text:
VeraCrypt

VeraCrypt is a free and open-source utility for on-the-fly encryption (OTFE). The software can create a virtual encrypted disk that works just like a regular disk but within a file. It can also encrypt a partition or (in Windows) the entire storage device with pre-boot authentication.

VeraCrypt is a fork of the discontinued TrueCrypt project. It was initially released on 22 June 2013. Many security improvements have been implemented and concerns within the TrueCrypt code audits have been addressed. VeraCrypt includes optimizations to the original cryptographic hash functions and ciphers, which boost performance on modern CPUs.

Encryption scheme
VeraCrypt employs AES, Serpent, Twofish, Camellia, and Kuznyechik as ciphers. Version 1.19 stopped using the Magma cipher in response to a security audit. For additional security, ten different combinations of cascaded algorithms are available:

 * AES–Twofish
 * AES–Twofish–Serpent
 * Camellia–Kuznyechik
 * Camellia–Serpent
 * Kuznyechik–AES
 * Kuznyechik–Serpent–Camellia
 * Kuznyechik–Twofish
 * Serpent–AES
 * Serpent–Twofish–AES
 * Twofish–Serpent

The cryptographic hash functions available for use in VeraCrypt are BLAKE2s-256, SHA-256, SHA-512, Streebog and Whirlpool. VeraCrypt used to have support for RIPEMD-160 but it has since been removed in version 1.26.

VeraCrypt's block cipher mode of operation is XTS. It generates the header key and the secondary header key (XTS mode) using PBKDF2 with a 512-bit salt. By default they go through 200,000 to 500,000 iterations, depending on the underlying hash function used and whether it is system or non-system encryption. The user can customize it to start as low as 2,048 and 16,000 respectively.

Security improvements

 * The VeraCrypt development team considered the TrueCrypt storage format too vulnerable to a National Security Agency (NSA) attack, so it created a new format incompatible with that of TrueCrypt. VeraCrypt versions prior to 1.26.5 are capable of opening and converting volumes in the TrueCrypt format. Since ver. 1.26.5 TrueCrypt compatibility is dropped.
 * An independent security audit of TrueCrypt released 29 September 2015 found TrueCrypt includes two vulnerabilities in the Windows installation driver allowing an attacker arbitrary code execution and privilege escalation via DLL hijacking. This was fixed in VeraCrypt in January 2016.
 * While TrueCrypt uses 1,000 iterations of the PBKDF2-RIPEMD-160 algorithm for system partitions, VeraCrypt uses either 200,000 iterations (SHA-256, BLAKE2s-256, Streebog) or 500,000 iterations (SHA-512, Whirlpool) by default (which is customizable by user to be as low as 2,048 or 16,000 respectively). For standard containers and other partitions, VeraCrypt uses 500,000 iterations by default regardless of the hashing algorithm chosen (which is customizable by user to be as low as 16,000). While these default settings make VeraCrypt slower at opening encrypted partitions, it also makes password-guessing attacks slower.
 * Additionally, since version 1.12, a new feature called "Personal Iterations Multiplier" (PIM) provides a parameter whose value is used to control the number of iterations used by the header key derivation function, thereby making brute-force attacks potentially even more difficult. VeraCrypt out of the box uses a reasonable PIM value to improve security, but users can provide a higher value to enhance security. The primary downside of this feature is that it makes the process of opening encrypted archives even slower.
 * A vulnerability in the bootloader was fixed on Windows and various optimizations were made as well. The developers added support for SHA-256 to the system boot encryption option and also fixed a ShellExecute security issue. Linux and macOS users benefit from support for hard drives with sector sizes larger than 512. Linux also received support for the NTFS formatting of volumes.
 * Unicode passwords are supported on all operating systems since version 1.17 (except for system encryption on Windows).
 * VeraCrypt added the capability to boot system partitions using UEFI in version 1.18a.
 * Option to enable/disable support for the TRIM command for both system and non-system drives was added in version 1.22.
 * Erasing the system encryption keys from RAM during shutdown/reboot helps mitigate some cold boot attacks, added in version 1.24.
 * RAM encryption for keys and passwords on 64-bit systems was added in version 1.24.

VeraCrypt audit
QuarksLab conducted an audit of version 1.18 on behalf of the Open Source Technology Improvement Fund (OSTIF), which took 32 man-days. The auditor published the results on 17 October 2016. On the same day, IDRIX released version 1.19, which resolved major vulnerabilities identified in the audit.

Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology (SIT) conducted another audit in 2020, following a request by Germany's Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), and published the results in October 2020.

Security precautions
There are several kinds of attacks to which all software-based disk encryption is vulnerable. As with TrueCrypt, the VeraCrypt documentation instructs users to follow various security precautions to mitigate these attacks, several of which are detailed below.

Encryption keys stored in memory
VeraCrypt stores its keys in RAM; on some personal computers DRAM will maintain its contents for several seconds after power is cut (or longer if the temperature is lowered). Even if there is some degradation in the memory contents, various algorithms may be able to recover the keys. This method, known as a cold boot attack (which would apply in particular to a notebook computer obtained while in power-on, suspended, or screen-locked mode), was successfully used to attack a file system protected by TrueCrypt versions 4.3a and 5.0a in 2008. With version 1.24, VeraCrypt added the option of encrypting the in-RAM keys and passwords on x64 editions of Windows, with a CPU overhead of less than 10%, and the option of erasing all encryption keys from memory when a new device is connected.

Tampered hardware
VeraCrypt documentation states that VeraCrypt is unable to secure data on a computer if an attacker physically accessed it and VeraCrypt is then used on the compromised computer by the user again. This does not affect the common case of a stolen, lost, or confiscated computer. The attacker having physical access to a computer can, for example, install a hardware or a software keylogger, a bus-mastering device capturing memory or install any other malicious hardware or software, allowing the attacker to capture unencrypted data (including encryption keys and passwords) or to decrypt encrypted data using captured passwords or encryption keys. Therefore, physical security is a basic premise of a secure system.

Some kinds of malware are designed to log keystrokes, including typed passwords, that may then be sent to the attacker over the Internet or saved to an unencrypted local drive from which the attacker might be able to read it later, when they gain physical access to the computer.

Trusted Platform Module
VeraCrypt does not take advantage of Trusted Platform Module (TPM). VeraCrypt FAQ repeats the negative opinion of the original TrueCrypt developers verbatim. The TrueCrypt developers were of the opinion that the exclusive purpose of the TPM is "to protect against attacks that require the attacker to have administrator privileges, or physical access to the computer". The attacker who has physical or administrative access to a computer can circumvent TPM, e.g., by installing a hardware keystroke logger, by resetting TPM, or by capturing memory contents and retrieving TPM-issued keys. The condemning text goes so far as to claim that TPM is entirely redundant.

It is true that after achieving either unrestricted physical access or administrative privileges, it is only a matter of time before other security measures in place are bypassed. However, stopping an attacker in possession of administrative privileges has never been one of the goals of TPM. (See for details.) TPM might, however, reduce the success rate of the cold boot attack described above. TPM is also known to be susceptible to SPI attacks.

Plausible deniability
As with its predecessor TrueCrypt, VeraCrypt supports plausible deniability by allowing a single "hidden volume" to be created within another volume. The Windows versions of VeraCrypt can create and run a hidden encrypted operating system whose existence may be denied. The VeraCrypt documentation lists ways in which the hidden volume deniability features may be compromised (e.g., by third-party software which may leak information through temporary files or via thumbnails) and possible ways to avoid this.

Performance
VeraCrypt supports parallelized encryption for multi-core systems. On Microsoft Windows, pipelined read and write operations (a form of asynchronous processing) to reduce the performance hit of encryption and decryption. On processors supporting the AES-NI instruction set, VeraCrypt supports hardware-accelerated AES to further improve performance. On 64-bit CPUs VeraCrypt uses optimized assembly implementation of Twofish, Serpent, and Camellia.

License and source model
VeraCrypt was forked from the since-discontinued TrueCrypt project in 2013, and originally contained mostly TrueCrypt code released under the TrueCrypt License 3.0. In the years since, more and more of VeraCrypt's code has been rewritten and released under the permissive Apache License 2.0.

The TrueCrypt license is generally considered to be source-available but not free and open source. The Apache license is universally considered to be free and open source. The mixed VeraCrypt license is widely but not universally considered to be free and open source.

On 28 May 2014 TrueCrypt ceased development under unusual circumstances,  and there exists no way to contact the former developers.

VeraCrypt is considered to be free and open source by:

 * PC World
 * Techspot
 * DuckDuckGo's Open Source Technology Improvement Fund
 * Sourceforge
 * Open Tech Fund
 * Fosshub
 * opensource.com
 * fossmint

VeraCrypt is considered to not be free and open source by:

 * Debian
 * Some members of the Open Source Initiative, including the director, expressed concern about an older version of the TrueCrypt license, but the OSI itself has not published a determination regarding either TrueCrypt or VeraCrypt.
 * The Free Software Foundation has determined the TrueCrypt license to be non-free. The FSF has not published a determination regarding the VeraCrypt license.

Most of these are due to Veracrypt and Truecrypt not having supported or endorsed licenses. For example, the FSF does not tolerate licenses that impose obligations on the end user for the execution of the software and therefore go against The Free Software Definition. Debian considers all software that does not meet the guidelines of its DFSG to be non-free.

Legal cases
In US v. Burns, the defendant had three hard drives, the first being a system partition which was later found to contain caches of deleted child pornography and manuals for how to use VeraCrypt, with the second being encrypted, and the third having miscellaneous music files. Even though the defendant admitted to having child pornography on his second hard drive, he refused to give the password to the authorities. Despite searching for clues of previously used passwords on the first drive, and inquiries to the FBI about any weaknesses to the VeraCrypt software that could be used to access the drive partition, and brute-forcing the partition with the alphanumeric character set as potential passwords, the partition could not be accessed. Due to the defendant confessing to having child pornography on the encrypted drive, the prosecution applied to force the defendant to give away the password under the foregone conclusion doctrine in the All Writs Act.

In a search of a Californian defendant's apartment for accessing child pornography, a VeraCrypt drive that was over 900 Gigabytes was found as an external hard drive. The FBI was called to assist local law enforcement, but the FBI claimed to not have found a weakness in the VeraCrypt software. The FBI also denied having a backdoor within the VeraCrypt software. It was later found that another suspect had educated the defendant into using encryption to hide his photos and videos of child pornography. Because the defendant had admitted to having child pornography on the drive as a backup anyways and chat logs relating to the other suspect educating the defendant on how to use VeraCrypt, the foregone conclusion doctrine was used again.

title: VeraCrypt


text:
Talk:Youth system

Saints Academy
Should they really be included in the list? They have developed a fair few good players (Shearer & Le Tissier), but aren't really known as a club that continuously produce good young talent. Unless anyone objects, within a month I'll consider removing them from the list. Alec McEnemin 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Leon Best, Dexter Blackstock, Paul Smith, and Theo Walcott. Just some of the players that come to mind.
 * Walcott was originally from Swindon, Blackstock originally from Oxford and Best from Notts Co. Paul Smith the goalkeeper? Played over a hundred games for Brentford before moving to Southampton, and was at Charlton before that. I have to agree, on what basis are Southampton 'notable' for their youth system? As for Chelsea, I can only assume their inclusion was sarcastic, as they're much more notable for taking youngsters from other clubs instead of developing their own. Even John Terry was at West Ham 'til he was 14. Unless someone provides evidence that either of those clubs are 'notable', I'll remove them. CharlieT 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry.. who are those players? We are talking worldwide, not england football. That's why Gremio should be removed as well

Leeds United
What about Leeds? The success rate of players recently is far greater than that of West Ham. They may have had Rio, Joe Cole, etc but who recently? Leeds has had: James Milner, Scott Carson, Paul Robinson, Aaron Lennon, Alan Smith and Simon Walton, not forgetting the 2 guys Chelsea poached recently... Thnom 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. But let's no kid ourselves, no one really knows who Scott Carson is, but they just say he's good because Liverpool signed him randomly for no reason. Mark272 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * As a Leeds fan he was becoming prominent, and had Sullivan gone down with an injury - took that job much like Robinson and Martyn a couple of years back. It was stated that at the same age, Carson is further developed, but we'll see how his career goes.  Don't forget, Chelsea wanted him too - Chelsea with one of the best keepers in the world.  They maybe trying to get a monopoly on players to get some cash back but it says a lot.  Thnom 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Youth academy
As I understand it, a "youth academy" is more than a youth league - it is a school that provides both sports training and academics. Whatever the terminology, it seems that such schools should be distinguished from part-time programs.Bill (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Mpho mashaba
Good afternoon my name is mpho mashaba l am 13 years old Johannesburg l am south africa and I would love to come train please <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Talk:Youth system


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good News Clinic and Hospital

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Good News Clinic and Hospital

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about an extremely small 10 bed hospital that doesn't seem to be notable. All the sources in the article are either dead links, primary, or on other subjects and just mention it in trivial passing fashion. So, I'm not seeing anything about it that would pass the notability standards of either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion it could be redirected to List_of_hospitals_in_the_Philippines per prior consensus on non-notable hospitals. Although I doubt it would be a very searched for term considering the hospitals small size, but I'll leave it up to others to decide if a redirect is appropriate or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  09:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  09:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  09:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * See WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials for specific notability criteria for hospitals. WP:HOS  -- Talk to G Moore 13:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the hospital: It is talked about in a national newspaper, the hospital hosted a surgery mission, it is mentioned as one of the Child Labor Free Establishments and it id briefly discussed in a part of a book. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:HOS. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: No notability at all and certainly doesn't meet WP:HOS criteria. Although I can find mentions in certain outlets, these are only passing comments.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not pass GNG or WP:ORG per W:NHOS. There are no RS that discuss the subject directly and in depth  // Timothy ::  talk  19:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:HOS is not a guideline, its a Project page. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
Veronica persica

Veronica persica is a flowering plant in the family Plantaginaceae. Common names include birdeye speedwell, common field-speedwell, Persian speedwell, large field speedwell, bird's-eye, or winter speedwell. It is native to Eurasia and is widespread as an introduced species in the British Isles (where it was first recorded in 1825 ), North America, eastern Asia, including Japan and China, and Australia and New Zealand.

Description
Veronica persica is an annual that reproduces from seed.

Its cotyledons are triangular with truncated bases. The short-stalked leaves are broadly ovate with coarsely serrated margins, and measure 1 to 2 cm long. The leaves are paired on the lower stem and are alternately arranged on the upper parts. The plant has weak stems that form a dense, prostrate groundcover. The tips of stems often grow upright.

The flowers are roughly 1 cm wide and are sky-blue with dark stripes and white centers. They are zygomorphic, having only one vertical plane of symmetry. They are solitary on long, slender, hairy stalks in the leaf axils.

The seeds are transversely rugose and measure between 1 and 2 mm long. There are five to 10 seeds per locule in the fruit.

Veronica persica can be distinguished from similar species by its heart-shaped fruit with two widely-separated lobes.

Habitat
The plant grows in fields and lawns. It prefers moist conditions and grows well in loamy soil.

Horticultural uses
Although many species in the genus are used in gardens (such as V. exalta, V. incana, V. gentianoides, V. longifolia, V. perfoliata, and V. spicata), this species is generally seen as a weed and has no known horticultural uses.

Herbal medicine
Afghani herbalist, Mahomet Allum, used the plant to treat patients with heart trouble, in Adelaide, Australia, in the mid-20th century. It is also used for snakebite treatment, hemorrhaging, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and as an expectorant.

title: Veronica persica


text:
Talk:Audio system measurements

Merge
I'd rather this article was not merged with Audio quality measurements as I started the latter, and it's associated series, after looking at this one an deciding that it was beyond hope! I say that because it muddles ideas of system measurements with quality measurement and goes on to say that measurements do not measure quality!

While I agree that listening is always important, I and many others regard audio quality measurement to be about exactly that. If it doesn't work, then that's because you are making measurements that were not designed to measure audio quality as subjectively perceived. I believe that professionals in the UK and Europe had this sorted out decades ago, with the development of weighting curves based on subjective experiments, but that the US has yet to realise this. I'm quite happy to discuss things, and to work to improve this article, but until I have time to do that I'd appreciate it if the intentions of the one I started (to give a proper UK/European professional understanding of the term) were understood and preserved there. I know that many of the things said in this article are commonly stated ideas, but since they are easily shown to be wrong, they would be better stated perhaps on a page entitled 'common audio misconceptions' (with explanations as to why they are so), which I have considered starting --Lindosland 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a POV fork. — Omegatron 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This article is not about quality measurements, and doesn't claim to be in any way. It's purely about quantitative measurements that are usually made and quoted in specifications. At least that was the original intention - perhaps some other editors have confused the issue since the initial text was drafted, in which case a cull is probably in order. However, since this is not about quality measurement, I don't think a merge makes sense anyway. Graham 04:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have put up merge banners. This does not look like it will be a difficult merge. I see no justification for separate articles in the content of the articles. Only justification is on the talk pages. --Kvng (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this article has still not been merged. At this point, the content of this article is so far behind that of Audio system measurements it would probably be quite easy to merge. IF no one objects, I will do this eventually. Michaelgaccount (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I've now merged the only substantial content in this article into Audio system measurements. I'm going to go through and clean it up some more, and then I'll delete this article.  If you're like to help, please feel free to edit.  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Merge completed. Source article now redirects here. --Kvng (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

RMS Power is WRONG!
As an example I will take this, which at first site is a correction of a commonly abused measurement. Yes, PMPO is nonsense, never defined anywhere, and number one hated term to be erased from a million advertisements (which seem to take power and multiply by a factor chosen at whim). RMS power though is also wrong, since without a definition of the test waveform and the averaging period (root MEAN square) it has no single meaning. Power in a steady state system is indeed calculated as rms, but its the VOLTAGE that is squared, averaged, and rooted, not the power! There have been many articles pointing out this simple error, and also pointing out that if you actually take a 1w (sinewave power) amplifier and calculate the RMS of the power over the cycle, the answer is not 1w but something a bit bigger! The correct term (almost never used) is 'max sinewave power'. Driven with a squarewave, a 1w amplifier will give 2w (of actual 'true' power!) out, which serves to make the point that its the waveform that we must specify, by convention, and nothing to do with rms, or even 'true' power. --Lindosland 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophisticated quality measurement
Following on from my above comments, and my emphasis on proper techniques, I would point out that it has recently become possible to make sophisticated measurements on a total system, including CODECs like MP3 based on real-time computer emulation of the human hearing process as we now understand it, including temporal and frequency masking, level-dependant frequency response, in line with the equal-loudness contours and proper combination of hair-cell responses across the band. These give good agreement with subjective assessments. Things have come a long way since basic engineering measurements were deemed not to give meaningful results, and this article should make that clear, rather than perpetuating the wrong idea that basic measurements are the same as quality measurements. I'll try to look up material in the recent AES papers. --Lindosland 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with everything that you're saying, though the opening paragraph of the article does make clear that these basic measurements are NOT an indicator of quality and shouldn't be taken as such. A quality system will have good measurements; but a poor one can also have good measurements. What you're saying above about 'total system' measurements is very interestign and should definitely be mentioned - how about a new section called "Recent developments" or somesuch, and add it under that? By the way, as far as RMS power is concerned, most people would assume that unless otherwise specified this means sinewave power, usually at 1kHz. Graham 04:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I know they would agree, but few would realise that there actually is such a thing as RMS power and it's not what they think it is, it's something else, and pretty meaningless, hence the use of the term RMS should be stamped out! I'm not sure you get my meaning regarding quality measurements. While there are some system measurements that are not intended to be a measure of quality (like output power, or playing time) many system measurement like THD are used as if they in were test of quality when they are not what I would call 'quality measurements'. Quality measurements are a measure of quality, by definition they are designed as such, based on subjective testing. Obviously no single quality measurement is a guarantee of quality, but taken together I would say that they are indeed a guarantee of quality, with the proviso that if the source is encoded (MP3 etc) then they are only a guarantee that the result will be the best quality possible for that codec, the codec itself requiring more sophisticated tests, such as I have outlined. You say that 'a poor system can have good measurements', and here I disagree, though I think fundamentally we probably do agree. Most commonly, it is of course said that a system can have low THD (say 0.1% or less) and still sound distorted. My answer is that THD is a mathematical concept, not a 'quality measurement'. Lindos use and recommend 'Distortion Residue' measurement, and after much testing and demonstrating using our 'corruptor' which I designed to simulate various defects when inserted into a system (including crossover distortion), I claim that if a system measures -30dB (0.3%) or less on the Dist Res test then it will sound clean, to anyone, whatever it is, power amps included (assuming certain other things like digital jitter are also within bounds). I test using equipment to the very highest standards on Quad and Mackie monitor speakers, and the point is that the measurement uses weighting and quas-peak detection for proper results. This is a far more sensible approach than just aiming for ever lower figures of THD without ever being able to say how low you need to go! I would like to see this page rewritten to eliminate all suggestion that 'system measurements' have anything to do with quality, but pointing out that there does exist a subset of system measurements, described as quality measurements, that do indeed, taken together, give an assurance of quality (that's why broadcsters use them). A link to Audio quality measurement should then take them to a proper description of such measurements. Incidentally, Lindos Electronics has introduced a quality grading scheme, which is outlined in the MS10 user manual, but will soon be written up more fully on the website. To see this in action take a look at (i-Pod test) or  (Sonifex 96k 24-bit ADDA) or the many other items on the Test Result Database tab. --Lindosland 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This isn't Lindos Electronics; this is Wikipedia.
 * Every "audio quality measurement" is also a type of audio system measurement, is it not? — Omegatron 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Taking THD as just one example - no-one is claiming it's a quality measurement - it's a pure quantity measurement, and the instruments that measure it treat it as such, with no subjective weightings, etc. They merely measure the ratio of 'wanted' to 'unwanted' signal (however you define those). If you read a system specification and decide that an amplifier with 0.1% THD is of higher quality that one with 0.5% THD, then you are deluding yourself, and falling prey to the marketers who publish such specs precisely because they mislead the uninformed in this way. The only proper way to judge quality is a listening test, but let's be honest, the mass market doesn't bother and manufacturers know this, therefore the specification is there as a kind of "quality measurement by suggestion", just as car manufacturers say that their model can do 124 mph compared to their competitor's 119. It's all totally irrelevant but marketers know it does persuade buyers nevertheless. However, this all has nothing to do with the article - the article lists quantity measurements and what they mean. It's not for us to tell people to take these with a pinch of salt, that applies to anything. Your company does something different and we suppose, something more meaningful or honest; good for you. That has nothing to do with this article or what it sets out to explain. You say that the article should be rewritten to remove any suggestion that these measurements have anything to do with quality - I say, re-read it and you'll see that already it makes no such claim, and indeed goes out of its way to make this clear. Graham 09:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC).

 * 'Your company does something different .....that has nothing to do with this article.' I think it does, because this article is based on the idea that measurements should not be used as an indication of quality. I say that's wrong. It's a relic of the past, before specific measurements were invented. Lindos Electronics represents the non-US way, which is not the same as saying it does it's own thing. Also Lindos Electronics is not just one of many companies in its field - I would say it dominates the field outside the US as its equipment (the LA100) is regarded as the 'de facto standard'. This is partly because Lindos invented 'segmented sequence testing', which is used routinely by most broadcasters worldwide (but not US). There's a real problem with US isolationism via 'Federal standards' and the hugh US voice doesn't realise what is going on in the rest of the world. That's why I appear 'pushy' when I am trying not to be. --Lindosland 11:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is a US-centric article. I am British and originated the article based on my own interest and experience in the field. Others have added content since however. I may well be out of touch with current developments, but that doesn't mean what is written here is invalid - it applied at one point in history at least, and stands as a document of that era. There may well be an argument for further articles such as segmented sequence testing, with a brief mention and a link from here, but there's no real need to invalidate everything that has already been written on that basis, just as the existence of the Ford Mondeo doesn't invalidate the article about the Ford Model T. I think what is giving people trouble here is your obvious lack of impartiality, since however genuine your motives, the linking of your name to the Lindos company raises the question of a neutral point of view. Even if you are a saint (which, assuming good faith, I believe ;-) it would be unreasonable to expect you to remain completely unbiased. That's why it might be better to create spinoff articles and let them stand on their own two feet. I certainly have no objection to a brief overview and link here or other relevant articles. Graham 11:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge?
I believe that 'Audio system measurements' should not be merged with 'Audio quality measurments', simply because audio QUALITY can be measured or studied without an 'audio SYSTEM' involved (assuming that an 'audio system' is usually considered a combination of electronic and electro-mechanic devices, or at least a part of such a combination). A new, more general article 'Audio measurements' comprising both of the above articles would make sense, though.

Distortion measurement
Hi Omegatron. I see you have challenged the accuracy of the page I created on Distortion measurement, but you have not justified this on the talk page. I am all too aware that what I have written there is not generally understood, especially in the USA, but it is widely agreed, especially by professionals. I am in an unusual position here, because I have spent 25 years promoting 'proper' measurements, and am to some extent considered an authority on the subject. I could for example cite the prestigious 'The Audio Engineers Reference Book' by Butterworth Heineman, but then I wrote the chapter on audio measurement in it at the request of its editor, so is it fair to do that or not?! Tell me what you consider innacurate or wrong, and I am happy to discuss things (on Talk:Distortion measurement). --Lindosland 12:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry for tagging it and leaving; I haven't had much time to work on things lately, but it's still factually wrong regarding distortion and harmonics produced. I'll work on it when I have some time. — Omegatron 17:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading I realised that this article was much more POV than I had realised, and remembered that I had written it for the Lindos website and had not gone through it sufficiently after transferring it. I've now had a major attempt at Wikifying and have removed the template. It inevitably retains what might be perceived as some bias, but then it is intended to balance the existing article at Audio system measurements. I've left the other template, pending discussion. --Lindosland 13:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for working to remove the bias towards your company; I'll look at it later. I understand that you don't consider some of those measurements to be "quality" measurements, and I haven't had much time to look through your ideas in depth (weighted THD, etc.) but, when interpreted properly, the vast majority of people consider those to be "quality" measurements and use them as such.  Regardless, the two topics are so closely related that they belong in the same article, and splitting them is not "balance", but a POV fork.  The "balance" is better if both "sides" are all in the same place for comparison. — Omegatron 17:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Fine, and thanks for prompting me to do it, as I want to get the balance right. While I understand what you are saying, I might question your 'most people understand ...'. Though most people are familiar with the Audio Precision test set, which tends to use the methods I condemn, it is a fact that Lindos Electronics started before AP existed (Tektronix tried to buy Lindos, and when I resisted some Tektronix workers left and formed AP - see Lindos site I think Lindos probably has more test sets out there in the world - certainly in broadcasting where we have many thousands now, and I am constantly told they are the 'de-facto standard'. I give due credit to AP, whose equipment certainly does a fine job of measuring in engineering terms to super low levels, but outside the UK I suggest that such measurements are made in development more than in quality testing. Of course the 'audiophiles' don't get to see the true picture, as they are less into broadcasting and studio environments, and I would like to make them more aware of the fact that true 'subjectively valid' measurements are in widespread use. I see recent moves by other firms towards my approach recently - some of their press releases look remarkably as if I had written them! --Lindosland 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Regarding 'balance', I understand that preferred policy is to 'fork' on controversial topics rather than weaken the content by trying to balance. I would agree that its fair to start with a balanced reference to the fact that two approaches exist, but trying to mix the two becomes confusing and I prefer to then fork, hence my fresh start with Audio quality measurement. --Lindosland 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Quite the opposite, actually; forking controversial topics is forbidden. See Content forking.  We depend on showing all sides of an issue in the same article and using consensus and the wiki process to distill stale back-and-forth arguments in favor of a sort of overall, neutral, fact-based, well-referenced viewpoint that everyone can agree with.  Individual editors' authority doesn't hold much weight here; we depend on references and third-party verifiable facts instead.  After all, we've had resident "experts" on audiophile foolishness, engines that run on water, surviving on only air and light, antigravity, etc.
 * All that said, thanks for all your contributions so far. The noise weighting articles are much better now. — Omegatron 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I was wrong to copy your use of the word 'fork' for what I meant. I see that (quote from NPOV) "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." I am not suggesting evading NPOV guidlines, and I have been involved in discussions where evidence was given to me of the desirability of separating out viewpoints - so long as it is made clear than they represent only one viewpoint. We are not talking of editor POV here, but the existence of alternative 'schools of thought'. These exist all over the place. You will not find all schools of Psychiatry covered on one Wikipedia page - they are split off into Freud, Laing,and dozens of others. Nor does anyone attempt a page on Religion, and forbid the splitting off of Christianity, Islam etc! It just couldn't work.

 * Your reference to experts also seems wrong to me. You are referring to 'self appointed experts' but I was simply pointing out that I can give references that are regarded as authoritative but which I wrote myself!

 * I've no desire to 'plug my own company' (actually I don't own it now). I actually created my Lindos out of frustration with the confused state of audio measurement and have gone on to devote much of my life to trying to improve true understanding, and facilitate meaningful measurements by making equipment avilable at low cost that could make them (it used to be argued that no one used 468 weighted noise because only costly equipment could measure it, but I changed that). The opposition comes from marketing people, and I find that other 'experts' in the field all agree on this. There is no dispute among those truly involved in the subject, just resistance from manufacturers who want big numbers for their marketing folk. This problem comes up again and again in standards commitees and working groups. I see nothing wrong with trying to clear away the fog and show the true field as understood by those truly engaged in it. It occurs to me that if Medicine were to cover the 'majority view' then most of it would be about alternative medicine and herbal remedies (and even witchcraft), though medical professionals would reject most of that. This is similar. Audio is full of quacks selling  'snake oil' (like oxygen-free speaker cables)!

 * Distortion residue measurement is certainly not a form of THD measurement. THD is as misleading as RMS power, a purely mathematical concept that should be banished! I say this because there is no reason to suppose that audio systems generate harmonics. Digital system tend not to - in general they generate 'hash' that is at no particular frequency, and trying to pick out the harmonics and sum them RMS is just meaningless. So THD is a very special case of non-linear distortion in fact. Note that this is not just me plugging my idea. I've been involved in AES working groups and made contrbutions to standards bodies. This method of distortion measurement was included in IEC268 (though as an option) following pressure from me and others, as was the 468-weighted noise measurement (again as an option).

 * However, its the understanding that matters, and I'm glad you agree that my contributions make sense. --Lindosland 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

and I have been involved in discussions where evidence was given to me of the desirability of separating out viewpoints - so long as it is made clear than they represent only one viewpoint.
 * That's not the way Wikipedia works at all. Where did you hear that?  That's the way Wikinfo works...

We are not talking of editor POV here, but the existence of alternative 'schools of thought'.
 * Exactly. Two subtly different, but mostly the same, schools of thought about the same thing.  They belong in the same article.

but I was simply pointing out that I can give references that are regarded as authoritative but which I wrote myself!
 * Of course that's fine. But it's walking on thin ice socially to cite yourself as an authority, as explained in Autobiography.

There is no dispute among those truly involved in the subject, just resistance from manufacturers who want big numbers for their marketing folk.
 * Or maybe because the "typical" measurement methods work fine when applied correctly, or maybe for uniformity between the specs of different companies, or maybe because THD+N measurements are federal standards, or maybe...

''Audio is full of quacks selling 'snake oil' (like oxygen-free speaker cables)! ''
 * It certainly is.

RMS power, a purely mathematical concept that should be banished!
 * The term "RMS power" is a misnomer, but the concept of measuring average power is fine. You think there's something wrong with the concept?  It certainly isn't a single magic number that quantifies the quality of an entire system (none exists), but it's tremendously useful even by itself.

Digital system tend not to - in general they generate 'hash' that is at no particular frequency,
 * That's why you use other measurements to quantify digital systems. Just like your 1 kHz-only distortion residue test would miss crosstalk from USB transceivers.  Any measurement of a system only measures a certain type of problem; you need several different measurements to cover everything, and knowledge of problems that might evade measurement, too.
 * How is "distortion residue" different from a 468-weighted THD+N measurement? I'm not saying that it's a bogus measurement; it sounds very logical to me, and indeed superior in many situations.  But I don't see it as anything that warrants its own article or other special treatment compared to other measurement techniques.  You really think it's neutral to create a separate article for your preferred measurement technique that is advertised as the distinguishing feature of the products made by the company you started?  Your measurements are just variants on the measurements used by everyone else (which vary among themselves, too).  They belong in the same article.  If you still disagree, I'll nominate it for deletion as a content fork and we can see what the community thinks...
 * Also, do you mind if I move this discussion to Talk:Audio system measurements so others can comment? — Omegatron 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm finding it hard to know where conversations are going on about me now! Lets all talk about this at Talk:Audio system measurements. Maybe I should have started there, but I just foud too much to challenge there and decided it was better to write from the non-US standpoint as a way of getting over the fact to you all that the US position is actually a minority one. I notice a comment above 'or maybe because THD measurements are Federal standards. If you think 'Federal' means anything to most of the world then I think you are wrong. We never use the word, we never use 'Federal' standards. We use IEC, DIN, BS, EBU, and ITU, standards, all now working together and considered international. Federal standards are an oddity, confined to an isolationist country that happens to consider itself a 'superpower'.

 * How is 'distortion residue' different from 468-weighted THD+N measurement you ask. It isn't, that's my point. It's not just my pet thing. But we'll never get widespread acceptance of a measurement that's such a mouthfull to say, so in Lindos literature I use the term Distortion residue and suggest that it might be useful if this were adopted generally. Someone has to start these things off, and Lindos is in a good position to do so. Being respected as specialising in audio measurement across the board I feel that it can do this where other companies that sell audio items could not. When Lindos recommends something it is because they consider it to be good, not because it is a feature of their equipment. The equipment has evolved through years of talking to all sections of the industry. If Sony recommended a method, it would because their marketing men favoured it - hence the Beta-VHS war.

 * I don't understand what you are saying about average power. I have not opposed that though I have pointed out that without the addition of 'sinewave' it has no meaning. I also pointed out that 'over one full cycle' is the best definition, though I would not add this to the term. Average, over any other period will always be different of course, though this is acedemic for longish periods. In this I am well supported by standards and other writers on the subject.

 * I am not convinced that the two 'schools of thought' if we call them that, belong in the same article. From where I'me sitting (outside the US) the two have not been considered valid alternatives, especially in broadcasting. 'A-weighting' is seriously flawed in that is neither matches the equal-loudness contours properly, nor reflects the way we hear noise, as opposed to tones, yet it is used in the US to measure noise. That's wrong, and most of the world decided it was wrong thirty years ago. A-weighting is coming back here now, mostly in the consumer and high-end audio markets, which is why I am keen to fight what I see as retrograde influence from the US, via big manufacturing organisations.

 * I certainly do not agree about 'different measurements for different equipment'. Yes, some equipment needs measurements that we need not bother with on other equipment. For example we need not measure wow and flutter on digital systems generally becuase we know that it will be vanishingly small, but when it comes to noise in particular, we do now have one measurement that allows sunjectively valid comparison regardless of equipment type, and it makes a lot of sense to use it. I would not claim that Distortion Residue catches everything, but I do think it is more useful than other methods by far, especially as it puts an end to the nonsense of crossover distortion and digital distortion measurements that are simply useless if measured THD (I think you would agree with this and know that many others would). Regards --Lindosland 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lindosland replies - you've got it all wrong!
These 'Lindos preferred measurements' happen to be to the International and European standards (as quoted all over the place in the articles). It is a fact that such standards are not widely understood or adhered to in the US. Lindos has agents in most of the world, but withdrew it's full time representative from the US because of this problem. He felt he was wasting his time in the face of ignorance. The US is well acknowledged as having been 'isolationist' in buying little from abroad until recently. Trying to mix European and US methods in this field is like trying to mix Islam and Christianity on one page - it isn't to be attempted. Most Wikipedians are, I suspect in the US. I therefore ask you all to think carefully about this before undoing my work.

I can be fairly confident is saying that most of the world's broadcast networks are routinely tested for quality using equipment designed by me (mostly the LA100). This includes the BBC (several million pounds worth) BT (ditto) BSB Sky, Independant Radio (ditto) and TV throughout the UK, plus the major broadcasters in France, Germany, Australia, South Africa, Japan, and so on, but not in the US! The BBC does all its automated testing across its entire radio network regularly using the Lindos LA100's. A few years ago I was invited by the editor of 'The Audio Engineer's Reference Book' (pub. by Focal Press), to write the section on Measurement. The introduction refers to "articles all written by world experts". I have been invited to give lectures to BBC and other organisations. Training schemes were set up in the BBC to train all engineers in the use of the LA100 and Lindos was paid to provide the on-site training. Lindos were contracted to design and make special test equipment for use in the BBC, the IBA, and other broadcast organisations. "Clearly biased" and "products that measure his way". Sorry but you've just got no idea! You may think that the AP systems set the standard. Excellent though they are for measuring to low levels (we have one), in most of the world, most of the time, they don't. And Lindos was around long before them, or Neutrik. Up until now I have tried not to shout about my role in audio measurement, but I think now I have no choice but to point out that I am proud to have had a major influence on the field. --Lindosland 23:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * There's nothing wrong with the measurements. What's wrong is the way you're presenting them and the way you're editing Wikipedia.  Please read through the policies we've pointed you to.

He felt he was wasting his time in the face of ignorance.

 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Omegatron 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I've read everything you pointed me to, and answered you, but if you just insist that I own Lindos and it's website when I don't what more can I do? Would you like it in writing from the owner of Lindos Electronics? I have kept to all the rules strictly. If you agree with the content but not the presentation then you should tackle the presentation, not get personal with me. --Lindosland 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Who is insisting that you own Lindos? We're insisting that you're clearly biased and not capable of representing information in a neutral way.  You've already demonstrated that you have an agenda and are unwilling to compromise. — Omegatron 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Alistair is - despite repeated telling that I neither own Lindos Electronics nor maintain its website (I have my own business and website as it happens):

 * Quoted from Wikipedia:External links: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. Please do not restore the links yourself. AlistairMcMillan 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC).

 * There's nothing to say I must compromise if I believe I am right is there. I think the agenda is elsewhere. I note that AListair's talk has on it numerous accusations regarding unfair removal of links and personal vendetta. He has removed every link and citation I have put up on audio related pages, despite my protests supported by quotation of WP policy that they are of high quality and extremely useful and relevant. --Lindosland 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You founded the business and your son currently owns and runs the business. At the very least you contribute content to the website, writing articles and contributing data to the test results database.  AlistairMcMillan 20:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That information has been freely given by me, but you are still changing the rules to suit your own interpretation. They make no mention of family links, or of contributing data. Perhaps they should, but at present they don't. If my page was anonymous, as most are, non of this would have arisen. You can surely understand why I feel a bit annoyed that by volunteering so much information about myself I have come under attack from you. Does not my open approach deserve a more understanding response, with strict interpretation of the rules? I am no 'spammer' and I link only to things that are immediately relevant. --Lindosland 11:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is because of your open approach that I have avoided using the terms "spam" or "spammer" when discussing this issue with you. I may be wrong, but I don't think I've used them once concerning this matter.
 * That does not change the fact that you are linking to web content that you created on a website that you are involved in to some degree. Using yourself as a source on Wikipedia is wrong and linking the website of a company that you are involved in (even if the only current connection is through family links) is still wrong.
 * And I'm sorry if you consider this an attack, it was not intended as such. AlistairMcMillan 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New Introduction etc
I thought it a good idea to write a new intro which makes clear the real distinction between subjectively valid quality measurements and basic measurements. Also a section explaining why they differ. Hope this meets with approval. I would still suggest keeping the other set of articles as they do go into much more detail that would be appropriate here. Note that there is an article on A-weighting plus a set on Equal loudness contours which I did a lot of work on, to balance the other one on ITU-R 468, and that all give a history together with benefits and weaknesses. This seems quite fair to me, and allows users to follow the whole story through in detail if they wish to. --Lindosland 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cone excursion
A recent edit by User:Howard Doctor replaced "Reducing cone excursion" with "Reducing a driver's bandwidth" as a method for reducing Intermod distortion (IMD). I hold that both are valid methods. I'm reworking the paragraph to include them both. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Frequency response
I made some changes to the section on frequency response. The first thing I did was to write a short description of what the frequency response measurement means. The next thing I did was to remove some stuff about what happens if the frequency response is not flat. Below I've highlighted the text I felt needed changing:

The signal should be passed at least over the audible range (usually quoted as 20 Hz to 20 kHz) 'with no significant peaks or dips. The human ear can discern differences in level of about 3 dB in some frequency ranges, so peaks and troughs must be less than this'''. Much modern equipment is capable of less than ±1 dB variation over the entire audible frequency range. Rapid variations over a small frequency range (ripple), or very steep rolloffs are considered undesirable as they can correspond to resonances associated with energy storage which produce delayed echoes and hence colouration, or decreased quality, of the sound.''

Research by Toole has shown that changes in frequency response much smaller than 3 dB may be audible. His work focused on unwanted resonances in loudspeakers. He showed that a resonance with a quality factor = 1 and amplitude of 0.3 dB may audible on some signals. His work has also shown that resonances with a high Q (i.e., a resonance with a small bandwidth and relatively large amplitude) are often less audible than resonances with a low Q (i.e., a resonance with a large bandwidth and relatively low amplitude) [2 refs]. The revision above seems to imply the opposite, that rapid variations in frequency response (high Q) are less desirable (more audible) than smaller variations in frequency response (low Q).

I decided not to summarise Toole's work in the article. I thought that it was too specialised in this context.

Unquantifiable?
I've made some revisions to this section. What I've tried to do is improve the article by rewriting the section and adding references.

I've added references to articles in Audio Critic and Stereophile magazine. Audio Critic and Stereophile represent two different viewpoints on the usefulness of objective audio measurements. I've also referred to the work of Dr Floyd Toole. His work is relevant because he has linked objective measurements to the results of listening tests. Dr Toole used double-blind tests in his research. To try and maintain NPV, I've mentioned that there are other people who prefer to use non-blind listening tests (Stereophile magazine). Enescot (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What "Audio system measurements" should and should not have?
The question of what should go here and what elsewhere interests me. I don't think the coverage of the subject is quite right yet here, so may I suggest it aims to:

 * list all the technical terms one may find in specifications for audio equipment, even "PMPO" (even though it is hard to pin such terms down, and we generally don't like them)
 * distinguish between (and warn about) some terms, e.g. the frequency range of a speaker may be quoted as 50Hz to 18kHz, yet the frequency response might be 110Hz to 11kHz plus or minus 10dB; distortion might be quoted as "about 1% at normal listening levels" (yep, I've seen it!) yet 10% at full rated power; some mention should be made of the value of graphs of parameters (e.g. to show cross-over distortion is significant at low volume levels, even though the distortion is only 0.02% at 20W (and then only at 1kHz into a purely resistive dummy load)
 * mention terms like "unconditionally stable" and some places that define them (note that different manufacturers will use teh terms differently; it is worth having several links and a range of definitions sometimes).
 * give examples for ratings, including what is common for "average" equipment, what is very good, and links to some research as to what is detectable by the human ear. There should be separate pages for what distortion is audible, what distortion is "pleasing", what input impedances are "standard", f-m curves/weighting systems for noise, and so on.
 * There is virtually nothing on how the measurements are made. There should be (at least) mention of some of the standard IMD tests, DIN standards, measurement microphones and anechoic rooms; ideally some links to articles on testing each major amplifier and speaker characteristic.
 * There should be at least a paragraph on relating the buzzwords of typical hifi magazine reviews (like "warmth", "spatial perspective", "speed") to technical, objective measurements (a bit of a difficult job, but somebody has to do it!). The gooblygook is relevant to the topic, even if it may be "unscientific".
 * I'm not sure whether this is the place to include CMRR and other characteristics of small subsections (e.g. opamps), but rather how this affects the overall system (although I'd be happy to see a table of characteristics of components mentioned, alongside the "externally noticeable" effect they have). Maitchy (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Any of the above discussions can be brought to this article if there are verifiable, reliable sources to support them. Bring it on! Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Damping factor is not a relevant factor
Damping is only a factor as long as the signal is in phase with the electromotive force, which it rarely is. The damping effect is negligible already at two octaves above the resonant frequency.

Damping factor became a buzzword in the early days of solid-state amplifiers because it was something that tube amplifiers did "bad."

If damping factor was relevant for amplifiers, then transconductance (current) amplifiers should be really, really bad. They are not.

Damping factor is marketing. It is at home with Stereophile and the other audiophools. You know, the "golden ears" who claim they can hear the "sonic characteristics" of different metals (usually copper, silver and gold) in connectors and switches. Silver is usually said to sound hard or cold, and gold warm. Whereas copper sounds neutral. True story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Audio system measurements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320214941/http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/glossary/t--ANSIA-Weighting to http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/glossary/t--ANSIA-Weighting
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621184958/http://ap.com:80/download/books to http://ap.com/download/books
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016103114/http://www.aikenamps.com:80/NegativeFeedback.htm to http://www.aikenamps.com/NegativeFeedback.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928214133/http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_29_r.pdf to http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_29_r.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122034000/http://stereophile.com:80/asweseeit/491awsi/ to http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/491awsi/
 * Added tag to http://www.almainternational.org/assets/Documents/WinterSymposia/InvitedPapersWS2011/temme-practical%20implementation%20perceptual%20rub%20and%20buzz%20distortion.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Audio system measurements


text:
Sokratis Papastathopoulos

Sokratis Papastathopoulos (Σωκράτης Παπασταθόπουλος; born 9 June 1988), also known mononymously as Sokratis, is a Greek former professional footballer who played as a centre-back. He retired from professional football at the end of the 2023–24 season.

AEK Athens
Papastathopoulos joined AEK Athens from Apollon Petalidiou after being scouted by Toni Savevski. On 26 October 2005, he made his debut for AEK in a Greek Cup match against PAS Giannina, scoring in the seventh minute of the game to help lead AEK to a 3–0 win.

In January 2006, he was loaned to Beta Ethniki club Niki Volos for six months to gain first-team football experience. He made 15 appearances for Niki Volos.

During the 2006–07 Super League Greece, Papastathopoulos managed to make 14 appearances whilst competing against the likes of Bruno Cirillo, Traianos Dellas and Vangelis Moras. In AEK Athens' 2006–07 UEFA Champions League campaign, Papastathopoulos managed to play in three out of six group games. In these three games, AEK managed one win (the famous 1–0 victory over A.C. Milan, where he man-marked Filippo Inzaghi), one draw (the 2–2 away draw with Anderlecht) and one loss (the 3–1 away defeat to Lille). During the 2007–08 Super League Greece, he was a mainstay in AEK's defence, keeping out competition from Geraldo Alves. He also played in the 2007–08 Champions League campaign, and in a Super League match, he became AEK's youngest-ever captain (age 19) in a game against Athens' local rival Panathinaikos in 2008.

Genoa
On 1 August 2008, Papastathopoulos agreed to transfer to Genoa of the Italian Serie A for an undisclosed fee. He also played a club friendly against Genoa on the same day.

He made his debut for Genoa on 27 September 2008 against Fiorentina, followed by a start against Ravenna in the Coppa Italia a few days later. His first goal for Genoa came on 5 October 2008 at home against Napoli. Genoa won the game 3–2, but Papastathopoulos was sent off in the 89th minute During the 2009–10 season, he managed to play in most games and gained a following.

A.C. Milan
On 20 July 2010, the A.C. Milan website confirmed that Papastathopoulos had joined the team, after Genoa and Milan reached an agreement to transfer Papastathopoulos to the club for €14 million, with the following payment schedule: Gianmarco Zigoni (half of his registration rights, valued at €3.75 million), Nnamdi Oduamadi (half of his rights, valued at €3.5 million) and Rodney Strasser (half of his rights, valued at €2.25 million) in a co-ownership deal, plus €4.5 million. Papastathopoulos was the club's first arrival under new manager Massimiliano Allegri.

On 24 May 2011, Milan and Genoa executives Adriano Galliani and Enrico Preziosi, respectively, verbally agreed to settle the player ownerships (subject to player agreements) of Kevin-Prince Boateng, Alberto Paloschi, Marco Amelia and Giacomo Beretta. The deal entailed that Milan buy back Gianmarco Zigoni, Rodney Strasser and Nnamdi Oduamadi (all under original price), while Genoa buy back Papastathopoulos for €13 million, which effectively made the de facto loan cost for Milan €1 million.

Werder Bremen

On 21 July 2011, Papastathopoulos moved to the Germany club Werder Bremen on a loan deal until the end of the 2011–12 season, with the option to purchase outright. Following impressive performances on loan, on 16 April 2012, it was announced that Papastathopoulos would join Bremen on a permanent basis for a €5 million transfer fee. The 2012–13 season, however, was not a good one for the club. In March 2013, in the midst of a relegation battle and with tensions high, Papastathopoulos engaged in a training ground brawl with teammate Marko Arnautović. Bremen would ultimately finish the year in 14th, staving-off relegation.

Borussia Dortmund
On 24 May 2013, the eve of the 2013 Champions League Final between Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, Papastathopoulos completed a €9.5 million transfer to Dortmund, agreeing to a five-year contract through to 2018. Upon signing, he spoke about the deal, saying, "Money did not play a role in my decision to join Dortmund. My own future was all that mattered and I am convinced that I made the right decision." With centre-back Felipe Santana departing Dortmund for Schalke 04, Papastathopoulos began as the effective third-choice behind tandem Neven Subotić and Mats Hummels. Borussia Dortmund Sporting Director Michael Zorc expressed his satisfaction with the deal: "We are delighted that Sokratis has decided to join Borussia Dortmund. He is a flexible player capable to play in a variety of positions in defence who we believe has tremendous potential."

On 10 July 2013, Papastathopoulos made his debut for Dortmund in a pre-season friendly away to Swiss club Basel at St. Jakob-Park, along with fellow BVB debutants (and future Arsenal teammates) Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang and Henrikh Mkhitaryan. On 27 July, he won his first title with the club after entering the match as a substitute in a 4–2 win over Bayern Munich for the 2013 DFL-Supercup. On 1 November 2013, he scored his debut goal for Dortmund in a win over VfB Stuttgart in the Bundesliga, 6–1.

Papastathopoulos' strong first year with Dortmund was rewarded with his selection to the best XI of the 2013–14 Bundesliga campaign. The selection was organized in a worldwide fan vote by the governing body of the Bundesliga through its official website. The description of his play following his nomination was, "The definition of defense falls on him. The Greek stopper took advantage of the opportunities given to him by the absence of Neven Subotić and Mats Hummels. Stable, with leadership characteristics and tendency to win the ball without making easily a mistake."

In November 2014, Papastathopoulos was out of action for two weeks diagnosed with a broken fibula. He suffered the injury to his right leg in Dortmund's 1–0 win over Borussia Mönchengladbach, a result that ended a five-match Bundesliga losing streak for the club. After an early recovery, he was deemed fit for BVB's Champions League match against Arsenal on 26 November. On 3 January 2015, football news website Goal.com assessed statistics to determine which players maintained the highest tackle success rate in the first half of the 2014–15 season across Europe's top five leagues; Papastathopoulos finished joint-third, alongside Hamburger SV's Matthias Ostrzolek, having won 92.59 per cent of all tackles.

In the summer of 2015, Papastathopoulos was linked with moves to various English Premier League clubs as Dortmund prepared for a new start following long-time manager Jürgen Klopp's departure. Dortmund Sporting Director Michael Zorc, however, said Papastathopoulos would still have a part to play for BVB in new manager Thomas Tuchel's debut season with the club. On 26 October 2015, Papastathopoulos extended his contract with Borussia Dortmund until 2019. After the extension, Zorc said, "We are very pleased that we have been able to sign with Sokratis, another top performer, on a long term." During Tuchel's tenure, Papastathopoulos was promoted to be partner-in-chief to Mats Hummels over Neven Subotic.

On 19 December 2015, Papastathopoulos scored his first goal in the 2015–16 Bundesliga in an eventual 2–1 away loss to 1. FC Köln, giving his club the lead in the first-half from a header from a corner. On 30 January 2016, in a league game against Ingolstadt 04, Papastathopoulos reached his 100th Bundesliga appearance with Dortmund. On 22 February 2016, Papastathopoulos missed the second leg of the UEFA Europa League round-of-32 tie against FC Porto and the Bundesliga clash with Bayern Munich due to an adductor injury, as tests confirmed that the 27-year-old would be out for up to three weeks. The Greek centre back picked up the injury during Dortmund's 1–0 win against Bayer Leverkusen and was replaced 13 minutes from time at the BayArena. On 21 May 2016, Papastathopoulos featured in his third DFB-Pokal final in a row, putting in a tremendous performance despite a missed penalty, but he did not succeed in winning the DFB-Pokal for first time in his career.

He started the 2016–17 season as the undisputed leader in BVB defence. On 15 September 2016, he netted the second goal in an away crashing 6–0 against Legia Warsaw on a Group Champions League match. On 4 January 2017 the German magazine "kicker" listed the Greek international as one of the best players in the German Bundesliga. The magazine paid a tribute to the best players currently playing in the German Bundesliga, separating them out into different categories. In the first category (World Class) no defenders were listed, however, Papastathopoulos was one of three defenders listed in the second category, International Class. The other two defenders included Mats Hummels of Bayern Munich and Jonathan Tah of Bayer Leverkusen.

On 8 February 2017, in a DFB Pokal home win on penalties' game against Hertha Berlin, Papastathopoulos' two quickfire (in a minute) bookings for dissent saw Dortmund finish extra time with 10 men before Fabian Lustenberger, Vladimír Darida and Salomon Kalou all missed from the spot, rendering Christian Pulisic's miss irrelevant. On 25 February 2017, Dortmund made three changes from last weekend's 3–0 win over VfL Wolfsburg and it was two of those, Papastathopoulos and Raphaël Guerreiro, who combined to open the scoring in the 13th minute in a 3–0 away win against SC Freiburg. Papastathopoulos looked to be offside as Guerreiro swung in a free-kick from the right, which the Greece defender met with a header planted inside the right-hand post. On 16 April 2017, Papastathopoulos was the one who had a quick reaction to an Eintracht Frankfurt equalising, by scoring a goal after Sven Bender's assist giving a lead to the score in his team in a final 3–1 home win. On 26 April 2017, helped Borussia Dortmund to a 3–2 win over Bayern Munich and their fourth consecutive DFB-Pokal final. On 20 May 2017, Papastathopoulos reached 100 appearances with Dortmund in Bundesliga in a home game against SV Werder Bremen and secured automatic qualification to the group stage of next season's UEFA Champions League. On 27 May 2017, in his fourth DFB-Pokal final in a row, Borussia Dortmund claimed a first DFB-Pokal win since 2012 as Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang's penalty defeated Eintracht Frankfurt 2–1.

On 5 August 2017, as the captain of the club, he lost the 2017 DFL-Supercup on penalties' game against Bayern Munich. On 17 September 2017, he scored at the end of the first half against 1. FC Köln, giving a lead of two goals in his club. It was his first goal for the 2017–18 season and was secured with the use of VAR (Video Assistant Referee) method. On 14 October 2017, Borussia Dortmund's unbeaten start to the season was ended by RB Leipzig's 3–2 away win, as the Greek defender initially in trying to push the ball away helped Leipzig winger Yussuf Poulsen to score, while at the beginning of second half, was sent off for a foul in the box and Jean-Kévin Augustin scored the penalty. On 17 October 2017, after losing its UEFA Champions League opening games in Group H to Tottenham Hotspur and Real Madrid, Dortmund needed a win to kick-start its campaign in Europe's premier club competition, but they succeeded only to seal an away draw against Cypriot champions APOEL, as the Greek defender equalized with a header to Mario Götze's cross. On 4 November 2017, in the derby against rivals Bayern Munich he suffered a leg injury, during the first half, and was substituted by Jeremy Toljan, and two weeks later in an away game against VfB Stuttgart has received a heavy blow and replaced at the end of the first half from Dan-Axel Zagadou.

Arsenal
On 2 July 2018, Arsenal announced that Papastathopoulos had agreed a long-term contract with the club for a reported fee £17.6 million and would wear the number 5 shirt. On 12 August 2018, he made his official debut with the club as a starter at Emirates Stadium, in a 2–0 loss against champions Manchester City. On 4 October 2018, Papastathopoulos scored his first for the club, setting the Gunners on their way to a comfortable 3–0 victory over Qarabag in the 2018–19 UEFA Europa League group stage: after just four minutes of play in Baku, the centre-back was left unmarked inside the opposing penalty area, deflecting the ball home after an initial header fell into his path. Papastathopoulos was named to the UEFA Europa League Team of the Week.

On 15 October 2018, Papastathopoulos was forced off during Greece's 2–0 defeat to Finland and was believed to have sprained his ankle. Papastathopoulos was at the heart of Unai Emery's defense since the Spaniard took over the reins in the summer and a fixture in a winning run of nine matches. On 21 February 2019, he netted his second goal as an Arsenal player, taking advantage of a missed punch from BATE Borisov's goalie Denis Scherbitskiy to head the ball into an empty net following a corner kick from Granit Xhaka, to seal a 3–0 home win for Arsenal and send them through to the Round of 32 in the 2018–19 UEFA Europa League.

On 12 April 2019, Papastathopoulos was named to the UEFA Europa League's 'Team of the week' after playing a vital role in Arsenal's 2–0 win over Napoli in the first leg of the quarter-finals. He was one of four Arsenal players selected along with Petr Čech, Ainsley Maitland-Niles, and Aaron Ramsey. On 24 April 2019, Papastathopoulos scored his maiden goal in the English Premier League via a close-range header from a corner kick, but Arsenal slipped to a 1–3 defeat against Wolverhampton Wanderers. On 29 May 2019, he started in the 2019 UEFA Europa League Final against Chelsea which Arsenal lost 4–1. This was the first time Arsenal had conceded four goals in a European match since a 5–1 loss to Bayern Munich in March 2017.

On 27 October 2019, Papastathopoulos – marking his 50th appearance – scored his first goal of the season, after Crystal Palace failed to clear Nicolas Pépé's corner in a 2–2 draw at home. On 1 January 2020, he scored a close-range finish to seal a 2–0 win over Manchester United, securing Mikel Arteta his first victory in charge of the Gunners. He was named Sky Sports Man of the match. On 2 March 2020, he scored with a volley to give Arsenal the lead in a 2–0 away win against Portsmouth, helping Arsenal to be the first team in the FA Cup quarter-finals. On 1 August 2020, Papastathopoulos played as a late substitute in the 2020 FA Cup Final against Chelsea, as Arsenal won the trophy for the 14th time.

Papastathopoulos and Mesut Özil were notably excluded from Arsenal's Premier League and Europa League squads for 2020–21, leaving them only eligible for one League Cup game between October and January.

On 20 January 2021, Arsenal announced that Papastathopoulos would be leaving the club after his contract was canceled "by mutual consent."

Olympiacos
On 25 January 2021, Papastathopoulos joined Greek side Olympiacos on a two-and-a-half-year contract. On 21 April 2021, he scored his first goal with the club, in a 1–0 home win game against Asteras Tripolis.

Real Betis and retirement
On 26 October 2023, after leaving Olympiacos at the end of his contract, Papastathopoulos signed a one-year deal with La Liga club Real Betis.

On 19 May 2024, he announced that he would retire at the end of the season. He played his last professional game against Real Madrid at the 2023–24 La Liga final round.

International career

Papastathopoulos was called up for the Greek senior team on 1 February 2008 and made his debut on 5 February 2008 in the 1–0 friendly victory against the Czech Republic. The Greece squad for UEFA Euro 2008 was announced by Otto Rehhagel on 27 May 2008, and Papastathopoulos was the unfortunate player to be cut from the provisional squad of 24 to the final 23-man selection.

Papastathopoulos became the first player to be sent off at UEFA Euro 2012 during the opening game of the tournament against co-hosts Poland after receiving two yellow cards, following what pundits decried as two poor decisions by referee Carlos Velasco Carballo.

In June 2014, Papastathopoulos was named to the Greece national team for the 2014 FIFA World Cup. He started in each of the team's group matches, helping them to a clean sheet against Japan. In the round of 16, Papastathopoulos scored his first international goal, equalising in second half stoppage time against Costa Rica. However, the Greeks were eventually defeated 5–3 in a penalty shoot-out by the Central American champions.

On 11 June 2019, following the loss to Armenia at the Olympic Stadium, Papastathopoulos called for immediate changes to be made to the Greece national squad set-up, and he allegedly requested for Angelos Anastasiadis to be removed from his role of head coach when speaking to EPO president, Evangelos Grammenos.

Personal life
Papastathopoulos was born in Kalamata, Peloponnese. He married Xanthippi Stamoulaki in 2014. Together they have three children.

International

 * As of match played 8 September 2019. Greece score listed first, score column indicates score after each Papastathopoulos goal.

Honours
A.C. Milan
 * Serie A: 2010–11

Borussia Dortmund
 * DFB-Pokal: 2016–17; runner-up: 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16
 * DFL-Supercup: 2013, 2014

Arsenal
 * FA Cup: 2019–20
 * UEFA Europa League runner-up: 2018–19

Olympiacos
 * Super League Greece: 2020–21, 2021–22
 * Greek Cup runner-up: 2020–21

Greece U19
 * UEFA European Under-19 Championship runner-up: 2007

Individual
 * Super League Greece Young Player of the Season: 2007–08
 * Bundesliga Team of the Year: 2013–14
 * Bundesliga Team of the Half-Season: 2016–17
 * Bundesliga Defender of the Half-Season: 2016–17
 * Best Greek Player playing Abroad: 2016–17, 2018–19

title: Sokratis Papastathopoulos


text:
Battle of Garigliano (1503)

The Battle of Garigliano was fought on 29 December 1503 between a Spanish army under Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba and a French army commanded by Ludovico II, Marquis of Saluzzo.

Preliminary phase

In mid-November 1503, the French and Spanish armies were separated by the Garigliano river, some 60 km north of Naples. Both armies camped in a marshy and unhealthy area. The Spanish had tried several times to cross the river using a makeshift bridge, but always in vain. The French, based at the river's mouth near the ruins of Minturnae (Traetto), enjoyed the advantage of an accessible supply-base in the nearby port of Gaeta.

While the Spanish commander hesitated as to whether to attack or to retreat, he received reinforcements from Naples led by Bartolomeo d'Alviano and Orsini. He then decided to move some units in order to convince Ludovico that he was retreating towards the Volturno river. With Diego de Mendoza holding the rearguard with 300 men-at-arms and 5,000-6,000 infantry, Cordoba had devised a stratagem to cross the river using bridges made out of boats and barrels, which he had built in the castle of Sessa Aurunca, 23 kilometers south of the Spanish camp.

Battle
During the night between 27 and 28 December, the Spanish brought the bridging materials to a place near the castle of Suio, in a position invisible to the French, some six kilometers north of the latter's camp. D'Alviano, commander of the Spanish vanguard, had the construction begin at dawn. By 10 AM some 3,500 Spaniards had crossed the Garigliano.

The 300 Norman crossbowmen in Suio did not notice the move, so Gonzalo de Cordoba was also able to cross the river with 2,000 German pikes, including 200 horsemen led by Prospero Colonna. He then ordered an attack on the French bridge. When d'Alviano's troops reached Suio, the crossbowmen fled towards Castelforte, where they met 300 French troops. These also fled to Traetto, allowing d'Alviano to occupy Castelforte. Gonzalo de Cordoba spent the night in that town.

The French had numerous ill soldiers in their Traetto camp, so they were unable to send reinforcements. French captain Alegri then decided to destroy the bridge and to order a general retreat to Gaeta, abandoning all the sick soldiers and nine cannons in the camp.

Informed about the French retreat, Gonzalo decided to continue the advance. Colonna and his horsemen made contact with the French at Scauri, but a courageous defence of a bridge by Chevalier Bayard allowed the French a safe retreat. After a series of minor clashes, the French took position near a bridge in Mola where they were able to push back Colonna's attempt to surround them. However, the arrival of the rest of the Spanish forced the Marquis of Saluzzo to order another retreat.

Aftermath
The Spanish victory was decisive, as the offensive capacity of the French army was destroyed. After some days of siege in Gaeta, the French surrendered. What remained of the French army traveled either by sea or on foot back to Milan. Many died at the hands of civilians or from hunger, even the commander Ludovico, Marquis of Saluzzo, died upon reaching Genoa. With the Treaty of Blois in 1504, France recognized Spain's authority over Naples.

title: Battle of Garigliano (1503)


text:
tyyneys

Noun

 * 1) calm in a person, the state of being calm; peacefulness; absence of worry, anger, fear or other strong negative emotion
 * 2) calmness state of being calm; tranquillity; silence
 * 3) serenity state of being serene, lack of agitation or disturbance
 * 4) tranquility state of being tranquil, the absence of disturbance; peacefulness, the absence of stress; serenity
 * 5) rest peace, freedom from trouble, tranquillity
 * 6) composure calmness of mind or matter, self-possession
 * 7) peacefulness state of being peaceful

title: tyyneys


text:
Talk:United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense

Ranking Minority Member? Republican Thad Cochran?
Um, not that I particularly care but, was it really necessary to remove those two words?. Sen. Cochran is a Republican and the full title of the office is "Ranking Member of the Minority" or "Ranking Minority Member." Did a Republican editor feel slighted by such nomenclature?. Because I was just following the template of other committee pages:

"'The committee is chaired by Party Senator of State and the Ranking Minority Member is Party Senator of State'"

Hoping nobody would be that dumb or petty, I'm guessing they felt it sounded redundant since everyone "knows"(or is supposed to) that the Ranking Member is a Republican, which is the minority party. But in that case, why not delete that the chairman is a Democrat?. 'Cause everyone "knows" that the chairman is a member of the majority, which is currently Democratic.

Like I said, it doesn't bother me, I just thought it was odd. =D

Adrael (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Secondary liver cancer

This is essentially a definition (WP is not a dictionary); I think it should be moved over to Liver cancer as a bullet point. --Graham 08:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the page should be deleted. It has not added anything useful. DFH 13:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Secondary liver cancer


text:
María González Alvarado

María Genoveva Anavel González Alvarado (born 3 January 1966) is a Mexican politician from the Institutional Revolutionary Party. In 2012 she served as Deputy of the LXI Legislature of the Mexican Congress representing Querétaro.

title: María González Alvarado


text:
Reynoldson

Reynoldson is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * George Reynoldson (1856–1947), Australian politician
 * Kirk Reynoldson (born 1979), Australian professional rugby league footballer
 * Nick Reynoldson, Canadian stand-up comedian
 * Steve Reynoldson (born 1962), Australian rules footballer
 * W. Ward Reynoldson (1920–2016), American lawyer and judge

title: Reynoldson


text:
purun

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) goat

Verb

 * 1) To dance.

Adjective

 * 1) wild, barren
 * 2) natural

Noun

 * 1) wilderness, wasteland
 * 2) field, of limited fertility, in a rainforest region

Usage notes
Not to be confused with.

title: purun


text:
Talk:Ajancingenia

Plagiarism charges
Given the suspicion of plagiarism surrounding Easter (2013) and the possibility of retraction, shouldn't this page be temporarily reverted back to the old name as a safety? I am not sure how the ICZN works in terms of papers that name new taxa if the paper is retracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, even if the accusations are true, since the name is valid (=not preoccupied) and the publication is valid (published officially), the genus is valid as well. Rnnsh (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I noticed the similarities to the theropod database entry before I read Andrea Cau blog. Because both the theropod database and Easter (2013) referenced Barsbold (1981), I thought that both copied the data from there (not plagiarism if referenced), so her explanation for that issue seems logical... Rnnsh (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The discussion on the Theropod Database is in fact a novel work and is not stemming from Barsbold. Much of the phrasing in Easter's paper is quite identical to it -- put them side by side and you will find the flow of sections, ideas, etc are pretty much completely in line. Given your interpretation, that would mean the paper is still plagiarism, but from Barsbold. ;-) (of course, it isn't, it plagiarizes TTD quite heavily). — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Stanford sees plagiarism as the "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form." (from Plagiarism, see what I did here? ;) ) So, under my interpretation (which is wrong according to Cau, I haven't read Barsbold (1981)) it's not plagiarism, because Easter (2013) gave the credit to Barsbold. In any case, the generic name is valid... Rnnsh (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It IS plagiarism because it copies idea for idea from The Theropod Database, in some cases, even using the same words but re-arranging them, the same citations, etc. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF S/HE CITES BARSBOLD OR NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WASN'T WHETHER BARSBOLD WAS BEING PLAGIARIZED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I specifically wrote "under my interpretation" [in reply to your comment that "Given your interpretation, that would mean the paper is still plagiarism, but from Barsbold", which isn't correct]. Of course it IS plagiarism, but only because the data at The Theropod Database wasn't copied from Barsbold (1981). Rnnsh (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No explanation has been given either for why the author stole figures from "The Dinosauria", a widely known resource which almost every paleontologist and amateur owns a copy, and did not attribute. Also, the author has claimed elsewhere to have travelled and seen many collections, yet none are mentioned in this paper.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is moot. Plagiarized or not, the taxonomy was validly published as far as the ICZN is concerned. Taxonomic vandalism happens all the time. Just google Raymond Hoser. We're stuck with it. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What happens if the paper is retracted and/or the ICZN is petitioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAIK retraction doesn't have an effect, but from what I'm reading the paper will NOT be retracted, rather a correction will be published crediting Mortimer etc. If the ICZN is petitioned they could in theory place the name on the official list of nomena rejecta, but I seriously doubt that would happen. There is no requirement that original authors get first dibs at renaming, and Barsbold had over 20 years to do so with no action taken. Furthermore, the name itself was not plagiarized, just the accompanying description, which is not something the ICZN is concerned with. Species pre-occupied, species needs new name, species gets new name. The paper could (and looks like it should) have been three sentences long. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I could have waited longer for a paper published ethically, rather than one that plagiarized more than 55% of the text, especially knowing AMNH is working on "Ingenia". Further, it appears the author may have lied regarding the involvement of Barsbold. The editors made it sound as though Barsbold approved the situation (and Easter claimed this collaboration elsewhere), while Easter's public posts most recently indicate that it was not the case. This paper needs retracted, the entire situation is a mess, and the last thing Zootaxa needs is ANOTHER plagiarized paper.
 * Sad but true... (it's more like 95%) Hopefully, real paleontologists will learn their lesson (if they care about that), and deal with taxonomic issues like that quicker. They can even name new taxa in appendices of other papers (not to waste money for publishing), so what's the problem then? Rnnsh (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is paleontologists, like most researchers, have to split time between minor projects, major projects, teaching or other work-related obligations as part of their 'normal' job. It isn't just an issue of a few specimen, it's many specimens with an increasingly complicated taxonomy. All of the material needed reworked and it wasn't/isn't clear how many of the name-bearing specimens might belong to other species, one species, etc. Think how long GIN 100/42 has gone without a name. Taxonomy isn't simple, even for living taxa. My bigger concern is for a paper like this with obvious plagiarism, theft of figures, dubious circumstances around it (Easter has been modifying his/her story regarding attachments with Barsbold or not), etc. to go unpunished with just having an erratum published. That basically grants a double publication for actions that should be rendered null. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Head/Crest(lack of-) of Ingenia
After doublechecking the heads of ingenia are: The holotype, contains the braincase and lower jaw, no indication pro or against a crest. Reffered skulls are speculative, none have ever been compared to the type material in such a way that refferal is grounded in facts, but rather named "Ingenia sp" out of convenience. These should not be counted as part of Ingenia yanshini as they could really be anything still.

There is a new skull reffered to Ingenia, (i'm not sure if its reffered down to species level), but its not described as of what I know, so untill it is, it would be best, in a scientific sense, to leave out visual descriptions of the skull (except for the braincase and lower jaw..) untill further descriptions are available.

Ingenia urban legend
There was a rumor that "Ingenia" was named after the InGen cloning technique deployed in Jurassici Park, but this rumor proved to be incorrect. [1]

[1] http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/oviraptorosauria.htm
 * Ingenia was named 7 years prior to the publication of Jurassic Park by scientists working in the Soviet Union with, presumably, little access to Western techno-thriller novels. So... yeah. An unlikely rumor ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Status of Ingenia
Is there a paper in press that will provide a replacement name for "Ingenia"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Italics
Should "Ingenia" be in italics in this article even when it is not a valid name for this genus? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the convention is here, and oddly enough I can't find anything about typeface in the online version of the ICZN. It doesn't mention anything about italics in the section on junior homonyms. My guess would be that a junior homonym gets italics as long as it was properly made available and is not a nomen nudum. The way to set it apart from the senior homonym is by tagging with the authority, so Ingenia (Barsbold 1981) vs. Ingenia. On the other hand, Theropod Database uses quoted and no italics around genera that are likely to be reclassified. I'll ask around... Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever is decided, this should probably be mentioned on DINO, so it's consistent across articles. I'm thinking of "Ischyrosaurus" and how we list preoccupied names on the list of dinosaurs.  Firsfron of Ronchester  21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From Mike Keesey on DinoForum,
 * "In light of all this, the ICZN-recommended way to write these would be Ingenia yanshini Barsbold 1981 and Allosaurus tendagurensis Janensch 1925. You may also adopt a typographical sign (such as quotation marks) or a qualifying abbreviation (maybe "ex."?) to indicate misassignment if you wish, but that falls outside the purview of the ICZN."
 * I used "A." tendagurensis as an example of a misassigned species that hadn't been given a new genus name yet. So, it looks like the title should probably either be "Ingenia", with both italics and quotes, or Ingenia Barsbold 1981. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ingenia Barsbold 1981 seems unwieldy to me; if those are the choices, I'd prefer "Ingenia". Whichever format is decided on, we'll have to do this cross the board (and update the List of dinosaurs, which currently states that preoccupied names will not appear italicized on the list). Firsfron of Ronchester  23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for "Ingenia". Adheres to the rules (all valid names in italics) while the quotes are pretty obvious shorthand for the fact the name isn't correct when applied to this particular animal. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks the nicest. FunkMonk (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I'll start updating. Firsfron of Ronchester  07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Just moved this article, but the quotation marks are in italics too. Any way to change this? FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article itself doesn't need to be moved; in fact, in past discussions, it's been agreed that including punctuation in the article's name creates an article which is an unlikely search term. Few users are going to search WP (or Google) using italics or quotation marks. Firsfron of Ronchester  14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, probably doesn't need to be moved unless somebody creates an article on the nematode. In which case we'll need to move this to Ingenia (dinosaur). Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ajancingenia


text:
User:Calmypal

See w:User:Calmypal.

My current project:

 * Chess for beginners

Completed projects:

 * So far I've been a bit useless here, actually.

title: User:Calmypal


text:
Main Page/test

Browse: computing | engineering | humanities | mathematics | science | social sciences | miscellaneous | more... Wikibooks is a free library of educational textbooks that anyone can contribute to. Never used Wikibooks before? Read Using Wikibooks.

title: Main Page/test