text:
Quantum Mechanics/Meaning of Quantum Wave Function

In the classical picture, we usually work with the position and momentum of a particle or particles. From these, we can generate all the physical information about the system.

However, it is easy to see how such an approach will run into serious problems for quantum mechanics. If we consider, for the moment, the Uncertainty Principle to be our definition of Quantum Mechanics then, there is the position of a particle having no simple meaning, as there is an inherent uncertainty in it. Talking about a particular position and momentum is wrong, in quantum mechanics.

To get round this problem, instead of having a particular value of position (or momentum) of a particle, we instead assign a probability to each point in space, of finding the particle there. We could similarly define the probability of it having a particular momentum but, while equally valid, that approach is not initially useful.

Thus, in quantum mechanics, we have a wavefunction, which, as we will see, contains all the information about the system. In general, this wavefunction will be complex. This wavefunction's modulus squared is the probability distribution of the system.

Position (or momentum for that matter) now, is not a variable. Rather, it is an operator. Before we see how it works, let us deviate a little, in order to understand operators better.

Take a two state system for example. By two states, we mean that a particular property (say the color) can have only two values (say Red and Blue). Now, a wavefunction of the system will be a mixture of these states. Let us say R is the wavefunction when the particle is "definitely" Red, and B when it is definitely Blue. So, the general wavefunction, W of the system is a linear combination of the two.

 * $$W = xR + yB $$

where $$|x|^2$$ is the probability that the particle is Red. Since this is a two state system, $$|y|^2 = 1 - |x|^2$$. Be aware that, in general, $$x$$ and $$y$$ may be complex numbers, which is why we must use $$|x|^2$$ rather than $$x^2$$ in order to get a real probability.

Now, the big news. The fundamental assumption of quantum mechanics is that any measurement will send the system into one of that operator's eigenstates. Eigenstates are just the states of a system unchanged by an operator.

In this example, when we measure the color of the system, we multiply it by a color operator, which turns a wavefunction into a color, Red or Blue.

So, Quantum Mechanics says that if you make a measurement of the colour, you will never find the system to be a mixture of Red and Blue! It is only that you will sometimes find it Red, sometimes Blue, with the corresponding probabilities.

If you were to measure some other property of the system, you might find it in a state which you could deduce had mixed color, but you wouldn't be able to observe this mixture. The uncertainty principle stems from this phenomenon.

Measurement is nothing but acting the corresponding operator on our wavefunction. Remember, once we have acted an operator on our wavefunction, the system has already "collapsed" into one of its eigen-states (allowed states). Any subsequent measurements will yield the same result, because the system isn't anymore a mixture of all those eigen-states.

To see the probability effect as stated above, you'll have to prepare the system from scratch. In other words, before making a measurement, prepare infinite mental copies of the system (an ensemble) and then perform the same measurement on each of them.

Coming back to position; this is a special operator, in that its spectrum (the range of eigen-values) is continuous. Our example had a discrete (2 level) system. The details of working out stuff become more complicated for such an operator, but the basic premise remains exactly the same. What happens now? We know that Quantum Mechanics should reduce to Classical Mechanics at a large enough scale. For a single particle, this wavefunction is peaked around the "Classical Position" and the standard deviation is ~ h. So, on normal scales, we won't see this "fuzziness" of the particle.

To see how a result matches with Classical Mechanics, we can use the concept of an "Expectation Value". An expectation value of an operator is just the average value of its eigenvalues, weighted with the corresponding probabilities. It can be shown that the expectation values of position and momentum are related like the classical position and momentum.


text:
Tseyen-Oidovyn Tserennyam

Tseyen-Oidovyn Tserennyam (born November 27, 1968) is a boxer from Mongolia, who competed in the flyweight (– 51 kg) division at the 1988 Summer Olympics, losing his opening bout to Kim Kwang-sun of South Korea. He won a bronze medal in the bantamweight category at the 1990 Asian Games in Beijing.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Tseyen-Oidovyn Tserennyam


text:
User:Michaelhaslip

Feel free to email me<EMAIL_ADDRESS>- Michael.

I believe in creating a universal wiki/craigslist model to implement positive social change and address social problems in ones own neighborhood. I've suggested wikiserve to stand alongside wikibooks, wikiversity as a tool to engage the public in consulting about the needs in their city, hashing out potential interventions and solutions, creating a plan, implementing change, evaluating results, progressing and sharing best practices with the world. Let each city or each neighborhood have a location on wikiserve to mobalize and implement change for service to the common good. Let everyone contribute ideas and plans for solving any problem facing society and ensure that real work is being carried out, tested, evaluated and solutions shared with other cities. This is a localized, universal tool for social action just as craigslist is a localized, universal tool for networking/buying/selling.

If you'd like to start/assist www.wikiserve.org, you can take the domain from me. Otherwise, share the idea or contact me with suggestions.

- Michael

title: User:Michaelhaslip


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/grainmagazine.ca

Links

 * grainmagazine.ca 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.

Selected additions

 * Displayed 5 additions out of 5 total.	 For more info see WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/grainmagazine.ca

Entry
Log entry for the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist:

\bgrainmagazine\.ca\b       # ADMINNAME # see  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/grainmagazine.ca ]]

Discussion
See COIBot report for more details.

New data reported. --COIBot (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Autostale: very old local report (>7 days). . --COIBot (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Introduction to Philosophy/Utilitarianism

Utilitarian theories of ethics judge an action by its consequences; an action is right, or duty, if it brings about the best balance of intrinsic good over intrinsic bad. Thus, utilitarians place an emphasis on the consequences of our actions or policies. Jeremy Bentham formulates this in his famous "Principle of Utility." Utilitarianism is a well-known example of a branch of ethics known as consequentialism, which states that actions are morally judged by the impartially reckoned value of the consequences. That which is good or bad differs between different types of utilitarianism, hedonistic utilitarianism and preference-respecting utilitarianism being the most noteworthy.

History of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism was founded by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by his disciple, John Stuart Mill. Bentham was most interested in the ramifications that a utilitarian ethics would have for the law, and he developed a precise system for correlating a crime's detrimental effect on utility to the severity of its punishment. Mill explored utilitarianism from a more broadly philosophical perspective, and defended it from the critiques of opposing ethicists. Mill did this by taking Bentham's dictum that what was important was the precise amount of happiness and adding a factor of quality, where quality is determined by "competent judges" who are capable of fully enjoying the given pleasure. More than this, however, Mill suggested that some happiness was of such a high quality that any amount of it would be preferable to any amount of a happiness which was of a lesser quality. This thesis is controversial, partially because it is patronizing, but primarily because Mill's reasoning behind introducing it -- that there are some happinesses which are of such a high quality that a well informed and independent jury would always choose some of that happiness over any amount of another -- is far from rigorous and might simply not be the case.

Another 19th Century Philosopher, Henry Sidgwick, re-interpreted utilitarianism along lines which are more commonly used today. He found that the classification of utility as happiness was clumsy and so began to talk about utility as a measure of desire and satisfaction. Thus, something would be good on utilitarian grounds if it satisfied the desires of many people, and bad if it did not, or if it went against their desires.

Two branches of utilitarianism that are still recognized today eventually developed:

Act utilitarianism, or AU, states that if an agent is faced with a moral decision, it is morally obligatory to make the choice that brings the highest total pleasure to everyone affected.

Rule utilitarianism, or RU, states that it is morally obligatory for everyone to act in accordance with the set of moral rules such that if everyone acts in accordance with this set of rules, more pleasure is produced than if everyone acts in accordance with any other set of moral rules.

Utilitarianism today
Peter Singer is a contemporary philosopher whose basic approach to ethics is utilitarian.

Criticism
Professor James Rachels critiqued the philosophy of utilitarianism, mainly by attacking the following points:
 * 1) Actions are judged to be right or wrong only on the basis of their consequences
 * 2) The only consequence that matters is whether happiness or unhappiness results
 * 3) No one's happiness is more or less important than another's- each are equally important

The first flaw that Rachels identified with Utilitarianism was making happiness the goal that we seek out in our endeavors. While this may be attractive in principle, Rachels claims that it is very flawed in practice. An example proving this is if a friend bad-mouths somebody behind their back, Utilitarianism will claim that it is a moral action, because the person is not aware; Ergo, it did not cause them any harm. Rachels suggests that one should not seek out friends in order to make him or herself happy. Instead, happiness should be a response to what one has achieved or obtained.

Another point that Rachels makes is regarding the dogma of only considering the consequence of an action important, rather than the action itself. For example, if a police officer is accused of abusing somebody based on their race, clearly the best solution according to utilitarianism would be to find the officer guilty, and punish them severely, as this will cause the greatest number of people to achieve happiness. Rachels would refute this by saying that this is not moral, since although more people are happy, one person was ruined without receiving fair representation. Rachels would claim that they should receive a just trial, and be prosecuted according to the law. Another example is if there is a person who has hidden cameras in the washroom, utilitarianism would claim that this is morally right, due to the fact that he didn't cause anybody unhappiness, and increased the happiness of himself. Rachels would deny this, and claim that his actions were immoral.

Rachels also attacks the Utilitarianist argument that everybody is equal, and your own happiness is no more important than anybody else's. He claims that this is completely impractical, as one can usually increase the happiness of somebody else whenever they buy something. For example, if one has $20 that they can either spend on new shoes, or they can donate it to help the poor, obviously donating it will help more people, but is it reasonable to sacrifice the happiness of yourself and your loved ones in order to help complete strangers? Rachels would claim that it is not.

Other often cited criticisms of utilitarianism are that the philosophy doesn't take into account a person's intention. Did a person that took an action intending to maximize happiness do something immoral if the action ends up decreasing happiness? If four people need an organ transplant to live, would it be a moral act to kill one person against his will and transplant his organs into those people so that they will live? If Utilitarianism states that any action that maximizes happiness is good, then killing one person against his will in order to save others would be a moral act.


text:
Talk:Cogley Wood

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cogley Wood. 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/20060813070641/http://www.english-nature.org.uk:80/ to http://www.english-nature.org.uk

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cogley Wood


text:
Talk:Dielectric strength

Untitled
In the table, what are the electrode sizes?. We need this info to make real sense of he figures.--Light current 02:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it clear that there should be a difference - whether discussing a pure material substance or a configuration of materials and electrodes - between: the maximum electric field strength that it can withstand without breakdown; and the minimum electric field that does produce breakdown? Can someone clarify whether there is a deliberate purpose in using these two different ways to expression the concept of a threshold value (of the field), when giving the two different meanings of dielectric strength. Or is this different way of expressing it purely incidental? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is a difference between the electric field that produces discharge instantaneously upon application and the electric field that will eventually produce a discharge; the latter should be smaller. Probably the latter is the maximum electric field strength that does not produce breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Major issues with values (AC vs DC, thickness dependence, etc.)
The table with values of dielectric strength does not specify if it is AC or DC voltage, niether the thickness of the sample. Typically there can be a factor of 4 difference between AC and DC for solid materials, with DC resulting in the highest value. For gases there is normally no difference between AC and DC if you take the "peak" AC voltage, but the most common case is to list the rms value, hence making the AC/DC distinction important also here. Looking at the table Air is listed as 3 kV/mm, which is a DC or peak-AC value at standard athomspheric conditions, while the rms value is about 2.1 kV/mm. However for many of the other materials it seems that AC-rms values are used based on the sources and other literature values.

Another major issue is that the kV/mm (same as MV/m) value is dependent on sample thickness for solid materials. For example thin plastic films such as used in capactitors etc. can handle up to 300 kV/mm, while if exactly the same material and grade is made into a thick plate of a few mm, such as used in high voltage cables, it can only handle some 20 kV/mm. For solid materials the dielectric strength in kV/mm is typically inversely proportional to the square root of the thickness. The cause for this is still ongoing research involving space charges etc. For gases the gap distance and pressure works into the Paschen law in how it affects the dielectric strength, hence very different compared to solid materials.

I therefore suggest that the table should only list AC-rms values (unless otherwise specified) as this is what ASTM D-149 and similar european standards specify. The table should also list values for 1 mm thick samples, or at least a recalculated eqvivilent for 1 mm thickness, with the original value as a comment. Without accounting for these aspects its impossible to compare materials. EV1TE (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dielectric strength of air
The link given for this value takes you to a personal site about uh "alternative physics" for lack of a better term. Looks legitimate at first, but if you poke around long enough you'll see what I mean. The length of air sparks is an important way for early scientists to measure high voltages, I think we need a better source here! Also, I agree with below, would also expect the value to be lower at higher humidities.-Grant   —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A 3MV/m (or 3KV/mm) doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems that the humidity of the air is a major parameter for this value. Is 3KV/mm supposed to be in dry air? What about 40%, 50% and 60% humidity levels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Units not correct? (at least with some values for dielectric strength)
The wikipedia page for fused silica gives a DS of 4.7-6.7MV/cm, that translates into 47-57MV/m! Also for (virginal) Teflon (PTFE) the dielectric strength should be on the order of 20MV/m...(at least approximately). As I write these lines it appears to me, that with respect to PTFE a differentiation between virginal and other grades would be useful, because the DS depends strongly on the exact material composition and the production process...

composition and production process do make a difference, but it would be impractical to list all of those in detail as there are too many possibilities. instead the table is more of a general guide for the values of the materials that are commonly produced. Hrneo (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right values must be revised fused silica is 400kv/cm others seem to be wrong too —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What's with thin film SiO2 being quoted as having an "exceptionally strong" dielectric strength of .1MV/m, less than the bulk??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected some of the values for this from the references provided, but it should be further improved as it depends on temperature and frequency and the values are for different temperatures and frequencies. this table needs to be re-written from a good reference book. for now i will leave a "please check" on the whole table Hrneo (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected some values using this page, which is a copy of reference #2.

Also, i removed the entry for SiO2 in semiconductors since thin films are a special case that is discussed in the previous paragraph. Hrneo (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Alumina can be 1,100 MV/m rather than 13.4. Ywaz (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There really is some confusion with the table. The value for Helium is the relative difference to the dieelectric strength of Nitrogen, i.e. has no unit since it is a fraction. Tables of these ratios can be found across the internet and are quite common. The "corrected" value for air is the absolute value of the dielectric strength given in some sources for standard conditions 20°C, 50%r.h., 1013 hPa (Depending on the source values range from about 2.5kV/mm to 3kV/mm). I don't know the values for the remaining tbale, i.e. I don't know if there is a further mix-up of absolute values and ratios relative to nitrogen. Someone with enough time and expertise should go through the table and make it at least consistent. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with table sort
In the table, the column labeled "Dielectric Strength (MV/m)" does not sort correctly because the number specified in ntsh are not correct in some cases. – droll  [chat]  20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still a problem in 2018. ... adjusted the ntsh values and added one to fix. - Rod57 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What does this mean ?
"the maximum electric stress the dielectric material can withstand without breakdown".

Does 'electric stress' mean the same thing as 'electric field strength' ? If so why is this given as a separate definition ? If not, what does it mean ? And how does the meaning of 'electric field strength' differ from 'electric field' (1st 2 definitions) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Good point. "Electric stress" and "electrical field" are synonymous when discussing dielectric breakdown under DC and low-frequency AC excitation. In the first definition, "electrical field strength" should be changed to "electric field" to improve accuracy. The first definition is more of a physics definition ("intrinsic dielectric strength") for pure materials under ideal conditions. The second definition is a more practical definition from an engineering, material standards, and testing perspective that defines specific repeatable/standardized electrode materials, electrode shape, separation distance, applied voltage/waveform and other pertinent conditions. The combination of the first two definitions makes the third definition redundant. I've changed the article to reflect this. BTW, in the industry, electrical stress testing often combines electrical stress with other stressing factors, such as thermal, humidity, temperature cycling, etc. to insure that a dielectric will perform under expected worse-case environmental conditions.Bert (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

AC measurements and rms values
Another aspect that is not mentioned in the article is that the dielectric strength is most often measured using AC, and the noted breakdown values are in MV/m rms. This is at least true for solid materials measured according to ASTM D 149 and IEC 60243-1, I am not sure about the values for the gases since they are sometimes measured using DC and would therefore not be comparable. It would be good if someone could confirm this and add something to the article, otherwise the values might be off by up to 41 % depending on what you use them for. EV1TE (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Dead links
I found that the reference for high vacuum dielectric strength (num [9]) corresponds to a broken link. The only other source I could find is a researchgate answered question giving a rough value of 200 kV/cm (https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_dielectric_strength_of_vacuum), but I dont think this can be used as a reference.

Mechanism and prediction
Is the breakdown mechanism always/usually avalanche breakdown ? and can it be predicted eg from bandgap and/or other characteristics of the material ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Schwinger limit
The Schwinger limit is a field-strength value, but is not relevant here. Also the editor associated with that had seeded other pages with nonsense in the same timeframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583741154&title=Dielectric_strength <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

What is dielectric film?
The article uses the term "dielectric film" twice and claims they have properties that seem counterintuitive. Is "dielectric film" a special form or type of material? In the world of dielectric strength do researchers make a distinction between a cube of material, a sheet of the same material, a "film" of that material, and is there a name for when that material is tens or even ones of atoms thick or is it still regarded as a "film?"

For example, the article says "Dielectric films tend to exhibit greater dielectric strength than thicker samples of the same material" without additional explanation other than "the dielectric strength of silicon dioxide films of thickness around 1 μm is about 0.5 GV/m. However very thin layers (below, say, 100 nm) become partially conductive because of electron tunneling."

That "explanation" is confusing. While it says the normal dielectric strength of silicon dioxide film is about 0.5 GV/m it does not say what the dielectric strength of much thinner sample of silicon dioxide is. It does say that a much thinner sample is "partially conductive." Is the thicker sample of silicon dioxide more or less conductive than a thin sample? The reader is not informed. It's like saying apples are a good food because of oranges.

The article also has that the dielectric strength of a material "decreases with increased sample thickness". There is no explanation of why that is the case. The article should better explain that while the dielectric strength of an insulator may be falling as more of that material is added to a sample that it falls at a lower rate than the increase in breakdown voltage resulting from having more material. A thicker insulator will insulate better than a thin one of the same material even though that thicker material may have a lower volts per meter of material dielectric strength value. --Marc Kupper|talk 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dielectric strength


text:
Jacques Gréber

Jacques-Henri-Auguste Gréber (10 September 1882 – 5 June 1962) was a French architect specializing in landscape architecture and urban design. He was a strong proponent of the Beaux-Arts style and a contributor to the City Beautiful movement, particularly in Philadelphia and Ottawa.

Early life and education
Gréber was born in Paris, the son of sculptor Henri-Léon Gréber, and attended the École des Beaux-Arts in that city. He was a fine student and won several prizes during his training at the École.

Career
Following graduation in 1908, he left for the United States, where American architects who had trained at the École hired him to help design French gardens for the large houses they built in New England. He designed many private gardens in the U.S. These include Harbor Hill (1910) in Roslyn on Long Island, New York for Clarence Mackay with architects McKim, Mead & White); and at Lynnewood Hall (1913) in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania for Peter A. B. Widener (with architect Horace Trumbauer.

His greatest private commission was for investment banker Edward T. Stotesbury at Whitemarsh Hall (1916–1921) in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania (also with Trumbauer). There he created the unsurpassed American example of a French classical garden in the grand manner of André Le Nôtre.

As his reputation as a landscape architect began to spread, Gréber won his first public commission for the Fairmount Parkway (now Benjamin Franklin Parkway) in Philadelphia. While completing the parkway, he was also commissioned by the French government to make a systematic study of American construction practice. This would form the basis for his influential book Architecture in the United States (L'Architecture aux États -Unis)

He returned to France in 1919, where he secured a reputation as one of France's leading urban designers. Gréber was appointed to the faculty of the Institute of Urbanism in Paris and was active in the reconstruction and expansion plans of a number of French cities in the interwar period.

World War II
During World War II, Gréber remained in Vichy France and became president of the French Society of Urbanists (Société française des urbanistes). As a designated spokesperson for the cause of urbanism in France, he contributed to a collection of essays in which he lauded the Vichy government for providing an orderly national planning program and centralized planning institutions. He was a prominent member of the urban planning hierarchy that oversaw the urban renewal projects of the Vichy government, and was appointed as Inspector General for Urbanism (inspecteur générale de l'urbanisme) in Northern France, a position requiring the consent of the Nazi Oberfeldkommandantur.

Postwar Activities
Following the war, Gréber was invited by Prime Minister of Canada William Lyon Mackenzie King to return to Ottawa and continue his work on a master plan for the city and surrounding region that he had started from 1937 to 1939. This would culminate in the General Report on the Plan for the National Capital (1946–1950) or Greber Plan that would reshape the city in the postwar era.

Major works
Gréber is best known for the 1917 master plan for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia; for his work as master architect for the 1937 Paris International Exposition; and for the Greber Plan for Ottawa and the surrounding National Capital Region. The latter, produced between 1937 and 1950 (with an interruption during the Second World War), included expansion of urban parks, a series of parkways, and a greenbelt surrounding the city. The plan incorporated the construction of a national cenotaph and surrounding plaza area.

In anticipation of the 1926 sesquicentennial of the Declaration of Independence, Gréber created a plan for a mall north of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. This included a "Great Marble Court" surrounded on 3 sides by arcades (with each arch representing a U. S. state) and a pavilion at its center to house the Liberty Bell. It was not carried out; Independence Mall was created in the 1950s under a different plan. He also collaborated with fellow French-American architect Paul Cret on Philadelphia's Rodin Museum in 1926. He was not always popular with the press: a Philadelphia newspaper dubbed him "Jack Grabber".

In France, between the world wars, Gréber worked on urban plans in Lille, Belfort, Marseille (1930), Abbeville, and Rouen, Neuilly, Montrouge, among others. But he is not as well-known today in France as he is in North America.

title: Jacques Gréber


text:
User:VanishedUser 390318

Mostly inactive now. For general information, see my Wikipedia en user page.

Subpages

 * /Pages: a list of pages that I've significantly modified in some way
 * /Installing Fedora Core: a specialized Wikibook in the vein of Installing Linux
 * /Zope: a temporary location for Zope until VfD goes through now at Zope

title: User:VanishedUser 390318


text:
Talk:Reality/Archive 3

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

"The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real."-- but what if things within a fiction possess elements that lend them an independent existence. or if people within fictions have a nervous system-- then if the lives of those independent persons correspond with those of others, then the things that happen to them are real, as opposed to false-- if reality is the sum of real things, excluding only those things that are unreal, then reality must include the reality of those things, persons, places, as well-- then those things are also 'real', but it is not immediately clear to what extent, or in what way, or if the measure of their reality, or if compared to other real things they are as real or real in the same or a comparable way. if the real persons of a universe engage the universe through certain physical processes, processes that define their existence, then they are real in this way. but if other persons engage the universe by some other form, they are defined as being real in that way. but both fall within the broad category of 'reality'. (but though they both fall within the category of reality, it is not immediately reasonable for us to rush to the conclusion that they are in all ways equivalent, or equal, or alike, or identical, or these related terms). -- 0101010

Quantum mechanics again:
"Furthermore, the limit cases at each end are also unattainable: we cannot get a precise measurement of either property[position/momentum], for the principle demands that each such measurement would have to indeterminately alter the other."

a precise measurement of momentum which indeterminately alters position - using an infintely long wavelenght photon, adds zero energy and defines the position of the measured particle to within that infinite wavelenght (which is equivalent to a 'indeterminately alter the other') this is physically impossible because a photon with an infinitely long wavelenght is a mathematical construction and not a physical reality - however this is the reason the limit cases are unattainable, (infinitely short wavelenght in the other case) not the fact that such a measurement cause an indetermincy, but because that measurement in principle is un-physical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"New to this. Just wanted to add that it looks like the QM section needs some major edits. It is not clearly articulated how QM is really relevant to the rest of the articles and there are several statements that are either vague or incorrect. Not sure how these things get edited but this section needs reviewing for sure."--Forreswiki (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What reality might not be
Can someone please edit this section and put references, or just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should be self-referencing Wikipedia!
You can forget this entire article and just add this. Anaïs Nin: "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." I have lived these words since first reading them in my teens, and they still hold true today. Whether it be anything from personal interactions to global international politics, the way people behave in the goodness they do or the threats they perceive, it all boils down to what they "think".

But this article smacks of rhetorical nonsense. Much of it seems to be a synergistic effort in writing an academic prose, with referencing. Sadly though, it also demonstrates that those writing this article should be the last people editing this article as it reflects the "reality" of Wikipedia. I lament the Wikipedia's golden years (circa 2003-2006) where policies were mere guidelines and people did the job for the love of it. And the phrase "be bold" didn't mean start an edit conflict with a pedantic rules lawyer.

My reality? This site now lives up to the final few pages in Animal Farm when the law "All animals are equal" has eventually became "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Other's will obviously have an entirely different reality of why they spend so much time doing so much work for free. Reality is our psychological make up but it is not because "that's what I say it is".

The statement "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be" is therefore wrong. Reality is whatever the spectrum of human thought can muster. Using Wikipedia as the example.

The top people i.e. senior editors think Wikipedia is wonderful, and dismiss all criticisms. Other people, me for example, think Wikipedia has become nothing short of a totalitarian state where laws have replaced free will, imagination and genuine love for making interesting, readable articles.

Using this analogy how can reality therefore be "the state of things as they actually exist" as clearly there is a dichotomy between the two statements above! One statement therefore denies that my reality exists. This article is therefore the reality/interpretation of the question by people using their own judgements/realities. It is a circular problem that is not answered here! <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 * How would you improve the article? This is too much generalization.  You want something deleted, re-written, added?  If all that post-modernist stuff is what you believe, fine, but it's not helping improve the article.  Chrisrus (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Truth
When I was about 30, I found that if I asked people "What is Truth?" I got back a lot of confused drivel like that in the same named § in this article. Truth is a concept. It is the concept exemplified in the situation where I tell you that there is a dime in my closed fist and there is in fact a dime there. It is the abstraction from all such correspondences of representation with reality, thus truth and reality are essentially the same concept (except where reality is taken as including not just its intention but also its extension, "the real world"). Tarski and others have given this various rigorous formulations, and a very extensive literature in mathematics (probability theory, fuzzy sets and systems, model theory, etc.) and science deal with the degree of truth and techniques for finding it out, but any rational human being can be expected to at least know what kind of thing Truth is. When the fist is open, the truth, the reality is revealed. Without a grounding in this concept and a general ability to use concepts, man is simply an animal with a (largely wasted) language faculty (since the proper use of said facility involves being able to use concepts in an educated and critical manner). <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Quantum Mechanics Included?
While quantum mechanics is interesting it seem like it is off topic as to what reality is. I would recommend removing it and perhaps replacing it with a discussion of the scientific method and ways in which we determine what reality is. How we determine what it real and what isn't real. What is a scientific theory? What is proof? Keep the focus on reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcperkel (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * it is inappropriate for different reasons: quantum mechanics does not say definitively there is no determinism. see Determinism. There may be reasons to be in favor of non-determinism, but the reasons given certainly aren't them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I removed the section on determinism, the explanation given was incorrect, and a much better article exists on it. Quantum mechanics is relevant to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Reyobem, 3 March 2011
Please change "being" in the first paragraph to "been" because "being" is grammatically incorrect. It can, however, still link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being". Thank you.

Reyobem (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

REFERENCES ON REALITY
The entry is well-written by too consise for such a fundamental topic. It is necessary to add references like as: Reality, Universal Ontology and Knowledge Systems: —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Kuhn
The edit on Kuhn is not very clear. While it is natural to think about the nature of reality when reading Structures, it is not certain without citing page numbers from the book that he ever overtly discussed reality, and I read it so long ago I don't remember. If there is not overt discussion, the edit is highly synth, but I have no objection to it on this ground, and would object to removing the mention of Kuhn WP:Common sense grounds. A more clear exposition as to how a paradigm shift is related to a "reality shift" would be helpful, if there are any Kuhn scholars reading this. PPdd (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist and Hindu conceptions
There is much about reality in Buddhism and Hinduism. Are there any non-analytic philospopher/editors around to help write a section on this? PPdd (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothingness
Section on relation to nothingness is needed. PPdd (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead first and second sentence; time and space section
The lead first and second sentence violate MOS consitency. The reason is that the Oxford definition, one of many related to time, is inconsistent with other meanings. Each should be encyclopedically expanded. I created a time and space section with other uses typically found in common or technical meanings. I can source them all with various dictionary defs, but better sources would be desireable. Does anyone have any RS at hand for the the various different, but related, meanings? PPdd (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Careful here. Wikipedia is not a usage guide.Rememberway (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I meant soemthing bigger than "meaning". I modified this above. PPdd (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Realism section is needed
A realism section is needed. PPdd (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal re WP:Synth, Lead, topics, and article evolution
This article topic is so broad, and has been written about so much, it is suggested that editors put in any reasonable thoughts (to get thoughts, break out your undergrad philosophy books, look in the index for "reality", and add content from the relevant textbook sections), then later add RS, then pare down the article later still. It is also suggested that topic sections be started, but leave the lead alone until the article has evolved to a better sourced and organized state, whence the lead can be written consistent with the article body. Ideas for topic sections can be brought up on the talk page. PPdd (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Native American conceptions
a Native American conceptions of reality section is needed. PPdd (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreamtime section needed
A Dreamtime section is needed. PPdd (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start needed
Since the article is now unprotected, and since it is hardly worthy of being called "start class" I intend to boldly revise the whole thing. First, archive most of this page. 1Z (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See also section
The links in the see also section seem excessive to me. TimBentley (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Krakajakmak, 1 August 2011
Reality has become commodity.

Krakajakmak (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start needed
Since the article is now unprotected, and since it is hardly worthy of being called "start class" I intend to boldly revise the whole thing. First, archive most of this page. 1Z (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some material has been deleted because it was of poor quality.

The subsection on axioms was unreferenced, and not in line with the main page axiom. This material should not feature in the article unless it rewritten to be verifiably relevant to reality.

I also couldn't find any references to support the existence of such a concept as "phenomenological reality". If this section cannot be referenced, it should be deleted as WP:OR.

16:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition
The definition Reality is the state of things as they actually exist just begs the question "How do things actually exist?" Another problem is that by this definition, realism is impossible to disprove and therefore scientifically meaningless. In one sense, the mind is part of reality, but the article is all about belief vs reality. I would suggest, "Reality is that which exists independently of belief and before experimental observation." Kauffner (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC) But belief is a thing which exists in reality  — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo
Within the time and space section, this typo appears: "betranscedentally ideal" should be "be transcendentally ideal" <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I searched for it, i think its fixed.Beefcake6412 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Truth vs. Fact §
Agree with the tagging, considered deleting the entire section. The quote attributed to Dick for example, I don't believe is original to him and if it were it would be inappropriate. "Truth", "Fact", and "Reality" are words corresponding to similar but distinct English concepts and this section is erroneous from the jump in opposing "Truth vs. Fact" a simple minded perspective which then plays itself out in the text of the § Suggest it be pulled to this talk space to be reworked or just deleted. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Also I redacted the lede per the tagging. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 20 November 2011
Reality is a commodity. -Robert Colbert

Adjacient (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. → Σ  τ  c . 00:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 * They want to put the phrase "Reality has become a commodity" in the article. This should explain it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011
<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Reality has become a commodity
 * Not a request-- Jac 16888 Talk 01:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2011
Reality Has become A Commodity

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌-- Jac 16888 Talk 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Levels of reality
In the Frege-Church ontology, there is an object, the name of the object, and the concept of the object. Using the Oxford definition in the lede, the object would be in reality and the concept would not (assuming a concept has existence in the mind or in some Platonic space). The concept itself has a concept, and is thus more real than the concept of the concept. And so on. Do any editors know a good reference regarding this notion of "levels of reality" or others? Similarly for "planes of reality". PPdd (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(Subjectivity and mysticism) Walmarks OR Amputation
I believe the upshot of the editor's comment below in starting this section is to find reliable sources for, and then include, information on the possible subjectivity of reality based on arguments about subjectivity of truth. Also to include material re mysticism with sources. PPdd (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC) When I was about thirty, a fundamental realization of how complete the failure of education is was made clear when I found that the average person could not process the question "What is truth?". Like a recent survey that posed a moral/ethical dilemma to a mass American sample, the ignorant respondents can't even understand the question, it's beyond their education/understanding to reply something simple and straightforward such as "truth is a concept, the concept of information corresponding to reality" or some such. The section which long stood, and reflects such an intellectual level essentially placed this level of thinking at the top of this article where the complaints above mounted but nothing was done until the action I just took. It will be easy for a person with a modicum of education in philosophy, mathematics, etc. to put something there reflecting the minimum standards of education which need to be enforced in wiki for an article like this. Works of Tarski, Frege, Quine, etc. are especially relevant, but a statement that truth is what ever anybody happens to think it is, that there's no common clearly expressible core meaning as expressed in learned human culture, that truth is on a par with mysticism and evocative impressions of sunrises on VA beach, wasn't going to stand and I'm happy to be the one to do the honors. Lycurgus (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What "recent survey" are you referring to? PPdd (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To include "a statement that... truth is... what ever anybody happens to think it is", which I interpret to mean a statement on subjectivity of truth, and thus of what is called reality. All that is needed to include such as statement in the article is to find it in a reliable and verifiable source. Do a google scholar search and you will likely find many such sources on the subjectivigy of truth in the philosphy of logic literature, or in literature on objectivity in general. There is likely also material on this in in the perception literature in psychology. PPdd (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard it on NPR (the survey where the respondents couldn't capice a "moral dilemma") within last 90 days. No the above is not about subjectivity vs. its other. It's about the former "Truth vs. Fact" § Also, it's more the case I think that it just slid into its final state, dying a death of 1000 cuts until I put it out of its misery and as the article moved to a mature state, rather than a result of concerted personal effort as my rant would seem to indicate. A typical kind of progression for an article. That Reality is or isn't objectively perceived, that Subjectivity doesn't get treatment worthy the erudition of say, J. P. Sartre, isn't what I'm referring to and think I was fairly clear. It's not an admonition for/against future action, the article is naturally moving to reflect supporting cultural norms and doesn't need that from me. It's an explanation of action taken. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken Wilbers AQAL theory
I do not understand why Ken Wilber's work on reality is not cited in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wilber is one author among thousands. Unless this article were to cover all authors who have written on reality, covering Wilber's theory would violate WP:UNDUE. — goethean ॐ 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 * There is a great deal missing from the article, and a certain amount that should not be there. A section on New Age perspectives might be appropriate. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the page being vandalised ?
Surely the vandalism that's evident here is contrary to the spirit in which Wikipedia normally operates and was intended to operate. Can someone please fix this and lock the page down until those involved can grow up and or go away? I want to read what is written about reality - not one persons dull single opinion that reality is metaphorically a commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou - quick fix - is it locked down now?

The perception of reality is a commodity, ask anybody in PR or any political spin doctor. Oh and Colbert is anything but dull — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible source of the vandalism: Stephen Colbert, on his comedy show The Colbert Report, when discussing the term Wikilobbying, offered $5 bucks to the first person who would change the entry on Reality to 'reality is a commodity'. Reference: Youtube Video - Colbert Vs. Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
I was reading this article and noticed a point on style that needed some attention; in the introduction material, the author does make use of a certain negative phrase to refer to fiction when the author connotes that "Fictions are not considered real" when a more appropriate positive expression is available for changing the tone of the article which includes the mode "Fictions are considered not real". I hope this alteration is considered in the same spirit with which I bring to reading this article, and is so considered carefully and thoughtfully with others' best interest in mind. Thank you.

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Reality is a construction":
this oft-cited phrase from [is from Sigfried] Kracauer's study Die Angestellten

Kracauer, Sigfried. "Translator's Note," The Mass Ornament. Harvard University Press: Cambridge:1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Distinction between what now?
The lead section says (and has said for over a year) that various people "have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions, and that which cannot even be rationally thought." Is that supposed to be three separate things or just two (I assume the latter), with the phrase "coherent abstractions" modifying the phrase "thought corresponding to reality"? I guess I don't understand what "coherent abstractions" is supposed to mean (and/or why it's necessary) in that sentence. Can someone clarify? (Just leave aside the whole "[thought] which cannot even be rationally thought" thing...) - dcljr (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A coherent abstraction would be something like "gold mountain" whereas an incoherent one would be something like "square triangle". 1Z (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So.... does that mean it's 3 separate things, or just 2? I still can't tell. (And BTW, I meant clarify this in the lead itself, not just here on the talk page. [g] I have now marked the text with clarify span to encourage someone to change it.) - dcljr (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's three things: thoughts of real things (like New York City), thoughts of things that are plausible (or at least imaginable) but false (like flying pigs), and that which can not be imagined or thought (like the fourth dimension, maybe?). I'm no philosopher, and small wording changes can be important in topics like this, so I hesitate to change anything, but I think I at least understand what is meant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etothei (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case the current final sentence of the 1st ¶ is entirely redundant with the previous sentence. Looks stupid, claims diff wo distinction. Not doing anything about though, enough of the lede is my composition already. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)

The Axiom axiom?
I hope no-one states anything about anything, as fact. I like JP-Sartre's work, but the fact that he is a published author, and famous because of that 'truth', doesn't make his views ANY more correct/valid/truthful than anyone else's. I might wake up, and discover all 'this' to have been a dream, but I'll play along with it, just in case it isn't.  I think maths it based on the axiom: The differnce between ZERO and ONE, is equal to the difference between ONE and TWO. This is self-evidently false, the former is infinite, the latter is only an increase by the magnitude of TWO. I see a big schism here. But what does it matter? I like this article, but remember that empiriscism doesn't grow on trees, it's just a relativly useful tool, invented by you/me/us/bee! Prying open my third eye (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_(mathematics)<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggest link to quantum decoherence
The section "Role of the observer in quantum mechanics" covers several early viewpoints, but neglects a lot of work from the past 30 years, in particular quantum decoherence and the understanding that apparent wave-function collapse is a consequence of systems ceasing to be closed. The quantum decoherence article already covers these ideas in depth; it would be useful to link there. Concretely, I suggest, at the end of the section, paraphrasing a sentence from that article's lead paragraph:

"In more recent work, quantum decoherence is understood to give the appearance of wave function collapse."

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014
reality has become a commodity

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014
According to Stephen Colbert, "reality has become a commodity".

Lego423 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request re: "Conjectured"
Why is the word "conjectured" used in the lede? Whether or not a particular observation of "the state of things as they actually exist" is "correct" or not, the concept of "reality" denotes the "state of things as they actually exist" in the objective sense, viz. independent from subjective reasoning or conjecture. The word "conjectured" seems highly problematic in this context, as it immediately muddies the definition at best, and renders it factually incorrect at worst. But perhaps I've misinterpreted the implication. If someone could provide a brief explanation, I'd be greatly appreciative.

Regardless, this wikipedia article is the only major reference/resource that interpolates "conjectured" (or any synonymous term) into the long-accepted definition of reality. Are these other resources omitting a critical term, or is wikipedia's definition meant to be conceptually distinct from any and all other definitions?

Oxford English Dictionary: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/reality

Cambridge English Dictionary: "the actual state of things, or the facts involved in such a state" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reality

Merriam-Webster: "the quality or state of being real" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality

Dictionary.com: "the state or quality of being real." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality

Encyclopedia.com: "In everyday usage, reality refers to the universe that exists independent of our thoughts. Dreams or delusions, which we experience when we are asleep or are otherwise not in full possession of our senses, are examples of the non real." ICHH 16 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015
Excise the word "conjectured" from the article's lede. I.e., change: "Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." to "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."

My primary justification for this request is that the provided source [ref 1] for the sentence in question, the OED, does not include the word "conjectured" or any synonymous terms. From the in-article citation: "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." The word "conjectured" (which fundamentally alters the definition) seems to have been an invention of the contributor who initially interpolated in. The use of the word, in the context of definitions of reality, has absolutely no precedent that I'm aware of. A thorough Google search of the partial-phrase "reality is the conjectured state" turns up only one unique (i.e., not derived from this article) academic/educational/reference result: a non-fiction book by Simon Elias Bibri titled "The Shaping of Ambient Intelligence and the Internet of Things," which discusses reality in the context of computer sciences, and not in the general sense.

Beyond the discrepancy with its own citation, the word "conjectured" fundamentally alters the definition. Whether or not a particular observation of "the state of things as they actually exist" is "correct" or not, the concept of "reality" denotes the "state of things as they actually exist" in the objective sense, viz. independent from subjective reasoning or conjecture. The word "conjectured" is problematic in this context, as it immediately muddies the definition at best, and renders it factually incorrect at worst.

This wikipedia article is the only major reference/resource that interpolates "conjectured" (or any synonymous term) into the long-accepted definition of reality. Are these other resources omitting a critical term, or is wikipedia's definition meant to be conceptually distinct from any and all other definitions?

Oxford English Dictionary: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/reality

Cambridge English Dictionary: "the actual state of things, or the facts involved in such a state" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reality

Merriam-Webster: "the quality or state of being real" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality

Dictionary.com: "the state or quality of being real." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality

Encyclopedia.com: "In everyday usage, reality refers to the universe that exists independent of our thoughts. Dreams or delusions, which we experience when we are asleep or are otherwise not in full possession of our senses, are examples of the non real."

Thank you for your time.

ICHH 16 (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes check.svg Done I've gone ahead and removed the word "conjectured" from the lede sentence. I agree that it doesn't align well with the dictionary definition cited in that sentence, and having "conjectured" there doesn't improve the sentence in any way. If any editor disagrees with this change, I am open to a discussion on the subject; just ping me., thanks for pointing this out! /wia 🎄 /tlk  12:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This is all nonsense.
Ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:100:2700:444C:5647:EA52:960A (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Just this sentence...
"The most used and studied scientific theories today state more or less the truth."

Huge assumption. I'm sure the Greeks thought the same. And the Medieval times, and the Industrial Era etc. etc.

Might want to get rid of it. The theories are just really useful for making the world do what we want it to do, so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Reality includes the universe
Reality includes the universe, which is scientific speak for the reality (and not some philosophical reality). There is also the real time meaning of reality, meaning what exists in this moment only, such that past things do not exist currently but their effects remain. -Inowen (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - New Section
Reality in Advaita Vedanta

Ramana Maharshi once stated a central aspect of Advaita Vedanta:

"What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging."

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is reality restricted to the physical here?
There is an odd physicalist presumption going on in this article. Presumably, mathematical Platonists would disagree. As would substance dualists. As would theists. As would anyone who believes that any abstracta are real. This article strongly begs the question for one position on this philosophical matter. Jonathanjong (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree. The first sentence is actually horribly written. It could simply say that reality is the name given to what is considered to exist. Beyond that, we would have to go into specific ontological positions. Sometimeswrong (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 * "Reality" is not restricted to the physical. Reality (without quotes) is. I don't understand any of what you said above, it looked like a lot of mumbo jumbo. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I actually agree with them. Reality should be synonymous with existence or being. If it can be shown that something is not physical but still existing, then that would be reality.

 * I also don't like including "all" in the definition. REALity is the state of being real. The article makes a mention of smaller "realities." No, you can say the desk is reality. When I say a speech was laced with profanity, I do not mean they mentioned all things profane. -ity does not necessarily imply all, although it does mean all, it doesn't always reference all when applied.

 * With that being said, I think the editor is very intelligent. I just don't agree with this edit. RyanDanielst (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018
Change the 'imaginary' hyperlink to the Wikipedia page for imagination rather than the Wiktionary article for imaginary <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Linked to the page Object of the mind. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  04:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Deactivate template since actioned the request.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

An interesting observation
Because of an edit on this page in mid-September, about 90% of all pages have been cut off from Philosophy. Now, people are stuck between Reality and Existence. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

reality is a comodity?
who came up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

referenced Phenomenological reality
Added PhilPapers reference, "Present-time", to lead sentence...please check it out.Arnlodg (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

More reification content is needed
More reification content is needed. PPdd (talk)

What is the justification for the ontological status of this page?
Why does this page exist? Shouldn't it just redirect to ontology? I mean "Reality is the topic studied by ontology." or "See: Ontology?" To have two pages which cover the philosophical study of reality, which this page also does, is dumb. Also the first-link tree of this is a cycle meaning that it is a stranded definition based on circular topics. I think this is sophomoric philosophical speculation, the opening paragraph has a materialist bent which is mentioned in another comment and recommend this page be a redirection or deleted.

 * Ontology studies being more than reality, the Ontology page deals almost exclusively with being, I found this page far more relevant to what I was searching for. - <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Religious bias in the article
Almost all of the religions in the world consist of their own metaphysical theories, but the article only includes a section on only Jainism, without any apparent reason for leaving out the theories of other religions. Besides that, Jain tattva (aspects of reality in Jainism) is a metaphysical theory, and its relation to "reality" is signified well enough by referencing metaphysics in the article. Should that section be removed? Ambuj Shukla (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Consider migrating it to a separate article, leaving a link and short summary, then doing the same for other religions. SkynetPR (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of philosophical aspects about "reality" lacks a universal scope
The article only covers philosophical aspects of reality with respect to Western philosophy. All other philosophical thoughts, such as East Asian philosophy and Middle Eastern philosophy, have been completely ignored. Ambuj Shukla (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Consider making a start on your own. Leave a section, and let it grow as people work on it. SkynetPR (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion?
The article contains no references in its main sections. Other third-party sources in Philosophy go straight to Realism etc where we also have articles. The whole thing reads like a slightly esoteric take and seems to be a fork. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion or simply remove all unreferenced material (in which case it will be a stub). -Snowded TALK 06:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reality/Archive 3


text:
Clara Barton, New Jersey

Clara Barton is an unincorporated community located within Edison Township in Middlesex County, in the U.S. state of New Jersey. It takes its name from Clara Barton.

Located in the eastern part of the sprawling township, Clara Barton is more urban in its density and has a small central business district on Amboy Avenue. The "village-like" section of it is separated from the township's bustling highways and stretches of retail and is home to one of the township's three public libraries. The Middlesex Greenway runs along the neighborhood's southern boundary.

title: Clara Barton, New Jersey


text:
User:KlarisaBun/sandbox

Laura Dunn (born Laura Ann Jones) is an American television presenter, a  producer and an actress. She is best known for playing for 14 years, the role of Jack's wife "Cricket Box", in the "Jack in the Box" series of commercials.

Life
Dunn was born, the youngest of three children, in Evanston, Illinois to Arlene Judith Jones and John Francis Jones. She attended the University of California Los Angeles and married Steven B. Dunn, American entrepreneur, founder and CEO of Munchkin Inc. Laura and Steven have two children: Beau Dunn, actress and model; and Steven Winston Dunn.

Dunn is the creator of the lifestyle blog Fabulous365 and an editor for Genlux Magazine. She is currently the Luxury Travel correspondent for The Jet Set television show and fashion editor for Genlux Magazine in Beverly Hills. She also appeared in films, including Disney’s Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves.

title: User:KlarisaBun/sandbox


text:
Portal:Mathematics/Featured

This page is for keeping track of featured content on Portal:Mathematics. If you change/update content in the portal, please be sure that the record of past content is updated here.

Featured learning resource
Exercises at Introduction to differentiation lead participants through calculations of compound interest that introduce Euler's number (2.7182818284...) and derivatives of functions.

Selected image
Bessel functions arise in many mathematical models such as those for vibrating surfaces.

When mathematically analyzing a vibrating drum the boundary conditions lead to solutions that are harmonic functions. When using cylidrical coordinates, the solutions are sines, cosines or Bessel functions (in the radial direction).

Featured research project
Marin Mersenne's name is widely known because of his interest in prime numbers that are one less than a power of two. Mersenne also did research in the area of the theory of music and musical instruments (see Wikipedia). Participants at Mersenne primes are encouraged to join the distributed computing project that allows the computing power of personal computers to help search for Mersenne prime numbers.

News
"Stephen Smale awarded Wolf Prize in mathematics" by Robert Sanders Stephen Smale, known for his work on Topology, the study of dynamical systems and a list of 18 problems in mathematics to be solved in the 21st century, known as Smale's problems.

Did you know?
The Euler-Lagrange equation of classical mechanics was discovered during attempts to find a curve for which the time taken by a frictionless particle sliding down it under uniform gravity to its lowest point is independent of its starting point.

Quotes
"A man provided with paper, pencil, and rubber, and subject to strict discipline, is in effect a universal Turing Machine." -Alan Turing

Learning projects
Boolean Algebra - College Algebra - Elementary Logic - Finite Arithmetic - Fourier transforms - Fundamentals of Probability, Statistics, Experiments and Data - Interpolation and Extrapolation - Introduction to differentiation - Introduction to Simple Substitution Cypher - Introduction to Likelihood Theory - Introduction to Limits - Limits - Partial derivative - Simple addition flashcards - Study guide:Lie algebra - Synthetic division - The Special Cubic Formula - Vectors - 3D Geometric Algebra and Special Relativity

title: Portal:Mathematics/Featured


text:
Talk:Historical Introduction to Philosophy/General Introduction

"All Rights Reserved"
An image of a cartoon is featured stating "All rights reserved". The GFDL inherently disallows the reserving of all rights. Either the image needs to be removed, or the statement does. The Jade Knight 12:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

pages moved to subspace

 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Descartes Scratch Page
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Hegel scratch page
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Hume Scratch Page
 * Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Nietzsche Scratch Page

these pages seem to have been created as notes for this resource. I have moved them to the locations shown so that they are out of mainspace. I will also remove the "scratch" category from them. These may later be deleted if not needed, but if material is used, it might be better to keep them so contribution history is shown. --Abd 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

language of quote
'Philosophy is the art of the separation among what it is REAL and what is UNREAL'. As this is the author's quote, it would be inappropriate for anyone else to edit it, as then it would be a misquote, so I must point out that the quote is not standard English as I would expect it. Possibly this is intentional, but I am guessing it is not. Pbsouthwood (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


text:
The Worlds of Boris Vallejo

The Worlds of Boris Vallejo is a board game for 2–6 players published by Mayfair Games in 1984 that uses the fantasy-genre artwork of Boris Vallejo.

Gameplay
The Worlds of Boris Vallejo is a strategy board game. Its components are:
 * Thirty world tiles, each featuring a different painting by Boris Vallejo
 * Thirty world reference cards, one for each world tile
 * A deck of cards, made up of characters, scrolls and artifacts, each with a numerical combat strength
 * Plastic pawns

Set-up
One player chooses a world tile and places it on the tabletop. Players then take turns choosing world tiles and placing them so that they touch another tile. This continues until all thirty tiles have been placed. Each player then chooses one of the worlds to be their home tile, places their pawn on the home world tile, and receives the reference card for that tile.

Card draw
Each turn, the active player draws three cards from the deck, and may play up to two cards — a character, and an item that character can use — as defense on a world tile that they control.

Movement
Each turn, the active player can move their pawn one tile. If that tile is uncontrolled, the player now owns it, and receives the reference card for that world. If the world is controlled by another player, combat results.

Combat
The attacking player plays two cards — a character card and either an artifact card or scroll card. The total of the two cards' combat factors is compared to the combat factors of the cards that the defending player previously assigned to the world. Either player can ask other players to aid in the combat by providing one card to be added to either the attacker or defender. Whichever side has the greater sum of combat factors wins the combat.

Victory conditions
The first player to control eight worlds wins the game.

Reception
Matt Williams reviewed Worlds of Boris Vallejo for Imagine magazine, and stated that "as an optimum strategy is discoverable in a handful of games, Worlds needs something extra to justify its price tag. Alas, it does not have it."

In the August 1985 edition of White Dwarf (Issue #68), Paul Mason admired the production values of the world cards, calling them "immaculately printed Boris pictures in glorious colour" although he pointed out that Vallejo's art "is completely incidental to the mechanics of the game." But the rest of the components were not as good — Mason called the cards only "competently produced", and the plastic pawns "the worst kind of plastic rubbish." Mason thought the rules were too similar to Cosmic Encounter, Risk and Talisman, saying, "this is a highly derivative game - its systems all originated in other games, and work better in those games than here." Mason also thought the game would go on far longer than its stated 30-minute playing time, since "an half-comptetent group of players will not allow anyone to win — allying in unison against anyone who gets dangerously close to the crucial eight worlds." He concluded by giving The Worlds of Boris Vallejo an extremely poor overall rating of only 3 out of 10, stating "The game strikes me as a cynical attempt to cash in on the popularity of Boris Vallejo's artwork, which displays a very low opinion of its intended market."

Reviews

 * Games #63 (May 1985)

title: The Worlds of Boris Vallejo


text:
Talk:2015 Team Tinkoff–Saxo season

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Team Tinkoff–Saxo season. 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/20150208192718/http://www.tinkoffsaxo.com/news/tinkoff-saxo-signs-peter-sagan/ to http://www.tinkoffsaxo.com/news/tinkoff-saxo-signs-peter-sagan/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:2015 Team Tinkoff–Saxo season


text:
2015 Campeonato Paulista

The 2015 Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Profissional da Primeira Divisão - Série A1 (officially the 2015 Paulistão Itaipava for sponsorship reasons ) was the 114th season of São Paulo's top professional football league.

Format

 * In the first stage the twenty teams are drawn, with seeding, into four groups of five teams each, with each team playing once against the fifteen clubs from the other three groups. After each team has played fifteen matches, the top two teams of each group qualify for the quarter-final stage.
 * After the completion of the first stage, the four clubs with the lowest number of points, regardless of the group, will be relegated to the Campeonato Paulista Série A2.
 * If all four clubs with the lowest number of points are from the same group, the best third-placed club from the other groups will qualify for the quarter-final stage.

Tiebreakers
The teams are ranked according to points (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 points for a loss). If two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the following criteria are applied to determine the rankings:
 * 1) Higher number of wins;
 * 2) Superior goal difference;
 * 3) Higher number of goals scored;
 * 4) Fewest red cards received;
 * 5) Fewest yellow cards received;
 * 6) Draw in the headquarters of the FPF.

Teams
Source: Futebol Paulista

Bracket
Note: Semifinal bracket depended on the general table: 1 vs 4 ; 2 vs 3

Team of the year
Source Globo Esporte Last updated: 30 April 2015

The Player of the Year was awarded to Ricardo Oliveira.
 * Player of the Season

The Young Player of the Year was awarded to Rafael Longuine.
 * Young Player of the Season

The Countryside Best Player of the Year was awarded to Crislan.
 * Countryside Best Player of the Season

The top scorer of the season was Ricardo Oliveira, who scored 11 goals.
 * Top scorer of the Season

title: 2015 Campeonato Paulista


text:
bongata

Etymology 1
From ; in slang also meaning "to (try to) score points".

Verb

 * 1)  to twitch
 * 2)  to spot to see, find; to pick out, notice, locate or identify

Etymology 2
.

Verb

 * 1) to register, to write up to mark a value or an order

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) quantity

title: bongata


text:
Talk:Folly Farm, Somerset

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folly Farm, Somerset. 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/20090319222214/http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003609.pdf to http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003609.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folly Farm, Somerset. 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://archive.is/20130505134131/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Wildlife-Trust-s-guide-historic-trees-Bristol/story-18287422-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Wildlife-Trust-s-guide-historic-trees-Bristol/story-18287422-detail/story.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Folly Farm, Somerset


text:
Talk:Arthur Günsburg

Untitled section
I believe he was Jewish? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

German Wikipedia entry

 * Here FloridaArmy (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arthur Günsburg


text:
Karakyure

Karakyure (Каракюре; Къара Куьре) is a rural locality (a selo) in Dokuzparinsky District, Republic of Dagestan, Russia. The population was 1,209 as of 2010. There are 6 streets.

Geography
Karakyure is located 8 km east of Usukhchay (the district's administrative centre) by road. Novoye Karakyure and Usukhchay are the nearest rural localities.

Nationalities
Lezgins live there.

title: Karakyure


text:
Talk:Secret in Their Eyes

Orphaned references in Secret in Their Eyes
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Secret in Their Eyes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM": From The Night Before (2015 film):  From The Hunger Games (film):  From The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay to say...
what the hell is this? The plot summary is overly detailed, to say the least. It's not a summary, it's the classic comic book. It's like a play-by-play of a ball game. It's nothing but spoilers. It's like you set out to spoil the entire movie in the most movie-spoiling way possible.

Besides that, the film takes place in two times, the time of the crime and 13 years later; it bounces back and forth. This article tells everything in chronological order, totally missing the point and ruining the movie even more for those who may not have seen it. It misses more, lesser points too; for instance, in the weight room scene, it says "Ray ends up punching Siefert". No, he doesn't "end up" with that; he does punch him but it's not the end, or the climax, of the scene. The point of the scene is that Ray gets some information out of Siefert, first confronts him on framing a suspect and extracting a false confession, then after the punch gets a name from him. It's not about "ending up punching" someone.

Not saying it's a great movie or anything; I don't think it's worthy of the amazing cast, but it's not the worst ever, by a long shot. Maybe two and a half stars, whatever, but it doesn't deserve to be totally spoiled by having the whole plot recapped in excruciating detail and in the wrong order. It's capable of being enjoyed by some people. Hope this writer doesn't do an article on War and Peace! I think this plot summary needs to be edited down to about 4 lines.

Here's the Wikipedia plot summary of the Spanish/Argentine original, of which this the remake: "Using a nonlinear narrative, the film depicts a judiciary employee and a judge in 1974 played by Ricardo Darín and Soledad Villamil, as they investigate a rape and murder case that turns into an obsession for all the people involved, while also following the characters 25 years later reminiscing over the case and unearthing the buried romance between them.[5]" Seriously, THAT's a plot summary.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Secret in Their Eyes


text:
User:SunriseInBrooklyn/Graham Avenue

Graham Avenue is a major avenue through Williamsburg in the north-south portion of the New York City borough of Brooklyn.

title: User:SunriseInBrooklyn/Graham Avenue


text:
Tekhuri

The Tekhuri (ტეხური) is a right tributary of the river Rioni in Georgia.

The Tekhuri rises in the Egrisi Range below the 3002 m high summit Tekhurishdudi. It flows through the region Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti in a predominantly south-south-west direction. In the middle course it flows past the place Salkhino near Martvili. Finally it reaches the Colchian Plain, flows southeast of the city Senaki and turns south. Shortly afterwards the Abasha meets the Tekhuri from the left. After another 10 km the Tekhuri flows into the Rioni. It is 101 km long, and has a drainage basin of 1040 km2.

Fauna
River has plenty of fish. There are many important game fish, including: bleak (Alburnus), common barbel (Barbus barbus), barbel (Chondrostoma nasus), chub, luciobarbus mursa. Tekhuri also has trout, but Georgian legislation prohibits fishing for it.

title: Tekhuri


text:
Talk:List of knights and dames grand cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Elizabeth II (1952–1977)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Elizabeth II (1952–77). 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/20150316003931/http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/knight/honorary-knighthood to http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/knight/honorary-knighthood

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


text:
Bert Templeton

Robert "Bert" Templeton (May 11, 1940 – December 5, 2003) was a junior ice hockey coach. He worked primarily in the Ontario Hockey League from 1974 to 2003. Templeton compiled a career coaching record of 907-678-148 with major junior teams in North Bay, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Barrie.

Templeton has been compared to Hockey Hall of Fame coach Brian Kilrea for his longevity and Roger Neilson for respect in the hockey world. "His name should be put up there with Brian Kilrea's in terms of his overall commitment to junior hockey," former player Nick Kypreos said. "Bert's passion for the game is right up there with some of the great names in hockey like Brian Kilrea and Roger Neilson. He's a lifer. All three of those men were born to teach."

Templeton was hired into the OHA at age 34, previously to that he was coaching the Jr B Hamilton Jr B Red Wings and that team went on to win the Sutherland cup. This team was owned by Cupido/finochio and when the sale went through for them to buy the OHA Hamilton Red Wings. They wanted to change the franchise. The changed the name to the Fincups as well as hired all new scouting and coaches included a young Bert Templeton. It worked instantly as the first season they went to the division finals and then in only the second season behind the bench he coached the Hamilton Fincups to the Memorial Cup in 1976.

World Juniors
He coached the Fincups to a silver medal at the 1977 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships in the days before Canada sent a national team and the Canadian World Junior team in Piestany in 1987.

North Bay & Later Years
Templeton was the longest-serving coach in North Bay Centennials history, serving as their boss for twelve of the team's twenty seasons. In 1994, Templeton coached North Bay to an OHL title.

He also coached the Barrie Colts and Sudbury Wolves in the OHL, the Niagara Falls Flyers, and from 1979 to 1981 the American Hockey League's Nova Scotia Voyageurs.

Templeton twice won the OHL's Coach of the Year award, represented by the Matt Leyden Trophy, in 1975 and 1994. He also twice won the OHL Executive of the Year award, in 1992 and 1996.

Personal
Templeton was married to Sandi Templeton. He had three children, and two stepchildren.

Bert Templeton died in 2003 from kidney cancer. He was posthumously awarded the Bill Long Award for lifetime distinguished service to the OHL in 2005.

title: Bert Templeton


text:
Talk:WinAce

Promotion
This article is a promo from the vendor of this product, just like WinACE. --Juantxorena 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is a copy of the WinACE help page: click on "products" in the left of the navigation bar in the top, and scroll down to "features" section. Obviously the information about this product is not neutral, because it comes from the promo webpage of the vendor. The same happens in Commandline ACE. --Juantxorena 11:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you type winace into google, then you will see not just one, but dozens of the promo websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:2816:6124:0:55:948F:DB01 (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Interface errors in Commandline Ace 2.1, 2.6 and up
Commandline Ace 2.04 has its interface in good and proper state. But Commandline Ace in versions from 2.1, 2.6 and up in ACE.EXE (not ACE32.EXE) has erratic behavior of its interface when dragging vertical draggable line in left and right.

It looks as such:

+-- C:\ACE + ¦   Name        Size      Date   Time ¦     ACE-ARCHIVER v2.6   REGISTERED    ¦ ¦ ..         ¦?UP--DIR?¦        ¦     ¦--- Memory ¦ ¦ LICENCE    ¦?SUB-DIR?¦22.08.06¦16:53¦ Free memory                       ldK ¦ ¦ MANUAL     ¦?SUB-DIR?¦22.08.06¦16:53¦ Add, update, fresh, sol-delete  1024K ¦ ¦ MSGFILES   ¦?SUB-DIR?¦22.08.06¦16:53¦ Extract, view                   4096K ¦ ¦ ORDER      ¦?SUB-DIR?¦22.08.06¦16:53¦- Temporary directory -¦ ¦ SFXFILES   ¦?SUB-DIR?¦22.08.06¦16:53¦ Path                  C:\WINDOWS\TEMP ¦ ¦ ace     cfg¦ld¦ 6. 2. 6¦16:25      ¦ Space                             ldM ¦ ¦ file_id diz¦ld¦ 5. 8. 5¦02:59      ¦- Archive information -¦ ¦ ace     exe¦ld¦30. 8. 5¦02:59      ¦                                       ¦ ¦ ace2     exe¦ld¦30. 8. 5¦02:59      ¦-- Settings ---¦ ¦ ace32   exe¦ld¦21. 9. 5¦02:59      ¦ Dictionary size                 4096K ¦ ¦ unace   exe¦ld¦25. 8. 5¦02:59      ¦ Compression level                Best ¦ ¦ unace2  exe¦ld¦25. 8. 5¦02:59      ¦ Make always solid             Enabled ¦ ¦ unace32 exe¦ld¦25. 8. 5¦02:59      ¦ Use v2.0 compression          Enabled ¦ ¦ ace     key¦ld¦ 6. 2. 6¦16:20      ¦ Add SFX module                   None ¦ ¦ whatsnew txt¦ld¦ 5. 8. 5¦02:59      ¦ Add recovery record           Enabled ¦ ¦            ¦         ¦        ¦     ¦ Encrypt files with password  Disabled ¦ ¦            ¦         ¦        ¦     ¦ Add auth. verification      Disabled ¦ ¦            ¦         ¦        ¦     ¦ Add default comment file     Disabled ¦ ¦            ¦         ¦        ¦     ¦- Second directory ---(tab)¦ ¦            ¦         ¦        ¦     ¦  C:\ACE                               ¦ +--- Free: ldM +

Note 'ld' strings instead of proper capacity values and interface panel table deformation. This error occurs when using ACE.EXE 2.1/2.6 that is compiled for DOS, both under Windows ME GUI and real DOS 8.00. ACE32.EXE 2.1/2.6 when running in Windows ME GUI lacks this error, and behaves correctly like ACE 2.04. If anyone wants to make feedback about this and future errors, please contact Ace Team in 'Contact Information' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As years pass, no one cares, so please mail them at<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>let's they repair this malware once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Websites
winace.com and winace.de are fakes:

"this site is currently under construction"

winace.sourceforge.net is fake:

WinACE is a graphical Windows client for the classic Internet strategy game Empire (www.wolfpackempire.com)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:WinAce


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Eady

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Jason Eady

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTABILITY; single source does not adequately confirm notability. smileguy91talk 01:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep - Pretty clearly the subject of multiple pieces of independently-published coverage, as the cited Country Music Television piece indicates. I've put the piece into basic WP form, added a few categories, etc. and brought the article to the attention of one of WP's country music people for his judgment. Seems to be a pretty obvious GNG pass, judging from a quick flip around the internets. Carrite (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite. Also passes WP:BAND with a charting album on Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/artist/304248/jason-eady/chart?mobile_redirection=false I would add to the article myself but Wikipedia is a bitch to edit on my phone. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article now has multiple sources, including an NPR piece on the singer. Pretty clearly noteworthy (which is why I started the article in the first place.)NoahB (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Producciones Sin Un Duro

Producciones Sin Un Duro is a Spanish film production company created in Madrid in 2003, that aims to alternate between fiction and documentary films, with the main emphasis on cinema with social content, low budget and global audiences, using austere production designs.

Producciones Sin Un Duro has produced the full-length documentary Estrellas de la Línea (The Railroad All Stars), which took part in the Panorama section of the Berlinale ([Second Audience Award, Berlinale Panorama 2006 ]; Jury Special Mention, Málaga Film Festival 2006 ; Sebastián Prize, San Sebastián Film Festival 2006; Audience Award, LAFF Utrecht 2007, as well as a dozen other awards at international film festivals). The film has participated in the official section of diverse festivals around the world: Karlovy Vary, Hot docs-Toronto, Silver Docs-Washington, Montreal, Edinburgh, Warsaw, Hamburg, Chicago, Miami or Tokio. The company's filmography also includes the documentary short films Amor callejero (Street Love) and Triste Borracha (Sad Drunk; Jury First Prize, Documenta Madrid 2009), and the full-length documentary El Abrazo de los Peces (2011) (The Embrace of the Fishes).

The company's most recent project is Nightfall in India (2014), a feature fiction film that is an international co-production, directed by Chema Rodríguez. It participated at Málaga Film Festival 2014, and got the awards for Best Actor and Best Editing.

title: Producciones Sin Un Duro