's possible that a rigid body is executing uniform rotation, yet accelerated rotation is impossible. So a Born rigid body cannot be brought from a state of rest into rotation, confirming Ehrenfest's result.
 * 1910: Max Planck calls attention to the fact that one should not confuse the problem of the contraction of a disc due to spinning it up, with that of what disk-riding observers will measure as compared to stationary observers. He suggests that resolving the first problem will require introducing some material model and employing the theory of elasticity.
 * 1910: Theodor Kaluza points out that there is nothing inherently paradoxical about the static and disk-riding observers obtaining different results for the circumference. This does however imply, Kaluza argues, that "the geometry of the rotating disk" is non-euclidean. He asserts without proof that this geometry is in fact essentially just the geometry of the hyperbolic plane.
 * 1911: Vladimir Varićak argued that the paradox only occurs in the Lorentz standpoint, where rigid bodies contract, but not if the contraction is "caused by the manner of our clock-regulation and length-measurement". Einstein published a rebuttal, denying that his viewpoint was different from Lorentz's.
 * 1911: Max von Laue shows, that an accelerated body has an infinite number of degrees of freedom, thus no rigid bodies can exist in special relativity.
 * 1916: While writing up his new general theory of relativity, Albert Einstein notices that disk-riding observers measure a longer circumference, = 2πr/$\sqrt{1−v^{2}}$.  That is, because rulers moving parallel to their length axis appear shorter as measured by static observers, the disk-riding observers can fit more smaller rulers of a given length around the circumference than stationary observers could.
 * 1922: In his seminal book "The Mathematical Theory of Relativity" (p. 113), A.S.Eddington calculates a contraction of the radius of the rotating disc (compared to stationary scales) of one quarter of the 'Lorentz contraction' factor applied to the circumference.
 * 1935: Paul Langevin essentially introduces a moving frame (or frame field in modern language) corresponding to the family of disk-riding observers, now called Langevin observers. (See the figure.) He also shows that distances measured by nearby Langevin observers correspond to a certain Riemannian metric, now called the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric.
 * 1937: Jan Weyssenhoff (now perhaps best known for his work on Cartan connections with zero curvature and nonzero torsion) notices that the Langevin observers are not hypersurface orthogonal. Therefore, the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric is defined, not on some hyperslice of Minkowski spacetime, but on the quotient space obtained by replacing each world line with a point.  This gives a three-dimensional smooth manifold which becomes a Riemannian manifold when we add the metric structure.
 * 1946: Nathan Rosen shows that inertial observers instantaneously comoving with Langevin observers also measure small distances given by Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric.
 * 1946: E. L. Hill analyzes relativistic stresses in a material in which (roughly speaking) the speed of sound equals the speed of light and shows these just cancel the radial expansion due to centrifugal force (in any physically realistic material, the relativistic effects lessen but do not cancel the radial expansion). Hill explains errors in earlier analyses by Arthur Eddington and others.
 * 1952: C. Møller attempts to study null geodesics from the point of view of rotating observers (but incorrectly tries to use slices rather than the appropriate quotient space)
 * 1968: V. Cantoni provides a straightforward, purely kinematical explanation of the paradox by showing that "one of the assumptions implicitly contained in the statement of Ehrenfest's paradox is not correct, the assumption being that the geometry of Minkowski space-time allows the passage of the disk from rest to rotation in such a fashion that both the length of the radius and the length of the periphery, measured with respect to the comoving frame of reference, remain unchanged"
 * 1975: Øyvind Grøn writes a classic review paper about solutions of the "paradox".
 * 1977: Grünbaum and Janis introduce a notion of physically realizable "non-rigidity" which can be applied to the spin-up of an initially non-rotating disk (this notion is not physically realistic for real materials from which one might make a disk, but it is useful for thought experiments).
 * 1981: Grøn notices that Hooke's law is not consistent with Lorentz transformations and introduces a relativistic generalization.
 * 1997: T. A. Weber explicitly introduces the frame field associated with Langevin observers.
 * 2000: Hrvoje Nikolić points out that the paradox disappears when (in accordance with general theory of relativity) each piece of the rotating disk is treated separately, as living in its own local non-inertial frame.
 * 2002: Rizzi and Ruggiero (and Bel) explicitly introduce the quotient manifold mentioned above.
 * 2024: Jitendra Kumar analyzes the paradox for a ring and points out that the resolution depends on how the ring is brought from rest to rotational motion, whether by keeping the rest length of the periphery constant (in which case the periphery tears) or by keeping periphery's length in the inertial frame constant (in which case the periphery physically stretches, increasing its rest length).

Resolution of the paradox
Grøn states that the resolution of the paradox stems from the impossibility of synchronizing clocks in a rotating reference frame. If observers on the rotating circumference try to synchronise their clocks around the circumference to establish disc time, there is a time difference between the two end points where they meet.

The modern resolution can be briefly summarized as follows:
 * 1) Small distances measured by disk-riding observers are described by the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric, which is indeed well approximated (for small angular velocity) by the geometry of the hyperbolic plane, just as Kaluza had claimed.
 * 2) For physically reasonable materials, during the spin-up phase a real disk expands radially due to centrifugal forces; relativistic corrections partially counteract (but do not cancel) this Newtonian effect. After a steady-state rotation is achieved and the disk has been allowed to relax, the geometry "in the small" is approximately given by the Langevin–Landau–Lifschitz metric.

A few classic "modern" references

 * See Section 84 and the problem at the end of Section 89.
 * See Section 84 and the problem at the end of Section 89.
 * See Section 84 and the problem at the end of Section 89.
 * See Section 84 and the problem at the end of Section 89.
 * See Section 84 and the problem at the end of Section 89.

Selected recent sources

 * Studies general non-inertial motion of a point particle and treats rotating disk as a collection of such non-inertial particles. See also the eprint version.
 * Studies a coordinate chart constructed using radar distance "in the large" from a single Langevin observer. See also the eprint version.
 * They give a precise definition of the "space of the disk" (non-Euclidean), and solve the paradox without extraneous dynamic considerations. See also the eprint version.
 * This book contains a comprehensive historical survey by Øyvind Grøn, on which the "brief history" in this article is based, and some other papers on the Ehrenfest paradox and related controversies. Hundreds of additional references may be found in this book, particularly the paper by Grøn.
 * Considers two ways by which a ring is brought from rest to rotational motion and resolves the paradox for those two cases. See also the eprint version.

title: Ehrenfest paradox


text:
User talk:Manobala v

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Manobala v


text:
User talk:PizzaMargherita

Hand Gestures
You reverted my edit to the Wanker section. I am not sure my variant is common everywhere, but I have seen it quite frequently as a replacement for, or in addition to rolling one's eyes, or instead of saying a phrase such as "big fucking deal". One notable use I can think of is in one of George Carlin's HBO specials. My addition probably needs a rewrite if it is kept though.66.153.117.118 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi. No problem, feel free to reintroduce if you are confident. It's just that bulging of the eyes in particular seems even inappropriate for that gesture. Rolling of the eyes is much more understandable and I have seen it done. The problem with reversals you see is that it always makes you look like a nazi arsehole. That was more like a "soft" revert. I have rephrased the rest of your contribution. PizzaMargherita 05:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthday paradox
Regarding your revert of my edit: I'm not sure I do understand what you're saying -- you said we could discuss if that was the case. Could you clarify? Thanks, Matthew Plough 04:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, no prob. I think you understood that the modified problem (same birthday as you) was "what's the probability that another pair in the remaining 22 people has the same birthday as me?", whereas it's more like "what's the chance that at least one other person in the room has the same b'day as me?". I modified slightly the intro to clarify. PizzaMargherita 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I ever claimed to be the one who discovered the error in what Paul Halmos wrote? Michael Hardy 01:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It was an assumption based on your evident egotism and arrogant vandalism (restoring the section that somebody else had correctly "nuked"). It turned out to be a wrong assumption, and for that I can only apologise.--PizzaMargherita 01:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? You are dishonest and gratuitously abusive. Michael Hardy 02:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Vandalism", yes. What else would you call editing the article in disrespect of the manifest opinion of the majority? As for being abusive, need I remind you that in that thread you called people cavemen, illiterate and vandals only because they were disagreeing with you?

I called them that because their position seemed like bigotry and nothing else. Michael Hardy 17:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * At this point I would refer the casual reader to the discussion, so that they can decide who was being a bigot - and a vandal. (Is this the right way to link to that btw?)--PizzaMargherita 18:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'd like to remind you that vandalism is never acceptable on Wikipedia, and is a bannable offense regardless of whether you revert it yourself. Please don't do anything like this again. Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm supersorry officer. I've been a bad boy, and what I did was unexcusable. Vandalising an article and reverting 3 split seconds later should be punished with 2 years of Gulag. PizzaMargherita 07:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I didn't say I would ban you. Others might, though, and it does clutter the edit history.  I'd prefer if you don't do it.  Also, I know the watchlist link only works for me.  It's for my convenience(it sets it up for 7 days, not showing my edits).  Superm401 | Talk 07:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Viewing modes for variants
There are different "viewing modes" on the Chinese Wikipedia, for traditional and simplified Chinese. There are major differences between Portuguese Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese, but on the Portuguese Wikipedia, there is no such system, as far as I know. On the Chinese WP, it's necessary, because for people used to reading simplified Chinese characters, it's very difficult or impossible to read traditional characters. SpNeo 22:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

help:formula
Nice work. Dmharvey 14:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Why, thank you. :-)
 * I think we need to push on some of the features now. I mean, unless I'm missing something, Maynard Handley's improvements are ready to go, it's just a matter of testing and releasing them...
 * Also, there are some unsupported TeX commands that I can't see how it could be difficult to add, given what's there already. I may get my hands dirty and dig into the code myself. PizzaMargherita 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I've been putting in a lot of work into blahtex. The next version is starting to get to critical mass now. It should do everything texvc does, plus MathML, plus a few other things, including support for \textstyle and relatives, correct \mathop support, correct \limits etc support, a few more environments like align* and smallmatrix, much more TeX-compliant parsing (which will break a few equations, but that's life). Dmharvey 21:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Za, since you have previously expressed an opinion about the issue of what the Manual of Style has to say about links in the title, I'd like to invite you to talk a look at the further discussion that I have had with User:E Pluribus Anthony at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

I disagree with the "compromise position", which I think reflects only his desire to water down this rule. I would like to hear your view. If you and others are happy with the compromise, then so be it, I will leave it alone. If not, then let's change it back. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on my recent response on the subject of dialects here: ? Cheers --Splidje 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your picture
Your picture may display better for many users if you limit its width to 550 pixels:
 * [[Image:pizzamargherita.jpg|550px]]

Hyacinth 09:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. PizzaMargherita 10:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Your welcome. I have been polite and helpful on Talk:Set theory (music). Perhaps you could return the favor. Hyacinth 08:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I'm a bastard by nature. If I had any social skills I wouldn't be typing on a fucking keyboard. PizzaMargherita 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits to mathematics
Hi PizzaMargherita. I saw you editing at that article. Just wanted to let you know that that article is very proeminent, much watched and much argued about. So if you have big changes to make, it is good if you discuss things in advance on its talk page, to avoid reverts, arguments, and all that. Just wanted to let you know. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, no worries. I don't think I'll be doing much there, but do you disagree with any of my changes? PizzaMargherita 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't disagree. But we had issues there with editors beeing too pushy, and that was causing trouble, that's why I am overreacting a bit. Of course, you are more welcome to contribute there, as long as, again, some discussion on the talk page takes place, to make sure we are working constructively on the article rather than arguing most of the time. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Determiners
I've commented on your comment in my talk-pages. KEJ 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's cool, thanks, I'm watching it. PizzaMargherita 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you'll know that there are some more comments now - which will probably be my final comments on this matter KEJ 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Early or Late?
Are you staying up late or did you just get up early? Its 4 am here in New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm typing from my spaceship, there are no time zones here. PizzaMargherita 09:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bolding explicit cross-references
It seems that someone removed that item from the MOS in November as part of a "draft trim". Clearly I missed the relevent discussion. Jkelly 16:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

HIja'?
Dare I ask that means? (And do we need a WP article on it?) GRuban 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Know you not the language of our future rulers? PizzaMargherita 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blocking policy
I would block longer, but the problem with the IP is that it's shared. We try to limit our blocks to shared IPs, because we may lock out legit editors. However if push comes to shove, we'll just block them again. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 08:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If it were only that easy. The sad fact is that we won't know if in the future, some other user who has good faith in WP will want to edit. But if this guy continues to vandalise, I could lenghen his block to longer than 24 hrs. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 19:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean. Have you tried reporting him to Long_term_abuse? Maybe the administrators there can help you out. There's no right or wrong way to reply. The reason I split conversations is so you can get that message at the top of the screen when you log in. It also saves space on my talk page as well. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Adjective
President Lethe 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do like your formatting better. I am against excessive colons and bullets, &c.—but was limiting myself to only a quick change in one part of that article, instead of what I might've liked to do to formatting and a lot more.
 * Later, when I allow myself the luxury, I might edit more of the article and add bits about post-positive adjectives.
 * Do you happen to know whether there is some rule or standard about how dashes should be encoded? For an em dash, I usually just enter the character by holding down Alt and entering the number 0151 (on my American keyboard); but then I see others enter something like 'an ampersand and then the letters m d a s h and then a semicolon'. As far as I can tell, this makes no difference in final appearance, but does require 700% as many characters. Today, for a change, in the article on initialisms and acronyms, I decided to do it the long way, which someone else had already come after me and done a bit of—and then someone else came behind me and put them back to single-character em dashes (the kind I usually make). Not sure why I'm asking you; I just am.

 * Hi. I don't know to be honest. I use &mdash; because I come from an HTML background. You may want to ask in the WP:MoS talk page. I think that nobody really cares, because there is a lot of other HTML in WP that we can't get rid of. PizzaMargherita 07:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Warning
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Barberio 22:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Bullshit. Rather, you have reverted a good change of mine for personal reasons. PizzaMargherita 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This is hilarious, you even reported me here! Excellent, I'll sit back and watch the admin reminding you to
 * "Make sure the editor has been warned with the,, and templates as appropriate."
 * Priceless. PizzaMargherita 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I've looked through PizzaMargherita's edits for the past couple of hours and can find nothing approaching a personal attack. I have therefore removed Barberio's report to WP:PAIN. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For the enjoyment of the casual reader, here are the follow-ups to this episode:
 * Personal attack accusations—The response of the admin on Barberio's talk page
 * Personal attack diff links—Not having wasted enough admin time, Barberio tries to have the case reconsidered, with expected results
 * "Not a severe enough attack"—Barberio incredibly persists and appeals to the Supreme Court, once again with a predictable outcome

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Barberio 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh my god, the second (baseless) warning! Now I'm really shitting myself, I must say. PizzaMargherita 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think I've been a bad boy again, so I'll add this warning myself:
 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]]

This is my last warning. If I continue to make personal attacks, I may be blocked for disruption. PizzaMargherita 20:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You may not be blocked for personal attacks, but it would help your case to abide by WP:DICK. Pointing out others' grammatical and spelling errors while making them yourself is quite laughable. - Mark 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Always happy to learn if you can point them out. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Eh, I can't remember where it was now. I have the memory of a slightly retarded goldfish. If I see it again I'll fix it. - Mark 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, I saw the one. Thank you. Quite laughable, I'd agree. PizzaMargherita 10:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, is my being a dick the only opinion you have about the things we are discussing? The debate would greatly benefit from an external viewpoint. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 10:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

last comment likely not helpful
Hi - Thanks for the support on Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American, although I suspect this comment will not be helpful. I hope you can take some friendly advice from someone who's been here quite a while. Per Etiquette, please work toward agreement. It's not about winning and losing. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I know what you mean. And I do admire the way you are handling, don't get me wrong. But come on, one thing is to work towards agreement, and another is to give in unreasoable demands and blatantly false claims. I'll remove the offending bit from talk page. PizzaMargherita 18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, what's this thing about systemic bias? And why is it relevant? Does systemic bias in WP mean that minorities' votes should weigh more? That's utter nonsense. And even so, it's not like "American x" is used only by Americans. As far as I know, it's as widespread in all other varieties of English. So, biased says who? PizzaMargherita 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The bit about systemic bias was a question (as far as I know unanswered) at the time about whether there's a geographic basis for a preference on this. I know several of the folks favoring "American x" are Britons (CalJW, Steve Block, Valiantis), and one American (Who) favored "x of the United States".  To some extent, this is a criticism that can be raised on any Wikipedia poll.  I don't think it hurts to include this in the conclusion summary (as long as it's also mentioned that no evidence of such bias was found).  I personally don't have any idea why this is such a polarizing issue, but since it boils down to a binary choice it's hard to view any solution as a compromise.  I do know that on issues like this (at least in Wikipedia-land) the generally most productive approach is to find some way to base the resolution on external facts rather than personal opinions.  This tends to shift the conversation away from the "I'm right/you're wrong" rathole. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clarification.
 * So anyway, given the numbers, and that there is this ultra-strong consensus that we should have a policy, why is it not proper to make the "American x" proposal that policy? Because one person is particularly good at insisting that it shouldn't happen?
 * I mean, apart from being by far the most unpleasant character I ever met in WP in my short stay, this guy in the last two weeks has wasted a lot of WP resources giving us a long string of disruptive distortions (or blatant misquotations) of hard facts, and has been extremely uncooperative and systematically refused to budge an inch from his position even when he was repeatedly proven incorrect. (I'm considering writing down this list.) Why should he, or anyone for that matter, have power of veto? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * At least for category naming, I believe "American x" is the defacto standard. It's not exactly policy, since policy creation or change requires consensus (which is inordinately difficult to achieve, see How to create policy).  I separated this particular aspect of category naming from Naming conventions (categories) specifically so that the broader conventions could proceed (with consensus).  And so it lingers. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

CJBot
Splog redirects to Spam blogs. Computerjoe 's talk 08:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with the pitch class article. I've had some conflict with Hyacinth, who seems to feel a bit proprietary about the music theory articles. Tymoczko 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Let me know if there are other articles in need of attention. PizzaMargherita 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Language icon template
Hi Pizza,

about your revert to the language icon template... all began on 29 March 2006, when RHaworth removed the external parentheses. I thought that if we had to keep *one* set of parentheses than better keeping the external ones. I don't care having both sets, anyway. That said, thanks for pointing out that there is an ongoing vote. I would like the template to produce a mainly gray image, consistent to this: ; the blue shades we have now draw IMHO too much attention.

PS: are you Italian?

Cheers, Gennaro Prota 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. My preferences are expressed in that talk page. As you can see I agree that it attracts too much attention as it stands, but I restored the second pair of brackets to respect others' votes. (I'm not Italian.) PizzaMargherita 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, isn't that odd? If you change the template you will undergo an assault; if you ask for comments you get no reply, as if nobody cared about it... :-/ — Gennaro Prota •Talk 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I know, it's disgusting. I'll consider a request for arbitration if nobody turns up. I'm also surprised that no one of the people who voted in favour of a change is prepared to spend a post to defend their right to matter. Incidentally, did you notice that "cool" cat has been turned down three times his request for adminship? (many commented on his incivility) PizzaMargherita 21:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, I didn't know he requested adminship. Quite absurd. As this discussion, by the way: Wikipedia talk:The German solution. What's happening to Wikipedia? When I joined everything seemed to work so well. Now, have you seen, for instance, how many changes (without notice!) there are to manual of style? People spend months discussing whether the passive form is fine, whether one should use hyphens or dashes and where to put user boxes. Looks like something has broken :-/ — Gennaro Prota •Talk 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Work gang" is not perjorative
The phrase "work gang" isn't a perjorative phrase in British English, and is an internationally defined term -

(k) Work gang (crew) members are workers who are members of a group of workers who have been engaged as a group on terms corresponding to those of "paid employment" and where the employing organization has entered into a contract only with the crew leader or with an organizing agent for the crew, and not with the individual worker.

This, therefore, would be an accurate, and non-perjorative, description of the victims in the 2004 Morecambe Bay cockling disaster. Average Earthman 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, ok. I also didn't like the "work" repetition, but never mind. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Move Your Tagging Proposal to Its Own Page?
Hi. Your dialect tag proposal is currently in the talk section of Manual of Style (spelling), and is taking up most of the space there. Perhaps it should be moved to its own page, where it can garner more attention, and won't be cluttered by other matters in the talk section of the Manual of Style? Hyperborean 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, it should be a proper proposal, and advertised accordingly. I don't have the energies at the moment, but I agree it's not ideal. Thanks for your support, I'll get around to it. Feel free to do it yourself. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make it a proper proposal but I confess I'm a little intimidated.... Is this a "feature request", proposed "policy"? I don't want to start the official discussion of this off on the wrong track! Hyperborean 08:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm... I'm afraid I'm not an expert on WP bureaucracy, I'd ask at the village pump or something... Anyway, for further random thoughts on the matter have a look here. PizzaMargherita 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that can be our next project! Hyperborean 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll ask, or "be bold." A bit zonked tonight, might not get to it until tomorrow (Friday, at the abs. latest!).

(Two days later....) Have to remember never to say "at the absolute latest"... Got a "panic job" I had to take care of. Anyway, I decided to ask for guidance at the Help Desk. More as soon as I get some feedback! Hyperborean 10:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Excellent, thanks for all this. PizzaMargherita 15:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! As I said, it's a very good cause. (And if we -- one person who seems to prefer one spelling system, and another who prefers a different one -- can work together on this, there is hope for the world!) I'm going to wait one more day for an answer to my question. If I don't get one by then, I'll either move the proposal, or ask somewhere else. Actually, I realize I have other questions -- like should we "archive" the past discussion and start again? The proposal is a bit different in it's current form from the original, so maybe a fresh start is warranted. Hyperborean 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * True, it's slightly different. Also a lot of criticism is/was already addressed in the proposal itself. If this becomes a proper WP proposal, we might as well start afresh. We will finally need to advertise the proposal. Good places could be: the official place where you are supposed to advertise proposals (forgot where it is), talk pages of controversial articles (though this is ignored in my experience), people who frequently "vandalise" or revert spelling "vandalism" in said pages, and if the votes are ditched, talk pages of users who had already expressed their vote, for or against. PizzaMargherita 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It may be a good idea to quickly ask MediaWiki developers their opinion about how hard/feasible the implementation would be. The tricky part I think is the IP address mapping for unregistered users and defaults of registered users. PizzaMargherita 08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All good ideas! I'll ask MediaWiki developers on my next break (afternoon, UTC). Meanwhile, I set up the following page: User:Hyperborean/Proposal:Dialect Tags. I'll copy and start a rewrite of the proposal in the next couple days. Then we can move it to whereever we discover is the appropriate place for it. By the way, would you agree that "Dialect Tags" is an OK name? Seems like that's a good summary of what we're talking about. Hyperborean 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Another thing. I think the proposal greatly benefits from your endorsing it because it's seen as "PizzaMargherita"'s proposal, and some people have dismissed it as a one-man effort. If you do something significant like setting up a more formal proposal, it will gain strength. PizzaMargherita 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Hyperborean 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I like the name, as it's general enough to encompass non-national dialects and other languages (as opposed to "National varieties of Enghish" which this proposal would replace).
 * Before you venture in a complete rewrite, which I welcome, could you please summarise briefly what you would like to change? I mean, is it just the format or something more concrete? As for the format, which also you are more than welcome to change as you please, but keep in mind that people will attack the proposal using always the same (and addressed) arguments, so please rewrite it so that it's going to be easy for us to point critics to specific sections of the proposal when we defend it. PizzaMargherita 09:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't thinking of a complete rewrite; mostly the problem is that criticisms are in many cases "messily" integrated with people's comments in the voting section. Your original organization of the proposal was excellent! My main goal in the rewrite is to organize the material so that it's more consistent with your original structure. Hyperborean 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I recently felt I needed to "change my identity"; pardon any temporary confusion. Email me if you want details (nothing particularly interesting). Otherwise, more on the proposal as soon as I get a break! -H

Lists of Words
There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not over the interpretation of policy regarding lists of words. As a fairly recent contributor to [List of British words not widely used in the United States], you might wish to add to the debate, as it affects several AfDs going on, and a current Deletion Review. Thanks. WLD 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Fruitnveg.png
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fruitnveg.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use image removed from your user page
Hello, PizzaMargherita. I've removed Image:Pizzamargherita.jpg from your user page, as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is insane. PizzaMargherita 05:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You do realise that this is ridiculous, right? PizzaMargherita 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Not at all. The entire point of copyright is that the creators have the right to control how their works are used. Your using this image on your user page violates the copyright on this image, unless it happens to fall under fair use. But you're not using it for critical commentary or any of the other things that fair use covers, and it's certainly against the Wikipedia fair-use policy. —Bkell (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, right. And by the way, thanks for the 48 hours notice. PizzaMargherita 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What? What 48 hours notice? If you're upset that I removed the image from your user page directly, please read Removal of fair use images and Removal of fair use images. —Bkell (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * PizzaMargherita 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Please note that the policy you refer to is talking about images being deleted, not removed from pages. This image has not been deleted; it's still on Wikipedia, and it's still being used in Spaceballs. —Bkell (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
OK, I don't want to have a big argument about the validity of my actions at the article which is currently located at 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. I would like to hear from you what you would have done in my shoes, however. The article kept being moved constantly, creating double redirects and other problems everywhere. Formal voting on a new title had begun at a time that the article was located at August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot. Voting had occured for several hours already, and there was a clear supermajority of votes (9 to 2 to 1) in favor of 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Nobody prefered the title that the page was located at at the time (August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot). What would you have done? — Mets 501 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like to hear from you what you would have done in my shoes—Which shoes? You were wearing two pairs... PizzaMargherita 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to explain? — Mets 501 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You were acting both as an editor and as an administrator, and there was a clear conflict of interest. PizzaMargherita 13:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that not what administrators are? Just editors with some extra buttons. — Mets 501  (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No they are not. Administrators are expected to adhere to a certain code of conduct. PizzaMargherita 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And editors are not supposed to adhere to a code of conduct? — Mets 501 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, they are. PizzaMargherita 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, neither of us are getting anywhere here. Let's drop this, OK, and move on. When consensus has been reached on a new title on the talk page of the article, let me know, and I will gladly rename the article and fix all double redirects. — Mets 501 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for backing me up Pizza. Hard to believe that guy is an AMA member. He probably causes more conflicts than he solves. CindyLooWho 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No worries, my pleasure. It's people like these who are grinding this place to a halt. PizzaMargherita 05:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking?
There is no relevant discussion - I simply noticed that the proposal was inactive (as indicated by the lack of recent discussion) and so I marked it as such. We don't decide things to become inactive (that's pretty a contradiction anyway), they become so when people lose interest in them. That said, as historical says, if you want to continue discussing the matter you are welcome, but it would help if you advertised this e.g. at the village pump to actually raise interest.  > R a d i a n t <  16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm watching your page. PizzaMargherita 12:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pussy Galore

 * In response to your comment. Pussy Galore is a permanently banned used.  If he uses his sockpuppet's it would be to circumvent that ban.  Therefore, all his sockpuppets should be banned.  Sockpuppets are what they are with no positive or negative comments.  THere are no longer any legitimate uses for his socks.  --Tbeatty 05:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was duly retracted and did not warrant your response. In any case I disagree that there are no legitimate uses for his multiple accounts, or indeed any other account that he may want to create. You do not kick someone when they are down. Please demonstrate that his sockpuppets would be used to circumvent the ban. PizzaMargherita 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 'He' is banned. Not his accounts.  Indefinitely.  any incarnation is to circumvent that ban.  Until the ban is lifted (and it's quote possible that it will be because his offenses were not that egregious).  Any incarnation of 'him' is considered a disruption.  THat's sockpuppet policy.  --Tbeatty 08:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pussy Galore
I replied to you on my talk page. Regards, Nandesuka 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm watching your page. PizzaMargherita 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfDs
Actually User:Sloane left the comment you're referring to. The page is in my userspace but others have edited it. GabrielF 12:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm watching your page. PizzaMargherita 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard
Just FYI if you're still around. --Tbeatty 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just Curious
Do you now go by the username Fairness and Accuracy for All? Morton devonshire 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
I have created a template that I think is an acceptable solution to your proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling). Dtrebbien 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jean Charles de Menezes
I am posting this as you have made a substantial number of edits to the above. I have conducted a reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Jean Charles de Menezes/GA1. I have de-listed the article. This decision may be challenged at WP:GAR or the article may be improved and re-nominated at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hazelcast logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Hazelcast logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Examples sidebar
Template:Examples sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:PizzaMargherita


text:
User talk:Saithebat

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Saithebat


text:
Robert Sedgewick (judge)

Robert Sedgewick (May 10, 1848 – August 4, 1906) was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Early life and education
Born in Aberdeen, Scotland, Sedgewick's family immigrated to Nova Scotia while he was still an infant. He was educated at Dalhousie University in Halifax, graduating in 1867. He articled in Cornwall, Ontario, in the private practice of John Sandfield Macdonald, who was at that time both the Premier and the Attorney General of Ontario. Sedgewick was called to the bar in Ontario in 1872, and in Nova Scotia in 1873 following his return to the province.

Career
Sedgewick established a private practice in Halifax, and subsequently played an essential role in the establishment of the law school at Dalhousie in 1883. He was created a Dominion Queen's Counsel in 1881.

Beginning in the 1870s, Sedgewick became active in the Conservative Party of Canada. The connections thus established would serve him well, as his friend and former Halifax colleague John Sparrow David Thompson, who had become the federal Minister of Justice, appointed Sedgewick as Deputy Minister of Justice in February 1888. In this capacity, he played an important role in the establishment of the first national Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1892. Thompson, who had by then become the Prime Minister of Canada, also appointed Sedgewick to the Supreme Court of Canada on 18 February 1893, a position he was to hold until his death in 1906. He was a member of the North British Society.

title: Robert Sedgewick (judge)


text: Talk:A Thin Line Between Love and Hate

title: Talk:A Thin Line Between Love and Hate


text:
User talk:Julsmith

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Julsmith