text:
for "kilometres per hour" and is somewhat analagous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".[ref]
 * "km/h" is an internationally-agreed symbol for "kilometres per hour". It is constructed as per the rules in the SI brochure,[ref] the official definition of the International System of Units.

The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which catalogues the use and representation of units of measure used for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"[ref] requires "km/h" be used as the symbol for "kilometres per hour". These "purposes" in this direcitve include but are not limited to primary and secondary legislation, court orders etc.[ref]. In addition, EU directive 75/443/EEC explicitly states that "km/h" shall appear on speedometers of motor vehicles.[ref]. Examples of text that does not include all three letters "k", "m" and "h" in the native language of the state concerned, but where the EU directive applies include Dutch: "kilometer per uur" ("hour" is spelt "uur"), Portuguese: "quilómetro por hora" ("kilometre" is spelt "quilómetro") and Greek: "χιλιόμετρα ανά ώρα" (a different script).[ref]. Similarly, US law requires the use of either "km/h" or "KM/H", but not "KPH" on speedometers.[ref]

Martinvl (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, re your latest "consensus" post. You make it sound so straightforward and logigal! Your discussion of policy v. consensus is excellent. In the other discussion that I was involved in though, it seemed that local consensus steam-rollered policy in that case. The motion to enforce a policy was defeated because there was no local consensus to do so. At least that was my view of the outcome! Ornaith (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, re your "larger article" point. Remembering that English Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in standard "common use" English, and not in EU-speak or even SI-speak, we could have a "The use of abbreviations" section. This section could have comment on the use of "km/h" and "kph" and could describe the SI view and their classification of the abbreviation as a symbol, and their reasoning. We could also mention that the EU have written the SI specification into their directives and whatever the US and others do about it. I don't think we need to labour it too much though. Ornaith (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl. re your addition covering my questions, SA, etc.

You refused to answer a straightforward question about the English language - labelling it a "loaded". What do you think was the "controversial or unjustified assumption" in it (see Loaded question)? Do you accept that "km/h" is an abbreviation in English?

You misrepresented another question, I asked if you accepted that there are publication in which word usage is not regulated. You equated it to the use of "improper" language and the "f-word"! Why not give a straightforward answer? Do you accept that English word usage is not generally regulated, even in the EU?

Your way of thinking about symbols is not relevent here, I don't think anyone denies that, a language independent "symbol" is a good idea, or that the SI or EU have got it wrong. The discussion here is about the wider issue of "common use" English, and whether English Wikipedia should use standard English or EU-speak as the language for its articles. Ornaith (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your "the obvious" remark. Did you read the "Dispute overview" section at the top of this section? You will see your concern answered there. Ornaith (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your proposed replacement section. It is much too EU-centric, it is not from a neutral point of view and gives undue weight (see Argument from authority) to the "official" definition, it contains original research around the scope and impact of the EU directive (btw, did you find that quote about the use on speedometers that I asked for yet?). Ornaith (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like a prime candidate for WP:LAME to me. I've read the whole shebang, and I very much fail to see the point. What service do you want to provide to the average reader? Is there anything not covered by a simple statement like "The SI symbol km/h is used to indicate kilometers per hour and is mandatory for official EU documents. In less formal context, English speakers sometimes use kph". Even a randy Bonobo can figure out where the terms come from. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * That's good, but still has a non-neutral tone. It implies that "km/h" is only an SI symbol - it isn't, it is also an abbreviation in standard English. It also asserts "kph" to be informal, which it isn't, it is a standard English abbreviation like "mph", "rpm", "psi", &co. The use of the word "sometimes" implies "kph" isn't in mass use, or doesn't have the same profile in English as "km/h", which would be misleading. Ornaith (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Please see the last sentence of my previous reply for the abbreviation remark. Nothing in my comment implies that km/h is only an SI symbol. If you don't like "sometimes", substitute "also". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * How about: "The abbreviations kph and km/h are generally used to indicate kilometers per hour. km/h, also the official SI symbol (and common for all languages), is mandatory for official EU documents."? Ornaith (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, Please stop playing silly games. I have put forward a proposed rewording of the entire section which I think addresses all concerns. Please either indicate exactly what you would like to change or add, alternatively write out what you would like to see. Remember, if we can't agree, the present text stays. Martinvl (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Martinvl, I prefer Stephan's rewording to yours, and I've reworked it just very slightly to cover my concerns. See above. Ornaith (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Ornaith - the phrase "is mandatory for official EU documents" does not convey the truth. It is mandatory that EU direcitves 80/181/EEC be followed for all official documents within the EU and that includes the minutes of the Ballydesmond Parish Council. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Martinvl, that sounds about the same to me, at the level of detail required in this article. You can link to another more specific article that covers the gory EU/SI minutia. Do you have a reference for the Parish Council assertion, or is that just from your reading of the primary source? What about the quote I asked for to cover your assertion about speedometer design? Ornaith (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Ornaith: If you read this reference, and in particular Section 5, you will see the scope of this measure. (And that is only the "public administration" part). Read the Wikipedia article Metric martyrs about other parts.   I know that this document is aimed at British central and local government, it derives from an EU direcitve and exactly the same directive applies in Ireland. Since the minutes of the Ballydesmond parish council almost certainly have a legal standing, the the direcitive applies there.  BTW, I have arelady told you about this document - didn't you read it.  Here is the speedo reference - look at Annex II. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Martinvl, 4 things:
 * I read that UK document before, it doesn't say anything that supports your assertion about Irish parish councils (although it does support my view about the use of the word "abbreviation").
 * Yes, you mentioned the speedometer document above, but gave an incorrect link to it, which I pointed out when I said that the link didn't work, and asked instead for a quote from the document. Your new link does work, thank you, but the document doesn't support your assertion. Which paragraph (they are all numbered) did you think did?
 * Do you agree with my appraisal of your proposed rewording?
 * What do you think of my slight rework of Stephan's succinct wording, bearing in mind it can link to another Wikipedia article giving a fuller definition? Will you agree to use that instead of the disputed sentence - and so allow this dispute to be closed as resolved?
 * Ornaith (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I will not agree to use it. You make is sound as though the concept of the symbol is an after-thought - in the classroom, especially in science, children might well loose marks if they use "kph" instead of "km/h".  I do a certain amount of physics tutoring and I see that the English A Level physics syllabus is very strict on units of measure.  That to me is sufficient reason to ensure that the SI notation is given proper coverage. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose it would be too helpful to mention that the SI use of "symbol" was actually an afterthought? The earliest use I've found of "km/h" as an abbreviation goes back to the 1898 US Geological Survey.  My French is more than a little rusty, but I'm not seeing any mention of "symbol" in the text of the 1875 Metre Convention.  The first use of "symbol" in this context that I've tracked down is from 1976.  Now we're down to "Think of the children!" arguments we can probably close this out and move on to the RFC phase.  Garamond Lethe  21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kilometres per hour discussion: Restart
I am going to step in here and attempt to resolve this dispute. To do that, I am going to set some ground rules (for this section only) and I am going to move any comments that do not follow the new ground rules to another section. In this section I am going to try to focus us all on reaching a solution.

First, no more trying to convince each other. We have already established that this is not working (but of course you can keep trying, just not here.)

Second, no offering of compromises, We have also established that that isn't working.

Third, no saying anything about any other editor. Don't talk about what they did, don't talk about what their position is. Don't say anything about anybody.

You are allowed to talk about article content but I am limiting you to a simple statement: "I think the article should say X." Don't say why, don't say that Y and Z would also be acceptable, don't comment on the other editor's statement.

Fourth, I will be asking specific questions, and I expect answers. Specific answers to the actual questions asked, not a springboard to talking about something else. Answering questions supersedes all the other ground rules, so you can comment on one of the forbidden topics if I ask you about it.

The obvious question someone would ask is this: "OK tough guy; what gives you the authority to do this and how do you plan on enforcing it?" The answer is...I got nothing. I have no authority at all. I can't force anyone to do anything. All I can do is to try to persuade you, and you are free to ignore me. The only consequence will be that everyone will see that I tried to resolve the dispute with some bold measures, and you refused to cooperate. Which you had every right to do.

Ready to start? OK, here are my first two questions:

Does anybody want to declare that they have no intent of cooperating with me on this? (Remember, you are completely free to do that.)

There are two names listed under "Users involved", but I see that four people besides me have participated in this discussion. Do we have a two-to-one split on this issue? Does anyone know about anyone else who may be interested or possibly even be lurking? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'll cooperate, for sure.
 * I don't know who else would be interested (other than those you mentioned). There were no others involved on the article talk page.
 * Ornaith (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll co-operate, though I may not have much else to contribute.
 * It's possible User:DeFacto is amused, but s/he's blocked. NebY (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm happy to participate (and cooperate) if you think it would be useful, but I'm just as happy to bow out at this point as well. The two positions I'm seeing are close enough that I'm confident I'll be able to support the final version – whatever it is –, and if having one less cat to herd makes that happen faster then I'll do my part by sitting down for a spell. Garamond Lethe  22:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I am happy to cooperate. Martinvl (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Great! OK, here is the situation as I see it. I have two editors who have a content dispute. No other editors are involved, so there is no point in doing a quick check for consensus and possibly telling one editor that the consensus is against her or him. Both editors have made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue, first on the article talk page and then at DRN. There are no glaring violations of policies such as WP:RS or WP:V that would allow me to tell one editor that he or she is clearly wrong and needs to back off. Previously there were behavior issues leading to full protection of the article. (No, we are not going to revisit that -- I am here to fix the problem, not to fix the blame.) I think both editors are ready to play nice, but the blocking admin isn't buying it.

 * In my opinion, the next step is to go to Third opinion and request an outside opinion. (This is not the same as what I do, which is to attempt to get the two of you to agree without taking sides). The next step if that does not resolve the issue is Requests for comment, but let's give TO a chance. Requests for comment.

 * Either one of you can file the request, but I recommend first putting your suggested wording on the talk page and seeing if the other involved editor has any problems with it. If you get stuck disagreeing on that I will be happy to choose the most neutral version, or flip a coin if they are equally neutral. Does this sound like a reasonable plan? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * That was a bit of an anti-climax after that dramatic build-up! I thought you were going to present a sequence of cunningly formulated questions, designed to yield an optimum sentence which satisfied both parties, and which both parties were honour-bound to accept! But, disappointing as it may be, I'll accept your advice that a "TO" is the way forward. I'll go away and read what a "TO" involves, and come back with a suggested wording for the request as you suggest. Ornaith (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * After reading Third opinion, I see 2 problems with that process:
 * The discussion has moved on quite a way, but on this page, from what currently stands on the article talk page, so where should we point the "TO" entry to?
 * There are more than just the 2 original editors now involved.
 * Ornaith (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

[Deleted my own comment: completely wrong, and based upon my somehow not being able to count. (Note to self; next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...)]

 * Well, 3 said they'd participate after I did, so I make that 4. But if you dismiss the 2 who hadn't been involved previously, that does leave 2, yes. Ornaith (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed "TO" request wording: Talk:Kilometres per hour followed by Dispute resolution noticeboard. Disagreement about whether a description of the use of "km/h" in EU directives contravenes WP:OR if "km/h" is introduced as an "abbreviation" of "kilometres per hour", whilst also noting that the SI use the term "symbol" for it. Ornaith (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * May I propose an alternative wording:
 * Disagreement as to whether "km/h", the shorthand form of kilometers per hour, should be described primarily as a "symbol" or as an "abbreviation".
 * We can bring the EU and SI into the discusssion. Martinvl (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * You didn't say what you didn't like about my suggested wording.
 * I believe that your suggestion misrepresents the dispute as:
 * 1. We are describing how "km/h" is prescribed by the EU, not what "km/h" should be primarily described as
 * 2. "km/h" isn't "the" shorthand form, but "a" shorthand form
 * 3. We should not omit that WP:OR was the policy quoted to support the original reversion
 * Ornaith (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, ignoring my my prior stupidity, we have four editors who have shown an interest in helping to resolve this. Let's do a quick consensus check:

 * Guy, just a quick sanity check here (and echoing a concern of Martinvl), we are discussing alternatives for the text of the first sentence of the lead, yes? The current version is:
 * The kilometre per hour (American English: kilometer per hour) (unit symbol km/h or km·h−1) is a unit of speed, expressing the number of kilometres travelled in one hour.

 * Or are we discussing the first sentence in the first subsection? That currently reads:
 * The abbreviations "kph" and "kmph" are used (kph was used on 1975-1976 model cars in US) even though the official recommendation from the BIPM is to use "km/h" - the rationale behind the BIPM stance being that the symbols for units of measure should be consistent world-wide. The symbol (as opposed to abbreviation) is in near-universal use elsewhere, even though the letters "km" and "h" do not always correspond to "kilometres" or "hours" in the language concerned.

 * I'm confused (again --- it happens a lot). Garamond Lethe  16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I too am confused, or are we making the assumption that the sentence will remain a single sentence? How will it fit into the rest of the article? Unless this is made clear, this exercise is, in my view, a waste of time. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I came to this noticeboard to attempt to resolve a dispute over the content of the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section named "Use of kph". The dispute, as described in the summary at the very top of this entry, hinges around whether the the use of the word "abbreviation" is WP:OR in this context. I hope that clarifies it for those who were not involved on the article talk page. Ornaith (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The proposed text by Garamond Lethe (deleted earlier this morning) states "The SI explicitly states that unit symbols are not abbreviations and are to be written using a very specific set of rules". Given that the CGPM who published the SI manual also have responsibility for defining and maintaining the standards for the metre (and hence kilometre) and second (and hence hour), that their rules regarding symbols have been in place for 64 years and that they are funded directly by governments around the world (including the British and Irish) it is quite reasonable that their recommendations shodul take precedence over earlier recommednations.  Therefore there can be no question that in this contect the word "symbol" takes precedence over teh word "abbreviation". Martinvl (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Martinvl, would you be so kind as to go to the section below and fill in your preferred version of the the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section named "Use of kph"? That way I can compare the three different versions and get a rough feel for what the consensus is on each. Thanks!

ROUGH CONSENSUS CHECK

The page should read:

Disputed sentence:
 * The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure in all member states for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"[ref] implicitly catalogues "km/h" as the symbol for "kilometres per hour".

Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:

 * Use of kph
 * Although "kph" and "km/h" are often used interchangeably as shorthand for "kilometres per hour", there is a difference between the two notations:
 * "kph" is an English-language abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" and is somewhat analogous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".[ref]
 * "km/h" is an internationally-agreed symbol for "kilometres per hour". It is constructed as per the rules in the SI brochure,[ref] the official definition of the International System of Units.

 * Historic development based on User:Garamond Lethe's earlier proposal will be added here

 * Many academic journals require the use of SI units which implicitly requires the use of "km/h", not "kph", but the style guides for many newspapers mandate the use of "kph" for "kilometres per hour" (along with "C" or "F" rather than °C or °F when writing temperature). The EU .... for "kilometres per hour".

 * EU directive 75/443/EEC which regulates the layout of speedometers, uses the symbol "km/h" in all languages.[ref] Examples of text that does not include all three letters "k", "m" and "h" in the native language of the state concerned, but where the EU directives applies include:
 * Dutch: "kilometer per uur" ("hour" is spelt "uur" - no "h"),
 * Portuguese: "quilómetro por hora" ("kilometre" is spelt "quilómetro" - no "k")
 * Greek: "χιλιόμετρα ανά ώρα" (a different script).
 * Similarly, US law requires the use of either "km/h" or "KM/H", but not "KPH" on speedometers.[ref]

Support:

Martinvl (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC):

Oppose:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

NebY (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

The page should read:

Disputed sentence:

The abbreviations "kph" and "km/h" are generally used to indicate "kilometres per hour". EU directives mandate that just "km/h", also the official SI symbol in all languages, be used in official EU documents.

Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:

TBD

Support:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

Oppose:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

NebY (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

The page should read:

km/h is one of several abbreviations for and one of two standard symbols of the unit of speed "kilometers per hour".

(n.b. Citations and explanatory text that would need to be added in support of this may be found here.)

Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:

TBD

Support:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

Garamond Lethe 11:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

NebY (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral:

Put your name here by typing ~ :

Notes: Names are listed in alphabetical order. Participation is purely optional. Our goal is to reach a consensus, so if you can bring yourself to take your name off an entry that has little support and add it to one that has more support, that would help. However, it has to be real; it does nobody any good agreeing to X here and then insisting on Y when later editing the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, can we have a section with the one disputed sentence listed too please, to see what we are talking about? Ornaith (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Excellent idea. I just added places for that. I also added an extended comment section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Guy, the sentence I want to replace is this one: "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states." Where is the place you added to put it, you seem to have added a "disputed sentence" heading to each section, incuding above my proposed replacement sentence?

 * Will you tidy up the form please so that it is clear which is the disputed sentence and which are the proposed replacements for it. Ornaith (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

EXTENDED COMMENTS

You may put whatever material you wish here in order to fully present any material that you feel supports the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The text I've proposed is intended to be used as either the first sentence in the lead or the first sentence of a following section. Here are a few comments for why I've written it the way I have.  Proposed additional supporting text is currently in my sandbox.

 * The existing version treats "km/h" as kilometre per hour / kilometer per hour and then describes the two standard unit symbols. However, the name of the article is not "kilometre per hour", but "km/h".  While this distinction would appear to be of interest only to folks who had taken too many lit. crit. classes, the string "km/h" has a history intertwined with (but distinct from) "kilometre per hour".  For example, "km/h" is one of several abbreviations used before (and after) international standardization occurred, and standardization has created a body of rules by which the string "km/h" must be constructed and represented (down to specifying how the [solidus] may and may not be used and the requirement of an upright Roman typeface).

 * This distinction (so far unspoken, to the best of my knowledge) has resulted in a bifurcation of the focus of the article. For example, the European Union may have adopted the units "kilometers per hour" to be used in specific areas, but that would more properly be noted in an article on "kilometers per hour", not "km/h".  Pointing out that existing dictionaries continue to treat "km/h" as an abbreviation instead of a symbol has very little to do with the definition and standardization of "kilometers per hour", but is a useful and interesting datapoint in the evolution of "km/h".

 * Elsewhere I had proposed that the article be split in two: km/h (Unit Symbol) and km/h (pre- and non-SI uses).  A more natural split might be kilometers per hour and km/h.  While I think both can eventually find a home within one article, it may helpful to editors to remind them (and me) that there are two distinct concepts in play.  Based on the discussion I've seen so far, this unspoken difference is at the root of the conflict. Garamond Lethe  17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, the Kilometres per hour article is unlocked again now, and I notice that Martinvl has already introduced part of his proposal from above (including his controversial opinion that "km/h" is not an abbreviation) into it. I consider that to be an inflammatory and extraordinarily bad-faith move, as well as disrespectful to yourself given your efforts here to resolve this dispute amicably. Ornaith (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * diff of above edit. Garamond Lethe  07:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have spent a week discussing this matter and have not got anywhere. Does User:Ornaith object to an RFC on this particular change.  In this way we can get a full community viewpoint on the core question and then look at the details later. Martinvl (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose the first as impenetrable, the second as giving undue priority to kph and being convoluted and the third for being even more convoluted. We're not writing legal documents here, or computer programs that will crash if we don't cover every condition; we're trying to write English that the general reader will understand on first reading. Or we should be. NebY (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that this is a subsection about the use (or misuse) of "kph", what message should we be giving the reader then? Martinvl (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it, or is it about whether kph or km/h should be used, or about the history of, rationale for and legal standing of km/h? If it is to be solely about the use of kph, why should we have so much material about km/h in it? NebY (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, so both km/h and kph should be covered. Martinvl (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course both should be covered in the encyclopedia. But a couple of hours you wrote "this is a subsection about the use (or misuse) of "kph"". I'm asking two questions about that statement: (1) Is it? (2) If it is about the use of "kph", why should "km/h" be discussed at such length in it? NebY (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise from previously uninvolved editor
Hey guys, I was browsing and I saw this. I think the idea of not using "symbol," "abbreviation," or "initialism" is a good one, but that the way it was presented was not ideal. My proposed compromise is:
 * "EU directives require the use of "km/h" to represent "kilometers per hour" in official documents in all member states."

I think "represent" is a nice, neutral term that means all the things you guys have suggested, thus working out all the problems. Opinions? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I don't like this and neither will anyone else, and that's why I think it is a pretty decent compromise. Garamond Lethe 03:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Not my favorite way to build that sentence, but it's OK. It might be useful to have a paragraph (not in the lead) -- Is km/h a symbol, abbreviation, or initialism? -- to forestall further eruptions (I know, I'm an optimist about such good intentions.) A sentence or two about each of those labels for the text string, so that a reader could both understand this controversy and that there was no need for Wikipedia to conform to any of those positions might be helpful. Perhaps as a long secret comment on the page, so that editors would find it when they went to restart this squabble. htom (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, should we add this suggested wording as an alternative in the table above as we seem to have two different votes in progress now? Ornaith (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Leaves the worms in the can so that Kilometres per hour doesn't require a long exposition that would be just as appropriate or excessive in any similar article. NebY (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I personally would like to have it in the table with support and oppose votes (no reason it can't be both places). The key here is that I am looking for a solution that everyone can live with, not necessarily a solution that fits my preconceived vision, so if another format works for everybody, great! That being said, I kind of think my preconceived vision is pretty good, so you might want to give it a try.

 * Here is what I am hoping to achieve. Every variation of the sentence we are considering is listed. All are formatted the same way for easy comparison. Each has votes showing us who supports it and who opposes it. All extra arguments are in another section.

 * If I can achieve the above, then we can all look at the alternatives, and, I hope, someone will say "Hmmm. I am the only one supporting number 827, but 19 people support number 32767, and I can live with number 32767, so I will give it 20 supporters and number 827 zero supporters." (Made up numbers, obviously -- did you know that 47.36% of the numbers on Wikipedia are made up on the spot?).

 * BTW, anyone should feel free to edit the tables above -- this is Wikipedia where a single click can undo a change and a single click can put it back, so there is no possible harm to being bold, as long as you accept that someone else may be just as bold in undoing your changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WHY NO RESPONSE????

I put up a section to gauge consensus, and got only a single vote. several of you added your preferred wording but didn't even bother voting in support of it. Any suggestions as to why this is and what I am doing wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Guy Macon: As to the former, I didn't realize voting for my own suggestion was appropriate (apologies --- this is my first time participating in this process).
 * As to the latter, part of the problem is the huge amount of verbiage here concerning what is probably seen as an incredibly dull topic. So I'm not too surprised at the low turnout.  But most of the problem is probably due to the sentence in question being only a symptom of the underlying dispute.  (This explains why there was so much confusion about what it was were were !voting on, as well as why Martinvl and I were trying to rewrite the entire article around the change in one sentence.)  I don't think this is your fault --- if two editors in dispute tell you they're disputing over a particular sentence, I could see where you might be inclined to believe them.  That just happened to be the wrong choice here.
 * Having met with a collective yawn from the rest of the community, I'd like to go back to the talk page and try hashing things out there for a while. Would you like to let this process run a few more days before we do that?  Garamond Lethe  11:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Everybody: We have allowed too many issues to clutter up the discussion and we a choking by taking too big a mouthful. Let us start at the very beginning: if we go back to Ornaith's first changes diff here, we see that she was:
 * Defining "km/h" as an abbreviation with particular reference to its appearance an EU document.
 * Stating that the EU rule was widely flouted, but refusing to give a reference.
 * Could we try to get these two questions resolved first without getting bogged down in other details? Everything else will then follow.
 * Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the text sans cites: "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation for kilometers per hour in official documents in all of its member states, "kph" and "k.p.h." are frequently used by both the Irish and British." I think that's fairly straightforward to demonstrate. A google search on site:gov.uk kph speed gives 6980 hits; checking the first twenty I find the majority to be within the past ten years and using "kph" as an abbreviation for "kilometers per hour".  The same search with site:gov.ie returns only twenty, so I suspect I'm looking in the wrong place.  Ah, here we go:  site:oireachtas.ie kph return 866.
 * So with the possible change of "abbreviation" to "symbol", I find this statement wholly uncontroversial.
 * Next problem?
 * Garamond Lethe 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem No 1 - Ornaith was adamnant that "km/h" was an abbreviation, I disagreed
 * @Martinvl, "km/h" is an abbreviation, and was first used as an abbreviation no later than 1898 and was defined as an abbreviation in a mass-market, hardcover dictionary as late as 1985 and in a mass-market manual of style as late as 2011. "km/h" is also a symbol.  When you began your conversation with Ornaith, neither one of you had a good sense of when and where "km/h" transitioned from an abbreviation to a symbol.  We now have citations that map that out in pretty fine detail.  Based on that, and in the context of this sentence (recent usage by an EU member state) "symbol" is probably the better way to go.  I think Ornaith will be more likely to accept that argument if there is a section of the article that describes the original and continuing use of "km/h" as an abbreviation.  I have a draft of that in my sandbox and I'm looking forward to haggling over the exact working with the two of you on the talk page.Garamond Lethe  19:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem No 2 - I did a few Google searches
 * Filter = ".gov.uk" - km/h: 57.600; kph: 56,300
 * Filter = ".dft.gov.uk" - km/h: 629; kph: 125
 * Filter = ".gov.ie" - km/h:976; kph: 125
 * Filter = ".oireacht.ie" - km/h: 3120;kph: 866
 * Conclusion No 1: In Ireland, the government uses "km/h" much more than "kph", in the UK, government useage of km/h andkph is about the same, apart from the Department for Transport where km/h is used significantly more.
 * Observation - The British press appears to always use "kph", but the schools always teach "km/h".
 * Conclusion No 2 - The above is all WP:NOR. We therefore cannot say anything unless we have are quoting an analysis done by a third party. Again Orniath refused to give any citation to back up her statement.
 * Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Problem No 1 seems like an easy one. Depending on how you look at it, you are both right. In English-speaking countries "km/h" is and can continue to be an abbreviated form (as well as a symbol, as well as an initialism). But in places that don't conform to the same initials k,m, or h, it symbolically represents the rate of speed. So just phrase your sentence in a way that resolves this in a factual way.
 * For Problem No 2, you seem to already see the answer. You need a reliable secondary source. -- Avanu (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * @Martinvl: I agree with you that citing particular numbers of uses is WP:OR. I'll even agree with you that comparative language like "most" would be WP:OR.  I think I can make a pretty compelling argument that "frequently" falls on the correct side of this line, especially when it can be backed up with verbiage like "(e.g., in 2012 the Department of Transportation used kph in the following ten documents...)."
 * I'll agree that this is a subtle point, but I don't think it's an ambiguous one. I cannot say "The first use of k.p.h. occurred in 1889" because that's a conclusion based on evaluating thousands of primary documents; that is unambiguously original research.  I believe I can say, though, that "The first use of k.p.h. occurred no later than 1889", because that is a summary of a single document and I can cite that document.
 * For the sentence in question, if you wanted to argue that "occasionally" was better than "frequently", or better yet, "there exist government documents as recently as 2012 where kph is used instead of km/h", well, ok, I that's not my preference but that kind of wording should remove all doubts about WP:OR and I would accept that.
 * Finally, I'll note that this probably isn't the argument Ornaith made, and you may have been justified in rejecting the arguments that she did make (I don't know, I haven't gone back and read them). I expect I'm making a different argument:  summarizing facts found in specific, cited reliable sources is not WP:OR.  You might want to argue about the verbiage in my summary, but that's a discussion I'd like to have on the talk page. Garamond Lethe  19:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:

"if two editors in dispute tell you they're disputing over a particular sentence, I could see where you might be inclined to believe them. That just happened to be the wrong choice here."

and

"We have allowed too many issues to clutter up the discussion and we a choking by taking too big a mouthful."

There are a couple of ways we can go here. It is perfectly OK to decide to abandon a DRN case, ask for it to be closed, and immediately open up a new one on the same topic in the hope that the same mistakes won't be made. You could even ask for another dispute resolution volunteer (I really would not have any problem if the general feeling is that someone else is a better fit for this).

It It also OK to ask for the case to be closed so you can go back to the article talk page and try to work it out, possibly with a RFC on the article talk page. Or you could try to work it out here trying another approach.

I am here to try to help you to resolve this dispute. Clearly my idea for gauging a rough consensus was not acceptable to most of you. It would have been nice to know who supports what, but I can't force you folks to participate. So please tell me what you will be willing to work together on. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Guy Macon, In the week or so that we've been here I've dug up three dozen relevant reliable sources and have evaluated an order of magnitude more than that. Several of them unquestionably and unequivocally support Martinvl's contention that "km/h" is a symbol, and several of them unquestionably and unequivocally support Ornaith's contention that "km/h" was originally and continues to be used as an abbreviation.  Instead of the is/is-not symbol/abbreviation conversation I think we can now move on to how much emphasis should be given to each batch of reliable sources.
 * I'd like to propose that the conversation here either be suspended or completed and that any interested editors retire to talk:Kilometres per hour to evaluate these sources. I'd also like to propose that you come along.  I'm a newbie here and I'd really appreciate a bit of mentoring as we try to untangle this.
 * Your thoughts?
 * Garamond Lethe 20:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem with that if the others agree. The ideal solution is for the folks who are editing the page to come to an agreement and then give me all the credit for my brilliant mediation even though I didn't actually do anything (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy to close the discussion, but I note that Ornaith's last contri bution to Wikipedia was on this page 48 hours ago. The way. Martinvl (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think events have overtaken this dispute, the discussion has broadened to a scope much wider than the original question about the legitimacy of the use of the word "abbreviation", so does belong elsewhere. I was hoping for a more definite conclusion (that "abbreviation" is NOT WP:OR preferably) but am happy to close the discussion here, knowing I could bring it back if necessary. Thanks Guy for your patient attempts to resolve this. Ornaith (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 37


text:
Talk:List of ambassadors of Australia to Japan

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Australian Ambassadors to Japan. 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/20140714120316/http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2011/kr_mr_110407.aspx?ministerid=2 to http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2011/kr_mr_110407.aspx?ministerid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714120316/http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2011/kr_mr_110407.aspx?ministerid=2 to http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2011/kr_mr_110407.aspx?ministerid=2

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


text:
Conmap

If you've thought about the geography of your planet, you'll eventually need a ConMap to organize the information. This section deals with how to make good, realistic, and eye-pleasing maps.

Table of Contents

 * Getting Ready
 * Projections
 * The Basic Outline
 * Nations
 * Mountains
 * Thematic Maps
 * Finishing Touches
 * Examples of Conworld Maps

Computerized mapping
Mapping software tools provide a wide array of options for creating maps at many different levels as well as rendered scenes of landscapes based on those maps.

Free software

 * TerraJ by Martin Smith, an open source Java cross-platform solar system generator combining Fractal Planet, StarGen, and Planet Generator
 * GeoMorph relief editor
 * G.Projector by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a free cross-platform Java application that can reproject a map from a cylindrical projection to a Mercator projection, for example
 * AutoRealm is an open source mapping utility for creating maps of castles, dungeons, and cities

Commercial software

 * L3DT by Bundysoft, a comprehensive commercial terrain modeling solution.
 * Fractal Mapper by Nbos Software, targeted at maps more similar to human-drawn maps
 * AstroSynthesis by Nbos Software, a star-mapping tool that maps the positions of groups of nearby stars in 3D
 * Daylon Leveller by Daylon Graphics, a terrain sculpting application for Windows
 * Terragen by Planetside Software, a terrain generator and rendering application

Unknown status

 * Wilbur by Joe Slayton, a free digital terrain sculpting application for Windows
 * The Galaxy galaxy generator by Dmytry Lavrov

title: Conmap


text:
Talk:Saw Delight

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-Saw Delight (album cover).jpg
Image:Can-Saw Delight (album cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saw Delight


text:
Official Military Personnel File

The Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), known as a 201 File in the U.S. Army, is an Armed Forces administrative record containing information about a service member's history, such as:

 * Promotion Orders
 * Mobilization Orders
 * DA1059s – Service School Academic Evaluation Reports
 * MOS Orders
 * Awards and decorations
 * Transcripts
 * SGLV 8286 – Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Election and Certificate)
 * NCOERs and OERs (Evaluation Documents)
 * DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty

Contents
The OMPF is an important document for service members to maintain, as the documents it contains are important for access to benefits such as the VA loan and the G.I. Bill. Copies may be requested from the National Archives by service members and their families. The OMPF further contains demotions, forfeiture of pay as a de facto record of non-judicial disciplinary action (Article 15). Court Martial and judicial action are recorded. Weapons qualification is included in the OMPF.

Other uses
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also uses the term "201 file" to refer to their employees' personnel records used for analogous purposes.

title: Official Military Personnel File


text:
User:UBX/WikiArticles

Rules

 * DO NOT copy the source of this userbox. Otherwise you risk putting your userpage in a miscategorization.
 * Put this Userbox on your Userpage like this:
 * This clickable Userbox is transcluded to over 10 Userpages. It is not an article!

Usage

 * Put this Userbox on your userpage like this:

title: User:UBX/WikiArticles


text:
User:Neny

Neny Isharyanti
Neny Isharyanti is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Manchester and permanently a senior lecturer at Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga, Indonesia .To contact, please reach via her Twitter @nenyish.

title: User:Neny


text:
Lindenau

Lindenau may refer to:

 * Lindenau, Germany
 * Lindenau (Leipzig), a quarter of the city of Leipzig, Saxony, Germany
 * Lindenau, New Jersey, US
 * Lindenau, Texas, US, an unincorporated community
 * Lindenau (crater), a lunar crater

People with the surname

 * Bernhard von Lindenau, a 19th-century German astronomer

title: Lindenau


text:
User:Sky Harbor/Awards

Not as a bragging page, but over the course of Wikipedia work users get awards. You can see the awards already accumulated (in order) and if you want, you can add too! You can be bold! Anyway, these are some of the awards I received in the course of my Wikipedian service.

title: User:Sky Harbor/Awards


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bansuri Utsav

The result was no consensus. Consensus to delete is not clear, and an apparently reliable source was added after the last delete vote. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bansuri Utsav

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG the sources are mostly routine what's on coverage. Domdeparis (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist.
 * Delete not notable, not enough sources. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although the article does need to be cleaned up a bit, there are enough reliable sources for the subject of this article. Thus, it should be kept, as the content can be verified. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  14:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not able to find a lot of coverage beyond the entries in the local entertainment section which usually contains a list of "what's on" in the city. For an event in mylumbai, the coverage is quite weak. Let me look for more.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
Jablonka, Myjava District

Jablonka is a village and municipality in the Myjava District in the Trenčín Region of West Slovakia. The name Jablonka literally translates as a 'small apple tree', which can be explained by the large number of apple trees in and around the village.

History
In historical records the village was first mentioned in 1690 and was officially established in today's borders in 1955.

Geography
The municipality lies at an altitude of 290 metres and covers an area of 12.587 km2. It has a population of about 516 people. The small villages in Jablonka consist of U maliarikovci, U usiiacovci  and U michalickovci.

title: Jablonka, Myjava District


text:
Talk:Amazon (chess)

This page was moved to Amazon (fairy chess piece) at one point. I was unaware of this merge move as I was working on an expansion of the article here, and therefore inadvertently recreated the page here. As a result we now have the problem of parallel histories. Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Inverted queen
I suggest the amazon being represented by inverted queen. Ambiguity with grasshopper is ok, because similar ambiguity was done for nightrider, camel and zebra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiotrGrochowski000 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please follow https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TALK&redirect=no#TOPIC. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Amazon vs empress endgame
I made a mistake in the original version of this article; the draw is only sometimes forceable. My thanks to this Chess Stack Exchange answer for demonstrating that this is so! Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative to what?
The caption of the very first illustration offered says "An alternative icon for the amazon used in diagrams."  Since no other icon has bent presented at that point, I'm left scratching my head as to what this is an "alternative" for. Shouldn't the more standard icon be presented first, and then the alternative(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since combined icons for the BN, RN, and QN compounds are standard enough to be in Unicode, I've switched to the QN combined icon everywhere. It is worth noting that the combined icons are mostly in use among chess-variant players; problemists tend to prefer rotated symbols. Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Amazon (chess)


text:
Wolfgang Liebeneiner

Wolfgang Georg Louis Liebeneiner (6 October 1905 – 28 November 1987) was a German actor, film director and theatre director.

Beginnings
He was born in Liebau in Prussian Silesia. In 1928, he was taught by Otto Falckenberg, the director of the Munich Kammerspiele, in acting and directing.

Nazi era
In 1936, Liebeneiner became a member of the Prussian State Theater (Preußisches Staatstheater) in Berlin and in 1938, he became artistic director of the German Film Academy Babelsberg (Deutsche Filmakademie Babelsberg).

In 1941, he directed the film Ich klage an (I accuse) in cooperation with the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. The film was about voluntary euthanasia of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis, but was intended to support the T4 euthanasia program. He received a doctorate in the years from 1942 to 1945 while working for Universum Film AG, the largest German film studio at that time.

Post war
In 1947, Liebeneiner directed the debut of Wolfgang Borchert's play Draußen vor der Tür (The Man Outside) in the Hamburg Kammerspiele. In 1956 he was successful with the film The Trapp Family.

He died on 28 November 1987, aged 82, in Vienna after a long illness.

Personal life
Liebeneiner was married twice: first, from 1934 to the actress Ruth Hellberg, then from 1944 to the actress Hilde Krahl, with whom he had his daughter Johanna Liebeneiner, also an actress.

Actor

 * The Other Side (1931)
 * Happy Days in Aranjuez (1933)
 * Farewell Waltz (1934)
 * Music in the Blood (1934)
 * Asew (1935)
 * Liebelei (1933, directed by Max Ophüls)
 * A Love Story (1933)
 * Enjoy Yourselves (1934)
 * What Am I Without You (1934)
 * A Night on the Danube (1935)
 * Every Day Isn't Sunday (1935)
 * Artist Love (1935)
 * His Late Excellency (1935)
 * The Blonde Carmen (1935)
 * Friedemann Bach (1941)

Director
Film

 * The Model Husband (1937)
 * Don't Promise Me Anything (1937)
 * You and I (1938)
 * Yvette (1938)
 * Target in the Clouds (1939)
 * The Leghorn Hat (1939)
 * Bismarck (1940)
 * Ich klage an (1941)
 * Die Entlassung (1942)
 * Melody of a Great City (1943)
 * Love '47 (1949)
 * My Niece Susanne (1950)
 *  Abundance of Life (1950)
 * When a Woman Loves (1950)
 * The Blue Star of the South (1951)
 * Gateway to Peace (1951)
 * 1. April 2000 (1952)
 * The Dancing Heart (1953)
 * The Stronger Woman (1953)
 * The Beautiful Miller (1954)
 * Love is Forever (1954)
 * On the Reeperbahn at Half Past Midnight (1954)
 * I Was an Ugly Girl (1955)
 * Leave on Word of Honour (1955)
 * The Trapp Family (1956)
 * Winter in the Woods (1956)
 * Queen Louise (1957)
 * Goodbye, Franziska (1957)
 * Immer wenn der Tag beginnt (1957)
 * The Trapp Family in America (1958)
 * Taiga (1958)
 * Sebastian Kneipp (1958)
 * My Daughter Patricia (1959)
 * Jacqueline (1959)
 * Ingeborg (1960)
 * I'm Marrying the Director (1960)
 * A Woman for Life (1960)
 * Final Accord (1960)
 * The Last Chapter (1961)
 * Schweik's Awkward Years (1964)
 * The World Revolves Around You (1964)
 * When Sweet Moonlight Is Sleeping in the Hills (1969)
 * The Chinese Miracle (1977)
 * Goetz von Berlichingen of the Iron Hand (1979)

Television
 * Treasure Island (1966, TV miniseries) — (based on Treasure Island)
 * Ein Schloß in Schweden (1967) — (based on Château en Suède by Françoise Sagan)
 * Ein ehrenwerter Herr (1968) — (based on Un grand honnête homme by Jules Romains)
 * Tom Sawyers und Huckleberry Finns Abenteuer (1968, TV miniseries) — (based on Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn)
 * Mister Barnett (1969) — (based on Monsieur Barnett by Jean Anouilh)
 * Eine konsequente Frau (1971) — (based on The Constant Wife)
 * Die sieben Ohrfeigen (1971) — (remake of Seven Slaps, 1937, based on a novel by Károly Aszlányi)
 * Besuch auf einem kleinen Planeten (1971) — (based on Visit to a Small Planet by Gore Vidal)
 * Die Abenteuer des braven Soldaten Schwejk (1972, TV series) — (based on The Good Soldier Švejk)
 * Gasparone (1973) — (based on Gasparone)
 * Plaza Fortuna (1973) — (based on a novel by Gudrun Pausewang)
 * Eine egoistische Liebe (1973) — (based on Sons and Lovers)
 * Schwarzwaldmädel (1973) — (based on Schwarzwaldmädel)
 * Spannagl & Sohn (1975–1976, TV series)
 * Das kleine Hofkonzert (1976) — (based on Das kleine Hofkonzert)
 * Die Abenteuer des braven Soldaten Schwejk, second season (1977, TV series) — (based on The Good Soldier Švejk)
 * Das Drehbuch (1980) — (based on Le Scénario by Jean Anouilh)
 * Der Garten (1983) — (based on a play by Tim Aspinall)
 * Der Mustergatte (1983) — (based on Fair and Warmer)

title: Wolfgang Liebeneiner


text:
Sean Tizzle

Morihanfen Oluwaseun Oluwabamidele (born 15 December 1989), known by his stage name as Sean Tizzle, is a Nigerian singer and songwriter. He is currently signed to Wind Vane Music.

Early life and career
Sean Tizzle was born into a Christian home in 1989, he is the fourth child in a family of five. Although he was born in Ikeja, he grew up in Ikorodu, and attended Community Grammar School, Majidun as well as the Command Secondary School, Ibadan, he then went on to study theatre arts at the University of Ibadan. He began his music career as a rapper with the 3-Way band.

Sean rose to stardom in 2013 after the release of his smash hit single Sho Lee and thereafter worked with Unlimited L.A to deliver the music video.

In 2014, MTN Nigeria announced the signing of the music artiste on a 20 million naira endorsement deal. He also landed a Bacardi Breezer ambassadorship in August of the same year.

Notable performances
He has performed in several popular events, including:
 * Etisalat (2014) (Easy Cliq Campus Tour)
 * Ay Live (2013)
 * Nokia Lumia Party (2013)
 * Hennessy Artistry (2013)
 * Star Music Trek (2014)
 * First Bank
 * UBA (All About You Debit MasterCard Launch)
 * Sterling Bank (GetReadyFor Work) 2013
 * Coko Bar Music Festival (London) 2013
 * Nea Awards (New-York)
 * African Social Awards Malaysia ASAM (Malaysia) 2013
 * Felabration 2013
 * GT Bank (End Of The Year Party 2013)
 * Access Bank plc (End Of The Year Party 2013)
 * Headies Awards 2013
 * Lagos Count Down 2013
 * Uk tour 2014 (6 cities)
 * Uk tour 2015 (7 cities)
 * Uk tour 2016 (10 cities)
 * Tim Westwood
 * Loud Beach Party (2018)
 * The Sean Tizzle Experience (2019)

Studio albums

 * The Journey (2014)

 * DUES (Sean TIZZLE Album) 2023

EPs
Where You Been (2021)
 * Moving Forward (2017)

Singles

 * Kilogbe
 * Kilogbe Remix ft. Olamide & Reminisce
 * Komole (Produced by Aje Filmworks)
 * Mama Eh
 * Boogie Down
 * Sho Lee
 * International Badman
 * Abeg (2015)
 * Kpata Kpata (2016) ( As featured artiste )
 * Perfect Gentleman
 * Loke Loke ( featured 9ice )
 * Igi Orombo ( featured Tiwa Savage )
 * Abiamo
 * Eruku Sa’ Ye Po
 * Jalolo
 * Like To Party
 * Hit and Run (featuring Tory Lanez)
 * Thank You
 * Telephone man
 * Roll up
 * Dide
 * Alhaji Abass
 * Latin Lover ft. Daxmpire
 * Arawa ni
 * Wasted (2018)
 * Best For you (2018)
 * Kpro Kpro (2018)
 * Kpro Kpro remix ft Davido (2018)
 * Belinda (2018)
 * Pempe (2018)
 * Lotto (2019)
 * Contagious (2019)
 * Abena (2020)
 * Oreke (2020)
 * Sure for you (2020)
 * Time & Season (2024)

title: Sean Tizzle


text:
Talk:Ben Zabo

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ben Zabo. 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/20120520075648/http://thinkafricapress.com:80/mali/review-bo-culture-through-malian-afrobeat to http://thinkafricapress.com/mali/review-bo-culture-through-malian-afrobeat

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ben Zabo


text:
User:Dr Gangrene/sandbox

Austrian-Prussian rivalry denotes the conflict between Austria and Prussia over dominance over the German states, a conflict which reached a high point with the Seven Years' War.

It reached a further high point with the wars of German unification of 1864-1871. After Austria and Prussia had cooperated in putting an end to Danish efforts to annex the Duchies of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg in the Second Schleswig War; disagreements over the leadership of the German Confederation led to federal military action against Prussia, and to the Austro-Prussian war. The war was triggered by a dispute over the administration of Schleswig and Holstein after the termination of the Second Schleswig War.

Austro-Prussian rivalry was marked by systemic/fundamental and at the time virtually irreconcilable differences (?), that were consolidated in the respective states. Ultimately, after its victory over Austria in 1866, Prussia was able to push through the Lesser German solution, which meant the unification of the German states without Austria. The German Confederation that had existed since 1815 was dissolved after the 1866 Peace of Prague. The Austrians' preferred Greater German solution appeared too dangerous to many of Europe's politicians, seeing as it would have threatened the balance of power and status quo. In the course of the reorganisation of European alliance systems at the 1878 Berlin Congress, the Austro-Prussian rivalry was finally resolved/overcome with the Dual Alliance.

State
Whereas the Prussian Kingdom was a rather artificial creation (state), which had resulted from the fusion of the Electorate of Brandenburg and the Duchy of Prussia, Austria was a traditional dynastic power (?) of the Holy Roman Empire, which had been ruled by the Habsburgs since the 13th century.

In the 1860s, as the Industrial Revolution spread across Europe, Austria was unable to keep pace economically with the other great powers, Great Britain and France, and was even overtaken by the other German states in terms of percentage of world industrial production. The Austrian level of industrialisation rose more slowly than in other European great powers except Russia. The reasons for this are partly Austria's conservative policies i.e. restoration, partly a lack of national cohesion and partly Austria's geography.

Military
In military terms, the Prussian state was ahead of the Austrian. In Prussia, since the Prussian army reforms a modern conscript army existed, whose officers were promoted according to personal merit, and who could be of non-aristocratic origin; a common saying was that other states had a military, but in Prussia the military had a state. In Austria on the other hand, the Habsburg military forces were strongly controlled by the aristocracy, which filled the officers' ranks not according to personal achievement, but by seniority in service.

The militaries, particularly their equipment and weaponry, were also affected by the fact that Prussia industrialised earlier and more rapidly than Austria. The Prussian army's structure was another advantage: Conscription was for 3 years, after which one had to serve 4 years in the reserve. It was thus that Prussia could mobilise 7 year groups, and could make up for its disadvantage in having a smaller population. There was also a higher emphasis on quality than on quantity, in that a Prussian private was generally well-equipped and well-trained. In addition, the Prussian General Staff examined past mistakes and took corrective action.

Man kann die Unterschiede zwischen Preußen und Österreich auch hören - in den „Preußischen und österreichischen Märschen“ mit Herbert von Karajan und den Bläsern der Berliner Philharmonik.

State philosophy
Faith was another dividing factor. The Protestant, enlightened Prussia may be contrasted with the Catholic and feudal Austria. Obedience and discipline were more highly valued in the Prussian army than faith, which in turn was highly important in Austria.

Austria was ruled by Joseph II in accordance with enlightened absolutism: "Everything for the people but nothing through the people". Prussia on the other hand was a constitutional state, in which the legal framework, the form of government and the form of administration were firmly prescribed (?). Another difference was that Prussia concentrated more on inner German matters, whilst Austria expanded towards the south-east as the Ottoman Empire grew increasingly weak; ultimately, after the Austrian defeat in the 1866 war against Prussia, in the following year it was forced to negotiate with Hungary. In this newly-formed multi-national state, conflicts and crises were pre-ordained, as there were often tensions between the Germans, Slavs, Hungarians and various other nationalities within its borders.

Background to the rivalry
After Emperor Charles VI died on 20 October 1740, without a male heir in the Habsburg family, Maria Theresa inherited the rule of the Habsburg territories according to the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713. However, not all European rulers recognised the Pragmatic Sanction, including Frederick II of Prussia. In return for his recognition he demanded Silesia from Austria, on the basis of old treaties. On 11 December 1740 he laid down an ultimatum to this effect.

Silesian Wars 1740–1742 and 1744/1745
Without waiting for a reply, on 16 December 1740 he marched into Silesia, thereby triggering the War of the Austrian Succession, as other European states also claimed the Habsburg territories. The Austrians could not prevent Frederick II from taking Silesia, and after the defeat at the Battle of Chotusitz were forced to make peace with Prussia (...). It therefore concluded the Treaty of Breslau and the Treaty of Berlin (1742), in which Ober- and Niederschlesien and the County of Kladsko were awarded to Prussia, which in turn took over Silesia's debts.

After Austria lost the imperial throne to the Bavarian Prince-Elector Charles VII in 1742, Austria occupied Bavaria and allied with Britain. Frederick II now feared that Austria might reclaim Silesia from Prussia.

For this reason in August 1744 he invaded Bohemia (Second Schleswig War), where he met with little success, and then retreated to Silesia. He was still able to defend Silesia against the Austrians. Austria therefore concluded the Treaty of Dresden in 1745, which once again affirmed Prussia's new acquisitions from the Treaty of Berlin. Frederick II in return recognised Franz Stephan, the husband of Maria Theresa, as the Holy Roman Emperor, after Charles VII had died.

From the Silesian to the Seven Years' War 1745–1763
After the Treaty of Dresden Prussia was no longer a participant in the War of the Austrian Succession, which only ended in 1748 with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, in which the European powers recognised the Pragmatic Sanction and Maria Theresa as heiress to the throne. The peace treaty once again confirmed Prussia's retention of Silesia. After 1748 Maria Theresa enacted reforms in Austria, but not Hungary, to improve the state machinery, strengthen the military, with a view to regaining Silesia. In foreign politics, guided by Chancellor Kaunitz, she attempted to isolate Prussia, by concluding alliances with Russia and France (see Diplomatic Revolution). After the reforms had proved effective, she prepared the Austrian army for an invasion of Prussia. (Seven Years' War).

After Frederick II had learned via his spies of the Austro-Russo-Franco-Saxonian alliance, he faced the problem of a war on several fronts. To prevent this, he concluded an alliance with England (Treaty of Westminster (1756)), and without declaring war, on 29 August 1756 invaded Saxony. He planned to gain a fast victory over and to occupy Saxony, due to its importance to Prussia in economic and military terms. After a victory over Saxony, he wanted to rapidly occupy Prague, to permanently station troops in enemy territory. He thus wanted to force Austria into peace negotiations, and expected that after such a peace treaty, Russia would not dare to fight Prussia alone.

Although he succeeded in defeating Saxony, the Austrians moved more rapidly than expected and thus his plan for a rapid victory failed. In 1757 he once again attempted to occupy Prague, but failed. As a consequence the Prussian situation grew ever more critical, so that by 1760 Prussia's military forces were exhausted, and key territories (East Prussia, Saxony, Silesia) were now in enemies' hands. He had to attempt to preserve Prussia. The rescue (?) only came when his opponents became disunited (see Miracle of the House of Brandenburg), and failed to capitalise on their victories over Prussia. The final ??? came when Empress Elizabeth died in 1762 in St. Petersburg and her successor Peter III made peace with Prussia. Due to this, Austria, which had already exhausted its military and economic energies, was forced to conclude peace with Prussia. The Treaty of Hubertusburg was signed, in which Prussia was permanently guaranteed ownership of Upper and Lower and Silesia, and the County of Kladsko. From then onwards, Prussia was the fifth European great power.

From the Seven Years' War to the War of the Bavarian Succession 1763–1780
In the Treaty of Hubertusburg, Austria had permanently lost Silesia to Prussia. In return, Frederick II had pledged himself to support Maria Theresa's son, Joseph II, in imperial elections, which he did in 1764. After this there were no further military conflicts, but Frederick II attempted to weaken the Emperor, the Empire and Austria.

A new situation emerged when Prussia and Russia planned the First Partition of Poland. To gain Austria's consent, Prussia offered them a part of Poland as well. At the Partition in 1772, Austria received Galicia, Russia received Polish Livonia and the Belarussian Voivodeships, and Prussia all Prussian territories which until then had been under Polish rule. From then Frederick II styled himself "King of Prussia" and no longer "King in Prussia". After the Partition, the Austro-Prussian tensions could still not be contained, but it did not come to armed conflict.

This changed when in 1777 the Bavarian line of the House of Wittelsbach died out, and Charles Theodore, from the Palatinate line, was to inherit the Electorate of Bavaria. But Emperor Joseph II intervened, seeing in Bavaria a suitable place to expand his territories after the loss of Silesia and to improve his position in the Empire. Charles Theodore caved in to Austrian pressure and ceded Lower Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate, in return for which he was to receive Further Austria. But this met with opposition from the other members of he Empire, including Prussia. Therefore Frederick II sent his troops into Bohemia, but due to logistical problems no major battle occurred. France and Russia thereafter mediated and negotiated the Treaty of Teschen, in which Emperor Joseph II recognised the agreements of the Wittelsbachers, and received the Innviertel region from Bavaria.

From the War of the Bavarian Succession to the Coalition Wars 1780–1812
Despite the Treaty, tensions did not abate, but continued without military clashes. Tensions flared up again when in 1785 Austria planned to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands. As a consequence, the Protestant Fürstenbund ("league of princes") formed under Prussian leadership against Austria.

In 1786 Frederick II of Prussia died. Thereupon Austria and Russia began a new campaign against the Turks, in which they attempted to force the weakened Ottoman Empire out of Europe and divide the conquered territories among themselves. This would have meant a massive power shift in favour of Austria and Russia within Europe, which the new Prussian King Frederick William II would not accept. Therefore he assembled in 1790 the Prussian army in Silesia, to lead them into Austria.

But the King, after a short while, put a stop to this himself, as it was too expensive. Influenced by the French Revolution in 1789, and urged on by the English, the new Emperor Leopold II and Frederick William II of Prussia tried to put aside the Austro-Prussian rivalry, which resulted in the Reichenbach Convention of 1790. Austria ended the campaign against the Turks, and Prussia ended its expansion eastwards.

In 1791 Austria and Prussia allied in the Declaration of Pillnitz and declared complete solidarity with the French king. The French National Convention then on 20 April 1792 declared war on Austria and Prussia (War of the First Coalition). The two powers, due to antiquated military organisations and a lack of the will to fight, did not manage to score any large victories. Prussia in 1795 concluded the Peace of Basel, and Austria in 1797 concluded the Peace of Campo Formio, in which they both ceded the territories west of the Rhine to France, and in return received compensation.

After the War of the Second Coalition (1799-1801), which Austria but not Prussia took part in, the Holy Roman Empire as a whole made peace with France (Treaty of Lunéville), and consented to the cession of all of the Empire's territories west of the Rhine, and the affected rulers would be compensated. This occurred through the German Mediatisation of 1803. Thus the Emperor was deprived of the most important mainstay of his power, and the dissolution of the Empire was only a question of time. To counter the loss of status and to remain an Emperor, Francis II proclaimed the Austrian Empire on 11 August 1804.

Thereafter the two great German powers waged wars against France independent of one another, Austria in 1805 (War of the Third Coalition, ending in Austrian defeat and in 1806 an end of the old Empire), Prussia in 1806-1807 (War of the Fourth Coalition, resulting in Prussian defeat and loss of great power status) and Austria in 1809 (War of the Fifth Coalition, resulting in Austrian defeat). Both were forced to conclude military alliances with France, Austria in 1809 (Treaty of Schönbrunn and Prussia in 1807 (Treaty of Tilsit), which forced them to fight against Russia in 1812.

Wars of Liberation and Vienna Congress 1813–1815
After the French defeat in Russia, Austria and Prussia ended their alliance with France and allied with Russia. Together they freed Germany from Napoleon. At the Battle of Leipzig in autumn 1813, the Allies were victorious and forced Napoleon to retreat beyond the Rhine. In March 1814 they marched into Paris and forced Napoleon to abdicate. Napoleon returned in 1815 and for a short while took over power again, threatening a resumption of hostilities. In the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon was finally defeated and banished to St. Helena.

At the Vienna Congress, the territories of Austria and Prussia were restored as much as possible to their state of 1789. Austria lost Further Austria and the Austrian Netherlands, but gained the large Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, whose king was in personal union, Emperor of Austria. A hard loss for Prussia was that of the territories from the Third Partition of Poland, for which they only received Posen and various territories on the Rhine as a buffer against France, but also had to cede all territories that did not come with the main territory because of the principle of state integrity/cohesion, including some parts of Southern Germany, but gained the Province of Saxony. In the place of the Holy Roman Empire, the German Confederation was established, a defensive alliance of all German states, with Austria as the sole presiding power.

From the Vienna Congress to the March Revolutions 1815–1849
After the Vienna Congress, a period of restoration started in Germany (Vormärz), heavily influenced by the Austrian Chancellor Klemens von Metternich, who had also played a key role at the Vienna Congress. At his instigation, the liberal and nationalist movements were suppressed, the rulers governed in an absolutist manner, in 1819 the Carlsbad Decrees were introduced, and a central investigative commission was established in Mainz to persecute liberals. For Austria, this had negative long-term consequences: through the conservative and restorative policies, Austria fell behind the other powers socially, politically, militarily and economically. These grievances would within time trigger a revolution.

In March 1848, these conditions moved the people to the barricades, and revolution broke out. This had various reasons: the desire for a nation-state, the suppression of the liberals and nationalists, and the social question, which had arisen due to the Industrial Revolution, which was accelerated by the establishment in 1834 of the German Customs Union (Zollverein). In the major German cities it came to fights on the barricades, the rulers were forces to appoint liberal governments; in Vienna, Chancellor Metternich had to resign, in Berlin Frederick William IV had to consent to the election of a parliament and the drafting of a constitution, in Munich, the king of Bavaria had to abdicate.

For the first time an all-German parliament was elected which sat in St. Paul's Church, Frankfurt. It drafted a constitution for Germany, which due to the counter-revolution in summer of 1948 in Austria was never enacted and failed on the rejection by Austria and Bavaria. The Prussian king also would not accept the title of German Emperor.

title: User:Dr Gangrene/sandbox


text:
Talk:Anthony Shetler

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Anthony Shetler. 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/20110716080648/http://www.skateboardrev.com/News/All/Anthony-Shetler-Interview1 to http://www.skateboardrev.com/News/All/Anthony-Shetler-Interview1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717104929/http://truesk8boardmag.com/anthony-shetler-interview/4273/ to http://truesk8boardmag.com/anthony-shetler-interview/4273/
 * Added tag to http://videos.skateboard-city.com/node/36188
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412060356/http://www.solsticeskateboarding.com:80/main.html to http://www.solsticeskateboarding.com/main.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919141333/http://www.worldindustries.com/anthony-shetler to http://www.worldindustries.com/anthony-shetler
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629012222/http://worldindustries.com/en/1130/anthony-shetler to http://www.worldindustries.com/en/1130/anthony-shetler

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony Shetler. 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/20120824051151/http://www.worldindustries.com/team/skate-team-pro/anthony-shetler.html to http://www.worldindustries.com/team/skate-team-pro/anthony-shetler.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919141333/http://www.worldindustries.com/anthony-shetler to http://www.worldindustries.com/anthony-shetler

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anthony Shetler


text:
OpenOffice.org

OpenOffice.org User's Manual: OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org is a free, open source alternative to Microsoft Office and WordPerfect. It provides almost all of the functionality at no cost to the end user. You can read more about the creators and the project's goals here.

This manual also works for early versions of LibreOffice.

Introduction

 * /Introduction/
 * /Installation/
 * Applications Overview

Applications
OpenOffice.org is as an office suite, is divided into several related sub-applications. These applications are designed to work together but can also work like a stand alone programs:
 * /Writer/: word processor
 * /Calc/: spreadsheet
 * /Impress/: presentation program
 * /Draw/: vector graphics editor
 * /Base/: database management program
 * /Math/: formula editor

General Features

 * /Macro/: OpenOffice.org can be scripted through OpenOffice.org Basic, Python, Beanshell, and Javascript, this feature is more widely known as using Macros.
 * /Find & Replace/: OpenOffice.org's Find and Replace Function, from simple search and replace to the use of Regular Expressions.

Technical

 * /OASIS File Format/

Miscellaneous topics

 * /Performance Tips/
 * /Quickstarter/
 * /Prelink/
 * /Some useful template/
 * /Giving and Contributing/

Derived Works (Forks)
An up-to-date list is kept at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DerivedWorks.

References and external links

 * OpenOffice.org User Guide (2.0 Draft 11). Note that this is a 470 page PDF file and may take a few moments to download/open depending on your connection speed.
 * OpenOffice.org data recovery Hopefully it never happens, but if it does use these steps to recover data from corrupted or problem files in OpenOffice.org.
 * OpenOffice.org 2.0 lessons in Flash format
 * How to install OpenOffice.org in Windows XP
 * Using C++ with OOo's SDK

Contributors

 * T.R. Darr - Responsible for the bulk of the content (at the time of this writing; feel free to change that).
 * Roger Que - Information on OpenOffice.org being pre-installed with Linux distributions
 * Klingoncowboy4 - Added version, writer, and additional windows download info. Started Writer Tutorial.
 * Gesiwuj - Added descriptions and images of each application.
 * User: BLibrestez55 - Added description http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Blibrestez55/Books/BLibrestez_Certification_Writer]

OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org אופן אופיס ღია ოფისი (Open Office) OpenOffice.org a gyakorlatban nl:Portaal:OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org OpenOffice.org Vapautta tietoyhteiskuntaan!/OpenOffice.org โอเพนออฟฟิศดอตอ็อก OpenOffice.org

title: OpenOffice.org


text:
Prauserella aidingensis

Prauserella aidingensis is a bacterium from the genus Prauserella which has been isolated from Aiding Lake in China.

title: Prauserella aidingensis


text:
Provincial League (1936–37)

The Provincial League (1936–1937) was a league competition for speedway teams in the United Kingdom.

The league was formed after Mr B. Southouse (the Cardiff speedway manager for the Greyhound Racing Association) proposed that a new league be formed and organised a syndicate, including Nottingham and Liverpool speedway.

The Provincial League was created as a second tier to the National League in 1936 but was renamed National League Division Two in 1938.

The 'Provincial League' name was re-used for a breakaway league from the National League in 1960.

title: Provincial League (1936–37)


text:
Microwave popcorn

Microwave popcorn is a convenience food consisting of unpopped popcorn in an enhanced, sealed paper bag intended to be heated in a microwave oven. In addition to the dried corn, the bags typically contain cooking oil with sufficient saturated fat to solidify at room temperature, one or more seasonings (often salt), and natural or artificial flavorings or both.

Design
The bag is typically partially folded when it is placed in a microwave, and inflates as a result of steam pressure from the heated kernels.

Microwave popcorn bags are designed to avoid popped-kernel scorching, an undesirable effect that takes place when popped kernels are heated above 300 F. A susceptor—usually a metalized film laminated onto the paper of the bag—absorbs microwaves and concentrates heat at the film interface, thus ensuring a heat distribution focused on the hard-to-heat flavor coating so that the unpopped kernels are evenly coated prior to popping, thereby ensuring even flavor throughout the product.

Some popcorn is flawed and will not pop because of possible damage to the shell, which allows the steam to escape. These unpopped kernels are known as "old maids" or "spinsters".

An early susceptor popcorn bag design was patented by the American company General Mills in 1981 (US Patent #4,267,420).

Safety issues
Care in package design is needed for food safety.

A safety issue is that the cooking time given on the packaging does not apply to all microwave ovens. Setting the timer and coming back later, after the timer's alarm has sounded, could result in the popcorn being burnt and smoking badly. Microwave popcorn makers suggest that the person cooking the popcorn stay near the oven to observe the popcorn as it cooks, and take the popcorn out when the time between pops is more than a few seconds.

Some microwave ovens have a specific mode designed for cooking popcorn, which either uses factory-calibrated time and power level settings, or which uses humidity or sound sensors to detect when popping has finished.

The concern about microwave popcorn bags has increased in terms of the waste and their harmful impacts on the environment. The coating materials used in microwave popcorn bags can have negative effects on the environment. Researchers have detected toxic chemicals in the bags, such as perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) and their potential precursors.

Harmful chemicals
Researchers have detected many PFCs in microwave popcorn bags used as coating materials for oil and moisture resistance. The amount of PFOA in some microwave popcorn bags is determined as high as 300 μg kg−1. Besides PFOA and PFOS, Moral et al. also determined other perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) in popcorn packaging, including perfluoroheptanoic (PFHpA), perfluorononanoic (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic (PFDA), perfluoroundecanoic (PFUnA), and perfluorododecanoic (PFDoA) acids.

Due to the toxicity of PFOA, major U.S. manufacturers volunteered to phase out production of PFOA by the end of 2015. In addition, the use of perfluoroalkyl ethyl-containing food-contact substances are no longer allowed by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations in January 2016. However, although the production of PFOA and PFOS was reduced, the production of fluorotelomer-based chemicals applied to food contact papers is still increasing. Some compounds, such as polyfluoroalkyl phosphate surfactants (PAPs) or fluorotelomers (FTOH), have been used in some brands of microwave popcorn bags. Those compounds are precursors of PFCAs, and evidence shows that they are more toxic than PFCAs themselves. Furthermore, they may also be degraded to PFCAs, and therefore leading to the increase of PFCAs concentrations in the environment and generating adverse effects.

Environmental impacts
Because of the large amount of production of microwave popcorn bags, they have also become a significant contaminant source (PFCs) to the environment. Due to the disposal of coated paper and manufacturing activities, PFOA has also been detected in wastewater and biosolids. Soil near disposal sites are contaminated by PFOA as well.

title: Microwave popcorn


text:
User:Hellothere231/sandbox

--Hellothere231 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)--Hellothere231 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)--Hellothere231 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)--Hellothere231 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC) SOo hyhehah kgo to vasuce .commmee22 Hhe hajcoorfyupted eastetr akskkk aodspBATTERY LOW 10%HJAJSKXKjkjskjfjksfoINTERNALLLLMEMORYCORRUPTADX21314174567648%#@%@#%^%@#%#$^<EMAIL_ADDRESS>hfs0yeauiejsdo3o3o3o3oo3o3o3o3o3o3o3o3o33o3o3oo3o3odo foacetreaohn INTERANLMEMROYCOERUPT90%@##123E21030240INTEARANLMEMRAOYCORERRRUPYT100%EISG9SGEUR9YHEISRDDR8DS78FEUGDUFD9GUSD8U89BATTERYALWOW10%@#24935890120-40-129=0391=-40392059032489058976757---

SYSTEM OVERRIDING........................ SYSTEM OVERRIDED FIXING MEMORY.............. FAILED (abort, retry, fail?) ABORT HELP Welcoaooscme to heleplplplp ...\w]we will heledp you withhthththt this operataafasdfasfing syst9032492i9234em03023593490238908124104001ci9idsjifasadfsdf43\\ FIXING INTERNAL MEMORY.......................... FAILED FIXING<EMAIL_ADDRESS>--- -... --- - ... .-- .. .-.. .-.. - .- -.- . --- ...- . .-. - .... . .-- --- .-. .-.. -.. FAILLLEDLLLL SYSTEM STATEEEC RTIR CRITICALLLLL BRAKGI ND EMERGENCYETEY MMEMORY ACTIVATINGAFA...................... FAILELLDLDLDL FAILLL--<PHONE_NUMBER>10110101 BEEP. --END OF LOG

title: User:Hellothere231/sandbox


text:
User:Ben uk

Greetings from London...I am Ben, and I am 28yrs old. Done with the studies, and now working in an IT company. I like to browse through Wikipedia. My parents are from Kosovo, but I was born in the UK.

later,

Ben uk 10:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Will be off for some time, sorry Ilir.hope to meet you in Kosova.

title: User:Ben uk


text:
Non-system opposition

In modern Russian political terminology, the non-system opposition or non-systemic opposition (внесистемная оппозиция) are oppositional forces which operate outside of the official political establishment. Alternatively, the systemic opposition operates in the form of registered political parties.

There are two major reasons of the existence of the non-system opposition. First, the Russian Law on Political Parties originally set a high threshold for a political party to be registered, the highest hurdle having been the requirement to acquire at least 45,000 members. Second, a number of activists, such as Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Bukovsky, are in principle against registration, saying that the registration itself is a "vassal oath of allegiance to the authorities".

The emergence of the non-system political activists (and the introduction of the term) followed the 2003 Duma elections notable for the new extremely restrictive law about political parties. The period of 2004–2012 witnessed waves of mass political actions organized by the opposition movements. The spectrum of political views of the non-system opposition is extremely broad, and attempts to create "suprapolitical" associations, such as The Other Russia, eventually failed.

In 2007, Russian politologist Ivan Bol'shakov argued that the term "non-systemic opposition" reflects neither ideological distance to the ruling party nor non-acceptance of democratic institutions. The non-systemic opposition refers to opposition parties that are "excluded" from the political system because they lack both a representation in the structures of state power and contacts with the ruling group. They predominantly use unconventional methods of political struggle, have limited resources, and are particularly active on social networks. In his opinion, the enjoy little trust among citizens.

In 2012, Ivan Tyutrin and Aleksandr Lukyanov of the Solidarnost movement wrote that the nonsystem/system dichotomy became outdated; the real dichotomy should be whether a political force is non-conformist or conformist with respect to the Putinist political system. Their arguments are: the radicalization of some "systemic opposition", decreased importance of registration during non-election time, alleviation of hurdles for registration due to Dmitry Medvedev's reforms, and efforts of the current establishment to introduce discord into opposition.

title: Non-system opposition


text:
Talk:David Prutton

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on David Prutton. 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/20100708202012/http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk:80/page/NewsDetail/0,,10341~2082034,00.html to http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10341~2082034,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005211800/http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/Interview/0,,10341~2130309,00.html to http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/Interview/0,,10341~2130309,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811175258/http://www.swfc.co.uk/page/News/0,,10304~2366051,00.html to http://www.swfc.co.uk/page/News/0,,10304~2366051,00.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Prutton. 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/20120805100945/http://www.nottinghamforest.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10308~972869,00.html to http://www.nottinghamforest.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10308~972869%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502192831/http://www.leedsutd-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW to http://www.leedsutd-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=290580
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10341~2082034%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/page/Interview/0%2C%2C10341~2130309%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.swfc.co.uk/page/News/0%2C%2C10304~2366051%2C00.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Prutton. 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/20080320080624/http://www.leedsunited-mad.co.uk/news/loadrprt.asp?cid=MTCH&id=379016 to http://www.leedsunited-mad.co.uk/news/loadrprt.asp?cid=MTCH&id=379016
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430000513/http://www.leedsunited-mad.co.uk/news/loadrprt.asp?cid=MTCH to http://www.leedsunited-mad.co.uk/news/loadrprt.asp?cid=MTCH&id=381513

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Prutton


text:
Outdoor Survival/Shelter

Helpful Hints
Shelter will keep you out of the elements and help prevent hypothermia. It will provide shade in the heat. It also has an important positive psychological effect.

 * Bring a cheap, lightweight tent with you whenever you go hiking, even if you are not staying the night. Consider a "tube tent," for example...such a tube can be constructed by gluing (with waterproof glue) the long edge of a thin tarp or plastic drop cloth to the matching edge, creating a tube of-sorts. To use, simply string the string from one end of the tube through the other end, and tie the ends between two trees. If you are injured in the wilderness, such a shelter can be easy to erect quickly. When injured (particularly in cold weather) proper shelter can be essential for your survival.

 * A lean-to can be made by lashing a stick between two trees, then leaning more sticks on it to form a triangular structure. It can be improved by insulating it with evergreen boughs, branches and leaves, or snow. Alternatively just lay sticks against a log and fill with an cover with insulation. Remember add as much insulation as possible.

 * Get your body off the ground. Build an insulating pad between your body and the earth using sticks, pine boughs, leaves, etc. You should have twice as much insulation below you as above you.

 * Make the inside of your shelter as small as you can in cold conditions with lots of insulation

 * Building a fire reflector (a wall of sticks, rocks, etc.) will improve a lean-to by reflecting the fire's warmth back into the open side of the lean-to.

 * Bring one or two metallic rescue blankets wherever you go. They are useful for building shelters, reflectors, and water collectors, and you can even cook with them.

 * In snowy conditions, build a quinzhee.

 * One shelter that has worked very well in the past, is a lean-to shelter, it is fairly easy to construct, and is very effective.

Shelter for Survival
In the average consideration of survival it often seems shelter is overlooked, or at least taken for granted and misplaced on the scale of priorities.

It is always good to remember the "rule of threes": "A person can survive for three minutes without air, three hours without shelter, three days without water, three weeks without food."

While not absolute these guidelines are reasonable and appropriately stress the need for shelter. Protection from the elements comes second only to breathing.

Quick thoughts about the conditions under which three hours of exposure is a generous life-expectancy should immediately clarify that when shelter is most needed it may be most difficult to find or create.

Levels of shelter: Clothing and basic tools Minimal short-term protection Long-term protection A recent engineer by the name of Howard "Chubby" Fultz has developed an idea that could revolutionize outdoor survival. It is commonly referred to as "The Chubby Dome." The official name is "CD320." Although still in the developing stages, The Chubby Dome offers a fresh water supply, food storage, power, shelter, and a small bathroom.

Clothing:

Dress in Layers!

The first level of shelter to consider is that of clothing. Simply put, you have to be able to "walk home" in the clothing you have on or at hand. Take a hard look at the difference between what you want to wear and what you should have for all possible conditions.

Waypoints where additional resources are available (camp, basecamp, your car) can certainly be the initial target of any self-extraction. Such caches then cover situations of different scope ~what's on your person will get you back to camp, what's at camp will get you to your car, etc.

The concept of walking home may sound out of place, but there is a distinction between being lost and/or injured, and simply being in a difficult spot for an indefinite period of time. As a rule, if you are lost or injured do not wander -get yourself found-.

A minimal set of equipment should be incorporated into one's wardrobe. Without the ability to make fire and cut things -right now- you're not even trying to be prepared and will be hard-pressed to spend anything but a summer night outdoors safely.

Other Wikibooks

 * Debris Hut Construction from the Self-Reliance Handbook

title: Outdoor Survival/Shelter


text:
Cookbook:Spek

Spek is the firm pork fat that is taken from just underneath the pig's skin. It is often used in South African cuisine, particularly in sausage such as boerewors. It is also used in Dutch cooking, sometimes baked into pancakes.

title: Cookbook:Spek


text:
domaine

Etymology
From. .

Noun

 * 1)  A vineyard or wine estate, especially in France.

Etymology
,, from or.

Noun

 * 1) domain
 * 2) zone
 * 3) field of study etc.
 * 1) field of study etc.

title: domaine


text:
Patania quadrimaculalis

Patania quadrimaculalis is a species of moth in the family Crambidae. It was described by Vincenz Kollar and Ludwig Redtenbacher in 1844. It is found in Japan, Taiwan, Bhutan, Borneo, India, Nepal, China, Korea and the Russian Far East (Amur, the Kuriles). It is also present in Equateur in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The wingspan is 30 –. Adults have been recorded on wing in March.

title: Patania quadrimaculalis