text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iffat Rahim (3rd nomination)

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm   (talk)  13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Iffat Rahim
AfDs for this article:
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMODEL two links which are mentioned in this Wikipedia is dead, i found no links mentioning of her a very strange shock that how her page get approved. (Not mention in any news except Tribune they are talking about her statement. If this is a criteria of Model to be accepted here on Wikipedia than i am sorry to say every model is notable then. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Keep as notable - This has been the outcome of the past two AfD discussions on this article, and there are multiple sources in the page itself. As has been previously stated, she can also be found under the name "Iffat Omar." AviationFreak 💬 22:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This is reckless nomination. --Saqib (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * speedy keep. This is nothing more than a revenge nom. Praxidicae (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment A person Saqib is making personal attacks on me and one more editor since very long. I am not tagging the pages for deletion which you are calling mass deletion spree, it's you who are adding multiple articles for deletion since long. I am going to raise this issue with others to Wikipedia higher authorities. The pages of mine which are accepted by administrators are now being deleted by you in a revenge and this is not it, you are deleting the pages of public figures because you don't like them. many users have sent a complaints to administrator that you are making personal attacks on them. I request administrators to look into this matter as Mr. Saqib is deleting my pages in revenge that why the hell i have put AFD on wahdat and two other models. Nick Wrenn and Misbah Mumtaz, Bin Swelah and many of my other notable pages were deleted or nominated for deletion by them since 2019 even tho they were notable and had been mentioned in Guardian, BBC, CNN and others. A page of mine Ayesha Chundrigar was also nominated for speedy deletion but i rescued that page somehow and if i tries to speak something he and others have sent me message via Talk page to stop it else you will be ban. Please let me know how to file a formal complaint to Wikipedia Administrators. Mr. Saqib has put deletion tag in revenge to my two articles Nick Wrenn and Bin Swelah today after this debate an article which was accepted by administrators and editors. Kindly check the email logs of mine. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep Looks like enough refs there now. Curdle (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
Olivera Moldovan

Olivera Moldovan (Оливера Молдован, born 1 March 1989) is a Serbian sprint canoer.

Career
Olivera was born on 1 March 1989 in Belgrade, SR Serbia, Yugoslavia to a Serb father, Zoran Moldovan and a Russian mother, Tatjana, originally from Sochi, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union.

Her sister Nikolina Moldovan is also a sprint canoer.

Olivera represented Serbia with her sister at the 2012 Summer Olympics in the K-2 500m discipline.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Olivera Moldovan


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/onlyfullgame.com

Links

 * onlyfullgame.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Users
No users found.

Additions
No additions recorded.


text:
WaterGAP

The global freshwater model WaterGAP calculates flows and storages of water on all continents of the globe (except Antarctica), taking into account the human influence on the natural freshwater system by water abstractions and dams. It supports understanding the freshwater situation across the world's river basins during the 20th and the 21st centuries, and is applied to assess water scarcity, droughts and floods and to quantify the impact of human actions on e.g. groundwater, wetlands, streamflow and sea-level rise. Modelling results of WaterGAP have contributed to international assessment of the global environmental situation including the UN World Water Development Reports, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the UN Global Environmental Outlooks as well as to reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. WaterGAP contributes to the Intersectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project ISIMIP, where consistent ensembles of model runs by a number of global hydrological models are generated to assess the impact of climate change and other anthropogenic stressors on freshwater resources world-wide.

WaterGAP (Water Global Assessment and Prognosis) was developed at the University of Kassel (Germany) since 1996, while later on development has continued at Goethe University Frankfurt and Ruhr University Bochum. It consists of both the WaterGAP Global Hydrology Model (WGHM) and five water use models for the sectors irrigation, livestock, households, manufacturing and cooling of thermal power plants. An additional model component computes the fractions of total water use that are abstracted from either groundwater or surface waters (rivers, lakes and reservoirs). The model runs with a temporal resolution of 1 day; WaterGAP 2 has a spatial resolution of 0.5 degree geographical latitude × 0.5 degree geographical longitude (equivalent to 55 km × 55 km at the equator) and WaterGAP 3 a spatial resolution of 5 arc minutes x 5 arc minutes (9 km x 9 km). Model input includes time series of climate data (e.g. precipitation, temperature and radiation) and information such as characteristics of surface water bodies (lakes, reservoirs and wetlands), land cover, soil type, topography and irrigated area.

WaterGAP Global Hydrology Model WGHM
WGHM computes time-series of fast-surface and subsurface runoff, groundwater recharge and river discharge as well as storage variations of water in canopy, snow, soil, groundwater, lakes, wetlands and rivers. Thus, it quantifies the total renewable water resources as well as the renewable groundwater resources of a grid cell, river basin, or country. Precipitation on each grid cell is transported through the different storage compartments, where water can also evapotranspirate. Location and size of wetlands, lakes and reservoirs are defined by the global lakes and wetland database (GLWD), and the GRanD database of man-made reservoirs. Groundwater storage is affected by diffuse groundwater recharge through the soil and by point recharge from surface water bodies. Diffuse groundwater recharge is modeled as a function of total runoff, relief, soil texture, hydrogeology and the existence of permafrost or glaciers. Cell runoff is routed downstream until it reaches the ocean or an internal sink. To allow a plausible representation of the actual freshwater situation, version 2.2d of WGHM is tuned against observed long-term mean annual streamflow at 1319 gauging stations. Performance of WGHM with respect to streamflow observations has been compared in various studies to that of other global hydrological models for both Europe and the globe,    while performance with respect to GRACE total water storage anomaly was compared globally  and for U.S. aquifers.

Water Use Models
In WaterGAP, modeling of water use refers to computation of water withdrawals (abstractions) from either groundwater or surface water bodies (lakes, reservoirs and rivers), of consumptive water uses (the fraction of the abstracted water that evapotranspires during use) and of the return flows to groundwater or surface water bodies. Consumptive irrigation water use is computed by the Global Irrigation Model as a function of irrigated area and climate in each grid cell. Livestock water use is calculated as a function of the animal numbers and water requirements of different livestock types. Domestic and manufacturing use are based on national values of water withdrawals at different points in time. The temporal development of national household water use is based on statistical data modeled as a function of technological and structural change (the latter as a function of gross domestic product), taking into account population change. The temporal development of manufacturing water use takes into account technological change and the development of manufacturing gross value added. National values of domestic and manufacturing water use are downscaled to the grid cells using population density and urban population density, respectively. Water use for cooling of thermal power plants takes into account the location and characteristics of thermal power plants. Time series of monthly values of irrigation water use are computed, while all other uses are assumed to be constant throughout the year and to only vary from year to year. Based on sectoral water withdrawals and consumptive use as computed by the five water use models, the model component GWSWUSE calculates surface water abstractions from and return flows to groundwater and surface water as well as the total net abstraction from groundwater and from surface water in each grid cell.

Applications
WaterGAP has been applied to assess which areas of the world are and will be affected by water stress, and to estimate the world's freshwater balance. In many studies, WaterGAP served to estimate the impact of climate change on the global freshwater system, e.g. on groundwater, wetlands, streamflow   and irrigation requirements. Groundwater stress and depletion of groundwater resources were analyzed. In addition, the alteration of ecologically relevant river flow characteristics and wetland dynamics due to human water use and dams was studied. Time series of WaterGAP total water storage anomalies were used to process and interpret GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite measurement of the dynamic gravity of the Earth, as for the continents, the seasonal and longer-term gravity changes are to a large extent caused by changes of the water stored in groundwater, surface waters, soil and snow. These time series also served to estimate the contribution of water storage variations on the continents to sea level rise. WaterGAP results are also used in life-cycle assessments to take into account water stress at production sites.

title: WaterGAP


text:
Microeconomics/Definition

Economics: The Formation of the Branched Tree
Economics is a social science that studies how individuals make choices to allocate rare resources for the satisfaction of what appears to be unlimited desires and how individuals interact with one another. It is about everyday life, about what choices everyone makes, and how those choices affect others. Often, economics is broken-down into two branches: microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Microeconomics and Macroeconomics
Microeconomics looks at the smaller picture and focuses more on the individual interactions made in particular markets. To be more precise, microeconomics is a branch of economics that analyzes the market behavior of individual consumers and firms in an attempt to understand the decision-making process of sellers and buyers. It is concerned with the interaction between individual suppliers and demanders and the factors that influence the choices made by buyers and sellers. In particular, microeconomics focuses on patterns of supply and demand and the determination of price and output in individual markets (e.g. coffee industry). People who have any desire to start their own business or who want to learn the rationale behind the pricing of particular products and services would be more interested in this area. Macroeconomics, on the other hand, looks at the big picture (hence "macro-"). It focuses on the national economy as a whole and provides a basic knowledge of how things work in the business world. For example, people who study this branch of economics would be able to interpret the latest Gross Domestic Product figures or explain why a 6% rate of unemployment is not necessarily a bad thing. Thus, for an overall perspective of how the entire economy works, you need to have an understanding of economics at both the micro- and macro- levels. To put it simply, macroeconomics focuses on the aggregate national performance of a particular country.

There are two main concepts that we need to understand that not only form the basis of this branch but all of economics: opportunity cost and scarcity. With these two concepts, we can understand almost all human and economic behavior.

title: Microeconomics/Definition


text:
Josh Gordon

Joshua Caleb Gordon (born April 13, 1991) is an American football wide receiver who is a free agent. Nicknamed "Flash", he previously played in the National Football League (NFL). Gordon played college football at Baylor University and was selected by the Cleveland Browns in the second round of the 2012 NFL Supplemental Draft. Throughout his career, Gordon has been lauded for his on-field production, but has also faced several suspensions for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy.

Gordon had a breakout season in 2013 by leading the league in receiving yards, which earned him Pro Bowl and first-team All-Pro honors. Over the next four years, however, Gordon only played 11 games for the Browns due to his substance abuse suspensions and missed the entirety of the 2015 and 2016 seasons. He was traded to the New England Patriots in 2018, but voluntarily left the active roster amid a potential indefinite suspension from the NFL. Gordon returned the following season with the Patriots and Seattle Seahawks before further substance abuse violations led to his suspension in 2020. Reinstated the next year, he spent one season each with the Kansas City Chiefs and Tennessee Titans. Gordon joined the Seattle Sea Dragons for one season in 2023.

Early life
Gordon was born to Elaine and Herald Gordon in Houston, Texas, on April 13, 1991, and he has two brothers. Gordon is of Haitian descent.

Gordon attended Lamar High School in Houston, where he played football, basketball, and ran track. He played basketball as a sophomore. In football, he caught 20 passes for 363 yards and four touchdowns as a junior. As a senior, he was named first-team All-District 20-5A after totaling 25 receptions for 531 yards (21.2 average) and nine touchdowns.

He also competed in track & field as a senior, where he ran a leg on the Lamar 4 × 100m and 4 × 200m relay squads, helping them capture the state title in both events with times of 42.69 seconds and 1:30.43 minutes, respectively.

During the college recruitment period, Gordon was targeted by Baylor, Houston, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas Tech. According to Rivals.com, Gordon was ranked as a 3-star wide receiver, while Scout.com rated him as a 2-star at the position.

College career
Gordon accepted an athletic scholarship to play football for Baylor University. Although he received multiple Division I offers, his choice of Baylor was easy due to his supervised probation which required him to not leave the state of Texas. However, in October 2010, during his sophomore year, he and teammate Willie Jefferson were found asleep in a local Taco Bell drive-through lane. Police found marijuana in Jefferson's car. Jefferson, who was driving, was kicked off the team due to it being his second violation, but Gordon was only suspended.

In July 2011, Gordon was suspended indefinitely by head coach Art Briles for later failing a drug test and testing positive for marijuana.

In August 2011, Gordon transferred to the University of Utah, but did not play during the 2011 season after declaring too late for the 2011 Supplemental Draft.

2012 season
Gordon was taken in the second round of the 2012 Supplemental Draft by the Cleveland Browns. On July 16, 2012, Gordon signed a four-year, $5.3 million deal with the Browns.

Gordon finished among the top rookie wide receivers in the 2012 draft class. He recorded 50 catches, 805 yards, and five touchdowns in the 2012 season. Gordon scored his first NFL touchdown against the New York Giants in Week 5, where he finished with two catches for 82 yards and two touchdowns. Gordon had his first 100-yard game against the Oakland Raiders in Week 13, where he finished with six catches for 116 yards and a touchdown. Gordon had a then career-high of eight catches against the Kansas City Chiefs in Week 14. He finished his rookie season with 50 receptions for 805 receiving yards and five receiving touchdowns.

2013 season
On June 7, 2013, the NFL announced that Gordon would be suspended for the first two games of the 2013 season due to violating the NFL's substance-abuse policy. He returned from his suspension and had ten receptions for 146 yards and a touchdown in the 31–27 victory over the Minnesota Vikings. In Week 8, against the Kansas City Chiefs, he had five receptions for 132 receiving yards and a touchdown. In Week 11, against the Cincinnati Bengals, he had five receptions for 125 yards and a touchdown. In Week 12, against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Gordon had 237 receiving yards, and 261 the following week against the Jacksonville Jaguars, the first time in NFL history that a wide receiver had back-to-back regular season games with at least 200 receiving yards. The following game, he had seven receptions for 151 yards and a touchdown against the New England Patriots. Gordon's stretch of 774 receiving yards set an NFL record for most in a four-game stretch. On December 26, 2013, he was named the Cleveland Chapter PFWA Player of the Year following the season. The next day, Gordon was voted to his first Pro Bowl. He finished the 2013 season with 87 receptions, nine receiving touchdowns, and a league-leading 1,646 receiving yards in 14 games. He was ranked 16th by his fellow players on the NFL Top 100 Players of 2014. He earned First Team All-Pro honors.

2014 season
On July 5, 2014, Gordon was arrested for driving while impaired in Raleigh, North Carolina.

On August 27, 2014, Gordon acknowledged that the NFL suspended him for one year for violating the league's substance-abuse policy. On September 19, 2014, his suspension was reduced to 10 games amidst the new NFL drug policy. Gordon was officially reinstated on November 17.

On December 27, 2014, exactly one year removed from being selected into the Pro Bowl, the Browns suspended Gordon from the final game of the season due to a violation of team rules.

Due to Gordon's suspensions, he only played five games in the 2014 season and caught 24 passes for 303 yards.

2015 season
Gordon was suspended for the entire 2015 season due to violating the league's substance abuse policy. Gordon entered the NFL's substance abuse program after pleading guilty to a driving while impaired charge in September 2014 and was prohibited from consuming alcohol during his time in the program. The suspension was for one year starting on February 3, 2015, and he was not eligible to return until the start of the 2016 season.

2016 season
On January 20, 2016, Gordon applied to the league for reinstatement. His request was denied in March when it was reported that he had failed another drug test.

On July 25, 2016, Gordon was reinstated by the NFL. He was allowed to participate in training camp but was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 regular season.

On September 29, 2016, Gordon left the Browns to enter an in-patient rehabilitation facility. He was one week away from reinstatement to the NFL, serving his previous sentence of four regular-season games. In a press statement, Gordon wrote, "After careful thought and deep consideration I've decided that I need to step away from pursuing my return to the Browns and my football career to enter an in-patient rehabilitation facility. This is the right decision for me and one that I hope will enable me to gain full control of my life and continue on a path to reach my full potential as a person. I appreciate the support of the NFL, NFLPA, the Browns, my teammates, my agent and the community through this extremely challenging process."

2017 season
On March 1, 2017, Gordon again applied to the league for reinstatement, but was denied on May 11, 2017. On November 1, Gordon was finally reinstated, but on a conditional basis, meaning that he would be eligible to return in Week 13. He was officially activated off the Commissioner's Exempt list on November 30, 2017, for the Browns' Week 13 game against the Los Angeles Chargers. He finished the game with 85 receiving yards in a 19–10 Browns loss. On December 10, 2017, while playing the Green Bay Packers, Gordon scored his first touchdown since the 2013 season.

2018 season
Gordon played in only one game for the Browns in 2018. During Week 1 against the Pittsburgh Steelers, he made a late-game reception for a 17-yard touchdown resulting in a 21–21 tie following overtime. The following week the Browns indicated that they would be parting ways with Gordon after he "violated the team's trust". Initially, it was reported that the Browns finally lost patience with him after he injured his hamstring during an off-field event on September 12. The Browns had been led to believe he was shooting a promotional video for his clothing line and didn't know he was running 40s. However, it was later reported that there were multiple factors in the decision to part ways with the troubled receiver. Reportedly, the Browns were angered when he reported to practice 10 minutes late on September 13 and was "not himself". According to The Plain Dealer, the Browns feared that he was struggling to stay sober, and had done everything they believed they could do to keep him on the right path.

2018 season
On September 17, 2018, Gordon was traded along with a seventh-round draft pick in the 2019 NFL draft to the New England Patriots in exchange for a 2019 fifth-round draft pick. In his first game with the Patriots, Gordon caught two passes for 32 yards in a 38–7 victory over the Miami Dolphins. In the next game against the Indianapolis Colts, Gordon caught Tom Brady's 500th NFL touchdown pass. It was also Gordon's first touchdown as a Patriot. In the next game against the Kansas City Chiefs, he recorded five receptions for 42 yards as the Patriots narrowly won 43–40. During Week 7, the Patriots went on the road to face the Chicago Bears. In the 38–31 victory, Gordon recorded four receptions and 100 yards to record his first 100-yard game as a Patriot. Later in the game, he took on defensive back duties to defend against Bears' quarterback Mitchell Trubisky's Hail Mary pass. While he was unable to prevent the reception by receiver Kevin White, White was stopped one yard short of the goal line, sealing the New England win. On November 4, Gordon recorded five receptions for 130 yards and a 55-yard touchdown against the Green Bay Packers.

On December 20, Gordon announced that he would step away from football to focus on his mental health. The NFL later stated that Gordon would be facing an indefinite ban for violating the terms of his conditional reinstatement under the NFL drug policy. Gordon finished his first season with the Patriots with 40 receptions for 720 yards and three touchdowns.

Without Gordon, the Patriots reached Super Bowl LIII where they beat the Los Angeles Rams, 13–3. Although he did not play in the game because of his suspension, Gordon still received a ring for his earlier contributions to the team.

2019 season
On March 12, 2019, the Patriots placed a second-round tender on Gordon, securing his services for the upcoming 2019 season, should he be reinstated by the NFL. Gordon took to Instagram shortly after to thank the team, and reaffirm his commitment to getting back on the field. Two weeks later, during a press conference at the Governors' meeting in Arizona, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked about Gordon's status, and said that "the NFL was focused on getting him on the right track, and hopefully back on the field soon". Ultimately, on August 16, the NFL conditionally reinstated Gordon, thus granting him the opportunity to play Week 1. During Week 1 against the Pittsburgh Steelers, in his first game since Week 13 of the 2018 season, Gordon had three receptions for 73 yards and one touchdown in a 33–3 win. On October 23, 2019, the Patriots placed Gordon on injured reserve with a knee injury. He was waived from injured reserve on October 31, 2019.

Seattle Seahawks
On November 1, 2019, Gordon was claimed off waivers by the Seattle Seahawks. In Week 15 against the Carolina Panthers, Gordon caught one pass for 58 yards and threw a pass that was intercepted by safety Tre Boston during the 30–24 win. On December 16, Gordon was suspended indefinitely for violating the NFL's policy on performance-enhancing drugs and substance abuse, his fifth suspension for violating the policy.

After becoming a free agent in March 2020, he re-signed with the Seahawks on September 3. He was conditionally reinstated from suspension on December 3, and the NFL announced he could be eligible to play in the last two weeks of the regular season. On December 21, Gordon was added to the Seahawks' active roster after the NFL ruled him eligible to return from his suspension. One day later, the NFL determined that Gordon had broken the terms of his conditional reinstatement, and the Seahawks were again given a roster exemption for him. His conditional reinstatement was rescinded, and he was again suspended indefinitely by the NFL on January 15, 2021. He was released by the Seahawks on March 4.

FCF Zappers
On February 27, 2021, Gordon signed with the FCF Zappers of the Fan Controlled Football League while being suspended from the NFL. In his first game, Gordon had four catches for 70 yards and the walk off Hail Mary helping the Zappers move to 2–2.

He played two games for the Zappers while catching seven passes for 100 yards and three touchdowns.

Kansas City Chiefs
Gordon applied for reinstatement from NFL suspension in July 2021 and was reinstated in September 2021. After being reinstated from suspension, Gordon signed with the Kansas City Chiefs' practice squad on September 28, 2021. He was signed to the active roster on October 5, 2021. In the Chiefs week 14 game against the Las Vegas Raiders, he caught a 1-yard touchdown. It was his first touchdown since 2019. On December 13, he tested positive for COVID-19 and was placed on the Reserve/COVID-19 list. He was reactivated on December 22.

The Chiefs chose to make Gordon a healthy inactive for the Wild Card Round game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. He was waived by the Chiefs on January 24, 2022, and re-signed to the practice squad. He signed a reserve/future contract with the Chiefs on February 2, 2022.

Gordon was waived by the team on August 30, 2022.

Tennessee Titans
On September 1, 2022, Gordon was signed to the Tennessee Titans' practice squad.

On September 19, 2022, Gordon made his Titans' debut against the Buffalo Bills on Monday Night Football. He was released on October 17, 2022.

Seattle Sea Dragons
The Seattle Sea Dragons selected Gordon in the sixth round of the 2023 XFL Supplemental Draft on January 1, 2023. In Week 1 against the DC Defenders, Gordon had 6 receptions for 74 yards and a touchdown in the 22–18 loss. In Week 3 against the Vegas Vipers, Gordon caught a 65-yard touchdown from Ben DiNucci with 58 seconds left in the game to win 30–26. The Sea Dragons folded when the XFL and USFL merged to create the United Football League (UFL). On January 5, 2024, it was revealed that Gordon has no interest to return to professional spring football.

NFL records

 * Most consecutive games, 200+ yards receiving: 2 (November 24, 2013, 237 yards; December 1, 2013, 261 yards)

Browns franchise records

 * Most receptions, game: 14 on (November 24, 2013, against the Pittsburgh Steelers; tied with Ozzie Newsome, 1984)
 * Most receiving yards, season: 1,646 yards (2013)
 * Most receiving yards per game, season: 117.6 (2013)
 * 100+ receiving yard games, season: 7 (2013)

title: Josh Gordon


text:
Movie Set in FrameForge

 * Lesson
 * WikiU Film School - Lesson #0010: Animated 3D Storyboards

 * The pages of this lesson are…
 * Introduction to FrameForge 3D Studio 2 Demo
 * Building our movie set inside FrameForge → You are here!

 * Current Location
 * Wikiversity (English) $$\Leftrightarrow$$ Humanities $$\Leftrightarrow$$ Art and Design $$\Leftrightarrow$$ Fine Arts $$\Leftrightarrow$$ Film and Television $$\Leftrightarrow$$ Narrative Film Production $$\Leftrightarrow$$  Course #01 - Learning the Basics of Filmmaking $$\Leftrightarrow$$ WikiU Film School - Lesson #00010: 3D Storyboards $$\Leftrightarrow$$   Building our movie set inside FrameForge

How to build a wall which has four posters using FrameForge 3D Studio.

 * First load FrameForge 3D Studio
 * Once you have loaded FrameForge 3D Studio 2 (or the demo version of FrameForge 3D Studio 2), you need to create a wall with four posters using Room Builder.

 * To do this, we will actually create two walls, one of which has four windows in it.

Create the first wall

 * [[Image:Buildwall1.jpg]]

 * Use the Single Wall tool
 * In the upper left hand corner is the wall tool. Select this tool.

 * Draw the Wall
 * Start by creating a wall which is 40 feet long and 10 feet high using the wall tool.

 * Adjust the dimensions using the dialog boxes
 * If you draw it too long or two short, you can always change the size using the dialog boxes at the bottom of the screen.

Create a second wall

 * [[Image:BuildWall2.jpg]]

 * Select the "Single Wall" tool
 * The "Single Wall" tool will still be selected.

 * Create a new wall
 * Create a new wall which is the same size (or slightly smaller) behind the first wall.

 * Adjust using the dialog boxes
 * If you wish, you can adjust the length of this second wall using the dialog boxes at the bottom of the screen.

Select the window tool

 * [[Image:BuildWall4.jpg]]

 * Select the "Window" tool
 * Select the "Window" tool at the top of the screen.

 * What? No bars?
 * The window tool looks like a real window with a complete window frame but actually this tool simply creates a rectangular hole in a wall. Nothing more! (This is all we need.)

Create the first window

 * [[Image:BuildWall3.jpg]]

 * Create a window
 * In the first wall, draw a window.

The easiest way to adjust the window is to use the dialog boxes at the bottom of the screen. Adjust the window so the dimensions of the window are:
 * Adjust the window

 * This window starts 4 feet from the end of the first wall. (Notice in the example above, I typed a 5 instead of a 4.  Later I found my mistake so I simply clicked on the window with the selection tool (upper left in the window) and change the dialog box at the bottom of the screen.)

 * This window is 2 feet wide

 * This window is 3 feet high

 * This window is 4 feet off the ground.

 * Note
 * The widows that we create will become the space where the posters will appear.

Create the second window

 * [[Image:BuildWall5.jpg]]

 * Create a window
 * In the first wall, draw a window.

The easiest way to adjust the window is to use the dialog boxes at the bottom of the screen. Adjust the window so the dimensions of the window are:
 * Adjust the window

In the first wall, draw a second window. Then adjust the window so the dimensions of the window are:

 * The second window starts 14 feet from the end of the first wall.

 * The second window is 2 feet wide

 * The second window is 3 feet high

 * The second window is 4 feet off the ground.

When you draw the window, the dimensions and location will not be exactly what you want. It is easier to use the up and down arrows in the dialog box for the dimensions to adjust the window to the correct size. (There seems to be a bug in tying the first number. It you type one number and a different number appears, simply use the up and down arrows instead.)

Create the third window

 * Create a window
 * In the first wall, draw the third window.

The easiest way to adjust the window is to use the dialog boxes at the bottom of the screen. Adjust the window so the dimensions of the window are:
 * Adjust the window

 * The second window starts 24 feet from the end of the first wall.

 * The second window is 2 feet wide

 * The second window is 3 feet high

 * The second window is 4 feet off the ground.

 * Note
 * When you draw the window, the dimensions and location will not be exactly what you want. It is easier to use the up and down arrows in the dialog box for the dimensions to adjust the window to the correct size.  (There seems to be a bug in tying the first number.  It you type one number and a different number appears, simply use the up and down arrows instead.)

Create the fourth window

 * [[Image:BuildWall7.jpg]]

 * Create a window
 * In the first wall, draw the fourth window.

The easiest way to adjust the window is to use the dialog boxes at the bottom of the screen. Adjust the window so the dimensions of the window are:
 * Adjust the window

 * The second window starts 34 feet from the end of the first wall.

 * The second window is 2 feet wide

 * The second window is 3 feet high

 * The second window is 4 feet off the ground.

 * Note
 * When you draw the window, the dimensions and location will not be exactly what you want. It is easier to use the up and down arrows in the dialog box for the dimensions to adjust the window to the correct size.  (There seems to be a bug in tying the first number.  It you type one number and a different number appears, simply use the up and down arrows instead.)

 * Build the movie set
 * Build the room by clicking on the "Build Room" button on the lower right hand corner of the screen.

Select the Second Wall

 * Look at the windows
 * When you look at the windows at the top of the page, you see just a faint outline. That is because both walls are the same color.  They need to be different colors.

 * Blue posters
 * We are going to paint the second wall blue so it looks like posters.

To paint the second wall, we first need to select it.
 * Select the second wall

Color all of the second wall blue

 * [[Image:BuildWall9.jpg]]

 * The Green Room
 * In the Green Room, you can change many things including the color of the selected object. To do this, you must select "Colors, Textures & State".

 * Select ALL of the second wall
 * Rather than trying to figure out which face of the second wall needs color, we will simply paint all of the second wall. Therefore, you first need to go under "Part Name:" and select "--For all Parts--" rather than just "front wall" or "back wall".

 * Select a color
 * By clicking on the color chip marked "Color:", you can change the color of the selected item (which is the all of the wall). Change the color to some strong color.  I like dark blue.

 * Click "OK"
 * Click on the button at the bottom right of the screen to accept the changes to the scene.

Move the second wall

 * [[Image:BuildWall10.jpg]]

The posters will look better if the two walls are almost in the same position. So drag the second wall forward until the two walls overlap by all but one or two inches.
 * Move the wall

 * [[Image:BuildWall11.jpg]]

 * The posters will appear
 * Now you can clearly see the windows which look like blue posters (well, sort of…). You are seeing the blue wall though the holes in the plain wall.  This is good enough!

In the menu, select "Edit Set Parameters"

 * [[Image:BuildWall13.jpg]]

 * Find the page with the set controls.
 * The set controls are on a page called "Green Room". You access this page by using the menu item of "Edit Set Preferences" in the "Sets" menu.

Set all the parameters for the movie set

 * [[Image:BuildWall12.jpg]]

 * The set name
 * A good name for the movie set is "Theater Movie Set".

 * The time of day
 * Since the time of day is night, set the background sky to "Night".

Add the actors

 * Old Person and Young Person
 * You need to add the actors to the movie set and then rotate the actors to whatever position you like.

 * Adding an actor
 * To add the actors, simply look through the pictorial list of the available figures and select one. Then drag its picture to the movie set. (If the movie set is not visible in the main window in the center of the screen, double click on the picture of the movie set in the upper left corner of the screen.)

 * Rotate the actors
 * Select an actor and use the "Spin" control to rotate the actor to face where you want the actor to face.

 * Magnify
 * Move the camera nearer to the actors. Then magnify the blueprint view so that you can easily see the camera, the actors, and the wall.  This way you can easily grab the actors and grab the camera and move them where you want.

 * Adjust the actor
 * If you want to adjust the actor, double click on the actor to see many of the controls for the actor.

 * Begin
 * Now you are ready to begin storyboarding.

title: Movie Set in FrameForge


text:
Wikipedia studies/Wikipedia administrators

Wikipedia Administrators are described as "Wikipedians to whom the community gives access to technical features that help with maintenance". However, administrator abuse has been an important issue on Wikipedia, causing some editors to leave.


text:
Kam Tang

Kam Tang is an illustrator living and working in Brixton, London. His work is described as maximalist. After earning his degree from the University of Brighton he went on to do a masters at the Royal College of Art. Since graduating he has worked as a freelance creative. His first major commission was for GTF (Graphic Thought Facility), who called upon him to illustrate the journey from start to finish of a Royal College of Art student for the RCA prospectus. He has since worked for many editorial publications such as The Guardian, Wired, Arena, and more recently Wallpaper* magazine, where his intricate and highly detailed 'Navigator' maps have been a regular feature.

Kam has also designed and created images for many music campaigns, which have included work for Merz, Athlete, Gnarls Barkley, Morning Runner, Two Culture Clash and more recently The Chemical Brothers.

Besides editorial and music work, Kam's work has appeared on a much larger scale having been involved in advertising campaigns for Adidas, Nike and Sony. His designs have recently applied into commercial space for Quick restaurants (France), Burberry (Milan) and more noticeably London's Design Museum, collaborating again with GTF to create drawings for the new identity.

He continues to work as a freelancer in London.

title: Kam Tang


text:
Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2018

Supervote MR closes
The last two closes at WP:MR are WP:Supervotes. The last because the closer implements her unilateral opinion not supported by anyone else in the discussion. The second last because he throws in a opinion not reflecting consensus evident in the discussion, aka judicial activism. This is a worry. Note that a supervote does not mean the facts of the closing statement are wrong, but that the closer has stated something that is not a reading of consensus from the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you link the closes in question? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2nd last Move_review
 * 1st last Move_review
 * —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Aloy one was a mess all around, I agree; fortunately the underlying question went away. You should just explain to the parties who messed up how you think they can do better in the future.  I don't see what you're saying the problem is on the Incel case. Dicklyon (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Move review decisions
On the move review decision page, I suggest changing the table to this: The reason why is because the action taken on an Endorse close is the same regardless of whether the page has been moved. The don't relist decision should be removed because it is essentially the same as an endorse close. 2601:183:101:58D0:6857:8FD9:8A96:84E9 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment What is Not moved or moved? Is it confused to other people, but I will leave other people comment. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is jargon, it confuses. It is not plain English.  It was a bad idea added at WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and I think it needs changing. “Consensus to move”, “no consensus”, and “consensus to not move” are plain English statements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. BTW, the current table also has Not moved or moved. The current table is also too dull to me. Hhkohh (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't "Move to new title" be "Move back to old title"? Also, please use lowercase ("Moved to new title", not "Moved to New Title", and "Not moved", not "Not Moved", and "No action required", not "No Action Required" and "If consensus", not "If Consensus"). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some strikethrough above. I wasn't reading it correctly. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments, how about changing the table to this? 2601:183:101:58D0:1D8C:72FD:CC7A:135 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note:I have reverted IP changes because the discussion is not closed currently, let the discussion run at least 1 week. Hhkohh (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin closures
The instructions for closing a MRV discussion clearly say "an administrator..." throughout, which to me means that MRV discussions should not be closed by a non-admin. I am all in favour of non-admins conducting ordinary move closes, (and indeed I used to do many such myself before acquiring the mop) as this is beneficial for working throuh the backlog and helping them to build experience and track record ready for adminship. But for MRV it seems correct that it should be an admin, and preferably one very familiar with the RM process, because MRV is really the court of last appeal for move discussions and admins are those who have been explicitly endorsed by the community as having the experience and trust necessary to provide a fair and reasoned decision.

Now of course, if the MRV is open-and-shut, because the decision is unanimous and/or policy is crystal clear, it would be fine per WP:IAR for non-admins to close. But the reason I mention this is because there was a move review closed by a non-admin this morning, which does not seem crystal clear or unanimous. I raised several points objecting to the rationale used by those endorsing, and I think the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that I could go back and make my points about style in the RM and have them discussed fully. Instead, WBG closed as endorse, with no explanation or indication that they had read the arguments in the MRV, and even imposed a moratorium of a "considerable span of time" on what is really at best a no-consensus close. I have raised the issue on their talk page, so I hope they will reverse or reconsider their close, but I'm mentioning it here too just to get some more opinions. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Think that maybe there is more opinions come there. Hhkohh (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I think there has been a slightly worrying rash of adventurous NAC closings of RMs that is now spilling into MRV. I think the WP:NAC articulated standards should be expected at RM the same as XfD, and that WP:RMNAC needs to be harmonized, meaning tightened, back to the WP:NAC standard. MRV closes, like DRV closes, should be even more cautiously closed.  We’ve had these discussions at WT:DRV, and most feel that for the ceremony of finality, an admin is required, although notable expert nonadmin closers, namely User:S Marshall, continued to be well accepted.  Admin closes carry more weight because only admins have passed the baptism of fire of RfA where ability to call a consensus is explicitly examined. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 * As a former admin and occasional MRV/DRV closer, I did not stop performing these closures after becoming a non-admin. I simply avoid performing closures where their implementation requires admin tools or which seem exceptionally contentious. I've not had a closure questioned yet, even though the letter of the DRV/MRV guidelines make no mention of NACs. Ben · Salvidrim!   ✉  13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This comment is about MRV NACs in general and not about this specific discussion, for the record. Ben · Salvidrim!   ✉  13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 * There's usually perspective problems when someone state:--the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that I could go back and make my points about style in the RM and have them discussed fully.At any case, best of wishes for the re-close of this MRV........ ~ Winged Blades Godric  13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For one, my views are pretty similar to Ben... ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * perhaps I didn't make my point very well and sounded arrogant above, but I said "so I could go back and make my points" because that's what I meant. I missed this RM, and as made in his comments at the MRV, I had added some extra context to it that hadn't been made in the RM itself. Usually if it comes to light that there are points of discussion that were not made before the close, it's sensible to relist because there is no WP:DEADLINE, and the goal is to get the right result for the Wikipedia, not for individual editors to "win" or "lose" the discussion. I always accept it when the community feels a different way about something than I do, but if that happens I at least like to understand why. In this case, it seems like the discussion has settled for Kshmr as the name of the article, but for reasons that aren't obvious to me. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Failure to attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer
In the current MR, User:Paine Ellsworth makes some valid points about MR nominations that were launched without an attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer. I made some counter-points, but I think the discussion is worth continuing. It may well be beneficial sometimes to closed "procedurally close" and speedily send the nom to the closer's talk page. I think this may be a good idea when the following apply:
 * The MRV nomination is not particularly persuasive, makes vague points, or asks questions appropriate to be answered informally.
 * The nomination is fresh (it should be quickly done)
 * The MRV nominator makes no statement that they deliberately did not follow the recommendation to discuss with the closer.

Possibly good reasons not to have a discussion with the closer may include: Where there is a good reason not to discuss the matter with the closer, it should be mentioned.
 * There was a post-RM discussion by others that more-or-less covered everything;
 * The closer indicated that challenges should go direct to MRV.
 * Any kind of interaction ban.

Example minimal discussions with closers are:
 * Can you please elaborate on your close at talk:article. (preferably state what you don't understand)
 * That close was surprising, would you mind reconsidering it? (preferably state what exactly you found surprising)

I suggest that a closer (and the closer's talk page stalkers) should be allowed at least 24 hours to respond. I'm yet to see a move review that had to be urgently listed.

I personally don't have strong feelings on this. Discussing first with the close is good WP:Etiquette, but if the MRV is already initiated, the closer can readily reply gently and informally in the MRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An interesting question would be how often a challenge on the closer's talk page results in any sort of change of decision, and how often it results in the person querying the close being satisfied. If an MRV discussion is almost always the outcome anyway, then the discussion on the closer's page seems a superfluous step. — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason that informal closer-talk-page discussion is advised is that the inquirer can get an answer and potential satisfaction so much quicker that way. Anyway, that's why it makes sense to me. Bypassing that step and going straight to a formal MRV means that the outcome might be delayed by several days or weeks. It seems to me that inquirers would jump at the chance to possibly get answers and satisfaction within a few hours rather than wait for an MRV to close. So it puzzles me that editors almost always seem to want to zip straight to an MRV. That's what I don't get.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's often because they see the line "Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request" in the introduction at WP:RM and come straight here, without reviewing further documentation here to understand what "contest the outcome" means in this context. I think revising the wording of the line at WP:RM might be helpful. Dekimasu よ! 21:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's agreeable and has been done.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this bold improvement. Not convinced the wording is perfect yet but definitely addresses a problem. Andrewa (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I'd suspect it would be far more commmon that a Move Review that had no chance anyway was avoided rather than that the decision was varied by the closer, but that's a guess. Of course MRs are generally raised by people who disagree with the result, so perhaps satisfied is too much to hope for. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

 * This bold improvement is probably impressive to people likely to frequent WT:MR, and few others.
 * Perhaps, Template:Move review links should me modified to include the link to the discussion with the closer. NB I am not much in favour that the discussion *must* be on the closer's user_talk page, often, a subsection immediately following the closed&boxed RM discussion is a better place.  If it is not a question of personal understanding, but of relevance to the topic, the article talk page is where comments relevant to the topic belong.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's the point exactly... that discussion does not belong on the article talk page, because the merits of the move are not under discussion. That would be rediscussing the RM itself, which is explicitly what MR is not. And a perennial problem is that people try to make it that.
 * Modifying that template to encourage following the existing procedure sounds a better idea. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * there is code in the Move review list/sandbox that adds two parameters, closer and closer_section, so nominators can show where they discussed the result with the closer. This would work well for the vast majority of MRs, even multiples as long as the same editor closed all the RMs. The listing would look like this:

 * If the closer parameter is omitted or left blank, the listing could be same as now:

 * Suggestions are welcome.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Above is an alternative example from the sandbox of a case where there was no discussion with the closer (closer omitted or left blank).  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

please note that the sandbox has been altered. The closer info is now at the end of the links rather than at the beginning. Is that better?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Let’s see if it works. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If nobody objects, I'll implement in a few days.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  12:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

✅  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Failure to communcate pre-MR, and speedy closing the MR
Following my post at Move_review/Log/2018_October, I think it needs follow-up here, and possible modification of the MR process.

I wrote: "... I note that the closer, В²C, agreed to a relist/re-open, and really what should have happened was a request put to him directly BEFORE this came to MR.  It is bad that it came prematurely to MR.  It is bad this became bogged down in MR procedure after the closer agreed to relist.  How can we fix this process problem?"

In my opinion, the close was overreach (others say it was fine). An early run of opinion was for a relist/reopen. The closer even agreed with that, fairly early in his discussion. This really should be routine, an NAC borderline overreach relisted on request. The complainant then promptly makes the important points in the RM discussion.

In this case, there was no approach to the closer (that I have found). Should have the MR nomination been speedy closed on this basis, as I think User:Paine Ellsworth supports above? When the RM closer essentially agreed to the MR nominator's request, should the MR have been closed at that point? I think there was nothing left to review, but the discussion had become so heavy that I suspect the old experienced respected closers preferred to stay out of the horrid mess, if they were reading it at all. One idea I have is that the RM closer could/should request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for the Move Review to be closed. I think:
 * The RM closer should have special standing to request, at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, an immediate WP:Move review close for either of the two reasons:
 * (a) failure of the nominator to discuss the problem with the closer; or
 * (b) the RM closer agrees to accede to the request.

If there are no other important matters in the mix requiring resolution, the review should be closed, surely? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If we altered the process as you suggest, I think that would encourage more unhappy editors to go straight to MR without a discussion with the closer. Is that what we want? In other words, you're talking about a remedy for a scenario (MR file without discussion with closer) that thankfully rarely occurs, but, if remedied as you suggest, would ironically probably cause such scenarios to occur more often. Unintended consequences? --В²C ☎ 00:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, do look for unintended consequences. Modify my idea.  No, the idea is that it is not good to have unhappy editors go straight to MR, but for them to slow down a bit, and get things clarified.  My idea here is not addressing the encouragement of editors to talk nicely and informally first, but what to do with a MR discussion that has, or is in the process of, blowing up out of control, and out of proportion.  In that discussion, you appear to want to accede to the request, but no one knows what to do about it except wait for the discussion to run out of air.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * В²C, I really don't see how an WP:MR encouragement for an RM closer to do a WP:RfCl to speedy close a inappropriate/concluded MR discussion will discourage an unhappy RM participant (or not-yet-participant) from posting their problem on the closer's talk page. Maybe you could explain.
 * And then, even if unhappy people more routinely (NB they already do routinely) come straight to MR, is there really a big problem with this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do support speedy-closing an MR that has not been pre-discussed, but only with full endorsement of the close. Anything else would foster results we do not want, as suggested by В²C. Unfortunately, it might take a few bogged down MRs for editors to learn the obvious benefits of first discussing the RM result on the closer's talk page. We do not really need to modify the process to fix this problem. We just need to find good, effective ways to enforce the process as it now exists.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, User:Paine Ellsworth, I don't understand you response either. Surely, encouraging the RM closer to take responsibility to as for the close of a premature MR *is* an important part of enforcing the "ask the closer first" step?  And I have no idea why you would think that past bogged down discussions will influence future premature MR nominations, noting that they don't come from MR regulars.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * maybe what is needed actually would be a change in the process? Suppose, rather than closing the MR, it is temporarily suspended pending discussion with the closer? Then, if that discussion results in resolution, the MR can be closed, if not, the suspension is lifted and the MR commences. Do you think that would work?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. A slight variation is to require initiation of discussion with closer prior to opening an MR, and the consequence for failing to do so is automatic suspension of said MR (by anyone) until such discussion is attempted. Then if said discussion with closer leads to resolution then prematurely opened MR can be closed/deleted; otherwise it can be continued. --В²C ☎ 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "automatic" suspension. It would be an administrative action, requiring a WP:UNINVOLVED human, and the place to ask for it is WP:RfCl.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Poor choice of word on my part. How about pre-authorized? My point is failure to contact the closer first makes that MR as subject to suspension as any unilateral edit to article content is subject to Reverting per BRD. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than a policy/guideline solution, as those are already quite clear, I think we should take a technical approach. I would suggest the creation of some sort of edit filter that is triggered when one files an MR (i.e. uses the MR template), which checks whether one spoke to the closer on his or her talk page, and displays a warning if one hasn't. I'm certain this can be done...similar to how such an edit filter is used for DS alerts. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've requested such a filter at Edit filter/Requested. If this can be done, I think it will help...someone that defies such a warning does so at their own peril... RGloucester  — ☎ 01:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another related issue is when the contested RM resulted in a move, what happens if the closer agrees to reopen/relist? Do all those moves have to be reversed?  If they're not, then the re-opened RM discussion is confusing. If the move was A→B and the RM is reopened at Talk:B that's confusing. It's no big deal to reverse the move if the move in question involved only one article (and its talk page), but perhaps there are several dozen subtopics too.  Then what?  --В²C ☎ 00:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this the correct place to request a review of a category move?
I'm trying to decide the correct location to request the review of a category move. WP:DRV and WP:MR have both been suggested. I would think this is the correct location but it seems this is for articles not categories. Any help would be appreciated. Springee (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note well that neither reviews the actual move so much as the closing descision and maybe a check on the process around the discussion.
 * If no deletion occurred, or should have occurred, WP:DRV might be less receptive. WP:Move review in theory should be receptive to a category retiring decision issue, but it may be a very good idea to advertise at WT:CfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Here is the situation.  A category was moved based on a 4:0 consensus but with very limited notification.  I was only aware of this after the CfM was closed.  I opened a follow up CfM with wider advertisement and participation.  It resulted in a no consensus closing.  Based on that I believe the original closing was flawed based on insufficient community input.  The evidence being to the no consensus when a wider audience was notified.  I'm just not sure which Venus handles this sort of question.  When you say advertise at CfD, do you mean post there after starting a discussion here or do you mean ask this same location question there?  Springee (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Advertise at WT:CfD any formal category discussion.
 * For practice, why don’t you go to Move_review%23World_Heritage_site and help build a consensus on the question being reviewed. It is similar to your cars automobiles question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely say request review at WP:DRV. WP:MRV is a relatively newer process solely to review closes of WP:RMs while DRV is for "disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions" which covers any discussions at WP:CFD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26?
 * Not a deletion discussion, but a rename discussion, so a request for review should go to WP:MR.
 * Have you read and followed the advice at WP:RENOM? I advise you to read it slowly.  That CfD was a quite defensible “no consensus”, neither DRV nor MR would overturn it, and starting from the CfD you look to be WP:badgering. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I'm not trying to dispute the Nov 19th conclusion. I agree with it.  My concern is the Oct 22nd closing [] that moved the category from Automobiles to Cars.  It involved just 4 editors and no effort to notify impacted articles/projects.  My assertion is that the consensus of just 4 editors didn't reflect a wider consensus based on the second CfM.  I was told I picked the wrong venue the first time ie I should have just asked for a name change review.  However, then, just as now I don't know the correct venue for the discussion.  Springee (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At DRV I would !vote “speedy close, no deletion issue”. At MRV I would !vote “Endorse, wait six months and then consider trying again”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, when I get a chance in the next few days I will open a discussion here. Springee (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * MR does not do consider CFDs, only RMs. Not once in its history has it ever reviewed a CfD. It's right in the header of the page. Go to DRV. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing was deleted and this never involved a CfD. Springee (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This never involved a CfD? The 22 October discussion was a CfD, as was the newer one. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed CfD was category for deletion. Regardless, this was a move so this appears to be the place.  Please stop bludgeoning every discussion. Springee (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that anything opened here will be speedily closed. WP:DRV is the venue for categories. Look at the move review page, read the instructions. Only reviews of WP:RMs are done here.  RGloucester  — ☎ 19:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:RGloucester has repeated this a few times in a few places. I disagree. WP:MR is very well suited to host a review of a category rename discussion and close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it is suited or not is a different question from the one I was answering. It may well be suited to do so, but up until now, never has, and the WP:MR page clearly states that its purview is restricted to WP:RMs. Look through the archives. DRV has always held reviews for CfD discussions, including those that do not result in deletion. You can see that at least as far back as 2006 (one example - Category:Limited-access roads), this has been the case. I agree that this is a bit strange, but that's how the system works at present. Feel free to propose a change to that system. Until such a change comes into effect, DRV is the correct venue for reviewing CfD closings. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, moving forward, category rename discussions not involving deletion, needing review, should go to WP:MR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe, any CFD that involves a rename should go to MR, since its the same as a RM. DR is for deletions and merges/redirecting. Likewise I'd suggest that RFDs that don't involve deletion should go to MR (example). I think CFD kept renames in because the same bots deal with them as do the deletions/merges. With RFD a redirect can only point to 1 target so in the example of Beds it is over the target then MR deals better with that. If and AFD resulted in a rename (other than one to user/draftspace or to widen the scope of the page) then I'd say MR would be a better venue, although searching for AFDs that have been closed as move doesn't show any.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe and Crouch, Swale: I understand the rationale, and the idea appeals to me as well, but how do we avoid future debates about the appropriate venue based on the degree to which a discussion does or does not involve deletion? To what extent does deletion have to be discussed or supported at CfD, in order for the venue to shift from MR to DRV, and who will decide each time? -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Black Falcon. If the discussion touched on the question of deletion, got to DRV, if deletion was not on the cards (i.e. rename only), it is not for DRV.
 * I don't think it is matter of great consequence, but DRV is "deletion review", and it should be for discussion resulting in deletion, or that arguably should have resulted in deletion. This is similar to what the essay Pseudo-deletion by redirection was written for, on the issue of whether "merge and redirect" results at AfD should have their challenges entertained at WP:DRV, where I maintained, and others agree, the answer was "no" if the issue didn't involve deletion.  Pseudo-deletion by redirection marks the line where DRV is the venue for review.
 * Generally, DRV is the highest level venue for questions of content, and its high importance is tempered by the narrowness of the core question, to delete, or not to delete. Whether a category is titled "cars" or "automobiles" really is not critical question for Wikipedia, even if the strength of opinions voiced might seem to imply otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * With CFD generally if it involves a Cfd, Cfm, Cfs or a Cfl then its a question of deletion. If its a Cfr then its the move process. With RFD it can be more complicated in that there may be discussion on both retargeting and deletion. However maybe to avoid complication we should just keep things as they are.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I intend to open a formal RfC on whether to expand the scope of MR. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2018


text:
List of ambassadors of Russia to Canada

The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to Canada is the official representative of the President and the Government of the Russian Federation to the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada.

The ambassador and his staff work at large in the Embassy of Russia in Ottawa. There are Consulate Generals in Montreal and Vancouver, and honorary consuls in Edmonton, St. John's, Windsor and Vancouver. Russian interests in Canada are also represented by a trade mission based in Ottawa, and a representative of the in Halifax.

The post of Russian Ambassador to Canada is currently held by, incumbent since 9 March 2021.

History of diplomatic relations
Prior to 1917, the Russian Empire maintained consular services in the Dominion of Canada, then part of the British Empire. By the time of the fall of the Tsarist government in 1917, there were consulates in Montreal, Halifax, and Vancouver. These did not recognise, and were not accredited by, the Soviet state, but continued to function until the late 1920s, funded by the Canadian government to deal with the large number of White émigrés who began to settle in the country.

Diplomatic relations at the mission level between the Soviet Union and Canada were first established on 12 June 1942. This was during the Second World War, when Canada and the Soviet Union were part of the allies. The first envoy, Fedor Tarasovich Gusev, was appointed on 30 July 1942, and presented his credentials on 21 October that year. Gusev left the post on 12 August 1943, and in November that year the missions were upgraded to embassies. Relations cooled significantly after the war, with the Gouzenko Affair and subsequent Kellock–Taschereau Commission in 1946 resulting in increasingly hostile communications. Both sides withdrew their ambassadors that year, and representation was thereafter by charge d'affaires following until 1953. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Soviet ambassador,, continued as representative of the Russian Federation until 1992.

title: List of ambassadors of Russia to Canada


text:
Talk:Bessie Rayner Parkes

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bessie Rayner Parkes. 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/20090918231439/http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk:80/parkes.htm to http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/parkes.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bessie Rayner Parkes


text:
Introduction to Programming/Variables

A "program" is a set of instructions stored in a computer's memory for it to execute. Usually in the course of execution the program will create new information. Also, nearly every program written must store information supplied after the program was created.

Such information may include user input, custom settings, or calculated values. Because this information can vary, the term variable is used to describe the element of a program which stores this information. For example, a name variable could contain "Jack" or "Jill" or any other value.

Variables
You may already be familiar with variables as they are used in mathematics—to represent unknown or inexplicitly defined fields of an equation. For instance, in the equation y = m*x + b, each alphabetic letter is a variable that represents something unknown (m is the slope of the line, b is the y-intercept, x is any legal x-value in the function's domain, and y is any legal y-value in the function's range.) In computer science, however, the value of a variable is never "unknown", but rather it is explicitly defined, although it may change in ways that the program's author cannot predict. It is important to remember that there is absolutely no (or at least very little) relationship between the term variable, as it is used in mathematics, and computer program variables.

In computer science, a variable is nothing more and nothing less than a named location in memory where data can be stored. In some languages, any kind of data can be stored in a variable while, in others, each variable is given a well defined type by the programmer and only data of the correct type may (or at least should) be stored in that location.

The location referred to by a variable may or may not have useful data in it, but typically it does not until it has been initialized. The process of carving out a piece of memory and assigning it a name is called creating, allocating or declaring a variable. In some languages, variables are automatically initialized when they are declared (given a value when they are established as pointing to that location in memory). Most languages allow variables to be initialized when they are declared but do not require it. The use of an uninitialized variable is a common source of programming errors, as the data stored in memory at the location that the variable points to is "garbage", nonsense bits that could have adverse effects on the running program.

In a program, you may see a line of code such as this one:

It may look like a math equation, but it is more than a math equation. It is an instruction to the computer to fetch the values from two memory locations, which do have absolute "ID numbers", but for our purposes and the semantics of programming languages are called pi and r, multiply those values together and then store the result in the memory location called area. It is very convenient that this code can take the familiar form of an equation but we cannot allow its appearance to fool us because it does not define a mathematical function; rather it defines a strict set of instructions that the computer will follow when running this line of code.

Similarly, most languages allow variable assignments such as the following:

Looking at this assignment as a mathematical equation, it makes absolutely no sense—no value is equal to itself plus one. But we're not talking about mathematics here. While it may look like an equation, this is a variable assignment that states "retrieve the value of X, add one, and store the result back in X." So if the value of X is 0 before it reaches this line, it will become 1 afterward.

Several languages have a particular operator for this operation, e.g :

Variable Types

 * Reading assignments:
 * Strong typing (Wikipedia article)
 * Data types (Wikipedia article)

Most languages have a variety of primitive types such as integers, floating point numbers, single characters and Boolean variables. Many languages also support a variety of aggregate types (eg. arrays). The exact size and format of available types may vary based upon operating system, hardware architecture, programming language and/or the specific compiler used.

One of the important things to take away from the reading is the concept of static typing. Most modern languages are statically-typed.

Despite the tremendous variety, the statically-typed languages generally follow some well-defined patterns:
 * Compilers are quite picky about assigning valid values to each variable.
 * There exist methods of converting between types.
 * There are ways to define custom types.

Byte

 * Reading Assignment: Byte (Wikipedia article)

With the possible exception of Boolean variables and user defined types, the byte (eight bits) is the smallest unit of information used in modern programming languages. A bit is represented by a 0 or a 1, and therefore a byte is a sequence of 8 0's and 1's, which have a total possible permutation of 28 combinations, or 256 distinct combinations.

Application to Variables
System memory must be allocated to store variable values; both the compiler and the author of a program must work together to determine how much memory should be allocated for each variable, and this memory is allocated in a sequence of consecutive bytes in memory.

Variable Data Types
Below are common usages of the byte in programming languages for data types of variables.

Numeric Types
Each of these have slightly different names on different platforms and in different programming languages. The absolute size is specified in bytes, regardless of the environment. (see Data Types for more detail)
 * one-byte (8-bit) value: 0 to 255 (unsigned) or –128 to +127 (signed)
 * two-byte (16-bit) value: 0 to 65535 (unsigned) or –32768 to +32767 (signed)
 * four-byte (32-bit) value: 0 to 4,294,967,296 (unsigned) or –2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647 (signed)
 * eight-byte (64-bit) value: 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 (unsigned) or –9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 (signed)

Character Data
A single byte is often used in many languages to store a single text character. These are often denoted by the variable type char, which is a short-hand for character. Other languages, such as Java, might use one or two bytes to store a character, depending on the string.

 * Next Lesson
 * Previous Lesson

title: Introduction to Programming/Variables


text:
γάτος

Etymology
, from, from. Also see.

Noun

 * 1)  (cat): tomcat, a male domestic cat

Related terms

 * all compounds of -γατος like ,

title: γάτος