text:
Reaktor

Reaktor is a proprietary software modular synthesiser and effects processor developed by Native Instruments. It allows musicians and engineers to design and build their own instruments, samplers, effects and sound design tools. Reaktor comes with a collection of predefined but editable instruments and effects, from emulations of classic synthesizers to futuristic sound design tools. In addition, more than 3000 free instruments can be downloaded from the growing User Library. About this book.

New

 * Reaktor as effects processor

Tutorials

 * Tip of the day
 * Tutorials

Reference

 * Module Reference - Information on individual modules
 * Panel, MIDI In, MIDI Out, Math, Signal Path, Oscillator, Sampler, Sequencer, LFO, Envelope, Filter, Delay, Audio Modifier, Event Processing, Auxiliary, Terminal

 * Synthesis
 * Subtractive, FM, Additive, Wavetable, Granular, Physical modelling

 * Core Technology - DSP Programming inside Reaktor
 * Reaktor as a plug-in in VST hosts
 * Cubase, Sonar, Live, Protools

Hardware

 * Hardware
 * Computers
 * Controllers
 * Soundcards

Ensembles

 * Best ensembles
 * Ensembles Dissected

Projects

 * Beat Mashery

Varia

 * History of Reaktor
 * Comparable Products
 * Reaktor 6 Wish List
 * Bands and Artists who use Reaktor
 * Varia - a collection of things that don't fit anywhere else yet
 * Links

Reaktor

title: Reaktor


text:
1959 Kansas Jayhawks football team

The 1959 Kansas Jayhawks football team represented the University of Kansas in the Big Seven Conference during the 1959 NCAA University Division football season. In their second season under head coach Jack Mitchell, the Jayhawks compiled a 5–5 record (3–3 against conference opponents), tied for third in the Big Seven Conference, and outscored all opponents by a combined total of 163 to 134. They played their home games at Memorial Stadium in Lawrence, Kansas.

The team's statistical leaders included Curtis McClinton with 472 rushing yards, John Hadl with 126 receiving yards and Leland Flachsbarth with 345 passing yards. John Peppercorn and Ken Fitch were the team captains.

The Jayhawks week 2 game against the eventual National Champion Syracuse was featured in the 2008 film The Express: The Ernie Davis Story.

source: wikimedia

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

title: 1959 Kansas Jayhawks football team


text:
User:SpeedDemon~enwiki

Hello! My name is Hiram Goldman. I currently reside in the Southeast U.S. and love the mild winters. This ensyslopedia seems like a good idea. Best Wishes, Hiram.

title: User:SpeedDemon~enwiki


text:
Talk:National Maximum Speed Law

85 mph speedometers
I have moved this to here because cursory Google searches suggest this may be an urban legend perpetuated by communal reinforcement:
 * Joan Claybrook, head of the NHTSA under President Jimmy Carter, in an effort to get people to pay attention to there now widely ignored law, passed a rule requiring that new vehicle speedometers have 55 mph bolded and not have the ability to indicate speeds higher than 85 mph. This rule was in effect from 1980 until it was repealed in 1989.

Can anyone find a definitve source that supports this? Note that "thousands" of Google hits are meaningless if they all point to web forums. We need reliable sources for this one. Nova SS 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Despite the edit summary's claim that there are thousands of references, a google search for the whole term brings up 13 results, not all of them re. the US.This Heritage Foundation paper from 1986 uses the term in the first para. "the 55 mph speed limit, technically called the National Maximum speed law (NMSL)"- although it only talks about the supposed fuel efficiency effect of the law. Richardjames444 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * oh yes, and the paper indicates that the law was passed in 1974, which supports the article's claims as far as chronology. Richardjames444 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, and how does that relate to 85 mph speedometers? And who said "thousands of references" and on what? Please start a new section on this page or provide some kind of context so we can have a clue what you're talking about. Nova SS 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, now I see your "thousands of references" claim. (Kelly Cook's edit.) Now what the heck are you talking about with the rest of your statements? Nova SS 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to be helpful. My bad. Richardjames444 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ×

Denial of true facts is worse than having something non-referenced
In regards to the 85 mph speedometer...

You guys want to find the actual NHTSA rule go ahead as it existed for over a decade. Everything for the NHSTA prior to 1991 is in the National Archives warehouse for record group RG-416 in College Park MD, but quite simple the speedometer rule did exist.

 * As the bolded text in this policy states, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question. As I do not know if it is true, and I think it would be hard to add that it is common knowledge (as it is a regulation that nobody can seem to find), it needs a source.  So, the text (about the government rule) should only be reinserted if it accompanied by a fact or the source.  Thanks. Ufwuct 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To verify this, I walked a few buildings over and asked some older engineers who design speedometers at a major automobile manufacture. They immediately confirmed that it was a NHTSA rule. And yes they also confirmed were derisively known in the auto industry as "Claybrook speedometers" though finding an official reference to that term would be fairly difficult, there were no blogs back then

Putting down something so wishy-washy as "Some cars of the era had speedometers which emphasized 55 mph" is just plain wrong, since they all did. The burden of proof should be on those who seem not to believe that such a nonsensical rule existed. It should be easy too, find one car built in the early 1980s and sold in the United States (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Ferrari ... it really doesn't matter) without a factory installed 85 mph speedo. You won't as all of them have a maximum indicated speed of 85 mph with equal spacing for equal speeds with a special emphasis on 55 mph.

The simple question to ask yourself, is do you really think an Porsche 928 sold in the U.S. and capable of driving at more than 150 mph would have restricted itself to only indicating 85 mph if this it wasn't government mandated, but an 85 mph speedometer it contains. , specifically -- KelleyCook 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I find it hard to believe that there are no definitive online references to something so hated. Nova SS 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The speedometer rule didn't exist for over a decade; it was more like three years. Yes the actual rules are available; I found them and added citations. You can all now read the original, final text of the implementation and the revocation. I also removed the sentence about what some car and truck makers did afterward; it has no relevance to the EHECA. AL Virginia (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

See also spamming
We don't need to add links to energy conservation or the 1973 crisis because both are already linked earlier in the article. Isopropyl 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another photo of a speed limit sign being changed to 55 mph in 1974 and added a link.

NPOV
I think more needs to be done to make this article conform to a neutral point of view. It seems the majority of references for items presented as fact are from policy groups favoring one side of the debate. While I am not all that familiar with the subject, it definitely needs some review for NPOV. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of citations in favor are because virtually no credible articles exist to favor a national 55 mph speed limit. It has been picked apart and lambasted and arguably only existed because of regulatory inertia and fear of change more than anything else. During its repeal, little credible information came out against it except perhaps an EPA study alleging an increase in smog-forming pollutants near highways. Nova SS (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is such a large amount of strong evidence we should be able to do better than a citation to one article from the Heritage Foundation and another from the CATO Institute to document all of it. Neither of those are widely viewed as impartial sources. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of a national 55 mph speed limit, however I find the Heritage Foundation reference (Ref 5) questionable. The statement that the 55 mph limit saved no more than 1% of fuel use does not make physical sense nor could I find any published DOT article by a Dr. John Eberhart. Air drag is increased by 86% at 75 vs 55. For most cars this increases the drag force by 50-60 pounds; for a Hummer it's almost 120 pounds. From personal experience, my gas mileage improved by 20% by driving at 55 vs 75. If the original DOD reference cannot be found, I recommend deleting the Hertitage Foundation reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a WHOOOOOOOLE lot more to speed policy than middle school math. Hopefully you can accept that the systemwide effect changing a speed limit is not as simple as anticipating corresponding changes in actual speeds and zero other impacts. Novasource (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One example of an article that disagrees with the "speed is safe" slant of this article is the national research council's report "55: a decade of experience." Special Report 204, 1984. The NRC is the clearing house for top science in the US. They have the top scientists review all available literature, decide on the credible ones and then write their report.

Also see, [the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety|http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html]. Read the answer to questions 7, which is littered with references. It starts, "Institute studies show that deaths on rural interstates increased 25-30 percent when states began increasing speed limits from 55 to 65 mph in 1987. In 1989, about two-thirds of this increase — 19 percent, or 400 deaths — was attributed to increased speed, the rest to increased travel.13,14,15" <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then add your NRC references. BTW, IIHS is hardly an unbiased source. It represents an industry that profits handsomely from speeding tickets. Ever heard of an insurance surcharge? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, the NRC reference is added, but now the lead disagrees with the body, which is populated entirely with right wing think tank references that disagree with an NRC reference--this means they are pretty much useless.
 * I also don't understand the IIHS source bias. How do insurance companies profit from speeding tickets surcharges? That is as ridiculous as saying that health insurance companies profit from people smoking. 018 (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They generally profit because they can assess hefty surcharges. I reverted your one-sided edits. Just because an organization is politically-aligned doesn't mean it's wrong. You may add back your reference if you don't delete other valid references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Two years later, I've found a definitive reference.
Washington Post -- March 10th, 1978 B11, Larry Kramer "Odometer Security Rules Due"

Federal Traffic Safety Chief Joan Claybrook ... said the National Traffic Safety Administration regulations also call for 1980 model cars to read only 85 miles an hour. And she wants 55 mph reading on the speedometer to be highlighted to remind drivers to observe the national speed limit."

I have a pdf of the scanned newspaper article, but that is from a pay source, so I cannot pubicly redistribute it. Email me if you need to see it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Your summary above says the reg was only to limit speedos to 85 mph. Joan Claybrook's preference is not a regulation, therefore it is not credible to say that emphasis on 55 had anything to do with NHTSA. Nova SS (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * To respond to your talk page edit comment, the perceived fact that all cars in a certain era had emphasis on 55 mph is not evidence of a regulation.
 * I don't object to pointing out the commonality of emphasis on 55. I object to declaring existence of a regulation when, as of yet, no credible proof has been found. Nova SS (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have owned and driven three Honda Accords from the period in question, of model years 1983, 1985, 1987. All three were purchased in the U.S. I distinctly recall that the '83 model's speedometer topped out at 120 mph, because it was the first car I had driven with a speedo that went that high. I'm fairly certain that the '85 and '87 speedometers were similar. I still have the '87 parked in my backyard, and will verify when I am home. Would it help if I uploaded a photo? --Mike --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Mike: I found the answer to your question: the rules were scrapped just over 2 years after they were put into place. Novasource (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Novasource. Just to follow up with the information promised (and not intending to beat a dead horse), the 1987 Accord's speedometer goes to 130 mph. --Mike --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And my 1989 Ford Escort speedo only went to 85mph, and had a different color for the 55. It was amusing to see the needle go past the 85 mark, across the odometer, and hit the back side of the 0mph peg. Of course, on a race track.

Photo caption
I have removed the following "Note the sign below, presumably a 60 or 65 mph truck speed limit." from the photo caption as being inherently speculative. It may also be wrong as I seem to recall that the limit applied to everyone including trucks. Also, some states have minimum speeds referenced by signs displayed directly below the speed limit sign (for instance, in Vermont the minimum is 40 MPH and in New Hampshire it's 45). Really, the lower sign can't be seen, and could be just about anything.Cbvt (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not so sure, but I won't revert. That sign is almost certainly a truck speed limit as the first digit is 6. It would seem unusual to have a minimum speed limit of 60 or 65; that's a pretty narrow bound. Novasource (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Senator John Warner
A news clip by KVUE Austin, TX has a possibility that the 1974 federal law which was repealed in 1995 would be reinstated due to the oil price increases since 2003:

http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/070808kvuespeedlimit-km.377d307c.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Not exactly. It would be a new law, not a literal resurrection of this law, and the subject is already discussed in Speed limits in the United States. Novasource (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It appears that Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act is almost exclusively about the 55 mph speed limit and some far less notable ride sharing initiative. Why not just merge the whole thing over to here? Novasource (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Sure, one sentence in the history section would seem to take care of it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No. As an encyclopedia, people should be able to look up specific things (like laws) by their official name in the Wikipedia, rather than try to find it buried as a line or two in the history section of an article on a subject they may not know had anything to do with what they are looking for (like the long-since repealed "National Maximum Speed Law" -- which was only one provision of the Act, and that was not the official name for that provision in the Act anyway. A better solution is to expand the stub which is the current article for the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act to include more information about the Act, its history, provisions, intent and effects. I will do that myself if someone with more expertise doesn't do it within the next month or so. -- J Cricket (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I encourage everyone to disregard J Cricket. He is a noncredible author who hacked this entry to promote his POV on speed limits.
 * The article about the act could link directly to a section of this article talking about the act.
 * Novasource (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

National Motorists Association
I made an April 2008 citation request at National Motorists Association concerning them taking credit for repeal of the National Maximum Speed Law. Until that is fulfilled, I do not want to see them mentioned on this page.

The NMA is deceptively named. It is not an association; it's a for-profit corporation. They have a profit motive in taking credit for repeal, so commensurate skepticism is encouraged.

Novasource (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename
This should be renamed to National Maximum Speed Law in the United States. Someone that visits this page could be from anywhere in the world. Just my opinion. (<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

The name used in the original law and the later update is "National Maximum Speed Limit." NMSLaw is an inaccurate term that crept into use later. The NMSL is one part, albeit by far the best known, of the EHECA. I unified the various references (it was used both ways) to say Limit. I also added the source references for the EHECA itself and the various speedometer rules.AL Virginia (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This should be renamed National Maximum Speed Limit, to match the text used in the original legislation. I haven't seen any justification for using the word "Law" instead, and using it promotes an incorrect assumption about what NMSL means.AL Virginia (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Office Of Driver Research
I was trying to find where the 1% number came from and I googled the "Office of Driver Research" and only got 5 hits, so I think it dosen't exist. Also had trouble finding John Eberhart in the DOT. So since the Heritage Founditation is the only surce on that I think it should be removed. I will try and find some information from a peer reviewed journal on the subject of fuel savigns. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Heritage Foundation is credible. You need to present something besides "I can't Google it" if you want to remove this. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

undo of recent edits by <IP_ADDRESS>
The National Research Council defines good science. They write reports using a consensus process and reviewing all relevant research and judging it on its merit. There is no reason not to attribute to them what they say, even in the lead. 018 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is correct for the header to say that there are differing views on the 55 mph speed limit's safety benefit. The NRC does not own the sole truth on intepreting the safety benefit. There are other, documented, legitimate, sound viewpoints. Therefore, the NRC's viewpoint belongs beside them in the detail section.
 * <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 * The NRC gets together a panel of experts (usually ones who have not published in a particular area, but could have) and they read all of the relevant literature and try to decide what a good reader would get form it. They usually make judgement calls about what reports to believe and what reports not to believe. The process represents the pinnacle of scientific understanding.
 * In contrast, reports are written by an author or two and may not even be read well by anyone else. 018 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 * There appears to be some confusion as to the Wikipedia consensus process. It is outlined here WP:CON. Basically, I want the NRC paper to stay in the lead and I'd like to discuss that. In leu of discussion, I'm going to ask that the previous version to be in place. 018 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cite the Wikipedia guideline that lets you use personal editorial discretion to promote one side of a disputed viewpoint. Until then, people will keep reverting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Lets focus on the issue at hand. So long as you will discuss this with me, I'm fine leaving this out of the lead. Now, Please respond to my July 31 comment. My basic view point is NRC is a secondary source, and unbiased while Heritage Foundation represents a fringe perspective. I think it is okay to attribute dissent from Heritage to the author, similar to an editorial, but their reports are self published and should be treated as such. 018 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

slow-moving edit war
People, stop the insanity! Discuss this disagreement like rational adults, or both of you could be blocked from editing. You're both engaged in a slow-moving edit war, and regardless of who is "right", edit warring is wrong, period.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted on my talk page and copied here to keep the discussion together:
 * Hi, at Talk:National_Maximum_Speed_Law you just accused me of edit warning. I'd appreciate it if you thought more about that and considered taking it back. I don't like the edit another editor is making and is unwilling to discuss. There are two options in this situation: rollover and play dead or keep moving back to the version I like and wait for him to start discussing the matter. Or maybe I'm missing something? 018 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reconsidered, and my original statement stands. WP:Edit warring states: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." That is exactly what is going on here.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, name a point at which I was not trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. 018 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're still both overriding and reverting each other's edits. You both should resolve the dispute on the talk page first before either edits to change the content of the article related to the disagreement. Making a talk page posting about how you disagree with the IP editor does not give you license to revert him/her.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My question still stands, can you please respond to it.  018 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Twice in two months I have RVed an edit where the user also made a comment on the talk page, otherwise I RVed when the user just did a drive by. If you seriously think that is abusive, I give up. 018 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between WP:3RR and a slow-moving edit war. No matter the time period, the constant reversions have de-stabilized this article over the long term. Stop changing it back and forth, no matter how long or how short of time since the last reversion, and discuss and decide which version will be chosen. There are three options
 * With "The National Research Council to be about 4000 lives in 1974 relative to 1973..." in the lead,
 * Without that part of the paragraph in the lead,
 * With a modified version of that paragraph in the lead altering it to respond to the IP editor's comments and concerns.
 * As for me, I'd choose some variation of number 3 as the first sentence of the disputed content does have a grammatical and logical error in it. (The sentence is missing a verb, so as a reader, I don't know what the NRC has done in relation to those "about 4000 lives". Did they say that they were saved? Did they say that they were killed? Did they go skipping merrily off to Candy Land?) The fact remains that the one sentence says that there is a dispute about a purported safety benefit to the law. Without some clarification, as written, that paragraph would only state one side of the issue (IIHS's side), which is not a neutral point of view and leads to undue weight.
 * As a second point, we have to gauge whether or not that text is an appropriate summary of the article. Whole sections of the article are not represented in the lead at the moment. Some balancing and refactoring is in order no matter what.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy to go for 3, I just need someone to discuss with.
 * On discussing... okay, what makes you say IIHS is not a neutral point of view? Also, what is IIHS saying? The NRC is who it is being attributed to. 018 (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not neutral; they've taken a stance. The problem isn't with that. NPOV doesn't require that each source of information has to be neutral, it means that as editors we can't take a side, we let the reader make an informed judgement after we present all creditable points of view with due weight given to each point of view. The problem is with the first sentence you keep reinserting: "The National Research Council to be about 4000 lives in 1974 relative to 1973." What is the NRC's position, exactly, because that text doesn't state it. (That is a direct quote from the content previously removed, re-inserted and re-removed.) There are several words missing from that sentence, which in effect, does not give their findings/results/estimates/opinions/etc completely. The text does not state if these are "4000 lives" that were saved, killed or whatever. We also have the problem that the NRC is being supported by the IIHS citation, yet the text makes no connection between the NRC and the IIHS. That level of specificity may not be needed in the lead when a good general summary can be inserted and the details left to the body of the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm now working on the rest of the article. Lets start there--and I think I might like the lead the way it is when I'm done with the body. Do you see a way to add the Cato bit back? to the section on safety? Do you think it is necessary? The other descanting paper has a clear argument for what is going on. "reversion to the mean" is non-sense since the law wasn't enacted because of high death tolls but because of an outside oil price shock. 018 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cato stuff is fine as written. If there are studies that minimize or discredit them, a simple explanation of the findings and who they are should be sufficient.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

lets go over the changes I just made that were RVed
Lets try to start with the easy stuff in this diff.

In popular culture: This was unwieldy and not really related to the main topic of the article. I think these sections are generally not looked upon as great material. I propose limited it to just three.

*Sammy Hagar's hit single "I Can't Drive 55". * The term "double nickel" came into widespread usage. *A hand with a pair of fives in Texas hold'em poker is referred to as "Speed Limit".

I'm fine to change what stays, but, again, I think the list was just too long. the second one I also asked for a reference for.

Comments on this proposed change? 018 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Opposition and noncompliance
in this section I propose the following changes: **The speed limit had very low compliance, reversing one practice that says the speed limit should criminalize only the fastest 15% of drivers: Change "reversing the commonly accepted practice that says" to "reversing one practice that says." I think there are many interpretations of this, but I think we would need a good cite for, "commonly accepted" which is weasel words in the first place. 018 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * fix a typo by changing "(AAA)]" to "(AAA)"
 * in the bullet

Safety impact
Here I propose bigger changes. I propose changing:

The National Research Council found the limit's safety benefit to be about 4000 lives in 1974 relative to 1973. However, a Cato Institute report showed that the safety record worsened in the first few months of the new speed limits, suggesting that the fatality drop found by the NRC was a statistical anomaly that regressed to the mean by 1978. After the oil crisis abated, the NMSL was retained mainly due to the possible safety aspect.

In 1986, when speed limits were still capped, the highway death toll was roughly half that of 1966. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which normally favors increased restrictions on drivers, said that credit for the improvement "mainly" goes to laws passed eight years before the NMSL went into effect. Joan Claybrook was in "deep agreement."

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the increase from 55 to 65 mph on rural roads led to a 25% to 30% increase in deaths while the full repeal in 1995 led to a further 15% increase to fatalities. However, research by the University of California Transportation Science Center found that studies finding a safety benefit failed to review system-wide safety changes and that raising rural speed limits to 65 mph caused a 3.4% to 5.1% safety improvement. Since the NMSL's repeal, annual road-related fatalities have continued to fall to historical lows despite steadily increasing speed limits. to: The limit's effect on highway safety is unclear. According to the National Academies of Science, when the law took effect there was a decrease in fatalities of about 4000 lives after the law took effect. In addition, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety workers wrote three papers that argue that increase from 55 to 65 mph on rural roads led to a 25% to 30% increase in deaths (1/3 from increased travel, 2/3 from increased speed) while the full repeal in 1995 led to a further 15% increase to fatalities. In contrasting work, researchers at University of California Transportation Science Center argue that the interstates in question are only part of the equation, one also must account for traffic moving off the relatively more dangerous country roads and onto the relatively safer interstates. Accounting for this they find that raising rural speed limits to 65 mph caused a 3.4% to 5.1% decrease in fatalities. comments? 018 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

85 mph rule
The following sentence was recently added to the 85 MPH speedometer section. "The speedometer rule remained in effect for several years, and most autos sold in the United States through the late 1980's had 85 mph speedometers." We already have the exact end date of the rule in the text, and "most autos sold in the United States" is pretty wishy-washy. I propose removing this sentence. 018 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The end date of the rule is not in the article text, although it is mentioned here in discussion. I wasn't aware of the exact end date which is why I inserted the statement about "most autos." Seems to me that either the end date should be placed in the article, or if a reference to it cannot be found, then "most autos" is factually correct. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 * the proposal of the end is in there, though the references are not working for me. What evidence for "most autos" is there? I'm going to ask for a reference for that. 018 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? My reference is personal experience. I was alive, had a driver license and owned cars in the 1980's. Hope that's good enough for you. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 * No. WP:RS describes what is a reliable source. I do not see the benefit of this sentence or what it adds so I removed it. 018 (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

88/89/90 KPH
In this article, 55mph = 90 kph; in another article, on traffic deaths, 55mph = 89kph; the general conversion among lay people is 88. Should the 90 stand?<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And now I see that even with-in this one article, 89 is also used (in the picture caption).Kdammers (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

 * It should be done like this: 55 mph which converts the units automatically. The result looks like this: "55 mph".  N419 BH  21:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ All conversions are now identical.  N419 BH  21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

O18's repeated attempts to promote pro-55 mph viewpoints
This page's history shows O18 engaging in a deliberate pattern of suppressing viewpoints or research unfavorable to the 55 mph speed limit. This user has repeatedly rewritten the summary section to exclude the possibility of anti-55 mph opinions or research, and he has deleted valid, referenced information opposing the 55 mph speed limit.

Per prior conversations here, O18 is not to rewrite the summary to promote a viewpoint exclude anti-55 mph research.

Below are the anti-55 mph viewpoints as they exist in the article today:
 * The 55 mph's effect on highway safety is unclear or disputed. (This is a valid opening sentiment to the Safety Impact section.)
 * The Cato Institute found that the 55 mph limit's impact on the national highway death rate may have been a short-lived anomaly. Indeed, the death rate was declining for years before the 55 mph limit was imposed. The death rate briefly dropped faster than this right after the 55 mph was imposed, but by the late '70s, the annual death rate improvement had slowed sharply. The death rate, by that point, got to a level that could have been predicted if the pre-'74 annual death rate reductions had continued linearly.
 * In 1986, nationally prominent safety advocates, including the IIHS and Joan Claybrook, said that most credit for highway safety improvements goes to laws passed in the mid- to late 1960s, not the 55 mph speed limit.
 * Highway safety has continued to improve, arguably dramatically, after the total repeal of the 55 mph despite steadily increasing speed limits nationwide.
 * Some systemic research finds that raising speed limits to 65 mph in the late '80s caused decreases in fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In case O18 continues his disinformation campaign, Wikipedia readers should check the page history and restore these viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Can you please reply to my above suggestions to make these changes, perhaps we can find text we both agree with. I think you added some good sentences in your most recent edit and I don't think we are that far apart on what we think should be on the page. When you do this, please do not talk about me or my motivations. 018 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The best thing about this whole saga, is that the IP thinks it is in a position to make topic bans! Colofac (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Looking at that change, I have to agree with the IP -- research showing the lack of effect of the law was removed, giving no reason besides an implied WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Although it was unchallenged here, it still wasn't a good edit to make. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SOV, There are quite a few sections of talk above, have you read all of them? 018 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit besides myself on this one. Did you read the sources? Some of them are huge misquotes as well. It may be the case that insufficient talk has happened, but that can hardly be blamed on me. 018 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, there's more to this one that meets the eye. The article before was heavily slanted against the 55mph limit. So while it looks like O18 is pro-55 POV-pushing, he's actually trying to make it more neutral. He's doing things I wouldn't do, like moving pro-55mph content to lead sections, but he's also introducing reliably-sourced content. I'm not sure yet on the deletions of anti-55 content, I haven't looked deeply enough at them. However, a couple of the ones which presently exist strike me as possible cases WP:SYNTH by how they're worded. Just a hunch.  N419 BH  21:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

globe and mail article verification
In the article it is written, "Since the NMSL's repeal, annual road-related fatalities have continued to fall to historical lows despite steadily increasing speed limits." with a reference to this article. The article says that deaths are at an all time low, but does not say anything about speed limits except to note that better speed limit enforcement with cameras is one of the factors that helped in Chicago.

I think that now that the first paragraph says that there is a large secular decline caused by increased automobile safety, this sentence becomes uninformative or misleading. I propose removing it. 018 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * It's almost common sense that speed limits are generally going up. Seriously, any article you find about a policy of general speed reductions will be overwhelmed by articles of speed increases.
 * It does inform that lowered speed limits' contributions to safety are minor compared to other safety improvements, which is almost certainly contrary to popular perception. This is similar to the quotes from IIHS and Joan Claybrook, which credited 1966 laws, not the 55 mph, for the bulk of safety improvements over several years.
 * Maybe the wording could be improved? I don't know. But I think it is highly relevant to the discussion of 55 mph that safety rates keep improving, hitting new annual records, despite gradually increasing speed limits.
 * Even taking an optimistic view, the 55 mph wasn't a significant contributor ("significant" in normal human sense, not statistical significance) to safety or fuel savings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The point is the article doesn't support the claim, and the claim is already made (now in the first paragraph), why make it twice? It isn't very good writing.
 * Look, if aliens started shooting people from outer space while we made advances in medical technology that increased life span, that wouldn't change the fact that the aliens were bad for our health, right? 018 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * If the article doesn't support "steadily increasing speed limits.", then we shouldn't say it does. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Now that you said that, I'm thinking about it this way: this page is saying the article says, "A and B therefore C" where A="speed limits went up", B="lives lost went down" and C="speed limits do not save lives." But the linked article really only says B. I might be okay with referencing it if it was just, "A and B" but if this page isn't also saying the "therefore C" part, then what does it have to do with the topic of the article, it should be axed. 018 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't know much about this article and its intricacies. It seems to be creating some conflict, so we should stick to the sources extra close.  Anything this article says that not everyone likes should have a clear citation to back it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

anecdotal but ..I drove on the Interstate highway system coast to coast from 1980-87 while the 55mph was in effect. Other than a few Mountain states/remote areas..it was my experience the 55mph was enforced..unlike what was stated on this article

De-emphasis of speed limits: possible reasons
Actions ranged from proposing deals for exemption to de-emphasizing speed limit enforcement. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the article pointing out the (apparent) reason for that per-state de-emphasis. So let me speculate about it (though with a certain bit of common sense): I guess one of the greater reasons might just have been lack of personnel to handle all those mini-speed-fine issues? Could be logical, couldn't it? I mean, if you have limited personnel available for handling these things and get inundated with thousands of those +10/+15 mph petty offenses, you will (well, usually) begin to question the sensibility of this, sooner or later. Since otherwise, you would cause the way more severe traffic offense cases to get overlooked in that mess. -andy <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National Maximum Speed Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018125924/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_266087 to http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_266087

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Safety issue
I no longer have the sources to post this on the page, but research we did in 1975 on the safety issues found the fatality rate was already dropping in 1973, and rose during 1974 showing no correlation to the growing 55 limit compliance figures, and most of the drop was in pedestrian fatalities and accidents at railroad crossings, which had no relation to the 55. The claims by many of the safety benefits were completely at odds with all the statistics we found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Maximum Speed Law. 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 tag to http://www.eia.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038407.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173343/http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf to http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304135803/http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/012894.pdf to http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/012894.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120804211351/http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/CompareVehicles.aspx to http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/CompareVehicles.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402102635/http://www.lexus.de/range/IS/Index.aspx to http://www.lexus.de/range/is/index.aspx

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a graphical timeline?
The article has many dates and is at times a bit hard to follow. A timeline, particularly a Graphical timeline with time moving downwards, each speed limit in a box and then events down the right hand side I think would be a great addition. Unfortunately the help says it is Easy and I'm not so sure :) Alex Sims (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Smog reducing gas
Current version (2021.12.12) reads: "purportedly smog-reducing gas was not common in 1973." Change to "unleaded gasoline was not common in 1973?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholemealflower (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

no i believe they are specifically referring to ethanol as it says Gjxj (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:National Maximum Speed Law


text:
Arabic/Arabic sounds

Sounds in both English and Arabic
Most of the sounds in Arabic are also in English and vice versa. For example, the Arabic ba (ب) sounds exactly like the b in English, the Arabic zay (ز), sounds just like the z in English and the Arabic versions of k (ك), m (م), n (ن), f (ف), and j (ج) are all just the same. The counterpart of l (ل) in Arabic, known as laam, is not exactly the same sound as the English one (the Arabic one is pronounced with the tip of the tongue touching the roof of the mouth a bit farther back). The counterpart of r (ر) in Arabic, known as raa, is very different from English r. The Arabic one is trilled (it is a "rolled r").

In addition to the above, the following Arabic sounds also exist in English:

-Thâ (ث) makes the sound "th" (voiceless) as in thin or thick or through.

-Dhâ (ذ) makes the sound "th" (dh) (voiced) as in them or there or the.

-Shîn (ش) makes the sound "sh" as in shoot or shin.

-Tâ marbûta (ة) is usually silent in modern Arabic. In Classical Arabic, it is pronounced t, the same as the letter tâ.

-Hamza (ء) represents the glottal stop. It is pronounced by stopping the flow of breath at the back of the mouth cavity (the glottis). We make this sound when speaking English; we just have no symbol for it in our alphabet. Think of the dash in uh-oh, or the Cockney way of saying British as Bri-ish. However, hamza is also written as a diacritic.

-Yâ (ي) acts just like a y. It can be a vowel (always a long vowel) at the end of a word sounding like î (the "ee" in beet), or it can be a consonant (y). It can be a consonant (as in the y in yes) or a vowel (like the "ee" in beet) in the middle of a word.

Sounds in Arabic only
There are sounds in Arabic hard for English speakers to tell apart. Look at what makes them different.

Like "k" (ك vs ق)
In Arabic, the corresponding letter to q (ق) makes a different sound than the corresponding letter to k (ك), whereas in English they are redundant. The q is further back in the throat while the k is not as in English, k in English is voiceless, while its Arabic counterpart is voiced. So is the Arabic counterpart of q. Kuwait starts with a k. Qatar with a q. Listen to the difference.

Like "h"
The most significant sound that English speakers hear in Arabic are the three corresponding letters to h. The first (ه) is equivalent to the h and is thus very light, almost not heard at all. The noise comes from friction in the upper throat. The second (ح) comes from deep down in the throat, from actual friction from the vocal cords themselves. It sounds a little like blowing warm air on your cold hands or very fine sandpaper. The third (خ) is very rough, almost like collecting phlegm, or exactly like the French r, only if you pronounce it voiceless. It is very similar to the last sound in "Bach."

None of these three sounds have any humming or vowel sound (known as voicing). They are all like a whisper; your vocal cords do not vibrate.

Like "h" but voiced
The ayn (ع) may be difficult to hear and produce because though it is a consonant in Arabic, it sounds like the English a, as in water. It is produced like the y in you, but the constriction is made down in the throat instead of the mouth. It is a little like the sound a doctor asks to hear when looking down your throat. While saying "aaah", pull the back of your tongue back into your throat a bit, with a little squeeze. Similar is the ghayn (غ), which is a rougher version with more of the ch from "Bach", only with vocal cords vibrating. The difference between the last sound in the previous paragraph and the last sound in the first paragraph should be very clear. They are both rough, but one has no vibrating vocal cords while the other has them.

Letters that come in hard and soft varieties
Arabic has hard and soft versions of s, t, d, and th (as there, not thin). Arabic-speakers often refer to their language as the language of Daad (hard d) because it is so hard for foreigners to say it right. However, this refers to the classical pronunciation of Daad (ض) which probably resembled a sound closer to an emphatic z sound (voiced lateral fricative). It can be easier for English-speakers to think of the hard sounds as lower-pitched and the soft sounds as higher-pitched. What complicates matters is that for English-speakers the hard s and the soft s sound the same, but the vowels before and after them are affected by the consonant. To the English speaker, the vowels are different, and the consonant is the same. To the Arabic-speaker the vowels are the same, and the consonant is different.

Partly, it is because Arabic has very few recognized vowel sounds. An a and an e to an Arabic-speaker are usually the same, depending on the dialect. It is one letter pronounced differently depending on what letter comes before or after it.

Also, the hard letters can be hard for even native speakers to say and so are often changed in local colloquial Arabic to something else. For example, the hard d in many areas is pronounced exactly like the z, but it is not formal, proper Arabic.

The soft s, "seen" (س), is pronounced just like the English s (with mouth open, small and weak). The hard s, "sod" (ص), is with the mouth more closed, with a lower pitch, as if you were a big, stalwart man. The easiest way to say it is to make the vowels before and after it lower-pitched and deeper.

The soft t, ta (ت) is just like the English t, soft and weak, and the hard t "taw" (ط) is deep and strong.

The soft d, del (د) is even softer than the English d, and the hard d, Dod (ض) is very deep and hard.

The soft dh, dhel (ذ), is just like the th in "the", and the hard dh, DHa (ظ) is deep and strong.

Note on transliteration
Since Arabic does not use capital letters, transliterating soft letters usually uses in lowercase, hard letters in uppercase. Transliterating is not an exact science and is never entirely consistent. You are highly recommended to learn the Arabic alphabet because studying Arabic from English letters is terrifically frustrating. The same sound can be written totally differently in English letters.

`Ayn is usually written as ' (with a 6 shape) in English and hamza as an opposite ' (with a 9 shape). `ayn and hamza are often left out when transliterating, especially `ayn at the beginning of a word (as in `iraaq). Ghayn(غ) is written as gh, soft ha as h, khaa (the one in Bach) as kh, and hard ha as "H" (capital h), its sound is exactly like the French r, only that ghayn is not rhotic.

Sounds in English only
In case you mistakenly think that Arabic has more sounds than English, the following sounds do not exist in Arabic, with the sounds that are usually substituted for them in borrowed words.

v (f)

p (b in new loanwords, such as “computer” (كمبيوتر) and f in old loanwords, such as Palaestina (فلسطين))

g (j, gh, q, or k)

r is very close but is always rolled (similar to Spanish r)

As mentioned above, in Arabic the corresponding letter to q (ق) makes a different sound than the corresponding letter to k (ك).

Conclusion
Most sounds in English and Arabic correspond perfectly. Give yourself time to recognize the different sounds of h and the hard and soft letters. And learn the alphabet. The book Alif Baa is one of many introductions to the Arabic alphabet. Much better, take a short course, but make sure it is one that teaches the Arabic alphabet. Those 50 hours it takes you to get comfortable with the alphabet will be endlessly worth it. Plus, if you ever want to learn Persian, Ottoman Turkish, Kurdish, Berber, or Urdu, these languages are also written with the same letters. Some of these languages also have a few extra or modified letters in order to make up for the sounds not available in Arabic but that are found in those languages.

Insha'Allah (God willing) you will learn these sounds with ease.

Gaining proficiency in the sounds
Learning and differentiating those sounds is crucial to having a good Arabic accent. First expose yourself to the sounds, as many hours of the day as possible. If you have audio in Arabic, play it again and again, in the background of your life. You can occasionally also listen to it attentively, but you need to listen to how Arabic is spoken to be able to speak it.
 * 1) Do not imitate sounds without an expert at Arabic sounds. You do not want to learn them incorrectly. Learn them from someone who has proper pronunciation.
 * 2) Because in cartoons, the following letters ح خ ع غ along with others are pronounced very softly, you want be able to pick them up properly. What you need to do is have the sounds pronounced as strongly as possible by an Arabic person, as it is much easier to differentiate the sound when the sound is pronounced strongly. (Make sure they know how to pronounce all letters properly. In any case, all Arabs can pronounce: ح خ ع غ ق ل ر properly.) Then, you will start recognizing the difference. Once you recognize the pronunciation, with the help of an Arabic speaker, pronounce the sounds as strongly (to your mouth the ability to pronounce it properly) but correctly as possible. Once you have a strong pronunciation, your pronunciation will fall in place and the amount of strength you use to pronounce letters will become less, making you sound perfect.
 * 3) Listen to more and more Arabic, while learning grammar and vocabulary, and it will all sink in after a while (especially the vowels), and you will become fluent.

title: Arabic/Arabic sounds


text:
Thomas Abt

Thomas Abt (born 1972) is an American author, crime researcher, and former government official specializing in evidence-informed approaches to reducing crime in urban areas. His book, Bleeding Out: The Devastating Consequences of Urban Violence and a Bold New Plan for Peace in the Streets, was published in June 2019 by Basic Books.

Early life
Abt grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His father is Clark C. Abt, an MIT-trained engineer and founder of the social-science research firm Abt Associates and his mother, Wendy (née Peter) was educated at Harvard and is a banking and economic-development consultant.

Education
Abt received his bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Michigan and a J.D. degree with honors from Georgetown University Law Center.

Views on crime
Abt favors an approach to crime prevention that emphasizes eliminating violence directly, rather than focusing on its other associations, which include such things as poverty, gangs and drugs, and his 2019 book substantiates this claim with an extensive review of the data.

Career
Abt began his career after graduating law school in 2000 as a prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney's office for four years, then shifting to litigation as an associate with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison from 2004 to 2008. In 2008, Abt worked in Des Moines, Iowa on Barack Obama's campaign as director of voter protection.

Abt served as chief of staff to the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2010 to 2013. While there, he worked with the nation's principal criminal justice grant-making and research agencies to integrate evidence, policy, and practice. Abt also played a lead role in establishing the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, a network of federal agencies and local communities working together to reduce youth and gang violence. After that, he moved to the New York's Governor's Office, where he served from 2013 to 2014 as deputy secretary for public safety under Andrew Cuomo, overseeing all criminal justice and homeland security agencies. During his tenure, Abt led the development of New York's GIVE (Gun-Involved Violence Elimination) Initiative, which employs evidence-informed, data-driven approaches to reduce gun violence.

Since January 2020, Abt has been a senior fellow on the Council on Criminal Justice in Washington D.C., where he directs its Violent Crime Working Group. He also served as director of CCJ's National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice. Prior to serving on the CCJ, he was a senior research fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and a senior fellow at Harvard Law School. He is also a member of the Campbell Collaboration Criminal Justice Steering Committee. Abt is a former member of the advisory board of the Police Executive Programme at the University of Cambridge, and he is also a former senior fellow with the Igarapé Institute in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

In November 2022, it was announced that Abt would join the University of Maryland's department of criminology and criminal justice, where he would serve as an associate research professor and founding director of a new venture, the Center for the Study and Practice of Violence Reduction. The Center will synthesize the latest research concerning community gun violence and make it available to policymakers, practitioners, and the public free of charge. The Center will also provide guidance to federal, state, and local leaders on how best to apply anti-violence research in real-world scenarios.

Abt is a nationally recognized researcher and expert on crime. His work has been featured in The Atlantic, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and on MSNBC, PBS, National Public Radio, among other places. His TED talk on saving lives by stopping violence has been viewed more than 200,000 times.

title: Thomas Abt


text:
Harold Creighton

Harold Digby Fitzgerald Creighton (11 September 1927 – 3 July 2003) was a British businessman and machine tool pioneer, who bought The Spectator magazine in 1967 for £75,000.

In 1947, he was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant in the Royal Armoured Corps and served in Egypt and the Far East. After completing his National Service, he joined a tin-smelting business in Malaya (now known as Malaysia) and returned to Britain, where he eventually became Chairman of the Scottish Machine Tool Corporation of Glasgow.

In 1967, bought The Spectator, a politically conservative, weekly magazine. In 1973, he took over as editor although he had no prior experience as a journalist, after sacking the incumbent editor, George Gale. He edited the magazine until 1975, when he sold it for £75,000 to Henry Keswick. During his tenure, the magazine fervently opposed British entry into the European Economic Community.

Education
Creighton was educated at Haileybury and Imperial Service College, an independent school for boys (now co-educational), at Hertford Heath, near to the county town of Hertford in Hertfordshire.

title: Harold Creighton


text:
File talk:New Era Namibia front page.jpg

Namibian statistics angecy
Census candidate list names <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


text:
Template:Did you know nominations/God's Choice

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 23:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

God's Choice

 * ... that God& is the result of a late 1970s 18-month ethnographic study of a 350-person Christian fundamentalist Baptist K–12 day school in Illinois?
 * Reviewed: With God, all things are possible

Mainspaced by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 00:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Symbol voting keep.svg
 * The article is newly written.
 * The article has not previously featured on the Main Page.
 * The article is long enough, by far.
 * Citations are sufficient and drawn from reliable published sources.
 * No disputes surround the article.
 * I see nothing that might be construed as a BLP violation.
 * I can find no particular issues with plagiarism. I assume the wording is original.
 * I see no neutrality issues, either. This is a straightforward account.
 * The article is not up for AfD.
 * I assume good faith as to the hook. - Biruitorul Talk 23:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Sumathi Best Teledrama Makeup Artist Award

The Sumathi Best Teledrama Makeup Artist Award is presented annually in Sri Lanka by the Sumathi Group for the best Sri Lankan makeup artist in television.

The award was first given in 1995. Following is a list of the winners since then.


text:
Talk:In 1999

Performance notes

 * Not notable enough for the main article, but here is a 1932 high school yearbook performance recap..--Milowent • hasspoken 21:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:In 1999


text:
2019–20 Liga II (women's football)

The 2019–20 Liga II is the 7th season, since its reintroduction in 2013, of the second level women's football league of the Romanian football league system. The number of teams was reduced from 16 to 14. Therefore, 14 teams divided in 2 series were to play in the competition that consists of a double round-robin lasting 12 stages, totaling 84 matches. Since one team withdrew before the start of the competition, the total number of matches to be played became 72. However, only the first half of the season was played (36 games), until the season was frozen due to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic.

To Liga II
Promoted from Liga III
 * Carmen București (winners of 2018-19 Liga III, Seria I)
 * CN Nicu Gane Fălticeni (winners of 2018-19 Liga III, Seria II)
 * CSM Târgu Mureș (winners of 2018-19 Liga III, Seria III)
 * ACS Atletic Drobeta-Turnu-Severin (runners-up of 2018-19 Liga III, Seria I)

From Liga II
Promoted to Liga I
 * Selena SN Constanța (winners of 2018-19 Liga II, Seria I)
 * Piroș Security Lioness Arad (winners of 2018-19 Liga II, Seria I)
 * Luceafărul Filiași (winners of 2018-19 Liga II Promotion Play-off)

Relegated to Liga III
 * Viitorul Reghin (4th place in the 2018-19 Liga II, Seria I decided to enroll in Liga III, Seria III)
 * Măgura 2012 Bacău (8th place in the 2018-19 Liga II decided to enroll in Liga III, Seria IV)

Disbanded
 * CS Ineu (8th place in 2017-18 Liga II, Seria I, disbanded at senior level)

Excluded and spared teams
Viitorul Reghin requested to be enrolled in Liga III for the 2019–20 season, so Măgura 2012 Bacău (8th place in 2018-19 Liga II, Seria I) could have been spared from relegation due to lack of teams. However, Măgura 2012 Bacău decided to play in Liga III anyway. Due to this vacated spot, ACS Atletic Drobeta-Turnu-Severin was promoted to Liga II.

Renamed teams
Sporting Lugaș changed its name to ACS United Bihor at the start of the 2018–19 season.

title: 2019–20 Liga II (women's football)


text:
Remote support

In information technology (IT), remote support tools are IT tools and software that enable an IT technician or a support representative to connect to a remote computer from their consoles via the Internet and work directly on the remote system. Although its main focus is the access to computers located anywhere in the world, the remote support applications also provide features like file transfer, desktop sharing, file synchronization, command line or guest accessibility.

Privacy
Privacy is also a major concern for all users. One of the most used tools in remote support sessions are the ones that allow desktop sharing. It is also possible to provide what is commonly called Unattended Support (the technician is granted total remote access to the client’s computer, even when he is not physically close to it). The need for an absolute trust in these services and providers is considered to be the biggest obstacle for this technology to achieve mass-marketing status – even when many studies indicate that for every 5 technical occurrences, 4 of them could be remotely solved.

Benefits
Remote Support technology tries to reduce help-desk centres cost-issues – all transport-related expenses are immediately trimmed down, for instance. Modern day technology enables that any technician using Remote Support is able to assist a customer just like it was physically side-by-side. Technologies and tools like live chat, VoIP and desktop sharing enable a direct intervention in the remote system.

title: Remote support


text:
Canton of Sournia

The Canton of Sournia is a French former canton of Pyrénées-Orientales department, in Languedoc-Roussillon. It had 1,277 inhabitants (2012). It was disbanded following the French canton reorganisation which came into effect in March 2015. It consisted of 11 communes, which joined the new canton of La Vallée de l'Agly in 2015.

The canton comprised the following communes:

 * Sournia
 * Arboussols
 * Campoussy
 * Felluns
 * Pézilla-de-Conflent
 * Prats-de-Sournia
 * Rabouillet
 * Tarerach
 * Trévillach
 * Trilla
 * Le Vivier

title: Canton of Sournia


text:
User:Clare Nancy Addo 2

= List of station stops =

Key

 * Cityliner
 * From Keisei Ueno to Keisei Narita. Trains call at Nippori, Aoto, Keisei Funabashi, and Keisei Narita.
 * Skyliner
 * The airport access train connecting Keisei Ueno and Narita Airport runs on the Main Line between Keisei Ueno and Keisei Takasago. Between Keisei Takasago and Narita Airport, it runs on the Narita Sky Access Line. Runs the entire length of the route in 44 minutes (36 minutes from Nippori to Airport Terminal 2). All trains call at Keisei Ueno, Nippori, Airport Terminal 2 and Narita Airport.
 * Access Express
 * Non-charged. Runs from Keisei Ueno or Oshiage Line to Narita Airport, via the Narita Sky Access Line between Keisei Takasago and Narita Airport.
 * Limited Express Green
 * Non-charged. Runs from Keisei Ueno or Oshiage Line to Narita Airport. Runs during morning and evening times only. Runs from Keisei Ueno or Oshiage Line to Hokusō, Narita Airport or Shibayama Chiyoda. Calls at Keisei Ueno, Nippori, Aoto, Keisei Takasago, Keisei Yawata, Keisei Funabashi, Keisei Tsudanuma, Yachiyodai, Katsutadai and Keisei Sakura, Narita, and Narita Airport (Terminal 1 and 2). Same as Limited Express except that it doesn't stop at Osakura, Shisui, Sogosando, and Kozunomori.
 * Limited Express Red
 * Non-charged. Runs only from the late morning to the early evening. Runs from Keisei Ueno or Oshiage Line to Hokusō, Narita Airport or Shibayama Chiyoda. Calls at Keisei Ueno, Nippori, Aoto, Keisei Takasago, Keisei Yawata, Keisei Funabashi, Keisei Tsudanuma, Yachiyodai, Katsutadai and Keisei Sakura, then all stations at Osakura, Shisui, Sogosando, Kozunomori, Narita, then to Narita Airport (Terminal 1 and 2) or to Higashi-Narita and Shibayama-Chiyoda.
 * Commuter Express
 * Runs from Keisei Ueno or Oshiage Line to Narita Airport or Shibayama Chiyoda. Runs only in the morning and evenings. Calls at Limited Express stops west of Katsutadai and local stops east of there.
 * Rapid Mode
 * Runs from Keisei Ueno or Oshiage Line to Narita Airport or Shibayama Chiyoda. Calls at Keisei Ueno, Nippori, Senju-Ohashi, Aoto, Keisei Takasago, Keisei Koiwa, Keisei Yawata, Higashi Nakayama, Keisei Funabashi, Funabashi Keibajō and Keisei Tsudanuma, then all stations.
 * Local
 * Sometimes called interchangeably as Kakueki-Teisha (各駅停車).

Chart
Key Notes
 * ● : All trains stop
 * │ : All trains pass
 * ◇ : Some limited express trains stop when horse racing is held in Nakayama Racecourse.
 * Express services are not shown on the table from the start of the timetable revision on July 17, 2010. Until the revision, it shown between Aoto and Takasago on through services to other Keisei lines.
 * Skyliner and Access Express are not shown.
 * Local trains stop at every station.

title: User:Clare Nancy Addo 2


text:
Talk:Endergonic reaction

Please do not merge these separate 6 pages
The merge debate goes back to '05 (see: Talk:Endergonic). The result of the debate was to not merge. Moreover, it is standard protocol, e.g. according to both The Essential Dictionary of Science (Clark 2004) and the A to Z Dictionary of Thermodynamics (Perrot 1998), to have separate entries for such closely-related but subtly-different topics such as:

 * Exothermic – a process or reaction that involves the release of energy; usually in the form of heat.
 * Exothermic reaction – a chemical reaction in which heat is give out.

As well as for the other terms: endothermic, endothermic reaction, etc. For example, the melting of an ice-cube is an endothermic process; combustion evolves an exothermic reaction, warm-blooded animals are endothermic, arguing with other Wikipedians is an endergonic activity, etc. Help us expand on these separate stubs, but please don't merge. Wikipedia has unlimited storage space. Articles are sure to grow. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * However, could it be justified to explain the distinction between 'endergonic' and 'endothermic' in the article, and ditto for 'exo-'? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Making Endergonic reactions happen" is misleading
Endergonic reactions never happen. The methods in the "Making Endergonic reactions happen" section don't make endergonic reactions happen; instead they change endergonic reactions into exergonic ones. For example, the first one ("Pull") decreases the concentration, and therefore the chemical potential, of the products, which causes $$\Delta G_r$$ to decrease until it becomes negative, i.e. the reaction becomes exergonic. Semantics, or crucial distinction? You decide, because I have to finish my thermodynamics homework. —Keenan Pepper 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The article defines an endergonic reaction as one for which the standard change in free energy is positive. Jheald 08:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * True, but this section is still deeply misleading since the examples imply that energy can be "borrowed" to make endergonic reactions "happen". It would be much better phrased in terms of chemical equilibrium i.e. even if the equilibrium is heavily biased towards reactants, if the products are constantly being chewed up, then eventually all the reactants will proceed through the reaction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * "Reagents can be pulled through an endergonic reaction, if the reaction products are cleared rapidly by a subsequent exergonic reaction." Isn't the article already saying exactly what you are asking for? Jheald 11:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2 in the diagram is wrong
The difference between the energy of the transition state and the free energy of the products as indicated by (2) in the diagram is not equal to the energy change of the reaction (deltaG). The deltaG is measured as the difference between the free Energy of the reactants and the free energy of the products. The energy of the transition state does not have any influence on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why standard temperature and pressure?
''Under constant temperature and constant pressure conditions, this means that the change in the standard Gibbs free energy would be positive

 * $$\Delta G^\circ > 0$$

for the reaction at standard state (i.e. at standard pressure (1 bar), and standard concentrations (1 molar) of all the reagents).''

The reference to standard state seems totally gratuitous and irrelevant here. An endergonic reaction is defined as one that would require a positive change in the Gibbs free energy at constant temperature and pressure. That is a fully general definition, and it is clear that the "endergonicity" of a reaction is therefore a function of temperature, pressure and concentration. Why then the sudden anchoring to standard state? Are we not allowed to apply this utterly fundamental thermodynamic concept except at standard state? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Endergonic reaction


text:
Talk:Detlev Buck

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Detlev Buck. 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/20080819211539/http://www.bayern.de/Anlage19170/PreistraegerdesBayerischenFilmpreises-Pierrot.pdf to http://www.bayern.de/Anlage19170/PreistraegerdesBayerischenFilmpreises-Pierrot.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Detlev Buck. 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/20060715031724/http://www.cineastentreff.de/content/view/971/111/ to http://www.cineastentreff.de/content/view/971/111/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Detlev Buck


text:
George Pinto (composer)

George Frederick Pinto (25 September 1785 – 23 March 1806) was an English composer and keyboard virtuoso.

Life and career
Pinto was born in Lambeth and baptised as George Sanders. His father, Samuel Sanders (or Saunders) died young; his mother, Julia Sanders (née Pinto) was the daughter of Thomas Pinto (1714-c.1780), a London violinist of Italian origin. Thomas Pinto's second wife, the English singer Charlotte Brent (1735–1802), encouraged George's early musical upbringing. He used his mother's maiden name as his surname throughout his professional career.

Pinto started taking music lessons aged 8 with the musician and impresario Johann Salomon. Initially he was promoted as a prodigy on the violin. In 1795 Pinto, then aged 9, made his debut playing a violin concerto by Giovanni Mane Giornovichi at the New Lyceum in Hanover Square London. In 1796 Salomon arranged for Pinto to play a violin concerto at Signora Salvini's benefit concert. Following this, he made frequent appearances in London and other British centres, and possibly twice travelled to Paris. In 1800 he played at a concert of Salomon accompanied by John Field (to whom he later dedicated his piano sonata in C minor of 1803 - "Inscribed to his Friend John Field"). His Op. 1, three divertimenti for piano were advertised in 1801 (no copies have survived); his Op. 2, also for piano, comprising three sets of variations, was published in 1802. It is not known who taught Pinto the piano, but from this period on it would seem to have become his preferred instrument.

In January 1803 at Phillip Corri's Edinburgh concerts, Pinto took the place of an injured Corri where he "presided at the keyboard". The writer and musician Alexander Campbell wrote:"Young Pinto is not only an admirable violin player, but also a first-rate performer on the grand piano forte: to excel on two instruments so widely different from each other, is a proof of genius and unwearied application very seldom to be met with. If dissipation, and consequent idleness, do not impede him in his career, what may not the musical world expect in his riper manhood?"

In 1804 Pinto began to suffer serious ill-health. This did not prevent him composing and between then and his death in 1806 appeared all his major works, including piano sonatas and violin sonatas, as well as two sets of violin duets. He also composed a number of songs and shorter piano pieces. A violin concerto written by him is now lost, although the manuscript was described in an article in the Musical World of 1850 (vol. XXV, p. 2). After breaking off a planned series of concerts in Oxford in 1805, he died in London in 1806 at the age of 20, apparently of tuberculosis. Some of his posthumous works were completed by Samuel Wesley and Joseph Woelfl.

Legacy
It has been suggested that the numerous references to Pinto's "dissipation" by contemporaries may be covert hints about homosexuality. Tributes after his death included Salomon's comment: "If he had lived and been able to resist the allurements of society, England would have had the honour of producing a second Mozart." Samuel Wesley commented "A greater musical Genius has not been known". Other tributes came from William Ayrton and Johann Baptist Cramer.

Pinto's music was more or less forgotten after his death, although interest was shown by William Sterndale Bennett. It was not until the 1960s that interest in his works was rekindled. The musicologist Nicholas Temperley has noted that the piano works contain "astonishing anticipations of Beethoven, Schubert and even Chopin", and has opined that "only Schubert himself wrote more striking songs before the age of 20." The composer Geoffrey Bush has said of Pinto's G minor violin sonata that it is "passionate in mood, cogent in argument, and full of splendid thematic invention."

Pinto's piano sonatas have been recorded on CD by Thomas Wakefield, Ian Hobson, Riko Fukuda, Míceál O'Rourke and others, while some of his vocal works have been recorded on the Hyperion label.

Nicholas Temperley's The London Pianoforte School 1766–1860. (20 vols. London/New York: Garland, 1985) contains much of Pinto’s piano music, including the two Grand Sonatas Op.3 and the Fantasia and Sonata amongst others.

title: George Pinto (composer)


text:
Mark Ellingham

Mark Norman Ellingham is a professor of mathematics at Vanderbilt University whose research concerns graph theory. With Joseph D. Horton, he is the discoverer and namesake of the Ellingham–Horton graphs, two cubic 3-vertex-connected bipartite graphs that have no Hamiltonian cycle.

Ellingham earned his Ph.D. in 1986 from the University of Waterloo under the supervision of Lawrence Bruce Richmond. In 2012, he became one of the inaugural fellows of the American Mathematical Society.

title: Mark Ellingham


text:
CMLL 87th Anniversary Show

The CMLL 87th Anniversary Show (87. Aniversario de CMLL) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event, scripted and produced by the Mexican lucha libre wrestling company Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL; Spanish for "World Wrestling Council") that took place on September 25, 2020, in CMLL's home arena Arena México, Mexico City, Mexico. The event was also billed as "Night of Champions", where the fans decided the opponents of the defending champions at the event. No fans were in attendance at Arena México due to limitations from the COVID-19 pandemic, but the show was broadcast as an internet pay-per-view on Ticketmaster Live.

The show is normally the biggest show of the year for CMLL, considered their version of the Super Bowl or WrestleMania. This is the 93rd EMLL/CMLL Anniversary Show as there were two shows held in 1963, 1966, 1972, 1975, 1977, but none in 1985 (earthquake). The CMLL Anniversary Show series is the longest-running annual professional wrestling show, starting in 1934.

Background
The Mexican Lucha libre (professional wrestling) company Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) started out under the name Empresa Mexicana de Lucha Libre ("Mexican Wrestling Company"; EMLL), founded by Salvador Lutteroth in 1933. Lutteroth, inspired by professional wrestling shows he had attended in Texas, decided to become a wrestling promoter and held his first show on September 21, 1933, marking what would be the beginning of organized professional wrestling in Mexico. Lutteroth would later become known as "the father of Lucha Libre". A year later EMLL held the EMLL 1st Anniversary Show, starting the annual tradition of the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre Anniversary Shows that have been held each year ever since, most commonly in September.

Over the years the anniversary show would become the biggest show of the year for CMLL, akin to the Super Bowl for the National Football League (NFL) or WWE's WrestleMania event. The first anniversary show was held in Arena Modelo, which Lutteroth had bought after starting EMLL. In 1942–43 Lutteroth financed the construction of Arena Coliseo, which opened in April 1943. The EMLL 10th Anniversary Show was the first of the anniversary shows to be held in Arena Coliseo. In 1956 Lutteroth had Arena México built in the location of the original Arena Modelo, making Arena México the main venue of EMLL from that point on. Starting with the EMLL 23rd Anniversary Show, all anniversary shows except for the EMLL 46th Anniversary Show have been held in the arena that would become known as "The Cathedral of Lucha Libre". On occasion EMLL held more than one show labeled as their "Anniversary" show, such as two 33rd Anniversary Shows in 1966. Over time the anniversary show series became the oldest, longest-running annual professional wrestling show. In comparison, WWE's WrestleMania is only the fourth oldest still promoted show (CMLL's Arena Coliseo Anniversary Show and Arena México anniversary shows being second and third). EMLL was supposed to hold the EMLL 52nd Anniversary Show on September 20, 1985, but Mexico City was hit by a magnitude 8.0 earthquake. EMLL canceled the event both because of the general devastation but also over fears that Arena México might not be structurally sound after the earthquake.

When Jim Crockett Promotions was bought by Ted Turner in 1988 EMLL became the oldest still active promotion in the world. In 1991 EMLL was rebranded as "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre" and thus held the CMLL 59th Anniversary Show, the first under the new name, on September 18, 1992. Traditionally CMLL holds their major events on Friday Nights, replacing their regularly scheduled Super Viernes show.

CMLL stopped promoting shows in March 2020 due to guidelines issued by the Mexican government due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This meant that CMLL did not hold any shows between March 14 and July 30, 2020. CMLL later announced that they would return to promoting their CMLL Super Viernes shows every Friday, starting on September 4. The September 4th, 11th and 19th Super Viernes shows would be empty arena matches, broadcast as internet Pay-Per-View (iPPV) events on Ticketmaster Live, followed by the 87th Anniversary show, held on September 25 as an empty arena iPPV. CMLL announced that the show would be a "Night of Champions" show where fans could vote on who they would want to challenge for various CMLL championships.

Storylines
The 87th Anniversary Show will feature seven professional wrestling matches scripted by CMLL with some wrestlers involved in scripted feuds. The wrestlers portray either heels (referred to as rudos in Mexico, those that play the part of the "bad guys") or faces (técnicos in Mexico, the "good guy" characters) as they perform. For the 87th Anniversary Show, CMLL announced that they would let the fans vote for who would challenge reigning CMLL champions at the "Night of Champions" themed show. CMLL also announced that the total number of votes for each match would determine the order of matches on the show, with the highest vote getting earning the main event sport regardless of their normal card position. The championships chosen for the polls were:

When the votes were tabulated the total votes defined the match order as:
 * CMLL Championships
 * 1) CMLL World Micro-Estrellas Championship match - 34,049 votes
 * 2) CMLL World Trio Championship match - 34,989 votes
 * 3) NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship match - 35,037 votes
 * 4) CMLL World Women's Championship match - 35,525 votes
 * 5) Mexican National Women's Championship match - 36,581 votes
 * 6) Mexican National Trios Championship match - 36,196 votes
 * 7) CMLL World Tag Team Championship match - 37,251 votes

 * CMLL World Micro-Estrellas Championship poll:
 * 1) Microman - 45.06%
 * 2) El Gallito - 34.91%
 * 3) El Guapito - 20.03%
 * CMLL World Trio Championship poll:
 * 1) Hechicero, El Terrible, and Templario - 64.55% (22,606 votes )
 * 2) Los Hijos del Infierno (Ephesto, Luciferno and Mephisto) - 23.03% (8,044 votes )
 * 3) Audaz, Star Jr., and Titán - 12.43% (4,339 votes )
 * NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship poll:
 * 1) Bandido - 66.76% (23,397 votes )
 * 2) Templario - 21.60% (7,555 votes )
 * 3) Soberano Jr. - 11.64% (4,085 votes )
 * CMLL World Women's Championship poll:
 * 1) Princesa Sugehit - 44.64% (15,892 votes )
 * 2) Dalys - 37.74% (13,403 votes )
 * 3) La Amapola - 17.62% (6,230 votes )
 * Mexican National Women's Championship poll:
 * 1) Lluvia - 36.32% (12,235 votes )
 * 2) Reyna Isis - 31.23% (11,445 votes )
 * 3) La Jarocita - 18.59% (6,805 votes )
 * 4) Estrellita - 13.95% (5,096 votes )
 * Mexican National Trios Championship poll:
 * 1) Los Cancerberos del Infierno (Cancerbero, Raziel, and Virus) - 39.14% (14,222 votes )
 * 2) Negro Casas, El Felino, and Tiger- 27.44% (9,922 votes )
 * 3) Blue Panther, Blue Panther Jr., and Black Panther- 17.92% (6,462 votes )
 * 4) El Valiente, Guerrero Maya Jr., and Esfinge - 15.50% (5,590 votes )
 * CMLL World Tag Team Championship poll:
 * 1) Rey Cometa and Espíritu Negro - 52.23% (19,522 votes )
 * 2) Diamante Azul and Stuka Jr. - 21.68% (8,047 votes )
 * 3) Ángel de Oro and Niebla Roja - 16.01% (5,938 votes )
 * 4) Atlantis Jr. and Flyer- 10.08% (3,744 votes )

The team of Cavernario, El Terrible, and Hechicero was originally announced as one of the fan poll options for the CMLL World Trios Championship, but Cavernario suffered a knee injury during the main event of the September 4 Super Viernes show and needed surgery as a result. CMLL held a fan poll to determine a replacement for Caverario, necessitated by the team leading the overall poll. Voters chose Templario over Vangelis or Dark Magic, to replace Cavernario. Templario was also listed in the polls for the NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship but was far behind the top vote-getter. In the end the team of Templario, El Terrible, and Hechicero won the vote, with enough votes to have them work the second match of the night.

The right to challenge for the CMLL World Women's Championship was originally won by Princesa Sugehit, but on September 16 Sugehit announced that she had tested positive for COVID-19 and thus was forced to isolate and could not compete in the anniversary show. CMLL opted to have the second-highest vote winner, Dalys, challenge for the title instead, while Pricesa Sugehit was promised a championship match in October once she was out of quarantine.

La Metálica's challenger was a choice between Lluvia, Reyna Isis, La Jarocita, and La Estrellita. The fan vote selected Lluvia to wrestle for the Mexican National Women's Championship. On September 21 it was revealed that Lluvia had tested positive for COVID-19, albeit asymptomatic, and thus was not able to compete. In her place, Reyna Isis was given the match due to her position as the first runner-up in the fan vote. It was announced that Lluvia would get her championship match at a later date after her quarantine was over.

On September 23, CMLL announced that both Bandido and Último Guerrero had both tested positive for COVID-19 and were off the show. As the runner up in the NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship Templario was announced as Bandido's replacement. As Guerrero was taken off the show, CMLL replaced the CMLL World Trios Championship match with a match for the CMLL World Welterweight Championship, with Titán defending against the reigning Mexican National Welterweight Champion Soberano Jr. Both championship matches were announced as taking place at some point in October.

title: CMLL 87th Anniversary Show


text:
Talk:Dingiri Banda Wijetunga

Image copyright problem with File:Wijetunga.gif
The image File:Wijetunga.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dingiri Banda Wijetunga. 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/20080325034304/http://www.parliament.lk/handbook_of_parliament/prime_ministers.jsp to http://www.parliament.lk/handbook_of_parliament/prime_ministers.jsp

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dingiri Banda Wijetunga. 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/20080927071358/http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/22/fea01.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/22/fea01.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005042306/http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/22/main_Editorial.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/22/main_Editorial.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005051208/http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/23/fea02.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/23/fea02.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080930001637/http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/24/fea03.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/24/fea03.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005050723/http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/25/fea05.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/25/fea05.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228174323/http://www.southasianmedia.net/profile/srilanka/srilanka_government.cfm to http://www.southasianmedia.net/profile/srilanka/srilanka_government.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005051208/http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/23/fea02.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/23/fea02.asp

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dingiri Banda Wijetunga


text:
Chari Cuthbert

Chari Cuthbert is a Jamaican-born, self-taught jewelry designer. Cuthbert is the founder and creative director of the jewelry company ByChari.

Early life and education
Cuthbert, a West Indian woman, was born in 1984 to Jamaican parents. She graduated from The Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale with an Associate of Science Degree in Photography.

ByChari (company)
Before she founded ByChari in 2012, she moved to Hawaii and later in 2016 to Los Angeles. She started her business with $100 and is its sole owner. Her jewelry was first sold by Owens & Co. in Downtown Honolulu. She started selling her jewelry exclusively on her website when she moved to L.A.

In August 2020, First Lady Michelle Obama wore a necklace designed by Cuthbert for her 2020 Democratic National Convention speech. The Vote necklace went viral during Obama's speech and, according to CNN, was a top-trending search on Google during the last hour of the convention on August 17, 2020. Cuthbert designed the Vote necklace in 2016 and then started marketing it for the 2018 midterm elections. Obama's stylist, Meredith Koop, ordered the Vote necklace for Obama.

As of 2021,she had a team of ten female employees working for her in Los Angeles.

Her designs have been worn by Michelle Obama, Kate Hudson, Jessica Alba, Rocky Barnes, Rose Huntington-Whiteley, Aimee Song and Chiara Ferragni.

title: Chari Cuthbert


text:
Talk:Shangyang (rainbird)

Oops, wrong article name....working to fix. Dcattell (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shangyang (rainbird)