text:
Talk:Technology in Star Wars/Archive 1

Mention of lightsaber without any source of laser technology
Is it a good idea to mention lightsaber's without any sources for laser technology? Also note there is discussion of it in Physics and Star Wars which has sources I believe. I'm not against inducing mention of lightsaber's, but the section was meant to be on laser technology in general and perhaps include mention of lightsaber-all with sources.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Empty sections
All the empty sections I have created have a large number of online results for sources. It just needs to be added. Iĺl do it when I have more time. You can add them yourself if you wish to otherwise I´ll do it when I have more time.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightsabers
Any mention (and technical specifications that should go with it) of lightsabers should go under the laser section of the article. May want to see Physics and Star Wars as a guidance or just add info on lightsabers to that article instead.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Forcefields
Please do not remove the content from the forcefields section just because it's incomplete as I plan on expanding on it later.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of editing the section on force fields. It's not uncited, I've got the sources, I just need to add them, so don't remove.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Corrections and copyedit
This article suffers from a lot of repetition and redundancy. There are also many cases where the word "however" is used as a pause, rather than to show any actual contrast (though this problem is endemic to Wikipedia). There are grammar mistakes such as "Prosthetics was" instead of "Prosthetics were". Several citations did not include a date reference. I started to try and fix some of these problems but my edit was reverted which happens. What surprised me was User:Nadirali described the revert as being due to unsourced and undiscussed POVs and it is not at all clear to me what was meant by that. It is not clear to me what part of my edit might be considered opinion or point of view. My intent was to tidy and copyedit, not in any way to change the substance of the article but to improve readability. I made my edits in good faith but no good faith efforts were made to keep any of it, not even the addition of proper dates in the citations. This is very disappointing. User:Nadirali has made several unusual reverts to the BB-8 article, which is being discussed (Talk:BB-8). I may try again to fix this article if the other discussion becomes any clearer. I might not have time, so I'm writing this note to encourage other editors to try reading this article out loud, and then consider ways to improve the article. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 * No offense meant to Nadirali, but he/she is a relatively new editor and hasn't totally gotten the hang of this yet. But he is open to advice and constructive criticism. He probably did not look at all your edits before reverting, most of what I saw was great, like removing contractions ("do not" instead of "don't"). Also, Nadirali created the article, so there could be some newbie ownership stuff there. Anyway, I encourage you to do some cleanup again now that Nadirali has done further rewrites, and maybe in smaller edits (by section?) to avoid any kind of mass revert. I'm not really watching or editing this article at the moment, I'd like it to settle down a bit before I consider contributing. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 01:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The pattern of complaints and warnings User_talk:Nadirali are not encouraging. It does seem very much like a case of ownership but I am still disappointed by the lack of any good faith effort to retain any small part of an edit I thought was entirely uncontroversial (not even the indentation and pretty printing of the wikisource, who could object to that?). I cannot spend even more time on this without some small show of good faith first.
 * One of the other problems I tried to fix was the statement that ~Empire was the 2nd film, and 5th in the chronology~ a massively unnecessary detail. I see User:Postdlf added the detail to specify that it was the 2nd film but the important point is that saying what order number it was should not even have been mentioned at all. It is not a detail that should need to be explained in every Star Wars article. It is far simpler to say ~Prosthetics were first seen in Empire~ and avoid the order number entirely.
 * This is a time where the article is trying to be too specific, and adding a lot of redundancy. There are also times where the article is far too vague, using phrases such as recent or currently that are better avoided in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. See WP:TIME and WP:NOTNEWS.
 * The content has potential but the prose and style need substantial work for this to article to approach a rating of C Class. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few smaller edits, with longer explanations. The edits are small so it should not be difficult to revert just one edit without reverting them all. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL I'm not a new user. I've been here for many years and re-joined Wikipedia last year. In my total time here, I've created over thirty pages. The reverts I made were mostly what this IP user pointed out. I did not have the energy to manually undo some his undesired removal of relevant details, so I had to automatically remove them which may have resulted in removing other more constructive edits. Not defined as WP:OWN. The detail of Episode V being the fifth film in the saga being removed is hardly constructive. Just because older fans are familiar with it, doesn't mean everyone is. And given that Episode five has been stripped off it's official title (that is Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) on Wikipedia, I think newer fans and readers about Star Wars who are less familiar with the saga are prone to confusion. That is not what Wikipedia should be for. Let's focus on improving the article instead of removing relevant details, and that goes particularly to you our IP friend.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * You have many warnings on your talk page, you got it wrong on the BB-8 article, you seem to get it wrong a lot, and yet you continue to assert that you are correct. You make some very odd English mistakes, maybe it isn't your first language but either way it shouldn't have taken this much edit for you to accept the grammar correction. You admit to being lazy "I did not have the energy to manually undo" and you haven't shown much good faith with your large reverts and little attempt to at least take the edits as a suggestion and improve the text in your own way. You continue to assert that you are correct and remove my edits with almost no explanation, acting as if you own the page. It doesn't need to be me but you should get a native English speaker to copyedit the page when you think you are nearly finished expanding the content.
 * You continue to assert that I removed "relevant details" but if you read the introduction out loud it is very obvious that the sentences are verbose and repetitive. I'd appreciate a third opinion to look at my edit of the introduction and tell me if they think I removed any relevant details. You still don't seem to see the problem with including time phrases (today, modern times, current, recent, etc).
 * You have some very strange ideas about what details are necessary and what details are not. You chose not to introduce the article by properly explaining that Star Wars is a film, but think it is important to say it is a blockbuster, and you think it is worth verbosely explaining in tedious detail that Empire is 5th but 2nd. You need to think about the readers, and what they might or might not know already about Star Wars when they read this page. If you really believe so much detail is needed, you do need start by saying it is a film, a "blockbuster space opera film" if you must. I still think it is irrelevant and hyperbole to say it is a blockbuster in this context.

 * Certainly not. The fact that you want to mention only one films of the saga (A New Hope) as being "Star Wars" and don't seem to know that other films don't exist or don't exhibit these technologies demonstrates your ignorance in the subject, which will only do more damage to the article than good. The warnings on my talk page are ages old and have no relevance to this article. The fact that you continue to add factually incorrect edits such as SW being a single film as opposed to a series of films shows me that you are not capable of adding anything truthful to this article. If you don't want your others edits to be reverted, don't use them to bury your incorrect edits, or else you will be reverted again. Users such as TAnthony have made a number of useful contributions without being reverted, but since you do not wish to do the same you want to misuse WP:OWN to bypass factual information and insert your own unsourced POV. Sorry, but on Wikipedia that is just not acceptable.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Try not to be so obviously lazy, instead try to include the suggestions of others, and not just reverting with such vague edit summaries. Try reading WP:GOODFAITH again. I hope you can at least understand the article needs a lot of work and you need to let others help improve it, even if you are going to reject my edits again. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Lazy? I added more than 90% of content to the article without anyone's help, even if it took me over a year. I call laziness removing factual info. And just because I reverted you, does not mean I reject help from anyone. Stop this dishonesty. Going through the history of article, you'll find lots of users (especially TAnthony) making edits without ever getting reverted. Keep your edits constructive otherwise stop all together. Failing to abide by Wiki standards will get you reverted and more warnings on your talk page. Good night.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of them term blockbuster
I used it in the intro because Star Wars is indeed a high grossing film franchise, not because I want to give it a positive image. It is a fact that this film series is one of the highest grossing at the box office, so I think it should stay there. But let's not get focused on this too much. See my comments in the previous thread and stick with that for now; especially you IP user. See also WP:DISRUPTION--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * See above. It is a film, a blockbuster film, or if you must, "a blockbuster space opera film" but the important descriptive word is film. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * No it is not "a film". Star Wars is a franchise consisting of multiple films. The fact that you seem to be unaware of this shows me that you have little or no knowledge in the subject and are best advised to read up on it before editing it again. Please stop this.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible quotes to use?
I found this quote to be interesting "Star Wars is also very much concerned with the tension between humanity and technology, an issue which, for me, dates back even to my first films. In Jedi, the theme remained the same, as the simplest of natural forces brought down the seemingly invincible weapons of the evil Empire."

I think we can cut out the reference to Return of the Jedi, but stick with the reference to the technology and add it to the intro of the article.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I decided to add it. If anyone has an objection, bring it up here.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To do list
Amongst the things we need to clear up here are:
 * The overuse of the word "however" as you pointed out
 * Additional citations for verification
 * I was unaware that book sources have a specific way of being cited including their ISPNs. I was citing Star Wars Technical Journal by Shane Johnson as a source by the time I realized this. To make it easier, I created a bibliography section with the book including it's ISPN number. Over a long time span, I think the book citations can be re-titled in the encyclopedic standard. Note that I have done the same for Physics and Star Wars (which I will request you to review once I'm done fixing it over the span of the next few weeks) so when anyone looking to correct the book citations can check the bibliography section.
 * Expansion of sections requiring expansion and tagged for it
 * Creating empty sections- which I am in no shape to do at the moment
 * Creating any new subtopics that require creation
 * Adding any new relevant info, but avoiding any picky issues such as the titling of the films, which I have shortened when they are mentioned more than once.

I'm done editing this article for the time being aside from some possible minor changes. I've had enough of it as it is and will be busy with other Star Wars pages, so you can consider it "settled" and are welcomed to improve it as much as possible, but perhaps discuss any questionable changes (which I doubt will occur).

You might want to contact our IP friend to help out. He's made a series of useful edits, but wants to be cautioned not to make the mistakes of removing relevant information. If you have any questions and/or comments, just message me. Happy editing!--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Potentially useful reference
FYI: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/12/14/droids-and-the-force-how-the-technology-in-star-wars-is-actually-real/ --EEMIV (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much again for posting this. There is an empty section in the article about armor that could use it. My only concern is that this is a blog. Is there another publication of this material?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Article feedback
I've skimmed through this article and have a few observations regarding content and sourcing. I'm going to add a couple of cleanup tags -- copyediting and needing help with sources -- indicating as such, and perhaps that will draw the attention of other editors outside Star Wars wikidom who sometimes help with these types of things.

 * Copyediting: Although written well enough for The Financial Express to copy-and-paste large portions, this article just needs a good copyedit. I changed one awkward sentence, but I see awkward comma use, wordiness, etc.

 * Original research: a few of the uncited assertions about Star Wars content read like generalizations stemming from isolated if consistent examples in the text. An example of OR is the assertion that "not all types [of missiles] may have a real-life equivalent." Per WP:WAF and WP:OR, we don't state our own inferences as facts about a fictional world; we need third-party substantiation.

 * "Exhaustion": Many of these sections reads as if they're trying to provide an exhaustive, all-encompassing list of details and examples of that type of tech. in SW. Wikipedia is not meant to be exhaustive in its coverage, merely compelling and sufficient for a general-interest audience. The presence of different types of explosives in Star Wars can be sufficiently asserted in a single sentence ("Characters use a variety of explosives in the Star Wars films and other content.") and does not need the three paragraphs enumerating granular details about each explosive used in three different films. That level of detail is more useful and appropriate at Wookieepedia. More broadly, it appears this entire article is attempting to offer an exhaustive list (see next items) of technology in Star Wars, and that's both a) a fruitless task and b) inconsistent with what Wikipedia is (not).

 * Article or list?: Other than Lawrence Kasdan's quote in the lede, I don't see any citation to sources addressing Technology in Star Wars as a whole. In the absence of overall cohesion, I wonder if instead this would be more appropriately moved to List of technologies in Star Wars, where we can bullet-point elements of fiction. (An aside about the Kasdan quote: at some point, it should leave the lede; generally, we don't have verbatim quotes or footnoted content in the lede section.) For better or for worse, Lists of... also tend to be a bit more for forgiven/forgiving when it comes to in-universe plot detail balanced against real-world origin and impact.

 * Article or list, part 2: The above said, there probably is a good article about Technology in Star Wars to be had. The current structure a) enumerates a piece of technology in Star Wars and then b) appends whatever articles in can find that mention Star Wars in connection with a real-life use or inspiration. But I suspect somewhere there are thoughtful reflections and insights into e.g. Does the absence of writing utensils in Star Wars mean all the characters are functionally illiterate? Is it possible the humans in Star Wars evolved with integrated technology that allows characters to use the Force (a theory NadirAli and I have read about in The Science of Star Wars)? How has the depiction of technology -- whether it's lasers or cybernetics or cryofreezing -- inspired scientists or engineers into their fields to make their own notable contributions? Besides the "used universe," what deliberate production decisions to Lucas and Abrams make in depicting characters' interactions with technology in the films? In other words, this titular subject might be better approached in terms of themes and real-world impact rather than in terms of components and devices.

 * Mis-reading of sources; sources don't back up claims: the laser section asserts that the Air Force is developing "laser cannons [that] use the same concept of ion-based technology as seen in Star Wars." I checked both citations attached to this claim, and neither makes any claim like this at all. In fact, the only reference to Star Wars are in both articles' headlines; neither draws a parallel to Star Wars in the article, and even the "Star Wars" in the headline could have been replaced with "Star Trek" or "Buck Rogers" or "sci-fi". The Mashable article doesn't even mention ions. I did not check any other citations in the article, but I'm concerned about others similarly having (at best) a tenuous connection to the claim they apparently substantiate. Probably both of those citations should be deleted and replaced with a tag. (Go figure, one of the citations was broken and instead I found a mirror to make it accessible.)

 * Images: I challenge the appropriateness of the picture of the concussion missile (a copyrighted image from an Essential Guide) and the image of Luke next to the vaporator (from a cut scene), specifically regarding non-free content criterion 8, significance to article. Their inclusion does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I will nominate both images for deletion because of disputed fair-use claims on Tuesday unless the article shifts to provide meaningful, cited commentary on both items' appearance in a way that meets NFCC #8. (I think the picture of the prosthetic is okay because there is specific, meaningful discussion about how its appearance is beyond what our own prosthetics can provide.)

Three changes I went ahead and did:

 * I removed a reference to Wookieepedia, which under no circumstance should Wikipedia ever site as a source due to its status as a self-published fan site.
 * I fixed a broken citation: the link wasn't working, but I found another article with the same headline (perhaps a mirror) and dropped that in instead.
 * The very first clause -- "The space opera blockbuster Star Wars" -- reads as effusive about the topic's source material and doesn't read as encyclopedic; "The Star Wars franchise" would be a more neutral expression, for example, and consistent with how other Star Wars-related articles generally describe the franchise. Additionally, "blockbuster" is inapt because that's a term almost entirely having to do with films, and the franchise has lots of content wasn't blockbustery (TV shows and comic books, for example).

I'm disinclined to try to jump into doing significant work on this article, but again I hope the maintenance tags draw some additional attention. Perhaps the primary editors could raise a flag for additional input at the wikiproject page. --EEMIV (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 * -- I see you reverted an edit. Mind responding/explaining why you think "blockbuster" is an appropriate term here? It's not used in the lede of any of the other Star Wars good or featured articles, or even any of the less-good ones. It reads as non-NPOV. Please articulate a rationale to retain the term (other than "Well, it's true" -- this doesn't address the concern about avoiding an inappropriately effusive tone or the aspects of the subject to which the term "blockbuster" don't apply). --EEMIV (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

, oh man, I have not "reverted" you, I simply kept both edits in as a compromise, even though I think it's totally unnecessary. Blockbuster is there to incorporate the financial performance and recognition of the franchise, not to promote it. There was a discussion about using "epic" and it was settled as kept in. The image of the concussion missile is there to illustrate what missiles in SW look like. I think this blockbuster is more neutral than the "epic' label.

 * And the other arguments are also somewhat appalling. The images illustrate the technologies and are there under fair use since they are not replaceable by free use ones being the intellectual property Lucasfilms. I have already made references to these technologies from the films and commentaries on them as a balance. Incorporating too much from the stories would be WP:INUNIVERSE. There is mention of vaporators in that section and since there is no current equivalent to a moisture vaporator, it will give the reader an idea of what is being discussed.

 * Not every single SW technology is an inspiration nor has to be one. That is not the purpose of this article. And just because it isn't doesn't mean it does not belong here. As long as there is some social scientific commentary and not too much In-universe stuff. Rather a balance of both. Otherwise this article should have been created on Wookiepedia. I worked hard to keep it a balance over the course of two years.

 * While this article does not give exhaustive coverage, it has to give a balance of what is real and what is just science fiction. Besides interesting audience is not the job of Wikipedia. It's purpose is to inform, that's all. And an accurate one that is, not to the preferred level of one user. Most of the sources discussing these technologies are academic and reliable sources, well within guidelines.

 * I made all references to films and appearances of these technologies and in other media.

 * The title change is not acceptable. Magic in Harry Potter doesn't need to be changed to "List of magic in Harry Potter" or "list of magic spells in Harry Potter". This is an encyclopedic analysis of the technology in Star Wars as a whole, not a shortened list. Because these technologies are distinct, we have to divide them. Read History of Turkey as a random example. We don't change it to "List of historic time periods in modern Turkey." it is divided for a purpose and reason.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it just feels like 50% of this is you mis-reading (or perhaps me not being clear about) what I'm saying/trying to say. And rest reads as you being disinclined to accept feedback that doesn't align with your own preferences for style and content. Oh, well. I've gone ahead and nudged the missile image re. disputed fair-use rationale and am happy to take it to XfD if the article content doesn't improve to address NFCC #8. --EEMIV (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 * No, it feels like you're asking for the article to become what it already is. You want to scratch out the sections such as the explosive devices to something that you like but does not read as encyclopedic at all. You are asking for the sections to cut down because it feels "too extensive" to you, when all it does is give a brief insight to the technologies and gives a link to a main page. But that is how Wikipedia does it. Almost every article is divided into sections. Lists are List of Star Wars characters and stuff like that which is very different from an article. By your reasoning Star Wars should be changed to List of Star Wars media, History of Iran should be changed to List of historic time periods in Iran.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Yeah, that must be it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 * This is why I have neither contributed to or watched this article, you and I have a completely different way of thinking than NadirAli, as we all know from other articles hahaha. That said, I will just add that while I like this article and really appreciate that NadirAli has singlehandedly developed it, I also pretty much agree with everything EEMIV has argued above. Just a few comments:

 * The copyediting and original research are definitely a problem. But it really disturbs me to hear that some of the statements in the article are not backed up by the sources. We all know that SW was innovative and has inspired/predicted things, so it is tempting to read into sources what we want to see. But sometimes the sources we need just aren't out there, or at least are not readily available. NadirAli, you created this article and have been its primary editor. I think you're learning what constitutes OR and editor opinion, but I know from my own experience that it can be difficult to not editorialize a bit at times. But neutrality and sticking to the sources are two of the most important aspects of building an article.
 * I don't know why you find the suggestion to change the article name so objectionable, a list is not a bad thing! This article is explicitly listing Star Wars technologies and what real-world technologies they may have inspired or predicted. It is not really discussing as a whole the concept of the use of technology in the franchise, as one would expect from the current title. The examples you are using here for comparison are not really the same thing. History of Iran is not listing time periods. Star Wars does not just list the various works, it covers the cultural impact, thematic elements and multitude of other aspects of the franchise. I wouldn't push for a name change now because this article can still develop, but you should understand that right now it's not entirely addressing the topic.
 * EEMIV is correct in his interpretation of NFCC #8, but luckily you have a lot of Commons images. I know a couple of "expert" editors in image use that I will eventually guide to this article to get their opinion on the use of non-free images.

 * You might want to consider seeking a peer review to get some mainstream feedback from someone other than EEMIV and myself LOL. I don't think the article currently meets Good article criteria but that's also a way to get detailed feedback from editors well-versed in article content across Wikipedia.— T A nt h o n y Talk 20:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

, the fact that this article has problems, does not mean I do not intend to take care of them or fill up the empty sections. Also three non-free use images in the whole article should not cause a panic anymore than a few [accidental] original research claims that can be easily fixed. What gave me the idea to write this article is all the coverage on the technology.

I noticed you contributed to an article called Technology of the Dune universe. Although I really don't know anything much about Dune, I am curious to ask why that article is not a list or why isn't it a good article, despite being much older than this one? And yes History of Iran is essentially an article about the historic time periods in Iran divided into sections- no different from this or any other Wikipedia article divided into subtopics. This article is an introduction and analysis of the technology in Star Wars and it's scientific credibility as documented by the sources. If I created it otherwise, it would be an in-universe pile of junk.

The article needs to be filled up and expanded on, which I will take care of. I've taken care of most of this articles needs and can continue to do so. I have time before I transfer to another university in September. So I don't see what the complaints are about. Lots of articles are not good articles how come they are not nominated for lists? A list will not discuss and sections, an article does. And no why is History of Iran any different? That article can be broken down into a list.

PS, I emailed the links to Jeanne Cavelos in a conversation and she called them really good. I'm just curious what the complains are about when they can be easily fixed.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for catching that, I've moved the article to List of technology in the Dune universe. Making something a list does not mean you have to strip it down to bullet points or a table, List of Millennium characters is a Featured list that is formatted in sections like this article. Anyway, obviously you don't see the difference that I see between this and History of Iran, so go ahead and improve this article as you see fit, and when you are ready you can seek feedback from the community at large. I understand what you're going for, and by comparison, your Star Wars technology list has a lot more real-world perspective and impact than the Dune list, which has very little (it would not make Good article status either without improvements). This article is way better than that one on that point. No one is suggesting that you haven't boosted each subtopic here with some analysis etc, it just remains to be seen whether "the technology of Star Wars" can be considered an actual topic in the same way that the cultural impact of Star Wars can, insofar as what analysis is available. With something as huge as Star Wars though, it's probably out there somewhere.

 * I wouldn't take this constructive criticism and feedback as "complaints". I know it can feel personal when you work on an article and other editors have things to say about it, but that's what the collaborative process is all about. Fortunately for you in this case, EEMIV and I are not actively working on this article as happened with The Force (Star Wars) LOL. I'm not instituting a deadline for this article to be complete and perfect and I don't think EEMIV is either. The reason I have brought up Good article status and peer review with you now and in the past is because you seem to dismiss most of our advice as if we don't know what we're talking about, but I believe that any formal assessment you get will sound a lot like what we've been saying. That said, I don't want to come off like I'm always picking apart your work, I'm not perfect and not every article I've ever worked on is complete and of the highest quality. Thanks.TAnthonyTalk 00:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:TAnthony. Ant I was just using your rationale. I don't actually believe that you should have changed it to a list and think you should revert it to it's encyclopedia name. Lists should only be bullet forms and that article is an overall description of the technology, not a list. I was just arguing with your rationale. Anyways this article has taken two years to reach it's present condition and will require many more months. Inspite of all that and despite not being currently at GA standards, it is still overall a good and well sourced article. Also to mention that this article was reviewed by users with review rights in the first months of it's creation, so regardless of anything else it's definitely on the right track.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Standalone lists are not necessarily just bare bulleted lists or tables, as with my FL example above. The Dune article is essentially listing the various technologies, though each has a generous description and its own section, but there is no over-arching discussion or analysis of the topic of technology in the series beyond the lead itself. The same can be said about this article, but you have a lot more real-world information and there is more potential here.TAnthonyTalk 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Confusing content changes: 3/6/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for your edits!

I’m somewhat confused about your last four edits to this page:

 * 1) The phrase “all of this is a possibility in the future” was changed to “all of this is future possibility”. What exactly does “future possibility” mean? I assumed it meant “a possibility in the future”, but perhaps it meant something else. Whatever it does mean, please let me know.
 * 2) In a quote from a novel, a period at the end was removed when there was also a period after the quote. I had assumed that the period in the quotation was there because it was in the quote, and I placed the second period there because the quote was at the end of a sentence. However, if the two periods’ existence do, in fact, comprise a redundancy error, I would be happy to know why.
 * 3) The phrase “mildly argues the accuracy of the ‘Star Wars’ depiction of lasers as accurate”, which I had changed to “argues against the accuracy of the ‘Star Wars’ depiction of lasers”, was changed back. Was the phrase supposed to be “mildly argues that the ‘Star Wars’ depiction of lasers is accurate”? If not, please let me know.
 * 4) The sentence “Holography was first seen in the first ‘Star Wars’ film ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’” was changed to “Holography in ‘Star Wars’ was first seen on film in the fourth film of the saga ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’”. I am confused about a few parts of this sentence:
 * First of all, thanks for clarifying that it was Holography in Star Wars, not Holography in general.
 * Next, I think “in film” is probably the appropriate way of saying “in a film”, although you could say that too. However, I think that “on film” does not mean exactly the same thing, but instead means the same thing as “recorded”, “on tape”, etc., which would imply that there is real-life video footage of Holography. If this is not actually the case, please let me know.
 * “in the fourth film of the saga ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’” is a bit ambiguous, and implies that Episode IV: A New Hope is a saga, which this happens in the fourth film of. Maybe “in the fourth film of the Star Wars saga, ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’” would be less ambiguous?
 * A phrase describing “Episode IV: A New Hope” as the “first film” was changed to describe it as the “fourth film”. Are there any policies which could help figure out whether it counts as the first or fourth film? I really don’t know which it counts as.

I would be really happy if you would clarify why the above matters happened, so that, hopefully, we can reach consensus.

Thanks again for your edits!

Noah Kastin (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To address your points:
 * 1) If the quote does in indeed require a second full stop then I'm OK with it, though I thought if a sentence ends, it needs only 1 full stop.
 * 2) Mildly argues is the correct statement because the author of the paper argues this in only one sentence. That is completely different from arguing against it.
 * 3) On film refers to the Star Wars films and not on other forms of media such as comic books or video games. It also mentions it's appearance in the novel of the film.
 * 4) It doesn't imply that episode IV is a saga. It clearly says the fourth film of the saga. That implies it's part of the saga, not an equivalent of the saga.
 * 5) The episode number speaks for itself. Weather or not which film was produced first is irrelevant. I made a small note differentiating the release date and the chronology in brackets in the prosthetics section.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could be of help and managed to clarify.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a month late, but I'd like to weigh-in on some of this. (Thanks for discussing, BTW, and not edit warring.) Please don't take any of this too critically. Copy-editors train themselves to notice even tiny clarity issues, and it can be nit-picky by nature.
 * Wikipedia uses the logical quotation style MOS:LQ which means that punctuation is only included inside the double-quotation marks if it's part of the actual quote. Most of the time, punctuation goes outside of the quote.  But if the quote includes a period/full stop, it's good to keep that inside the double-quotes so readers know that was the end of a sentence and a complete thought.  In such cases, editors tend to integrate the quote into the sentence so that the full stop inside the quote also serves as the full stop for the sentence.  Wikipedia doesn't like having multiple terminal punctuation (MOS:FULLSTOP).  To my recollection, the only valid case is with titles, such as "Who Mourns for Adonais?".  (Forgive me for mentioning Star Trek in a Star Wars discussion.)  The sentence needs a period which helps distinguish the question mark as part of the title, and clarifies that the sentence itself is not a question.
 * discusses the functions of lasers and mildly argues the Star Wars depiction of lasers as accurate. This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch "Argument Clinic" which noted "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition." One sentence in a paper might be a bit short to call it an argument, and the "mild" part did have me second-guessing the intended meaning. In cases like that, sometimes it's best to step back and try rephrasing it.  How about:  "discusses the functions of lasers and briefly notes the accurate depiction of Star Wars lasers."
 * Saga wouldn't have been my first choice of word, but the term seems to be widely used by WikiProject Star Wars, and is included in the navigation template at the bottom of the article.
 * Holography in Star Wars was first seen on film in the fourth film of the saga Episode IV: A New Hope. I can tell what that means, but I agree with Noah Kastin that it'd be clearer with a comma after "saga".  There are some other minor issues, though (prepositions, numbers, two instances of "film").  This may be another awkward passage to be rephrased. The article is about technology in Star Wars, so that could be assumed.  You could make it more general "Holography has been depicted in every film of the Star Wars saga" (perhaps have to fact-check that) or "Holography has been depicted since the first feature release of the Star Wars saga" to give a sense that it was a part of the setting from the very beginning of the franchise.
 * I hope this is of some assistance – Reidgreg (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Armor section
I have a little more to add there, so don't worry there too much. Although it's a small body, developing sections in an article like this one can be hectic.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Prosthetics section
Is this piece worth including in the article? It contains additional information about fingers being operated individually by smartphones. Discuss here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Goal of This Article
I'm a little confused but what exactly is the goal of this article? Most of the entries continually make reference to real world technology which makes it sound like the goal is to delineate what technology inspired Star Wars and vice versa (similar to the opening sentence) but then it mentions concepts like force fields and artificial intelligence which both predate the franchise and thus make it sound like the it's just a run down of all the notable technology that exists in the Star Wars universe which begs the question of what function mentioning real world use of the technology is supposed to serve.

To me it makes more sense to re-write the article to remove the real world references unless they're a bonafide inspiration starting with Star Wars and limit the total number of times we have to mention something outside of canon. I think mentioning the real world too much makes it hard to figure out what the underlying idea of the article is supposed to be if the idea is to just describe the franchise canon. 2620:0:691:3:0:0:0:10 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 * This is a very poor article. There are lots of things to do to improve it, though removing real-world references probably isn't it. Very generally, I imagine a healthy version of this article would explain the various production decisions made in conceiving and depicting Star Wars tech, along with commentary on how those creative decisions influenced the real world and/or garnered significant third-party commentary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Technology in Star Wars/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Don Powell

Fair use rationale for Image:Don Powell1.jpg
Image:Don Powell1.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 this Wikipedia article 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.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Talk:Don Powell


text:
иго

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  yoke
 * 2)  thraldom, servitude, slavery
 * 1)  thraldom, servitude, slavery

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) yoke

Alternative forms

 * Glagolitic:

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) yoke

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  yoke; slavery, oppression
 * 2)  yoke

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  yoke

title: иго


text:
Kvitskarvbreen

Kvitskarvbreen ("the white mountain glacier") is a glacier in Nathorst Land at Spitsbergen, Svalbard. It has a length of about 8.5 kilometers, and extend northwestwards from the mountain of Kvitskarvet to the valley of Bromelldalen. The glaciers of Lundbreen, Juvbreen and Zimmerbreen are all tributaries to Kvitskarvbreen.

title: Kvitskarvbreen


text:
Emstek

Emstek is a municipality in the district of Cloppenburg, in Lower Saxony, Germany. It is situated approximately 8 km east of Cloppenburg.

Tourism
Emstek is home to the Baumweg nature reserve and a public swimming lake Halener Badesee.

title: Emstek


text:
full marks

Interjection

 * 1) Expressing complete satisfaction with someone's efforts.

Noun

 * 1) The maximum marks obtainable in an exam or test.
 * She got full marks. Not one single error.
 * 1)  Complete approval or agreement.
 * I would have to give you full marks for that statement.

title: full marks


text:
Durbe

Durbe (Durben, Durbė, Dorbiany, Дурбе Durbe/Дурбен Durben) is a town in Latvia. Durbe was first noted in 1260, when the Battle of Durbe occurred near Lake Durbe. As of 2020, the population was 492.

Town rights were granted to Durbe in 1893 and confirmed in 1917. Durbe manor served as the headquarters of a German brigade in 1917.

The town's coat of arms was granted in 1925: a silver apple tree with seven apples, one for each day of the week. The tree represents the Durbe Apple Orchards, created in the early 20th century by the mayor and city gardener Sīmanis Klēvers. In Latvian folklore, an apple tree is also considered a magical source of youth and sympathy. The city flag was adopted in 2016.

Notable people

 * Zigfrīds Anna Meierovics (1887–1925), prime minister of Latvia and minister of foreign affairs of Latvia

title: Durbe


text:
Conhistory/Prehistory

Conworld : conhistory: prehistory

Contrary to popular belief, the story of humanity does not start at Ancient Egypt.

It seems to be a common pitfall of Conworlders that their first peoples, cultures and nations must start with an ancient, venerable, agricultural empire, and that the rest of their conhistory consists of this empire (and others like it) disseminating their civilization outwards. This is, of course, true to a great extent, but it misses another part of the picture completely.

Perhaps it is best if we put things in perspective. Modern humans have existed for at least 100,000 years, 20 times the length of civilization. For 95,000 years all humans of the world lived as hunter gatherers. And even for the remaining 5,000 years of civilization, vast numbers of human beings continued to live in this way, at least until the dawn of modernity in the last few centuries or so. At the time of the rise of ancient Egypt, the majority of our own ancestors lived outside the influence of civilization.

These people are not simpletons either; remember, they are modern human beings of the homo sapiens species. Their physical and mental capacities were the same as ours. They led their own complex emotional and social and romantic lives. Millions of human beings just like us lived and died in such societies. Civilization, from Egypt to Hollywood (inclusive), is like a sudden and brilliant blip at the very last part of the human story — civilization is the great exception of human culture, not the rule.

Of course, the fact that they were, in fact, extremely technologically backwards compared to us or even their contemporaries, gave their lives a very different sort of theme than us. We can see still how their way of life may have been in hunting-gathering peoples like the Khoisan peoples of the Kalahari Desert, in Africa. Of course, keep in mind that we're talking about the all human cultures of the entire World for several dozen millennia, so it's hard to generalize anything.

As a whole, women and children stayed close to home and gathered seeds and fruits; men ventured further away to hunt fast-moving wild animals. (Some people like to connect this to the apparent affinity of men to competitive strategic sports, or women to congregating and gossiping, but we'll leave that for another discussion.) Because people needed to be on the move all the time, they tended not to have so many children (about 4; compare that to 10+ which we commonly see in agricultural societies). People didn't live that long; the average lifespan was about 35 years, though this was probably the result of high infant mortality rates -- if you survive to adulthood, you can live longer than that. Nevertheless they aged very fast, so that a 40-year-old hunter gatherer would look a lot older than a 40-year-old professional urbanite with her face creams and so forth.

The main food source was gathered seeds plus hunted animals. People didn't need to work as long for these (about 30 hours a week), so there was quite some leisure time compared to us. Also, hunting and gathering extracts very little calories per unit area of land, so population density was very low -- less than one person per square kilometer. In general people moved around in small clans across a wide, wild landscape, constantly chasing their prey. There was no overcrowding and they did not come into contact with other clans all that often. As a result, the exchange of ideas and materials was slow, which goes a great deal to explain why for more than 100,000 years human beings didn't seem to advance all that much in terms of philosophy or technology. (Keep in mind that these human beings are basically genetically identical to us, so "because they were stupid" would not be a good enough explanation.)

All that changed, of course, with the development of agriculture, after the end of the last Ice Age about 10,000 years ago.

Agricultural Revolution >>

title: Conhistory/Prehistory


text:
List of number-one Billboard Latin Pop Airplay songs of 2013

The Billboard Latin Pop Airplay is a chart that ranks the best-performing Spanish-language Pop music singles of the United States. Published by Billboard magazine, the data are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan based collectively on each single's weekly airplay.


text:
spring-release

Adjective

 * 1) Of a mechanical device, containing a component that compresses or extends a spring while held in place and so springs free when released.

title: spring-release


text:
Lesnoy, Bobrovsky Selsoviet, Pervomaysky District, Altai Krai

Lesnoy (Лесной) is a rural locality (a settlement) in Bobrovsky Selsoviet, Pervomaysky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 808 as of 2013. There are 11 streets.

Geography
Lesnoy is located 21 km from Novoaltaysk, 50 km from Barnaul.


text:
autuas

Etymology
From, borrowed from. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) blessed, glorified
 * 2) blissful

title: autuas


text:
Archery at the 2015 SEA Games

Archery at the 2015 SEA Games was held at the Kallang Cricket Field, in Kallang, Singapore from 10 to 14 June 2015. Five competitions will be held in men, women and mixed's recurve and in men, women and mixed's compound.

Participating nations
A total of 117 athletes from eight nations will be competing in archery at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games:

Competition schedule
The following is the competition schedule for the archery competitions:

title: Archery at the 2015 SEA Games


text:
Draft:Operating system/Operating Systems/Process and Thread

threads
Threads are, as the name suggests, a thread of execution. For example, if you create a thread, you can assign something like a function to it. The code in the function and all other subsequent function calls run on the thread.

Process Life Cycle
Like in real world a process too is created and destroyed. Different operating systems have different life cycles for the processes but a very general life cycle model is given below.

Dormant
A dormant stage of the process is actually a program, executable file on hard disk.

Fork
A process is said to be forked when loaded in the main memory. The execution of instructions may not start immediately. The keyword fork is basically a Unix UNIX terminology.

Ready
A process is said to be ready when it can start executing the very next moment. Many times a process may need some resource which is not available for that time. Processes which can be scheduled to run at any time by a scheduler is said to be in ready state.

Blocked
A process is said to be blocked when it is waiting for some interrupt to occur. Without its occurrence it can not continue. Such processes are not considered by the scheduler for scheduling.

Running
The process which is currently being executed by the processor is called the running process. In an uniprocessor system there exist only one running process at a time.

Dead
A process is said to be dead or killed when its execution is complete. Such processes are then removed from the memory of a computer. A process might end for the following reasons.
 * It performed all the functions it was supposed to perform and ended normally
 * It created some exception and was killed by operating system
 * The parent of the process is killed.


text:
Talk:Arachova

Untitled
The origin of the name is mentioned in the official Olympic Torch Path site. More sources would be desirable. Andreas 15:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Arachova, Arcadia
Is there such a village? It is mentioned at List of settlements in the Arcadia prefecture. It it does not exist, it has to be removed from here and from there. Andreas (T) 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arachova. 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/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Karyes
What does this whole part have to do with Arachova? Onoufrios d (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arachova


text:
Talk:Donald Metcalf

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Donald Metcalf. 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/20110607122522/http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/m/dm.html to http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/m/dm.html

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Donald Metcalf. 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/20050415093817/http://www.science.org.au:80/scientists/dm.htm to http://www.science.org.au/scientists/dm.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060820045439/https://sciencegrants.dest.gov.au/scienceprize/Pages/Doc.aspx?name=previous_winners/PM2001Metcalf.htm to https://sciencegrants.dest.gov.au/scienceprize/Pages/Doc.aspx?name=previous_winners/PM2001Metcalf.htm

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Links modified on main page
Please review the links modified on the main page...—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Donald Metcalf. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/m/dm.html

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Donald Metcalf. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://royalsociety.org/about-us/terms-conditions-policies/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503154253/http://www.alphamedpress.org:80/misc/profile.shtml to http://www.alphamedpress.org/misc/profile.shtml

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donald Metcalf


text:
Sabadell Airport

Sabadell Airport is located next to the city of Sabadell, 20 km from Barcelona's city centre, in Catalonia. This, and the Madrid–Cuatro Vientos Airport, are the most important airports for general aviation in Spain. There are more than 200 aircraft registered at this airport, completing around 150.000 operations per year. There are more than 400 people working at these facilities, including training schools, workshops, etc. This airport hosts the oldest aviation club in Spain.

70% of the activity of this airport is devoted to pilot training (both fixed wing and rotary). The other 30% is for advertising flights, photography, and aerotaxi, private flights and institutional flights.

title: Sabadell Airport


text:
Talk:Ryan Leone

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: The coverage in Penthouse, together with the Santa Barbara Independent coverage, may be enough to establish notability, but I was not able to access that source myself. I've removed citations to unreliable sources as well..

signed,Rosguill talk 00:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Death
A tweet mentions that Ryan Leone passed by on July 1 2022. https://mobile.twitter.com/TheNamesQ/status/1543393824931647488 --Jucos (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ryan Leone


text:
Korean Language/Writing System

Unlike what most people might believe, Korean is not as hard as it seems. Courteously, Korean has a simple alphabet, 14 basic consonants and 10 basic vowels, which can be learned swiftly.

As seen in Korean pronunciation, the language has a sound for each letter.

 * ㅁ - 'm'
 * ㅏ - 'a' as in ah (the sound your doctor asks you to make)
 * ㅗ - 'o' as in oats

However, there is more to Korean than that. It's really quite interesting, and makes this language unique. Let's say you wanted to now write 'mam' (would sound like mom) in Korean. It's not "ㅁㅏㅁ," It would be "맘." Korean, in a way, stacks letters to create a character.

Stacking Positions
There are three basic methods as follow. Two letters must be included to form a character; letters by themselves have no real meaning.

Vertical (Way 1)
If the vowel in the character is ㅓ, ㅏ, ㅣ, ㅕ, ㅑ, ㅐ, or ㅔ. As you can see all these vowels are vertical.

Horizontal (Way 2)
If the vowel in the character is ㅗ, ㅜ, ㅠ, ㅛ, or ㅡ. All these vowels are horizontal.

W (Way 3)
This method is only used when there is a "w" sound added to the character. For example, the character '원' is stacked in this manner: position 1 'ᄋ', position 2 'ᅮ', position 3 'ㅓ', and position 4 'ㄴ' (see diagram).

title: Korean Language/Writing System


text:
Cookbook:Stuffed Courgette

Ingredients

 * 2 large courgettes (zucchini)
 * 1 large onion
 * Garlic
 * Olive oil
 * 1 large green bell pepper
 * 2 large tomatoes
 * Herbs
 * 4 oz cooked brown rice
 * Mustard
 * Seasoning
 * Cheddar cheese

Preparation

 * 1) Slice courgettes in half lengthways, and scoop or cut out middles; reserve middles.
 * 2) Chop onion and garlic, and sauté for a few minutes in olive oil.
 * 3) Chop pepper, tomatoes, and herbs. Add to pan together with courgette middles.
 * 4) Add rice, mustard, and seasoning to taste. Cook for 5 minutes and drain off any extra liquid.
 * 5) Stuff the 4 courgette halves with the cooked mixture, and sprinkle grated cheese on top.
 * 6) Bake in medium-hot oven for 20 minutes.
 * 7) Serve with green salad.

title: Cookbook:Stuffed Courgette


text:
droitier

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) right-handed
 * 2) right-footed

Noun

 * 1) a right-handed or right-footed person

title: droitier


text:
deux points

Noun

 * 1) colon (punctuation mark)

Usage notes

 * Not to be confused with.

Noun

 * 1)  colon

title: deux points


text:
Ronnie Nasralla

Ronnie Nasralla OD (1930/1 – 20 January 2021 ) was a Jamaican record producer and businessman, best known for his work in the music industry with Byron Lee & the Dragonaires.

Biography
Nasralla was born in Kingston, Jamaica to a Lebanese father and Jamaican mother. He attended St. George's College, where he met Byron Lee, joining the early incarnation of the Dragonaires. A keen sportsman, Nasralla represented Jamaica in fencing, badminton, squash and football.

Through Edward Seaga he was introduced to artist management in the early 1960s, going on to manage the Dragonaires as well as The Blues Busters and The Maytals. He produced tracks by The Blues Busters and The Maytals which were released on his BMN record label. Nasralla also auditioned for bands to appear in the club scene of Dr. No, notably rejecting Bob Marley and the Wailers because they were "untidy". He eventually chose the Dragonaires.

He was involved in the Jamaican contribution to the 1964 World's Fair, choreographing ska dancers. In 1965 he formed Lee Enterprises with Byron Lee and Victor Sampson. He co-produced several recordings with Lee, including The Maytals' "It's You" and "Daddy". He also worked with Lee at the Dynamic Sounds recording studio. His contribution to the music industry in Jamaica was rewarded with a medal at the National Honours and Awards ceremony in the 1980s.

He later worked in the public relations and advertising industry, setting up Nasralla Promotions Ltd. and organizing events such as the Negril Music Festival.

Nasralla's autobiography, Lessons to Learn, was published in 2009.

In 2013, Nasralla was awarded the Order of Distinction by the Jamaican government.

Nasralla died peacefully at his home in Atlanta, U.S. on 20 January 2021 with his wife Rosemary by his side.

title: Ronnie Nasralla


text:
Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election

The Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the United States presidential election, officially titled Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, is the official report in five volumes documenting the findings and conclusions of the United States Senate Intelligence Committee concerning the Russian attack efforts against election infrastructure, Russia's use of social media to affect the election, the U.S. government's response to Russian activities, review of the Intelligence Community Assessment, and counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities. The redacted report is 1,313 pages long. It is divided into five volumes.

The first volume of the report was released on July 25, 2019, and the fifth and last volume was released to the public on August 18, 2020. The Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation extended more than three years, includes interviews of more than 200 witnesses, and reviews more than one million documents. Marco Rubio, acting committee head, said that "no probe into this matter has been more exhaustive.” On the stature of the report, the Senate Intelligence Committee said the report is "the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed".

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released on August 18, 2020, ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries." The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.

Like the Mueller report that preceded it, the report does not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, but it does go further than the Mueller report in detailing the many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies. In particular, it describes Paul Manafort as "a grave counterintelligence threat". According to the report, "some evidence suggests" that Konstantin Kilimnik, to whom Manafort provided polling data, was directly connected to the Russian theft of Clinton-campaign emails. In addition, while Trump's written testimony in the Mueller report stated that he did not recall speaking with Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, the Senate report concludes that "Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions".

Contents
The report was completely released on August 18, 2020, when the fifth volume was released. Much of the report is redacted, shown as.

Volume I: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure
Volume I of the report is 67 pages long. In it, the committee describes "an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure" by Russian intelligence in 2016. The activity occurred in "all 50 states" and is thought by "many officials and experts" to have been "a trial run ... to probe American defenses and identify weaknesses in the vast back-end apparatus—voter-registration operations, state and local election databases, electronic poll books and other equipment" of state election systems. The report warned that the United States "remains vulnerable" in the 2020 election.

Of "particular concern" to the committee report was the Russians' hacking of three companies "that provide states with the back-end systems that have increasingly replaced the thick binders of paper used to verify voters' identities and registration status."

Volume II: Russia’s Use of Social Media
Volume II of the report is 85 pages long.

Volume III: U.S. Government Response to Russian Activities
Volume III of the report is 54 pages long.

Volume IV: Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment
Volume IV of the report is 158 pages long.

Volume V: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities
Volume V of the report, with 966 pages, was released to the public on August 18, 2020, albeit heavily redacted. The report concluded that "the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election". The report investigated "many aspects of the counterintelligence threat posed by the Russian influence operation", which targeted both the Trump campaign and the election.

Findings on the hack and leak of Democratic Party material
The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Russian president Vladimir Putin had ordered the 2016 Democratic National Committee cyber attacks and the subsequent leaks of stolen material damaging to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The committee described that Trump's presidential campaign "sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral prospects". The Trump campaign "created messaging strategies to promote and share" the material, and "encouraged further leaks". The Trump campaign tasked Trump associate Roger Stone to gather information about WikiLeaks' release of the material; Stone reported to Trump or senior campaign members.

Findings on Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik
The Senate Intelligence Committee assessed that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's "high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services" was a "grave counterintelligence threat". The foremost individual was Manafort's employee Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian. The committee identified Kilimnik as a "Russian intelligence officer"; describing that Manafort and Kilimnik had a "close and lasting relationship" even through the 2016 election. Manafort repeatedly tried to "secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik", including "sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy".

The Senate Intelligence Committee introduced a new allegation regarding Kilimnik, that he "may have been connected" to the Russian military intelligence's hack and leak of Democratic Party material. However, the report's discussions on this topic are redacted. Manafort's connection with the Russian hack and leak operation is "largely unknown", but possible, given "two pieces of information" the committee found; the details of such information were also redacted.

Findings on the Transition
The report in the Transition section of the report, mentions that "Russia took advantage of members of the Transition Team's relative inexperience in government, opposition to Obama Administration policies, and Trump's desire to deepen ties with Russia to pursue unofficial channels through which Russia could conduct diplomacy."

Background on Page and Limitations on the Committee's Investigation
Inspector General of the Department of Justice found serious FBI errors applying for surveillance on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide, while concluding that Page's travels in Russia and his past connections with Russian intelligence officers justified the FBI's concern. Despite Page producing electronic documents and sitting for an interview that lasted six and a half hours, "The Committee had significant challenges in its attempt to understand Page's activities, including his role as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump Campaign."

The Steele Dossier: Its Origins and Handling
The report notes that the Steele dossier, a private intelligence report written by Christopher Steele, alleging a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, "found that the tradecraft reflected in the dossier is generally poor relative to IC standards; the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and many who the Committee spoke with at the FBI also found serious fault with Steele's tradecraft."

Additional Views of Senators Risch, Rubio, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse
The aforementioned Republican senators stated:

 * "The committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election... After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion."

Additional Views of Senators Heinrich, Feinstein, Wyden, Harris, and Bennet
The aforementioned Democratic senators stated:

 * "It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era."

President Donald Trump
President Donald Trump, when asked about the report on August 18, 2020, said he "didn't read it".

Democrats
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded to the fifth volume release by saying "Despite nearly four years of repeated warnings from America’s national security officials, President Trump has failed to protect America’s elections and even opened the door for Vladimir Putin to again attack our country in the same insidious way."

Russia
Russian state news service TASS responded to the release of the fifth volume on August 18, citing a statement by Dmitry Peskov, a spokesperson for Russian president Vladimir Putin, saying "The Kremlin regrets that as the U.S. presidential elections in November 2020 approach, more and more reports of alleged attempts by Russia to interfere in the electoral process will appear," such statements "have nothing to do with the truth."


text:
Anthropomorphic Robotics Project/Brainstorming/Visual systems

Please brainstorm on visual systems for AI.

Input devices are needed.

This may overlap with other systems, partly because all systems can be seen as affecting each other.

It seems that one way a robot could navigate the world is by creating a map of itself in space, and interacting with that map in computational, mathematical space, and having those interactions correspond to motor control of the mechanical systems.

At first glance it may seem that this would require great amounts of computing power.

The idea comes from a book entitled, "Why God Won't Go Away". It is about religion and neuroscience. One of the theories in the book postulates something like: we feel a certain sense of loss of self in meditation because the we shut off the part of our brain that orients us in space...

The point is, the book talks about part of the brain that orients you in space. Your brain says, you are sitting in a chair. Your hand is out in front of your body on your mouse. Your head is above your chest, and your feet are touching the ground. Your back is pressed against a chair. Your brain orients you. Your brain intakes all the sensory information from your many nerves and other sensory devices (like your eyes) and orients you so you feel reality.

So maybe a robot can do the same. It could orient itself from its vision system, and maybe its auditory system (sonar perhaps?).

I saw a show on PBS on DARPA's grand challenge. Basically, the winning team (Stanford) how they were able to keep they car on the road and avoiding obstacles was they used laser scanners to build a 2D picture representing the 3D picture of the terrain using color. They showed how the cars brain (its computer) would laser scan the terrain and then using image processing on each frame would color areas like rocks on the road, ditches on the side of the road and other obstacles. This way the car would have one section of the road painted a certain color to indicate that it was safe to drive on.

So maybe a robot could do the same. If algorithms could be written efficiently enough to allow for a robot to discern the shapes of the world around it... then maybe it could interact with those shapes in meaningful ways. Perhaps geometry processing could be used.

I am by no means an expert, but it seems that maybe people sometimes forget the fact that computers don't have to think like people to create artificial intelligence, it just has to have that appearance.

Mapping indoor terrain, and other terrain, possibly also including outdoor terrain.

The gist of these tentative thoughts are as follows.

Stereoscopic cameras... and accelerometors.

As long as the direction of the view is known, and the location of the cameras doing the viewing, and the distance of the object viewed.. as long as these are all known, could you not simply plot points in a digital three dimensional field, and have this as a map?

Perhaps this has been down... You would need to take points in space... probably a bunch of points.... and then all this data could calculate the space... this probably needs more refineing before any sort of implementation. Where are/what are stereoscopic algorithms to determine distance?

Other resources

 * Interesting page on object recognition.
 * Robotics technical papers (Jackpot)


text:
Talk:Democratic Alliance (Sweden)

The claim that Carl Bildt used to be a member of the organization needs to be substantialized... --<IP_ADDRESS> 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ,, --Soman 10:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The Swedish Democrats website and a message in a socialist webforum is not evidence. In the third link there is no reference to Bildt. The fact is that Bildt did not belong to Democratic Alliance, and opposed the organizations work inside the Moderat Young Wing. An exempel if this are the attack on the organization that Bildt sent to "Moderat Debatt" in the begining of the 80's.

title: Talk:Democratic Alliance (Sweden)


text:
entrustment

Noun

 * 1) the act of entrusting

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Irish: tiomnú
 * Japanese:

title: entrustment


text:
Talk:Doug Capilla

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Doug Capilla. 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/20121102222046/http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/profile.asp?P=doug-capilla to http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/profile.asp?P=Doug-Capilla
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050519043418/http://www.thebaseballcube.com:80/statistics/25_1970_R.shtml to http://www.thebaseballcube.com/statistics/25_1970_R.shtml

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Doug Capilla


text:
1999–2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup

1999–2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup was the sixth season of Bosnia and Herzegovina's annual football cup. The Cup was won by Željezničar who were first in the final group.

Overview
In the final stage of the competition, four clubs from the Football Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the two clubs from the Football Federation of Herzeg-Bosnia joined the competition. After a preliminary round, the remaining three advanced to the final group with only forward matches at the end of which the first-placed in the group won the trophy and qualified for the 2000–01 UEFA Cup (qualifying round).

Round of 32
The matches were played on 27 November 1999.

 * }

Round of 16
The matches were played on 4 December 1999.

 * }

Quarterfinals
The first legs were played on 26 February and the second legs were played on 22 March 2000.

 * }

Preliminary round
The first legs were played on 22 May and the second legs were played on 26 May 2000.

 * }


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk

The result was   delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrei Semenchuk

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article is about a footballer who has only spent two seasons in the third tier of Russian football for his entire career - which appears to have ended in 2011. The article is three years old and there is no sign of any coverage of Semenchuk in any reliable sources other than football statistics databases (I've searched English- and Russian-language sources. It is unclear whether the Russian third-tier is "fully-pro" and in any case, this article is not going to get any better so let's apply some common sense and remove it until the point that sources become available that meet WP:RS/WP:V.) Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, which outweighs WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete per nominator's reasons unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Given the clear failure of WP:GNG, any WP:NSPORT argument is not relevant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom - fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Aluf

Merge
I think this should be merged with Aluf, and Aluf should be made into an article about all Aluf-related ranks. With all due respect, there's absolutely no info we can add to this article, except a possible list of all current Tat-Alufs (and I have no idea where to get such a list, not to mention there are a whole lot of them). -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

These here ranks are uncorrect so let me or some one else fix that/ a few days ago i did fixed it but for some reason its now back to be the same wrong!! whats going on in here for pits-sake?! --Mecha man 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
According to my old etymological dictionary (Moses Iltis), the term אלוף aluf comes from a verb אלף alāf to be attached to / to be familiar with - אלף elef (cattle) originally meant the familiar (i.e. tame) one. Hence aluf is someone to whom people are attached to, he is the chief of a clan, of people who are familiar with each other.--Rabend 23:39 20 April 2008 (CEST)
 * In modern Hebrew, it simply means "champion". Tdunsky (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How reliable is this unsourced assertion that it comes from a word meaning 1000? I find it a strange and not-easily-believed coincidence that it sounds very similar to Aleph, yet apparently has nothing to do with it. Aleph (pronounced Alef, so the only difference from Aluf is an 'e' changed to a 'u') is Hebrew (and Phoenician, etc) for the first letter A, and thus implicitly the Number One, the commander, etc, and its Greek version Alpha is still used by, for instance, biologists to designate the 'commander' or 'general' in a group of apes ('the alpha male'). Even the sentence saying it means 1000 implicitly concedes that it actually logically means One: "It comes from a Semitic root meaning "thousand" making an "Aluf" the ONE who commands a thousand people." In fact I would find it easier to believe that it originally meant One and later came to mean 1000 in some places because an Aluf typically commanded 1000, or something like that. I suppose it's also possible that it's Aleph that comes from Aluf, but that doesn't seem all that likely, especially as the Wikipedia article on Aleph indicates that the proto-Canaanite original was Alep (thus seemingly without Aluf's F sound, though of course scholars might just be guessing how Alep sounded). Does anybody have any more information on any of this? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 * You are also right. From 1 (aleph=first letter) came 1000 (elef), and from that came the rank "leader of a thousand" (aluf). But there is no reason to go that far back. The article just mentions the second leg. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aluf. 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/20090830070254/http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/about/insignia/ranks.htm to http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/about/insignia/ranks.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"Strong"
In 2014, a very-briefly-active editor added to the article some speculation regarding the etymology, which they cited to "Strong", with no further details given; this subsequently received a  template.

I am reasonably confident that this was a reference to James Strong (theologian), author of Strong's Concordance; however, I'm not up for going through Strong's work to confirm that this is what he said. If anyone else would like to follow this lead, feel free. DS (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aluf


text:
PLC/Design and implementation

PLCs typically have many DC outputs with a fixed voltage and one AC output.

Outline of an Approach
Manufacturing process, systems, equipment

Acquire pre-existing specifications for system components and behavior
 * Site Layout Plan
 * Wiring Diagrams
 * Component specifications and constraints
 * System and component behavior and constraints
 * Process and instrumentation diagrams

Design the system and draft P&IDs (Process and Instrumentation Diagrams)
 * Define scope: which parts of control system will be handled by the PLC and which by logic external to the PLC (e.g. hardwired, relay-controlled, or directly controlled by specialised instrument/controllers.)

Assign I/O and memory ports
 * Document for system manuals

Program PLC (languages specified in IEC 61131-3 and corresponding national standards)
 * Ladder Logic (LD) - readily understandable by electricians who are familiar with the use of relays
 * Others: Function Block Diagram (FBD), Structured Text (ST), Instruction List (IL), Sequential Function Chart (SFC)
 * Older PLCs pre-existing on site may use proprietary programming languages.

Create user and maintenance manual (sometimes known as Operation & Maintenance (O&M) manual)

Test PLC code

Install system in field

Field test entire system

External References

 * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introductory_PLC_Programming
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Relay_ladder_logic

Design Challenges
A manufacturer who dyes a lot of cloth has a requirement to process waste water to oxidize the organics in the waste water before dumping the waste water into a nearby large river. It already has a waste water processing pond but the bugs keep dying off over the weekend when no feedstock is arriving as waste from the factory. Environmental engineers have decided to build a 300,000 gallon holding tank to smooth out the flow to improve the pond's performance. Average outflow during the middle of the week is 300 gallons/minute with occasional peaks (to avoid emergency overflow of holding tank) of 1200 gallons/minute.

A control valve will be used to smoothly control the outflow into the pond. In normal operations, stock should be built up on Thursday and Friday to start the weekend with a full tank without any emergency overflow.

Water flows through a rotary strainer into a 20,000 gallon wet well. From the wet well two of three 600 gallon/minute pumps on a rotating basis pump water to the holding tank. The pumps' specifications require a 5 minute cooling period after operating (or any attempt failed attempt to start pumping.) Failure to meet these specifications voids warranty and could permanently damage or destroy the pump.

Fluid flows as vats are dumped during mid and end shifts at up to 3,000 gallons/minute, for up to fifteen minutes at a time in a linear ramp pattern from 3000 down to 0 gallons/minute.

Level monitoring is required in the tank with alarm-alerting to bring abnormal operating conditions to the maintenance personnel's attention.

Design an instrumentation and control system using a PLC and any appropriate instrumentation to control the equipment listed throughout the week. Address holidays and 3 day weekends.

Solution Discussion 1
it's very simple.

title: PLC/Design and implementation


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Good Marketing

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill Good Marketing
Delete as advertisement for telemarketing software. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am working to remove all advertisement from this article. Any guidance on specific verbage that is problematic would be appreciated. Jared 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable software advert, WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)   22:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I have made some substantial changes to the page. Rather than just opting to delete the page please advise on any additional changes to the article if possible. Jared 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 'From my comments on the Bill Good Marketing Talk Page:
 * No offense, Jared, but a simple internet search would tell people what your company does...it doesn't take a Wikipedia article to figure it out. From what I have found on the company, I find it difficult to believe that anyone "reading about it" would need any further background information that requires a Wiki article. The fact that you work for the company doesn't help, either, but rather makes it look more like an attempt at advertisement. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as non-notable business (irrespective of whether the article becomes less of an ad, although surely I'm happy that Jared was willing to try adapt the article to Wikipedia standards). Joe 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I also have to question the validity of the article Bill-Good, which is written by the same author, and contains uncited claims which seem to make the subject notable at first glance, but (to me at least), if you look closely, these uncited claims to fame are not all that notable (e.g. "Fresh out of college, Bill was a statistical analyst in New York with Alan Greenspan"--that's awfully vague about the relationship with Mr. Greenspan). I'll refrain for now from making any move toward deletion, but if someone is so inclined to look into it further... --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as advertising for a non-notable company. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up, as discussed in AfD on the owner, notable business in its field, even if that field ought to be wiped off the face of the earth. Monicasdude 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert. Harr o 5 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, WP:VSCA applies. -- Kinu t /c  21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, advert.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete also per WP:CORP Melchoir 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --kingboyk 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn company. Catamorphism 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:David Marcus (writer)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Marcus. 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/20150918101144/http://www.munsterlit.ie/Southword/Issues/17/Poetry/mcfadden_hugh.html to http://www.munsterlit.ie/Southword/Issues/17/Poetry/mcfadden_hugh.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150918101144/http://www.munsterlit.ie/Southword/Issues/17/Poetry/mcfadden_hugh.html to http://www.munsterlit.ie/Southword/Issues/17/Poetry/mcfadden_hugh.html/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:David Marcus (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Marcus (writer)


text:
User:Viswa

Toxins & Poisons: Phenacetin is metabolized to acetaminophen. Acetammophen is metabolized by enzymes of the cytochrome P-450 series to intermediate products: nonreactive glucuronides and sulfates (which are conjugated and eliminated in the urine), and reactive metabolites, which are metabolized with glutathione to nontoxic mercapturic acid (which is eliminated). If the toxic metabolites accumulate as a result of insufficient glucuronide or sulfate metabolism or insufficient glutathione, they are converted to toxic macromolecules that directly cause cellular death. Cats lack glucuronyl transferase and inefficiently form glucuronic acid and sulfate conjugates, leaving more acetaminophen or phenacetin to be metabolized to toxic metabolites. The glutathione stores are rapidly depleted in cats, leaving a large amount of toxic metabolites. Methemoglobinernia occurs.

title: User:Viswa


text:
Hugh Inggs

Hugh William Inggs (born 15 May 1938) is a South African professional golfer.

Early life
Inggs was born in Boksburg, South Africa. He started to play golf at the age of 15.

Professional career
Inggs turned pro at the age of 20. In 1965, he recorded a 3rd-place finish at the South African Open behind Gary Player. In February 1969, he would finish 2nd place to compatriot Graham Henning at the General Motors Open. Although these were good placings they would also prefigure a tough-luck career as Inggs would ultimately record well over a dozen 2nd and 3rd place finishes but would rarely win.

He did, however, finally win a month later in March 1969 at the Rhodesian Masters. Inggs avenged the previous month's defeat to Graham Henning, defeating his fellow South African by a shot. He would successfully defend his title the following year.

In April 1969, Inggs was one of 15 players who qualified for the PGA Tour at Spring 1969 PGA Tour Qualifying School. He made his debut at the Western Open in June and played a number of events, finishing with the Canadian Open at the end of July. In the Minnesota Golf Classic, an event played as an alternative to the 1969 Open Championship, he finished joint runner-up behind champion Frank Beard.

Late in his career, he would play the European Senior Tour from 1992 to 2001. He played part-time for the first three seasons, making little mark, but was much more successful in his fourth season. He finished in the top-10 in half of the eight events he played, including a runner-up at the 1995 London Seniors Masters to fellow South African John Bland. He would finish 13th on that season's Order of Merit. His next best finish would be 3rd place at the 1998 Lawrence Batley Seniors.

Personal life
Inggs married Alma in 1964 and they have two children.

Professional wins (2)

 * 1969 Rhodesian Masters
 * 1970 Rhodesian Masters

title: Hugh Inggs


text:
Lunar Boom Town/Terran Tourist Transport

Tourism is likely to be a major driver of the lunar economy in many, if not most, phases of development. It will support a rich ecology of cottage manufacturers helpful in providing diverse opportunities and goods to our lunar settlers. Wise lunar entrepreneurs and investors will know how the tourist sector benefits and impacts their market sectors.

Suborbital tourism affects projections only indirectly by bringing economies of scale and venture capital to applicable space technologies. No consumables are imported from moon to support suborbital flights at Earth.

Pricing Data
2007 Flight to ISS $30MillionSpace_tourism Duration?

"Bigelow plans by 2012 to be able to house astronauts for four weeks for just under $15 million. Since launch costs are such a large part of the cost, staying up for another four weeks only costs another $3 million per astronaut."

"The plan will call for Bigelow to launch two payloads in 2010, a single payload in 2011, and quickly ramp up as clients hire the firm -- to 30 launches by 2017." How many persons per launch?

Bigelow plans.

 * http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_in_japan_the_growing_consensus.shtml


text:
User:Pheonixrice/sandbox

Hello
I am Pheonixrice. This is my sandbox.

Links
Astraea
 * Wikipedia home

Lists

 * hello
 * hi

 * 1) Ciao
 * 2) Aloha

title: User:Pheonixrice/sandbox


text:
Talk:Carson D. Jeffries

First laser light show
from http://www.lowellcross.com/articles/tudor/1968-1969.html by Lowell Cross:
 * the very first multi–color laser light show with x–y scanning. We presented it on the evening of 9 May 1969 in the outdoor Greek Theatre behind the music building on the Mills campus. Carson D. Jeffries and I spent several months planning, designing and constructing specialized mounting hardware, and collecting equipment, much of it borrowed from high–tech firms in the Bay Area such as Honeywell (mirror galvanometers and amplifiers) and Coherent Radiation Laboratories (a krypton laser). I have documented this activity in “Audio/Video/Laser,” Source, music of the avant garde, issue No. 8 (1970); and in “The Audio Control of Laser Displays,” db, the Sound Engineering Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 7 (July 1981). — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Carson D. Jeffries


text:
Talk:High School Mathematics Extensions/Mathematical Proofs/Problem Set/Solutions

Thanks for the work bro. Xiaodai 11:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome, comments, and of course, this book! BTW, it's quite true as what the title page said that this books in general needs more exercise, through writing the exercise seems to be always the hardest part. (I would also like to tell you that the partial fraction is partly finished, you may want to review it and add some exercises) Lemontea 21:44 25th October, 2004 (GMT+8)

 * No prob Xiaodai 09:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Something Like Human

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Something Like Human. 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/20110706174845/http://www.cria.ca/gold/0601_g.php to http://www.cria.ca/gold/0601_g.php

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Something Like Human


text:
Tarun Kanti Ghosh

Tarun Kanti Ghosh is an Indian politician. He was elected to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament of India from the Barasat constituency of West Bengal in 1984 as a member of the Indian National Congress.

title: Tarun Kanti Ghosh


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/John Johnson (footballer)/archive2

John Johnson (footballer)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have planned to make it a FA class. Comments are welcomed on this matter.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Well sighted but you'll need a lot of content for FA-Class Aneditor (talk tome) 03:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Draft talk:Operating system/Operating Systems/Linux

To characterize Ubuntu as "popular for its inclusion of non-free software" is a gross mischaracterization. What about NewsForge: Ubuntu says no to non-free video drivers for Feisty? Both Debian and Ubuntu are firmly behind free software, but Ubuntu's focus on regular releases and more effort put into dealing with new and desktop users naturally makes it more attractive to people looking for those things. And yes, there are some differences in what Ubuntu includes and what Debian includes, and Debian tends to take a harder line on keeping non-free software out of its distribution. We geeks and distribution watchers might think this is of tantamount importance, but it really is secondary to the primary issue of who each distribution caters to. Ben Armstrong 12:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above comments are quite correct. However I don't think the original writer meant to imply that 'inclusion of non-free software' in itself makes Ubuntu popular. I have made heavy changes to the first few paragraphs of this article. I believe they are better but are unlikely to be perfect! I've also changed the distribution list a little to correct Ben Armstrong's concerns. Unixtastic 22:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that the dash is more appropriate?
Is there a consensus that the dash is more appropriate than a slash? --Remi 06:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Japanese/Kanji/Lesson 1

In this lesson you are going to learn how to write the kanji characters for 一, 二, 三, 四, 五. You will also learn the two readings for each kanji: the onyomi (Chinese reading) and the kunyomi (native Japanese reading).

title: Japanese/Kanji/Lesson 1


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ddfe.eu

Links

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

Additions

 * Displayed all 2 additions.


text:
Talk:GCSE Science/Safety in Mains circuits

An excellent page for GCSE Physics help!

"So basically the earth wire prevents you from touching the case of a potentially faulty appliance" Nonsense!