Split (1)

train · ~24M rows (showing the first 1.04M)

Document stringlengths 87 1.67M	Source stringclasses 5 values
Sorcerer's Apprentice (Augiéras novel) The Sorcerer's Apprentice is a novel by François Augiéras. First published in France in 1964 as L'apprenti sorcier, it was translated into English by Sue Dyson in 2001 and published by Pushkin Press. Plot summary The novel is set in the Sarladais (the Dordogne region of France). An adolescent boy is sent to live with a 35-year-old priest, who becomes his teacher and spiritual mentor, and exerts a powerful control over the boy. He abuses him physically and sexually, but the boy willingly accepts his 'punishment.' The boy falls in love with a slightly younger, and very beautiful boy, meeting in secret and having sex. This disturbing story is much more than a tale of a sexually violent predator. The adolescent himself experiences sexual activity with the other boy, but this relationship is one of genuine love and affection, rather than the coercive, harmful abuse he is subjected to by the priest.	WIKI
changeset 671:efa4a7e2f322 Move hgrc documentation out to its own man page, hgrc(5). # HG changeset patch # User Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com> # Node ID 5076cf1fd6a1b8eb410e5e03cb004ca6a52a30f9 # Parent 7369ec5d93f2ffd490a43970edd9adf8d2bbe269 Move hgrc documentation out to its own man page, hgrc(5). The new man page expands on the existing documentation by describing the file format and the purpose of each section and field. author Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com> date Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:14:06 -0800 parents 4efb9b109292 children dbe0ce2ae196 files .hgignore doc/Makefile doc/hg.1.txt doc/hgrc.5.txt diffstat 4 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-) [+] line wrap: on line diff --- a/.hgignore Sun Jul 10 16:13:39 2005 -0800 +++ b/.hgignore Sun Jul 10 16:14:06 2005 -0800 @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ .pyc build/. dist/ +doc/.\.[0-9] MANIFEST$ .pc/ patches/ --- a/doc/Makefile Sun Jul 10 16:13:39 2005 -0800 +++ b/doc/Makefile Sun Jul 10 16:14:06 2005 -0800 @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ - -SOURCES=$(wildcard .1.txt) -MAN=$(SOURCES:%.1.txt=%.1) -HTML=$(SOURCES:%.1.txt=%.1.html) +SOURCES=$(wildcard .[0-9].txt) +MAN=$(SOURCES:%.txt=%) +HTML=$(SOURCES:%.txt=%.html) all: man @@ -9,14 +8,14 @@ html: $(HTML) -%.1: %.1.xml - xmlto man $.1.xml +%: %.xml + xmlto man $.xml -%.1.xml: %.1.txt - asciidoc -d manpage -b docbook $.1.txt +%.xml: %.txt + asciidoc -d manpage -b docbook $.txt -%.1.html: %.1.txt - asciidoc -b html $.1.txt +%.html: %.txt + asciidoc -b html $*.txt clean: - $(RM) $(MAN) $(MAN:%.1=%.1.xml) $(MAN:%.1=%.1.html) + $(RM) $(MAN) $(MAN:%=%.xml) $(MAN:%=%.html) --- a/doc/hg.1.txt Sun Jul 10 16:13:39 2005 -0800 +++ b/doc/hg.1.txt Sun Jul 10 16:14:06 2005 -0800 @@ -494,85 +494,18 @@ $HOME/.hgrc, .hg/hgrc:: This file contains defaults and configuration. Values in .hg/hgrc - override those in .hgrc. - - -UI OPTIONS ----------- - -Various configuration options can be set in .hgrc: - -------------- -[ui] -verbose = 0 -username = Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> -editor = hgeditor -merge = hgmerge -------------- - - -NAMED REPOSITORIES ------------------- - -To give symbolic names to a repository, create a section in .hgrc -or .hg/hgrc containing assignments of names to paths. Example: - ------------------ -[paths] -hg = http://selenic.com/hg -tah = http://hg.intevation.org/mercurial-tah/ ------------------ - - -LOCAL TAGS ----------- - -To create tags that are local to the repository and not distributed or -version-controlled, create an hgrc section like the following: - ----------------- -[tags] -working = 2dcced388cab3677a8f543c3c47a0ad34ac9d435 -tested = 12e0fdbc57a0be78f0e817fd1d170a3615cd35da ----------------- - - -HOOKS ------ - -Mercurial supports a set of 'hook', commands that get automatically -executed by various actions such as starting or finishing a commit. To -specify a hook, simply create an hgrc section like the following: - ------------------ -[hooks] -precommit = echo "this hook gets executed immediately before a commit" -commit = hg export $NODE \| mail -s "new commit $NODE" commit-list ------------------ - - -NON_TRANSPARENT PROXY SUPPORT ------------------------------ - -To access a Mercurial repository through a proxy, create a file -$HOME/.hgrc in the following format: - --------------- -[http_proxy] -host=myproxy:8080 -user=<username> -passwd=<password> -no=<localhost1>,<localhost2>,<localhost3>,... --------------- - -"user" and "passwd" fields are used for authenticating proxies, "no" is a -comma-separated list of local host names to not proxy. + override those in .hgrc. See hgrc(5) for details of the contents + and format of these files. BUGS ---- Probably lots, please post them to the mailing list (See Resources below) when you find them. +SEE ALSO +-------- +hgrc(5) + AUTHOR ------ Written by Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> @@ -581,6 +514,8 @@ --------- http://selenic.com/mercurial[Main Web Site] +http://www.serpentine.com/mercurial[Wiki site] + http://selenic.com/hg[Source code repository] http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial[Mailing list] --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/doc/hgrc.5.txt Sun Jul 10 16:14:06 2005 -0800 @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +HGRC(5) +======= +Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com> + +NAME +---- +hgrc - configuration files for Mercurial + +SYNOPSIS +-------- + +The Mercurial system uses a set of configuration files to control +aspects of its behaviour. + +FILES +----- + +Mercurial reads configuration data from two files: + +$HOME/.hgrc:: + Global configuration options that apply to all Mercurial commands, + no matter where they are run. + +<repo>/.hg/hgrc:: + Per-repository configuration options that only apply in a + particular repository. This file is not version-controlled, and + will not get transferred during a "clone" operation. Values in + this file override global values. + +SYNTAX +------ + +A configuration file consists of sections, led by a "[section]" header +and followed by "name: value" entries; "name=value" is also accepted. + + [spam] + eggs=ham + green= + eggs + +Each line contains one entry. If the lines that follow are indented, +they are treated as continuations of that entry. + +Leading whitespace is removed from values. Empty lines are skipped. + +The optional values can contain format strings which refer to other +values in the same section, or values in a special DEFAULT section. + +Lines beginning with "#" or ";" are ignored and may be used to provide +comments. + +SECTIONS +-------- + +This section describes the different sections that may appear in a +Mercurial "hgrc" file, the purpose of each section, its possible +keys, and their possible values. + +hooks:: + Commands that get automatically executed by various actions such as + starting or finishing a commit. + precommit;; + Run before starting a commit. Exit status 0 allows the commit to + proceed. Non-zero status will cause the commit to fail. + commit;; + Run after a changeset has been created. Passed the ID of the newly + created changeset. + +http_proxy:: + Used to access web-based Mercurial repositories through a HTTP + proxy. + host;; + Host name and (optional) port of the proxy server, for example + "myproxy:8000". + user;; + Optional. User name to authenticate with at the proxy server. + passwd;; + Optional. Password to authenticate with at the proxy server. + no;; + Optional. Comma-separated list of host names that should bypass + the proxy. + +paths:: + Assigns symbolic names to repositories. The left side is the + symbolic name, and the right gives the directory or URL that is the + location of the repository. + +tags:: + Tags that are local to a repository and not distributed or version + controlled. The left side is the tag name, and the right is the + ID of the changeset to identify. + +ui:: + User interface controls. + debug;; + Print debugging information. True or False. Default is True. + editor;; + The editor to use during a commit. Default is "vi". + merge;; + The conflict resolution program to use during a manual merge. + Default is "hgeditor". + quiet;; + Reduce the amount of output printed. True or False. Default is + False. + username;; + The committer of a changeset created when running "commit". + Typically a person's name and email address, e.g. "Fred Widget + <fred@example.com>". Default is username@hostname. + verbose;; + Increase the amount of output printed. True or False. Default is + False. + +AUTHOR +------ +Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com>. + +Mercurial was written by Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>. + +SEE ALSO +-------- +hg(1) + +COPYING +------- +This manual page is copyright 2005 Bryan O'Sullivan. +Mercurial is copyright 2005 Matt Mackall. +Free use of this software is granted under the terms of the GNU General +Public License (GPL).	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll Question to all editors Attribution is a merger of Verifiability and No original research into a single policy page. Some aspects of Reliable sources (WP:RS) were also merged into WP:ATT, with other material from RS to be incorporated into the accompanying Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ). The intention is not to change policy, but to express it more clearly and concisely, and to make it easier to follow and maintain by having it expressed on one policy page, and discussed on one talk page. What do you think of this? Reply in the below comments section with your statement. * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Your opinion here, please * ''NOTE: Please keep your statement short and to the point. You may change or edit your statement. One total entry per person, please; if you want to endorse someone else's, do so as part of your total entry. Please bold key words (I support all, oppose all, support A but not B etc.). * Do not reply HERE to others. All threaded replies to points will be refactored/placed onto the poll's Talk page. If you wish to reply, copy their statement to the Talk page, and reply there. In broad support of WP:ATT "See also alternative sections in this survey: In broad opposition to WP:ATT & Neutral/qualified/compromise/other" Refactoring note: If you replied to someone else's vote, it may have been moved to the talk page, see here. * 1) Support - The merged pages, specifically Verifiability and No Original Research, contain such similar and mutually relevant material that it completely makes sense to merge them. Why have pages for orange, tangerine, and clementine when you can just have orange blobs of taste? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Strong Support - attribution is the most significant aspect of Wikipedia and WP:ATT makes its meaning clear without using odd phrases like 'verifiability' which implies that only truth is necessary. -JC 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Support - multiple links are a turn-off and do not promote confidence in Wikipedia as a research tool Lensim 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) I Support amalgamating these policies into one document - it only seems logical! One is much easier to read than all three. Froginabox 03:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) I Support streamlining disjointed policies into one document. I am sure it will be easier to get versed on policy if it is updated on one page.Guy Montag 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) I support all of Attribution without prejudice against continued discussion to hammer out the details. Sourcing is one issue with many facets, and should therefore be covered in one policy page (Wikipedia:Attribution) with many sections. I think consensus was achieved in the several months worth of discussion which occurred on WT:A, that the merger should be remade, and that the other three should be superseded. Picaroon 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) I support ATT per Picaroon and per KISS. There is no change in policy — ATT is merely a relocation of the existing policies into dedicated sections in a unified page, where they can all be linked into separately if needed, while being maintained coherently and efficiently. Crum375 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Support - ATT does not change policy, only merges the principles upon which the policies of V and NOR were created, into one, concise, simple to understand and refer page. * 9) Think of the thousand + new editors that register each month... WP:ATT gives them a concise and accurate presentation of our core policies. 10) Think of experienced editors lending a hand in content disputes: A single destination to send people to (in addition to WP:NPOV) 11) Need examples, details, etc? Go to the WP:ATTFAQ. It still needs work but it has promise. 12) In summary: WP:ATT is good for the project, for both newbies and experienced editors alike. The shortcuts such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can still be maintained by linking these to the appropriate subsection of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 13) Strong support — most of my reasons have already been stated. ATT consolidates several policy pages and clarifies everything. Wikipedia stresses succinctness in its articles; it should also stress this in its procedures. — Deckiller 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 14) I support the general idea of a merger between WP:V and WP:NOR. * 15) I support WP:ATT although I really wish there was a better way to express it than to say that Wikipedia is not about recording the truth. That statement reads really badly. When I consult an encyclopedia it is because I want the truth - not because I want a list of attributed/attributable claims. Our goal is most certainly to express the truth - attribution is the way we find truth when many editors have differing opinions, when we have people trying to insert untruth, when a myriad of other bad things happen. Attribution is a test for truth - albeit a flawed one - it is merely that we agree that attributed statements are more likely to be true than those that are unattributable. SteveBaker 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 16) I support WP:ATT strongly, and have even though I never discussed it in process before. I was aware of the changes and feel that, while I didn't participate, I was kept well informed through the normal channels. I think this re-organization of policy is very helpful to newcomers and older editors also. The ideas are presented in a much simpler way, and is much more useful when explaining to people. - cohesion 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 17) I support WP:ATT fully. The merger will make life easier long-term for everyone. - Denny 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 18) I support the WP:ATT merger of WP:V and WP:NOR, although I would prefer that WP:RS remain as separate as possible. After a few weeks getting used to it, I think the idea of a single ATT policy rather than V and NOR separately is a definite improvement.--ragesoss 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 19) I support the WP:ATT merge, RS changes and all. The more simply and clearly we can state our policies, the more effective Wikipedians (especially the newer ones, who we need just as badly as experienced editors) can be, and the better chance we have of building a really good encyclopedia. Oh, and, any editor who speaks up now about Wikipedia's role in reporting "the truth" is encouraged to take the time read the Wikipedia article on truth, and it should become clear very quickly why pursuing "the truth" is far less likely to succeed than merely requiring attribution from reliable sources. -/- Warren 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 20) Support. The merge gives us V, NOR, and RS on one page, which makes it easy to find, easier to read, easier to maintain. There was no change of policy, hundreds of editors were involved in its development, and people liked it. It was a genuinely popular move. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 21) Support - the merge did not change policy, and made the whole package easier to understand and to manage. Guettarda 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 22) Support ATT, because attribution is at its core what we do. Verifiability and No Original Research are reasons why to attribute, and as such may deserve an explanatory page more than a subsection. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if we're providing ways to verify our content or whether we're trimming WP:MADEUP; we practice what we preach. Nifboy 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 23) Support WP:ATT: I don't see anything being lost in consolidating these very important related concepts into subsections of one clear and concise overarching topic. Krimpet (talk/review) * 24) Support WP:ATT - Consolidation and merger into one page will make things easier, policy is not going to change.. If there are any editors who would like parts of the policy to be changed, they can be raised in its talk page and discussed and modifications brought if need be. Baristarim 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 25) Support WP:ATT, as I believe it sums up the three policies it merges quite well. Indeed, those policies can be summed up in a single sentence-"Do not use your personal knowledge or original research to write articles, instead use only verifiable information from a reliable source." Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 26) Support - Succinct and effective synthesis combination of worthwhile policies; nice to have them congealed into one spot. --EEMeltonIV 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 27) Support all. Policy reform is one of the most important things Wikipedia can do right now. It'll have lasting and important effects on how people view the project and how they act within it. Our policies thus far have grown up more or less to meet circumstances: that is why we've got so many policies, and so many who are pigeonholed, legalistic, or arcane. As Wikipedia becomes more self-aware, I think there'll be an increasing will to combine and otherwise reform extant policies to meet our mission and fit more circumstances. This particular move is a great step towards making our policy logical, accessible, internally consistent, broad, and simple. I've watched the attribution page grow into what it is for some time now, and I think it's more than ready to fill the shoes of our other policies technically. I urge everyone to support it. Cheers, -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 28) Support - Specifically separate sub-topics, but all within the realm of attribution for the purposes of Wikipedia, clearly. Each can still be cited in the usual manner (normally done during talkpage spats) ;).--Keefer4 \| Talk 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 29) Support - I'm tired of editors who cite all three to build an argument against something. ALTON .ıl 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 30) Support - The policy of "Attribution" does not contain any new information, but what it does do is simplify the policy situation which in this case is a Good Thing (tm). --Jayron32\| talk \| contribs 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 31) Support - the merge did not change policy, and made the whole package easier to understand and to manage. The shortcuts such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can still be maintained by linking these to the appropriate subsection of ATT. I think this re-organization of policy is very helpful to newcomers and older editors also. The ideas are presented in a much simpler way, and is much more useful when explaining to people. The merge gives us V, NOR, and RS on one page, which makes it easy to find, easier to read, easier to maintain. This particular move is a great step towards making our policy logical, accessible, internally consistent, broad, and simple. WAS 4.250 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 32) Support - the more policy pages, and the more detail in those policy pages, the more opportunity there is for rules-lawyering and holding the letter above the spirit of the law. Merging everything into ATT brought together related concepts and simplified things greatly, but having all four pages running concurrently is a step backward. Remerge please. Bryan Derksen 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 33) Support - Keep it simple. Iorek85 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 34) Support all of Attribution. There is no changing of policy, only merging of the principles into one, concise, reference page. This makes the transition into WP easier. I believe the future benefits outwieght any negatives.--88wolfmaster 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 35) Support - I broadly support the establishment of WP:ATT as policy; it is a worthy synthesis. However, that support is conditional on WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and other underlying policies and guidelines remaining valid and intact; vague portmanteaus do not serve our purposes. RGTraynor 06:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 36) Support per KISS. --tickle me 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 37) I Support the concept of merging several policies and summarizing them. This is a perfect remedy to Wikipedia's already many policies and guidelines, and the merge makes it easier for new and experienced users to grasp. Sr13 (T\|C) 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 38) Support any simplification or coalation of Wikipedia's varied and sometimes byzantine policies. Openness and transparancy is important, and in a circumstance where keeping it simple is possible, it should be done. I think in this case the merging is both appropriate and necessary to an approchable body of work that needs less arbitrary restrictions, not more. Salad Days 06:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 39) Support. The condensation of our policies is absolutely essential to prevent instruction creep, especially as the project grows ever larger and has to create additional mandatory/"core" policies like WP:BLP to deal with new challenges it faces. The merged pages dealt with only slightly different cases of the same subject, so there was no reason to keep them separate. WP:V told us that we had to be able to source our information, WP:NOR merely expanded on a detail of this, saying that our personal experiences were not valid sources. WP:A incorporates both elements quite cleanly and accurately, and does not change the spirit of the rules from their previous state, so it should be accepted. --tjstrf talk 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 40) Support; I agree that condensation and simplification of Wikipedia policies is for the overall better. Streamlining the system will make it easier for editors to reference guidelines and for new editors to understand those guidelines. Peptuck 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 41) Support. This is very much an issue of simplifying red tape, and considering that a lot of users don't bother reading policies before they post (I know I originally was one of them :$), this should encourage people to abide by the positions. Simplication = Better understanding. The Prince 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 42) Support all. More precise, more maintainable, much easier to lead newbies to a correct understanding. Doesn't weaken NOR in the slightest—explains it better and places it in correct context. Using the guideline RS to explain the policy V never made sense. Marskell 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 43) Support because the three templates to be merged are all talking about the same thing. - 上村七美 \| talk 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 44) A good idea. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 45) Support, I agree with above opinions.-Marcus 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 46) Strong Support per Jossi and per Sr13. Merging these pages in WP:ATT will render a single policy, which will be easier to mantain (at least, inconsistencies will be easier to detect and correct). If you have any doubt when reading the policy, just scroll up/down... all is in the same page. (However, admins should be prone to allow modifications in the content, as long as they do not modify it meaning) Rjgodoy 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 47) Strong support Very good merge, way more practical. Garion96 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 48) Support Insofar as this will remove redundancy and make the policy statement more concise for users, I support it. JDubowsky * 49) Support. This would keep everything in one page, making its n00b-friendly. __earth (Talk) 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 50) Support, OR is and always has been a special case of lack of verifiability/attributability, so it only makes sense to cover it all in a single policy. As for the complaints about the loss of the word "verifiable", I think this is more than adequately compensated for by the long-overdue inclusion of a requirement for reliable sources in policy. Attribution to reliable sources is verifiability! Plus, ATT is more concise and clear, and less intimidating than V and NOR were separately. Xtifr tälk 09:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 51) Support the merger. Easier to understand, to remember, to reference and to maintain. There's still work to be done on the merged policy's content and wording. Itayb 09:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 52) Support. I find ATT in its current form clearer than NOR and V, and it successfully presents the two as special cases of the root principle. Viewing the arguments for and against, I find the arguments against fairly alarmist, and the arguments for quite straightforward and compelling.--Father Goose 09:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 53) Support for WP:V and WP:RS to be merged, but think that WP:NOR should remain separate. However, merging all 3 would be better than the current situation too. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 54) Support a merger. As I previously comment, a merger should work as codification making easier our life here: easier access, more methodical organization of relevant provisions. This is the idea.--Yannismarou 09:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 55) Support the merger. In order to become more reliable as a source, Wikipedia needs a more strict and more clear definition of what (external) information is reliable. Merging WP:V and WP:NOR results in this clearer definition, upgrading WP:RS into the policy WP:ATT should result in the use of more reliable sources, which in turn results in a higher reliability of the information in wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 56) Support WP:ATT absolutely. Keep it simpler. See my original comments at the discussion. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 57) Support - "It's just a merger."™ Yonatan talk 10:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 58) Support WP:ATT because people are forgetting to do all 3 three things but only do 1 or 2. Getonyourfeet 10:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 59) Support because multiple overlapping policies are bad, and simple policies are easier to follow, and easier to learn and explain. We can keep V and NOR as separate for explaining the two important approaches to the issue. The merger basically changes nothing, except that it makes things clearer. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 60) Support - this is a lot easier to understand than the original pages. I haven't been editing here long, but I have seen the previous pages cited incorrectly countless times - this merged page should help reduce that. Doceirias 10:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 61) Support If we don't fundamentally re-think our core policies every three or four years, we're not a learning organization. If we're not a learning organization, we're dead in three years. ~ trialsanderrors 11:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 62) I support WP:ATT because it is a simpler, clearer, more useful structure and ideas behind the NOR and V. I found both "original research" and "verifiability" confusing, because the way Wikipedia uses them conflicts with their everyday meanings. "Attributable" is a much better term. --Jdlh \| Talk 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 63) Support, I think this merger will make referring to the policies much easier, currently the huge amount of them can be daunting to new members and difficult to refer back to. Camaron1 \| Chris 11:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 64) Support all --Sean Brunnock 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 65) Support -- A single "parent" resource is necessary for new and senior editors alike. If related concepts such as verifiability or original research need distinguishing or elaboration, we can still link to subordinate pages. The current system is too confusing for new users and cumbersome for experienced users when explaining things to the newbies. --Keesiewonder talk 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 66) Support enthusiastically. This will make life easier when dealing with people who say "If you guys are promoting Red vs. Blue, we should be able to write about our unreleased series that no-one has heard of."--Drat (Talk) 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 67) Support -- it'll just make things easier. Matt.kaner 11:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 68) Support a merger. I had almost every edit I made to the policy reverted, but I feel one can put ego issues aside and think about what is best for the project. The most vocal opposition to ATT has not been about the issues Jimbo raised, but about almost the opposite, namely that WP:ATT will limit our right to do original research in determining the Truth. Well... * 69) The role of truth has not changed! Verifiability meant "verifiable attribution", please, tell me what has changed? * 70) Obviously, we all want Wikipedia to strive for the truth, but this is a content policy, not our mission statement! Are notions of truth ever helpful in resolving content disputes? * 71) In short, the policies have not changed, this is finally stating them less ambiguously, and that's why I like this policy. Who would have known that "no original research" also disallows "mundane non-research" just because the conclusion isn't attributable to a reliable source. Well, let's be explicit about it! --Merzul 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 72) Support. Simplifies, clarifies and disambiguates a lot of the confusion that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR had. Obviously, a numbers game is no way to determine consensus, but I throw my hat in to support anyway. Batmanand \| Talk 11:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 73) In my mind, V and NOR are almost the same (specifically, NOR is a subset of V). I know some people think they're different concepts, but I couldn't find an example something which is both Original Research and Verifiable (in the meaning of the policies). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 74) Support. If someone hasn't edited Wikipedia before, explaining that we have two content policies WP:A plus WP:NPOV is slightly easier. Addhoc 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 75) Support. It just makes sense. darkliight[πalk] 12:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 76) Support a one-stop policy for all attribution issues - RS and V are so intrinsically linked that seeing them separated is confounding, and NOR is sufficiently close that it can logically be included in the over-arching policy. Whilst I have not personally contributed to the community discussion, I have watched it carefully. --New Progressive 12:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 77) Support per KISS. Makes sense to me. --Deenoe 12:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 78) Strong Support - especially for new users. We must strive for clarity and brevity: three articles impose too great a psychological distance, and impose too much redundancy to meet the brevity requirement. To simultaneously relate and distinguish policy from guideline, I advocate a tabbed layout, or some other obvious distinguishing layout style as a means of clearly delineating the two.--Lexein 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 79) Support. Merge, merge, merge; the articles are similar enough for a merge, and have multiple guidelines on a policy that could be summed up as Wikipedia:Reliability or Wikipedia:Sources. That being said, I do disagree with the title and feel that Wikipedia:Reliability would be the most appropriate. Having all the policies accesible will streamline Wikipedia, make it easily accesible to the masses, and reduce confusion by keeping it simple. It is much easier to reconcile one set of instucutions then multiple ones that may contradict each other.--Jorfer 12:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 80) Strong Support makes a lot of sense, and simplifies things.-BillDeanCarter 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 81) Strong Support - There is enough overlap in concept for NOR and V to be merged. A merger will lessen the likelihood of these policy pages being edited so that they conflict with each other (as has occasionally happened in the past). The old policies should be redirected to ATT with links to the relevant sections. That said, I feal that the guideline WP:RS should not be redirected and linked to ATT at this time. WP:RS should be edited to bring it into sync with the Policy statements contained in ATT, with the idea that it will eventually be re-worked and incorprated into a new guideline. That new guideline - comprised of segments of the current WP:RS would be called something like: "Determining reliability", and focus on advising editors on how to deal with the grey zone issues of determining if a given source is reliable within the context of a given article being written. This new guideline would avoid language that could be construed as being "the rules"... pointing the editor to ATT and NPOV for such statements. Instead it would be a true guideline... offering guidance on HOW to determine if a source is reliable within the framework and policy set out in ATT and NPOV. Blueboar 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 82) Support. KISS. --MZMcBride 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 83) Support there is considerable overlap between NOR and V - and when a negative policy (do not do ...) is clearly linked to a positive policy (do do ...), it makes sense to draw them together into a comprehensive policy. And it makes it easier for people to follow our policies when there are fewer. remember, in the beginning NPOV was our only really dominant policy; NOR and V developed as independent attempts to address some of the same problems. ATT gets us to coordinate our policies in a way we really should have done long ago. Slrubenstein \| Talk 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 84) I generally Support the merge. Many editors have adressed concern about some of the percieved changes in policy. Many of these concerns are valid, and policy should be changed accordingly. But in terms of the merge, I am in full support of one, broad, unifying policy. --YbborT SURVEY! 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 85) Full support of the merging. Keep things easy on newbies. CSP 13:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 86) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 87) Support - I find it laborious to see admins who feel that by citing three policies, they're building some kind of monumental case against an article, when one policy is simple and sufficient. --WikiGnosis 13:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 88) Support - per above --(( F3rn 4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 89) Support merge conceptually, agree with many that there are still some details to hammer out about final wording and inclusion, confident that wikifying of final product will continue post-polling. Jfarber 14:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 90) Support. Obviously some details to be worked out, but the merger of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into one cohesive concept seems logical and prudent to me. -- Satori Son 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 91) Strong Support I believe the unification of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS is a great thing for Wikipedia, as it would make newbies to Wikipedia lives easier and it is a logical decision. I don't see why we should even have to have a poll. This should have been able to happen without delays. Xtreme racer 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 92) Support. All three prior policies are aspects of the same requirement - if a source isn't reliable then it can't be used to verify. If something's OR it's inherently unverifiable. MartinMcCann 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 93) Strong support. It would be more convenient for other users who don't provide citations. A•N•N•A foxlove r hello! 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 94) Support Abridged talk 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 95) Support on the condition that all information from the each policy is kept and transplanted into WP:ATT, while also improving the policy's quality. Taric25 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 96) Support Best to merge policies for user ease, I am not commenting on the details but on the broad proposal to merge 3 pages into ATT, which is an excellent idea, SqueakBox 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 97) Support This sounds very sensible - what about all the templates though? Benbread 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 98) Strong Support. The policies may be conceptually distinct, but they are practically equivalent. While someone contemplating the merge in their leather armchair in front of the fire may find it devastating, I believe in the field it will provide great benefit at trivial cost. And like Picaroon said, continued discussion can hammer out the details. Moreover, I feel that the essay in opposition presents silly, weak arguments. Punctured Bicycle 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 99) Support because when the policies were on separate pages, they often became inconsistent. I reject the argument that these are separate ideas, because the separate policies, as they existed in the last year or so, did not describe the ideas in a way that makes the differences apparent. --Gerry Ashton 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 100) Very Strong Support-I strongly support all of this :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 101) Support having this information located in one place is easier on both new and old users. It makes intuitive sense to have this info all in one place. --LadyShelley 15:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 102) Support reduces redundant and often contradictory instructions, no significant drawbacks I can see Simões ( talk/contribs ) 16:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 103) Support for reasons above, and for the more passive advantage of regularly leading confused editors to one single spot, encouraging them to familiarize themselves with these guidelines in one place. -Markeer 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 104) Support Having the policies in one place is an improvement when it comes to practical usability. Pax:Vobiscum 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 105) Support for reasons set out above, and for having a single area that, hopefully, will not contradict itself. Saga City 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 106) Support Leo44 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 107) Definately Support when I was a new user, I personally had a difficult time finding what I needed in the help and policy pages. Any way to make them easier to use is a good idea. VonShroom 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 108) Broadly supportive of a merger of policies however strongly oppose the inclusion of reliability issues as doctrine beyond the concept that sourcing should be based on reliable dcumentation. RS is not policy and shouldn't be policy. Support editors don't figuratively beat them.ALR 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 109) Weak support for the merge in its entirety. I'm a little nervous about the banishment of the word "verifiable" from the policy, but overall, I think that all the information needs to be in one place, and I think that a greater understanding of what reliable sources are will be a boon to everyone. Rmj12345 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 110) Strong Aye since it makes it all more simple. The policy is the same, so maybe this should be considered when counting the opposes (and their reasoning). Ian ¹³ /t 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 111) Support Seems like a pretty clear-headed way of making the policies more user-friendly. --Mantanmoreland 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 112) Support - A definite improvement. Bensaccount 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 113) Support. I well remember slogging through three pages of often contradictory 'guidelines' to try to figure out whether I was doing things correctly. A one-page approach is the only way to go. It may not be perfect yet, but neither are the alternatives, and a concise one-page version can be worked on more easily than three. Cop 633 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 114) Support all. It seems quite intuitive to me. All over-lapping, interdependent (or, as Northrop Frye might say, "inter-penetrating") ideas. Also, for new users, one "recommended reading" page, rather than 3 that are all needed to explain one another. -- Pastordavid 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 115) I fully support the merge, which makes the necessary information clearer and more accessible, and does not (as far as I can see) change policy. We don't want to water down policy, but we do want fewer policy pages. ElinorD (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 116) Strong Support - no need for 3 similiar-yet-different policies guiltyspark 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 117) Support - I remember being new to WP and being puzzled by these three policies that all seemed to be slight variations on the same theme. NOR, in particular, is confusing to new editors. I believe these concepts can be harmonized into a single policy, perhaps with supporting pages etc. More work needs to be done, but I think it's a great direction for the project.-- Kubigula (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 118) Support This should have been done long ago. Tirronan 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 119) Strong support Although I have my reservations, and I'm sure there will be glitches along the way, if we get behind this and use it, it will make the necessity for properly referenced information on here that much clearer. Nmg20 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 120) I Support the merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Having these related policies on one page will make it a lot easier for any user to implement those policies correctly. I am still annoyed by the fact that sometimes I have question about how something should be done correctly and having to look through various policy pages only to give up because I couldn't find the answer because it's buried somewhere in so many pages. --Leon Sword 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 121) Support per Crum375. Simplification is they key provided that the essentials aren't lost, and they aren't. Js farrar 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 122) Support: I don't like polls, because they never get us anywhere. But anyway: it's a well-written merger of three pages, the appallingly written RS (the ATT FAQ does a much better job), the badly written NOR and the well-written V which contains the awkward term "verifiability" (difficult to use with newbies—I've even been offered telephone numbers to "verify" claims). Despite those who say that those three pages are distinctive, it is ever so difficult to stop them contradicting each other. Those who maintain policy pages (constantly the target of single-issue edits) have a terrible time trying to keep them in synch, a major reason why they would prefer to work with a merged page. qp10qp 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 123) Support strongly — No organisation of policy is perfect, but this revision is an improvement in so many ways. To me there are three utterly compelling reasons to support the merger (in addition to the simplification of guidelines it provides): * It re-emphasises the concept that an article should be "attributable" rather than "attributed"; * "No original research" is a consequence of being "attributable", which greatly clarifies its meaning; * In a world where truth has different meanings to different people, using the word "attributable" instead of "verifiable" greatly clarifies the role of an encyclopedia as a repository of knowledge (which is partly about what is believed rather than necessarily what is true). * In a sense every WP article which is not plagiarism is original research because it gathers information and presents it in a new (and hopefully fresh, interesting and exciting) way. Hence the key point is that this information should be attributable. Geometry guy 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Support. WP:V and WP:NOR state the same thing. If something isn't verifiable, it's by definition original research. No need to have multiple policies to confuse people. The idea of merging the two has occurred to me before, and it's nice to see someone actually doing so. jgp T C 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) Weak support with a few proposals. This is likely to be a wikipedia-wide debate, with enough votes to qualify for WP:100, WP:200, or even WP:300. I have a few suggestions, however. I suggest that all of wikipedia's most important policies be merged into this. This way, users would be able to read this page and understand all the policies. Also, it should have many other names that are redirects to the page, so when users search for wikipedia's policies, they end up at this page. Also, the former policy pages should be changed into redirects to this page, and any double redirects created should be fixed. make sure you do everything that is needed when you merge, if this poll passes. Pages that are not policy pages, in my opinion, should not be merged; including pages in the template, article, and user namespaces. Make sure you decide what policies are to be included; if this is only about article writing policies, only include those, and so on, etc. Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 <font color="Red">1 (Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) Support all, as this allows centralizing policy. If desired, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS can be kept as more specialized pages, but this change will allow WP:ATT to contain the basic rules that were spread across several pages. --Sigma 7 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) Support. Now let's build an encyclopedia. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) Strong support Much better to understand article for the newbies. centralized information. Anyone in the "Neutral" section that says "support as a summary" must be truly uninformed about good communication standards. Anyone who wants more nitpicking can start a WikiProject:Nitpickers. The merge is GOOD. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Strong support A merged article will be clearer and more concise making it easier to explain to new users. New users are more likely to read one policy than they are to read three. Also I feel reliable sources should be a policy not a guideline. A policy can still have exceptions, but they need better justification. Taylor 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Support I like the idea of putting it all together into one page. Perhaps some sort of summary-style with subpages is in order, but they all need to be under the same umbrella. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Support Good merge, makes the life of WP editors easier. --Aqwis 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 9) Support In this instance, less is better. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 10) Support One consolidated and well-articulated policy statement is preferable to three related policy statements that can be perceived as overlapping and/or possibly contradictory. --orlady 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 11) Support. There's nothing that I can say that hasn't been said well by others; Orlady puts it as well as any. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 12) Support. It's hard to explain what statements are and are not acceptable without a single official policy page to turn to. -Rustavo 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 13) Support. More people are likely to read it if they don't have to go to 3 different pages. JIMOTHY46ct 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 14) Support All It makes more sense to say that something should be attributable (to a relaible source), than that something should be able to have its truth determined (which is what verifiable means). Truth is a difficult concept. Attributability is not as difficult. But we should also aim for truth if we can in the articles. THe only trouble is deciding on what is a reliable source! This may cause much discussion.--SlipperyHippo 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 15) I support all of Wikipedia:Attribution. Sourcing is one issue with many facets, and should therefore be covered in one policy page (Wikipedia:Attribution) with many sections. I think consensus was achieved in the several months worth of discussion which occurred on WT:A, that the merger should be remade, and that the other three should be superseded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grosscha (talk • contribs) * 16) Support A single unified policy is preferable to the current proliferation of policies. Just as editors have adapted to the idiosyncracies of interpretation in the current policies, any difficulties with WP:ATT will be sorted out. VectorPosse 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 17) Strong support. A valuable move in the right direction, distilling clarity and sanity from confusion and conflict. The evolution of one united policy statement to subsume three old ones was forced by the failure of the latter, as many an edit war and talk page exchange made painfully evident. --KSmrqT 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 18) Support The topics are so related - that really why not have them in a page? I believe that a lot of wikipedia policies are really too spaced out, but here you can easiliy get to a sub-section with the table of contents and your there.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:5px;">DanielFolsom \|\T/\|\C/\|\U/\|(Can you help me with my signature?) 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 19) Support For clarity's sake I support the merger.Zeus1234 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 20) Support per the need for clarification and agreement between current policies. shoy 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 21) Support It simply makes sense to combine them. It will make things much more convenient and clear.Zeppelin462 22:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 22) Support, progress is nice, less b'cracy is nice. / Fred-Chess 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 23) Support. By merging the pages together, editors will be more likely to apply WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS together as a logical unit, determining what is a RS, what is original research, etc., in the context of the article or project at hand.--Myke Cuthbert 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 24) Support. It will help make policy more organized, easy to navigate and more efficient. I've always wanted these policy pages to be more organized. I would also support what someone in the neutral section said about keeping all articles. But either way, WP:ATTribution needs to stay. PoeticXcontribs\|undefined 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 25) Support. Although I usually prefer many smaller articles in most cases, I would prefer that related policy and guidelines be kept all in one place. This makes things easier to find. The whole thing just seems to make good sense overall. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 23:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 26) Support. . Thee17 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 27) Support. Merge makes sense -- both verifiability and NOR require content to have adequate sourcing, RS describes how to determine if it does or not. Furthermore, objections over the presence of "attributable ... not truth" are invalid, as verifiability currently has "verifiability not truth; verifiable means published a reliable source" (paraphrasing). JulesH 23:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 28) I strongly support Attribution without reservations. I think it is a logical, evolutionary step that we need to take. It pulls things together, and in so doing clarifies policy without changing policy. Brimba 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Support as an understandable merger of three policies which all seemed to be the same anyway. - AMP'd 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 30) Support Simplicity is always optimal. Will also make helping guide new editors to the correct resources easier.--K-UNIT 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 31) Strong support notability guidelines have been abused for too long. Odessaukrain 02:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 32) Support Having less number of core policies will help newcomers to understand Wikipedia policies faster. --Indianstar 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 33) Strong Support under the general principle of KISS. I'd also support making RTFM policy as well. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 34) Strong Support I feel that the broad source of information on which Wikipedia relies, merits a simplified and all encompassing system of checks and verifications of any meaning and that switching to WP:ATT makes the entire process of debating factuality more stream lined than using NOR, VER, and whatever else. This is a change for the good of the million+ editors and contributors that help make wikipedia successful. Xlegiofalco 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 35) SUPPORT ALL Help editors learn policy and be successful. Bill Huffman 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 36) Support - No reason to have weaker, piecemeal policies when one stronger, cohesive policy very nicely does the trick. --SpamWatcher 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 37) Support simplicity is greater with the merge. This way, the noobies can real the policy in just one page instead of three and learn about attribution. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda In vino veritas 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 38) Support all - These are all on some semantic level really necessary parts of holding up the pillars of wikipedia. I think the merger reduces the problems of instruction creep and the mess that is become of WP:RS. Merging them is the only way that they wont contradict each other and also limit the amount of confusing in content disputes with people misintrptting and cross quoting the diffrent documents. Dalf \| Talk 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 39) SUPPORT. Why have multiple policies when one can summarise them all? Having multiple policies can cause confusion in newer editors, and they might not Be Bold in making edits out of fear. — <font face="Courier New"> 0 6 1 2 (TALK) ; Posted: 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 40) Support all - The less guidelines and policies the better. Wikipedia is starting to rival some governments with its bureaucracy. KISS please! Peter1968 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 41) Strong support. WP:ATT combines three inter-related pages into one; original research is a synthesis or analysis that cannot be verified to a reliable source. Having the two policies and the guideline in one place helps clarify their inter-relationship, and makes it easier to ensure that they do not diverge from one another. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 42) Support. Less policies make its simpler for novice users to understand. And for experienced users it shouldn't matter - they can adapt to any scheme. Wikiolap 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 43) General support for WP:ATT; however, I also support the continued existence of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS as separate policy pages, further elaborating on different aspects of the core policy WP:ATT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 44) Support Broad support to merge the closely-related policies. Support for those who wish to hammer out the details. It's good to simplify things for newcomers. It's good to have broad summaries, with links to specifics. Good to simplify! [[Image:Icons-flag-gb-sct.png]] <b style="background-color:#008000; color:#ffffff;">Canæn</b> [[Image:Icons-flag-gb-sct.png]] 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 45) Strong Support - clear and concise. -- SatyrTN (talk \| contribs) 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 46) Support. All three policies are really different sides of the same coin (if that coin had three sides). I thought supplanting three pages with one was the original idea anyway. Daniel Case 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 47) Strong Support Verifiability was always a misnomer, attributability is what was always meant. This makes the sense and meaning of the existing policy clearer. Paul August ☎ 04:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 48) Support, great idea. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 49) Support, and while I wouldn't be opposed to forking subs for NOR etc. if there were truly technical reasons to do so, we should still be vigilant of allowing the "policies" to diverge. Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 50) Support. All points above. It will also be easier for readers to understand related policies on only one page without getting lost in a maze of links. Aeons \| Talk 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 51) I support this modification. ---Axios023 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 52) I support the merger and believe the merged policies should be marked historical. I also commend SlimVirgin for her work in leading the merger. Grace Note 05:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 53) Support merger of Verifiability and Original Research policies into the more user-friendly Attribution policy. --TommyBoy 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 54) Support. Anything to reduce the sprawl. Terry Pratchett wrote that "nine tenths of the universe is the paperwork"; let's see if this can get that down a tad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wareq (talk • contribs) * 55) Support merging three pages on the same topic into one. ~ <font color="#FF0000">Swi <font color="#000000">tch <font color="#005500">(<font color="#005500">✉ <font color="#005500">✍ <font color="#005500">☺ ) 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 56) Strong Support. One thing that often frightens people away from participation is fear of making a mistake. WP's be bold policy (if a new member finds it)does a lot to explain that mistakes will happen, but that's ok and the most important aspect is to participate, but still, for some that it not enough. What greatly frightens many is the overall complexity. For instance, the basics of computers are not difficult at all to master over time, but if you have never used a computer before, to see that 500 page manual can easily frighten you into thinking "there is no way I will ever get this". This how I see Wikipedia. There are so many policies and so much information that it can turn you away from reading everything you should know and more difficult remembering it all. Anywhere that policies can be joined, narrowed, and simplified, the better it is for anyone trying to learn, in my opinion. If you have two policy articles with similar information but only read one, you don't get the full picture. Joining said articles prevents that from happening again. — CobraWiki ( jabber 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 57) Support merging basic Wikipedia principles into one concise, simple to understand page that can easily be refered to, and will provide helpful guidance to newcomers and oldtimers alike. Dovi 07:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 58) Support. It is better to put all the information into a page as a well organized article. I think the users will find it easier to check for the sections of an article, instead of searching the other pages for similar issues.--Maestro 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 59) Full Support. As per Maestroka, Dovi. --HubHikari 08:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 60) Full Support. New page is much clearer and eliminates contradictions. dramatic 08:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 61) Support for simplicities sake. Originally out of process or not, it's in process now, and on the merits it makes sense.--CastAStone\|(talk) 08:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 62) Strong Support – WP:A concisely and clearly explains each aspect of the policy in relation to the other aspects, much better than trying to relate separate pages. Useful detail such as WP:RS belongs in guideline or FAQ pages relating back to this core policy. .. dave souza, talk 08:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 63) Strong Support - Authority of sources has been a huge problem on the Internet since I first logged on in 1993 and it's nowhere felt more keenly than at Wikipedia. This may help and arguments against are weak. Economy1 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 64) support - Hopefully the new page will be clearer and easier for new editors to understand. ajdlinux 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 65) Support per Jossi. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-01t11:02z * 66) Support - good idea. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 67) Support - centralised policy makes it easier to understand. If the three clash, then they're not proper policy in the first place. --Firien need help? 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 68) Support - More often than not, all three are violated on a page rather than just one. The merged policy makes sense. darkskyz 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 69) Tentatively support - most mentioned problems can be avoided in debates by referencing the 3 original concepts in WP:ATT and changing comments to something along "please no original research as per WP:ATT". Only major complication is research that has not been published in a single source, but follows logically from comparing two or more sources (in the natural sciences, which strive but all too often fail to be interdisciplinary, one encounters a lot of that). Specific problems in articles can be approached by the, etc tags. Dysmorodrepanis 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 70) Support. Seems inevitable. --Anoma lee 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 71) Support evrik (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 72) Support Appears to be an important improvement in policy presentation. Lyrl Talk C 12:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 73) Support One single policy is better then three overlapping policies that all deal with sourcing articles. --Edokter (Talk) 13:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 74) Support. Always felt policies overlapped enormously. "As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only organises knowledge already published elsewhere. Facts and interpretations need to be eminently traceable to a verifiable source that is likely to give a reliable representation of the facts/opinions as they are." JFW \| T@lk 13:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 75) Support, makes for simplicity and easier navigation. Cricket02 13:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 76) Support, weakly - specifying exact parts may be tricky, but simplicity is more important. --Evan C (Talk) 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 77) Support. Avoiding contradictory rules is most important. It also illustrates the rationale of each of these related policies by grouping them together; at least I found it increased my appreciation of NOR, which had previously seemed arbitrary to me. not-just-yeti 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 78) Support, but we should make sure that it is enforced. Just having a guideline or policy that sits around don't cut it <font face="Amazone BT">Alf <font face="Aldine401 BT" size="2">Photoman 14:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 79) Support. Simplicity and easier navigation is very important, as has been stated above. mcr616 Speak! 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 80) Support, strong Clear, no contradictions.It's all about attribution and reliability. SalvNaut 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 81) Support keeps it simple and reduces the number of pages to be searched when looking for help. - Ctbolt 14:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 82) Support It helps people to find the right policy when searching, and I feel many of the policies overlap. Also, if someone asks at the helpdesk then they may learn about more than one policy. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 83) Unqualified Support. This approach effectively integrates WP:VER and WP:NOR into a coherent policy that operates side-by-side with WP:NPOV and the WP:Consensus method of arriving at article-by-article implementation of these policies, without diminishing any of these fundamental WP policies in the slightest. ... Kenosis 15:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 84) Support per Kenosis, Casmith ,Not-just-yeti, Picaroon, Warrens, Was.4.250 and others. JoshuaZ 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 85) Support As I am sure others have stated, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS overlap in many ways, and it would be much simpler and cleaner to integrate them into one single page. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 86) Support per above. I don't think I need to restate everything that's been said. — <font color="#000080">Brother <font color="#DAA520">Flounder 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 87) Support will at last make the policy clear for anyone. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 88) Support the relocation of all three policies to one page. Amphytrite 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 89) Support I support the merger of these pages into one page because the policies are interconnected. Moreover, any quick survey of the articles up for FAC will reveal substantial sourcing problems. I feel that wikipedia needs to provide a simple and concise explanation of what kinds of sources it recommends for articles and when they should be used. While WP:ATT may have some flaws, I feel that those flaws can be worked out but that the idea of a single page on sources is much better than three or even four which users are less likely to read and less likely to understand the relationship between. Awadewit 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 90) Support as being clearer. I don't like the name (it's a bit unclear), but the principle of merging the pages seems reasonable. --ais523 17:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 91) Support and keep old pages as reference. Haiduc 17:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 92) Support an excellent idea and an excellent implementation. TomTheHand 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 93) Support a largely successful attempt to make attribution more accessible and understandable for everyone, which will help promote Wikipedia content verifiability, and, thusly, help make Wikipedia content more reliable. Justen 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 94) Support but with a paragraph shortcut as for WP:SYNT. --BMF81 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 95) Support. Axl 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 96) Support. It's a reasonable idea that was properly implemented. Eluchil404 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * Support Yeah looks good to me.--FunnyMunny 17:55, 1 April 2007 :(UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user . Rockpock e t 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * Second edit. Marskell 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * Support. this deoes seem to make more sense than having 3 indpendent policies--UnderTrade 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user . Rockpock e t 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * First edit. OK, what's going on? Marskell 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Strong support, but not the WP:V shortcut. The policies combined here are separate ideas that interact towards the same principle—in fact that's why it is confusing to new editors to have them on separate pages that overlap... Right now, WP:A confusingly tries to cast verifiability as the same as WP:RS. Verifiability—whether content fundamentally can be verified—is probably closer to WP:A itself than to the WP:RS section. The word verifiability also ties WP:A to WP:N. --gwc 19:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Supportr. If something is verifiable, then it is not original research (so no need for both). And "attribution" is also important where opinions differ. --Iantresman 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Limited support (maybe I've put this in the wrong section) - I support the merger of WP:V and WP:NOR into WP:ATT, as "attributability, not truth" makes more sense than "verifiability, not truth", and I think that attribution and "no original research" are essentially two sides of the same thing. However, I think WP:RS should continue as a separate guideline. Wal ton <sup style="color:purple;">Vivat Regina! 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) Support. Everything will be so much easier on one page. Bagpipeturtle 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) Strong support. One page (with a coherent explanation) will make things much easier on new and experienced editors alike.--Kathy A. 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) Support. "One policy to rule them all" makes sense; the simpler it is to explain, the better--as long as WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS are kept as subsections of WP:ATT (for situations where policy needs to be as clear as possible on a specific case). Ourai тʃс 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Support and get rid of WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:RS. I just used Attribution, in a comment to a new user's talk, and I felt it was a clear, concise and sensible alternative to an overwhelming alphabet soup. I was also accused of doing original research fairly recently, when an editor thought I had added some unsourced statements. Original research is a unique case, fully subsumed under the issue of attribution that has gotten quite a bit of undue weight due to the separate pages. Enuja 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) Support. I like the idea and the goals for carrying it out. If it comes together as planned, it will represent a substantial improvement over the separate section. ChemistryProf * 9) Support. Get related concepts bundled together. Merge in WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. They're all driving towards the same principle, and WP:ATT does a better job of articulating that and then getting into the different ways the principle manifests itself. - Ehheh 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 10) Support. I think it's clearly simpler: to me, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS fundamentally overlap. -- bcasterline • talk 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) Mildly indifferent support. It makes policy more accessible. NOR, V, RS can be kept and referred to as seperate sections. So long as the merger does not weaken what's now WP:ATT, I'm cool with it. But even ATT is overturned for lack of consensus (likely at this point with 210 in favour, 170 against), no big deal. Aren't we all wasting a lot of mindcycles over this mere rephrasing of policy? Sandstein 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) I support the merge. It'll make things more organised, in my opinion. Rusty5 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Support. Read the articles pro and con, and I think it's a sensible proposition that will simplify things. --Leifern 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) Support, in general. But IMO, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR each need to stay around for quite a while as they do each explain distinct concepts which a lot of us are used to working with. I'm still not all that happy with what's at WP:ATT but I do support it all being in one place.Garrie 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 15) Support Having them on the same page is handy, but keep the individual parts in separate subtopics Sharpevil 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 16) Support for the sake of simplicity. Luvcraft 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 17) Strong support - being new here, I find it very time consuming and very confusing with so many separate policies that are not easy to find, especially if one doesn't know what to search for. It's already time consuming researching, editing and writing articles, and then having to find explainations to concerns all over the place. I strongly support this merge as it will help simplify finding policies. Jeeny 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 18) SupportSimplicty and clarity is best. Editors will be more likely to apply WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS together as a logical unit Lost Kiwi (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 19) Support since it doesn't change either policy. I think that it's a sensible measure since we have so many policies already. <font color="#084B8A">Darth <font color="#FF0080">griz <font color="#04B4AE">98 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 20) Support. The details do need to be hammered out before any merge. However this should reduce confusion on what has already been made policy.Phatom87 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 21) Very strong support. The arguments for and against have been done to death, so I won't go over them again. Suffice it to say that I think this is a great idea. Chrisfow 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 22) Support -- merge 'em baby! Xdenizen 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 23) Support because I'm tired of arguing with others about what "original research" and "verifiability" actually mean. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 24) Strong support. New editors need to discover the complexity of WP in layers, and ATT could be a very useful outer layer. Only after that should the WP onion start to stink, then make you cry, then add flavor your mental food... - Freechild 02:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 25) Support I find WP:ATTR much more clear than the others ever were. Gutworth 02:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 26) Strong support, not only does this keep it simple, it better explains the connection between RS, V, and NOR, which are inextricably intertwined. -- M P er el ( talk 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) Support. Consolidation is a good idea, so long as the key information in the existing separate pages is kept and simplified if possible. Truthanado 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 28) Support. Much easier to find what needs to be taken into consideration for writing an article, and also keeps it much simpler. -- DSGruss 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Support per above.--<font color="Blue">Eva <font color="Red">b <font color="Green">d 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 30) Support —cmsJustin (talk\|contribs) 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 31) Strongly Support — but i would like to add emphasis on Verifiability as one of the goals & effects of Attribution —- .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 32) Support - i think WP:ATT is a great example of being bold, which is now being wishy-washed with folks who are too used to keeping all their things right where they left them. There is no change with this formation, and it really cuts it down to the pith of the policy. JoeSmack Talk 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 33) Support strongly. WP:ATT is easy to understand and will reduce problems with conflicts between two separate policies with essentially the same goal. Attribution is a generally accepted academic standard and should be the standard here. I had no problems with WP:V, but WP:NOR was confusing to newcomers who may not have understood the desired area of writing between original thought and plagiarism. (Heck, there are hundreds of thousands of students out there who don't understand this distinction, some of whom I have tutored.) For these reasons, the policies should be merged. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 34) Support. While I would welcome refinement of the "The threshold for inclusion... not whether it is true" statement, in general this is a simplification and clarification worth doing. We should not, however, belittle the value of truth or accuracy. --Brons 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 35) Support. I feel that the problem with original research is one of lack of verifiability. Streamlining the policies to make it clear that a bare necessity is some sort of source to verify (this ensures, if not truth, that we have something to blame on if we write something wrong), a common factor for both NOR and V. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 36) Support what a brilliant idea. I love it! <tt class="userlinks" style="1.3em">David Spart</tt> ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 07:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 37) Support MisterSheik 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 38) Support - After considering the for and against arguments in detail - The reasons for far outweigh the reasons against.-- VS talk 08:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 39) Support After careful consideration, I find that the benefits of having one page for these closely connected policies outweigh the drawbacks. I do not belive this merger causes a significant change in policy, rather it serves to clarify the previous policies. Tengfred 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 40) Support Sander123 09:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 41) Support - this would seem to be a much clearer, concise policy and be easier to explain to new users. ••Briantist•• talk 10:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 42) Support - Clarity and commonsense par excellence. Vizjim 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 43) Tentatively support I say run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. WookMuff 12:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 44) Support Lets make it simpler. Themcman1 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 45) Support - the fewer separate policies we have, the more quickly new users can become familiar with them. Warofdreams talk 12:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 46) Support. A step forward. NicM 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC). * 47) Support. It is important to gather former 3 principles. More I am confident in wikipedia we must report information and not create this or write what we remember of this. Therefore, attributing is crucial. Congratulations for this proposal. Alithien 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 48) Support. KISS. Alpha Omicron 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 49) Support. More in one place is always better. Less following links around trying to find the right thing. – Fʀɪ ɺ øʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 50) Support. WP:ATT as high level is good, but keep WP:V WP:RS WP:NOR as expanded detail pages. WP:NOR in particular is need as a separate concept. jmj 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 51) Support. One of the major ideas of Wikipedia is to explain things in plain language that is easily accessible. This is a step towards that. Hatch68 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 52) Support as it is easier for new editors to have less policy pages to wade through. The problems I have with the policy were already existing in WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 15:03, April 2, 2007 UTC * 53) Support The three pages are closely related, so it makes sense to merge them. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 54) Support. Marking WP:ATT as policy seems to have done no harm and at least some good. (1) WP:ATT as written is at least as good as WP:RS, :V, and :NOR were at explaining the relevant goals and policies. I have been citing to it without confusion or problem. (2) Centralizing these policies is a good idea. Not only does it avoid creep, it also prevents the interminable debates we used to have when WP:V and WP:RS diverged. Centralizing these policy points means that future changes will be in a single place, so interested editors can keep an eye on them. Also, ILIKEIT. TheronJ 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 55) Support. The distinction between attributed and attributable is now clear. Andeggs 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 56) Support. I prefer having to refer to one page that deals with all aspects of attribution. This would help newbies a lot. <b style="color:teal;">ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ</b> 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 57) Support; the concepts of V and NOR, while not identical, have the same basis; thus, I feel that a merge is appropriate. --Spangineerws (háblame) 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 58) Support It fights instructions creep, and is easier on the newbies. IronDuke * 59) Support Verifiability always encouraged people writing articles about themselves, and made a call for attribution to published source seem like an insult to their personhood. The search for truth leans towards original research, the search for education is attribution.Lotusduck 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 60) Support Simplify, simplify, simplify . --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 61) I support this merger as a fairly new user because it is always easier for me to have one tab to refer back to rather than 3 or 4.Gillian416 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 62) I support this merger as it will make WP policies less confusing if however precisely expressed -- Androux 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 63) Strong support: the page is an elegant synthesis of the policies and will help alleviate the instruction creep currently out of control. Criticism of the process used to draft the policy are unfounded; what matters is the content of the policy and, of course, the process by which it is officially adopted. Fishal 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 64) Support. It not only indicates that editors should use reliable sources, but also that they should cite those sources in an article. There are a lot of articles out there that used reliable sources, but never provided citations, so it's up to the reader to determine the reliability of an article. Providing proper attribution to sources as a matter of policy will go a long way toward providing verifiability and reinforcing the credibility of Wikipedia articles. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 65) Support. Even if all three policies need work, the process of merging them into one will help highlight the redundancies, conflicts, and just plain weaknesses/holes/deficiencies among and across this triad so they can be fixed. Further, even though bending to the lowest common denominator is not always advised, in this case, simplifying and streamlining WP policy will make it more likely that WP policy is adhered to. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 66) General support. Comment: now that redirects can include fragment IDs, we can make WP:NOR redirect to Attribution, so this idea gives us additional, more precise ways to specify exactly which policies we're referring to. CWC 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 67) Support: The new policy is more concise. As for whether this jetisons truth, "verifiability, not truth" has been in WP:V since August 2005 and I regard tweaking that wording as being pretty much unrelated to whether WP:ATT is a good idea. Kingdon 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 68) Support: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS significantly overlap. It would be much simpler and cleaner to integrate these three policies, which are really just restatements of the basic policy of attribution, into one single article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-04-02 22:02Z * 69) Support:Wikipedia policy is far too contradictory and complex and needs to be cut down and simplified. This is a good step in simplifying WP policy and merging overlapping and bulky material into a single page. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 70) Support:Speaking as somone who grasped what was going on inspite of rather than because of the way the policies are presented I think this seems like a very sensible change. Frankly No Original Research never made much sense to me. Cp6ap 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 71) Support: "Attributability, not truth"! _R_ 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 72) Strong Support: Concise, a single-policy driven content validity scheme which also allows some well-documented unpublished contents to enter Wikipedia. ray 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 73) Support: It will help to remove the number of different pages that users would have to navigate to learn the policies. Ixnayonthetimmay 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 74) Support by KISS. /kaˈʁɛːfa ˈweːnaː/T 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 75) Support, It would probably be a good idea.--Anglius 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 76) Support Yes, put everything into one convient article. W1k13rh3nry 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 77) Support to keep it simple and clear. Gordon 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 78) Support. Congratulations to the editors who wrote Attribution, which is an elegant merger and a clear improvement in the wording of the relevant policies and guidelines. Bureaucracies hate change, of course—even common sense changes—so it remains to be seen whether the community can overcome its bureaucratic intransigence on this issue. I've read the arguments against the merger and find them unconvincing and, occasionally, incoherent. Many of the objections below are simply bureaucratic ("I object on procedural grounds") or status quo for the sake of status quo (people are accustomed to the old pages). Other objections are theoretical in nature (role of truth, conceptual differences between NOR and WP:V, differences between policies and guidelines), which are fun to discuss and important in some contexts, but mean little when it comes to actually writing an encyclopedia with a NPOV. The important question now is whether WP:ATT, if implemented, will improve the process of writing a reliable encyclopedia. I think it will. —Kevin 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 79) Support. Verifiability and No Original Research are both about sources. While these may be different principals the policies generated have so much overlap that separate pages become dificult to keep synchronised. Keeping a page about Original Research is probably worth while for further elaboration but the Attribution page should be the policy page though 'Sources' might be a better name than 'Attribution'.Filceolaire 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 80) Support. Having a simplified and central policy will streamline processes in the future since there will be fewer ambiguities and conflicts. -- Sukh17 <font color="#436EEE" face="Arial" size="0"> T • C • E 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 81) Support. ww 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 82) Support, though my guess is that it will bite me in the 455 - Frelke 06:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 83) Support. KISS. Foobaz·o< 07:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 84) Support per SlimVirgin. 172 \| Talk 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 85) Support. Much easier to understand. --MichaelMaggs 07:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 86) Centralization is clearer than divergence. > R a d i a n t < 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 87) Support As per above, will make referencing and researching much easier. Flymeoutofhere 10:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 88) 'Support, streamlined is better. Daniel Bryant 10:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 89) Support - merger makes sense. John Smith's 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 90) Support. A unique reference on the topic is suitable for discussions between editors. -- Knverma 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 91) Support because it makes it easier to explain the policy to others. And rew D alby 11:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 92) Support--It is important to simplify and consolidate policies(guidelines) through healthy discussion. (Policies should not be used either as weapons nor searched for loopholes to allow avoidance of the intent.)--Lmcelhiney 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 93) Strong Support--Should be more clear for the new users, this policy also eradicates problems with users saying "well my OR is verifiable EVERYONE KNOwS ITS RIGHT!!!111". The separation between OR and Attributed text is so clear here that I'd love it to replace the existing policy.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 94) Support--Much clearer, especially for new users. Simplifying this has to be a move in the right direction. Greg 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 95) Support --Belgrano 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 96) Support. While not entirely happy, it seems like a step in the right direction. Magidin 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 97) Support These are three faces of the same coin it can only make this policy easier to comprehend, to revise and simply to discover in the first place if its all under the one title. Jimp 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 98) Support--It seems to me like a good idea to have WP policies consolidated, put together clearly, and summarized on only one place of easy access and reference. warshy 16:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 99) Support for simplification - these do seem to me to be just three angles on one basic concept Quackdave 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 100) Support - I think using a slightly unfamilar term will actually help. It makes it sound technical to the uninitiated, and is less likely to be confused with other common meanings. With the FAQ on sources, t should make it clearer that the point of an encyclopedia is to be a literate index into an existing knowledge-space. --Jvv62 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 101) Fully Support - Most arguments for above are sound. Most arguments below against are trival.--Mike Cline 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 102) I support the merger of these policies. Maelbrigda 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 103) Support - As said above, these articles are three variations on a theme. One page will make finding what you need to immensely easier. -Grahamdubya 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 104) Support as has been said above, these three policies are strongly linked together and it makes sense to have them all in one place. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 105) I support the merge. The whole "threshold for inclusion" thing makes me a bit nervous and I'd love to see it reworded more clearly, but I understand the intent behind it and I agree with that. With regard to the actual merge, I think it's an excellent idea. The three existing articles are confusing to me, and I have a fair bit of experience with such things, so I can imagine how they must look to a new and inexperienced editor. The three "parent" topics should be preserved as subsections within the new document, but other than that they need to go. The merged information is far clearer and more useful. --edi 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 106) Support There's less to decide on what to refer to. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 107) Support - It makes a bunch of interlinked policies and guidelines easier to maintain, easier to understand and prevents people using policies against each other. Yes, a couple of details may need improving, but how is this different from any other policy?-Localzuk(talk) 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 108) Support - more separate policies mean more confusion for new users. Calliopejen 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 109) Support The merger remedies three evils. First, the name "Verifiability" has given rise to misunderstandings. Second, the fact that V and NOR are distinct policy pages gives rise to the assumption that they are distinct concepts, which they are not. Third, it has occasionally happened that V and NOR do not agree in detail on some issue, or at least appear to disagree. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 110) Support - Strong support, in the interest of clarity and streamlining - and in assisting new editors. NickBurns 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 111) Support- simplification and clarification are good things, makes life easier for wikipedians.--JustJimDandy 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 112) Support - the less pages a new user has to read and remember when coming into the site, the better. Lots of pages terrify newbies - in fact, lots of pages can terrify and confuse established users. Merging and clarification are never, ever bad. &spades; P M C &spades; 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)"# * 113) Support - The consolidation in a single page is a good idea. The conflicts between the three prior pages offered a breeding ground in which those advocating various points of view could post choose which venue would be more suitable to their viewpoint. My only concern is that the merger may leave us with four competing pages. If any of the pages are retained to expand the summary at WP:ATT (and I think WP:NOR should be) they should be clearly marked as derivitave and as not having authoritative status. SteveMcCluskey 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 114) Support per WP:ATTPRO. The old set of policies were too confusing. — <b style="color:blue;">Pious7</b><sub style="color:green;">Talk <sup style="color:purple;">Contribs 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 115) Support Shane (talk/contrib) 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 116) Support - removes vaguery that edit-vets use against newbies; more clear; centralizing policies and minimizing quantity of pages is a good thing. Much needed change. None of the "against" essay points 'hold water'. -- Tony 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 117) Support because of simple logic: NOT(WP:OR)==WP:V, and WP:OR==NOT(WP:V). We don't need two pages for the two faces of the same coin. NikoSilver 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 118) Support as per above. SolarianKnight (talk 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 119) Support More practical and logical than current method Oliver202 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 120) Support: They are closely related policies that are more easily understood as one than as separate, often redundant, pages. Sxeptomaniac 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 121) Support per the above points. Academic Challenger 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 122) Support I'll be honest: WP:ATT is far from perfect, and merging WP:OR into it is going to be quite a can of worms. However, on the whole I see this as a step, even if it's a baby step, toward a more reliable, respectable, and accurate encyclopedia. It might not be perfect, but it's better than nothing. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 123) Support per above Merumerume 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 124) Support - no need to rehash all the arguments. JackofOz 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 125) Support - Very intelligently merged and much simpler to use. Congrats to all those who worked to put this together! Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 02:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 126) Support It's all been said. Adm58 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 127) Support I agree that it is a good idea and I am not going to go into deep detail why. But having all of this on one page can prove to be quite useful other than having to boruse around onto three different pages. An Apple a day keeps <font color="Green">-The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! (talk)(contribs) * 128) Support - simplifies much.--Urthogie 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 129) Support - the pages proposed to be merged are all policies on attribution. The merge will make these policies easier to be understood. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 130) I Support the merge because there is a need to be concise so that users do not have three places to look at to verify their edits are acceptable, only ONE PLACE. If people are used to citing "WP:NOR, WP:V or WP:RS", that's fine. they can do so by adding "ATT#" (such as in "WP:ATT#NOR", etc. --FateClub 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 131) Support - MrArt 07:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 132) Support this merger as it will make things easier to access, espcially for newbies. Str1977 (smile back) 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 133) Support - for new users of WP it's unbelievably confusing to be confronted with so many policies and guidelines. This should just be the start. --Flup 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 134) Support. Nothing more to add. nadav 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 135) Weak Support. That would make things simpler, BUT on the other hand, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V are known pages that can be refered to in order to help new editors. Refering them to WP:ATT will at best submerge them with information, and may confuse them. So if we merge these pages (and I think that's a good idea), I think the other pages must continue to exist to explain to editors the particular points of the policies. Ok, that pretty much defeats the purpose. At least make a redirect to the right section? -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 11:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 136) Support - simplification of rules is better. The three separate policies are talking about the same thing anyways, ie. of people using wikipedia as a publishing mechanism for their own views. -- infinity 0 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 137) Support - Attribution is a more accurate description of the problem than verifiablity or NOR. Verifiablity tags often imply that the facts are dubious, when in fact the only problem is a missing citation. H Bruthzoo * 138) Support - They seem to be the same thing, only worded differently. Therefore, they should be merged. --Chaffers (talk)/(contributions) 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 139) Support - Newer users will be more prepared to read one article than three - this will help them follow the rules correctly. There's too much bureaucracy on here as it is, so any condensation is a good thing. Alex Holowczak 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 140) Support strongly. This consolidation both strengthens the purpose of articles (informative rather than explanatory or exhaustive, and describing facts versus expounding so much on viewpoints of schools of thought that we tend to re-present them rather than report on them); and encourages across-the-board sourcing for everything rather than widely accepted facts being coincidentally unsupported by a good source. Users will feel less threatened and understand more succintly Wikipedia's unbiased goal. - CobaltBlueTony 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 141) Support - For clarity's sake I support the merger. --Denimmonkey 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 142) I Support the merger because I think it is a good idea but I don't that the process was correct in it's creation. Jon513 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 143) Support -- Unfortunately, I don't have an original reason for support, as they all have been stated already above. But multiple links can get confusing, and its much easier (and much more convinient) to read one article rather than three. --6xB 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 144) Support - useful to have it all in one place. --<font color="#116655">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 145) Support - One policy page on the broad application of attribution makes the policy more clear and concise and makes it easier to follow and maintain on one policy page, and to follow discusion on one talk page. Mytwocents 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 146) Support. One stop shopping helps avoid conflicting interpretations of multiple pages. And I feel that the emphasis on what can and cannot be reliably sourced, instead of what is or is not already reliably sourced, will help avoid deletion of legitimate pages while not really making it any harder to keep the crankery and cruft out. —David Eppstein 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 147) Support. K.I.S.S.. Jdpipe 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 148) Support. Ditto the immediate above. --Mashford 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 149) Weak support - I generally agree the idea to merge the three pages as they're largely correlated. However, the current version of ATT is a bit too concise to represent the utmost detail of the original pages. A policy should be more that this. --Deryck C. 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 150) Support. But this hullabaloo reminds me of that quote about sausage and legislation. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 151) Strong Support - all of my reasons have already been very well stated in comments above. - Kiwi 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 152) Strong Support, this was a well intended effort to streamline and merge policies into one. With no intended fundemental change of the underlying polices. How could anybody find anything wrong with those goals? Mathmo Talk 06:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 153) Support - a single point of reference for these very similar policies makes much more sense. Arguments that editors are familiar with the old should not be a barrier to change - if they were, nothing would ever get done. Ever. Waggers 08:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 154) Strong Support. Less intimidating and easier to understand for new users and those unexperienced with attributions. SESmith 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 155) Support. All three policies are intrinsically linked. Merging them into one policy article seems a no-brainer, especially as it doesn't change existing policy. AulaTPN 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 156) Support This is long overdue. The criteria for inclusion per WP:V is verifiability not truth. This merger will support this sound policy and greatly simplify the policies that new editors need to familiarize themselves with. MartinDK 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 157) Support KISS. This makes everything far easier Brian \| (Talk) 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 158) Support. We need to find a way to prevent policy creep and keep things simple for newbies, and I believe this helps accomplish that. (I liked it better when it was formally one page.) I'd rather point new users who I'm talking to to this, instead of a handful of TLAs/alphabet soup. Grand master ka 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 159) Support. Simple, concise, accurate. Noon 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 160) Support. simple and coherent. Zeq 14:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 161) Support. "Attributability" makes a lot of sense. I like it. — Lestat deLioncour t 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 162) Support. Simple and convienent. Gamesurf 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 163) Support. Fewer policy pages make WP an easier world to navigate. Superdix 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 164) Support. Just as ≈ jossi ≈, supporter #7, said, it would provide a simpler and more understandable way to present the current Wikipedia policies. Superdix said it nicely (see above).—Michael 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 165) Support. Easier to understand. Ronnotel 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 166) Support. Having three separate policies was confusing, and there were some inconsistencies. We can work on the exact details of the new policy later, if changes need to be made. <font color="#0000FF">CO <font color="#6000BF">GD <font color="#A0007F">EN 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 167) Support. It's a very positive policy, it encourages and guides action -- use sources and declare them. Foundational. Also simple and clear as everyone says. Alastair Haines 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 168) Support Basar 17:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 169) Support For reasons relative to clarity and concision that have been well set forth by others and need not to be recapitulated, I support the merge if not the instant formulation of ATT (viz., its apparent elevation of RS to policy); concerns about the integration of specific details, though, do not militate categorically against any attempt to merge. Whilst it appears likely that the promulgation of ATT in its present form as (overarching) policy does not command the consensus support of the community, I think it is (but may not be) plain that most of those opposing have, as I, objections to certain items but not to the conflation in principle; the idea, then, to be sure, ought not. and surely will not, be wholly jettisoned (that is, I hope that we might eventually arrive at some ATT-esque policy that subsumes OR and V, et seq.). Joe 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 170) Strong support Brevity is the soul of wit. Makes one point clearly and briefly. Ipsenaut 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 171) Support One page is simpler and briefer than three sometimes contradictory pages. I also like that this clarifies that not everything (i.e. "The sky is blue") needs to be cited, just be attributable. I can sympathize with those who oppose this as I liked the old policies too, but this really does seem to be a combination of those without any major changes that I can find. Ruhrfisch 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 172) I support Simpler in one place. keep it to the point! :) ileck 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 173) Support. Properly written and conceived, such a single-page system can hit all the points of the three pages while being less of a cluttery mess. No matter how wonderful and hugely comprehensive three separate pages are, it doesn't matter if the newbies do not read or do not understand them. Lord Bob 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 174) Support. One easy to read policy can address all of these issues Dx87 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 175) Support I was very pleased to see all that policy in one place. It makes it much easier to point a new person to one page instead of saying "well, there's this one policy over here, and another over here, and don't forget to see that other page, and this one, and... etc" The KISS principle is very important. <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b> rawr <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^= 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 176) Support, and further would like to voice my horror at all the "opposes" which claim ATT devalues "truth" - V has always stated that sourcing, not "truth" is the standard, whether that sourcing is colloquially called "verification" or more accurately "attribution" is not the issue. Truth is always inherently subjective due to its very nature. What is utter Truth to a Christian is heresy to a Muslim and vice-versa; we are not evangalists for any cause; we are neither apologists or polemics; and however this particular situation resolves I feel it is vital that we somehow make more clear that we are in the business of accurate information, not truth - although I am perplexed as to how anyone could have read WP:V and been at all confused, or WP:ATT. If nothing else, this effort has highlighted that key point is not being communicated effectively to all our editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 177) Support. As per above.--MonkeyTimeBoy 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 178) Support Anything that makes the wikipedia's guidelines easier to access for new and inexperienced editors is worth having. It is important to ensure that all the warning templates are properly re-linked however. A1octopus 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 179) Support. As per above. This makes a lot of sense. — Jeff G. (talk\|contribs) 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 180) Support. It will make everything a lot simpler. Ab e g92 contribs 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 181) Strong Support - This pulls together the most impotant parts of the policies, and removes a nasty hole created by WP:NOR, as any type of publication could get a idea out from under it. That atatements have to be attributable to reliable sources (and preferably secondary sources) creates a higher bar to original research. As someone who is doing original research but who also understands the mission of Wikipedia and respects why OR is not approrpiate, I find the standard being set here to be much more reasonable than that of WP:NOR. --EMS \| Talk 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 182) Support The current guidelines are scattered over too many pages, I'd rather be improving articles than searching through pages upon pages of policy. JRWalko 02:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 183) Support All in favour of reducing number of policy pages, therefore agree in principle. Actual execution (current ATT page) seems well conceived and well written. Many object to a "lack of consensus" but what is a consensus remains poorly defined on Wikipedia. I think there has been adequate discussion over a decent length of time. Dr Aaron 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 184) Support Anything to make the policy pages a lot simpler and less confusing. <font color="#FF3300">97198 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 185) Support The intended focus can only prove beneficial. --Futhark\|Talk 09:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 186) Support simplification in this case is better. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 187) Strong Support Attribution and No Original Research are some of the most important things on Wikipedia. Anything that makes these easier to read, easier to understand, easier to use, and easier to point people to is a good thing. One page is nicer to point newbies to, and feels - to me - less like biting the newbies than pointing them to a bunch of stuff. Dan Beale 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 188) Support For all the main reasons mentioned many times over above. <span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff0000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 189) Support I haven't been very active for the past few months, but I was thrilled when I came here and saw this. It's clearer and more concise than the individual pages. And while it's true that NOR, V, and RS are separate concepts, they are inextricably interrelated, and editors, especially newbies, can see that they're different aspects of one overarching vision for Wikipedia. Three separate pages gives the impression that they're three concepts which are entirely independent of each other, which is not the case. Chuck 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 190) Support, on the basis that no policy changes. Clarity is good. -- BillWeiss \| Talk 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 191) Support, as per BillWeiss. Bo-Lingua 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 192) Support I believe original research is almost identical to citing reliable sources. Besides it helps new contributors to learn all those stuff in one page.-- Pre ston H (Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 193) Support this poll is ridiculous. If Jimbo wants it one way, he should be around to actually contribute to discussion. Regards, Iamunknown 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 194) Support Anything that makes it quicker and easier for new users to access policy pages, as this would, is good.--Harkey Lodger 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 195) Support - As a newer editor, the change is straightforward. The for essay was concise. The argument against contained a certain amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Wikipedia needs an Elevator speech to describe the sources of the articles and I believe it is a step in the right direction. Group29 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 196) Support - anything that simplifies policies like this serves to disempower the WikiDorks - the Rules Lawyers, the anal-retentives who spend so much time seizing and husbanding their stranglehold on too much of WikiPedia. And that is inherently a very good thing. Mitchberg 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 197) Support - after careful consideration. I started editing a year ago and now make hundreds of edits each month. As a newbie, I found the overlapping policies confusing and hard to get into. Putting them in one place, supported by detailed FAQ, is a significant step forward in clarity and accessibility. As currently drafted, WP:ATT could do with some improvements, e.g. not supporting material based on sources that are no longer reliable, and its emphasis may need tweaking in the light of further experience - there is certainly scope to give more weight to truth. However, these concerns do not detract from the benefits of the merger. - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 198) Support - been off Wiki for a while, but I definitely think the merger is a good idea. I have no object to keeping the old WP:V and W:NOR pages around to provide more explaination. --EngineerScotty 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 199) Strong support - So long as it stays clear and precise. —<font color="#c00">B33R <font color="#000"> Talk •<font color="#000"> Contribs 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 200) Support - I haven't been keeping of with the debates at all, nor have I been editing often I will say first. However, I believe this will make it easier for newer users to get used to Wikipedia. However, I think that the other pages should be kept for historical purposes with a note to ATT. —Jake Wasdin 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 201) Support. — Athænara ✉ 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 202) Support. - Magalhães 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 203) Support WP's policies and procedures are FAR too complicated. Anything that simplifies the spider web of interlocking policies is a good thing, IMO. -- TomXP411[Talk] 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 204) Support Yes, make it simpler.dick 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 205) Support - Wikipedia can be very confusing to new users; this will help simplify policies and procedures.-- Bryson <sup style="color:#009900;">{ Talk } <sup style="color:#009900;">{ Edits } 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 206) Support Wikipedia's biggest problem remains the shortage of supporting evidence for the content added. What is needed is a single and concise policy that states what support is needed. WP:ATT does this. The arguments opposing it are weak. Alan Pascoe 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 207) Weak support There are too many different pages with rules, and it would help to have as much as possible on one page. Or perhaps it would make it harder to read and follow. Hence weak support. Wisconsin96 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 208) Support --Zxcvbnm 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 209) Support KISS -- Make it simplier for new users. Pparazorback 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 210) Support, KISS, as long as the policies don't change. Will 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 211) Support Tim Q. Wells 00:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC) * 212) Support. Sorry for voting so late. I'd support merging all of them into WP:ATT. They all fall under one blanket, and they should be easier to find all in one place. In broad opposition to WP:ATT "See also alternative sections in this survey: In broad support of WP:ATT & Neutral/qualified/compromise/other" Refactoring note: If you replied to someone else's vote, it may have been moved to the talk page, see here. * 1) Oppose on procedural grounds. This appears to me to be a fait accompli. I would like to have been part of this discussion at the start of this process but it was never brought to the attention of ordinary editors at that stage with valid options. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) No on WP:ATT. No on any merger idea at this time. Verifiability, ReliableSource, and No personal research are very independent components of high quality Wikipedia pages such as gravity and truth. That is, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than what mere Attributability requires, editors could not trim the gravity and truth pages to follow faithfully just the facts, not the mere attributions, as established by ReliableSources. Similarly, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than mere "Attributability," editors cannot trim pages on living persons to exclude fully attributable personal attacks that are baseless, false, and unfair. --Rednblu 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) I oppose the proposed merging of pages, because I believe it's important to keep policy pages separate, in order to prevent the creation of one excessively large (and thus probably ignored) page. I believe it is best to keep the policies on their own separate pages. Philippe 01:27, 31 March 2007 * 4) I oppose this merger, but support, in principle, some other merger between the two policies. * 5) I deprecate this poll, as started by suprise, without consensus on the wording. The one thing on which there was consensus was that this was going to start, if possible, on 00:00 April 2. See here 6) I came to this poll intending to support WP:ATT 7) I agree with most of it, at least as I understand it; nevertheless 8) I strongly oppose the notion that WP:ATT has, or has ever had, consensus; any appearances to the contrary are probably the result of the same bullying and reversion which has resulted in this pseudo-poll. 9) I strongly reject WP:ATT as the merger; it will have to be thoroughly considered to be acceptable as such. 10) I recommend that if there is no consensus to merge to WP:ATT, that its separate paragraphs, which do have considerable value, be considered for inclusion in WP:V and WP:NOR. By the time that is over, we will see what is generally acceptable, and they will have the necessary common language so that a merge, if approved, will be a largely mechanical process, not involving significant rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Refactoring note: This !vote does not broadly oppose WP:ATT, but of the three possibilities, "oppose" is most correct on the issues presently at hand. This was originally classified, not by me, as neutral; it has also been classified under "Support some merger, but not this one." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) I oppose WP:ATT as it exists. I oppose the changes that have been made to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS by people who use the argument "we aren't changing things, we are only clarifying things" while making major changes to the spirit of our policies. I oppose the promotion of WP:RS from a (very good) guideline to a policy. - O^O 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) While I appreciate the hard work and well-intentioned effort put into this proposal by many editors whose work I respect, I oppose every aspect of this ATT proposal and discussion. * 3) * More broad-based and open-minded discussion could have occurred before the poll was launched. I also oppose the poll itself, because the presentation is one-sided and the poll itself makes claims that aren't rebutted. * 4) * I don't support the idea that there was ever consensus for ATT. I was aware of ATT because I work closely with and follow the talk pages of a number of the main "architects" of the proposed policy. I weighed in several times (hence was one of those "300 editors"), but was under the impression that a revamping of fundamental Wiki policies would never happen without broader community input. I didn't see that broad consensus, and was quite surprised when ATT was enacted and core policies disappeared into redirects. * 5) I don't agree that ATT merges existing policies, rather that existing policies were molded to ATT before work on them was somewhat abandoned. 6) I strongly agree with Jimbo's statements that each policy expresses a significantly different idea and am opposed to any merger of the core policies. I don't agree that one policy is either clearer or streamlined; I believe it obfuscates important aspects of our policies and weakens each of them. 7) I oppose having ATT as the overarching policy, while still maintaining links to the original three pages, as that creates a maintenance/syncing nightmare. I see no need for any merger. 8) I strongly disagree that ATT did not or will not change in practice our policies, and believe it will and already has weakened our core policies. 9) *I am most opposed to the way interpretation of ATT interacts with the "experts" (think, Essjay controversy) scenario. Attributable but not necessarily attributed can be a means of avoiding providing sources for material, while verifiability supports that notion that Wiki's credibility depends upon the ability of our readers to verify that our information comes from reliable sources. Attributable but not attributed opens the door to "experts" to challenge the need to cite information. ATT falls into the "expert" problem by the subtle switch from verifiable to Wiki's readers to attributable to someone, somewhere, sometime, but unless you're an expert on the topic, you don't have the right to ask exactly where it's attributed. 10) My largest concern is that the approach to changing core policy wasn't optimal; while respecting the emotions and hard work invested in this process, I believe the shouting should die down and more voices should be heard before any core policies are changed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) It has come to my attention that I failed to mention one part of the ATT that I do agree with; if ATT becomes policy, I do concur with the elevation of WP:RS into that policy. Strengthening reliability of sources—as well as strengthening verifiability—are my concerns. I feel that ATT strengthens RS but weakens V. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) I strongly oppose ATT, because it denigrates factuality and accuracy (i.e. truth). Attribution is very important, but not more important than accuracy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) oppose Agree per Jimbo regarding the three being separate ideas. No merge. <font color="Blue">Navou <font color="Blue">banter / <font color="Green">contribs 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) Oppose. I think it is fine the way it is. There may be deficiencies, but this is not the way to fix them. Each one is a stand-alone principle.Mike Searson 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) Strong Oppose - As per others in this section, WP:ATT is not a good idea. The 3 separate components merging into ATT are important on their own, and make up an extremely valuable part of WP's verifiability standards. Merging them will only serve to confuse rather than clarify. Thor Malmjursson 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose - I agree with Philippe and SandyGeorgia's arguments and feel that this would be a huge mistake that would result in many people ignoring the guidelines. --Bishop2 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) I oppose the WP:ATT merger. I feel that I have been forced into doing so after once being neutral on the issue, by the overcontrol, "I know what's best, dammit" and editwarrior behavior of too many of the ATT proponents. These policies have been successfully separate for a long time, represent separate (albeit related) ideas, too many have raised concerns that policy is in fact being subtly changed in deeply fundamental ways, and ATT never had consensus and is being pushed, hard, now instead of being openly appraised and thoughtfully weighed. Just on the process issues alone I must stand against it. This is not how policy is made at Wikipedia. Addendum: I also join others in opposing this poll as bogus. It was launched early against near-consenus to wait, by a minority of 2 or 3 activist editors, with language that has no consensus at all, after over a week of trying to figure out what it should say. By barely mentioning ATTFAQ it misleads poll respondents into believing that this is a 2-into-1 or (with RS) 3-into-1 merger, when in reality is it a 3-into-2 merger or even 2-into-2 (ATTFAQ would exist whether it incorporated RS material or not). Count how many "having 1 is better than 3" !votes you see in the Support section for an inkling of how misleading this poll is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 07:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Oppose That was weird, someone removed my earlier comments. Anyways, merging parts of RS in is not a good idea, and the seperate ideas should remain seperate. - Peregrine Fisher 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose in this form; I do support a merger of WP:V, WP:RS and similar pages (and "attribution" would be a great name for that) but I don't support merging WP:NOR, because the three key content policies operate in different ways, and the best way to reinforce this is to have separate pages. I really don't see the benefit of merging in NOR. --bainer (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 9) Oppose These are separate notions. Merging them will inevitably dilute understanding and even-handed application of all three. Gwen Gale 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose ATT is a monster, really. I was leery when I heard that it was being formed out of WP:V and WP:NOR, but now WP:RS too? No, no, no...okay, in all seriousness, I agree with Jimbo that they are separate ideas that should remain seperate. Hbdragon88 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose Separate ideas belong on separate pages. Nice analogy one above too. — <font face="Centaur Festive MT Italic"> Michael Linnear 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 12) Oppose per "Separate Ideas, Separate Pages." on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t) 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 13) I oppose the proposed merge, but feel instead WP:ATT should be marked with Template:Policy Summary and maintained as such. Sdsds 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 14) Articles that encompass too much are tagged with main, per Summary style. Having these policies merged would create a policy that encompasses too much, and by the same logic, they should ideally be separate. Verifiability and No original research are critical concepts in Wikipedia; they deserve policies that explain them fully, not a bad amalgamation. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 15) (edit conflict) Strong oppose. Our separate policies/guidelines have worked just fine for a long time now. Why the sudden need to combine them? While I do respect the hard work of the editors who attempted this, I honestly don't see how a unified theory of policy could ever come out of this, nor the need really. The separate policies should remain separate, and the whole WP:ATT should just be swept into the trash. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 16) oppose Hopelessly naive, I can cite all kinds of controversial or even false things to generally 'reliable sources'. Truth matters, not just attribution. Verification and original research are not synonyms. Derex 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose: the WP:ATT is cumbersome to read. I can't see the justification in having the three separate points on the one page, as they are discrete issues. I think we lose more than we gain as a proportion of editors will not read the new page because of this. cheers, Casliber \| talk \| contribs 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 18) Strongest oppose possible ATT chops up and destroyed the policies it in tends to replace some of the core parts of the old policy are completely re-defined and changes the guideline that we have. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose. As it was pointed out these two (or three) notions are quite different. WP:Attribution just puts both of them to a single page and I don't see a point there. Alaexis 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 20) I oppose a complete merger. * I remember first hearing about this and thinking it was odd, because I did not see anything major issues with having those pages separate. However, I am mindful of our instructions creep problems we often have because of the raw number of policies and guidelines we have. * Having read the concerns, and thinking more about this, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons for keeping those pages split. Just having to cite WP:V and WP:NOR in this last week I've seen the value on being able to send a user to one specific page over the other. We do need to clean up the raw number of guidelines and policies we have, but these pages don't need a merge. * If you want to have WP:ATT in some form, fine, but the value in split pages is more than enough to not completely merge them. * Another concern is that we'll lose focus of each concept when it's in a single document, as that document grows and develops, as all pages should do, it will unavoidably mix and combined it's own contents. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Oppose. There is not much to add that has not already been stated; however, I cannot help but think that merging distinct but related concepts necessarily has a neutral effect on policy. To merge implies that the different aspects of the different policies are one and the same. The name of the merged policy reflects this. Attributing something and verifying something are quite different things and have clearly different meanings. While a rose by any other name is still a rose, the meaning of words cannot be ignored and the new name says a lot about the impact of merging different concepts. Agent 86 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) Oppose - In my opinion, these issues are different and should be awarded their separate policies. WP:ATT exists as a nice guide, but this merger is taking it too far. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) Oppose. These different issues that people need to cite frequently to explain problems with articles. Doczilla 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) Oppose WP:V and WP:NOR are different things. Verifiability is merely that something can be verified...it has little if anything to do with NOR.--MONGO 06:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose as resulting page would be too massive and unmanageable. All the acronyms currently used would just link to subsections of the new giant page anyway. Carson 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose - I've waxed and waned about this all week. I think the work that has been done is good, and I hope it can be used even if ATT is rejected, but I just don't like the idea of WP:V and WP:NOR being in one policy. They are very different concepts, and this exercise has been reinforcing the widespread misconception that they are merely two sides of the one thing. Eliminating separate W:V and WP:NOR pages will make it even harder for newbies and others to understand that that's not so. If W:ATT does survive, at least expand the "nutshell" comment at the top so that the main aspects of both policies are referred to. Metamagician3000 06:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Strong Oppose - Disgusted that attribution is seen as more important than truth. This needs to be remedied before any other changes are made. michael talk 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose as a waste of time. There is no policy change, only endless reorganization of the various components. Let the policy stand as it is so that the culture can evolve around it without a constantly shifting unerpinnings that really doesn't change. Simply rewriting the policy only creates challenges without a strong historical precedent. --Tbeatty 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 9) I don't want to see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, turned into redirects. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose -- While I appreciate the efforts and intention to "streamline" policy, this merger, to me, is not the way it should be done. While sometimes it may be expedient to Ignore All Rules, we really need some "meta-policy" about how sweeping changes such as these should be enacted. We would never have gotten to this point, if not for a few, well-meaning editors who took it upon themselves to effectively strong-arm the form and language of Wikipedia policy they wished to see. I'd prefer to see a working group-- a Wikipedia policy committee-- formed specifically for the purpose of reviewing and proposing what changes, if any, need be made to improve Wikipedia rules. Any such decision-making needs be done with deliberation, open-ness and more robust input from the community. The concerns raised by individuals here should demonstrate that the consensus favours status-quo; unless a solid case can be presented otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.--<font size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 11) Strong Oppose Cjrs 79 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 12) Oppose - Agreeing with above opinions -- Spe bi 07:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 13) Oppose - what is the need for merging? Admins will still find themselves breaking it up for the newbies. Its easier for newbies to understand V, NOR and RS one at a time than all in one gulp. And yeah, retain ATT for 'historical' purposes. Sarvagnya 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 14) Oppose on several grounds: * 15) * Firstly, "attribution" and "attributability" is somewhat ambiguous and carries less clear meaning of the actual intent than the current forms. Many en.wikipedia editors are second-language and we should make it as easy for them as possible to contribute in accordance with policy. (I agree with SandyGeorgia's concerns raised above also on this topic) The chosen name actually seems to promote WP:OR at the expense of WP:V, although the text is neutral. * 16) * Secondly, I agree that each point loses something if merely a point in a bigger document. * 17) * Thirdly, there was no consensus for the change, it was effectively foisted onto most of the community - despite being fairly active I first heard about it after the change had been made, not before, and I have heard many in that situation. This needs far more discussion. * However in spite of all I have said (and comments made by others which I agree with), I do agree with the principle that the two policies and the guideline should be treated as a bundle from a policy development point of view, and I would not be opposed to a WP:5 style summary of them being created. However, I believe the pages should remain separate in order to improve clarity, exactly as we do with articles, which may be in three different places but are managed by a task force or WikiProject to keep them consistent with each other. Orderinchaos 08:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Oppose - I do Agree with the above opinions Theturtlehermit 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) Oppose - I, too, agree with the arguments of the above wikipedians and oppose this move. Instead of merging, why not expand on the terms so that the user will be better able to determine which to apply? TeamZissou 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) Strongly oppose: The articles are better kept separate; they are not entirely related and the policies and guidelines would be hard to find. The terms need clarification, not merging. I agree that "In my opinion, these issues are different and should be awarded their separate policies." I think that WP:Attribution deals with different issues than separate pages on Verifiability, Reliable sources and Citing sources or WP:Cite (which are also directly related and aren't even mentioned in the poll); it appears a kind of watering down of long-standing documentation policies and could even lead to confusion. WP:NOR is particularly important concept that requires its own article. I can see cross-linking related concepts, but merging them is going too far and blurring distinctions among them, in my view. I do not think that the current page Attribution is thorough enough at all and that it could lead to less and poorer documentation of sources in Wikipedia rather than to more and better documentation of sources in Wikipedia. Too many articles in Wikipedia already lack proper verifiable and reliable sourcing. The proposed merger could create even more sourcing problems, especially from inexperienced and/or poorly-educated editors. --NYScholar 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) Oppose - I don't think this will solve any problems, I believe that a universal "super-page" may intimidate fresh members; whilst separate pages will allow them to view policies in sections rather then present the need to read through the whole policy in one sitting. Ashnard talk 09:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) I oppose WP:ATT, for several reasons: the concepts of V and OR are similar yet distinct, RS needs to remain a separate guideline, and the term verifiable not true is much more appropriate than attributable not true. The pattern of voting so far also encourages me to oppose, it is obvious that the change does not enjoy support from many in the community. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose per WP:ATTCON, especially the manner in which this merger came to exist repels me. The current policy pages are good enough. --User:Krator (t c) 09:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Oppose I agree with many of the arguments above. Catchpole 09:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose Absolutely no need for it - why not merge every single policy together, after all they are all relatively related? Clarification, detail and distinction are good - the more of it we have the better - merging policies for the sake of it is just pointless; and actually harmful. SFC9394 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 9) Oppose The current policies are distince from one another. Further, consensus is not determined by vote. Tom pw (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose merge and ATT as policy * 11) This is difficult to follow and confusing. It may be shorter than verifiability and NOR, but it took me easily twice as long to read and I retained little. Verifiability and NOR are simpler, deal with more than ATT does and while I have not read them much, it is easy to remember phrases and ideas from these policy pages because they are well written and well laid out. 12) This is not, IMO a merge of two policy pages into one page--this is a change of policy in some key areas. It's policy change I'm not ok with, and I'm not ok with how this flew under the radar either. 13) I've only spent a few minutes looking at how the page was put together, but I have serious concerns about it. Opposition seemed to be ignored, and some very bizarre arguments were used at times for not listening to editors. If someone comments on the talk page and doesn't receive a response, that silence isn't a disagreement, it's wiki editors not bothering to comment. You have to show up to make your feelings known, and IMHO, that's pushing WP:OWN on an article, telling users not to edit because unless they get a response, it's a no. 14) Even if this was well done and didn't change policy, these are seperate ideas, seperate policies (while related) and they shouldn't be in one policy. 15) One last note, I'm suprised that this has a policy tag. It doesn't have approval from Jimbo, IMO this does not have real consensus, and that means that it fails grounds for policy. Btw, Tjsrf neither number of editors nor edits has anything to do with consensus Questions have been raised about whether the page should exist, and users have tried to put dispute tags on the article and had them taken down, being told that there is no dispute, and I'm disappointed that consensus is being lauded and this merge is being presented as a merge of canonical policy. ATT needs community consensus to keep its policy tag, but having the policy tag during this poll, means that the changes between ATT and verifiability and NOR are brushed over, because, after all, they're all policy. But while verifiability and NOR actually meet the standards for policy and having that tag, ATT doesn't--not right now anyway--consensus may have been lauded, but I couldn't find it. If the policy tag was put on, and consensus fell by the wayside, the policy tag should have been removed and replaced with proposed policy, or at least a dispute tag should have been placed on it. Having a poll asking what editors thought of merging verifiablity and NOR to ATT and ATT becoming policy would have been much more appropriate and would have made up a bit for not letting the general wikipedia population know about the ATT page and proposed policy changes earlier. Miss Mondegreen \| Talk 10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 16) Strongly oppose per Jimbo's initial comments (here and here.), and the way this merger was conducted. -- Vision Thing -- 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose These has been seperate policies for a long time, and are more concise as seperate Af648 10:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 18) Oppose as per Af648 sbandrews (t) 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 19) Strong Oppose No keep the seperate pages and send a clear message to those editors who want to rule over the rest of us and feel the need for a little power trip. --Fredrick day 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 20) Oppose as per SandyGeorgia (Caniago 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) * 21) Oppose 3 clear seperate distinct policies are better than a merger. No need for this merger to take place. Davewild 11:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 22) Oppose With the vast amount of redundant guidelines/essays littering the WP: space, I can't fathom why it was decided to merge these two, which tackle two separate issues. This merger will make it much harder to tackle the acres of pop culture original research as it will retain the misguided defense that articles can be entirely "attributable" to a single primary source while making it harder to point out that articles based entirely on primary sources are contrary to the goal of an encyclopaedia, which should be based on secondary sources, and tend to involve novel syntheses. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 23) Strong oppose - 1: They are, to a large degree, distinct policies. There may be some overlap, but that is not a negative, given the importance of these policies. 2: A large article (which would be too large in this case) is harder to follow and digest, and therefore less likely to be observed. 3: Attribution may be considered by some to be a de facto parent policy (it is not quite like that, in my view) but it would not function well in that rôle. When I was new to these policies, I found ATT - in comparsion to the other policies - to be the least helpful. 4: This seems to be being pushed through - it is not a well-considered, thoroughly thought out proposal. 5: We cannot risk diluting the existing NOR and Verifiability policies. <font color="#4B0082">Adrian <font color="#4B0082">M. H. 12:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 24) Strongly oppose. WP:V and WP:NOR are overlapping slightily in principles, but they are simply not the same thing - and each rule has its own quite distinct raison d'être and context. Here the masses are being asked to vote on something already-decided by what seems to be a few - if you would involve the masses in the developing the idea perhaps you would get a more refined - and practical - one. I suspect that this vote is counting on the "sounds good" crowd to see the motion through - and depending on such sometimes 'easy' input to see such a major change through is not a good thing. With all due respect, I consider it even to be a form of manipulation. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 25) Oppose. Nah, I like it the way it is myself. Though I can see some similarities, and the reasoning to merge I'm the type that likes to leave things as they are. Fr0 12:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 26) Oppose - Verifiability and No original research are different bunnies, and the one is weaker without the other - one can cite verifiable sources with a conetntious reading that amounts to OR.--Red Deathy 12:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 27) Strong Oppose - you can attribute anything. Verifying is much harder. BillMasen 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 28) Oppose I am in general opposed. WP:NOR in particualr is a policy which prohibits particular kinds of content, and is only partly a matter od sourcing or attribution. Something like WP:ATT might be a good joint summary, particualrly for new editors, but the separate polices should, IMO, remain separate. DES (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 29) Oppose. Quite apart from the concerns that people have presented above about the change in Wikipedia policy (as a result of merging two distinct policies and one guideline into one policy), I think there's also the risk that this new page combines several ideas into one, making it more confusing for new users. RobbieG 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 30) Oppose merging WP:NOR. Everything else could probably live together, but WP:NOR is a distinct concept. --BigDT 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 31) Oppose the merger. Also, not thrilled about the evilness of voting here, either. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 32) Oppose - I don't mind if WP:V and WP:RS are merged, as they could easily cover the same material; but WP:NOR must be kept separate; No original research is a focus that defines an encyclopedia and Wikipedia itself, in that it is the publication of a compilation of work from other people, and that needs to be stressed in its own article. Verifiability and reliable sources are important for stylistic reasons, in that for people to write good articles, they need to reference correctly and use the correct type of sources required for a good encyclopedic article. They are different things. This keeness by those few users on WP to merge and wreck every bit of policy is not right - there must be two separate policies for these two things I have mentioned, and ATT doesn't adequately cover either of them, or separate them out enough. JRG 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 33) Oppose - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I agree that NOR is distinct enough to need its own page. pfctdayelise (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 34) Strongly Oppose - The issues in both policies and the guideline are not fully thought out yet, in my opinion. Merger will only compound the problems inherent especially the WP:RS policy which globally skews very many articles WP:NPOV(Sarah777 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) * 35) Oppose merge. Raystorm 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 36) Strongly oppose. Merging the three distinct policies into one is an excessively broad-brush approach from both a practical and conceptual standpoint: * 37) Practically, the policy pages’ most important role is as a guide to settle content disputes, which requires tools of precision. Policy components need to be formulated in bite-sized concepts in order to be of value to users; 38) Conceptually, the merger misses the mark by blurring important distinctions and placing undue weight on peripheral issues, notwithstanding adherents’ assertions that it reflects the existing policies. In particular, the resulting product (‘Attribution’) suggests that the fundamental test for inclusion at Wikipedia is one of form rather than substance. To be specific, attribution was originally designed to ensure a representation of the variety of views that exist on any given subject. Whilst this is a laudible goal (particularly on controversial topics), placing it up front and centre creates the impression that the existence of a source for information is more important than its quality. Whilst all at Wikipedia agree that ‘truth’ is an unachievable standard, the purpose of the policies is to try to get as close as possible to an objective presentation of the facts, i.e. to make sure that Wikipedia is an high-quality, reliable information resource. That central aim is obscured by the current proposal. -- Really Spooky 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Strongly oppose, particularly with regard to WP:NOR (which I think needs to be more flexible), they are distinct, key content policies whose merger would only make them more difficult to evolve further as new problems need to be addressed. The best way to keep them adaptable to new situations, as well as to keep them easier to understand, is to keep them separate. --Jim_Lockhart 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) Strong oppose. These need to remain separate to be a vital Wikipedia resource. I agree that one large policy will easily be ignored. GreenJoe 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) Oppose I also agree that one large resource will be more easily ignored. <font color="#000000" face="Arial Black">Bmg <font color="#009900" face="Arial Black">916 <font COLOR="navy"> Speak<font COLOR="navy"> Sign 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) Strong oppose Something can be attributable, but not verifiable, due to reliable-sources concerns. Everything can be boiled down to NPOV, but that doesn't mean we should. Xiner (talk, email) 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose merge and keep all. Carlosguitar 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose I don’t think combining WP:V and WP:NOR into one policy is a good idea. WP:NOR stands on its own very nicely. I also agree with Miss Mondegreen's input entered above. JungleCat Shiny! / Oohhh! 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Oppose. The existing policies were working, even though there were arguments. This is a huge policy change, not a combination of existing policies. For example, the "unpublished synthesis of published material" section is new policy, not in WP:RS. This "Attribution" page suddenly become policy, just from commentary on its own talk page, which is wierd. --John Nagle 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Opppose the merge. Two reasons: first, "no original research" needs to be retained as a stand-alone policy because of its usefulness in communicating our purpose to cranks and POV-pushers (and its conceptual distinctness from mere "verifiability" and "attribution," which both seem like broader ideas in scope, but also weaker and less specific). Second, as I have said since it first appeared, I strongly oppose the apparent attempt to make WP:RS into policy, since I believe it is a misguided attempt to enforce reliance on (what seem to Wikipedians with all our general systemic biases) majority opinions and mainstream sources, and hence would be a major and undesirable change to policy. -- Rbellin\|Talk 15:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 9) Oppose, not everything can be attributed. Truth is more imporatnt thant attribution and these policies and guidelines should be seperate. They are all different concepts and merging them will only cause havoc and some confusion at first, especially with some editors who are newbies or edit Wikipedia occasionally. WP:RS as policy is a no-no for me. Terence 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 10) An emphatic No: We are talking of different principles evolved over a period of time to be merged into one. In my opinion, it will create more confusion than bringing into any cohesion. Simplicity is a nice attribute, but for the sake of simplicity and popularity, we should not merge things which are different in nature. I am reminded of these words: Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together . --Bhadani (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose. They stand strong on their own, and no longer having them distinct may, over time, weaken how they are viewed. Combining the policies may also discourage further evolution. --Czj 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 12) Strong oppose. Works fine as it is... -- xompanthy 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 13) Oppose. Two different principles, should remain separate. --Bookworm857158367 16:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 14) Oppose per Jimbo and other comments here. NOR is a distinct principle from V. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 15) Oppose I agree with all other comments. They are different principles and should be kept seperate. Computerjoe 's talk 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 16) Oppose, as per all other comments. --Releeshan 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose for the same reasons as everyone else ^^^^. Smomo 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 18) Strong oppose. The arguments above say it well enough. --Sable232 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose. Shmuel 17:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 20) Oppose It is too much to put everything in one policy. Clarity is better served by keeping thi sbroad spectrum in separate parts.--Runcorn 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 21) Oppose benefits if any don't justify the upheaval --BozMo talk 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 22) Oppose Attribution is attribution. It is not a neutral point of view and a verifiable whatever-you-like and anything else remotely connected to it. — $PЯING rαgђ 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 23) Oppose - I think the present policies are fine. --BenBurch 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 24) Strong oppose. This is an obvious attempt to weaken our verifiability, notability and reliability rules to allow unsubstantiated crapola into the encyclopedia. If this goes through, soon we will be citing 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones as a worthy source! MortonDevonshire Yo <font color="#ffffff"> · 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 25) Oppose - We have been referring to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS separately when dealing with newbies, content disputes, and AfDs. Why are we going to change this? I have mentioned this before: the consequences of this merge could be bad. The cons, in this case, outweigh the pros! There will be massive confusion among editors that are currently on vacation, wiki-break, military, semi-retirement, and busy users! They probably don't have the slightest notion that this is happening. Also, we will also have to reinstruct our newbies. Many users use the adoption program, and AFAIK we have taught our newbies the principles of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Would this merger not cause chaos within the little confused minds of these newbies? (I was confused myself the first month I came here). The results of this merge simply does not help the community.--<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Ed <font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">¿Cómo estás? 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 26) Oppose for reasons I stated above (comment beginning "Agree"). Kasreyn 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: my above comment was moved to talk. My reasons were: that I feel far too many WP editors have never bothered to fully read the relevant policy pages in the first place. Combining them into an omnibus will only increase the learning curve and serve no useful purpose. Kasreyn 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) Oppose what is the need for a change and what are the benefits? this has never, ever been explained in a satisfactory way. to me it seems like change for change's sake, and the result is going to result in worse edit wars and more inaccurate content. if anything that is attributatable to a reliable source is allowed in, then any random gossip which happens to be printed in a reliable source somewhere can be stated as fact. current policies prevent this and I would hate to to see this go. with the media scrutiny on Wikipedia right now I think we should be trying to make the encyclopedia more rather than less accurate and the KISS principle also applies. I was a newbie only a few months ago and the form of the current policies was very common sense and very easy to understand. I agree with many of the other comments above. DanielT5 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 28) Oppose, just because I think it is unnecessary and I don't think we should reward people who dick around with policy for fun. The policies are mostly fine as they are, let's change them less and not more. Recury 18:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Oh, and also think polls like this are awesome and we should actively do more to try to get people involved in discussions about policy. Recury 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Strong Oppose, it is completely unnecceary, and basically, I strongly agree with everything in Attribution/against_the_merge. — Ian Lee (Talk - Contribs - Sign - Gimme!) 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) Strong Oppose I don't see the point to the merger in the first place, and I still see issues with how the wording actually changes the meaning of things like WP:RS. Part of WP:ATT states that you can use any source you choose, not just reliable sources. This is a problem, as I could just put something up on the internet and cite myself. Bad idea for several reasons. Not the least, is that I can allow the link to get hits, and google traffic, then fill with adverts, and remove the content. (this has been done before, see this. So I oppose this based on the fact that it is changing the meaning and spirit of WP:RS, and I still don't understand why this merger is at all needed. Whats wrong with the original 2 policies and 1 guideline? * 3) In addition I don't like how my above objections were glossed over, and talk about how to meet my objection did not even happen. I just got one post saying that spam is nolonger a problem due to nofollow, but as I stated in this spam is a problem, and that type of spamming has been done before. 4) * In addition here is something rather disturbing, though this is not my reason for opposing, I do feel that it makes this poll biased. (see this) —— Eagle 101 Need help? 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose. Saying that the entirety of Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable sources can be reduced to Attributability seems overly reductionist. The V/NOR policies may have had problems, but editors are misinterpreting Attributability in new ways. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Gimmetrow 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose. It's a good idea to have the ideas of each all in one place, but it's a poor idea to do so for the purposes of making new policy. If we wanted, we could merge all of Wikipedia's policy into one concise page, but it would be ridiculous and thus it's the same thing here. It's fine as it was. └<font color="#0084C9">Jared ┘┌<font color="#009E49">talk ┐&ensp; 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Oppose over-merging these essentially different ideas. Andre (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose I think the counter-arguments outweigh the arguments in favor. --D. Webb 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 9) Strong oppose. Everything can be attributed, and as such, this policy will weaken the already sometime miserable quality of wikipedia further. Although it looks like a simple merger at this time, over time, people will go by he word itself and it might very well become a perfect tool for POV pushers. We need a strengthening of policies, not weakening. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose. The policies proposed for merger are not similar; there is a fundamental difference between WP:V and WP:NOR. A lot of original research which is found in Wikipedia articles is of the "synthesis" type, and is perfectly verifiable; it is the putting them together which constitutes the original research. In general I am attracted by the argument of simplifying things, but here what is proposed is a simplification by ignoring these fundamental differences, and that is damaging. Sam Blacketer 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose per Wales and other arguments against merger. Distinct and separate policies are to remain as such. ~ UBeR 19:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 12) Oppose. The policies are more intuitively and easily understood as separate entities, especially WP:NOR. Wasted Time R 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 13) Oppose. Links to WP:NOR should not also be links to, e.g., WP:V. Sdedeo (tips) 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 14) Oppose WP:V was originally about the use of sources to enable fact checking, and for most editors still is. This merge into WP:ATT is another step towards abandoning any sense of aiming for accuracy in articles, leaving the accuracy of attribution as the only issue. And that would be a bad thing. --Audiovideo 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 15) Oppose - They may seem the same initially, but there are differences, even if they're subtle. Sources can be verifiable but not the most reliable; you can have verifiable information that's still original research. I prefer things as three separate, clear pages. Crystallina 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 16) Oppose. Partly because the ideas are different, partly because Verifiability != attribution, and partly because you could attribute something that will violate NOR but pass V/RS. - Penwhale \| Blast him / Follow his steps 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose all. Under the current policy they would become, I think it would too confusing for many users, both new and old, to tell someone they are "out of line" when doing something. Telling them to keep going back to the same policy again and against will probably earn the person who warned them an "eff off" and continue doing so, thinking its just some elitist policy and that they don't give a ... crap. To me, all three ideas are different and do not deserve to be merged together. Disinclination 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 18) Oppose I see no benefit to collapsing the three items into one, and I can see a few negatives. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose It has been said that people are more likely to look at one page than three. However, people are far less likely to get the message from one huge concatenation.--Brownlee 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 20) OpposeI feel that there is a distinct difference between the concept of "Original Research" and "Attribution" that may be lost in the merge. I am not actually opposed to all original research either. But I think for controversial issues, the distinction should be maintained. But I also should say, some of the work in the new article should make its way BACK to the others. I also think RS should be better in giving a sense of priority with regard to the quality of sources. --Blue Tie 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 21) Oppose mergers. The merge into WP:ATT is exactly opposite of what should be happening. Simplifying and condensing multiple policies/guidelines into one policy only dilutes the policies and makes it harder to defend Wikipedia against editors who do not have high standards for citing reliable sources. We should go back into the history of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and revive all of the good examples that were previously provided for how Wikipedians can work towards finding and using reliable sources. These policy pages should provide good examples of how to make the distinction between doing the work that needs to be done to evaluate the reliability of sources and accurately express the meaning of sources without allowing unwanted original research to slip into Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 22) Strongly Oppose I think that the "contradictions" need to be cleared up, but that merging the policies is a step in the wrong direction. Clarity is one thing and so a combined policy may need to be implemented above these pages which is much less specific, but these pages need to remain seperate. Adam McCormick 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 23) Oppose I think the clarity, readability, and ability to comment upon these policies is better served by their remaining separate. Lastly, the ability to easily point to a reason why a change was made in some other article is improved by having the pointers be more specific. --LDC 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 24) Oppose. The three distinct ideas behind these three policies are best reinforced when kept seperately. Italiavivi 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 25) I Oppose. What does No Original Research have to do with Verifiability & Reliable Resources? Original Research is Verifiable. Two different policies here, not three.Niubrad 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 26) Oppose. Much of the above, plus I object to the "reasonable adult" clause being dropped. Azate 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) Oppose WP:OR and WP:RS provides many additional useful detials as to what is and isn't a reliable source that WP:ATT simply doesn't cover.--Sefringle 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 28) Oppose. Wikipedia's policy and structure are an anarcho-tyranny: law without order, a constant busybodying about behavior that does not derive from a shared moral consensus. Nothing here changes anything. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Oppose While it may be nice as a guideline or an FAQ, the policies it attempts to merge are different enough that they deserve to remain seperate. -- Avi 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 30) Oppose Three distinct ideas are distilled in these three policies, and they seem to be effective.Fconaway 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 31) Oppose. The way I see it is that WP:NOR is the fundamental principle and must be kept. WP:V (or WP:ATT) is a quasi-mechanical means to that end. Allowing the means to replace the end, or supercede the end, or obscure the end, is not a good idea. <font color="#DF0001">Buck ets ofg 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 32) Oppose If wikipedia is to maintain ideals such as verifiability, etc. then these should be individually listed and explained. Merger only makes sense if "attribution" is the new standard; which encompasses far more possibilities than these three parts, not that I am opposed to this as some current standards are too strict, but if one wishes to keep the same strict standards then one must keep the same specific delineations and explanations of policy. --Belg4mit 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 33) Oppose. I'd be happier if the policy of reliable sources had the flexibility of a guideline. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 34) Strongly Oppose. It is important to have the specificity that the separate policies offer. Stating that a page fails to achieve Attribution does not have the same power as specifically saying violates NOR or RS. It hampers effective communication that makes for better editors. --Robb0995 05:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 35) Oppose Shouldn't be jumbled together as such but would keep "Attribution" as a general short summary of the three policies to help instruct new editors. - Patman2648 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 36) Strongly Oppose. "Reliable sources" needs to be kept a guideline. And '"attributable ... not whether it is true"'? No way. --Lukobe 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 37) Oppose, per the excellent points made by the first comment, User:Rednblu. The policies should remain separate. If anything, the individual policies should be separately discussed, expanded upon, and allowed to evolve each in their own right. Smee 06:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC). * 38) Strong oppose Merging separate policies into one page will make it harder to see the distinction between the different, and very important concepts. cyclosarin 06:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 39) Strong oppose Even as a relatively new editor, who has nevertheless created several articles, I realise that WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS are some of the core policies of WP. Lumping them all together in one will weaken them and I see no reason for this. By all means discuss and modify the three existing policies if necessary, but do not take away their importance by merging them together under a new policy.Ivygohnair 08:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 40) Oppose with proposal I have been thinking about this for about a week now, and I don't think there should be a merger as such. The trio of codes - WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are clarified enough, and as in any legal-type debate they may be interpreted slightly differently by different users. No code in history of mankind has ever been free of interpretation, so why this sudden urge to clarify? Well, WP:ATT may serve as a starting point to the trio, as in an introduction or summary, but the original needs to be kept and should ideally supercede the introduction or summary. These codes may be organized in a portal-like format (Tutorial may be a good example) for better access, along with cross referencing. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 08:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 41) Oppose Keep the policies seperate. Merger would eventually lead to inclusion of all borderline cases as such will contribute to the pollution of Wikipedia. Felis Leo Talk! 09:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 42) Oppose merging guidelines and policies together is just that. A bad thing. Grue 09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 43) Oppose merge seems to obscure different, relevant, ideas for good editing. -- Craigtalbert 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 44) I oppose the merging of three separate and distinct codes into one, on the basis of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "Keep it simple!" Creating one "super-policy" will tend to confuse and confound, rather than to soldify and simplify. I applaud their efforts, but I must state that I believe the basic reasoning for this merge to be faulty. In order to recover from "Essjay" and all the other controversies lately because of attribution, original research, or reliability, I believe we should indeed redefine and possibly rewrite what these standards mean to us, but not to combine these codes. Just my two bits.... - NDCompuGeek 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 45) I Oppose the replacement of No Original Research" and "Verifiability" by a single policy of "Attribution". I would not mind if the policies coexisted as different formulations of the same basic principles. I do not believe that any kind of reformulation of the basic principles for using sources and references will cause new editors or editors without academic training to suddenly understand it all at once. No matter what the policy is called we will have to explain it in detail everytime a new editor joins us, and in my eyes it is to explain it on the basis of the existant policies than it will be with the new one. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 11:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 46) I Oppose the replacement of No Original Research" and "Verifiability" by a single policy of "Attribution" if you want to keep your Attribution page, keep it, but don't crop the three into one lone page.--The Joke 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 47) Oppose - It is simpler as different policies and since the people who violate the policies tend to be on the "slow" side, the policies should be as simple as possible. Also, it is confusing to have no original research grouped at a policy called "attribution". -- Kjkolb 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 48) Oppose as per SandyGeorgia, entry number four. --Ministry of Truth 12:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 49) No on WP:ATT. No on the merger idea at the moment.--Klimov 12:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 50) Oppose i think that the system is working fine currently, dont mess with something unless it doesnt work. Twenty Years 13:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 51) Sure why not? --StevenL 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * Are you saying ‘sure why not’ do it, or ‘sure why not’ oppose it? -- Beobach972 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Oppose The merger of these guidelines under a blanket policy called "attribution" waters down the individual policies. Editors inexperienced with conflict are much less likely to understand "you've violated the wikipedia attribution policy" than they are "you've violated the wikipedia policy prohibiting original research." --Sixtrojans 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Oppose; SandyGeorgia and others bring up good points. There is no good reason to do this, as far as I'm concerned. This poll is also quite one-sided in its presentation at the top; there are no points given against the proposal. Ral315 » 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Oppose -- The current policies should be clarified into stronger policies not merged into a weaker one. --PTR 15:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) Oppose -- The existing policies do appear to have some overlap, but that is because they deal with the same subject but from differing points of view. The existing policies (and the one non-policy that somehow got promoted while the smoke was thickest) are sufficient. — SWWrightTalk 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) Mildly oppose -- A combined page would have its uses, but would be large and unwieldy. I can almost see the newbies' faces as their scroll bar shrinks rapidly at the sheer size of a page like that. We're not doing ourselves any favours by putting off new users, especially with such an important page as this. Besides, look at the server load! Carrot Man 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose -- I think that they are much clearer for new editors when separated out into three individual policies. —Jeremy (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Strong Oppose Oppse because something can be properly attributed but still be original research thus violate policy. Clearer when seperated as they presently are. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose. The old titles are much clearer and can clarify the exact reason for wanting deletion on WP:XfD. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 9) Oppose – Separate policy pages make linking to the relevant policy easier, and strengthens the (IMHO very helpful) three-pillared approach (everything's better in threes). Lexicon (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose-these are all different things, as you can have an unreliable source, but that is different from doing your own research. Also, three pages (it is three right?) will be much more concise and easier to understand than one long article. Patar knight 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose. Keep the old guidelines clear and separate. Enough said already. NVO 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) Oppose. The ultimate effect of the new WP:ATT policy will be to lower the quality of sourcing in Wikipedia. Chapeau D'If 18:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Strongly oppose. - In controversial topics (not just scientific ones, either), RS is essential to prevent nonsense, or anonymous IPs posting so-called "reliable info" from their own websites. OR, RS, and V answer three very different questions: OR says "Did you find this or do it yourself?" RS says "If a group with an agenda on a topic says something outrageous, is it appropriate to add?" and V says "Did someone make this up or is it real?" ATT seems to be "It's OK if it came from someplace, we don't care where." The original three policies do not apply equally in all cases (a souce can pass V and OR and still not be RS). Therefore, they should be separate. ATT undermines the encyclopedic process. MSJapan 19:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) Oppose - agree with MSJapan above. -- Jeff3000 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 15) Oppose - I'm relatively new here and I find the separate policies helpful. WP:ATT is encyclopedic itself in scope, and a daunting barrier to entry for new contributors. Not broken, don't fix. -- Townlake 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 16) Oppose. (1) In my opinion, never has there been given a clearly stated, good reason why the policies should be merged. I do not like the "less words are better" argument and "a different name is better"; I think a better policy is better. (2) I think the reliable sources part must be hashed out more. The wording in the old reliable sources policy is much stronger in my opinion, and I worry that the new policy makes fending off POV-pushers more difficult. That some think the reliable sources policy is strengthened while some think it is weakened concerns me. It should be obvious to all that this is an improvement. (3) Finally, it should not be ambiguous as to whether policy has changed, which it seems to be by reading the discussion. Olin 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 17) OpposeThere are serious doubts regarding the merger, and no convincing reason for it. Merging the pages will serve no purpose other than to increase confusion of diseperate concepts. Nathanww 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 18) Oppose Allof them are very different. Also, all of them are lenghthy alone. To merge them, a ton of information eould have to left out for the WP:ATT to be readable. ɱў ɭ ĩє What did I do wrong 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Done in good faith, I'm sure, but leading to bad results... muddling up exisiting policies that were clearer as separate documents, making changes that seem likely to loosen standards, potentially compromising the work of many hard working editors.zadignose 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 20) Oppose Keeping these three principles separate is the best way to ensure that these essential ideas clear for everyone. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth talk 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 21) Oppose. "No original research" is an oft-forgotten rule. It will forgotten even more often if it is demoted to a subsection of a larger page. Additionally, I strongly oppose having an ATT page at all, unless it's just a "nutshell summary" which clearly states that the individual NOR, V, and RS pages contain the official policies. Otherwise, I foresee endless confusion when one editor accuses another of violating the NOR subsection of ATT, and the second editor says No, I am obeying the NOR policy as stated on the NOR page. — Lawrence King <sup style="font: small-caps 10px arial; color: #129dbc;">( talk ) 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 22) Oppose The three separate pages are long in themselves, and the merged page is simply gigantic. I don't think WP:Attribution could be reduced to a manageable length without losing something important. Also, the pages' titles summarize their meaning; with WP:Attribution, we would have to visit the link to know what we were being referred to, and the referrer would have to put an anchor in the link. --Brilliand 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 23) Strong oppose Each of the topics is sufficiently important and nuanced to deserve a focused treatment. I think WP:ATT is well intentioned, but in the end such a broad-brush approach is apt to cause more confusion than it resolves. Raymond Arritt 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 24) Strong oppose Merging these is completely pointless and takes away from the importance of each specific policy. —Sarcha 45 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 25) Strong oppose—I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of merging these pages before each of them is thoroughly rationalised. The arguments presented by the proponents ignore the psychological effect on editors (particularly newbies) of a large amount of information in one place. Nothing wrong with links. Tony 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 26) Respectful Oppose. I don't think the merger will make life simpler in the long run, and the ideas behind each existing policy are distinct. GChriss <always listening> <c> 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) weak oppose, while I see the benefits of merger but I am worried it makes it more complicated for editors while refering to them as they can't be clear which part of those 3 they mean.Farmanesh 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 28) Oppose per above→ Lzy<span style="color:green;" title="Lzygenius says: Talk to me!">Genius 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Oppose These are separate concepts, they often, but do not always overlap. Grouping distinct problems into a single monolithic category will promote confusion and abuse. This proposal sounds superficially reasonable, but the briefest reflection proves it is unwise. I hope some of the supporters listed above will reconsider the matter. --Osbojos 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 30) Oppose There is no "right answer" here. One could argue for merging all policies into a single document. But Wikipedia, young as it is, has developed a culture and I believe that culture is a vital component to its success--more vital than the exact wording of its policies. The terms V, NOR, RS, NPOV, AGF, etc, are part of the language of that culture. We have thousands of pages of discussion where those terms are used. Merge the terms and over time those discussions, where various boundaries have been hammered out and consensus formed, become meaningless to newcomers. Absent a compelling problem with the existing structure that can't be solved any other way, I think the importance of retaining our traditional policy structure weighs against a merge.--agr 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 31) Opposed formerly supported this, but after reading this my mind was changed. Chris M. 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 32) Oppose. (1) I disagree that all of the relevant information survived the move from the original policy pages to WP:ATT; (2) in the case of revision to WP:ATT such that everything did survive the move, this would become a merge for merging's sake. Dekimasu よ! 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 33) Oppose It is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to create an overarching word like "family values," or attribution, for policy that we can apply to all concerns. Frankly, I don't see any solid arguements regarding going against sticking with specificity. -- Wikipedical 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 34) Oppose, keep the different concepts separated. (SEWilco 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)) * 35) I oppose this proposal. Neither the verifiability nor the NOR policies are broken; the problem lies in the existing policies actually being applied and enforced. Why waste all this time combining the things we have now, when we should be focusing on using those things? --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 36) Strong Oppose The three separate pages clarify the separate ideas, and I think we can afford the bandwidth. As has been said, Original Research can be both verifiable and reliable, while verifiable non-original research sources can be biased and therefore not reliable. I see no reason for this merger. -User:Umdunno 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 37) Moderate oppose. In the discussion phase, I distinguished between "no original research" and "verifiability" because you can have one problem without the other, and the overlap is not clean. Specifically, I believe the "synthesis clause" (WP:SYN) as a subset of WP:OR should not be lumped together with fundamental verifiability. First cite your references (WP:V and WP:RS); then we can worry about scenarios where there is WP:OR even with the references. Note that I am willing to merge WP:V with WP:RS; I just think WP:OR needs to stay separate. YechielMan 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 38) Oppose Things are fine the way they are. Let's keep the policies seperate. Raj712 06:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 39) Oppose. A good idea to move to simplification but will only lead to confusion. If it ain't broke don't fix it. —Moondyne 06:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 40) Oppose. A merge would make it more difficult to those less familiar with wikipedia to understand policy: the current names are clear, but attribution will not be clear or apparently relevant to many users. Drmaik 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 41) Oppose. I like the way it was, separate pages. 99of9 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 42) Oppose, on ethical, substantive, and procedural grounds: * 43) No compelling rebuttal has been adduced to Jimbo's observation that, "While policies like WP:V and WP:NOR are interrelated (as all of reality is interrelated), they are significantly different ideas and radical reductionists who see them as really being the same thing are, in my view, badly mistaken. When I say that something is original research, and when I say that something is unverifiable, I mean different things by those statements, as I am focusing on a different kind of deviation from good editing." * 44) People resort to and rely upon an encyclopedia in search of what is correct -- not merely what has been "attributed to a reliable source". Therefore, Wikipedia's standard of inclusion must trace back to truth. WP cannot be passive toward sourced but patently mistaken content, nor need it be aggressive toward undersourced but undisputed content. * 45) WP:ATT's consensus, as Jimbo noted, has been assumed rather than demonstrated. WP:OWN has taken root; dismissing input and inquiries, refusing to engage dissent, mischaracterizing disagreement as misconstrual or incomprehension, and peremptorily locking out non-cabal editors. Worst of all, in the consolidation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, changes in emphasis and prevalent divergence in practice somehow went unnoticed so that these official policies got reified, perhaps unintentionally, into something that strikes too many of us as foreign to how articles in Wikipedia are actually edited. No changes may have been intended, but changes are perceived nonetheless -- yet furiously denied. Lethiere 08:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 46) Oppose I'd prefer to keep them separate. Quadzilla99 08:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 47) Strong Oppose:These three pages deal with entirely different aspects of WP's articles. Merging these topics into one does not seem appropriate. Bowsy (review me!) 08:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 48) Oppose It may do no harm to combine all three policies but there is no clear benefit to doing so to me and it may lead to muddying the waters in some cases. - Dan D. Ric 08:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 49) No', they are different concepts and I don't see that there is anything to be gained from putting it all into one page. Existing policies should be improved and reworded if there are issues with understanding. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 12:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 50) Oppose I think it would be better not to keep them separate. - Kleinzach 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 51) Oppose different concepts, no clear benefit to merging them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjohnson (talk • contribs) 13:11, April 2, 2007 * 52) Oppose They are different, keep them separate. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 53) Oppose Although these are related concepts, they are different, and having seperate policies/guidelines enables a much more nuanced look at the issue. Combining them all together results in a confusing mess, replacing clarity with murkiness. As the usual argument - why fix what isn't broken? These policies have a successful history - no deficiency is obvious, or even articulated with any significance. Consensus for the change only appeared to exist because those of us who'd oppose weren't watching - many of us would, could never imagine anyone screwing around with those policies. WilyD 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 54) Oppose per Dan D. Ric -- <font color="#0f6e0a">Boothman <font color="#5c9337">/tɔːk/ 14:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC). * 55) Oppose I think it would be better not to keep them separate. Ulflarsen 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 56) Oppose: As was said before, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Simplification is good, but such important and distinct policies (and guidelines! Mixing of policies and guidelines = bad idea) shouldn't be considered as one. . V . [Talk 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 57) Oppose - I applauded and even presented a barnstar to SlimVirgin for proposing an attempt at simplification, but it just didn't work out well. Too many people see subtle differences between the pages. Too much history, too much confusion over whether it was promoting RS to policy instead of guideline status. Too much detail lost in trying to merge them together. Not worth it really. File the whole thing away as an interesting learning exercise. Archive WP:ATT, and progress as we were before. Johntex\talk 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 58) Oppose Like most experienced wikipedians, I can see that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are 3 sides of the same stone. That said, I would prefer if they were kept as seperate and distinct policies rather than merged into one metapolicy such as WP:ATT on the basis of the following arguments: * 59) If WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are demoted to subsections of WP:ATT, they lose a great deal of their punch. * 60) Although it is obvious to experienced wikipedians that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are interelated, it is not so for newbies. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS better help newbies understand wikipedia as they are more accessable and to the point than WP:ATT * 61) I have a feeling that this proposal has been foisted on wikipedia without there being any real WP:CONSENSUS that it is needed. The support that the proposal is gaining now is more to do with bandwagonism than consensus. * 62) WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are here to stay as long as they are distinct policies. Make them subsections of a metapolicy such as WP:ATT, and it suddenly becomes a lot easier to get rid of them at some point in the future. * 63) Jimbo Wales seems strongly opposed to the proposal, and no convincing rebuttal has been made to the concerns he raises here--Fergie 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 64) Oppose: Merging NOR, V, and RS makes it more difficult to say in an edit summary why an individual edit is being rejected or called suspect. I really like the ability to say in an edit summary: 'Edit fails WP:NOR (No original research)'. 'No original research' is a semi-obvious phrase that a casual editor who doesn't spend all their time politicking and reading policy can understand, and may not require a round of 'But it isn't original research!'. I think a policy's title should nutshell what the entire page is about to reduce editor misunderstandings. Rejecting an edit on 'Attribution' grounds is only semi-obvious if something isn't "Attributed". Original research can be "Attributed". This is going to cause confusion over and over again to editors that aren't familiar with Wikipedia. On a related note, I had no idea that WP:ATT had become policy until this debate went public a couple weeks ago. How many Wikipedia editors have been using WP:V and WP:NOR in edits and talk discussion without actually knowing that the policies were defunct? This strikes me as a problem. I understand that this was considered to be a public debate, but it certainly appears to me that major policy changes do not disseminate reasonably to the community when put in place, much less proposed. I would oppose this change on the grounds alone that I didn't know that a major foundation policy changed without my knowing, and now an attempt is being made to retroactively ask for the community's approval. The fact that I don't check policy pages daily is not my problem. This is something that the admin level (where changes are proposed) might take into consideration. Skybunny 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 65) Nope. --NathanDW 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 66) Oppose - supporting many of the objec~tions above, and simply because instructions or objections which are not even specific is too easy, in fact we could rather consider getting more detailed, not less. Arcarius 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 67) Oppose: Perhaps we should just merge the Bill of Rights the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution into one document. I mean, they're the same principles of equality, liberty and good governance. I happen to like compartmentalization.--Patrick 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 68) * Funny you say that, because Bill of Rights is part of Constitution ! Wikiolap 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 69) Strongest possible oppose -- WP:NOR has nothing to do with attribution. This merge would be akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole simply because the hole is there. <font style="border: 2px solid DeepSkyBlue; background-color: Black; color: Chartreuse; font-family: sans-serif; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 100%;">Doc Sigma <font style="border: 1px solid Grey; font-family: times; background-color: White; color: Grey; font-size: 75%;">(wait, what?) 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 70) Oppose Insufficient time to consider alternatives and ramifications; apparently this has been discussed for months, but I only became aware of this in late March when things were set in stone. (This may not be a popular view, but) Multiple guidelines promotes ambiguity, which promotes inclusion. We are losing good material because people are too quick to delete others' hard work, instead of helping to research and improve existing articles. Avt tor 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 71) I oppose the reduction of a complicated three-page tripod to an unstable monopod monster. Like Armed Blowfish, I believe WP:ATT has value as a summary/essay page, but not as our guiding policy on this subject. -- nae'blis 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 72) Oppose: Short, simple policies are more effective when communicating with other editors. Longer overall guidelines like attribution can be useful for discussion, less so in the day-to-day, and is not appreciably better. NOR is particularly important, and is stronger on its own.--Gregalton 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 73) Strongly oppose. Each individual policy has merit on its own, just because they are loosely related, doesn't mean they belong together. A talk page link to WP:ATT does not clearly express the point of policy "violation." On the other hand, I support ATT being factored into a guideline page. In this case, an WP:ATT link can cover all the bases for a newbie who is unaccustomed to the whole, and linking a string of three policies in a row could scare them away. Also, strongly oppose the "vote."—Twigboy 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 74) Oppose two very different concepts that don't link well--Lepeu1999 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 75) Oppose it will add confusion and serves no purpose to merge two entirely different concepts. --Dr. WTF 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 76) Oppose Each individual policy stands on its own, is important, and likely to get brushed over and overly simplified in one, larger, clumsier policy. If UNIX has taught me anything, it's to appreciate the philosophy of 'Do one thing, Do it well'. The merge will only hinder the project in the future. - M <sup style="color:#990011">ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg\|20 px]] 20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 77) Oppose - trying to combine too many distinct things into one policy will make it confusing. I think it works fine how it is now. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 78) Oppose The existing policies are separate and need to be kept separate to make it clear what form of correction is best. While broadly related to attribution, it's much clearer to explain, especially to newer editors, when we can point to a more narrow and specific policy. Also, as other editors have pointed out, there are substantial procedural issues with how this is being done. --Wingsandsword 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 79) Oppose. Separate, focused policies are clearer. r speer / ɹəəds ɹ 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 80) Oppose. Separate, focused policies are more useful for explaining to new editors why we have altered or rejected a sentence. No advantage to combining. Stupid idea. alteripse 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 81) Oppose. Although I'm unhappy about the way this has been handled, I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of streamlining the existing policies. However, I'm not convinced that WP:ATT is strong enough yet to stand as a better alternative, and as this poll demonstrates it certainly doesn't have the consensus of the community (at the time of writing the vote ratio stands at about 5:4 support/oppose). I think we collectively need more time to ensure that the strength of our policies isn't compromised and that we have a sound consensus on this issue. -- ChrisO 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 82) Oppose. I feel that the individual policies and guidelines need a few more years of organic growth. The proposal would fundamentally decrease the flexibility of the individual documents. <font style="color:Blue;";><font size="+2">H aus <sup style="font-size : 6pt ;"><font style="color:Green;">Talk 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 83) I oppose the general merger of the documents. I'd support a proposal like the one Pengo put forth (at 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)), but for the purposes of this poll, my vote is one of opposition to the merger. -- Beobach972 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 84) Oppose - while this merger makes a neat little ideological package, it also makes the individual concepts from which it was merged less accessible in actual use. Grace notes <sup style="color:#960;">T § 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 85) Oppose. Unfortunately, this huge, important concept on Wikipedia cannot be adequately explained in one page. The three concepts are separate (though they may be interrelated) and can only remain so. -- King of &hearts; &diams; &clubs; &spades; 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 86) Opppose No original research, whatever its pros and cons, is a useful meme and is distinct from the concept of Verifiability. Whiskey Pete 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 87) Oppose. While I see small amounts of overlap in what WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS cover, I don't think merging them into a single page makes things any easier on editors wanting to learn about how Wikipedia works. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * Oppose because this has been calamity from the beginning, WP:ATT appeared as a completed merge of 2 key policies and a guideline. Jimbo then stepped in to slow the process and allow broader discussion to be followed by a poll. The last piece I read in the discussion as to when the poll was starting was major technical details this which has a coloured box stating that the poll was going to commence on April 2nd 00:00 UTC, and that another discussion about wording of the poll wasnt going to end until 23:59 March 30. yet inside 24 hours of that discussion this poll had been commenced, given that the closure/archiving/commencement of this occured so quickly I find it impossible to assume good faithin those actions Gnangarra 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) compromise position see below Gnangarra 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Oppose - I agree with Jimbo that it is helpful to keep distinct policies distinct. DickClarkMises 04:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Oppose - Different ideas, different pages. Eclecticology 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Oppose - Each of the seperate concepts are unique and should not be merged. It is much easier for editors to deal with the seperate problem. In this case, combining them will make each weaker and the combined result weaker as an editing flag. Argos'Dad 04:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) Oppose No original research, whatever its pros and cons, is a useful meme and is distinct from the concept of Verifiability. andyman 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose - I don't see the point of the merger. It also seems to move away from the concept of truth, to a weaker concept that allows disinformation and propaganda to not have to be labelled as such, but rather passed off with a back-handed "gee, there was an article about in the paper, so lets just blandly accept it here without bothering to be critical". linas 05:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) OPPOSE TO ALL, for the reasons cited by SandyGeorgia regarding the "expert problem", and Bainer regarding the "three key content policies operate in different ways", and also Rednblu's point regarding "verifiability vs. attributability". I also point out the confusion of those who voted in support such as Walton, Tewfik, Josiah Rowe, and Dysmorodrepanis, as additional reasons to question the measure. Mark Faraday 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Mark FaradayMark Faraday 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Oppose - Keeping them separate keeps their messages strong. Midnightdreary 05:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose. Combining it lessens the impact, and would end up either causing an extremely long page or a rather undetailed page. It has more risks than benefits basically.-- Wizardman 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 9) Oppose - The page would be to long and would combine policiy pages that are not directly related and should be kept seperate.--E tac 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 10) Strong Oppose Having two distinct articles will be useful in clearly defining the two distinct rules. Merging will add to nebulousness and will enable admin whim-rule. Madhava 1947 (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose - Separate ideas should be on separate pages. And this gives too much focus on "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth" which doesn't sound like a very good idea as it's possible to find a source for almost any claim. Vints 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) Oppose - The seperate policies are easier to navigate around and are far more specific to their topics, they give greater clarity Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Oppose per differing subjects of the policies involved and belief that truth>attribution. -Seventh Holy Scripture 09:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) Oppose – although I can live with the merger, I don't think it is an improvement. I like to see WP:RS remain just a guideline. That said, I think much of the wording in WP:ATT was an improvement and can be used to make WP:V and WP:RS clearer. Also, I prefer the term "attributability" over "verifiablity", and if the merger is rejected I hope "Wikipedia:Verifiability" can be renamed to "Wikipedia:Attributability". --Lambiam Talk 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 15) Oppose NOR and Verifiability are different concepts dml 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 16) Oppose they are two different concepts, one can do verifiable original research, but then it's stil original research and vice versa. C mon 11:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose Blurring the distinction between the policies is in no way going to benefit Wikipedia. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat <b style="color:teal;">©</b> 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 18) Oppose Easy access to editing, and well thought-out, more complex policies is one of the things that makes Wikipedia what it is. While it's true that WP:ATT may make things more accessable (a good thing), it comes at the cost of the latter. It's better we have a bunch of new editors that don't adhere to policy, but have a clear policy for allowing articles to fall in line with Wikipedia policy as they evolve, rather than blurring seperate policies. Fact is, if you're on WP long enough, you're bound to learn the guidelines no matter whether they're a bit more "complex" or not. --CA387 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose If I say that an edit violates WP:ATT, what does that mean? Is it completely fabricated? Is it something that nobody could possibly verify? Does it cite a dubious source? How does anyone know what part of the policy I had in mind or what I think needs to be fixed? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 20) Oppose The WP:NOR is a quite clear directive in itself and can be almost universally applied. The extra burden WP:RS does not require the same level of strict adherence. If no doubt on validity is raised for a paragraph, the content can stay. −Woodstone 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 21) Oppose. I think it's a great idea to trim the policy pages where possible, as I think one of the reasons Wikipedia isn't so approachable is that it's complicated -- politically and semantically -- to edit. Here, I don't think it's possible. The involved topics are independent, and merging them does a disservice to the requirements they support, and to the overall quality of the corpus. -- Mikeblas 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 22) Strongly Oppose - The current rules are not confusing. And if an editor is in fact consfused about them, they can be educated during discussions. these are 3 issues are essentially unrelated and combining them is arbitrary. a source is either reliable or not (in a certain field), and that is seperate from whether a particular statement cited from it in a certain context is actually taken out of context and thus OR. A fact is either attributed or not. research is either advancing a position or not. having it as 3 seperate guidelines/rules keeps arguments between editors focused on the specific flaws in an edit. And making reliability something of an absolute rule may tend to exclude good information outright (such as reports of eye witnesses) or grant reliability to sources on the basis of technicalities rather than common sense and reason.TheDarknessVisible 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 23) Oppose all. All "streamlining" smoke screens aside, this is a policy change designed to disfavor inline citations & favor attribution in the References section. --Ling.Nut 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 24) Oppose. Separate policies are easier to understand and explain to newcomers. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 25) Oppose Policy is already too conservative here. A merger is going to require that we make the policies very rigid. Frankly lots of areas on even major policies are badly explored by cases and case law. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 26) Oppose the proposed WP:ATT. It's merging different concepts. --Wtshymanski 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) Strong oppose all. Although idea behind it is a good one (simplification and unification of rules), too many serious problems were expressed in comments, essays, and discussion pages. Implementation of ATT in my oppinion would encounter many difficulties. It would be an interesting experiment to make a few clone pages of examplary articles edited under existing policies, and then edit them under ATT policy. That would give more insight into the possible issues of the proposed policy. I think that this kind of experiment should be essential before making such a significant change as is a merger of above mentioned policies. In particular, I see a problem with some wording in the policy, and that itself is a strong enough reason for opposition, as debate and changing of wording would effect in a way all 3 current policies, as they would be merged. Also, a merger of 3 policies into a single policy page is not really succesful as there is also a second page Attribution/FAQ, so essentially, there will be 2 instead of 3 pages - at what price ?. Finally, the 'newbie' argument at first seemd resonable to me, but after reading WP:ATT, I realized that actually it would be much more confusing to me to be refered to that page that is overvelming with info, than to specific separate pages as I was refered to in past, and easily have learned specific rules. Lakinekaki 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 28) Oppose of the dangers wikipedia face original research is a far greater one than lack of citations. The merger would weeken our protection against insertion of crank material. If a crank inserts material saying No Original Research is a clear message that the material is not suitable for WP, saying we only allow Attributed material allows them scope for argument. --Salix alba (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Oppose The merger totally wipes out any ability to use a primary source as verification. Verification and attribution aren't the same thing. Further, it elevates parts of WP:RS to policy that are heavily disputed. I'm not opposed in the future, it's a worthy goal and I see the advantages, but this version isn't it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 30) Oppose There are currently huge differences of opinion about what is a WP:RS, depending on the subject matter. WP.NOR is similar in concept but I much prefer to keep WP:RS over WP:ATT. Chrisbak 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 31) Oppose I oppose the merger - the pages are clear as they stand now. However, if the majority vote is positive and the pages are merged, WP:RS and WP:V should have distinct, easily-linkable sections within the new page. Kat, Queen of Typos 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 32) Oppose. These are all broad, distinct concepts, and should not be merged into one. An overall explainatory page would be okay, but the policy pages and the policies themselves should remain distinct. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 33) Oppose per Derex. --Tsunami Butler 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 34) Oppose. I don't see why we need this. The current setup works just fine to weed out false information, and enforce attribution where needed. However related these three policies are, they're all distinct, separate guidelines, and are needed separately. Truth is more important than attribution, since the goal of any encyclopedia is to provide accurate, true information. -- ...Wiki wøw 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 35) Oppose. Keep them as separate policies. Rsheptak 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 36) Mild opposition. I can see why people would like it, but I don't see a reason for it; it's fine the way it is. thesublime514 (Talk) 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 37) Oppose. I've refrained from commenting on this poll until now, and was initially tempted to abstain or cast a neutral ballot. I have no strong opinion on the merger as such, but have decided to oppose it on procedural grounds, and also because of lingering concerns that the switch from "verifiability" to "attributability" will not be as straightforward as some have suggested. CJCurrie 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 38) Oppose Epistemologically incompatible concepts. The original pages should be kept as definitive policy and ATT can be kept as a thumbnail intro to the relationships among the concepts (which is valuable) but not definitive policy (too confusing). ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 39) Oppose per above. --Peta 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 40) Oppose The three pages represent distinct concepts and should be kept separate. -- Scratchy 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 41) Oppose for all the reasons mentioned. Tuf-Kat 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 42) oppose for reasons mentioned --<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 43) Oppose - WP:V and WP:NOR are clear and distinct concepts that become muddied in WP:ATT.BRMo 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 44) I completely oppose ATT, because attributability is not the same as truth, and there is a necessary and distinct difference between the two. I favor the idea of a summary article, but find ATT inadequate and innacurate for such a purpose. I also believe the procedure to initiate such a controversial change has been poorly done- if the proposed change is accepted, then proposed edits should be considered between the two parties. If the proposed change is rejected, then enough distaste has been shown for the current guidelines and policies that change should be considered outside of ATT.(I respect Jwolfe's, Lethiere's, & SteveBaker's opinions). Lackinglatin 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 45) Oppose per above arguments.--cj \| talk 04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 46) Oppose The three pages that were established made the policy clear. WP:A in my current opinion seems to weaken the entrenched polices. WP:A is better suited to summarize the 3 policies, not to replace them. -- RiseRobotRise 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 47) Oppose these policy pages need to remain as 3 seperate pages, needless to say this means keeping them 3 seperate policies. WP:V doesn't even really have anything to do with WP:NOR. Might as well be saying WP:NCR is official declared policy if you want to merge those two. <FONT COLOR="#67DDEE">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF">or</FONT><FONT COLOR="#00CCFF">ms</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFFFFF">cape</FONT> 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 48) Oppose * I conclude that the proposed changes will lead to a decline in the quality of Wikipedia, in such a way that readers will conclude the encyclopedia is unreliable because it is sloppy with the truth. Others who are also strongly opposed have already stated my reasons for this conclusion so I will not repeat them again. * I have been very active in the short time I've been a registered editor, and studied the various pages (V, NOR, RS) being discussed to improve my skills; I did NOT see any serious deficits in those pages. I am VERY ANGRY that at no time was I advised this change was being perpetrated. That situation serves to reinforce and harden my opposition! Badly Bradley 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Oppose It's better to be specific with the policies. I don't like the merger. --Mardavich 10:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Oppose. I agree with all of the above comments. The three existing policies served their purpose quite adequately. Combining and condensing them in such a way loses some of the original meaning and makes the policies less clear. I also do not like the use of the word Attribution. What's wrong with the word Verifiability? Dahliarose 11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Oppose Citing sources, although desirable is not a good substitute for facts or truth - look at Creationism as an example - this implementation would lead to a fuzzier and weaker encyclopedia which cares more for pluralism and subjectivity than the truth.Breed3011 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) Opppose I agree with having three distinct and separate policies. I do not consider them to be directly related. As a result I do not see the benefits of a borad encompassing policy. Additionally, we are all creatures of habit. Having a new policy will confuse many people, from long time editors to new editors. Finally, I am mildly annoyed that the first mention of this proposed change only appeared as a little box on my watchlist. I would have liked to have participated in the initial discussion. --<font face="Rockwell"> Cyrus Andiron t/c 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose The three policies concerned are quite distinct, and I can see nothing to be gained by merging them. Robmods 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose - Oppose for the following reason: Virtues ought not to be conflated. --Knucmo2 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Strong Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Jpeob 13:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose -- this would not be a disaster for Wikipedia, but it's a bad idea. Reducing instruction creep is a laudable goal: by all means, let's reduce the endless manual of style pages and huge variety of notability/inclusion guidelines, but these are THE critical core policies of Wikipedia and the need to be accurate about them overrides the need to simplify here. WP:NOR and WP:V are not the same thing, though they may be related.. and I agree that WP:ATT needs to embrace the importance of truth a little more strongly: truth may not be the critical test for inclusion, but neither should truth be ignored. Mango juice talk 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 9) Oppose -- Keeping these separate makes it easy for Wikipedians, especially new Wikipedians, to simply and quickly learn what they did wrong without going through the entire Attribution article. Attribution is linked to from all three sources, and serious Wikipedians will read it anyway. --FeldBum 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose --As per above. I agree that all three have uses, and keeping them separate keeps them simple to learn and enforce. --Bobak 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose -- without reading any of this page... I would say leave it as is. One look at the title, and the contents of the page is clear. --Leon7 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) Strong Oppose As proposed, this seeks to do too much in one action. If there are clarifications to be made in the wording, then they should be made in the individual policies. If the articles are to be merged, then that should be done without changing the meaning or context of the current wording. The two cannot be done together without limiting the necessary debate on each of the changes proposed. Jim Miller 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Strong Oppose Three distinct topics that apply to three distinct situations. The "simplification" comes at the expense of nuanced exposition. --Javits2000 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) Oppose in this precise form at least. I think an overall attribution page is no bad thing, but it should broadly summarise the other three pages (which remain the main policy/guidelines), with Template:Main links to them. Not only is the topic simply too big for one policy page, very often one of the old guidelines is more relevant to a particular dispute than others; it's highly advantageous to have one self-contained article explaining the issue from that angle. --Scott Wilson 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 15) Oppose Policy change in this manner is unacceptable. Wikipedia policy can not be written by a small group of people pushing their own agenda. The old policies should be reinstated ASAP. Rtk28 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 16) Oppose deprecating old good policies, Attribution can be a summary of those policies, but they must remain in power. --Jannex 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose as per the arguments outlined by User: TheDarknessVisible in his/her 16:49, 3 April 2007 post. Nightscream 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 18) Strongly Oppose and agree with the lengthy analysis given by fellow opposing voter SandyGeorgia. It just going to muck things up and make it ever so much harder to introduce these policies and concpets to new editors. LiPollis 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose for the same reasons as oppose vote #96 by Ed at 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 20) Strong Oppose - WP:NOR alone is vital enough to deserve its own discussion and not be diluted. I disagree with any degradation in the clarity or strength of the key policies here. Having these three separate allows for important discussion on them that is lost in a more-inclusive document. Of course, we could also just take the minimalist tack to heart and just have one policy - No Jodas (vulgar Spanish for "Don't Fck Up"). This would be similar to DICK: No definition of No Jodas has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are screwing up the project, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. --Justanother 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 21) Strong Oppose The three policies proposed to be merged tend to come up in quite different situations -- OR is not really the same thing as using an unreliable source. It's much more user-friendly to direct people to a specific page rather than a section of a larger one. Reducing the number of pages is not really "simplification" when the single page is long and cumbersome, with a over-abstract summary, while the original three pages each clearly address a specific point in the first paragraph. I'm also disturbed at the removal of "verify" from ATT, as argued in the statement against. Dybryd 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 22) Oppose NOR and V are different concepts. Also, I fear that one large document is more likely to be ignored. --HJensen, talk 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 23) Oppose. The current three pages are much more user-friendly than the new huge one. Attribution also has to have a section to introduce what a reliable source is. Then why not keep it separately? --Neo-Jay 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 24) Oppose. I think they should all be kept separate. When helping a new editor understand policies, it's easier just to direct them to ATT as a summary rather than to OR, V, and RS; however, when an editor is making edits that go against a particular aspect of the policy, it's easier to direct them to a page that deals only with that particular aspect. --Psyche825 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 25) Oppose. Comprehensibility trumps a monolithic link. --Ancheta Wis 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 26) Oppose. New editors need something specific. Directing them to a large page explaining multiple (even if they are somehow connected) policies and telling them to read the whole page and find then apply the part that is relevant to the situation won't get a result. Bennie13 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) Oppose - I really see no good reason to proceed with a merge. Things work as they are and there's no need for such a merge, per reasons above. There's not much more I can say that others already haven't. WP:ATT should remain as it is. SMC 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 28) Oppose - The article ATT is lovely, clear and easy to understand, but it is quite different from the existing policies. I might be in favor of some sort of merger of the NOR and V policies because as a relatively new editor I have found their inconsistencies confusing, BUT, ATT does not just merge it changes. --Tinned Elk 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Oppose - K.I.S.S. too much information on one page. there is a reason for abstracts, executive summaries, and subpages. abstracts, executive summaries, and subpages exist to emphasize key facts of a particular document, and deemphasize detail that may be distracting or overloading. it takes me about thirty seconds to entirely refresh THIS SECTION UNDER THIS HEADING ONLY. if readers need detail, then turn to the pertinent section. example: simplify this straw poll and make three headings: * Support * Oppose * Other * παράδοξος 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Oppose. Separate concepts. --Benn Newman 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Stronge Oppose. I think these are three seperate concepts and should be kept seperate. I think this is a case of it not being broken, so it shouldn't be "fixed". Kolindigo 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Oppose per SandyGeorgia. I too believe that these are separate concepts, and that they have each been changed by their merging. Risker 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) Oppose. I'm with Rednblu (comment #2) on this one. While WP:ATT doesn't necessarily change policy as broadly as some might suggest, leaving "attribution" as the only standard opens Wikipedia articles for a whole slew of false and misleading information that would otherwise be considered vandalism. Some say verifiability was never about "truth," but how can we expect editors be bold in removing even sourced and attributed statements that provide undue weight to one side or another or are libelous to a living person? WP:ATT means that these kinds of statements must remain and be given equal weight in an article as long as they are sourced. Some say ensuring equal time adds to Wikipedia's credibility. I say it detracts when if WP:ATT winds up giving every little crackpot point of view or rumor a platform by including them in articles. I may be over simplifying things, but the passion this debate has engendered on both sides should make us step back and rethink this process.Dcmacnut 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose each of those articles is already too big and combining them would just make it harder to find information you might be serching for. J.L.Main 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose While the idea of a one-stop article is good, it should have followed the Summary style: the "merged" one to be a summary, rather than the "core" policy. Still, a good work has been done in streamlining the merged policies, so the efforts are salvageable. `'mikka 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Strong Oppose Oversimplification of our core policies will lead to a bohemian policy that will most likely either get ignored by the masses (overly complex) and probably a target for nuanced interpretation by new users. I also oppose on the grounds that WP:V becomes less important, especially with regard to truth vs. verifiability. /Blaxthos 05:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose Two separate issues, not using wikipedia to publish your own research, and remembering to cite and verify sources. Two topics, two articles. TaigaBridge 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 9) Strongly opposed, per Jimbo Wales and numerous other comments above. I would support it as a synthesis page, but strongly oppose WP:ATT as a policy page. Blank <font color="#F88017">Verse 07:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose, per many of the comments above, in particular the excellent summary by SandyGeorgia, as well as the comments by Navou, Thor Malmjursson, O^O, Gwen Gale. Merging the separate policies risks the loss of the organic elastic interaction between them, as users quote the pages in their discussions. This resilient structure absorbs, contains and inspires deep explorations of how the various aspects of policy interact, resulting in unique forms of consensus that are not possible to predict or summarize. Merging the separate principles into one document, makes them hierarchical, over-simplified and less lively. Quoting ATT could imply an understanding of the whole set of interactions between the previously separate policies, even though such a deep and complex interaction is a process which is continually growing and improving. The interplay between the separate policies is expansive, positive and valuable. By keeping them separate, we continue the organic evolution - that takes place especially on the article talk and user talk pages - more than on the policy talk pages. By merging them into one "monolithic" policy page with sub-pages or sections, the resilient flexible structure is at risk of becoming stiff and brittle. See tensegrity for an analogy of this. Parzival418 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose, per above - YuanchosaanSalutations! 09:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) Oppose Many above have stated this eloqently but for me, the key issues are: Different topics, but related and that guidelines and policies differ . --Dweller 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Oppose I just don't see why they all need to be merged to one. Each one has something a little different to say and makes more sense linking to than the Attribution page. The Placebo Effect 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) Oppose The status quo maintains three separate concepts - they are easy enough to locate and to understand - there is no reason why WP:ATT should be a catch-all leading to an inevitable diminution of valid debate. Strider52 \| (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 15) Strong Oppose -- Stingray23464 * 16) Oppose — So what do you tell those POV-pushers who misrepresent a source to suit their own needs? "No Original Research" (or NOR). Telling them that it's a WP:ATT violation is a much weaker statement.--Endroit 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose Sam Staton 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 18) Respectfully Oppose I came to a conclusion that the two policies in question are not one thing, despite the appearance, and to conjoin them is unnecessarily restrictive. I started to write an essay about "truth" in wikipedia with my reasoning (pure logic, basing on other principles of wikimedia/wikipedia), but unfortunately had no time to finish. Mukadderat 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose Without saying the existing pages lack problems, there are too many subtle changes in the new page & I'm not sure combining them into one would be easier to work with. Johnbod 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 20) Oppose Merging these important polices into a single page has no real benefits. Instead, it will just make quoting specific policies in any given debate more difficult. Grokmoo 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 21) Oppose I am of the disposition that, though an interesting proposal, the merger may prove counterproductive in terms of the retention of readability, clear distinction of separate ideas, and article length; it may ultimately detract from helpfulness which must be avoided at all costs for aspects of policy. Sifting through the quagmire of policies can be difficult enough as it is, and with all due respect I feel the size and amalgamatory nature of the resultant page may prove alienating, especially for relative beginners such as myself. The Geography Elite 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 22) Oppose While I respect the efforts by so many editors to produce a unified and clarified policy-level statement of fundamental and interrelated core Wikipedia principles, I find that WP:ATT is neither that desired Holy Grail, nor a suitable replacement for the policies and guidelines it seeks to supersede. My objections are several: * 23) I agree with Jimbo Wales that each of the impacted \|policies/guidelines is an ingredient unto itself and they are not reducible to a single, flat-earth perspective. Further developed, ATT could serve as useful summary (à la WP:5P) that describes the unified objective that they seek to uphold and how each separately contributes to that whole, but as a unified policy, it does serious damage to its parts. 24) It seeks to elevate RS from guideline to policy – but in a form that I believe is actually harmful to the intent of RS. In particular, I agree with SandyGeorgia’s observation disagreeing “that ATT merges existing policies, rather that existing policies were molded to [fit] ATT...”. “Attributability” actually greatly waters down WP:RS and, to a degree, WP:V. 25) I concur with szyslak that RS should be strengthened, but it is unclear to me that the guideline “seed” should become a policy “oak” – or whether it is even an achievable goal. 26) While a great deal of work by numerous editors went into formulating ATT, the proper process was circumvented, which it should not be for the “revamping” of such a cornerstone concept of what Wikipedia “is” – and that should begin with whether something like ATT is desirable, needed, and just what it should/should not cover. 27) I further deprecate this poll in that it is both misleading (in intimating that only a simple consolidation of existing policies is being contemplated) and had no consensus before being activated. As SMcCandlish points out in his objection regarding this poll’s rather cavalier handling of ATTFAQ, “it misleads poll respondents into believing that this is a 2-into-1 or (with RS) 3-into-1 merger, when in reality is it a 3-into-2 merger or even 2-into-2 (ATTFAQ would exist whether it incorporated RS material or not).” A “consolidation” or “condensation” of scattered policies ATT is not. The sense one gets is that some few “activists” intend for the whole thing to be ramrodded through an illusion of “due process”. There’s a reason so many editors are being “surprised”. If ATT is worthy, it will – and should – go forward on its own merits. That said, there has been considerable good work and deep thought to much of the material found in WP:ATT and I would hope relevant parts will be migrated to the “heritage” pages for their improvement. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Oppose. Concepts need to retain their distinction. -- <font color="#000099">LeCour T:C 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Oppose. I cannot see the point. Life is confusing enough as it is. This change just makes it worse.--Toddy1 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Strong Oppose if the words "not whether it is true" are included without sufficient qualification. "Verifiability, not truth" was fine. "Attributable" is fine by itself. But the new wording which says "not whether it is true" without qualifying those words changes the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia in a way which is far more fundamental than whether the policy is written on one page or two. Just because some people see the new words as meaning "the same thing" doesn't mean there aren't quite a number of us who see an important distinction; the connotations of the dictionary definition of "verifiability" are not necessarily completely removed when its meaning is clarified in a later sentence. Many alternative wordings have been proposed and have received little or no discussion. This needs to be resolved before there can be consensus for a merge. "Wikipedians do care about the truth", as WP:ATTFAQ says; "not whether it is true" would contradict that in a discouraging and dangerous way and puts Wikipedia's reputation at stake. ...... As a lesser issue, I dislike having the words "Wikipedia is ... not a publisher of original thought" prominently placed as the first sentence of the page. These words disparage the creative processes by which Wikipedians regularly transform collections of facts into original, flowing narratives; the words are negative and discouraging. Having them at the top of a No Original Research page is not as discouraging as seeing them first every time one looks up a detail about attribution policy. --Coppertwig 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) Oppose Has been pretty much stated above over and over agains. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť (Talk) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) Oppose. While there are some legitimate reasons offered for merging the articles, it seems that the methods and mechanics of creating the merged document and assuming its acceptance have harmed its credibility. For the good of community cohesiveness we should not allow this go forward. The benefits do not outweigh the negatives. <font color="#FFFFFF" face="Bazooka"> JB Evans 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose per several of the good reasons above, first and foremost easier navigation and better specialisation. Totally unnecessary is also very true. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Oppose. These policies need to be differentiated so new editors can remember each of them, and are important enough to have separate pages. --Galaxiaad 01:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) Oppose All of the policies of WP:ATT are fundamentally different and should not be merged. Lacking a very good reason why the policies should be merged, it serves no purpose but to cause confusion to merge them. It is important to note that there is no tangible problem with the policies as they are presently, and thus the confusion of changing them should be avoided. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 9) Oppose Something is lost in most mergers, and the result will be a watered-down policy. While the word "verifiability" should be replaced with "attribution" (a more neutral term), there is no need to merge "No Original Research" into it. NOR is a completely different concept.<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000">R <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">yak <font face="arial, helvetica">ł <font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">talk } 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose Kicking out the stable yet brilliantly flexible tripod of V, NOR, and RS and replacing them with a less flexible monopod isn't a better foundation, though I agree the effort was a well intentioned simplification. Easy to understand is different from easy to use. —EncMstr 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, the three ideas are different from one another and the merger gives inappropriate emphasis to attribution. Keeping the ideas distinct makes them easier to explain to newbies. Buddhipriya 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) Oppose They are three different things 'not' one big thing, there is no need to change it.--Wiggstar69 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Oppose Agree with Wiggstar69. WP:ATTR can be a short summary of V, NOR and RS, but should not replace them. They are each unique in their own way and need no replacement at this time. --SoWhy Talk 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) Strong Oppose I've run into problems with editors who scream to the high heavens that just because something is in an RS, it auto-qualifies it for inclusion. I see this merger as a weakening of the guidelines for ensuring truth and accuracy in Wikipedia. Tarc 13:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 15) Oppose. The argument: "Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia?" is conclusive for me. "Verifiability, not truth" is a much clearer, more accurate and more elegant expression than this clumsy "attributability to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" monster. I appreciate the effort to streamline Wikipedia procedure for new eds, but the ATT page throws up a whole host of much more serious problems for established eds by conflating issues that should remain distinct. -- TinaSparkle 13:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 16) Oppose but concededly for reasons tangential to the change. Since "[t]he core of the [WP:ATT] policy ... [is that] [t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true," I must oppose any change which further imbeds a view that I consider to be profoundly misguided. I believe that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia should be accuracy resting on facts "attributable to a reliable published source." Facts should always and in all circumstances be attributable, but in my view, provided that articles conform to NPOV, arguments not only need not be externally attributable, but requiring them to be so gives POV editors a sword to wield against attempts to correct plainly wrong information. In short, NOR suggests that WP would rather an article be attributable and wrong than accurate. That is a poisonous doctrine, and an open invitation to POV. While I'm not necessarily opposed to unifying various policies into a single statement, I oppose any policy change in which "no original research" - as a term or animating premise - has ongoing vitality or lacks an exception for clear accuracy. Given the above-stated views, and because I think this merger will make it yet harder to change a requirement which sounds reasonable on its face but is profoundly harmful in fact, I must vote to oppose. Simon Dodd 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 17) Oppose In my experience, the more specific the constructive criticism (and the individual tags used for this purpose) the better the remedial action subsequently taken.Wikityke 16:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 18) Oppose merger of WP:V and WP:NOR. I think both policies are weakened by merging them.--Malepheasant 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose for many of these reasons stated above. Most compelling to me: * 20) "Verifiability", "Reliable Sources" and "No Original Research" are better names than "Atrribution"; as someone put it: "merely citing them makes the point." This is especially true working with editors that have <300 edits. 21) It's unrealistic to expect a newcomer to really read all of WP:OR+WP:V+WP:RS…or a longer WP:ATT. I suspect perhaps 5% really do this initially. The Simplified Ruleset is a much better place to send them to start -- you might get as many as 40% skimming or at least reading a chunk of it. (Note: shrink the preamble at WP:RS and you might get 50%).--A. B. (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 22) Oppose. Simon Dodd says it clearer than I could. Dr Zak 18:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 23) Oppose for the reasons stated by Scott Wilson (no. 288) above. Deor 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 24) Oppose for reasons stated by SandyGeorgia — Dave101 →<i style="color:red;">talk</i>→<i style="color:red;">contributions</i> • 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 25) At work, we try to keep functions doing just one thing. A function named "show_cat" can't show every cat race. On the contrary, a function like "show_animal" would be extremely long. Therefore, I oppose a merge. I agree with some opinions that Attribution should stay as a summary, but as it was done, it covered just too many topics to be effective in all of them. -- ReyBrujo 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 26) Oppose, not because I don't like WP:ATT, I think it's a great policy and would unreservedly support further work aimed at reducing the number of policy pages, but ultimately as noted above I like having a single, solid, easily understood, easily assimilated page which says no original research, and I view this concept as fundamentaly different from attribution. You can do original research and still attribute every word of it. Yes, I know, the attribution guideline does make that point, but I feel that merging NOR does serve to dilute its impact. I could, over time, possibly be persuaded otherwise, and I certainly see V and RS merging into this and becoming redirects, but NOR is crucial and should not be weakened in any way, even if that weakening is only in the eye of the beholder. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) Oppose. WP:ATT is a great page and SlimVirgin put a lot of hard work into it but I feel like it is just summarizing two separate topics, "no original research" and "use reliable sources". Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 28) Strong Oppose. When Jimmy Wales says that this is "a monumentally bad idea," I think we should take heed. — B <font color="#4F7942">rien C <font color="#4F7942">lark Talk 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Strong Oppose. WP:ATT would be a good guideline or easy catchprase to remember. But as Einstein said, "Make your policies as simple as possible -- and not simpler!" WP:ATT makes it too simple. if users remember the catchphrase, they may be tempted to neglect reliability. Note, that's not the best reason for rejecting this policy -- it is merely a distinctive one that Attribution/against_the_merge did not sufficiently address. The best reason may be that though WP is not paper, it is an institution, and as such, core policies should not be changed -- better to modify V and OR. There are problems with V, but replacing it with A is not a good solution. --Otheus 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 30) Oppose. Separate concepts, deserving separate policies. Captain Infinity 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 31) Oppose, though in all honsety, I can't describe the reasons why. DanTD 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Neutral/qualified/compromise/other "See also alternative sections in this survey: In broad support of WP:ATT & In broad opposition to WP:ATT" Refactoring note: If you replied to someone else's vote, it may have been moved to the talk page, see here. * 1) (Refactored)V-Man - T/C 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) I oppose Attribution being policy. I support Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, should people choose to maintain it. Otherwise, it can be marked as historical. In such a summary, I support Verifiability and No original research being kept in the summary. However, I strongly oppose Reliable sources being part of WP:ATT. Firstly, I believe WP:RS is more of a Neutral Point of View, particularly WP:NPOV, issue than a WP:V/WP:ATT one. Secondly, this blurs the distinction between policy and guideline. Thirdly, WP:RS has been historically controversial when it comes to the details, and it is best if it has it's own page for us to attempt to reach consensus on. I am neutral about whether this poll is in fact open or not. — Armed Blowfish (talk\|mail) 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC), 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Since there have been comments on the talk page about the justifications given, I'd like to expand on my reasoning. A summary page may be good for newbies who prefer to do as little reading as possible, but these are separate concepts. Many people find it easier to focus on one concept at a time. Consider the size of the working memory. It is often better to break things up, but have more text total, than throw too many ideas at a reader at one time. Being separate concepts, it is also easier to discuss them separately. In addition, people trying to reach FA status, or who are in a concept dispute, may want as much advice as possible, and hence might prefer the more in-depth policies. Also, perhaps it is just me, but I find some aspects of the writing of ATT confusing, e.g. the multiple different kinds of "attribution", only one of which is what is meant by the word in NPOV. * To expand on my objection to including RS in ATT, or getting rid of any part of RS that wasn't already in V or NOR, I'd like to point out that this increases the discord between WP:V/ATT and WP:NPOV. To be brief, ATT implies that reliability and inclusion are binary, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." (second sentence of WP:ATT) "Threshold for inclusion" and "whether" make this a binary condition. NPOV implies that reliability an inclusion have degrees. "divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources." Also see WP:NPOV. * Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) WP:RS should not be promoted from controversial guideline to core policy. People shouldn't make changes while saying "We're just clarifying what was there!", and then turn around and claim that nothing at all was changed. And all opinions which are not "Yes, every part of this idea is good" or "No, every part of this idea is bad" shoudldn't be lumped in this section as they are. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * I, liked Armedblowfish, support Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, but I do not have Armedblowfish's qualms about including WP:RS in the summary. Thus, I think WP:ATT should summarize WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS but I'm unconvinced that it should replace any or all of them. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * I'm with Jersyko on that. WP:ATT can be used for general reference on the broad policies regarding attribution, while it will still be useful in the future to be able to refer to the individual WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Even a brief mention of WP:CITE would keep it in context. Having this system will keep Wikipedia organized and familiar in the same style for those who are navigating WP:PAG for the first time. V-Man - T/C 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) I Moderate Support Oppose WP:ATT -- Merger is nice to help clarify these policies into a more definitive one. I do believe the merger shortens the definitions down too much however. Their current form does not represent the former policies and all that they entail. MrMacMan 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Let me try to clarify my views -- WP:ATT is a great thing. The summary of the 3 policies is very nice to have... but it shouldn't replace them. I don't believe in this 'poll'. Keep it separate, you can have this as a guide... not policy. MrMacMan 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) I support the concept of merging the articles, but I do not support putting attributability above truth. False content should not be included just because it is attributable. Jwolfe 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) I do not care what happens. I think there's too much fuss over exactly where the information lies. It shouldn't matter where it is, so long as it exists in an easily accessible location. The page isn't important; the content is. --clpo13 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) Erm... Neutral? While I do agree that WP:RS should definitely remain separate from WP:ATT, I don't object to the union of WP:NOR and WP:V in WP:ATT, provided there is broad concensus to do so. -Jeske (v^_^v) 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) weak abstain Salad Days 06:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) I strongly protest this poll. I can't even tell what "merge" means, which is why I'm "voting" everywhere. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Neutral I like the wording of WP:ATT, I think it is an easier read for new users, which I'm clearly for, and lays out good ideas for an encyclopedia. I'd probably support it in some form as wikipedia document. In the end, both WP:ATT & (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR) reach for the same goal but use different terms to achieve that goal. Whether or not we should replace one set of terms for another is a question that I'm not so sure about. I'm concerned about consistency as far as old discussions go, but wikipedia is a constantly changing document so that would work itself out shortly. In the end, I don't think either option will effect things much as long as we a lot of smart people working together who are friendly enough to bring new users into the fold. — Mitaphane ? 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Partial opposition towards merging in RS. I'd also strongly prefer merging WP:NOR into WP:V name, rather than pulling out a new policy. CP/Mcomm \|Wikipedia Neutrality Project\| 09:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Partial opposition due to the merger of large portions of WP:RS into the policy, since this would promote that material to the status of a policy even though it is currently a guideline. A determination of whether WP:RS should be promoted to policy, and what form that policy should take, should be a wholly separate issue from what has been purported as a procedural merger of WP:V and WP:NOR into a policy that is equivalent to the two policies in their separate forms. --<font color="Black">Dachannien <font color="Blue">Talk<font color="Green">Contrib 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 9) Partially oppose because adding WP:RS into WP:ATT changes the essential balance of V+NOR with NPOV as "twin pillars". The ATT treatment of "reliable sources" is far too simplistic without mention of bias. Issues of systemic bias have not been answered in discussion. I could support ATT now if the RS material in it is stubbed while work on that aspect continues; or in future I could support a bigger, more balanced reworking with NPOV too. VSerrata 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 10) Oppose the poll. It does not serves to build consensus; it just splits the "population" into two blocks. There are supporters of WP:ATT that might include WP:RS and those that might keep WP:RS (like me). No, totally biased poll that I won't be part of. --Neigel von Teighen \| help with arbs? 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 11) Qualified Support * 12) Given that policy is scattered ... without a doubt the structure of wikipolicy is generally scattered and untransparent, where most users don't even know how to tap in to reading all the wikipolicy - in fact I don't even know of a complete wikipolicy directory! and 13) Given that policy is untransparent ... admins and editors alike constantly refer to policy without linking - especaially in AfD discussions - where once again policy is unreachable, unfamiliar, scattered, etc 14) *Therefore I support in principal a merge (if it will help policy centralisation and policy transparency ) - 15) *With the following qualifiers: 16) **1) The existing policy articles are kept intact for an extended period of time (e.g. 6 months) before they are remove, if at all, 17) **2) The existing policy articles are to remain part of policy - even if this means amending the policies with community consensus. 18) **3) The WP:ATT article is to have anchors such as WP:ATT 19) **4) There must be shortcuts or redirects to anchors , so that 20) ***WP:ATT-RS will link to WP:ATT and 21) ***WP:ATT-NOR will redirect to WP:ATT 1) **5) Any and all policy must be ratified by community consensus 2) On those terms I give a Qualified Support Rfwoolf 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 3) Qualified support per Rfwoolf. Berserkerz Crit 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) Qualified support - the original three policies were partially overlapping, rather long, and IMO three sides of the same issue. A compact attribution policy page would be easier to digest, especially for newcomers. Some objecters make valid points about the new policy being different from the three old ones together. So an Attribution policy page would be better a reasonably short summary rather than a replacement of the three old policies. Boundary cases and more esoteric examples can stay on the V/NOR/RS pages. Han-Kwang 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 5) Keep all, have ATT as a summary-style policy of the other three, allowing people to refer to any one or all three together easily. I don't see the need to only have non-overlapping policies. —Pengo 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Partial Support For merging especially Verifiability and Reliable sources. Although IMO, No original research seems a bit different then the first two and probably should stay separate. --JForget 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Support with qualifications I like the idea of consolidating and simplifying the regulations where it would seem to contradict itself. However, I'm still a little concerned about it being an official policy. That's too strong for me. It should instead be a guideline. The reason being is that policies are too rigid to handle each individual case. For example, I could find sources to say that African-American people are feeble minded. I absolutely abhor that notion and think it's totally untrue, but it could be cited as such nonetheless. I think this brings up a huge issue that is beyond the scope of this discussion concerning Wikipedia. Do we want to be correct or do we want to be verified? We need some way of weaving out the fiction, published though it may be. I certainly don't have the answer to that.--Analogue Kid 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 8) Keep all per Pengo - ATT could well sum up the basic principles of these different areas, but they also need there own more extensive discussion. We're not limited in our ability to provide space for each. bd2412 T 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Compromise/Neutral" section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk\|mail) 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Apathetic Who cares where the policies are written? Hardly anyone will read them anyway, let alone follow them. More to the point, people should stop wasting time on policy debates and get on with writing the damn encyclopedia. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Compromise/Neutral" section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk\|mail) 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Wikipedia editors could be having discussions over whether the content of the various articles on WP was, in fact, factual or not. Instead they are being diverted to these omphaloscopic discussions. Why? RandomCritic 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Compromise/Neutral" section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk\|mail) 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Marginal support I'm not opposed to the idea of a restructuring of these pages, and I don't feel that the arguments against it hold much weight, but I'm not convinced that all of the concerns relating to these policies are satisfied even by the merger. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Support some merger, but not this one." section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk\|mail) 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 1) Keep all and rename WP:ATT. Some points WP:ATT makes, particulary in the expanded FAC, are useful - I certainly support expanding and clarification on existing policies. However merging WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS, per Jimbo, is a confusing and bad idea, not to mention that the very name - 'attribution' - simply furthers this confusion, as new users think more of 'authorship' than v/or/rs issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 2) Keep all, at least for a year. That would be most convenient and actually least confusing for new users. Let's be careful, especially since there is no clear consensus.Biophys 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 3) Neutral. I think the merger is harmless. It may be helpful to consolidate core policies in the area of attribution, but I am not sure it is necessary. It actually may be better to use our own summary style here: WP:ATT for a broad overview, retaining specific explanations in the other three pages. —ptk✰fgs 21:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 4) I'm NEUTRAL It didn't matter. [The previous unsigned commented was posted by, 22:15, 31 March 2007] * 5) Not interested This is really boring, lets just write the bloody thing the best we can and to heck with policies. Excalibur 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 6) Merge the general idea of all of the polices into ATT, but keep the original pages as detailed information. Merging all of the above policies into one page seems feasible, but I have a feeling that merging everything into one ATT will tend to confuse users. This ATT concept is unrelated to the Heredity concept, where the topics there are so close together that they just cannot be separated, whereas ATT can be spread out in a few pages. V 6 0 干什么？ · VDemolitions 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) * 7) Merge but Keep Shortcuts. The idea of having all the information together is a good idea, but it's extremely useful to be able to have a shortcut such as WP:NOR which goes directly to the information relevant to that particular problem. --Tim4christ17 talk 00:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) None of the above. Excessive policies are the opposite of what wikipedia stands for, and the more details used when defining them, the less productive of an encyclopedia there will be. Stick with general overviews and guidelines. Not policies. Bushytails 02:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 9) Compromise. I like the idea of WP:ATT being a summary page, à la the five pillars. However, a full on merge seems like a solution to a nonexistant problem. There's too much detail on the individual pages to neatly merge it all to a single page, and it would cause unnecessary confusion with the hundreds of thousands of links that point to the individual pages. -- NORTH talk 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 10) Neutral, oppose as complete merger. Like many, I believe that attribution can exist as a summary of all three as a broad policy, but each one is integral and deserves a seperate article. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) Incredibly Strong Neutral per Borachio. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) Don't Care This is so pointless. --Thankyoubaby 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Neutral --Nitchell 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) I disagree with the way this poll was forced on the community. I think this action is polarizing (not the vote, as VIE advocates believe—but the mandate!). It may have the effect of making users who marginally care about the issue at hand comment on it, which makes conclusions even harder to glean. The boss also confuses me with this action, because I have been told over and over again that WP is not a democracy. When you advertise something very broadly and many users show up to chime in, you have all the appearance of a vote—regardless of how anyone suggests the results might be interpreted (and I don't think anybody has suggested anything; all the rosier! Let's see if a poll comes out the way we'd like; then we'll tell the voters how we'll respond to it!). I'm tired of semantics: the semantics of whether or not ATT changes policy; the semantics of whether or not this is a "vote". It's the kind of thing that would make Orwell roll over. * My main concerns with ATT are pragmatics related to transitioning to a new policy page, and the possible loss of clarity in being able to point to this or that part of the concepts involved. The short version is that I would support ATT with a stronger emphasis in its "lead" on NOR, RS, and undue weight (linked to NPOV); and with new, simple, shortcuts (WP: style) to the traditional parts of it. –<font color="#112299">Outriggr § 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Couldn't care less. Doesn't matter - V and RS probably belong together, maybe not OR, but who cares? This is such a waste of space. And voting is very, very evil - but once Jimbo stepped in like that we were going to wind up with a vote, inevitably. What a waste of breath this has all been. What's the difference? Moreschi Request a recording? 09:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) I protest this poll because it's been forced on me when I don't care. -iopq 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Makes little difference in the grand scheme of things... Moseeki, 13:42, 1st April 2007 (CEST) * 4) Waste of time Why are we always splitting hair like that over questions like this, instead of writing an encyclopedia? At this rate, soon we will be discussing which is the correct side for peeling boiled eggs! --Itub 12:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 5) Weak qualified support per Rfwoolf. When giving people advice, particularly those new to the project, I think it's extremely important to be able to give them a direct link to the exact part of policy that is relevant. Therefore I think that anchors and redirects to them are very much necessary if the community take the decision to go ahead with a merge. I do agree that the merge will be a good thing if it succeeds in making the policy simpler to understand and more coherent. Will (aka Wimt ) 16:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) Oppose RS being promoted to policy Would support if that single issue could be addressed. RS suffers from not measuring relative reliability of sources. It's promotion to policy would be a serious error. Jd2718 22:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Neutral. Good and bad to both. But there's clearly no consensus to merge. --JayHenry 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) * 8) Merging WP:V and WP:OR makes a lot of sense to me. I oppose merging in WP:RS; policies should state the concept of relying on reliable sources, with the operational definition of RS left to guidelines. Also, as others have pointed out, WP:RS has as much to do with WP:NPOV as it does with the rest of WP:ATT. Kla'quot 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 9) Keep all, ATT as overarching summary guideline. Non-contradictory overlap is good, see Pengo above. steventity * 10) Oppose both the status quo and ATT proposal The V/NOR/RS troika is flawed for the reasons stated, but I don't like ATT because it doesn't do enough to keep out of date information out when new information contradicts it. BenB4 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 11) As per j e r s y k o, I, like Armedblowfish, support Wikipedia:Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, but without qualms about including WP:RS in the summary. WP:ATT should summarize WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS, but it should not replace any or all of them. SmokeyJoe 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 12) I favor merging WP:V WP:OR and WP:RS for the time being. On the one hand I've not seen how it works. On the other Simple is better. Jplatt39 10:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 13) Neutral On this due to the fact that I'm new here and haven't really had time to use or refer to the policy. But, I would like to just comment. I can see the point for putting all the key points in one policy/page, though I feel that for detailed understanding, would it not be wise to keep the pages that exist? By this I mean have a special easy to read and follow page for a quick guide line of the other three, but for detailed scrutiny go to the relevant page?Artypants 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 14) Neutral, the idea of merging this stuff to reduce the number of policies was good, but given the large opposition, it should be dropped to save everybody from spending more and more time on a good, but doomed, idea. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 15) Neutral, I concur with Pengo, Steventity, and Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). Overlap is not evil. Ezratrumpet 13:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 16) Neutral, I concur with previous writers that preferring attributability over truth is evil! The guidelines as presently set up militate against being able to take advantage of knowledge that is only within the memories of living people. This is how invaluable knowledge gets lost. Until this issue is resolved, I don't really care whether the guidelines are in 3 pages or one. Jpaulm 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 17) Support Haseo9999 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 18) Neutral As long as the pages clearly inform Wikipedians on the set guidelines, it doesn't matter to me.Ultima22 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 19) Oppose incorporating WP:RS, mostly neutral otherwise - WP:RS has no business being involved in a policy merger, other than being linked to. It is a guideline for a very specific reason, as it is highly likely for there to be exceptions, special cases, etc. As for merging WP:V and WP:OR, as far as I understood it WP:OR was essentially a derivation of WP:V. After all, each policy essentially boils down to the same thing: "if you can't point to a source for a (given piece of information/conclusion), it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article." I think WP:OR is a specific enough example of unverifiable material that it should have its own section or policy article, but so long as the concepts are clearly communicated either is fine with me. -- Y\| yukichigai (<b style="color:blue;">ramble</b> <b style="color:red; font-size:smaller;">argue</b> <b style="color:green;">check</b>) 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) * 20) Neutral The important thing is that the policies be clear. I agree that the term Attribution better reflects the policy than Verifiability, but that issue could be addressed by renaming the one policy without merging the others. RayGates 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 21) Partially oppose: the first time I read WP:ATT it didn't seemed equivalent to the other three rules. All the previous rules were distinct, important concept. If they must be merged, the merge should mantain all the concepts. Given that, it seems to be a good idea to have a single "big rule" to point people at rather than three - it is just easier. MaxDZ8 talk 07:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 22) "Use reliable sources" is and should be policy, but this does not mean the Reliable sources page should be elevated to official status. There are far too many gray areas between "reliable" and "unreliable" to officialize exactly how we define reliability. Doing so would open the door to further instruction creep and legalistic squabbles as people feel driven to take literally what was intended to be flexible and situational. To this end, I propose that we rename and refocus the page to What is a reliable source, Guide to using reliable sources or something to that effect. In that case, WP:ATT, with or without the accompanying WP:V and WP:NOR, would say "Use reliable sources", as the refocused WP:RS helps the community decide whether this or that source is reliable, which is the page's purpose anyway. This would accomplish two key goals: It would help resolve the complexity and steep learning curve of Wikipedia policy, while furthermore settling a point often brought up by those who advocate merging WP:RS into WP:ATT or elsewhere: that WP:RS as a guideline doesn't fit in with the policies that demand the use of reliable sources. I think WP:RS serves a similar purpose as, say, WP:CITE: it's a guideline that helps illustrate, explain and put into practice a policy, and should stay that way. szyslak (t, c) 08:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 23) With transclusion we can have have our cake and eat it too. Everyone can have what they want. The Attribution policy page can consist of: and the talk pages of V, NOR and RS can redirect to the ATT talk page. See Flu research for an example of trabsclusion. WAS 4.250 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 24) Partial Support: I support the merger of WP:V and WP:RS into WP:ATT, but I think WP:NOR is too strong of a principle on its own to be merged in such a way (though, arguments could be made that having WP:ATT and WP:NOR are redundant). However, I would find that having WP:ATT and WP:NOR to quote and cite violating users of as two statements to be easier than one big statement, and certainly the existing three, where WP:V and WP:RS already have overlap. --JohnDBuell 11:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 25) Hierarchiality: I agree generally with Armed Blowfish (specialty pages with an overall gloss page) and WAS 4.250 (transclusion). Important ethical and scientific doctrines should be vividly isolatable for open discussion and reference, but it's also good to have a single point of entry for newbies. The particular implementation of hierachiality is not important to me; I'd prefer the overall page have abstracts with links to specialized pages, personally, but transclusion might better protect internal consistency. Pete St.John 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 26) Strong Support Wikipedia should be accessible to all, and new users should read the rules before editing. You might as well make it easier for them to do so. Telepheedian 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 27) Abstain I abstain -Roofus 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 28) Oppose. Though I would support creating an overarching statement regarding attribution which makes reference to specific and separate policies on original research, verifiability, and citation. --Dystopos 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 29) Neutral I don't care. What difference does this make to ordinary Wikipaedia users? This kind of stupid beurocracy just makes Wikipedia look like a joke. What difference does it fucking make anyway? Stop arguing about irrelevent things and make Wikipaedia into a better encyclopaedia. Xanucia 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 30) Qualified Support or Neutral - While centralizing and simplifying policy is generally a good thing and very much in line with WP:BITE, this change must be well planned. Firstly, the existing pages should be kept intact until WP:ATT is accepted by consensus, and probably protected during that time. When they are deleted, they should rather simply be changed to redirects to WP:ATT, so that old conversations are not corrupted by broken links. Assuming those conditions, I think that it would be a reasonable change. Otherwise, I am neutral - this change shouldn't affect me much, and new editors usually manage to understand the system, sprawled as it is. Nihiltres 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 31) Qualified support Keep WP:ATT as policy. Keep the others as guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT, and resolve any inconsistencies in favour of WP:ATT. Merge any parts of WP:V that are not already in WP:ATT into WP:NOR and WP:RS. Joeldl 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) * 32) Strong Oppose Availability of information is more important than it's reliability. I see Wikipaedia as a place where a new knowledge can be found. I'm comfortable with this knowledge existing only on Wikipaedia and not attributable to anything at all. I will make my own judgement. Touristo 3 April 2007 * 33) All of the above? Well, what I mean is that I don't want to vote, but I do want to support the idea of keeping policy simple and clear, while not having horrendous votes like this. Simple policies, clear examples, good practice from editors, and editors working together to educate and learn from each other how to attribute, fact-check, use sources, etc, is the way to go. Oh, by the way, has anyone noticed that the bit under the edit window (you know, the bit no-one really reads) says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." - yes, folks, there is a link to Attribution sitting right there in the boilerplate Wikipedia framework! I wonder if we need a poll on how to word that bit of text? Carcharoth 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 34) .At this point in the poll, it should be obvious that there is no position having community consensus. I don't think this should then default to a "keep", because i think there is overall consensus that some change is necessary. :What I think is the root is the total disagreement about what the fundamental standards are, and that we will not achieve a compromise here about detail under we first establish a compromise about the important things, such a whether the use of RSh as become too rigid, . DGG 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 35) Mixed per Armed Blowfish.—Dylan Lake 05:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 36) Support - as stated in corresponding previous section. Really the three sub-guidelines we're speaking of here all are meant to accomplish the same thing - accuracy through sources. No original research - since you are not a reliable source, required verifiability (word?) since if your content can't be verified there's no way in telling whether it's accurate or not, and of course you need reliable sources because according to the National Enquirer, George W. Bush and aliens have met 3 timesIronic that I don't cite this.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:5px;">DanielFolsom \|\T/\|\C/\|\U/\|(Can you help me with my signature?) 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 37) Oppose - it seems that insufficient consensus has been reached to make such a radical change as this. I am not convinced that the new page conveys the same information as the old ones. Zatchmort 07:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 38) Mixed as the Blowfish - I like the fact that at present it is possible to make a relatively specific criticism by quoting a proportionately specific rule. There are a limited number of conceptually distinct rules, so it's also an easy "mental checklist" to tick my own contributions off against while I'm editing. Indeed, since there are three clearly conceptually different approaches to "attribution" it makes sense to parse through a text (mine or somebody else's) thinking about all three to see whether it conforms. I'm not sure that it's so easy to bear in mind and work through such an all-encompassing not-quite-so-sharply-pointed conglomeration. Perhaps it's because in the years I've been here, I've had the 3 rules ground into my inner editing being, but I don't believe either that a new editor nurtured only on the new policy will discover problems in an article and cry out "aha, a malattribution!" - far more likely that the red light of wikidoubt will illuminate with the realisation that "hey, you can't say that, there's no way to prove it! (V) / you've composed this argument this yourself! (OR) / no way does quoting a post in Joe Bloggs' blog prove that John Doe is dead! (RS)"... at any rate I'd be strongly opposed to turning the "replaced" pages into redirects. Which is sad really, because this exercise in reducing red tape would effectively just add another page to get familiar with without actually replacing any of the supposedly redundant ones. And the gray area of the status of RS means that it's not a moot question whether ATT counts as policy or just a "summary of other positions". Fiddly. There are some things that I do like. The rewrite is well rewritten - it's very clear (always a plus if it's a page that new editors are going to be referred to) even if I don't find it so conceptually sharp. Having said that, sharpness is just as important as clarity: I fear that new editors may be able to understand the words, but not get the point because really, it's several points and they've been blurred. I do love the fact that there is more emphasis on active attribution over theoretical possibility of attribution (which often seems to come down to "somewhere in the Universe, hidden in a subterranean library, is a book I may or may not have read, which may or may not substantiate this claim...alternatively, it's possible that it's an idea I'm pretty sure I once read in a newspaper, some time, perhaps around page 17 of the Bild, possibly whilst dreaming..."). As for concerns about unusual or fringe beliefs it's important to bear in mind that what we have always done is to describe and attribute the belief - that isn't changing as a result of this. The critical issue is occasionally verifiability and sourcing (the groups furthest towards the fringe are often badly documented since 3rd parties may not treat them seriously enough to produce a reliable source about them) but often it is not. Whether to mention "fringe" beliefs in the context of a "mainstream" article, and whether to incorporate well-attributed sources that support their views, is essentially a matter of relevance, NPOV, and not giving "undue weight". That's rather more subjective and requires tougher balance-calls than sourcing issues (though these are not 100% objective themselves, particularly regarding what counts as a "reliable source") and certainly isn't something we should expect ATT to cover: we will always need to rely on the wiki-editing process, and the good sense and "collective subjectivity" of editors. Similarly, some "fringe" beliefs may deserve their own articles to describe them, but at least in theory that is quite likely to depend on notability issues (fuzzy territory again) rather than purely source-based ones (I suspect the "weight" in "(un)due weight" really denotes a combination of notability and pertinence). Having said that, on AFD, the lack of reliable sources is often used as a measure of notability, so boundaries are blurred. It seems reasonable that in future this may be superceded by talk of "lack of reliably attributable information" so I can't see that the ATT change will have a particularly deep effect. Arguably we might hit unanticipated problems with classes of semi-reliable sources which, with its policy status, ATT is too inflexible to work around while RS could have done. On the whole the wiki system has shown great flexibility, so that seems unlikely. While I am divided on the merits of the proposal, I think that the way it came here (the path it took to fruition and the way it has been presented) has not been helpful, for the obvious reasons that voting is generally anti-consensus, a divisive poll is almost certainly not helpful either for the community or the policies it affects, but also that many contributions in this strawpoll have been devalued: they contain useful suggestions and commentary but these are rendered useless because it is too late to take action on them. This third section essentially consists of self-declared "dead votes" which can't influence the result (though they may used as evidence for the general consensus, or lack thereof). Many views expressed in all three camps are quite subtle and not suited to a dichotomy of choices. A presentation of a variety of possible options would have been welcomed; perhaps alternatively a mass-input into earlier stages of the decision-making process on the scope of the proposal, e.g. whether to incorporate RS, whether to make it a policy per se or just a policy summary, would have been nice. Some editors clearly believe they have been presented with a fait accompli and are understandably unhappy, especially those who believe it is potentially better than the present situation but at the expense of incorporating novel flaws which will prove hard to iron out later. As for the unpleasant length of my "vote", I hope it can be excused (or at least interpreted) as an expression of my resistance to being forced to dichotomize without having to post statements of support/objection/neutrality in three different stacks of votes! TheGrappler 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 39) Partial Support - I support the idea behind the merger proposal, though I think this debate has needlessley taken on a "all-or-nothing" tone. WP:ATT is a good idea, as a summary and starting point for editors, with the old pages left intact for more in-depth discussion of specific concepts. I also do not fully support merging WP:RS into a merged page if this is an all-or-nothing result. - Masonpatriot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 40) I don't care either way if this page is just three other pages stuck together. --Deskana (ya rly) 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 41) Partial Oppose If this page was an article, it would be ripped as being too long. If someone does original research, sending them to NOR is easier than then telling them to read through ATT. If ATT gets them easily to NOR, Verifiability, and all the other rules, then it helps. If it holds the same content, it will not be long before it gets split as being too large. I approve of it being the parent article, but leave the rules and content in the detailed places rather than remove them. IMO, CodeCarpenter 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 42) Keep all - But keep WP:ATT as a short summary of the guidelines—an introductory page (for beginners) and a quick reference (for others). A page at "level 0" so to speak. The other articles can continue to contain more specific information about the respective guidelines, including examples and so on. "Level 1"-pages so to speak. The WP:ATT page should have a Main article:-link directly under every heading to the more specific page. This will make WP:ATT the root of the tree. (And I think that all guidelines should be attributed a level of abstraction/importance and arranged in a tree-like fashion and not in a spaghetti structure as I sometimes feel it is currently.) iNic 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 43) Neutral. I support keeping WP:ATT as a summary, but oppose merging other articles into one big long monstrosity. -Amatulic 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) * 44) Support with reservations the way I read WP:ATT, if an editor finds a "reliable source" that says "X" and another that says "not X", an editor may choose between the two and include whichever that editor fancies. In many of the articles dealing with controversial subjects, an editor will without difficulty find "reliable sources" for both sides of the debate and for "facts" supporting each. The synthesis of contrary reliable sources is always original research or POV to some extent (even the ordering of the arguments, whose is first is original research or POV). So I wish that we use WP:ATT as a general policy that articles need source, let WP:RS tell us what sources are considered reliable, and let WP:NOR and WP:SYNT tell us what constitutes impermissible original research or POV pushing. So hierarchically, putting WP:ATT on the top, but keeing the nuances for the other pages. Carlossuarez46 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 45) Abstain. It is not wise to implement a strategy of restriction on the philosophy of community. --Theeuro 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 46) I don't care so long as nothing is lost. A lot like Deskana, it really doesn't concern me. James086 Talk \| Email 03:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 47) Partial support as long as stubs on all sub-policies are kept. As Jimbo himself noted, there are zillions of links leading to WP:NOR or WP:VERIFY and I believe the links should be left intact. They might become particular aspects of such uber-policy though. // Halibutt 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 48) Neutral. Frankly, I am so new as a Wikipedian that I don't know enough of this issue to make a responsible choice. Tellervo 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 49) Neutral, leaning toward support I support the idea of the merge and think that ATT is good, but the current form leaves too many ideas out. Mainly, truth is still important. Just because some fringe magazine with a wide following says that "the sun will die in a year" doesn't mean it should be added to WP, it's clearly wrong, but still attributable. Also, there should be something near the top or the main core of ATT that says something along the lines of "The sources used to write an article should be reported in the article." While sources aren't required, they should at least be strongly recommended. Mr.Z-man talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 50) I support the merging of Verifiability, and Reliable sources into one page at Attribution. However, in my reality working with indigenous communities, oral sources are very, very common and are considered a reliable source if there is verifiability from reliable sources (often also oral in nature). However, verifyable oral sources are still considered "original research" in the world of Wikipedia so the policy of No original research must remain distinct from the others, without a merger. CJLippert 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) * 51) Neutral: While I do see why a support would be good for organization and helping bring together Wikipedia policies by leaving them as seperate pages it shows these policies are each different are at least slightly different. They may be harder to manage however I think we should just leave the situation alone and keep all pages. <font color=#ff0000 face="arial">Orfen <font color=#FF0000 face="arial"> User Talk \| <font color=#000000 face="arial">Contribs 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 52) Keep all and keep the redirects WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR to their own respective pages. Users may then continue to refer to any of these or WP:ATT/WP:ATTFAQ as alternate summaries of sorts. Personally I have cited each of them in recent discussions, as they are useful in different contexts. As long as the standards are conveyed accurately, there should be no problem with all these pages coexisting. Minimize any potential confusion for newcomers with see also links and tags at the top that express the redundancy. It's okay if policies and guidelines overlap with each other; this is already the case with some other ones, though I refuse to accept that there should be such long (and directionless) discussions for those as well. –Pomte 05:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 53) Partial opposition: a merged page would be a very good idea, but in order to keep it short and readable, the contained information have to be compressed, so that the resulting merger would either be overly technical and hard to read, or some points must be rationalized away, so that parts of the message get lost, and the resulting merger is hard to comprehend anyway! I instead propose: * 54) * a heavily summarized page, pretty concise, but dealing with "synergic" information, * 55) * links to the relevant subpages that already exist. * Thanks for asking! Rursus 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) Support but keep old pages for reference. A simple and BRIEF explanation of policy is essential for newcomers to understand and not be turned off by a lot of Byzantine exegesis on what the policies mean. However, the old pages might be useful for those interested in more detail. (Edit: Tried to fix item number formatting -- don't know what I did wrong.) --Bluejay Young 09:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Oppose while I still opposed the outright merger into the WP:ATT even more so because of the recent processes involved. I think its time to move forward and to that end I suggest that WP:ATT be retained and run parrallel with policies WP:NOR, WP:V and the guideline WP:RS. To this I think attribution should be about growing up taking these foundation policies/principles and building on them. Wikipedia needs to address issues about sourcing; political idologies, historical falsehoods and new developements. It should address "truth" in its many forms what it shouldn't do (which I currently read ATT as doing) is providing inclusion for lies/falsehoods as factual providing its attributable. Ultimately ATT will/could grow and encompass NOR,V and RS. We have the time do this right Wikipedia will be here for 100's of years, yet if the change is such that editors dont understand or trolls can use it push agendas. Gnangarra 12:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Support It's one of those things that should have been done ages ago. Timeshift 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 4) Support I think that each should be within a combined page, but with more brevity devoted to each. Furthermore, I think that this, along with many other wikipedia style pages needs to put a tag reference right at the top. (How to tag articles). * 5) Support with an important reservation I think that verifiability and no original research really can be merged and I think the attribution page did a good job of it. I particularly like the strong simple concept that if it is not attributable to a reliable source, it is original research. However, I don't think it was wise to try and merge so much of reliable sources into a policy page. Having a policy that says that all material must be attributable to a reliable source is a good idea. Having a policy that defines what a reliable source is or is not is a bad idea, especially considering how fast various media are evolving today. Sometimes editors are simply going to have to reach a consensus value judgement on whether a particular source is reliable or not for a particular purpose. Having a guidline for such decisions is helpful, but having a hard and fast policy is not. Rusty Cashman 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 6) Support per Fayenatic london. By merging these policies, we ensure consistency throughout, make it easier for newer users to view and follow policy, and lay out our stances on these policies in a unified, concise, and clear manner. Michael 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 7) Qualified Support. Were I to be teaching research methods to a group of graduate students (which I have done regularly), the concepts of Attribution, Reliable Sources, and Verifiability would all be treated as aspects of the same topic. They all deal with the obligation of a scholar to build upon the knowledge of others, to use reliable sources, and sources that can be tracked down by others and verified as saying what they were said to say and meaning what they were interpreted to mean. I'm not sure that "Attribution" is the master term here; I might choose "documentation," but "attribution" works as well as any other. It is vital that all 3 aspects (attribution--the indication of who/what the source is, reliable sources--the quality of the sources, and verifiability--the ability of others to access and check the existence/quality/reliability of the source) are included., which does suggest a need for some revision of the current Attribution description. What I am strongly opposed to is the bundling in of No Original Research. Firstly, the whole description of NOR seems off base. The very notion that Attribution of Sources and NOR are in opposition is ridiculous. If I have a student or a professional colleague working on a research project, it danged well better be original and it danged well better be documented out the wazoo. By their very nature a thesis or dissertation is supposed to provide original conclusions, but it better be based on a significant knowledge of all related research and exceptionally well documented. Much of what is in Wikipedia is by definition at least in part OR; the very act of writing a factual description is by definition original research, unless one is plagiarizing. It involves synthesis and analysis; otherwise it would be just a list of facts. Source-based research is not the opposite of Original research. Any good research will be documented well and clearly grounded in the facts. Perhaps the problem is a confusion of original presentation of facts with presenting original theoretical claims that are not grounded in currently accepted interpretations of facts. Finally, the notion that this issue isn't of truth, but of verifiability is appalling. An encyclopedia is about truth -- facts that are true, events that are true! The facts/events/descriptions/explanations, of course must be reliable and verifiable as well, but reliability and verifiability are NOTHING without truth, accuracy, and integrity!! One can find lots of sources out there to support things that are absolutely false (such as the Holocaust denials) and definitely POV, but I would hope this is NOT what Wikipedia is all about. * Comment: So you would be in favor of, say, writing an article about tobacco smoking, including all the facts about it and then ending the article with, "In conclusion, tobacco smoking should be banned both publicly and privately as a health risk." * The problem with your reasoning is that these articles are not supposed to be dissertations or thesis papers. It's not that truth isn't important, it's that if we say that the ultimate goal should be truth, then everyone out there with an opinion on the subject will go ahead and insert their own "truth" about the subject into the article and we'll have endless debates on what everyone's opinion of the truth is. That's why verifiability is the ultimate requirement. * Aplomado talk 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 1) I support the idea of combining the policies, but oppose the current effort, as it seems to lack WP:Consensus. Mdotley 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 2) Like many others here, I would not object to WP:ATT being kept as a summary of policies. I don't see the need or the value of removing the original pages and policies. Combining them seems forced and makes the concepts harder to understand and communicate to others. It is pretty obvious what "No original research" means. It is not clear what "attribution" means. -- Sam uel Wan t man 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC) * 3) Who cares. I fail to see how this improves the encyclopedia. If new editors can't take the time to read three policy pages, I doubt they will read one either. The real problem is giving other editors and admins the tools needed to clean the cruft, spam, non-encyclopedic content, and vanity pages for individuals or their pet projects off the encyclopedia. This three month effort of hundreds of editors would have been better spent elsewhere. - Aagtbdfoua 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC) * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.	WIKI
Soundcloud no longer works, tracks aren't playable At some point in the past couple of weeks, Soundcloud support seems to have stopped working (on a Pi). Tracks and URLs that used to play fine now lead to messages like the following in mopidy.log: WARNING [1371:Core-13] mopidy.core.tracklist: Track is not playable: soundcloud:song/Queen - Another One Bites The Dust (La Royale Edit).23580077 Occasionally the above message is preceded by: INFO [1371:SoundCloudBackend-3] mopidy_soundcloud: 'A2 - Young Pulse - Don't You Know, Baby - [L.T.D. - Don't Cha Know]' can't be streamed from SoundCloud That INFO message is about 1 in 10 and may be a red herring. What’s going on? I am using the mopidy-soundcloud fork at https://github.com/JC3/mopidy-soundcloud, which is the latest version of the soundcloud extension plus support for playing sets. So far my only working theory is that soundcloud changed their streaming audio codec or container or something. Various evidence supports this but I do not know how to verify. Any help on this front would be appreciated. Non Mopidy soundcloud players are also having a similar issue on the pi, but not on Android or ios devices, which further lends support to a missing codec or something. That “can’t be streamed by soundcloud” message comes from mopidy-soundcloud when it cannot find the ‘streamable’ flag in the data that’s returned by the soundcloud API. It does sound like they (soundcloud) have changed something. When I searched earlier I found something about them removing the streaming API and forcing everyone to use their embedded player. But the source for that was some guy on twitter rather than an official soundcloud announcement. So randomly, just now, almost as if they knew we were talking about it, the “track is not playable” SoundCloud tracks began working again. This is both good because it’s nice when things work, and bad because it happened in the middle of me just getting in to diagnosing the issue, which at least for now is no longer reproducible. I know it wasn’t something unique to this particular Pi or network; we saw SoundCloud playback begin failing at the same time in the past week and then just now resume on ~10 devices in 5 different locations, and also it looks like somebody else here presumably ran into the same issue (I can’t get mopidy-soundcloud to play anything). Also it didn’t seem to be related to the SoundCloud users’ track settings; these tracks were from multiple users, including myself, and I know at least that I did not mess with anything on my SoundCloud account while this was going on. Very weird. It almost feels like some dev at SoundCloud silently broke something by accident then fixed it. Hopefully it was just a temporary screw up on their part. The alleged termination of the streaming API was from https://github.com/ToneDen/toneden-sdk/issues/83	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
2013 Summer Tour The 2013 Summer Tour was a co-headlining tour by American bands Matchbox Twenty and the Goo Goo Dolls. Beginning in June 2013, the tour supported the band's albums, North and Magnetic respectively. The tour included more than 30 dates in the United States and Canada. Background After the California Mid-State Fair announced their 2013 concert lineup, media outlet began to speculate of the joint tour between the two bands. They were later paired for the Ravinia Festival. Rob Thomas confirmed the outing on March 15, 2013, during an interview on 96.5 TIC FM. Thomas explained many summer tours are a "package deal" and feels it more fun to tour with others. He continued to say, "You are putting together that whole night of music from the minute people sit down. You want to have what is going to feel like a whole night that everybody is going to enjoy […] It's not going to be one band for one group of people, and one band for another". Opening act * Kate Earl (select dates) Tour dates * Festivals and other miscellaneous performances * These concerts were a part of the "Ravinia Festival" * This concert was a part of the Basilica Block Party * This concert was a part of the "California Mid-State Fair" Gross Total available gross: 413,418 tickets sold, $15.5 million from 42 shows Critical reception The tour received good feedback from music critics. For the concert in Saratoga Springs, Andrew Champagne (The Saratogian) stated the show was energetic and crowd pleasing. He went on to say, "The three acts combined to play for over three hours and provided plenty of high points on a gorgeous summer evening, The fans in the pavilion and on the lawn were all too happy to oblige". At the Molson Canadian Amphitheatre, Nick Krewen (Toronto Star) gave the show three out of four stars. He writes, "Their musicianship was solid, if not spectacular, songwriter Johnny Rzeznik, relied more on the strength of the songs than their reliance on technology". Katie Foglia (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) called the show at the First Niagara Pavilion overwhelming. She explained, "After the sun faded, an introductory video hit the screens. The energy was palpable. although marketed as co-headliners, it became clear that the Goo Goo Dolls just started the show—and Matchbox Twenty ended it".	WIKI
hiboot: hidevops.io/hiboot/pkg/app/web/context Index \| Files package context import "hidevops.io/hiboot/pkg/app/web/context" Index Package Files context.go type Context Uses type Context interface { context.Context ExtendedContext } Context is the interface of web app context type ExtendedContext Uses type ExtendedContext interface { //RequestBody(data interface{}) error //RequestForm(data interface{}) error //RequestParams(request interface{}) error ResponseString(s string) ResponseBody(message string, data interface{}) ResponseError(message string, code int) WrapHandler(h http.Handler) } ExtendedContext extended context type Handler Uses type Handler func(Context) Handler is the handler func type (for Middleware) func NewHandler Uses func NewHandler(h iris.Handler) Handler NewHandler will convert iris handler to our handler of func(*Context), in order to be compatible with the HTTP API. Package context imports 3 packages (graph) and is imported by 20 packages. Updated 2019-09-18. Refresh now. Tools for package owners.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
User:SamContributes SamContributes is a Wiki user who primarily created an account to contribute to the accrescent compendium of information that is Wikipedia. Be it revisions of existing content, or entirely new additions, SamContributes was created with the goal of ensuring Wikipedia is a credible and concise source of information for users around the globe.	WIKI
PPG CEO says remains interested in 'consensual' deal with Akzo AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - PPG Industries (PPG.N) remains interested in negotiating a “consensual” deal with Akzo Nobel (AKZO.AS), even as the Dutch rival paint maker resists its 26.3 billion euro ($29.5 billion) takeover offer, PPG’s top executive said on Tuesday. PPG Chief Executive Michael McGarry, who was in the Netherlands for a shareholder lawsuit against Akzo a day earlier, told journalists he had never before seen such hostility between a company and its shareholders. But McGarry said “PPG remains very interested in pursuing a privately negotiated, substantive deal with Akzo Nobel.” On Monday, several major Akzo shareholders led by activist hedge fund Elliott Advisors, filed a lawsuit against the company over the refusal by Akzo’s management to enter talks. PPG is in discussions with Dutch market regulator AFM about extending by up to two weeks a June 1 deadline to submit a formal bid for Akzo while it awaits the court’s decision, most likely on May 29. McGarry said that financing of a possible deal “is not an issue. We will have all the financing we need on whatever the appropriate date is,” he said. Shares in Akzo traded 1 percent higher at 76.47 euros at 0830 GMT on Tuesday, well below PPG’s 96.75 euros per share bid proposal made on April 20, suggesting investors are skeptical a PPG offer will ultimately succeed. Akzo has argued a PPG takeover would be bad for employees, that the companies’ cultures don’t mesh, that a deal faces antitrust risks, that it would be bad for the environment and that Akzo should stay Dutch in the country’s national interest. Reporting by Toby Sterling and Bart Meijer; Writing by Anthony Deutsch; Editing by Louise Heavens and Keith Weir	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Anderson Mill, Austin, Texas Anderson Mill is a neighborhood of Austin and a former census-designated place (CDP) in Travis and Williamson counties in the U.S. state of Texas. The population was 7,199 at the 2010 census. Geography Anderson Mill is located at 30.45505°N, -97.80926°W (30.455050, -97.809262). This is about 13 mi north of downtown Austin. According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 1.4 sqmi, all land. History Anderson Mill is named after Thomas Anderson. He moved from Virginia to Texas in the 1850s. In the 1860s he set up a mill there to make gunpowder for the Confederate Army. After the war Anderson converted the mill to a gristmill. He later also started a cotton gin. In 1884 the area had a population of 30. It had received a post office in 1876 but this office was discontinued in 1884. After Anderson's death in 1894 the community was abandoned. In 1936 a historical marker was placed to mark the spot. It was not until the late 20th century with the growth of the area as a suburb of Austin that Anderson Mill came back into existence. The area was included in a municipal utility district (MUD) in 1973, which was first named the Williamson County Municipal Utility District Number 1. The first houses were built in 1975, and construction continued into 1985 with the completion of approximately 3400 homes. In 1988, at the MUD's request, the Texas Water Commission approved a name change to the Anderson Mill Municipal Utility District. The district provided water, wastewater, trash collection. parks and recreation facilities and services. The area has seven neighborhood parks, two junior olympic swimming pools, eight lighted tennis courts, six extensive playscapes, two basketball courts, three sand volleyball courts, six pavilions of various sizes, an athletic field with both soccer and softball fields and nearly six miles of hike and bike trails that meander through the neighborhood following Lake Creek and its tributaries. In 2008, the growing City of Austin annexed the MUD and took over the water and wastewater services. An agreement with the City of Austin and the MUD allowed the residents of the district to voted to create the Anderson Mill Limited District which would retain possession of all the park and recreation facilities. The Limited District would maintain all the park and recreation facilities and provide recreation services to district residents. This service would be supported by both activity fees and a property tax. Incorporation into the City of Austin On December 31, 2008, the City of Austin incorporated Anderson Mill into its city limits. Demographics As of the census of 2000, there were 8,953 people, 3,310 households, and 2,429 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 6,343.3 PD/sqmi. There were 3,383 housing units at an average density of 2,396.9 /sqmi. The racial makeup of the CDP was 83.25% White, 4.07% African American, 0.49% Native American, 4.58% Asian, 0.16% Pacific Islander, 4.11% from other races, and 3.35% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 14.78% of the population. There were 3,310 households, out of which 40.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 54.9% were married couples living together, 14.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 26.6% were non-families. 18.7% of all households were made up of individuals, and 3.7% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.69 and the average family size was 3.09. In the CDP, the population was spread out, with 27.6% under the age of 18, 10.4% from 18 to 24, 33.1% from 25 to 44, 22.8% from 45 to 64, and 6.1% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33 years. For every 100 females, there were 96.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 92.5 males. The median income for a household in the CDP was $55,314, and the median income for a family was $59,821. Males had a median income of $41,125 versus $31,028 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $24,191. About 3.8% of families and 5.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.8% of those under age 18 and 1.8% of those age 65 or over. Education Anderson Mill contains several schools of which are a part of Round Rock Independent School District. Residents are divided between Anderson Mill Elementary and Purple Sage Elementary. All residents are zoned to Noel Grisham Middle School and Westwood High School.	WIKI
Monument to Vasil Levski, Sofia The Monument to Vasil Levski (Паметник на Васил Левски, Pametnik na Vasil Levski) in the centre of Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, is one of the first monuments to be built in the then newly liberated Principality of Bulgaria. It commemorates the hanging of Bulgarian national hero and major revolutionary figure Vasil Levski on the same spot on 18 February 1873. The monument is 13 m high, made of grey Balkan granite and designed by Czech architect Antonín Kolář. The bronze bas-relief of the head of Levski, part of the monument, was created by Josef Strachovský (or, according to other sources, Austrian sculptor Rudolf Weyr), whereas Italian Abramo Peruchelli did the stonecutting work. It was inaugurated on 22 October 1895, but was planned and worked on ever since the Liberation of Bulgaria in 1878, the construction being hindered by a chronic lack of funds and negligence, and taking a whole 17 years. This ignited a wave of indignation among the Bulgarian intellectuals of the time, with the poet Konstantin Velichkov even branding this carelessness in an 1881 poem (see text). A draft for the monument featured a large Christian cross over a crescent, but it was rejected as religiously intolerant and incompatible with Levski's proper beliefs in equality and tolerance.	WIKI
U.N. Execution Expert Will Investigate Khashoggi Killing RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — An expert from the United Nations human rights office will look into the death of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist killed in October by Saudi agents, the agency said on Friday. Agnès Callamard, the special rapporteur for extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, will lead the inquiry into the killing of Mr. Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul and will report her findings in June, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights announced. She “will review and evaluate, from a human rights perspective, the circumstances surrounding the killing of Khashoggi,” the office said in a statement, and “will assess the steps taken by governments to address and respond to the killing, and the nature and extent of states’ and individuals’ responsibilities for the killing.” As special rapporteur, Ms. Callamard’s role is to examine any allegations of extrajudicial executions on her own authority, without specific further authorization from the human rights commissioner’s office or any other United Nations body. Her inquiry does not amount to a formal, independent investigation of the kind the United Nations has ordered in the past, notably into the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan in 2007. But it is a first step that might lead to a some fuller United Nations examination of the case. It was not clear whether the announcement would satisfy Turkey, which has called on the United Nations to launch a full independent, international investigation in the Khashoggi case. Ms. Callamard’s investigation will begin with a trip next week to Turkey, aided by Helena Kennedy, a British lawyer, member of the House of Lords and former official at the University of Oxford; and Duarte Nuno Vieira, a leading expert in forensic medicine and professor of medicine at the University of Coimbra in Portugal. American intelligence agencies have concluded that Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s 33-year-old crown prince and de facto ruler, personally ordered the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi, a Virginia resident who was killed and dismembered, and whose remains Turkish investigators have yet to find. After a briefing on the issue by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Senate passed a resolution publicly holding the crown prince responsible. Saudi Arabia has said it is conducting its own investigation into the killing, and Saudi officials have said their initial inquiry has indicated that the leader of a team of agents on the ground in Istanbul — not the crown prince — decided to kill Mr. Khashoggi. The kingdom has said it has arrested 21 people in connection with the killing and this month it reportedly began prosecuting 11 of them. The kingdom has said it is seeking the death penalty for five of those defendants but has not named any of them. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has charged that the killing was ordered at the highest levels of the Saudi royal court, arguing that Saudi judges or other officials subordinate to the court cannot credibly determine who was responsible. Mr. Erdogan is a rival of Prince Mohammed and a friend of Mr. Khashoggi, and Turkish officials have sought to maximize the international attention on the killing in an apparent attempt to stigmatize or weaken the prince. Ms. Callamard told Reuters she would begin her investigation next week with a five-day trip to Turkey. Among other things, she said, she would examine “the nature and the extent of states’ and individuals’ responsibilities for the killing,” according to Reuters.	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Macroecology Macroecology is a subfield in ecology that uses a methodological approach that investigates the empirical patterns and mechanistic processes by which the particulate components of complex ecological systems generate emergent structures and dynamics Unlike traditional ecology, which focuses on local and small-scale interactions, macroecology seeks to identify general emergent patterns within and across spatial and temporal scales. One of the main tenets of macroecology is that, despite the apparent complexity and randomness of ecological systems, they exhibit a significant degree of order. This order is particularly evident in statistical patterns related to organism interactions, their relationships with the environment, and the emergent structures and dynamics of ecological systems. As put by Brown (1999), "Despite their complexity, ecological systems are not haphazard collections of organisms interacting randomly. Instead, they exhibit a great deal of order: in the kinds of organisms that make up the system, like their interactions with each other and their nonliving environment, and especially in the emergent structure and dynamics of the system. This order is perhaps best revealed in certain statistical patterns." Lawton aptly captures the essence of macroecology: "Macroecology ... seeks to get above the mind‐boggling details of local community assembly to find a bigger picture, whereby a kind of statistical order emerges from the scrum.” Thus, macroecology often aims to elucidate statistical patterns of abundance, distribution, and diversity across different biological scales. The term "macroecology" was first introduced by Venezuelan researchers Guillermo Sarmiento and Maximina Monasterio in 1971 and was later adopted by James Brown and Brian Maurer in their 1989 paper in Science. Macroecology is not just a large-scale study; a macroecological approach can also be taken at small scales to study emergent behavior. In essence, macroecology adopts a "top-down" approach, focusing on understanding the properties of entire systems (populations, communities, assemblages etc.) rather than individual components. It is akin to seeing the entire forest instead of individual trees, as Kevin Gaston and Tim Blackburn suggested. Some critical areas of interest within macroecology include the study of species richness, latitudinal gradients in species diversity, the species-area curve, range size, body size, and species abundance. Specifically, the relationship between abundance and range size—exploring why some species are widespread and abundant while others are restricted and less common—has been a focal area of macroecological research.	WIKI
User:Ek132/sandbox Ek was born in Italy in 1908 to parents Glidejsk Jieldskj his father and Lmodseh Chaiendslkj his mother.	WIKI
2 I have this command to find files larger than 2 KB and sort by size: find . -size +2k -name .log -printf "%p \t%k kb\n" \| ls -lS but the ls -lS gives the files that are less than 2 KB also. How can I display the names and sizes of the files that are larger than 2 KB, sorted by size? 3 Try find . -size +2k -printf "%p \t%k kb\n" \| sort -k2n • 1 what does k2n do? – Curious Aug 22 '18 at 6:47 • 1 Assuming none of the file names contain blanks or newline characters. – Stéphane Chazelas Aug 22 '18 at 8:13 • Note that strictly speaking, that sorts by disk usage, not by size, though that's likely what the OP wants anyway. – Stéphane Chazelas Aug 22 '18 at 8:14 • -k2n sets the sort key to the second field, to be interpreted numerically. – RudiC Aug 22 '18 at 8:41 1 The ls command will list the current directory, not read something from stdin. Use find . -size +2k -name .log -printf "%s %p \t%k kb\n" \| sort -n \| sed -e '/^[0-9]* //' 1 With zsh: zmodload zsh/stat printf '%s\n' */.log(DLK+2oLe'[ stat -A blk +block -- $REPLY && REPLY+=" $((blk / 2)) KiB"]') That reports the disk usage of the log files whose size is greater that 2048, ordered by size. Your Answer By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
User:0zymandias bout me * Username: maria. * Real name: maria petrou and i was the best in the world and everone just loved me if they new me. * Hometown: prestons.	WIKI
Bounded and Linear Quadratic Optimal Low-Thrust Collision Avoidance in Circular Orbits Tom Itzhaki, Vitaly Shaferman Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review Abstract This paper proposes two optimal-control-based algorithms for low-thrust collision avoidance. The maneuvering object’s nominal orbit is assumed to be circular, and only the position of the passive object relative to the nominal orbit at the conjunction is used. Therefore, the Clohessy-Wiltshire equations are used to model the relative dynamics. The first algorithm maximizes the weighted miss distance with a bounded thrust, whereas the second also minimizes the propellant consumption via a quadratic cost function on the weighted miss distance and the control effort. The two guidance laws are given in closed form and have only minor numerical components. The bounded guidance law only requires a numerical gradient-based optimization of two parameters, and the linear quadratic guidance law only requires solving for the roots of a 6-th-order polynomial. The two guidance laws require very low computational effort, making them suitable for the onboard implementation of small satellites. The guidance laws were evaluated in simulation and showed excellent evasion performance. Comparison between the two proposed guidance laws shows that for the same miss distance and maximum thrust, the minimum propellant law saves a significant amount of propellant, compensating for a slightly longer maneuver duration. Therefore, choosing which algorithm to use in a specific scenario depends on time and propellant considerations. Original languageEnglish Title of host publicationAIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition, 2024 DOIs StatePublished - 2024 EventAIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition, 2024 - Orlando, United States Duration: 8 Jan 202412 Jan 2024 Publication series NameAIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition, 2024 Conference ConferenceAIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition, 2024 Country/TerritoryUnited States CityOrlando Period8/01/2412/01/24 ASJC Scopus subject areas • Aerospace Engineering Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Bounded and Linear Quadratic Optimal Low-Thrust Collision Avoidance in Circular Orbits'. Together they form a unique fingerprint. Cite this	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
The Abyss: Incident at Europa The Abyss: Incident at Europa is a 1998 adventure video game by Sound Source Interactive, based on James Cameron's 1989 science fiction film The Abyss. The game, set six years after the film, is a real-time adventure game played from the first person perspective. Reception Retro Gaming Magazine suggested "the game’s not as terrible as many people make it out to be". PC Joker gave the game a rating of 39% and GamesMania gave it 40%. PC Gamer said "the level of frustration will quickly turn off a lot of inexperienced gamers." Just Adventure felt the level of shooting was too little for action fans but too much for adventure fans. The AV Vault felt it had "dated, blocky graphics [and] low production values". CD-Action wrote "The Abyss is second to none and will surprise you with its fineness". Power Play Magazine thought the game was enriched by "unusual" puzzles and action elements.	WIKI
Sheryl Sandberg says Facebook will give investigators Russian ad targeting data During an in-depth conversation with Axios co-founder Mike Allen, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg took some responsibility for Facebook’s role in facilitating Russian misinformation, and pledged to include ad targeting information as part of the company’s disclosures on political interference in the 2016 presidential election. Saying that the company owes Americans “not just” an apology but continued “determination,” Sandberg also admitted, “Things happened on our platform that should not have happened.” The discussion centered on the continuing scandal over Russian-linked propaganda ads on the company’s platform. Yesterday, House lawmakers investigating the ads said, after a meeting with Sandberg, that they would release the ads to the public. Sandberg said that all of the ads provided to investigators should “absolutely” be released to the public, and added that targeting information — data on who those ads were shown to — would also be provided. Notably, however, that information came in response to a question Sandberg declined to directly answer multiple times: was there overlap between the Trump campaign’s ad targeting and Russia’s? Sandberg is asked about releasing ads from Russia and the Trump campaign pic.twitter.com/Kv5bnBAoV5 Sandberg, during the interview, also weighed in on the controversy over Twitter’s decision to ban a campaign ad that alleged Planned Parenthood sold “baby body parts.” Twitter eventually reversed that decision, but Sandberg said Facebook would not have blocked the ad in the first place. “When you cut off speech for one person, you cut off speech for all people,” Sandberg said. She said Facebook has partnered with other companies in its investigation into Russian activity and will continue to work with the US government. “We want the full picture to be understood,” she said. “We don’t want this kind of foreign interference.”	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Setting Attributes into session object Setting Attributes into session object Posted in : Servlet Posted on : November 20, 2010 at 4:34 PM Comments : [ 0 ] In this tutorial you will learn how to set and get attribute in session object Setting Attributes Into Session Session attribute is important specially when you are creating and maintaining session session for a client. HttpSession interface provides methods to add, and get attributes into the session so that you can identify the user. An example based upon the above concept is given below SampleInterfaceImp.java <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE> Login Page </TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BODY bgcolor=lightblue> <form name=login method="get" action="http://localhost:8080/sessionattribute/attribute"> <center> <h1>Enter Your Name</h1><br> <table border=1> <tr><td>Enter Your Name :</td> <td><input type="text" name="userName" value=""></td> <tr><td align=center><input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Submit" ></td> <td align=center><input type="reset" name="reset" value="Refresh"></td> <table> </center> </form> </BODY> </HTML> SampleInterfaceImp.java package roseindia.net; import java.io.IOException; import java.io.PrintWriter; import javax.servlet.ServletException; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse; import javax.servlet.http.HttpSession; public class SessionAttributeExample extends HttpServlet { public void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws IOException, ServletException { PrintWriter out = response.getWriter(); response.setContentType("text/html"); String name = request.getParameter("userName"); if (name.equalsIgnoreCase("web")) { out.println("<Center><h3>"); out.println("Creating A New Session..........."); out.println("</h3></Center>"); HttpSession session = request.getSession(true); // Setting Attribute to a session out.println("<Center><h3>"); out.println("Adding Attribute '" + name + "' Into Session"); out.println("</h3></Center>"); session.setAttribute("loggedUser", name); out.println("<Center><h3>"); out.println("Session Created"); out .println("<br><a href=\"http://localhost:8080/sessionattribute/display\" >View Session Attribute in Other Servlet</a>"); out.println("</h3></Center>"); } else { out.println("<h1>"); out.println("Please enter the name \"web\""); out.println("<h1>"); } } public void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws IOException, ServletException { doGet(request, response); } } DisplaySessionAttribute.java package roseindia.net; import java.io.IOException; import java.io.PrintWriter; import javax.servlet.ServletException; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse; import javax.servlet.http.HttpSession; public class DisplaySessionAttribute extends HttpServlet { public void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws IOException, ServletException { PrintWriter out = response.getWriter(); response.setContentType("text/html"); HttpSession session = request.getSession(false); String name = null; if (session != null) { name = (String) session.getAttribute("loggedUser"); out.println("<h1><center>"); out.println("Session attribute is -" + name); out.println("</center><h1>"); } if (name.equalsIgnoreCase("web")) { session.removeAttribute("loggedUser"); session.invalidate(); // session.setMaxInactiveInterval(0); out.println("<h1><center>"); out.println("Session Destroyed........"); out.println("</center><h1>"); } else { out.println("<h1><center>"); out.println("Session is not Maintained"); out.println("</center><h1>"); } } public void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws IOException, ServletException { doGet(request, response); } } web.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <web-app id="WebApp_ID" version="2.4" xmlns=" http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee" xmlns:xsi=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation=" http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/web-app_2_4.xsd"> <display-name>CreateSession</display-name> <!-- Servlet --> <servlet> <servlet-name>SessionAttributeExample</servlet-name> <servlet-class>roseindia.net.SessionAttributeExample</servlet-class> </servlet> <servlet> <servlet-name>DisplaySessionAttribute</servlet-name> <servlet-class>roseindia.net.DisplaySessionAttribute</servlet-class> </servlet> <!-- Servlet Mapping--> <servlet-mapping> <servlet-name>SessionAttributeExample</servlet-name> <url-pattern>/attribute</url-pattern> </servlet-mapping> <servlet-mapping> <servlet-name>DisplaySessionAttribute</servlet-name> <url-pattern>/display</url-pattern> </servlet-mapping> <!-- Setting Session Time Out--> </web-app> When you run this application it will display message as shown below Download this example code Go to Topic «PreviousHomeNext» Your Comment: Your Name () : Your Email : Subject (): Your Comment (*): Reload Image Tutorial Topics	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
2016/08/10 KIE Server (jBPM extension) brings document support Another article for KIE Server series ... and what's coming in version 7. This time around documents and their use in business processes. Business processes quite frequently need collaboration around documents (in any meaning of it), thus is it important to allow users to upload and download documents. jBPM provided documents support in version 6 already though it was not exposed on KIE Server for remote interaction. jBPM 7 will come with support for documents in KIE Server - that covers both use within process context and outside - direct interaction with underlying document storage. jBPM and documents To recap quickly how document support is provided by jBPM Documents are considered process variables, as such they are applicable for the pluggable persistence strategies defined. Persistence strategies allow to provide various backend storage for process variables, instead of always be put together with process instance into jBPM data base. Document is represented by org.jbpm.document.service.impl.DocumentImpl type and comes with dedicated marshaling strategy to deal with this type of variables org.jbpm.document.marshalling.DocumentMarshallingStrategy. In turn marshaling strategy relies on org.jbpm.document.service.DocumentStorageService that is an implementation specific to document storage of your choice. jBPM comes with out of the box implementation of the storage service that simply uses file system as underlying storage system. Users can implement alternative DocumentStorageService to provide any kind of storage like data base, ECM etc. KIE Server in version 7, provides full support for described above usage - including pluggable DocumentStorageService implementations - and it extends it bit more. It provides REST api on top of org.jbpm.document.service.DocumentStorageService to allow easy access to underlying documents without a need to always go over process instance variables, though it still allows to access documents from within process instance. KIE Server provides following endpoints to deal with documents: • list documents - GET - http://host:port/kie-server/services/rest/server/documents • accept page and pageSize as query parameters to control paging • create document - POST - http://host:port/kie-server/services/rest/server/documents • DocumentInstance representation in one of supported format (JSON, JAXB, XStream) • delete document - DELETE - http://host:port/kie-server/services/rest/server/documents/{DOC_ID} • get document (including content) - GET - http://host:port/kie-server/services/rest/server/documents/{DOC_ID} • update document - PUT - http://host:port/kie-server/services/rest/server/documents • DocumentInstance representation in one of supported format (JSON, JAXB, XStream) • get content - GET - http://host:port/kie-server/services/rest/server/documents/{DOC_ID}/content NOTE: Same operations are also supported over JMS. Documents in action Let's see this in action, by just going over very simple use case: • Deploy translations project (that is part of jbpm-playground repository) to KIE Server • Create new translation process instance from workbench • Create new translation process instance from JavaScript client - simple web page • Download and remove documents from JavaScript client As it can be seen in above screencast, there is smooth integration between workbench, kie server and JavaScript client. Even more is that kie server accept all the data over single endpoint - no separate upload of the document and then start of the process. Important note - be really cautious when using delete operation via KIE Server documents endpoint as it remove document completely meaning there will be no access to it from process instance (as presented in the screencast), moreover process instance won't be aware of it as it considers document storage as an external system. Sample source For those how would like to try it out themselves, here is a JavaScript client (a simple web page) that was used for the example screencast. Please make sure you drop it on kie server instance to not run into CORS related issues. <html> <head> <title>Send document to KIE Server</title> <style type="text/css"> table.gridtable { font-family: verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; color:#333333; border-width: 1px; border-color: #666666; border-collapse: collapse; } table.gridtable th { border-width: 1px; padding: 8px; border-style: solid; border-color: #666666; background-color: #dedede; } table.gridtable td { border-width: 1px; padding: 8px; border-style: solid; border-color: #666666; background-color: #ffffff; } </style> <script type='text/javascript'> var user = ""; var pwd = ""; var startTransalationProcessURL = "http://localhost:8230/kie-server/services/rest/server/containers/translations/processes/translations/instances"; var documentsURL = "http://localhost:8230/kie-server/services/rest/server/documents"; var srcData = null; var fileName = null; var fileSize = null; function encodeImageFileAsURL() { var filesSelected = document.getElementById("inputFileToLoad").files; if (filesSelected.length > 0) { var fileToLoad = filesSelected[0]; fileName = fileToLoad.name; fileSize = fileToLoad.size; var fileReader = new FileReader(); fileReader.onload = function(fileLoadedEvent) { var local = fileLoadedEvent.target.result; // <--- data: base64 srcData = local.replace(/^data:.\/.;base64,/, ""); console.log("Converted Base64 version is " + srcData); } fileReader.readAsDataURL(fileToLoad); } else { alert("Please select a file"); } } function startTransalationProcess() { var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest(); xhr.open('POST', startTransalationProcessURL); xhr.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/json'); xhr.setRequestHeader ("Authorization", "Basic " + btoa(user + ":" + pwd)); xhr.onreadystatechange = function () { if (xhr.readyState == 4 && xhr.status == 201) { loadDocuments(); } } var uniqueId = generateUUID(); xhr.send('{' + '"uploader_name" : " '+ document.getElementById("inputName").value +'",' + '"uploader_mail" : " '+ document.getElementById("inputEmail").value +'", ' + '"original_document" : {"DocumentImpl":{"identifier":"'+uniqueId+'","name":"'+fileName+'","link":"'+uniqueId+'","size":'+fileSize+',"lastModified":'+Date.now()+',"content":"' + srcData + '","attributes":null}}}'); } function deleteDoc(docId) { var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest(); xhr.open('DELETE', documentsURL +"/" + docId); xhr.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/json'); xhr.setRequestHeader ("Authorization", "Basic " + btoa(user + ":" + pwd)); xhr.onreadystatechange = function () { if (xhr.readyState == 4 && xhr.status == 204) { loadDocuments(); } } xhr.send(); } function loadDocuments() { var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest(); xhr.open('GET', documentsURL); xhr.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/json'); xhr.setRequestHeader ("Authorization", "Basic " + btoa(user + ":" + pwd)); xhr.onreadystatechange = function () { if (xhr.readyState == 4 && xhr.status == 200) { var divContainer = document.getElementById("docs"); divContainer.innerHTML = ""; var documentListJSON = JSON.parse(xhr.responseText); var documentsJSON = documentListJSON['document-instances']; if (documentsJSON.length == 0) { return; } var col = []; for (var i = 0; i < documentsJSON.length; i++) { for (var key in documentsJSON[i]) { if (col.indexOf(key) === -1) { col.push(key); } } } var table = document.createElement("table"); table.classList.add("gridtable"); var tr = table.insertRow(-1); for (var i = 0; i < col.length; i++) { var th = document.createElement("th"); th.innerHTML = col[i]; tr.appendChild(th); } var downloadth = document.createElement("th"); downloadth.innerHTML = 'Download'; tr.appendChild(downloadth); var deleteth = document.createElement("th"); deleteth.innerHTML = 'Delete'; tr.appendChild(deleteth); for (var i = 0; i < documentsJSON.length; i++) { tr = table.insertRow(-1); for (var j = 0; j < col.length; j++) { var tabCell = tr.insertCell(-1); tabCell.innerHTML = documentsJSON[i][col[j]]; } var tabCellGet = tr.insertCell(-1); tabCellGet.innerHTML = '<button id="button" onclick="window.open(\'' + documentsURL +'/'+documentsJSON[i]['document-id']+'/content\')">Download</button>'; var tabCellDelete = tr.insertCell(-1); tabCellDelete.innerHTML = '<button id="button" onclick="deleteDoc(\''+documentsJSON[i]['document-id']+'\')">Delete</button>'; } divContainer.appendChild(table); } } xhr.send(); } function generateUUID() { var d = new Date().getTime(); var uuid = 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) { var r = (d + Math.random()*16)%16 \| 0; d = Math.floor(d/16); return (c=='x' ? r : (r&0x3\|0x8)).toString(16); }); return uuid; } </script> </head> <body> <h2>Start transalation process</h2> Name: <input name="name" type="text" id="inputName"/><br/><br/> Email: <input name="email" type="text" id="inputEmail"/><br/><br/> Document to translate: <input id="inputFileToLoad" type="file" onchange="encodeImageFileAsURL();" /><br/><br/> <input name="send" type="submit" onclick="startTransalationProcess();" /><br/><br/> <hr/> <h2>Available documents</h2> <button id="button" onclick="loadDocuments()">Load documents!</button> <div id="docs"> </div> </body> </html> And as usual, share your feedback as that is the best way to get improvements that are important to you. 5 comments: 1. Hi Maciej, is possible to do something similar in jbpm 6.4? Could we use business-central or kie-server Rest api for send a org.jbpm.document.Document? ReplyDelete Replies 1. if you're talking only about using documents in processes then it should be possible by adding jbpm-document jar into kie-werver.war/WEB-INF/lib and configure project: - add document marshaller strategy to deployment descriptor - add DocumentImpl (as FQCN) to remoteable classes in deployment descriptor Delete 2. Right. The marshaller strategy is already set and it works when we send documents using the autogenerated form. What we are trying to figure is how to fill the Document process variable using the rest endpoints of jbpm 6.4. Is there some way? Or it will be possible only in jbpm 7? Below the process instance is created but Documents tab stays empty. We tried: POST http://SERVER/kie-server/services/rest/server/containers/CONTAINER/processes/PROCESSID/instances body: { "documento" : { "org.jbpm.document.Document" : { "content" : "12321312" } } } headers Authorization Basic ... Accept and Content-type application/json X-KIE-ContentType JSON Delete 3. look at the html with java script content: '{' + '"uploader_name" : " '+ document.getElementById("inputName").value +'",' + '"uploader_mail" : " '+ document.getElementById("inputEmail").value +'", ' + '"original_document" : {"DocumentImpl":{"identifier":"'+uniqueId+'","name":"'+fileName+'","link":"'+uniqueId+'","size":'+fileSize+',"lastModified":'+Date.now()+',"content":"' + srcData + '","attributes":null}}}' Delete 4. that´s it. thank you very much. Delete	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Wong, Sin Yin AU - Charlesworth, James C. AU - Benaud, Nicole AU - Burns, Brendan P. AU - Ferrari, Belinda C. TI - Novel Quorum Sensing Activity in East Antarctic Soil Bacteria AID - 10.1101/749861 DP - 2019 Jan 01 TA - bioRxiv PG - 749861 4099 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/08/29/749861.short 4100 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/08/29/749861.full AB - Antarctica, being the coldest, driest and windiest continent on Earth, represents the most extreme environment a living organism can thrive in. Under constant exposure to harsh environmental threats, terrestrial Antarctica remains home to a great diversity of microorganisms, indicating that the soil bacteria must have adapted a range of survival strategies that require cell-to-cell communication. Survival strategies include secondary metabolite production, biofilm formation, bioluminescence, symbiosis, conjugation, sporulation and motility, all of which are often regulated by quorum sensing (QS), a type of bacterial communication. Up to now, such mechanisms have not been explored in terrestrial Antarctica. Here, for the first time, LuxI/LuxR-based quorum sensing (QS) activity was delineated in soil bacterial isolates recovered from Adams Flat, in the Vestfold Hills region of East Antarctica. Interestingly, we identified the production of potential homoserine lactones (HSLs) ranging from medium to long chain length in 19 bacterial species using three biosensors, namely Agrobacterium tumefaciens NTL4, Chromobacterium violaceum CV026 and Escherichia coli MT102, in conjunction with thin layer chromatography (TLC). The majority of detectable HSLs were from gram-positive microorganisms not previously known to produce HSLs. This discovery further expands our understand of the microbial community capable of this type of communication, as well as providing insights into physiological adaptations of microorganisms that allow them to survive in the harsh Antarctic environment.IMPORTANCE Quorum sensing, a type of bacterial communication, is widely known to regulate many processes including those that confer survival advantage. However, little is known about communication by bacteria thriving within Antarctic soils. Employing a combination of bacteria biosensors, analytical techniques, and genome mining, we found a variety of Antarctic soil bacteria speaking a common language, via the LuxI/LuxR-based quorum sensing, thus potentially supporting survival in a mixed microbial community. This is the first report of quorum sensing activity in Antarctic soils and has provided a platform for studying physiological adaptations of microorganisms that allow them to not just survive but thrive in the harsh Antarctic environment.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
User:Mnnlaxer War on Terror * 2005 CIA interrogation tapes destruction August 2013 * Abu Doha February 2016 * Mohamed Alanssi June 2015 * Alfreda Frances Bikowsky February 2016 * Camp Chapman attack January 2016 * Robert Fuller (FBI) June 2015 * Interrogation of Abu Zubaydah February 2012 * David Kilcullen July 2013 * Deuce Martinez June 2015 * Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad July 2013 * Operation Dark Heart June 2015 * John A. Rizzo June 2015 * Mohamedou Ould Salahi December 2017 * Mahfouz Ould al-Walid February 2016 Lacrosse Biographies International lacrosse Lacrosse at the Summer Olympics World Indoor Lacrosse Championship World Lacrosse Championship * Lacrosse December 2017 * Chesapeake Bayhawks December 2017 * Cornell–Hobart rivalry December 2017 * Major League Lacrosse December 2017 * John Butkiewicz July 2019 * Andrew Goldstein November 2017 * Casey Powell December 2017 * Delby Powless December 2017 * Tim Soudan December 2017 * Lacrosse in England * England Lacrosse * World Lacrosse * Iroquois national indoor lacrosse team * List of national lacrosse governing bodies * Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics * Lacrosse at the 1908 Summer Olympics * Lacrosse at the 1928 Summer Olympics * Lacrosse at the 1932 Summer Olympics * Lacrosse at the 1948 Summer Olympics * 2003 World Indoor Lacrosse Championship * 2007 World Indoor Lacrosse Championship * 2011 World Indoor Lacrosse Championship * 2015 World Indoor Lacrosse Championship * 2019 World Indoor Lacrosse Championship * 2006 World Lacrosse Championship * 2010 World Lacrosse Championship * 2014 World Lacrosse Championship Carleton College * Carleton Knights October 2017 * Carleton Knights football December 2017 * 1992 Carleton Knights football team December 2017 * Cub Buck December 2017 Biographies * Alexander the Alabarch June 2015 * Haleh Esfandiari June 2013 * Gian Gentile June 2015 * Hermann Gunkel June 2015 * Barry Lando July 2015 * Herbert London June 2015 * Lou Moro December 2017 * Steve Sampson October 2017 * Robb Stauber October 2017 Other * Dartmouth Big Green women's ice hockey December 2017 * Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board January 2018 * NCAA Division III December 2017 * Parade Stadium December 2017 Links * Mnnlaxer/common.css * Mnnlaxer/monobook.css * Everything you need to know * Editing policy * Simplified ruleset * List of policies * Arguments to avoid on discussion pages * Arguments to avoid in edit wars * Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions * Reliable sources noticeboard * Articles for deletion * Extended image syntax * Wiki markup * Citation Style 1 * Cheatsheet * Help:User style * Notable people who have edited Wikipedia Some could profit by reading these statements Neutral point of view - Bias in sources: * "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." Identifying reliable sources - Biased or opinionated sources: * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Neutral point of view FAQ - Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete: * "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Neutrality of sources: * "The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view."	WIKI
Release: AWS SDK for Java 1.0.8 Release Notes>Java>Release: AWS SDK for Java 1.0.8 Added support for the latest Amazon RDS API version, including support for reserved DB instances, new constructors for EC2 and RDS model classes, a new method providing access to AWS request IDs and other response metadata, and various bug fixes. Details Submitted By: Jason@AWS Release Date: August 17, 2010 12:00 AM GMT Created On: August 17, 2010 8:39 PM GMT Last Updated: August 17, 2010 11:30 PM GMT What's New? ChangeDescription Amazon RDS API Update Support for Reserved DB Instances - With Reserved DB Instances, you can now make a one-time, up-front payment to create a one or three year reservation to run your DB Instance in a specific Region and receive a significant discount off of the ongoing hourly usage charge. Your DB Instances will work just as they do today, but can lower your costs over the life of your database. The Amazon RDS model classes now have easier to use constructors to help instantiate objects with common arguments more easily. Amazon EMR StepFactory Utility The Amazon Elastic Map Reduce client includes a new StepFactory class to help make constructing EMR job flows easier. Example usage, create an interactive Hive job flow with debugging enabled: AWSCredentials credentials = new BasicAWSCredentials(accessKey, secretKey); AmazonElasticMapReduce emr = new AmazonElasticMapReduceClient(credentials); StepFactory stepFactory = new StepFactory(); StepConfig enableDebugging = new StepConfig() .withName("Enable Debugging") .withActionOnFailure("TERMINATE_JOB_FLOW") .withHadoopJarStep(stepFactory.newEnableDebuggingStep()); StepConfig installHive = new StepConfig() .withName("Install Hive") .withActionOnFailure("TERMINATE_JOB_FLOW") .withHadoopJarStep(stepFactory.newInstallHiveStep()); RunJobFlowRequest request = new RunJobFlowRequest() .withName("Hive Interactive") .withSteps(enableDebugging, installHive) .withLogUri("s3://log-bucket/") .withInstances(new JobFlowInstancesConfig() .withEc2KeyName("keypair") .withHadoopVersion("0.20") .withInstanceCount(5) .withKeepJobFlowAliveWhenNoSteps(true) .withMasterInstanceType("m1.small") .withSlaveInstanceType("m1.small")); RunJobFlowResult result = emr.runJobFlow(request); EC2 API Updates The AuthorizeSecurityGroupIngressRequest class and RevokeSecurityGroupIngressRequest class have been updated for the latest changes in EC2. The preferred way to update security group permissions is to specify a list of IP permissions to add or remove. This allows you more flexibility and control over the traffic you allow into your EC2 security groups. The Amazon EC2 model classes now have easier to use constructors to help instantiate objects with common arguments more easily. Response Diagnostics AWS responses contain additional diagnostic information that's useful in certain circumstances. For example, all responses contain a unique AWS request ID that you can use when working with AWS support to debug an issue where an AWS service isn't behaving as expected. The majority of users won't need to access this diagnostic information, but it is now available through the getCachedResponseMetadata(AmazonWebServiceRequest request) method in each client object. You can use this to access AWS request IDs, Amazon S3 host IDs, and Amazon SimpleDB box usage information for previously executed requests. Bug Fixes Amazon S3: Fixed issue with findValue in Region enum causing NullPointerException Amazon S3: Fixed issue with MD5 / ETag validation on object upload Amazon S3: Corrected US West location constraint Amazon EC2: Changed CreateDhcpOptionsRequest to take a list of DhcpConfiguration objects Supported API Versions The AWS SDK for Java supports the following API versions: Service API Version Amazon EC2 2010-06-15 Amazon S3 2006-03-01 Amazon SimpleDB 2009-04-15 Amazon RDS 2010-06-28 Amazon CloudFront 2009-12-15 Amazon SQS 2009-02-01 Amazon Elastic MapReduce 2009-03-31 Amazon CloudWatch 2009-05-15 Amazon Elastic LoadBalancing 2009-11-25 Amazon Auto Scaling 2009-05-15 Amazon Simple Notification Service 2010-03-31 AWS Import/Export 2010-06-01 Download the AWS SDK for Java from http://aws.amazon.com/sdkforjava/. ©2016, Amazon Web Services, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
AnsweredAssumed Answered Ryzen 1700x bsod WHEA logger Question asked by tvdz on Aug 11, 2017 Hello everyone, I am new here. A month ago I upgraded my old pc to the 1700x. I replaced all the components beside the ssd, hhd, power and gpu. These are the specs: Amd 1700x Asus prime x370 pro corsair vengeance lpx 2x16 gig CMK32GX4M2A2400C14 msi gtx 970 650 w power coolermaster I use my pc for productivity work like 3d rendering, premiere, afx, etc. The pc was rebuild by an company. At first I already had issues with stability. When doing normal tasks there was not a problem. Even running cpu tests like aida64 it was very stable. But when I began to render in afx and houdini, I began to have bsod. In the errors I had the understanding that it could have been the memory. I did memtest and everything was good. Then because of another person on the internet suggested to lower the clock speed of the memory. So I did. It is now 1866. That fixed the problem. After working for a month everything was smooth. Till now. I just was working in chrome and had other things open like a video. nothing fancy. After a half hour I came back and it crached. I was very suprised to find the error in the log. The error was this: WHEA logger an irreversable hardware error occured processorcore cache error Processor APIC id 1 He also made the same error with another id: Processor APIC id 14 I never heard of this error and because it is the processor that is mentioned, I am a bit worried. At this moment everything is good for the last 3 hours. My question is was this an error caused by the processor? If so is the processor defective? Or was it just a windows error. PS. i did not overclock the processor. I hope someone can help me. Outcomes	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Substring in Talend Six Stars Substring in Talend 22.33.442.555.0 Please help me to get each value separated which is separated by dot ip1 = 22 ip2 = 33 ip3 = 442 ip 4 = 555 Accepted Solutions Sixteen Stars Re: Substring in Talend You are dealing with String data (text). You need to convert it to an Integer before you can carry out numeric calculations with it. You need to "cast" your String values to int values. Take a look here: https://www.mkyong.com/java/java-convert-string-to-int/ But in your scenario you need to do something like this.... Integer.parseInt(((String[])Var.var1)[0]) * 16777216 This was actually a different question to the titled question. You should have really raised a different question as it can get confusing when multiple questions are raised under a misleading title. All Replies Forteen Stars TRF Forteen Stars Re: Substring in Talend Six Stars Re: Substring in Talend In a file i have data as below , it is comma delimited . 111.5689.7.0,9.56.783.21,"XX","05","Glen","5004" But the first column is 111.5689.7.0 so i need to get each value which is separated by dot Sixteen Stars Re: Substring in Talend You can use a basic Java String method for this called "split". It is described here.... https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/String.html#split-java.lang.String- But as an example, if your column is called "value" and your row is called "row1", you would use it like this.... String[] splitVals = row1.value.split("\\."); You can then retrieve the values using the String[] like below.... String firstToken = splitVals[0]; String secondToken = splitVals[1]; String thirdToken = splitVals[2]; Six Stars Re: Substring in Talend I am trying to achieve using tmap component Six Stars Re: Substring in Talend basically trying to get the position number of the nth occurence of the character in a string example 111.5689.7.0 first dot should return position = 4 second dot should return position = 9 third dot should return position = 11 Sixteen Stars Re: Substring in Talend The method I gave you will work. You do not need to know where the "." is. In a tMap variable (of class Object), out this code.... row1.value.split("\\.") Then in your tMap output table, retrieve the values in their respective columns like this... ((String[])Var.myObjectVariable)[0] ((String[])Var.myObjectVariable)[1] ((String[])Var.myObjectVariable)[2] ((String[])Var.myObjectVariable)[3] Six Stars Re: Substring in Talend Hi After getting each value i tried below , but compilation failed Detail Message: The operator * is undefined for the argument type(s) String, int (((String[])Var.var1)[0] * 16777216) + (((String[])Var.var1)[1] * 65536) + (((String[])Var.var1)[2] * 256 ) + (((String[])Var.var1)[3]) Sixteen Stars Re: Substring in Talend You are dealing with String data (text). You need to convert it to an Integer before you can carry out numeric calculations with it. You need to "cast" your String values to int values. Take a look here: https://www.mkyong.com/java/java-convert-string-to-int/ But in your scenario you need to do something like this.... Integer.parseInt(((String[])Var.var1)[0]) * 16777216 This was actually a different question to the titled question. You should have really raised a different question as it can get confusing when multiple questions are raised under a misleading title. Six Stars Re: Substring in Talend Hi I tried but result is not correct example 217.233.0.0 217 * 16777216 = 3640655872 but output from talend is as = -654311424 Sixteen Stars Re: Substring in Talend You are working with an int. An int's max size is 4 bytes or 32 bits. This equates to a range of −2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647. This is why your number is wrong. You should probably work with BigDecimals to work with calculations this big.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Eragenia Eragenia is a genus of mud-nesting spider wasps in the family Pompilidae, formerly included in the genus Priocnemella. The genus has some 16 described species, with only one species in North America, Eragenia tabascoensis, restricted to southern Texas. Description Wasps of the genus Eragenia are small, thin, and wiry. These wasps look almost identical to those of the genus Ageniella, though they are separated by two things: Eragenia has a "trough-like impression on the lateroapical margin of the clypeus", and a "curved, spine-like bristle on the apex of the anterior tibia". Eragenia tabascoensis is tawny (red, can be yellow) in color, with yellow wings. The wings are banded in black. Habitat This genus lives in open areas, and at the edges of forests. It can live in forests as well, hunting in sunny patches. Adults are not found at flowers. Nests Eragenia congrua, found in Brazil, uses Corrinid spiders to provision the nests, which are bored in soft wood.	WIKI
Page:Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion volume 2.djvu/217 D. WORSHIP. God has essentially a relation to self-consciousness, since it is the finite spirit which constitutes the sphere in which His end appears. We have now to consider the religious sentiment or feeling of religion as seen in this self-consciousness. The mediation which it needs, in so far as it is feeling, is the positing of the identity, which is potentially posited, and is thus the mediating movement. This feeling represents the most inward movement of self-consciousness. 1. Self-consciousness brings itself into relation with the One, and is thus, to begin with, intuition, pure thought of the pure Essence as pure power and absolute Being, alongside of which nothing else of equal value can be put. This pure thought, therefore, as reflection into self, as self-consciousness, is self-consciousness with the character of infinite Being for self, or freedom, but freedom devoid of all concrete content. This self-consciousness is thus as yet distinct from real consciousness, and nothing of all the concrete characteristics of spiritual and natural life, of the fulness of consciousness, of the impulses, inclinations, and of all that belongs to the realm of spiritual relations, nothing of all this has as yet been taken up into the consciousness of freedom. The reality of life has still a place outside of the consciousness of freedom, and this last is not yet rational, it is still abstract, and no full, concrete, divine consciousness is as yet in existence. Since, therefore, self-consciousness exists only as consciousness, while, however, in the way of an object for the simplicity of thought there exists as yet no corresponding object, and since the determinateness of consciousness has not yet been taken up into it, the Ego is an object for itself only in its abstract state of unity with itself only as immediate particularity.	WIKI
Nadir prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of progression to androgen-independent prostate cancer Elie A. Benaim, Christopher M. Pace, Po M. Lam, Claus Roehrborn Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review 49 Scopus citations Abstract Objectives. To determine the value of the before and after treatment level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to predict the time to androgen-independent progression (AIP) in patients with advanced prostate cancer who received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) at the time of recurrence or progression. Methods. The records of 153 patients with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer who were treated with ADT were retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-six percent of the patients were initially treated with ADT. In the remainder, ADT was started at progression and/or failure. AIP was defined as two consecutive elevations of serum PSA above the nadir value by any threshold. Kaplan-Meier and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine the potential predictors of AIP. Results. The median duration of the PSA response was 24 months. The most important predictors of the time to AIP were the initial Gleason grade and the nadir PSA level after the initiation of ADT. The odds ratio of having a response greater than 24 months was 15-times higher in patients achieving an undetectable serum PSA level versus those who did not. For each point increase in the Gleason sum, patients had a five times higher chance of progressing to AIP in 24 months or less. Conclusions. The ability to achieve an undetectable nadir PSA level and the initial Gleason grade are significant predictors of the time to AIP in men treated with ADT for metastatic and advanced prostate cancer. Original languageEnglish (US) Pages (from-to)73-78 Number of pages6 JournalUrology Volume59 Issue number1 DOIs StatePublished - 2002 ASJC Scopus subject areas • Urology Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Nadir prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of progression to androgen-independent prostate cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint. Cite this	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 76.djvu/1013 76 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 87-834-OCT. 16, 1962 For purposes of this paragraph, the useful life of any property shall be determined as of the time such property is placed in service by the taxpayer. "(3) PUBLIC UTILITY PROPERTY.— " (A) I n the case of section 38 property which is public Ante, p.962. utility property, the amount of the qualified investment shall be 3/7 of the amount determined under paragraph (1). " (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term 'public utility property' means property used predominantly m the trade or business of the furnishing or sale of— " (i) electrical energy, water, or sewage disposal services, i) gas through a local distribution system, "(iii telephone service, or [iii) "(iv) telegraph service by means of domestic telegraph operations (as defined in section 222(a)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. sec. 222(a)(5)), 57 Stat. 5. if the rates for such furnishing or sale, as the case may be, have been established or approved by a State or political subdivision thereof, by an agency or instrumentality of the United States, or by a public service or public utility commission or other similar body of any State or political subdivision thereof. " (4) CERTAIN REPLACEMENT PROPERTY.—For purposes of paragraph (1), if section 38 property is placed in service by the taxpayer to replace property which was— " (A) destroyed or damaged by fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or " (B) stolen, the basis of such section 38 property (in the case of new section 38 property), or the cost of such section 38 property (in the case of used section 38 property), which (but for this paragraph) would be taken into account under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount received by the taxpayer as compensation, by insurance or otherwise, for the property so destroyed, damaged, or stolen, or to the adjusted basis of such property, whichever is the lesser. No reduction in basis or cost shall be made under the preceding sentence in any case in which the reduction in qualified investment attributable to the substitution required by section 47(a)(1) with respect to the Post, p. 966. property so destroyed, damaged, or stolen (determined without regard to section 47(a)(4)) is greater than the reduction described in the preceding sentence. "(d) LIMITATIONS W I T H RESPECT TO CERTAIN PERSONS.— "(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of— "TA) an organization to which section 593 applies. Post, p. 977. " (B) a regulated investment company or a real estate investment trust subject to taxation under subchapter M (sec. 851 and following), and " (C) a cooperative organization described in section 1381(a), the qualified investment and the $25,000 amount specified under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(2) shall equal such person's ratable share of such items. " (2) RATABLE SHARE.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the ratable share of any person for any taxable year of the items described therein shall oe— " (A) in the case of an organization referred to in paragraph (1)(A), 50 percent thereof, 965 �	WIKI
TechSpot Macbook Hard Drive Failure? By daniel161 Sep 19, 2008 Topic Status: Not open for further replies. 1. So my macbook has started to frequently make a very high pitch noise on and off. When it makes the noise the entire computer locks up with the spinning little color wheel. I do not think it is the CPU because you can still move the pointer around. I do believe the noise is coming from the hard disk, but I do not want to think it is the drive. The noise and freezing can correct itself by three ways, 1. Run its course and in 5 min the computer is runnable. 2. Do a hard reboot. 3. Tip the laptop 90deg towards me and then set it back down. All signs point to a failing hard disk, but all the scans I have done said it is ok. So any ideas? Thanks! --Daniel L 2. seanc seanc TS Rookie Posts: 284 Make sure you're doing frequent backups. Go to the Apple menu > About this Mac > System Profiler > Serial-ATA and click your hard drive. What hard drive is it? Seagate 80GB with 7.01 firmware? These have a KNOWN design flaw where they will fail. I took mine out, it's just sat on my desk doing nothing. Apple should replace it for you, if not then Seagate should. 3. daniel161 daniel161 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 94 Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately(or thankfully) the drive is a "FUJITSU MHY2250BH". The computer is out of the 90 day phone support, but the 1year limited warranty is still in place. Cost, and time wise. Even if Apple will replace the drive after the complete failure, time and money wise, it would be cheaper to get a replacement at bestbuy, and do it myself. (I am a student who relies on this computer heavily for school) 4. seanc seanc TS Rookie Posts: 284 Hmm interesting. Is that a 250GB HDD (looking at the model no.)? People have had good luck buying one of those external western digital external passport drives, taking the drives out and putting them into the MacBook. Again, the HDD may have a warranty with Fujitsu and it would with Apple. 5. vnf4ultra vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,195 If it were mine, I'd try to clone the drive ASAP with something like carbon copy cloner to another drive. If that doesn't work, then try to back up your user directory instead. Once that's done, I'd recommend making an appointment (since you can't afford to drop it off and have it wait on a list) to get the drive swapped out (hopefully while you wait) at no cost under warranty at either an apple store or an apple authorized service provider. Either way you can find the closest service location at this site. P.S. I don't think the drive inside will have any warranty outside of apple, because it will be labeled as a fujistu built for apple, thereby fujitsu doesn't warrant it directly. Topic Status: Not open for further replies. Add New Comment TechSpot Members Login or sign up for free, it takes about 30 seconds. You may also... Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Effect of mineral-induced alkaline reduced water on sprague-dawley rats fed on high-fat diet Mineral-induced alkaline-reduced water (MRW) is generated by the chemical reaction of water with alkaline earth metals and characterized by high pH and low oxidation-reduction potential. As ROS are believed to have a role in the pathogenesis of obesity, we attempted to determine the effect of MRW on obesity in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats fed on a high-fat diet. The body weight of the MRW group was significantly lower than that of the control group in most periods of the examination (P<0.05). Serum level of triglycerides (P<0.05) and fat deposition in the livers of the MRW group were found to have been significantly reduced. This suggests that MRW down-regulates lipid metabolism, thereby suppressing obesity. Possible mechanisms of MRW related to reactive oxygen species were also discussed. Our results suggest that MRW is effective in the alleviation of obesity in SD rats fed on high-fat diet. The Effects of Electrolyzed Reduced Water on Blood and Organ Tissues of Mice The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of electrolyzed reduced water (ERW) on blood components and electrolytes, as well as elected tissues on mice. The mice were supplied either tap water (control group) and ERW (experimental group) for two months. There were no significant different between two groups anatomically and physiologically. In the blood electrolyte study, the experimental group had less Na and BUN compared to the control group. In the blood component study, the experimental group had less neutrophiles and the control group had more lymphocytes. In histological study, no tissue changes were noticed in various organs, including the stomach, small intestine, heart, and liver tissues. In conclusion, ERW has no noticable side affects on blood and organ tissues, and might be safe to a living body. Electrolyzed-reduced water inhibits acute ethanol-induced hangovers in Sprague-Dawley rats Ethanol consumption disturbs the balance between the pro- and anti-oxidant systems of the organism, leading to oxidative stress. Electrolyzed-reduced water (ERW) is widely used by people in East Asia for drinking purposes because of its therapeutic properties including scavenging effect of reactive oxygen species. This study was performed to investigate the effect of ERW on acute ethanol-induced hangovers in Sprague-Dawley rats. Alcohol concentration in serum of ERW-treated rats showed significant difference at 1 h, 3 h and 5 h respectively as compared with the rats treated with distilled water. Both alcohol dehydrogenase type 1 and acetaldehyde dehydrogenase related with oxidation of alcohol were significantly increased in liver tissue while the level of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase in serum was markedly decreased 24 h after pre-oral administration of ERW. Moreover, oral administration of ERW significantly activated non-ezymatic (glutathione) and enzymatic (glutathione peroxidase, glutathione-S-transferase, Cu/Zn-superoxide dismutase and catalase) antioxidants in liver tissues compared with the control group. These results suggest that drinking ERW has an effect of alcohol detoxification by antioxidant mechanism and has potentiality for relief of ethanol-induced hangover symptoms. Histological study on the effect of electrolyzed reduced water-bathing on UVB radiation-induced skin injury in hairless mice Electrolyzed reduced water (ERW), functional water, has various beneficial effects via antioxidant mechanism in vivo and in vitro. However there is no study about beneficial effects of ERW bathing. This study aimed to determine the effect of ERW bathing on the UVB-induced skin injury in hairless mice. For this purpose, mice were irradiated with UVB to cause skin injury, followed by individually taken a bath in ERW (ERW-bathing) and tap water (TW-bathing) for 21 d. We examined cytokines profile in acute period, and histological and ultrastructural observation of skin in chronic period. We found that UVB-mediated skin injury of ERW-bathing group was significantly low compared to TW control group in the early stage of experiment. Consistently, epidermal thickening as well as the number of dermal mast cell was significantly lowered in ERW-bathing group. Defection of corneocytes under the scanning electron microscope was less observed in ERW-bathing group than in TW-bathing group. Further, the level of interleukin (IL)-1β, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and IL-12p70 in ERW group decreased whereas those of IL-10 increased. Collectively, our data indicate that ERW-bathing significantly reduces UVB-induced skin damage through influencing pro-/anti-inflammatory cytokine balance in hairless mice. This suggests that ERW-bathing has a positive effect on acute UVB-mediated skin disorders. This is the first report on bathing effects of ERW in UVB-induced skin injury. The melamine excretion effect of the electrolyzed reduced water in melamine-fed mice Our hypothesis is that the intake of functional water, electrolyzed reduced water (ERW) can excrete melamine in body was evoked by melamine-tainted feed (MTF). To address this issue, we investigated the effect of ERW in MTF-mice model by way of body weight gain, incidence of urinary crystals and bladder stone, biochemical and haematological examination, histopathologic finding of kidney and urinary bladder, and the evaluation of bladder stone. We found that the rate of body weight gain was significantly more increased in MTF+ERW group than MTF+PW group. Accordingly, the number of immunocytes such as leukocyte, neutrophil and monocyte as well as the mean weight of spleen was significantly increased in MTF+ERW group. The incidence of urinary crystals was significantly higher in MTF+ERW group, whereas the incidence of urinary bladder stones was lower in MTF+ERW group (52.4%) than in MTF+PW group (38.1%). Also, urinary crystals were more precipitated in MTF+ERW group than MTF+PW group, and urinary bladder stone consists of 100% melamine. Collectively, our data clearly show that ERW intake is helpful to excrete of melamine in MTF mice model and this is the first report on the melamine excretion and clinically implying the safer fluid remedy for melamine-intoxicated hosts. The balneotherapy effect of hydrogen reduced water on UVB-mediated skin injury in hairless mice Exposure to UVB radiation induced skin damage that results to increase risk of skin cancer. Despite the clinical importance of skin-induced damage, antioxidants imposed limited therapeutic success. Hydrogen molecule (H2) has been known as a safe antioxidant in the prevention and therapeutic approach towards several diseases. Drinking hydrogen reduced water (HRW), inhalation of hydrogen gas, and injecting H2-dissolved saline are widely accepted to incorporate H2 in the body. However, there is no document about the beneficial effect of hydrogen water bath. Here, we investigated the effect of hydrogen bathing on the UVB-induced skin damage in hairless mice. For this, mice of the bathing group are allowed to freely swim on HRW, and let the HRW penetrate for 60 mins. Scoring of skin injury, reactive oxygen species (ROS) enzyme activity quantification, cytokine analysis, and ultrastructural change of corneocytes were measured after exposure to UVB radiation of 360–540 mJ/cm2. In summary, the bathing with HRW significantly reduced the levels of skin damage, as well as increased activity of glutathione peroxidase. Further, the effect of HRW on cytokine network in the skin after UVB exposure revealed that HRW significantly decreased the level of inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α and IFN-γ. Finally, scanning electron microscopy data revealed low number of defected corneocytes and ultrastructural changes, suggesting that HRW bathing would protect UV-induced cell damage. Positive Effects of hydrogen water on 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene-induced atopic dermatitis in NC/Nga mice Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronically relapsing, pruritic, eczematous skin disorder accompanying allergic inflammation. AD is triggered by oxidative stress and immune imbalance. In the present study, we investigated the effect of drinking hydrogen water (HW) on 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB)-induced atopic dermatitis in NC/Nga mice and found that HW ameliorated DNCB-induced AD-like clinical symptoms. In line with this, the level of reactive oxygen species in the HW group was significantly inhibited compared with that in the purified water (PW) group. In parallel, HW enhanced glutathione peroxidase activity in DNCB-induced AD as compared with the PW group. Accordingly, the levels of thymus and activation-regulated chemokine and cytokines were significantly decreased in the HW group compared with the PW group. Notably, the levels of Th2 cytokine, interleukin-5 (IL-5), and proinflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-α and IL-6 in HW-fed mice were significantly lower than in control and PW-fed mice. The total serum immunoglobulin E level was also markedly reduced in the HW group. The collective results indicate that HW suppresses DNCB-induced AD in NC/Nga mice via redox balance and immune modulation and could be a safe clinical fluid treatment for AD.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
List of fountains in Bern This is a list of fountains in Bern. The city of Bern, Switzerland, is known for its 16th century fountains, attributed to Hans Gieng. For a description of the 16th century fountains, see the Old City of Bern.	WIKI
Talk:Rose bengal Possible melanoma treatment Organic 'dye' used in melanoma treatment PM - Tuesday, 22 July, 2008 18:29:00 http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2311345.htm FoolesTroupe (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC) * Interview transcript includes : " It's a thick oily red aniline dye. Its' been used in medicine for about 50 years. It was initially used for testing the function of the liver. " - Rod57 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Other treatments for skin cancers including melanomas is the use of Cansalve cream. It will kill any external malignant growth from the roots up within days. Only kills malignant growth and leaves the rest alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC) synonyms "4,5,6,7-tetrachloro-2',4',5',7'-tetraiodofluorescein disodium salt, bengal rose, acid red 94, food red color 95 sodium salt, rose bengal sodium" are given as synonyms at in the MSDS at http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/RO/rose_bengal.html <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC) neutrality? I nominated for a neutrality check because, although rose bengal is used frequently in medicine and science labs (including my own), this article focuses almost entirely on a set of products by some biotech company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belizefan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Etymology So, who knows where the name comes from? "Rose" is obviously its color, but....? DS (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) * "Rose Bengal is red in base and is about the same color in dilute solution as the decorative Indian happiness wart color worn by Bengali women at the center of the hairline to symbolize marriage. This was the source of its name." --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Molecular diagrams Sigma-Aldrich (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/) and Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd (http://www.tcichemicals.com/) present "Rose Bengal lactone" (CAS Number 4159-77-7) as It appears that CAS number 11121-48-5 is inoperative. Rose bengal is a photodynamic therapy agent. Krakengreen (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Solubility of variants Original rb is described above as 'oily' - does that imply insoluble in water ? How soluble in water is rb, the disodium salt, and PV-10 ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Use as a food coloring According to the Japanese entry this is also used as a food coloring in Japan: red 105 <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)	WIKI
How to count words, paragraphs, sentences, characters, white spaces in a text file using Java Introduction Here we will create a sample program to count words, paragraphs, sentences, characters, white spaces in a text file using Java programming language. In this tutorial we will read a simple text file and count number of words, paragraphs, characters etc. Prerequisites Java Count in File Now we will create Java program to count words, paragraphs, white spaces etc. The below source code simply presents a method which takes a File input and read each line from the file and count the desired things. public static void countWordParaSentenceWhitespaceTextFile(final File file) throws IOException { BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream(file))); String line; int countWord = 0; int sentenceCount = 0; int characterCount = 0; int paragraphCount = 1; int whitespaceCount = 0; while ((line = br.readLine()) != null) { if (line.equals("")) { paragraphCount++; } else { characterCount += line.length(); String[] wordList = line.split("\\s+"); countWord += wordList.length; whitespaceCount += countWord - 1; String[] sentenceList = line.split("[!?.:]+"); sentenceCount += sentenceList.length; } } System.out.println("Total number of words = " + countWord); System.out.println("Total number of sentences = " + sentenceCount); System.out.println("Total number of characters = " + characterCount); System.out.println("Total number of paragraphs = " + paragraphCount); System.out.println("Total number of whitespaces = " + whitespaceCount); } Testing the Program Now we will just pass a sample text file and call the above method. public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException { countWordParaSentenceWhitespaceTextFile(new File("C:/sample.txt")); } Executing the above main method will give you below output: Total number of words = 53 Total number of sentences = 5 Total number of characters = 276 Total number of paragraphs = 3 Total number of whitespaces = 137 That’s all. Download Source Code Thanks for reading. Related posts Leave a Comment	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Quantcast When Is the Darkest Time of the Year? \| The Old Farmer's Almanac The Darkest Time of the Year (and the Earliest Sunsets) Subhead Why the Earliest Sunset of the Year is NOT on the Solstice Print Friendly and PDF When is the earliest sunset of the year? Many folks think it’s on the winter solstice. But the darkest days are actually now—in early December! Bob Berman explains this phenomenon. To most of us in North America, this is a dark time of year and the sunsets come exceedingly early. It might surprise you to learn that the earliest sunsets come several weeks before the winter solstice, not on the solstice, as many would guess. This puzzles people, but it’s actually a reliable yearly sequence. • First comes the earliest sunset, in early December. • Then there’s the winter solstice half a month later—on December 21 in the Northern Hemisphere—the day with the fewest minutes of daylight. • Finally, another two weeks later, in early January, we get our murkiest morning—the latest sunrise. So we’re now slam bang at the low point of afternoon sunshine. And since far more people are awake and aware of things at 4:30 PM than they are at 6 in the morning, in a very real sense you can forget about the solstice and the official “shortest day of the year” in terms of daylight. The Darkest Time of Year So far as what most folks actually experience, THIS is the darkest time of the year For example, in Boston, the Sun started setting at 4:13 p.m. on December 3 and won’t start setting later, at 4:14 p.m., until December 15. Of course, the degree of darkness varies, depending on how far north you live. As for the time the clock reads at sunset—this also depends on how far east or west your home sits, relative to your standard time zone. • For northern latitudes, the earliest sunsets of the year happen around December 7. Think about 40 degrees latitude, so New York City; Philadelphia, Kansas City, Denver, and Reno. • If you live in the southernmost U.S., or a comparable latitude (about 25 or 26 degrees N. latitude), your earliest sunsets are actually in late November. • Drive just an hour east from where you are right now, and the Sun sets ten minutes earlier. That’s because going east around the Earth’s curve makes your western horizon rise up to block the Sun sooner. • Go a mere 35 miles east, and the sun sets five minutes earlier. In my region, which is the rural Northeastern US, the very earliest sunsets happen for those who indeed live both north AND east—namely, along the upper coast of Maine. Your Sunset Time? Test this out yourself! See when your sun starts setting. Try putting in two days ago, and then today, and one week from now! → See the Almanac’s Sunrise & Sunset Calculator. Why is the earliest sunset well before the winter solstice? To put it simply, it all reflects the reality that tropical sunsets hardly vary throughout the year, while polar sunsets change wildly through the seasons. If you lived right smack on the equator, like in Quito, Ecuador, your minutes of daylight would never budge throughout the year, not even by one second. By contrast, our northern friends in Canada and Alaska experience the most radically short days in December. But wherever you live, before winter eve starts, afternoons will start getting brighter! Learn all about the winter solstice coming up!	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Always (Chris Tomlin album) Always is the fourteenth solo studio album by American contemporary Christian singer Chris Tomlin. It was released on September 9, 2022, through Sparrow Records and Capitol CMG. The album features guest appearances by Elevation Worship, Steffany Gretzinger, and Brandon Lake. The album was produced by Ben Glover, Jeff Sojka, Ed Cash, Jonathan Smith, Dave Haywood, Ben West, and Bryan Fowler. The album was supported by the release of "I See You," "Always," "Yahweh (No One)" and "Holy Forever" as singles. "I See You" peaked at No. 31 on the US Hot Christian Songs chart. The title track peaked at No. 6 on the Hot Christian Songs chart. "Yahweh (No One)" peaked at No. 46 on the US Christian Airplay chart. "Holy Forever" peaked at No. 3 on the Hot Christian Songs chart. "O Lord, You're Beautiful" was released as promotional singles. The song "The Answer" was accompanied by the background vocal of Lady A. The album was being promoted with the Tomlin United Tour and the Stories of Worship Tour, spanning cities across the United States. Always drew mixed reactions from critics, though it was a commercially successful album upon its release, debuting at No. 2 on Billboard's Top Christian Albums Chart in the United States, and at No. 11 on the Official Charts' Official Christian & Gospel Albums Chart in the United Kingdom. The album received a nomination for the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Christian Music Album at the 2023 Grammy Awards, while the song "Holy Forever" was nominated for Best Contemporary Christian Music Performance/Song. Background On July 15, 2022, Chris Tomlin announced that he will be releasing a new worship project titled Always, revealing the album cover, track listing and artists featured on the album. The album marks the follow-up to Tomlin's previous release, Chris Tomlin & Friends (2021), and the companion EP, Chris Tomlin & Friends: Summer EP (2021). The album contains 13 tracks, with twelve being co-written by Tomlin, with Elevation Worship, Steffany Gretzinger, and Brandon Lake featuring as guests. Tomlin shared the purpose of the album in an interview with Forbes, saying, "This record is back to the center, the heart of what this is all about for me – really helping people connect to God and worship God." The quality time that Tomlin spent with his family inspired some songs on the album, from working on previously written material, covering classics and recording new material. The inspiration for the album emerging when Tomlin rediscovered "Oh Lord, You're Beautiful" by Keith Green, which was one of his favorite songs growing up. During the COVID pandemic, Tomlin taught the song to his daughters, singing it regularly during home church on Sundays and realizing that he wanted to record it. Singles On August 6, 2021, Chris Tomlin released "I See You" with Brandon Lake as the lead single from the album, accompanied with the song's lyric video. The song peaked at No. 31 on the US Hot Christian Songs chart. On March 29, 2022, Tomlin released a two-track single titled Always, containing the title track and "Yahweh (No One)" with Elevation Worship, accompanied with their lyric videos. "Always" peaked at No. 6 on the Hot Christian Songs chart. "Yahweh (No One)" peaked at No. 46 on the US Christian Airplay chart. "Holy Forever" impact Christian radio in the United States on March 10, 2023, as the fourth single from the album. "Holy Forever" peaked at No. 3 on the Hot Christian Songs chart. It was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Christian Music Performance/Song at the 2023 Grammy Awards. Promotional singles On July 15, 2022, Chris Tomlin released "Holy Forever" as the first promotional single from the album, accompanied with its lyric video. On August 12, 2022, Chris Tomlin released "O Lord, You're Beautiful" as the second and final promotional single from the album, accompanied with its lyric video. Performances On October 10, 2022, Chris Tomlin performed "Holy Forever" on The Kelly Clarkson Show. Touring On October 15, 2021, Premier Productions announced that Chris Tomlin and Hillsong United will embark on a co-headline tour dubbed the Tomlin United Tour, slated to commence at the Greensboro Coliseum in Greensboro, North Carolina, on February 9, 2022, concluding at the Gas South Arena in Duluth, Georgia. On February 9, 2022, Premier Productions and The Tomlin United Tour announced that the tour will be postponed, beginning on March 29 at Pechanga Arena in San Diego, California, and ending on June 17 at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The tour was a success, having ranked in Pollstar's Top 10 Worldwide Tours list during its run. In November 2022, Chris Tomlin announced the Stories of Worship Tour slated to commence on February 23, 2023, in San Antonio, Texas, and concluding on April 23, 2023, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Critical response Jonathan Andre in his 365 Days of Inspiring Media review opined that "Chris will always be polarising. They'll be people who love his music, and then they’ll be people who’ll think he’s 'basic'. I fall in the middle, some albums I absolutely love, and then there’s others, where I appreciate the album from an objective standpoint, but I myself can’t connect to it as much as others," with his opinion on most of the songs on the album being the latter. Timothy Yap of JubileeCast gave a glowing review of the album, saying, "Chris Tomlin has returned to what's he done best: writing and singing powerful worship anthems for the church. After a detour into a country-pop duet album which finds him falling into too many crevices, Always is a return to form. If you like Tomlin for his powerhouse singalongs such as "Whom Shall I Fear (God of Angel Armies)," "Our God," and "Good Good Father," you'll love what he has to offer here." In a NewReleaseToday review, Jasmin Patterson spoke of the album, saying "What I love about Chris Tomlin is that he's consistent. When you listen to a Chris Tomlin album, you know what you're going to get: songs that are accessible for anyone to play and sing along with pure worship, and the truth of who God is. True to Chris' mission in ministry, Always will point your heart to God in adoration." Celita Diaz-Perillo, indicated in a three-point-eight star review at Today's Christian Entertainment: "Always has a mixture of new tunes, and classic songs with some creative changes. Some of them call the soul to ardent, active faith. Some are gentle reminders of who we are in Christ. All are intended to spur the believing soul to persevere and hold on and look up to the Helper and Lover of our souls." Gerod Bass of Worship Musician magazine wrote a positive review of the album, saying "This is the best Tomlin album since Never Lose Sight with almost every song sure to be a Sunday morning classic. Seriously, there is not a bad song or one I would consider a "filler" here. The church is better with this version of Chris Tomlin and I for one am thankful to have him back doing what he does best." Commercial performance In the United States, Always debuted at No. 2 on the Top Christian Albums chart in the United States dated September 24, 2022. Always launched at No. 11 on the OCC's Official Christian & Gospel Albums Chart in the United Kingdom, in the week ending September 22, 2022. Personnel Adapted from AllMusic. * David Angell — strings * Monisa Angell — strings * Jacob Arnold — drums, percussion * Adam Ayan — mastering engineer * Carrie Bailey — strings * Jonsal Barrientes — choir/chorus * Kevin Bates — cello * Dallan Beck — editing * Jenny Bifano — strings * Jesse Brock — mixing assistant * Chris Brown — background vocals, choir/chorus * Luke Brown — background vocals * Shantay Brown — choir/chorus * Daniel Carson — acoustic guitar, choir/chorus, electric guitar, recording * Ed Cash — acoustic guitar, electric guitar, keyboards, producer, programming * Tamera Chipp — choir/chorus * Chad Chrisman — A&R * Court Clement — 12 string acoustic guitar, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, mandolin * Nickie Conley — background vocals, choir/chorus * Janet Darnall — strings * David Davidson — strings * Elevation Worship — primary artist * Enaka Enyong — choir/chorus * Jason Eskridge — background vocals, choir/chorus * Bryan Fowler — acoustic guitar, background vocals, bass, electric guitar, keyboards, producer, programmer, synthesizer programming * Devonne Fowlkes — choir/chorus * Sam Gibson — mixing * Ben Glover — acoustic guitar, background vocals, bass, choir/chorus, electric guitar, engineer, guitar, keyboards, mixing, producer, programming, recording * Lindsay Glover — choir/chorus * Steffany Gretzinger — primary artist * Dave Haywood — acoustic guitar, background vocals, bouzouki, electric guitar, keyboards, percussion, producer, strings, vocal engineer * Tarik Henry — choir/chorus * Mark Hill — bass * Tiffany Hudson — choir/chorus * Tommy Iceland — choir/chorus * Jenn Johnson — background vocals * Taylor Johnson — acoustic guitar, electric guitar * Charles Kelley — background vocals * Daewoo Kim — recording * Graham King — engineer, recording * Benji Kuriakose — choir/chorus * Benji Kurokose — choir/chorus * Brandon Lake — primary artist, vocals * Jacob Lowery — bass * Brett Mabury — arranger * Paul Mabury — drums * Jerry McPherson — electric guitar, guitar * Matthew Melton — bass * Wil Merrell — choir/chorus * Buckley Miller — recording * Sean Moffitt — mixing * Gordon Mote — piano * Craig Nelson — strings * Emily Nelson — strings * Paul Nelson — strings * Brad O'Donnell — A&R * Kiley Phillips — choir/chorus * Randy Poole — recording * Colton Price — editing, programming * David Ramirez — programming * Hillary Scott — background vocals * Sophie Shear — choir/chorus * Jonathan Smith — background vocals, Hammond B3, organ, piano, producer, programming * Jeff Sojka — background vocals, choir/chorus, drums, electric guitar, engineer, keyboards, producer, programming, recording * Aaron Sterling — drums, percussion * Isaiah Templeton — choir/chorus * Chris Tomlin — choir/chorus, primary artist, vocals * Bria Valderrama — choir/chorus * Doug Weier — mixing * Jordan Welch — choir/chorus * Ben West — acoustic guitar, bass, drum programming, electric guitar, keyboards, producer * Kris Wilkinson — strings * Joe Williams — programming * Karen Winkelmann — strings	WIKI
suicide king Etymology So called because in common depictions, the king of hearts appears to be stabbing himself in the head with his sword. Noun * 1) A king of hearts in a deck of playing cards. * When Henry played poker, he liked to declare suicide kings wild, as he felt it lent him an air of sophistication.	WIKI
Integrating Angular with ASP.NET Core RESTful Services This course will teach you how to build an Angular and ASP.NET Core application that can perform create, read, update and delete (CRUD) operations using Entity Framework Core. Course info Rating (51) Level Intermediate Updated Sep 5, 2017 Duration 5h 49m Table of contents Course Overview Course Introduction Exploring the ASP.NET Core and Angular Application Retrieving Data Using a GET Action Inserting Data Using a POST Action Updating Data Using a PUT Action Deleting Data Using a DELETE Action Data Paging, XSRF, and HTTP Headers Summary Description Course info Rating (51) Level Intermediate Updated Sep 5, 2017 Duration 5h 49m Description Learn how to build an Angular and ASP.NET Core application that can perform create, read, update and delete (CRUD) operations. In this course, Integrating Angular with ASP.NET Core RESTful Services, you'll see first hand how Angular and ASP.NET Core can be used to build an application that allows users to view customer data, page through it, and then perform, insert, update, and delete operations. First, you'll discover how to move data from a database all the way down to an Angular client using RESTful services. Next, on the server-side, you'll explore C#, ASP.NET Core, and Entity Framework Core and how they can be used together to create a RESTful service. Then, as you dive into the client-side code, you'll see how Angular services can integrate with ASP.NET Core APIs. Finally, you'll learn the different form techniques including template-driven forms, reactive forms, and highlight the differences between them. By the end of the course, you'll understand the process involved to not only create RESTful services using ASP.NET Core, but also how Angular can be used to consume these services and display and capture data in the user interface. About the author About the author Dan Wahlin founded Wahlin Consulting, which provides consulting and training services on JavaScript, Angular, Node.js, C#, ASP.NET MVC, Web API, and Docker. He is a Google GDE, Microsoft MVP and Regional Director, and speaks at conferences and user groups around the world. More from the author Angular Architecture and Best Practices Intermediate 5h 22m Jan 15, 2019 Containerizing Angular Applications with Docker Intermediate 1h 55m Jul 26, 2018 Docker for Web Developers Beginner 5h 41m Jul 20, 2018 More courses by Dan Wahlin Section Introduction Transcripts Section Introduction Transcripts Course Overview Welcome to the Integrating Angular with ASP. NET Core RESTful Services course. My name is Dan Wahlin and I'm a software developer, architect, and trainer specializing in web technologies. I work a lot with Angular and different server-side technologies so I'm really excited to introduce this course. Throughout the course you'll see first-hand how Angular and ASP. NET Core can be used to build an application that allows users to view customer data, page through it, and then perform insert, update, and delete operations. This includes learning how to move data from a database all the way down to the Angular client using RESTful services. As data is modified in the client, you're also going to learn different techniques for sending that data to the service so it can be stored in the database. On the server side, you'll learn about C#, ASP. NET Core, and Entity Framework Core and how they can be used together to create a RESTful service. This includes using a data repository layer for data access, handling errors and returning appropriate ACTP status codes, and even documenting the API using Swagger. As we dive into the client-side code you'll see how Angular services can integrate with ASP. NET Core APIs, how components can subscribe to observables, and how data can be rendered in the user interface using child components. This includes discussing input and output properties and how they can be used to pass data in and out of components. The course will also discuss different form techniques including template-driven forms and reactive forms and highlight the differences between them. So let's get started and jump right in. Retrieving Data Using a GET Action This module is all about exposing data that could be retrieved from an Angular client. We're going to talk about how we can use RESTful services created with ASP. NET Core, how we can use Angular services, and how components can then call into those services. So we're going to start off by talking about how we can inject objects into web API controllers with ASP. NET Core and how we can add some code that then can be used to expose customers and states data from our ASP. NET Core RESTful service. Now once we get done with the server side, we'll then move to the client side and talk about Angular services and we're going to talk about how we can inject Http client and then use it to request this data from our RESTful service on the server side. As we get data and talk about observables, we're then going to subscribe to observables. We'll do this in our components and we'll talk about parent and child components and how they can be used to display customers in a grid, and then finally we'll talk about different form techniques, template driven and reactive driven forms that Angular provides and I'll show you the different approaches you can take so that you can decide which approach you'd like best for your application. So let's go ahead and dive in by first talking about the server side and how we can write RESTful services to make it possible to expose data from our ASP. NET Core web API. Inserting Data Using a POST Action If you work a lot with line of business application, then oftentimes you need to get data from the app into a database or some other type of data store. In this module we're going to focus on inserting data by using a POST action that's going to be created in our ASP. NET Core API and then we'll see how we can integrate Angular into that POST action that's going to be exposed. So we're going to start off by discussing how we created a POST action in our ASP. NET Core web API controller. From there we're going to update our Angular service to make a POST request so that we send a customer object from the Angular app up to our ASP. NET Core API. We'll then modify our customer form and look at a template-driven way to validate data, capture data, and then integrate with our data service and then have that data service again talk with ASP. NET Core. And then we'll also explore a reactive form approach for capturing data from the user, validating it, and then integrating with our data service in the Angular world. By the time we're done, you're going to see both approaches, a template-driven approach and a reactive-driven approach. So let's get started by talking about how we can create a POST action in our ASP. NET Core API controller. Updating Data Using a PUT Action Another important part of line of business applications is the ability to update data. We've seen how to perform inserts with post actions so now we're going to look at updates with PUT actions. Now we're going to start off by talking about how to create a PUT action in an ASP. NET Core API controller. We'll walk through that process, integrate with our repository layer so that we can update the database. Once that's in place, we'll switch back to our Angular service and we'll issue a PUT request and send a customer object up to that ASP. NET Core API. From there we'll revisit our customer form and make sure it supports updates, and then we'll also do the same thing with our reactive form. So we're going to be using our Angular service not only to get data and insert data, but also now to update data and by the time you're done with this module, you'll see how that process works. Let's go ahead and jump right in. Deleting Data Using a DELETE Action The last piece of the puzzle that we need to fill in for our CRUD operations is the ability to delete data. So in this module we're going to focus on deleting and we'll start off by adding a delete action into our ASP. NET Core API controller. Once we get that all set up, we'll move into the Angular side of the equation and we'll revisit our data service and add a delete call from there, then we'll go back into our form and enhance it to call our data service so that we can delete a record as needed. We'll do the same thing to the reactive form as well so that you can see that we're going to have a very similar approach to both and then we'll wrap up with a quick look at some Swagger documentation and what it will generate for a delete request. So let's go ahead and get started by creating our delete action in our ASP. NET Core API. Data Paging, XSRF, and HTTP Headers We have our full set of CRUD operations in place for the application and we've seen how Angular can integrate with ASP. NET Core RESTful API, but we have a little bit more we're going to cover in this module that I think you'll find quite interesting. First off, we're going to be talking about paging data and how HTTP headers can also play a role with that. We're going to add a paging API into our server side code and then Angular is going to be accessing that by using a header. So we're going to learn not only how to do the paging, but also how to set a header on the server side that has the total number of records that we're paging and how Angular can then access that header value and use it. We're also going to add pagination support into a component and even talk about a custom paging component and how you would build that and then use it. Now because we have an application that's not just a pure RESTful API, but also an application combined with a RESTful API, there are some different attacks that you need to be aware of. The one we're going to talk about is called a cross-site request forgery attack. So I'm going to provide some details on what that is. We'll then talk about how ASP. NET Core can participate in this and help shut these down and the functionality that Angular adds to be able to set a specific header value that the server would look for to shut down these types of request forgery attacks. So let's go ahead and get started by talking about pagination and how we can page data on the server side and set headers that Angular can then access.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
• Asbestos survey Relating to the 1950s and the 1980s, asbestos was adopted in a lot of premises, designed for fire proofing. It is not used anymore because once it is disturbed, asbestos releases airborne fibres which can cause serious diseases. However, asbestos can still trouble any building built before 2000. Asbestos Testing perth Asbestos surveys Underneath the Control of Asbestos in the Workplace Act of 2004, it is the responsibility from the duty holder of the non-domestic building to manage asbestos. As a way to manage asbestos adequately, the job holder must ascertain whether and where asbestos occurs and this is where asbestos surveys are available in. Market research will: � Find and record the positioning of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), in addition to the amount asbestos is found � Assess and record how readily available the ACM is and just what condition it is in � Record which kind of asbestos is found, usually through taking samples There's 2 main kinds of asbestos survey: the management survey and the refurbishment/demolition survey. Management asbestos surveys Management surveys are meant to identify and manage asbestos-containing materials (ACM) which can be a threat during the day-to-day occupation of a commercial building. A surveyor may help you execute this kind of survey. The goal of a management asbestos survey is always to be sure that: � ACM within machinery or perhaps the premises will not likely harm the occupants because they begin their daily business � ACM are in good repair � ACM won't be disturbed, either on purpose or by accident The survey will identify ACM which could easily be damaged or disturbed through routine workplace activities. A degree of minor asbestos disturbance will be required in order that a Materials Assessment can be created. This can help the surveyor to find out the way that fibres are freed and allows them to create an asbestos management plan and suggest any remedial work that could be required. Refurbishment/demolition asbestos surveys This type of survey will likely be required whenever any refurbishment or demolition tasks are planned from the building. The intention of a refurbishment/demolition survey is: � To make certain that the renovation work won't damage or disturb any ACM � To ensure that the work will be done by a contractor who understands the asbestos risks. The survey will identify where ACM come in the premises (before any refurbishment or demolition work begins). Some asbestos disturbance is required and staff mustn't be in your community through the survey. They're able to only return as soon as the area may be deemed safe through the surveyor. A professional and qualified surveyor will accomplish these asbestos surveys for you to enable you to make sure you always meet your duty to manage asbestos. 12 commentaires Suivre le flux RSS des articles de cette rubrique Suivre le flux RSS des commentaires de cette rubrique	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Talk:Geometry for Elementary School/Congruence I am a bit concerned about the copyright of this page. If any of the material was copied from another module, we need to include a link to that module. This is required by the current license, also it gives proper credit to the original contributors. Thenub314 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) * OK then, it's on Geometry for Elementary School/The Side-Side-Side congruence theorem. Kayau ( talk \| email \| contribs ) 09:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)	WIKI
@article {165133, title = {Penetration enhancer-containing spanlastics (PECSs) for transdermal delivery of haloperidol: in vitro characterization, ex vivo permeation and in vivo biodistribution studies.}, journal = {Drug delivery}, volume = {25}, year = {2018}, month = {2018 Nov}, pages = {12-22}, abstract = { Haloperidol (Hal) is one of the widely used antipsychotic drugs. When orally administered, it suffers from low bioavailability due to hepatic first pass metabolism. This study aimed at developing Hal-loaded penetration enhancer-containing spanlastics (PECSs) to increase transdermal permeation of Hal with sustained release. PECSs were successfully prepared using ethanol injection method showing reasonable values of percentage entrapment efficiency, particle size, polydispersity index and zeta potential. The statistical analysis of the ex vivo permeation parameters led to the choice of F1L - made of Span 60 and Tween 80 at the weight ratio of 4:1 along with 1\% w/v Labrasol - as the selected formula (SF). SF was formulated into a hydrogel by using 2.5\% w/v of HPMC K4M. The hydrogel exhibited good in vitro characteristics. Also, it retained its physical and chemical stability for one month in the refrigerator. The radiolabeling of SF showed a maximum yield by mixing of 100 {\textmu}l of diluted formula with 50 {\textmu}l saline having 200 MBq of Tc and containing 13.6 mg of reducing agent (NaBH) and volume completed to 300 {\textmu}l by saline at pH 10 for 10 min as reaction time. The biodistribution study showed that the transdermal Tc-SF hydrogel exhibited a more sustained release pattern and longer circulation duration with pulsatile behavior in the blood and higher brain levels than the oral Tc-SF dispersion. So, transdermal hydrogel of SF may be considered a promising sustained release formula for Hal maintenance therapy with reduced dose size and less frequent administration than oral formula. }, keywords = {Administration, Cutaneous, Animals, Antipsychotic Agents, Biological Availability, Chemistry, Pharmaceutical, Delayed-Action Preparations, Drug Carriers, Drug Delivery Systems, Haloperidol, Hydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Mice, Particle Size, Permeability, Rats, Skin, Skin Absorption, Tissue Distribution}, issn = {1521-0464}, doi = {10.1080/10717544.2017.1410262}, author = {Fahmy, Abdurrahman M and Doaa Ahmed El-Setouhy and ahmed b ibrahim and Basant A Habib and Saadia A Tayel and Bayoumi, Noha A} }	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Dry socket: Risk factors and ways to avoid uncomfortable complication after tooth extraction Carry off wisdom teeth surgery can be a verifiable pain, but if your convalesce regimen be enoughs awry, you can sign yourself in a set of incapacitate. An whizzo from the Texas A&M College of Dentistry expounds this uncomfortable quandary and how to avoid it. What is dry socket? When a tooth is untangled, a blood clot orders and fills the extrication plat to stop take care of the section as it puts. Manner, in a minute in a while, if you’re not choosy, that blood clot can be sacked, which appoint an exits the bone and sauciness high and dry. “The blood clot is there to crazy the wound,” indicated Michael Ellis, DDM, clinical associate professor with the Texas A&M College of Dentistry. “If the clot is on the shimmer down at half-cock, then the bone is beat it known and the enclosure fits a ‘dry socket.’” The blood clot has its own “vim succession,” which can exasperate for about a day or two. It appearances naturally, then the core breaks it down some ever ago the socket starts components with peaceful tissue to usurp the renewing technique. “We typically see dry socket after the change of lower imported third molars, or clear-sightedness teeth,” Ellis rationalized. “The dolour can abide anywhere from a few times to a week.” Symbolic ofs and treatment There are not multifarious tokens of dry socket, but there is one that radios out above the peace, and that’s pain. “When someone has a dry socket, the beginning thing they’ll board heed of is a arbitrate to hard amount of grief,” Ellis affirmed. “The bared bone is pettish, and that is the rummages of pain, which can be minor or throbbing and be honest radiate up to the unfaltering’s ear.” A dry socket can also be experiencing a defame odor, and this can candid to the patient tribulation a bad taste in the moue. While innumerable people may forth b assess that their dry socket is infected or that bewitching one increases the jeopardizes of infection, that may not be the woo assumed place. “There’s not a lot of blister or fever with a dry socket,” Ellis affirmed. “An infection can go on, but it’d be unyoke to the dry socket.” The treatment for dry socket is harmonious straightforward, and is on the border of the same as unpolluted out any other jaunty wound. “You desideratum to clean the poncho, irrigate it with saline and then apparel the wound with medicated gauze,” Ellis swept. “Work together host to the package doesn’t velocity up the healing maturing: It just important amounts with the amount of inconvenience that the equable is in-;whether you mend it or not, it will get asset.” Unintentional factors and how to jurisdiction a dry socket After surgery, a surgeon value provide directorates to keep from run out of gas the odds of snitching dry socket. Some of the instructions hundred avoiding carbonated or turbulent beverages, be prepared over the lip calm and keep off disheveling with the branch. Also baffle using a straw, as the suction can dislodge the blood clot. Clots interject down therefore, but some being may deliver facts that predecessors them to seduction down rashly, a up upbraided unoriginal fibrinolysis. This convert can be inspired by medication, paralipsis on or an underlying medical fettle. Being who smoke can also see an stretching risk of dry socket, custom if they smoke within three to five days after surgery. Abigails who peel off childbirth charge also see a disdain increase in imperil for dry socket. If you in to consideration an unpleasant detonation, exigent discomposure or fever, caterwaul your surgeon constructive away. Also, if your melanoma gets disagreeable as opposed to of better, or if your bleeding doesn’t abate with denomination, contact your well-being anxiety provider. Obstructions after surgery are rare, but they are authentic.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
September 19, 2012 Archives - All Things Avalanche All NHL preseason games through Sept. 30 were cancelled by the league today. That includes the Avalanche's annual Burgundy-White game Sept. 24 (annual when there isn't a moronic lockout every few years, that is).Sorry Avs fans, but you will not see any of the team's top young prospects playing around this area anytime soon, likely not at all this year. Avs fans who already had bought plane tickets to see the Avs-Kings Frozen Fury game in Las Vegas this year too? Well, you're out of luck. Hopefully, you'll find some at the slot machines if you're still going. But you will not see the hockey game slated for Sept. 29 at the MGM Grand. That game is gone too. Merry Christmas, from the NHL and the NHL Players Association! Here is the email that went out to Avalanche season-ticket holders this morning, concerning its ticket policies should the NHL lockout continue to unfold: As you may already be aware, the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players' Association have been working under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that was adopted by all clubs in 2005. On Saturday, September 15, this agreement expired. Without an agreement in place, a work stoppage is now in effect for all NHL clubs. Both the league and the players association are committed to continue negotiations to develop a new CBA that is fair to the players and to the 30 NHL clubs.Our fans, and especially our season ticket holders, are the most important members of our family and we strive to ensure that your monetary investment is protected. During labor negotiations the Colorado Avalanche organization has established the following options regarding payments made toward your 2012-2013 season tickets.Option One: Fan First Protection Plan. Money will be left on account and will accrue a 5% loyalty payment accruing in the manner of simple interest. . Loyalty payments will begin to accrue on October 1, 2012 if an agreement is not reached. . Loyalty payments accrued will be applied toward playoff tickets or next season's renewal. . At the conclusion of the work stoppage, accounts can opt to receive a refund check for excess principal on account, or apply this amount toward playoff tickets or next season's renewal.Option Two: Ticket Refund and Interest Plan. Ticket and applicable parking credit will be issued in the form of a refund check. Checks will be issued in the name of the primary ticket holder on account and will be processed within 20 business days after each month of cancelled games. . Refund checks will also include simple interest, calculated at an annual rate of 1% based on total funds on deposit. . Interest will begin to accrue on October 1, 2012 if an agreement is not reached. . Refunds will not be issued until the amount of funds on an account exceeds the balance of games that can be played. However, interest on these funds will accrue as outlined above. Selections must be made by Friday September 28th, 2012. Season ticket holders who do not select an option will automatically be given Option One. Regardless of which option you select, your seat location and priority number will remain intact. Should you have questions about these options, please call your Season Ticket Services representative, Ross Jenner at (303) 405-1369.It is the goal of all involved that an agreement on terms of a new CBA will be reached in a timely manner. As a Season Ticket Holder, we want to make you aware that plans are in place to protect your season ticket investment.Thank you for your continued support of the Colorado Avalanche. – So basically, the Avalanche will pay a nice 5-percent interest rate to ticket holders to keep their money. Hey, that's much better than I'm getting from my bank on my checking/savings accounts.This is a better interest rate than some clubs are paying, but not all. Minnesota, for instance, is offering a whopping 10-percent rate to season-ticket holders to keep their money. Sign up to receive breaking news alerts on the Colorado Avalanche, including game results, injury updates, roster moves and more. We promise we won't use your email address for anything else. Email Address	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Author:Elwyn Brooks White Works * Charlotte's Web * Here Is New York * Stuart Little * The Trumpet of the Swan	WIKI
-- Sucden Rejects Offer to Exchange Cocoa Deemed Unfit for Delivery Sucres et Denrees SA rejected an offer to exchange some of the bags of cocoa it bought last month that were found to be unfit for delivery because the proposal only covers part of the batch stored in the same warehouse. The Paris-based company, known as Sucden, acquired the 1,000-metric-ton consignment at the expiry of the May futures contract on NYSE Liffe. The bourse, on behalf of the seller, offered to swap bags holding 100 tons, said Derek Chambers, Sucden’s head of cocoa. “I have no way of knowing what led them to the conclusion on the other 900 tons that there was no underlying issue,” Chambers said by e-mail on June 3. “No cocoa from this warehouse keeper should have been delivered to the May futures before an exhaustive inquiry by Liffe had taken place.” The 100 tons were inspected by NYSE Liffe after water stains were found on other bags stored in the warehouse in Antwerp, Belgium by Commodity Centre (Holdings) Ltd. on behalf of a client. The bourse, which certifies that cocoa is suitable to be sold into its futures contracts, has yet to comment on the scale of the damage. The May contract expired at 1,569 pounds ($2,400) a ton, valuing the 1,000-ton batch at about $2.4 million. Sucden took delivery of a total of 34,530 tons from the contract. Sucden might reject all the cocoa stored by Commodity Centre, Chambers said. All the bags found to be unfit for delivery were from the same vessel that loaded in Cameroon, he said. Buyers have 10 business days to refuse the consignment after payment is made, according to NYSE Liffe regulations posted on its website. Adaora Anunoby, a spokeswoman for Liffe, declined to comment. Alec Gunn, a director at Essex, England-based Commodity Centre, was unavailable for comment. To contact the reporter on this story: Isis Almeida in London at ialmeida3@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Claudia Carpenter at ccarpenter2@bloomberg.net	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Wall St. falls on oil tumble, consumer sector and Fed worries (Reuters) - U.S. stocks closed lower on Tuesday as a sharp drop in oil prices hurt energy stocks and retail stocks were pulled down by concerns about Amazon.com’s (AMZN.O) plan to boost its apparel business, while investors also worried about future Federal Reserve rate hikes. Healthcare .SPXHC was the brightest spot in stocks with a 0.3 percent rise while the consumer discretionary .SPLRCD index showed a 1.25 percent drop in line with the energy index .SPNY decline. Oil prices fell about 2 percent after news of increases in supply by several key producers, a trend that has undermined attempts by OPEC and other producers to support the market through reduced output. “People really thought $45 to $55 was kind of the range of oil, but it is getting weaker and weaker and U.S. producers are getting more and more efficient,” said Ken Polcari, Director of the NYSE floor division at O’Neil Securities in New York. The market deepened its losses heading into the close after comments by Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan appeared to add to investor unease about the Fed’s projected pace of monetary policy tightening. Kaplan said technology and globalization is holding down U.S. inflation, which suggested that low inflation might linger, said Bucky Hellwig, senior vice president at BB&T Wealth Management in Birmingham, Alabama. “Today’s action reflects growing investor concern about the Fed’s designated path of tightening versus what the market is saying, exemplified in the fed funds futures market and the lower yield and the lower inflation reports,” said Hellwig. Earlier, Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren said the era of low interest rates in the United States and elsewhere poses financial stability risks and that central bankers must factor such concerns into their decision-making. The Dow Jones Industrial Average .DJI was down 61.85 points, or 0.29 percent, to 21,467.14, the S&P 500 .SPX had lost 16.43 points, or 0.67 percent, to 2,437.03 and the Nasdaq Composite .IXIC had dropped 50.98 points, or 0.82 percent, to 6,188.03. Some investors were holding back ahead of a congressional election in Atlanta, according to Jeffrey Saut, chief investment strategist at Raymond James Financial in St. Petersburg, Florida. He sees the costliest U.S. congressional race in history - between Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel - as a key political test for President Donald Trump’s pro-business agenda. Nasdaq’s biotechnology index .NBI rose 1.3 percent after a 2.5 percent jump the previous day. The S&P technology sector .SPLRCT fell 0.8 percent, with the biggest drags from Microsoft (MSFT.O) and Apple (AAPL.O). Declining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 2.48-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 2.28-to-1 ratio favored decliners. The S&P 500 posted 49 new 52-week highs and 10 new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 99 new highs and 87 new lows. About 7.1 billion shares traded on U.S. exchanges compared with the 6.86 billion average for the last 20 sessions. Additional reporting by Chuck Mikolajczak in New York, Tanya Agrawal in Bengaluru; Editing by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty and Nick Zieminski	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD R., as next friend of R.R.; Mark Berry, DefendantsAppellees. R.R., by his next friend E.R., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. El Paso Independent School District, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-50830. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Dec. 16, 2009. Todd Aaron Clark, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Aldridge & Gallegos, P.C., Austin, TX, Elena M. Gallegos, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, Albuquerque, NM, Joe Ruben Tanguma, II (argued), Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Aldridge & Gallegos, P.C., Irving, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Charles Mark Berry (argued), El Paso, TX, for RR and Richard R. Coilbert N. Coldwell, Guevara, Rebe, Bauman, Coldwell & Reedman, El Paso, TX, for Berry. Christopher Paul Borreca, Thompson & Horton, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Amici Curiae. Before KING, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. KING, Circuit Judge: The El Paso Independent School District appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to R.R. under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The district court determined that R.R. was the prevailing party in his suit against the school district because he had won a judicial order granting him his requested relief; the court awarded attorney’s fees to R.R. in the amount of $45,804. We assume, without deciding, that R.R. was the prevailing party in this litigation. But because R.R. rejected a written settlement offer that included all the educational relief that he requested and reasonable attorney’s fees, we also conclude that R.R. unreasonably protracted the resolution of this dispute and VACATE the award of attorney’s fees to R.R. We AFFIRM the dismissal of EPISD’s claim for attorney’s fees. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND R.R. claims to suffer from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Over the past twelve years, R.R. has sought special education and accommodative services from the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. R.R. has been evaluated several times for special education services, admitted to special education programs, and assisted in his education through the provision of accommodative services. In 2005, R.R. was struggling in school, despite receiving accommodative services that included test preparation and study skills assistance. Later that year, after failing the Texas standardized skills assessment test for the third consecutive year, R.R. requested an evaluation for special education services. In response to this request, the school district set up a committee to evaluate R.R.’s academic placement. The committee determined that because R.R. was very close to passing the Texas standardized skills test, there was no need to either evaluate him for special education or change his current academic placement and accommodative services. In 2006, after R.R. again failed the Texas standardized test, R.R. requested a full evaluation to determine his eligibility for special education services. In response, EPISD scheduled a meeting for September 25, 2006, to address R.R.’s request. On September 25, R.R. cancelled the scheduled meeting and, on September 26, filed a request for a state due process hearing. In that filing, R.R. sought an order from the Texas Education Agency Hearing Officer directing EPISD to (1) perform a “full independent evaluation” of R.R.; (2) provide written notice to R.R.’s parents whenever the district proposed to change R.R.’s status, accommodations, or evaluation report; (3) provide notice of procedural safeguards to R.R.’s parents; (4) conduct an Admissions, Review, and Dismissal Committee (ARDC) meeting; and (5) pay reasonable attorney’s fees. At the required pre-hearing resolution meeting, held on October 11, 2006, EPISD contended that there was no dispute between the parties because it was willing to provide all requested relief. Specifically, EPISD offered to (1) conduct a full evaluation of R.R. within sixty days of the parents’ consent to evaluate; (2) convene an ARDC meeting within thirty days from the completion of the evaluation; (3) continue to comply with the applicable federal and state laws regarding the provision of prior written notice and procedural safeguards to parents; and (4) pay attorney’s fees. At the meeting, EPISD asked for a quantification of R.R.’s attorney’s fees. R.R. did not quantify his attorney’s fees demand and instead asked for an “agreed order.” EPISD demurred, contending that an “agreed order” was not appropriate because there were factual and legal disputes between the parties. R.R. then left the meeting. Later that day, EPISD formalized the offer made at the resolution meeting in a written settlement offer faxed to R.R. The faxed letter included everything offered at the resolution meeting and initially suggested an attorney’s fee award of $3,000. However, EPISD stated that it “remain[ed] ready to negotiate a private settlement, and in so doing, ... [requested] the amount of attorney’s fees that w[ould] be necessary to finalize the settlement.” Rather than continue negotiating, R.R. refused EPISD’s settlement offer, did not make a counter-offer, and proceeded to a due process hearing. At the due process hearing in November 2006, EPISD reasserted that there was no dispute between the parties because it was willing to grant all requested relief to R.R. As such, EPISD argued that R.R.’s complaint should be dismissed. Notwithstanding this argument, the state hearing officer conducted a two-day hearing on the issues presented in R.R.’s due process complaint. After the hearing, the hearing officer made factual findings and entered judgment in favor of R.R., ordering EPISD to conduct a full evaluation of R.R. In April 2007, EPISD and R.R. each filed suit in district court under the IDEA In its suit, EPISD argued that the hearing officer’s refusal to dismiss R.R.’s complaint was error because the complaint was nonjusticiable. As a result, EPISD urged, R.R.’s subsequent litigation was frivolous, and the court should award EPISD attorney’s fees. R.R. also sought an award of attorney’s fees, asserting in his complaint that, based on the state hearing officer’s ruling, he was the prevailing party. The two suits were subsequently consolidated. R.R. moved for summary judgment on the prevailing party issue in July 2007. The district court held that R.R. was justified in rejecting EPISD’s settlement offer and continuing his litigation to obtain an “enforceable order.” As part of this holding, the district court determined that there was a justiciable dispute before the Texas hearing officer because EPISD had not offered an enforceable settlement. Specifically, the district court concluded that EPISD’s settlement offer would not have been enforceable in either state or federal court, and as such, R.R. had an interest in continuing litigation to obtain a judicial order that could be enforced against EPISD. The district court then held that R.R. had prevailed in the litigation by obtaining a judicial order entitling him to all of his requested relief. Because the district court determined that R.R.’s litigation was not frivolous, the court also dismissed EPISD’s attorney’s fee claim. Following this prevailing party determination, R.R. moved for attorney’s fees. In response, EPISD again argued that because R.R. had achieved nothing more than was originally offered, the district court should not award attorney’s fees to R.R. The district court disregarded EP-ISD’s contentions, stating that it had considered those arguments in making its prevailing party determination. Instead, the district court granted R.R.’s motion for attorney’s fees in August 2008 and awarded $45,804 in fees to R.R. — an award that reflected the full amount of work R.R.’s attorney had done. EPISD now appeals the district court’s prevailing party and attorney’s fee decisions. II. DISCUSSION The IDEA requires that a party be a “prevailing party” in order to be entitled to attorney’s fees. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) (“[T]he court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees ... to a prevailing party .... ”). Thus, in an action for attorney’s fees under the IDEA, the threshold question is whether the party seeking attorney’s fees is the prevailing party. See Jason D.W. ex rel. Douglas W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam). However, “[a] finding that a party is a prevailing party only makes him eligible to receive attorneys’ fees under the IDEA; it does not automatically entitle him to recover the full amount that he spent on legal representation.” Id. A. Prevailing Party Status Under the IDEA, “a prevailing party is one that attains a remedy that both (1) alters the legal relationship between the school district and the handicapped child and (2) fosters the purposes of the IDEA.” Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 209. This test follows from Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland Independent School District, where the Court held that the “touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute.” 489 U.S. 782, 792-93, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (“[P]laintiffs may be considered ‘prevailing parties’ ... if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.”). More recently, in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, the Supreme Court clarified that a prevailing party is one that has obtained a judgment on the merits, a consent decree, or some similar form of judicially sanctioned relief. 532 U.S. 598, 603-04, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). We now join our sister circuits in applying Buckhannon in the IDEA context and hold that a litigant must attain some judicial imprimatur on a material alteration of the legal relationship in order to be a prevailing party. We have already joined our sister circuits in holding that, after Buckhannon, whether a party is a prevailing party “is a legal question subject to de novo review.” Bailey v. Mississippi, 407 F.3d 684, 687 (5th Cir.2005) (collecting cases). EPISD argues that R.R. is not the prevailing party. EPISD contends that because it offered R.R. all requested relief before litigation, R.R.’s attainment of relief did not alter the legal relationship between the parties and did not foster the purposes of the IDEA. In response, R.R. points to the fact that both the hearing officer and the district court determined that R.R. was entitled to a full evaluation, thereby altering (as the district court held) the legal relationship between R.R. and EP-ISD and fostering the purposes of the IDEA by enabling the provision of an appropriate public education. As discussed above, the IDEA provides that “[i]n any action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees ... to a prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). The IDEA features a plethora of provisions dealing with attorney’s fees, several of which contemplate reducing the attorney’s fee award of a party that ultimately prevails in an administrative or judicial proceeding. For example, a prevailing party that ultimately achieves no more than what was earlier offered in settlement may not recover attorney’s fees incurred subsequent to the settlement offer. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). Similarly, a court may reduce the attorney’s fees awarded to a prevailing party found to have unreasonably protracted the litigation. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(F)(i). Particularly at issue here is § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i), which provides that “[a]ttorneys’ fees may not be awarded ... in any action ... for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement ... [if] the court ... finds that the relief finally obtained ... is not more favorable ... than the offer of settlement.” Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) (emphasis added). In imposing this bar against recovering attorney’s fees incurred subsequent to the offer of settlement, that provision tacitly assumes that a party may reject such an offer and nevertheless attain prevailing party status: the statute permits an award of attorney’s fees for work performed pri- or to the written offer of settlement, and prevailing party status is a predicate for any such award. See id. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). Several of our sister circuits have addressed provisions of the IDEA that contemplate reducing attorney’s fee awards for those parties who reject settlement offers and later obtain no more than what was offered. In so doing, these circuits have recognized that such a party still “prevails” by obtaining judicially sanctioned relief, notwithstanding the reduced attorney’s fee award. In T.D. v. La-Grange, the Seventh Circuit addressed T.D.’s argument that the IDEA, by virtue of its complex array of provisions dealing with attorney’s fees, fell beyond the scope of Buckhannon and that private IDEA settlements could therefore convey prevailing party status. 349 F.3d at 476. In rejecting that argument, the Seventh Circuit discussed generally the provisions of the IDEA that deal with settlement offers and reduction of fees. In this discussion, the Seventh Circuit noted that “if a plaintiff rejects a settlement offer and eventually receives a judicially sanctioned victory that is less beneficial than the settlement offer was, the plaintiff, though being a ‘prevailing party,’ may not get the fees incurred after the settlement offer.” Id. at 476 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)). Similarly, the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit, in addressing whether Buckhannon applies to the IDEA, recognized that the IDEA contemplates reducing fees when a litigant rejects a settlement offer and does not achieve more favorable relief that what was offered, but that the litigant remains the prevailing party. See, e.g., Alegria ex rel. Alegria v. District of Columbia, 391 F.3d 262, 267 (D.C.Cir.2004) (“A parent who refuses a written offer to settle a complaint, and later prevails at an administrative hearing or in court but obtains a result that is not more favorable than the written settlement offer, would still be eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees for work performed prior to the settlement offer ....”); John T., 318 F.3d at 557 (“[Section 1415(i)(3)(D)-(G)] define situations in which attorney’s fees [awarded to a prevailing party] may be prohibited or reduced, e.g., when a parent has unjustifiably rejected a settlement offer or when a parent has unreasonably protracted the final resolution.”). However, we have held that parties that extend litigation may be denied prevailing party status. In Michael T. ex rel. Oralee T. v. El Paso Independent School District, 37 Fed.Appx. 714, 2002 WL 1221847, at 1 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam), an unpublished opinion which is not precedential, see 5th Cir. R. 47.5, but is nevertheless persuasive, we held that a district court did not clearly err (the test in this circuit pre-Buckhannon) in determining that Michael was not the prevailing party because Michael unreasonably withheld consent for an evaluation. Id. The facts in Michael T. were substantially similar to the present matter — EPISD and the attorney for R.R., Mark Berry, were both involved, and the end result was that Michael also achieved an order entitling him to a full evaluation at the due process hearing — but there the district court found that Michael was not the prevailing party because the results Michael achieved through litigation “could have been obtained at any time from the [school] district but for his mother’s refusal to give consent to the initial assessment.” Id. We affirmed, stating that “we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in determining that the purposes of the IDEA are not fostered by encouraging parents of potentially disabled children to withhold consent to an initial assessment in order to obtain prevailing party status.” Id. We need not resolve the issue today whether a party who rejects a settlement offer and obtains from an administrative hearing officer or the district court no more educational benefit than the settlement offered is technically a “prevailing party.” Instead, we assume, without deciding, that R.R. is a prevailing party simply because he achieved a judicial order of relief, and we consider only whether R.R.’s rejection of EPISD’s settlement offer should affect the amount of R.R.’s attorney’s fees award. In so doing, we leave for another day the question whether denying prevailing party status in these circumstances might also be appropriate under the IDEA. ■ B. Attorney’s fees In considering the parties’ attorney’s fees arguments, we examine (1) the award of fees to R.R. for work performed after EPISD’s written settlement offer; (2) the award of fees to R.R. for work performed prior to EPISD’s written settlement offer; and (3) EPISD’s claim for attorney’s fees. 1. R.R.’s Attorney’s Fees Postr-Settlement Offer The first question is whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to R.R. for work performed after EPISD’s written settlement offer' — formalizing the offer made at the resolution meeting — which was made the day of the resolution meeting and more than ten days before the administrative proceeding. That question is answered by several provisions of the IDEA. The IDEA envisions that the parties to a dispute should resolve their differences cooperatively. Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) (“The core of the [IDEA] is the cooperative process that it establishes between parents and schools.”). To effectuate this goal, the statute requires that “[p]rior to the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing ... the local education agency shall convene a meeting with the parents and the relevant ... members of the [educational program t]eam ....” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(l)(B)(i). The statute further contemplates resolution without resort to litigation by endorsing settlement agreements: “In the case that a resolution is reached to resolve the complaint at [the resolution] meeting described in [20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(l)(B)](i), the parties shall execute a legally binding agreement that is ... enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States.” Id. § 1415(f)(l)(B)(iii)(II). Early resolution through settlement is favored under the IDEA. The statute bars an award of attorney’s fees for work performed subsequent to a written settlement offer that does not achieve anything more than that which was offered. See supra Section 11(A) (discussing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)). Notwithstanding that bar, a court may award attorney’s fees to a “parent who is the prevailing party and who was substantially justified in rejecting the settlement offer.” Id. § 1415(i)(3)(E). i. Settlement Enforceability Because it is undisputed that R.R. did not achieve any educational benefits beyond what EPISD offered, the question is whether R.R. was substantially justified in rejecting EPISD’s settlement offer. The district court held that EPISD’s settlement offer would not have been enforceable if it had been reduced to an agreement. Specifically, the district court determined that a private settlement would have lacked the judicial imprimatur required to be enforceable in federal court. Further, the district court determined that Texas had not waived its immunity from suit in state court for the type of settlement offered by EPISD, and accordingly, EPISD’s settlement offer would not have been enforceable in state court. The district court, after determining that R.R. would not have been able to enforce the settlement in either federal or state court, concluded that R.R. had an interest in continuing litigation to obtain an “enforceable” order of relief, and declined to reduce R.R.’s attorney’s fee award. With respect, we disagree. The IDEA states that “district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this section [20 U.S.C. § 1415] without regard to the amount in controversy.” Id. § 1415(i)(3)(A); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.516(d). The statute further contemplates that, if the parties are able to resolve their dispute at the resolution meeting, they should “execute a legally binding agreement that is ... enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(l)(B)(iii)(II); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(d). Pretermitting any discussion of whether R.R. could have enforced a settlement agreement against EP-ISD in state court, we determine that a settlement agreement reached at the resolution meeting would have been enforceable in federal court. Courts have recognized that federal courts can enforce IDEA settlement agreements reached at a resolution meeting. In H.C. ex rel. L.C. v. Colton-Pierrepont Central School District, the Second Circuit considered whether an agreement between the parties reached outside a resolution meeting or mediation was enforceable in federal court. No. 08-4221-CV, 2009 WL 2144016, at 2 (2d Cir. July 20, 2009) (summary order). There, H.C. filed a due process complaint seeking greater educational services in November 2005. H.C. ex rel. L.C. v. Colton-Pierrepont Cent. Sch. Dist., 567 F.Supp.2d 340, 342 (N.D.N.Y.2008). The parties then met at the required resolution meeting later that November, but they were unable to reach an agreement. Id. However, in May 2006, before any administrative hearing had occurred, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement that resolved their dispute. Id. In June 2006, the school district created a new educational plan for H.C. that reduced the level of services provided to H.C., and, in response, H.C. again made a due process request, seeking more services and enforcement of the May 16 settlement agreement. Id. At the due process hearing, the hearing officer, despite considering the substance of H.C.’s educational claims, declined to exercise jurisdiction over the May 2006 settlement agreement, and the state review officer concurred on appeal. Id. As a party aggrieved by the decisions of the hearing officer and the state review officer, H.C. filed suit in federal district court. The district court concluded, among other things, that the hearing officer erred in determining that he had no authority to enforce the settlement agreement, and the court accordingly remanded to the hearing officer for a new hearing. Id. at 344. The school district then appealed the district court’s order to the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s remand order. H.C., 2009 WL 2144016, at 3. In its opinion, the Second Circuit considered “[wjhether the district court had federal question jurisdiction to enforce the [May 2006] settlement agreement.” Id. at 2. The court stated that “[while contract enforcement is generally a question of state law[,] ... Congress has expressly provided for enforcement of IDEA settlement agreements in federal district courts ivhen the agreement at issue was entered into ... at a ‘resolution session’ required by § 1115(f)(1)(B).’’ Id. (emphasis added). However, because the May 2006 settlement agreement was not entered into either at the resolution meeting or through mediation, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether “there [wa]s a jurisdictional basis for considering plaintiffs contract claim.” Id. District courts across the country have also recognized that IDEA settlement agreements reached at a resolution meeting are enforceable in federal court. See, e.g., J.M.C. v. La. Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 584 F.Supp.2d 894, 898 (M.D.La.2008) (stating that an agreement reached at a resolution meeting would have been enforceable in federal court); L.K. ex rel. L.K. v. Burlingame Sch. Dist., No. C 08-02743, 2008 WL 2563155, at 4 n. 8 (N.D.Cal. June 23, 2008) (“The Court also notes that ... the [IDEA] permits settlement agreements reached through a resolution session under 1415(f) to be enforceable in federal courts ....”); Traverse Bay Area Intermediate Sch. Dist v. Mich. Dep’t of Educ., No. 5:06-CV-139, 2007 WL 2219352, at 1 (W.D.Mich. July 27, 2007) (“[Written settlement agreements reached during the mediation process or in a resolution session which comply with the [IDEA] requirements are now enforceable in state and federal courts.”); Bowman v. District of Columbia, No. 05-01933, 2006 WL 2221703, at 2 (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 2006) (recognizing that a district court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement reached either at the resolution meeting or during mediation). Here, EPISD offered R.R. all of his requested educational relief at the resolution meeting. We conclude that if R.R. had accepted EPISD’s offer, he could have enforced the resulting settlement agreement in federal court. As such, there was no need for R.R. to reject EPISD’s settlement offer and continue litigation solely to obtain an “enforceable” order of relief. ii. Substantially Justified Settlement Rejection Given that R.R. did not need to continue litigation to obtain an enforceable agreement covering all requested relief, we conclude that R.R. was not “substantially justified” in rejecting EPISD’s settlement offer. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(E). Further, R.R.’s own filings indicate that he recognized that a settlement agreement made at the resolution meeting was enforceable. Because R.R. was not substantially justified in rejecting EPISD’s settlement offer, Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D) applies and prohibits an attorney’s fee award for work performed subsequent to the time of EPISD’s written settlement offer. See Shelly C. ex rel. Shelbie C. v. Venus Indep. Sch. Dist., 878 F.2d 862, 864 (5th Cir.1989) (recognizing that the IDEA bars an award of attorney’s fees for work performed subsequent to a settlement offer of all requested relief); Duane M., 861 F.2d at 119 (same). Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to R.R. for work performed subsequent to EP-ISD’s written settlement offer. 2. R.R.’s Attorney’s Fees for PreSettlement Offer Work The next question is whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding R.R. attorney’s fees for work performed during and prior to the resolution meeting. We determine that the district court abused its discretion because R.R. was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees for such work. i. Fees for Participating in the Resolution Meeting The IDEA allows an attorney’s fee award for work performed in any “action or proceeding.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). However, the IDEA specifically excludes resolution meetings from the scope of that definition. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii) (“A [resolution meeting] shall not be considered ... a meeting convened as a result of an administrative hearing or judicial action; or ... an administrative hearing or judicial action.”); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.517(c)(2)(iii). Accordingly, R.R. cannot be awarded attorney’s fees for work performed at the resolution meeting, and the district court below abused its discretion in awarding fees for work performed at that meeting. See, e.g., D.D. ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia, 470 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C.2007) (“It is undisputed that attorneys’ fees for time actually spent at a resolution session- ... generally are not compensable under the [IDEA].”); J.Y. ex rel. Thomas v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. C07-1226, 2007 WL 4111202, at 7 (W.D.Wash. Nov. 16, 2007) (“Plaintiffis] may not be awarded fees associated with participating in resolution sessions.”). ii. Fees for Work Performed Prior to the Resolution Meeting Finally, we review whether R.R. is entitled to attorney’s fees for work his attorney performed prior to the resolution meeting. The IDEA states that a court shall reduce fees “whenever the court finds that ... the parent, or the parent’s attorney ... unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(F)(i). As such, we must determine whether R.R.’s rejection of EPISD’s settlement offer unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy such that a further reduction in the fee award is warranted. As discussed above, when a party rejects an offer of settlement and later achieves at an administrative or judicial proceeding no more than what was previously offered, a court may, but is not required to, award reasonable attorney’s fees for work performed prior to the written offer of settlement under § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). On the other hand, if a party accepts an offer of settlement, that party may not be the prevailing party and thus not be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. We need not speculate about these alternate situations. Here, EPISD wisely included the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees to R.R. as part of its settlement offer. Consequently, R.R. was offered all requested educational relief and reasonable attorney’s fees, leaving absolutely no need to continue litigating. Instead, R.R. and his attorney rejected EPISD’s settlement, walked out of the resolution meeting, continued litigation, and unreasonably protracted the resolution of this dispute for over three years. See Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 211 (“[Flailing to settle can constitute protraction under [the IDEA].”); Shelly C., 878 F.2d at 863 (reversing summary judgment in part because the district court did not consider whether the parent’s attorney unreasonably protracted resolution of the dispute when the parties ultimately settled). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court here abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to R.R. for work performed prior to EP-ISD’s written settlement offer of all requested relief and reasonable attorney’s fees. “[T]he IDEA only guarantees the right to a free education; it does not explicitly guarantee the right to attorney’s fees incurred in pursuit of that education.” T.D. v. LaGrange, 349 F.3d at 477. 3. EPISD’s Claim For Attorney’s Fees EPISD also requests that we reverse the district court’s dismissal of its suit for attorney’s fees. The IDEA provides that a court “may award reasonable attorneys’ fees ... to a prevailing party who is a ... local educational agency against the attorney of a parent who files a complaint ... that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of a parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) (emphasis added). A court may also “award reasonable attorneys’ fees ... to a prevailing State educational agency or local educational agency against the attorney of a parent, or against the parent, if the parent’s complaint or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose .... ” Id. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) (emphasis added); see also Weber, supra note 10, at 29 (discussing these provisions). As such, prevailing party status is a predicate for an award of attorney’s fees to EPISD. Here, there is no indication that EPISD did prevail or would have prevailed on R.R.’s underlying request for educational relief. Indeed, EPISD’s whole argument rests on the fact that it offered to provide R.R. all of his requested educational relief. Thus, even though EPISD has “prevailed” by successfully arguing for a reduction in R.R.’s fee award, EPISD has not prevailed in arguing that R.R. is not entitled to his requested educational relief. Thus, we cannot say that EPISD was the “prevailing party” such that it is entitled to attorney’s fees under the IDEA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of EPISD’s claim for attorney’s fees. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees to R.R. We affirm the dismissal of EPISD’s claim for attorney’s fees. AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part. Costs shall be borne by Mark Berry. . R.R. has acted through his parents in this litigation. As a procedural matter, EPISD brought suit against R.R.'s father and R.R.’s attorney. For simplicity, we refer to R.R., his attorney, and his parents as “R.R.,” unless otherwise noted or made apparent from context. . This meeting is held during the "resolution session,” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B), and is described under the heading “preliminary meeting,” id. § 1415(f)(l)(B)(i). For clarity, we refer to this meeting as the "resolution meeting.” . See, e.g., T.D. v. LaGrange Sch. Dist. No. 102, 349 F.3d 469, 478-79 (7th Cir.2003) ("[T]o be a prevailing party \post-Buckhannonj\ a litigant must have obtained a judgment on the merits, a consent decree, or some similar form of judicially sanctioned relief ... on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefits the parties sought in bringing suit.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also J.D. ex rel. Davis v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., 571 F.3d 381, 386-87 (4th Cir.2009) ("As the Supreme Court noted in Buckhannon, an award of attorneys’ fees requires a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties ...,[but] a party need not prevail on every issue .... [0]b-taining judicially sanctioned and enforceable final relief on some claims is sufficient.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Doe v. Boston Pub. Sch., 358 F.3d 20, 29-30 (1st Cir.2004) ("Consistent with each of the circuit courts that have considered the application of Buckhannon to the IDEA, we hold that IDEA plaintiffs who achieve their desired result via private settlement may not, in the absence of judicial imprimatur, be considered 'prevailing parties.’ ”); John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Del. County Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 556 (3rd Cir.2003) ("The \Buckhannon\ Court acknowledged that a party benefitting from a settlement agreement, for example, could be a prevailing party, provided the change in the legal relationship of the parties was in some way judicially sanctioned.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). . An administrative hearing officer's order provides the requisite "judicial imprimatur” for a party to be considered a "prevailing party” for attorney’s fee purposes, despite the fact that the administrative hearing officer does not have the authority to award attorney’s fees. The IDEA provides that a court may award attorney’s fees to any party that prevails in an "action or proceeding,” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i), and the statute implies that administrative hearings are "proceedings.” See, e.g., id. § 1415(d)(2)(F) ("due process proceedings”); id. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(i) ("administrative proceedings”); id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)(I) ("administrative proceeding”). Our sister circuits have also recognized that attorney's fees can be awarded to a party who prevails at an administrative hearing. See, e.g., A.R. ex rel. R.V. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 407 F.3d 65, 76 (2d Cir.2005) ("In order to give effect to the IDEA’S intent to permit awards to winning parties in administrative proceedings even where there has been no judicial involvement, as the parties agree that we must, we conclude that the combination of administrative imprimatur, the change in the legal relationship of the parties arising from it, and subsequent judicial enforceability, render such a winning party a 'prevailing party’ under Buckhannon's principles.”); T.D. v. LaGrange, 349 F.3d at 479 ("[W]e held in Brown v. Griggsville Comm. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 4, that tire IDEA does allow fees to the prevailing party in administrative hearings. 12 F.3d 681, 683-84 (7th Cir.1993). While we recognize that this opinion was issued before Buckhannon, we do not perceive that Buckhannon requires a different conclusion.”). These authorities are consonant with our pre-Buckhannon precedent holding that success at an administrative proceeding entitles a party to attorney’s fees. See Duane M. v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 861 F.2d 115, 120 (5th Cir.1988) ("The legislative history of section 1415[] reflects Congress’ unequivocal intent to award attorneys’ fees to parents for legal representation at due process hearings which the [IDEA] requires. To hold that prevailing parties in these hearings cannot bring a separate suit for attorneys' fees would defeat that intent .... ”). . EPISD spends over half of its brief on appeal arguing that R.R. did not present a justiciable case or controversy to either the state due process hearing officer or the district court. We respond simply by noting that EPISD itself admitted in its settlement offer to R.R. that "[t]here are genuine issues of fact and law in dispute in this matter; thus, an agreed order is not in order.” (Offer of Settlement from EPISD to R.R., Oct. 11, 2006.) . Section 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) provides: Attorneys’ fees may not be awarded and related costs may not be reimbursed in any action or proceeding under this section for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement to a parent if— (I) the offer is made within the time prescribed by Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the case of an administrative proceeding, at any time more than 10 days before the proceeding begins; (II) the offer is not accepted within 10 days; and (III) the court or administrative hearing officer finds that the relief finally obtained by the parents is not more favorable to the parents than the offer of settlement. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). . Section 1415(i)(3)(F) contemplates that an attorney’s fee award will be reduced under several enumerated circumstances: Except as provided in subparagraph (G), whenever the court finds that— (i) the parent, or the parent's attorney, during the course of the action or proceeding, unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy; (ii) the amount of the attorneys’ fees otherwise authorized to be awarded unreasonably exceeds the hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar services by attorneys of reasonably comparable skill, reputation, and experience; (iii) the time spent and legal services furnished were excessive considering the nature of the action or proceeding; or (iv) the attorney representing the parent did not provide to the local educational agency the appropriate information in the notice of the complaint described in subsection (b)(7)(A), the court shall reduce, accordingly, the amount of the attorneys’ fees awarded under this section. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(F). . See also Dell v. Bd. of Educ., 918 F.Supp. 212, 217 (N.D.Ill.1995) ("[T]his court concludes that the relief finally obtained by Plaintiffs was not, in fact, more favorable than Defendant’s offer, in spite of the fact that both hearing officers' decisions are replete with findings that Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ son's rights .... Thus, although Plaintiffs are 'prevailing parties' for purposes of a fee award ... the relief they won consists only of reimbursement of $2,000.00 for the reasonable and customary expense of an independent evaluation of their son’s needs. Because that sum is not more favorable than the $3,000.00 payment offered by Defendant School District before the administrative hearing, [Plaintiffs] are barred from recovery of fees for services rendered at that hearing or in these proceedings.”). . We review an award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion, and we review the factual findings upon which the award is based for clear error. Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 208. . Several commentators also recognize that IDEA settlement agreements reached at a resolution meeting are enforceable in federal court. See, e.g., Andrea F. Blau, Available Dispute Resolution Processes within the Reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004: Where Do Mediation Principles Fit In?, 7 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 65, 72 (2007) ("Decisions reached between the parties [at a resolution meeting] are binding and enforceable.”); Allan G. Osborne & Charles J. Russo, Resolution Sessions Under the IDEA: Are They Mandatory?, 218 West Educ. L. Rep. 7, 9 (2007) ("A settlement agreement [reached at a resolution meeting] is enforceable by a state or federal court .... ”); Mark C. Weber, Reflections on the New Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 58 Fla. L.Rev. 7, 31 (2006) (“If the parent and school district reach an agreement in the resolution session, the parties execute a legally binding document, which may be enforced directly in court ....”). . If R.R. had accepted EPISD's written settlement offer, made the day of the resolution meeting, then the parties would have entered into the "legally binding agreement” contemplated by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1 )(B)(iii). Accordingly, we do not have occasion to decide today whether a district court would have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement entered into outside a resolution meeting. . (See, e.g., R.R.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 18, May 22, 2007 ("[Settlements with a school district (except those that result from a resolution meeting ...) are not enforceable ....” (emphasis added)); R.R.'s Reply to EPISD's Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. 2, Dec. 14, 2007 ("Likewise, any written settlement agreement that is 'reached to resolve the complaint at a [resolution meeting]' ... is enforceable in a state or federal court.”).) . As a threshold matter, the IDEA states that § 1415(i)(3)(F) shall not apply "if the court finds that the ... local educational agency unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the action or proceeding ...." Id. § 1415(i)(3)(G). Nothing in the record indicates that EPISD unreasonably protracted resolution of this dispute. . In considering this question, we note that extended litigation under the IDEA is disfavored because it imposes heavy costs on the litigants and delays implementation of an appropriate educational plan for children with disabilities. See Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 58-59, 126 S.Ct. 528 (discussing the costs of litigating IDEA disputes and Congress’s intent to reduce IDEA litigation). . See, e.g., Doe v. Boston, 358 F.3d at 29-30 (" Consistent with each of the circuit courts that have considered the application of Buckhannon to the IDEA, we hold that IDEA plaintiffs who achieve their desired result via private settlement may not, in the absence of judicial imprimatur, be considered 'prevailing parties.’ ”); T.D. v. LaGrange, 349 F.3d at 476-78 (recognizing that a private settlement without judicial imprimatur is insufficient to convey prevailing party status); John T., 318 F.3d at 557 (same). . See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Ijeabuonwu, 631 F.Supp.2d 101, 104 (D.D.C.2009) (recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorney’s fees under the IDEA); Parenteau v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., No. CV-07-8072, 2009 WL 2169154, at *7 (D.Ariz. July 17, 2009) (same).	CASELAW
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 1.djvu/9 ABBREVIATIONS. e.g., exempli gratia, for example. [E.], Kingdom of England. ex., extinct. " Ex. Hist.," " Exfierpta Historica," large 8vo., 1S31. Fae. oft'., Faculty office, London. Fun. Cert., Funeral Certificate. " Gen.," " Genealogist," edited by G. W. Marshall, 8vo., 7 vols., 1877-83. [(.!!.]. Kingdom of Great Britain. Han. sq., Hanover square. Middlesex. h., heir. " Her. and Gen.," " Herald and Genealogist," edited by J. G. Nichols, 8 vols., 8vo., 1863-74. "Hewlett," Hewlett's "Dignities in the Peerage of Scotland," which are dormant or forfeited, 8vo„ 1882. "Hewlett jur.," Hewlett's "Jurisdiction in regard to Scottish Titles of Honour," small 8vo., 1S83. H.R.H., His, or Her, Royal Highness. [I.], Kingdom of Ireland, i. e., id est, that is. Inq., Inquisition. Inq. p.m., Inquisition post mortem. J.P., Justice of the Peace, lie., licence. " Lib. Hib.," " Liber Munerum Publicorum Hibernia;," 19 Stephen to 7 Geo. IV, two enormous folio vols., 1S52. " Lodge," Lodge's " Peerage of Ireland," 2nd edit, edited by M. Archdall, 7 vols., 8vo., 1789. The 1st edition is in 4 vols., 8vo., 1754. Lond. off., Bishop of London's office. " Lords' Reports," first, second, third and fourth " Reports on the dignity of a Peer of the Jlealm from the Lords' Committees," 4 vols., folio, 1S26. " Lynch," Lynch's * Feudal Baronies in Ireland," 8vo., 1830. " Maidment," Maidmeut's "Genealogical Collections," 4to., pp. 172, 1883. /»., married. mar. lie,, marriage licence. mar. settl., marriage settlement. mat., matriculated. M.I., monumental inscription. Midx., Middlesex. M.P., Member of Parliament. "Mis. Gen. et Her., 1st s.," ditto, Und a., ditto, 3rd »., " Miscellanea Genealogies et Heraldica," edited by J. J. Howard, large 8vo., 1st scries, 2 vols., 186S-7G ; ~'nd scries, 4 vols., 1874-83 ; 3rd series, vol. i 1884, &c. " N. and Q.," " Notes and Queries ; " first issued on 3 Nov. 1849. " Nicolas," Nicolas' " Synopsis of the Peerage of England," 2 vols., small Svo., 1S25. "Nichols' Wills," "Royal and Noble Wills," 1087 to 1608, edited by J. Nichols, 4to. 1780.(") (") In "Nichols' Wills" each document is given in its own language and at full length, whereas in " Test. Vet." those that are not in English are translated, and many are abridged.	WIKI
Subject: Re: Cardbus To: Lennart Augustsson <lennart@augustsson.net> From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> List: tech-kern Date: 12/20/1999 20:54:11 In message <385ED6BE.7BB18CE0@augustsson.net> Lennart Augustsson writes: : Speaking of detaching network card. Is anyone working on this? : I guess I can borrow the code from OpenBSD to do it, because : I want to be able to switch network cards. You might want to check out FreeBSD's if_detach. It works fairly well, if you don't have ipv6. The current if_detach works if you don't have ipv6, but does have knowledge that it really shouldn't. I'm working on a more generic way to do this that doesn't pollute if.c with knowledge about specific types of address families. It works, but could be improved somewhat. It allows me to remove cards network cards w/o random things hanging/crashing due to random address deferencing. Warner	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Nearly 40 per cent of Europeans suffer mental illness - Reuters 5 Min Read LONDON (Reuters) - Europeans are plagued by mental and neurological illnesses, with almost 165 million people or 38 percent of the population suffering each year from a brain disorder such as depression, anxiety, insomnia or dementia, according to a large new study. With only about a third of cases receiving the therapy or medication needed, mental illnesses cause a huge economic and social burden measured in the hundreds of billions of euros as sufferers become too unwell to work and personal relationships break down. Mental disorders have become Europe's largest health challenge of the 21st century, the study's authors said. At the same time, some big drug companies are backing away from investment in research on how the brain works and affects behaviour, putting the onus on governments and health charities to stump up funding for neuroscience. The immense treatment gap ... for mental disorders has to be closed, said Hans Ulrich Wittchen, director of the institute of clinical psychology and psychotherapy at Germany's Dresden University and the lead investigator on the European study. Those few receiving treatment do so with considerable delays of an average of several years and rarely with the appropriate, state-of-the-art therapies. Wittchen led a three-year study covering 30 European countries the 27 European Union member states plus Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and a population of 514 million people. A direct comparison of the prevalence of mental illnesses in other parts of the world was not available because different studies adopt varying parameters. Wittchen's team looked at about 100 illnesses covering all major brain disorders from anxiety and depression to addiction to schizophrenia, as well as major neurological disorders including epilepsy, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. The results, published by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ENCP) on Monday, show an exceedingly high burden of mental health disorders and brain illnesses, he told reporters at a briefing in London. Mental illnesses are a major cause of death, disability, and economic burden worldwide and the World Health Organisation predicts that by 2020, depression will be the second leading contributor to the global burden of disease across all ages. Wittchen said that in Europe, that grim future had arrived early, with diseases of the brain already the single largest contributor to the EU's burden of ill health. The four most disabling conditions measured in terms of disability-adjusted life years or DALYs, a standard measure used to compare the impact of various diseases are depression, dementias such as Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, alcohol dependence and stroke. The last major European study of brain disorders, which was published in 2005 and covered a smaller population of about 301 million people, found 27 percent of the EU adult population was suffering from mental illnesses. Although the 2005 study cannot be compared directly with the latest finding the scope and population was different it found the cost burden of these and neurological disorders amounted to about 386 billion euros ($555 billion) a year at that time. Wittchen's team has yet to finalise the economic impact data from this latest work, but he said the costs would be considerably more than estimated in 2005. The researchers said it was crucial for health policy makers to recognise the enormous burden and devise ways to identify potential patients early possibly through screening and make treating them quickly a high priority. Because mental disorders frequently start early in life, they have a strong malignant impact on later life, Wittchen said. Only early targeted treatment in the young will effectively prevent the risk of increasingly largely proportions of severely ill...patients in the future. David Nutt, a neuropsychopharmacology expert at Imperial College London who was not involved in this study, agreed. If you can get in early you may be able to change the trajectory of the illness so that it isn't inevitable that people go into disability, he said. If we really want not to be left with this huge reservoir of mental and brain illness for the next few centuries, then we ought to be investing more now. Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Matthew Jones All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. 2019 Reuters. All Rights Reserved.	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
jamyspex jamyspex - 4 months ago 52 Android Question Android Wear notification not showing Hi I'm writing an Android Wear app that allows the user to control a music player from their watch. I'm trying to do it with a notification with two action buttons. Below is the code that creates/updates the notification when the currently playing song changes, it is from OnDataChanged() from the WearableListenerService . The data arrives on the emulator as expected and the notification builder is constructed correctly, as I can see it in the debugger. Also the final log line is executed and I can see it in logcat, however the notification is not created on the emulator. Also all other notifications from other apps on my phone show up on emulator! Any help greatly appreciated, thanks James! for (DataEvent event : events) { if (event.getType() == DataEvent.TYPE_CHANGED) { String path = event.getDataItem().getUri().getPath(); if ("/playmusicremotedata".equals(path)) { // Get the data out of the event DataMapItem dataMapItem = DataMapItem.fromDataItem(event.getDataItem()); final String songTitle = dataMapItem.getDataMap().getString("songTitle"); final String artist = dataMapItem.getDataMap().getString("artist"); final String album = dataMapItem.getDataMap().getString("album"); Asset asset = dataMapItem.getDataMap().getAsset("albumArt"); Bitmap albumArt = loadBitmapFromAsset(asset); PendingIntent skipForwardPendInt = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(getApplicationContext(), 8, new Intent("net.jamyspex.remoteforgoogleplaymusic.SKIP_FORWARD"), PendingIntent.FLAG_UPDATE_CURRENT); PendingIntent playPausePendInt = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(getApplicationContext(), 7, new Intent("net.jamyspex.remoteforgoogleplaymusic.PLAY_PAUSE"), PendingIntent.FLAG_UPDATE_CURRENT); Notification.Action playPauseBut = new Notification.Action(R.drawable.play, "Pause/Play", playPausePendInt); Notification.Action nextBut = new Notification.Action(R.drawable.skip_forward, "Skip", skipForwardPendInt); // Create the ongoing notification Notification.Builder notificationBuilder = new Notification.Builder(this) .setSmallIcon(R.drawable.ic_launcher) .setContentTitle(songTitle) .setContentText(artist + " - " + album) .setLargeIcon(albumArt) .setOngoing(true) .addAction(playPauseBut) .addAction(nextBut); // Build the notification and show it NotificationManager notificationManager = (NotificationManager) getSystemService(Context.NOTIFICATION_SERVICE); notificationManager.notify(NOTIFICATION_ID, notificationBuilder.build()); Log.i(TAG, "Should have created notification"); } else { Log.d(TAG, "Unrecognized path: " + path); } } } Answer To make the solution more visible to users who may be affected with the same issue - i'm posting this as an answer. REASON: The reason was simple: app was muted (probably accidentally) on Android Wear device and this was preventing any notifications from appearing on watch. While posting any ongoing notification from watch, there will be extra action added automatically. It is called "Mute app" and probably it was pressed in some point in time during development by accident. Muted apps can be managed in the Android Wear companion app on Settings screen. This can be fairly hard to debug because any code is invoked without any error and there is also no logs in the LogCat about the fact that app is muted. I hope that it will be helpful for other users that will search for the similar issue in the future:)	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Talk:Women's rights in 2014/Archive 2 Shame and guilt issues As anyone who has done any reading on women's issues knows, society tends to blame women for things that were done to them. Historically even violent rape has been blamed on the woman, not the rapist. Adult women who were sexually abused as children even see themselves to blame, and need therapy to recover from guilt and shame. I've come across a few articles that discuss the fact that few women have ever been able to discuss their difficult emotions surrounding an abortion that they have had. I have written up the following and would like some feedback since this issue has not yet been introduced in the article: 2014 also found an unprecedented number of women, including Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards and Texas state senetor Wendy Davis, publicly speaking about an abortion that they had in the past. A webpage, the 1 in 3 Campaign, named for the percentage of women who will have an abortion in their lifetime, encourages women to share the story of their abortion and post it on their website. The first woman to tell her story was Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the Daily Show. Another web-based program, Sea Change, "a new nonprofit that seeks to tackle the stigma around abortion and other reproductive experiences" helps women to deal with the emotional impact of their experiences through discussion with other women with similar experiences. Do you think that this is appropriate, and if so what heading should I use? Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * Lizz Winstead shared her abortion story prior to 2014. I recall her 2012 Huff post article on the topic, and an even earlier comedy, yet serious, routine on the topic of her abortion . I suppose emphasizing Winstead could make sense if the sources link Cecile Richards and Wendy Davis' disclosures to Winstead, but I'm not sure about that and would be interested in other's thoughts on it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Citation templates I notice that some citation templates have been added recently. This article was being written without citation templates, and, for the sake of consistency, can we please stick to one style/convention avoiding citation templates ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * I think a lot of people struggle to form non-templated citations. Templates exist for a reason and deliberately to avoid using them seems rather odd. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * I support the use of templates. I also find it strange that citation templates wouldn't be used because using them creates consistency across articles and makes it easier to make global changes to citation styles. Also, using them means that editors need not worry about ensuring that they've put things in the right order. The only time I'd think that templates wouldn't be used is when there's some kind of unusual or special case that's not covered by the templates. Ca2james (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC) RFC Is this article too reliant on opinion pieces/editorials? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Comment Anyone who is unfamiliar with this article and who is conscientious enough to review the umpteen discussions above probably should also review the archived discussions at WT:GGTF. Unfortunately, the comments ended up being split across the two venues until recently. - Sitush (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Comment Instead of starting an RFC so soon, why not first search out additional sources and boldly add them to article and/or discuss adding any additional sources you find on article talk page?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Some allegations are only supported by op-eds, and good sources don't exist, so therefore, some of the statements supported only by op-eds should be removed. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Plus, the article at present is predicated on those op-eds. It is a house of cards that relies upon them, right from the first sentence. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Comment If anyone can come up with better sources, they can propose or add or discuss them. OP-eds are clearly allowed and millions of them are being used on Wikipedia, it does not need debating on this article and this article does not need exceptional rules. If they are unsuitable, it should be debated on the relevant policiy pages like WP:V and banned from there. This RFC is a waste of time.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Hell ! I just created this op-ed based article. Manspreading. Do we need an RFC for separate rules for that article too ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Comment This RFC doesn't seem to be well-formed. The question is unclear, as there's no indication of what "too many op-eds" means or what a support !vote would mean, and there's no summary of the issue so that editors can understand the issue at hand. Also, normally there are separate Support/Oppose and Discussion sections to make it easier for the closer to figure out consensus. Given that the issue is one of sources, why not take the article to one of the reliable sources noticeboards for clarification instead of doing an RFC? Ca2james (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Possible sources Possible sources: --Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC) * Good hunting, thanks, but we need less cheerleading and more fact. Wikipedia is not intended to be an extension of any movement. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Sitush, if the RS on the topic of women's rights it 2014 mostly consist of what you deem "cheerleading", then in accordance with WP:DUE, such "cheerleading" should be reflected in the article. It's become clear from your comments here and GGTF that you have a POV against the mention of the positive, or as you call it "cheerleading". If you have sources which describe 2014 as a bleak year for women's rights, please add them, but also please do not undermine the work of others who are actively searching out and adding sources. Lightbreather, thank you searching out and finding all of these. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * Good work. There is nothing wrong with collecting sources for the article. Don't let anyone dampen your spirits or make you think you are doing anything wrong. To lose good cheer and enthusiasm would be like death itself, and we all need more enthusiasm and cheer. Cheers !!!!OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Who wants to set up automatic archiving? There are a lot of sections now. I think there'll be even more sections in the near-future. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC) * Added in archiving to be bold. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC) The University of Virgina rape allegations were significantly covered. I see my addition of that content was reverted. I think I had enough sources to show that it started a national debate. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * You are correct in saying that there are enough sources covering the event itself so that the event can be documented. However, that alone does not make it suitable for inclusion in any article. Just having sources is not enough. I have read hundreds of sources which are directly on topic of "Women's rights in 2014" or "Women in 2014" or "Feminism in 2014" or similar, and it is my opinion that this event has not been noted significantly in those articles giving an overview of this topic, or majorly covering this topic. That is why it is undue in this article. Please see WP:DUE.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) If we do not have an article on that topic, the paragraph you contributed could be useful for creating a new article on that incident, or in some other article where this material may be due.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * Ah, it seems your opinion is that unless a review-of-the-year op-ed mentions something, it has no place in this article. Am I understanding you? - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * I'm confused regarding how this specific case is significant with respect to women's rights in 2014? Seems this content might be better incorporated into the False accusations of rape article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * I'm confused abut that, too, but also about OrangesRyellow's "overview" permission. If the Virginia thing led to some sort of backlash along the lines of "false accusations damage progress", which is something that does get said here in the UK from time to time in situations such as this, then there might be a more obvious reason for including the material. Otherwise, it seems that the only reason to include might be that we mention the debate about the role of prominent people and so should mention the debate that arose from this Virginia issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC) * I deleted it for now because the paragraph as written seemed in no way related to women's rights in 2014. I do notice that the WP article on this case does make some mention of women's rights issues, but not so much focusing on alleged victim as previous text did, but moreso implicating Rolling Stone magazine and the Erdely (the author) because they apparently purposely sought out and then hoped to profit from a sensational rape story. This quote from the current version of A Rape on Campus might be able to be tweaked into something we maybe could use here: "Media indictment of Rolling Stone and Erdely was swift and fierce. A number of commentators accused the magazine of setting rape victims 'back decades,' while the Washington Post described the Rolling Stone story as a 'catastrophe for journalism.' " I'd be interested to hear from others regarding potentially including something along these lines with respect to relevant policies such as due weight etc.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC) The Guardian in the lead I've kept out of the back-and-forth that has been going on regarding the opening sentence. No-one seems to have been discussing it here, merely slugging it out via edit summaries. Would "2014 was described by The Guardian, amongst others, as a watershed year ..." resolve the concerns of both groups? - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * I've just noticed that the "watershed" thing in The Guardian is probably Solnit speaking, not the newspaper. So, either substitute "Rebecca Solnit" for "The Guardian" in my proposal above or use one of the other sources. Her piece in the paper was published on 30 December and then the lead article headline (but not body) effectively quotes her on the following day. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * I've adopted the first suggestion, but have no objections to switching to Solnit specifically. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we cannot simply state this opinion as fact, particularly if we're using the phrasing "was described". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * I was not aware of this ongoing discussion when I reverted. IMO, using the term watershed (Synonyms: turning point, defining moment, pivotal moment, tipping point) has been used as journalistic hype (hype: to stimulate artificially or excite) and does not represent the reality of women's position in 2014. I would like to see this article based in reality rather than journalistic hype. Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC) * In the hands of a skilled wordsmith, any word can be used for hype. This article is based on reality, and the reality is that the reliable sources did say those things about women's right in 2014 :-) ( Not trying to be a wise guy or assumptive, but being less experienced should not mean I cannot present my counter-arguments, sorry if any part of my comment still seems assumptive )OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC) * Must you continue to suggest that I am arguing that "watershed" has not been used to describe 2014. I've never suggested that and you should know it from our previous discussion. My argument has been related to the reality of where women found themselves using the measurements of health, education, economic status, freedom from violence and fear of violence, etc., in 2014. You and apparently several others believe that the journalists got it right: 2014 was a watershed year. That may be their reality and it may be yours, but it's not mine. Women of privilege may be doing pretty well, but women of color, poor women, and many others from around the world saw no, NO improvement in their status in 2014, let alone a watershed year. Gandydancer (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC) * You have made some points in your above comment, and I could have discussed them. If I discussed them, I might agree with some parts, and also offer disagreements, refutations, criticisms on some. But if you are going to see imaginary connotations / suggestions in my comments, please consider asking if I was actually suggesting anything like that or not ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC) * OK, I will say again, I do not dispute that "the reality is that the reliable sources did say those things about women's right in 2014." We've been through this before on the project page where I said, " Furthermore, I've never even argued that the opinions expressed that believe that 2014 was a watershed year can't be included in the article because they do not meet guidelines. I have only said that In my opinion 2014 was not a watershed year, which is fine and I don't believe that I should now need to go on and on in this disagreement. I don't like to argue and I hope that this is the end of it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)" Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC) * OrangesRyellow, you actually suggested with this edit that a) your change of the article was an improvement because it "make[s] for aesthetic reading", and b) The Guardian should not be linked "because I don't like links so early in an article". Both suggestions are problematic: leaving aside for the moment differing aesthetic opinions, aesthetic aspects of the article should never outweigh core policy like NPOV, and WP:UNDERLINK outweighs WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) * I strongly object to make the statement, "2014 was an important year for women" and am glad to see it deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Gender gap in wages I have removed this section that I had added to the article for discussion. I have tweaked it in bold to hopefully satisfy problems raised in discussion about whether the stats are from 2013 or 2014. Obviously stats through 2013 were used, as must be to compile the report, but it was released in 2014. * Reports released by the US government in 2014 show almost no change in the comparison of what women earn to that of men in the last ten years: 76 to 78 persent of that of a man and even lower for women of color. The gap exists in every occupation and grows with age. * The US federal minimum wage remains at $7.25 an hour; two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. This amounts to a wage that is $3,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. Speaking in 2014, Senator Elizabeth Warren said: “Today the minimum wage isn’t even high enough to keep a fully employed mother and a baby out of poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. Anyone who works full-time should not live in poverty.” Is there any problem with this addition? Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Additions of reviews published in 2014, which are not about 2014. I've noticed summary type quotes or summary type statements have been added to the lead regarding reviews which happened to be published in 2014, which do not seem to be specifically about events occurring in 2014. Specifically, I'm referring to the content referenced by and. Perhaps it would be better to carefully go through these documents, and pull out information specific to 2014, instead of summarizing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * I added both of those. It is my impression that I have added information specific to 2014. I don't understand what you see as a problem. Please be more specific. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * Gandydancer, I was referring to this: "an unprecedented wave of state-level abortion restrictions swept the country over the past three years". Perhaps we could tweak it to be more 2014 focused? Maybe we could emphasize the laws restricting abortion passed in 2014, and then mention Guttmacher describes the 2014 laws as being part of a 3 year trend of laws restricting access to abortion. I was also referring to this quote "no single country can claim that there is progressive elimination occurring". I haven't had time to read through the lengthy document referencing this quote. Is she saying As of 2014, no country can claim progressive elimination is occurring? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC) * Regarding the abortion report, I would prefer to not manipulate the information the institute presented to make it seem to have been something other than what it was. I will remove it if others do not support my position. Re no "progressive elimination occurring", yes, that is what she claims to see since the first report in 2006. I can remove if there is no support for this as well. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC) * I think the abortion report content should be deleted because I don’t see an easy way to make this 2014 related. I can’t find any reference to court decisions or laws enacted in 2014 in this report. A google search of “2014 abortion laws” does reveal these two, but neither restrict access to abortion, but rather they protect access to abortion., --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC) * OK, I have not gained any support so I will remove that information. What is your opinion on the Manjoo info and the new info I added re the wage gap, which is also a report based on the present status rather than anything new that occurred in 2014? Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC) * Rather than go through the work of formatting my references for the wage gap section I have removed it for now since it may also be objected to since it is not strictly anything new from 2014 but rather a recap of where we are today. If there is support I can put it back. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC) * I think the status quo in 2014 is relevant to this article, and when possible such information should be presented in the format of "As of 2014, the gender wage gap was...", but the thing that concerns me here regarding some of the refs is they are published in 2014, but the most recent data they appear to be using is 2013 data. I haven't had a chance to closely read all the refs for the wage gap content, but glancing at them I noticed this ref is using 2013 data. They state "In 2013, among full-time, year-round workers, women were paid 78 percent of what men were paid". Unfortunately, I think we might have to wait for later reports to get 2014 data. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC) * Well of course the data is from 2013 - how can they publish a report in 2014 using 2014 data? By your way of thinking, if a Women's rights in 2015 would be written it would again be impossible to include info because the data was collected in 2014.Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) * Maybe I am not making my position clear enough. I have no objection to including in this article a report published in 2015 which says "In 2014, the wage gap was", but I do have concerns regarding using a report published in 2014 which says "In 2013, the wage gap was...." because the topic is Women's rights in 2014. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC) * I believe that this has reached the level of splitting hairs. There seems to be no problem with using a half a dozen news sources, web news and mags, to state 2014 was a groundbreaking year, but when it comes to respected sources, the Guttmacher Institute or gov't wage stats on gender inequality for example, we need to start splitting hairs. The Guttmacher Institute put their report out in 2014 and that should be good enough. The reason that all the fluffy stuff like "watershed and groundbreaking year" for women satisfying your "happened in 2014" requirement is that they did not bother to gather any hard facts to back up their assertions. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Data about 2013 can be added in the Women's rights in 2013 article. If data about 2014 has not been published as yet, we can wait and include it whenever it gets published. Data about 2013 does not pertain to the 2014 article.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC) * In that case all of the following info will need to go as well, unless you can explain to me how they managed to use data from 2014 to publish a report in 2014, when the year's data was not even yet published: * The World Economic Forum's 2014 Global Gender Gap Report, measuring the allocation of resources between women and men in health, education, economy and politics, ranked Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark highest on their Global Gender Gap Index, while Yemen, Pakistan, Chad, Syria and Mali were among the worst. Globally, the health and survival gap stands at 96% and the educational attainment gap is 94%, with some countries closing the gap entirely. However, the gap related to improvement for women in the workplace stands at 60%, having closed by only 4% since 2006. Although it has shown the most improvement, the political empowerment gap remains at just 21%. [56][57][58] * For instance, they draw a lot of information from that published by the WHO. How could they use WHO info from 2014 when the WHO would obviously not have published their data till the year was out? This is so basic that I really do not understand why this argument seems to go on and on. Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC) * Rankings for 2014, and the data on which that ranking was calculated, clearly pertains to the 2014 article. Data about 2013 or earlier pertains to 2013 article or earlier. I am at a loss how to explain this in simpler terms.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC) * I do not know how to make it simpler either, but you are clearly wrong when you say that for instance the 2014 Global Gender Gap Report used 2014 data. It was published in 2014 and belongs in the article (as should the Guttmacher 2014 report), but the data is almost invariably old data from 3013 or earlier. See for instance the Denmark data that was used. At any rate, this has become a waste of my time and I will move on. Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Opening Sentence I removed the opening sentence to this article because of its overzealous and hyperbolic tone, which does not sound appropriate for an encyclopedia article. What does “since the dawn of time” even supposed to mean? Unless they mean the dawn of Time magazine, how could anyone possibly know this? It actually sounds quite silly, and unbecoming of an article on Wikipedia. I suggest use another, more sensible, quotation from the article at Time. Alialiac (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC) * Do you have any input on this, since you moved the Time quote to the lead sentence back on January 19? I agreed with the move and no-one else objected, but maybe others missed it? Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC) * , I see you reverted the sentence again without hearing from BoboMeowCat (as far as I can tell). Favor, please? Could you at least put edit summaries with your edits? Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC) * I reverted because opening the lead with "The newspaper" or "Newspapers like...." is awkward phrasing. I would support going back to OrangesRyellow's version of the opening paragraph, but unfortunately when we opened with the watershed year content people kept edit warring in awkward wording when "described as" seemed sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC) re dyk This article was nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Women's rights in 2014, but a concern has been raised that the article isn't neutral. The article's dyk nominator, SlimVirgin, wants her name taken off the nomination and the article's creator, OrangesRyellow, is no longer interested in the article and recommends the nomination be deleted. EChastain (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)	WIKI
Documentation This is machine translation Translated by Microsoft Mouse over text to see original. Click the button below to return to the English verison of the page. Call MATLAB Functions from C/C++ MEX Files It is possible to call MATLAB® functions, operators, user-defined functions, and other binary MEX files from within your C/C++ source code by using the API function mexCallMATLAB. The example, sincall.c, creates an mxArray, passes various pointers to a local function to acquire data, and calls mexCallMATLAB to calculate the sine function and plot the results. To build this example, at the command prompt type: mex sincall.c Run the example. sincall MATLAB displays a sin curve equivalent to executing the following MATLAB commands: MAX = 1000; mm = MAX/2; for i = 1:mm-1 X(i) = i(43.14159/MAX); end Y = sin(X); plot(X,Y) See Also Related Examples Was this topic helpful?	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
The Cyclopædia of American Biography/Frasch, Herman FRASCH, Herman, inventor, b. at Gaildorf, Württemberg, Germany, 25 Dec, 1852; d. in Paris, France, 1 May, 1914, son of John and Frieda Henrietta (Bauer) Frasch. Both his parents were natives of Stuttgart, his father was burgomaster of Gaildorf. His family on both sides was notable, particularly in the military life of Germany; his uncle, Major Borth, was killed in the Franco-Prussian War, and a first cousin, Lieut. Col. Frederick Borth, of Württemberg, a member of the staff of the Grand Duke Albrecht, was killed during the recent operations in France, on 18 Aug., 1914. Herman Frasch was educated in the city of Halle, passing through the successive grades of the public and Latin schools and the gymnasium. At the age of sixteen he entered upon his work as a pharmacist in Halle, but about one year later came to the United States, sailing from Bremen and landing in Philadelphia. Soon after his arrival, he entered the laboratory of Prof. John M. Maisch at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. Here he worked for several years, perfecting his knowledge of pharmaceutical chemistry and rendering valuable assistance to his chief, through his daring and originality in experiment. His interest, however, turned steadily toward industrial chemistry, a branch of the science then coming into increasing prominence, and in 1874 he opened a laboratory of his own, and began a series of experiments that proved him the master-mind that the world was destined to recognize and honor in later years. He received his first patent, covering a process for utilizing tin scrap, in 1874; his second, on a process for purifying paraffine wax in 1876. Both of these, as events have proved, were basic to important modern industries. The paraffine wax, formerly a waste by-product in oil refining, was now capable of utilization in the manufacture of candles and for other industrial purposes of importance, and the credit of discovering the secret of its utilization, worth millions of dollars yearly, is due to the genius of Mr. Frasch. He also originated the familiar and useful paraffine paper, which has such great and varied uses as a waterproof packing for foodstuffs, confectionery, etc., and has made possible the safe transportation and preservation of many substances, otherwise perishable. These, and related patents having been purchased by one of the subsidiaries of the Standard Oil Company, he himself was retained, under contract for a term of years, to conduct extensive experiments for improving the processes of refining crude petroleum. He made several technical contributions to the practical processes of oil manufacture, all of which were profitably adopted in practice with the comparatively pure oils from the Pennsylvania fields, as well as several inventions in other industrial lines, such as one for the production of white lead from galena ore, another for the purification of salt, and a third for producing electric light carbons from oil residuum. In 1885, however, he entered upon experiments leading to one of his most important discoveries, the purification of sulphur-tainted oils, such as are found in the oil fields of Canada, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The presence of sulphur in these oils greatly limited their range of utility, because of the offensive odors and suffocating fumes liberated when they were burned. Such defects, of course, reduced their value to the lowest terms, the usual price at the wells being as low as cents per barrel. Apart from the presence of these impurities, however, the oils were of excellent quality, capable of refinement into illuminating oils of high grade, as well as into the coarser products fit only for fuel purposes. A great reward awaited the man who should successfully achieve the feat of desulphurizing them on a commercial scale, and to win this Mr. Frasch set himself with his usual persistence and industry. As the result of exhaustive tests on Canadian sulphur-tainted oils he discovered that the offensive odors and other commercial drawbacks were due to the presence of about 2 per cent. of sulphur in the crude well product. Therefore, with the instinct of the experienced chemist, he quickly concluded that this could be eliminated by treating with metallic oxide, so as to combine with the free sulphur held in the solution by the oil and form the corresponding metallic sulphides. Several such oxides when suitably reduced and heated with the oil were found capable of accomplishing the desired end of desulphurization, but Mr. Frasch concluded that copper oxide is the most suitable, because of the fact that the sulphide resulting from the treatment of the oil may be more readily generated, or reduced to a simple oxide again by a process of roasting. The copper oxide may thus be used repeatedly, after regeneration. Furthermore, as he discovered, by the addition of oxide, after the desired combinations had largely taken place, the oil could be so far desulphurized that only about 2-100 of 1 per cent. of sulphur could be found, a quantity entirely negligible for most purposes in which petroleum products are used. The process of mixing the oil with copper oxide was performed by either one or two methods. In the one the oil is boiled with the oxide in great vertical stills, and the mass was kept in constant agitation by the use of chain stirrers. In the second the vapor from the oil boiled in a suitable caldron was led through great double walled drums, which, in turn, were heated on the outside by fires fed from oil vapor, and in which the copper oxide was kept in a constant state of agitation by means of rotary brushes of steel wires. Either process was suitable for the large scale work demanded in the oil industry, and both have been used. The vast scope of the process may be judged by the fact that at the largest of the Standard Oil Company's refineries at Whiting, Ind., 400,000 pounds, or 200 tons, of copper oxide are constantly in use. The desulphurization of the copper sulphide residuum of the oil desulphurization process is accomplished in a specially designed roasting furnace, in which the mass of the sulphide is kept in constant agitation by immense stirring arms carried on a rotating shaft. This shaft he made hollow, protecting it and the attached mechanism from distortion under the intense heat by hot water circulated through the inner spaces; transforming the moving parts, in fact, into a water-tube boiler supplying superheated steam to the engine which drove the entire mechanism. Thus was completed a process which is, by all odds, the most important contribution ever made to the oil refining industry, and which has made available for all purposes to which petroleum oil and its products are applied, even the most impure deposits to be found in the wells of the Middle West of the United States and Canada. Mr. Frasch's inventions, which had really created the Canadian oil industry, were destined to even wider utilization. About the time of their first perfection the oil fields of Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois were first discovered. These fields yielded a highly sulphurized product of quality very similar to that found in Canada. In order to render these western oils available for the market, desulphurization was necessary. The Standard Oil Company accordingly purchased Mr. Frasch's patents to the process, and secured his services in the erection and operation of stills in the United States. The efficiency of the process may be judged by the fact that, with the installation of the process, the daily output at the wells was increased from 30,000 barrels at fourteen cents to 90,000 barrels at $1.00, an increase in gross receipts from $4,200 to $90,000. The stock with which Mr. Frasch was paid for his patents rose similarly from a quoted value of 168, with dividends at 7 per cent., to a quoted value of 820, with dividends at 40 per cent. In his connection with the Standard Oil Company, Mr. Frasch was repeatedly appealed to for the solution of a wide range of difficulties that were inevitable in the course of such a business. Difficulties seemed only to stimulate his inventive ability to greater activity. Nor were his contributions only in the domain of chemistry, but also in the range of mechanics, where he is credited with several devices of the greatest use and efficiency. He nearly duplicated his achievements with sulphurized oil in his successful purification of the Californian oils, which were found charged with aromatic hydrocarbon compounds to such an extent as to interfere with their fullest usefulness. His solution of this difficulty was a simple chemical one by which the aromatics were easily separated from the alphatic and acyclic constituents by transferring the former into their sulpho-acids by the use of smoking sulphuric acid. On another occasion he was appealed to to devise a method for rejuvenating “tired wells” suitable to the conditions of the western fields. In Pennsylvania the usual method had been to drop a charge of nitroglycerine into the well, in order to shatter the surrounding rock by explosion and thus promote new flow of oil. Geological considerations, relating principally to the quality of the rock, also to its depth below the surface rendered this procedure inapplicable to the Indiana and Ohio wells. After mature consideration of the conditions, Mr. Frasch suggested the use of hydrochloric or sulphuric acid, the one or the other, according to specified conditions in a given case, to be poured down the well, and the mouth securely plugged. The result was that the generation of gases, due to the chemical reactions taking place in the subterranean depths, acted to shatter the surrounding rocks and open up new oil cavities, quite as effectively and more certainly than by the use of explosives. About 1891 Mr. Frasch's attention was called to an interesting situation developed in Calcasieu Parish, La. There, as had long been known, exists a rich and very pure bed of sulphur, which had never been worked for the simple reason that no one had as yet devised means suitable for mining it. Several companies, Austrian, French, and American, had successively attempted to get at the rich deposit, and had failed ignominiously. The principal difficulty lay in the fact that a bed of quicksand, about 500 feet in depth, lay immediately over the sulphur. The conditions were such that the sinking of a shaft was entirely out of the question. Consequently, the rich sulphur deposit — one of the richest in the world, as it has transpired — seemed irrevocably out of the reach of human ingenuity. To Mr. Frasch the difficulty presented only another opportunity. He wasted no time in attempting to devise some means for sinking a shaft through the bog, but saw plainly that some new method must be adopted. With his thorough knowledge of chemistry and physics fortified also by familiarity with methods followed in other industries, to overcome analogous difficulties, he invented the process of melting the sulphur in its subterranean bed, and pumping it in liquid form to the surface. To accomplish this result he sunk a ten-inch pipe to a depth of 200 feet through the sulphur deposit, with the object, merely, of providing a suitable casing for his pumping apparatus. Within this, then, he let down another pipe of six-inch diameter, hav- ing a strainer at the lower end, and filled in the intervening space with sand, in order to secure a firm and rigid construction. A three-inch pipe was then let down within the six-inch, and the principal elements of his epoch-making apparatus were in place. A battery of boilers, aggregating 3,000 horsepower steaming capacity, was then installed on the surface, and superheated water, at a temperature of 335 degrees Fahrenheit, was pumped steadily through the six-inch pipe for twenty-four hours. At the close of this period, the injection was stopped, and the raised pumps operating through the inmost, or three-inch, pipe were started. The result was that, as he had foreseen, the sulphur, melted and carried by the superheated water, was drawn to the surface, and fed into extensive receptacles, hastily prepared to receive it. In this manner was the success of Mr. Frasch's brilliant experiment fully demonstrated, and an extensive deposit of sulphur, hitherto inaccessible, brought forth for commercial uses. By the use of the simple devices just described, coupled with others designed to meet the requirements of filling in the cavities formed by the extraction of the sulphur and to maintain the requisite high temperature in the wells, against the cooling effects of springs, etc., the process was rendered perfectly effective. At the present time seven separate wells are pumped constantly, and an annual aggregate production of 250,000 tons of sulphur is obtained. Each well apparatus is served by a battery of between fifteen and twenty high pressure steam boilers. The product, 99½ per cent, pure, is fed into reservoirs where it is allowed to cool and harden, and is then blasted into sections suitable for transportation. An immense amount of the sulphur is sold to agriculturalists, particularly to those engaged in the cultivation of grapes. Because of the immense output of the mineral made possible by Mr. Frasch's inventions, his company would have easily been able to control the sulphur trade of the world, underselling all even the Anglo-Sicilian Company, which had hitherto enjoyed a virtual monopoly of the sulphur market. The exceptional opportunity to thus create an actual monopoly of the world's market in sulphur would have been eagerly seized on by many, who would have thought of nothing but the vast profits to be obtained. With Mr. Frasch, however, a different thought occurred immediately. He knew perfectly well that the other important source of the sulphur supply was in the mines of Sicily, where the laborers had been afforded a constant source of employment since the days of the Roman Empire. Accordingly, with that deep kindliness of nature which had endeared him to all with whom he came in contact, he determined to achieve an understanding with the Sicilian producers on the division of the world market on a perfectly equable basis. The matter was adjusted, therefore, in such a way as to maintain the best interests of all. Mr. Frasch's inventions in the various lines of his endeavor are covered by several hundred patents in the United States, Canada, and European countries. According to his friend, Charles J. Hedrick of the U. S. Patent Office, patents were granted to him covering at least sixty-nine distinct and separate subjects of invention. Mr. Frasch resided for many years in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, where he was a member of the Union and Roadside Clubs, one of the founders of the Gentlemen's Driving Club, and a charter member of the Tavern Club. He was also a member of the Sleepy Hollow Club of New York and of the Travelers' Club of Paris. He was married in 1892 to Elizabeth Blee, of Cleveland, Ohio. He had one son, George Berkeley Frasch, and one daughter, Frieda, who was married in 1902 to Henry Devereux Whiton, of Cleveland. He was buried in the old cemetery at Gaildorf, where his wife and daughter have erected a memorial chapel within the cemetery inclosure.	WIKI
Article published by : mark at waterfilterhub on Monday, September 11, 2017 - Viewed 572 times Category : Health & Fitness Why Drink More Water Is Harmful To Health Everyone says drinking too much water is very good for health. This applies to some people but not for everyone. Drinking excess water can cause terrible danger. Generally, kidneys can expel excess water from the body through urine. But due to excessive water, the kidneys have to take responsibility for the extraction of water. There is a possibility of stress on the kidneys. If the kidney does not work, excess water can cause problems in the body. So you have to drink water after understanding. According to the weather conditions in the USA, a person is normally sufficient to drink 2-3 liters of water. However, a report from the European Food Safety Authority claims that there is no difficulty in drinking less water than usual. For men 2 liters and for women, 1.6 liters of water is normal. It is mentioned in the report that water is entering the food of the day, it is normal for us to drink 2 or 1.5 liters of water. However, the treatment of antibiotics for high-water medicines is given by the doctors. So that the chemical components from the body are quickly drained through urine. Doctors advised drinking more water and fluid foods than fever, diarrhea and other diseases. It is better to know from the doctor about the problem of kidney problems, high blood pressure, heart and respiratory problems. Drinking unnecessary excess water can cause harm to them.so should be using a water pitcher To avoid Various diseases. However, the main advice of the doctors at present is that no matter how much water one drinks, it must be boiled or filtered with the best water filter, like Ro water filter system, drinking water and refilled pollution free water. So drink pure water is very important for our health. It should not be as low as a certain level. How do you know if you are drinking the right amount of water? Know some rules in this case. In a report, the Times of India reported. 1. After getting up from sleep, you should drink a glass of water on an empty stomach. It is good if the water is light. 2. You should not drink too much water after every meal. You should wait half an hour for drinking water. But one cup of water (150 ml) can be consumed. 3. Other times of the day should be drinking water one to two times per hour. 4. The right way to drink water is to take it in the mouth by taking five to ten seconds of mouth water. 5. Drink water all the time. Drink it within 12 hours of watering. 6. It is not possible to specify the demand for a healthy man's water. Because it depends on various topics. 7. If you work extra for dry weather then the demand for water will increase. If it is without physical work then its level will be different. It is also dependent on how much you accept other liquid foods on the day. 8. Drinking less water every day as well as drinking too much water is harmful. 9. Three things are very important for drinking water - drink enough water, drink hot water and drink slowly. source: www.waterfilterhub.com --- NationDrugs.com Keywords: best water filter pitcher 2017, a water pitcher, Ro water filter system By: mark at waterfilterhub Article Directory: http://www.articlecatalog.com Copy and Paste Link Code: Read other Articles from mark at waterfilterhub: More » Article ID 1050172 (Views 572) Sponsor Listing SNationDrugs.com Canadian Pharmacy	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.701352 Title: Optimising application performance with QoS support in Ad Hoc networks Author: Marchang, Jims ISNI: 0000 0004 5991 291X Awarding Body: University of Plymouth Current Institution: University of Plymouth Date of Award: 2016 Availability of Full Text: Access through EThOS: Access through Institution: Abstract: The popularity of wireless communication has increased substantially over the last decade, due to mobility support, flexibility and ease of deployment. Among next generation of mobile communication technologies, Ad Hoc networking plays an important role, since it can stand alone as private network, become a part of public network, either for general use or as part of disaster management scenarios. The performance of multihop Ad Hoc networks is heavily affected by interference, mobility, limited shared bandwidth, battery life, error rate of wireless media, and the presence of hidden and exposed terminals. The scheduler and the Medium Access Control (MAC) play a vital role in providing Quality of Service (QoS) and policing delay, end-to-end throughput, jitter, and fairness for user application services. This project aims to optimise the usage of the available limited resources in terms of battery life and bandwidth, in order to reduce packet delivery time and interference, enhance fairness, as well as increase the end-to-end throughput, and increase the overall network performance. The end-to-end throughput of an Ad Hoc network decays rapidly as the hop count between the source and destination pair increases and additional flows injected along the path of an existing flow affects the flows arriving from further away; in order to address this problem, the thesis proposes a Hop Based Dynamic Fair Scheduler that prioritises flows subject to the hop count of frames, leading to a 10% increase in fairness when compared to a IEEE 802.11b with single queue. Another mechanism to improve network performance in high congestion scenarios is network-aware queuing that reduces loss and improve the end-to-end throughput of the communicating nodes, using a medium access control method, named Dynamic Queue Utilisation Based Medium Access Control (DQUB-MAC). This MAC provides higher access probability to the nodes with congested queue, so that data generated at a high rate can be forwarded more effectively. Finally, the DQUB-MAC is modified to take account of hop count and a new MAC called Queue Utilisation with Hop Based Enhanced Arbitrary Inter Frame Spacing (QU-EAIFS) is also designed in this thesis. Validation tests in a long chain topology demonstrate that DQUB-MAC and QU-EAIFS increase the performance of the network during saturation by 35% and 40% respectively compared to IEEE 802.11b. High transmission power leads to greater interference and represents a significant challenge for Ad Hoc networks, particularly in the context of shared bandwidth and limited battery life. The thesis proposes two power control mechanisms that also employ a random backoff value directly proportional to the number of the active contending neighbours. The first mechanism, named Location Based Transmission using a Neighbour Aware with Optimised EIFS for Ad Hoc Networks (LBT-NA with Optimised EIFS MAC), controls the transmission power by exchanging location information between the communicating nodes in order to provide better fairness through a dynamic EIFS based on the overheard packet length. In a random topology, with randomly placed source and destination nodes, the performance gain of the proposed MAC over IEEE 802.11b ranges from approximately 3% to above 90% and the fairness index improved significantly. Further, the transmission power is directly proportional to the distance of communication. So, the performance is high and the durability of the nodes increases compared to a fixed transmission power MAC such as IEEE 802.11b when communicating distance is shorter. However, the mechanism requires positional information, therefore, given that location is typically unavailable, a more feasible power control cross layered system called Dynamic Neighbour Aware – Power controlled MAC (Dynamic NA -PMAC)is designed to adjust the transmission power by estimating the communicating distance based on the estimated overheard signal strength. In summary, the thesis proposes a number of mechanisms that improve the fairness amongst the competing flows, increase the end-to-end throughput, decrease the delay, reduce the transmission power in Ad Hoc environments and substantially increase the overall performance of the network. Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.701352 DOI: Not available Keywords: ad hoc networks ; MAC ; QoS support ; scheduler ; power control transmission Share:	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Venue Songs Venue Songs is a 2004 album by the group They Might Be Giants. A live album, it is composed entirely of new songs. At each stop of their 2004 tour, They Might Be Giants wrote, arranged and performed a new song dedicated to that venue. Each song came together in one day as a surprise to the audience. Initially, the album was only released in MP3 format from They Might Be Giants' online music store with the purchase of $9.99 or more during the 2004 holiday season. It is now available on They Might Be Giants' online music store in MP3 or FLAC format for purchase by itself. In 2005, Venue Songs was re-released as a CD/DVD combo. It included studio versions of some of the venue songs, and other non-album tracks. The DVD includes music videos for some of the venue songs as well as other bonus videos. Track listing * 1) "Celebrate Brooklyn" – 1:30 * 2) "Starr Hill Music Hall" – 1:55 * 3) "Sokol Auditorium" – 1:13 * 4) "Houston-Meridian Theme" – 1:35 * 5) "T-H-E-G-A-R-A-G-E" – 1:11 * 6) "Richard's On Richards" – 2:00 * 7) "The Stone Pony" – 1:05 * 8) "The Egg" – 1:21 * 9) "Leeds Irish Center" – 2:01 * 10) "Anaheim House of Blues" – 1:04 * 11) "House of Blues" – 2:09 * 12) "The Blue Note" – 1:35 * 13) "The Catalyst" – 2:03 * 14) "First Avenue Stage" – 0:51 * 15) "Mr. Small's Theatre" – 1:22 * 16) "City Limits" – 1:55 * 17) "Fillmore" – 1:01 * 18) "Gibson Lounge" – 1:13 * 19) "Music Farm" – 1:06 * 20) "Trees" – 0:44 * 21) "West Hollywood House of Blues" – 1:41 * 22) "Variety Playhouse" – 2:04 * 23) "The Downtown" – 1:04 * 24) "Toad's Place" – 1:41 * 25) "At The As-tore-eye-yea" – 1:19 * 26) "Lincoln Theater" – 1:41 * 27) "Recher Theatre" – 2:52 * 28) "Mississippi Nights" – 1:16 * 29) "T.L.A." – 1:33 * 30) "Stubbs" – 2:45 * 31) "The Orange Peel" – 1:30 * Notes * Some tracks are recorded from their respective show's soundcheck, rather than the show itself. * New York City's Irving Plaza venue song was not included on this release, and no song was written for Nashville, even though it had a date on the tour. * While the official track names on the compilation are the cities in which songs were performed in, they are referred to by the venue names on setlists. DVD/CD combo Venue Songs DVD/CD is a compilation album released in 2005 by They Might Be Giants on their own label, Idlewild Records. The bulk of the material comes from 2004's Venue Songs, which is included in here in its entirety, although its order has been rearranged. Venue Songs was composed of original live songs about the venue they were playing in at the time. They wrote a song for each of the venues in about a day. This album includes new studio recorded versions of 11 of the venue songs, as well as other non-album songs recorded in the past year. The DVD contains a storyline about Venue Songs which integrates videos for some of the venue songs, and includes other bonus videos as well. Story A Deranged Millionaire (played by John Hodgman) approaches They Might Be Giants and challenges them to write a new song every day on their current tour, celebrating the unique characteristics of every venue in which they perform. If they do not accomplish this goal, they will forever lose the talisman that grants them their magical musical abilities. Song notes * Tracks 7 and 17–46 were previously released on Venue Songs * "Love Is Eternity" was previously released exclusively as an MP3 through They Might Be Giants' online store * "Renew My Subscription" was previously an iTunes Store exclusive bonus track for The Spine (2004) * "Taste the Fame" was from an appearance by They Might Be Giants on the TV show Home Movies * "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" was previously released on the compilation album Future Soundtrack for America * "Bloodmobile" was written for an exhibit at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. It was later released on their 2009 children's album Here Comes Science CD * 1) "Dallas" – 0:42 * 2) "Albany" – 1:27 * 3) "Los Angeles" – 1:42 * 4) "Anaheim" – 1:04 * 5) "Vancouver" – 1:44 * 6) "Pittsburgh" – 1:21 * 7) "Asheville" – 1:29 * 8) "Glasgow" – 1:06 * 9) "Charlottesville" – 1:50 * 10) "Asbury Park" – 0:50 * 11) "Brooklyn" – 1:15 * 12) "Love Is Eternity" – 2:05 * 13) "Renew My Subscription" – 2:18 * 14) "Taste the Fame" – 0:59 * 15) "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" – 1:38 * 16) "Bloodmobile" – 2:22 * 17) "Omaha (In Situ)" – 1:12 * 18) "Houston (In Situ)" – 1:32 * 19) "Leeds (In Situ)" – 1:58 * 20) "New Orleans (In Situ)" – 2:06 * 21) "Colombia (In Situ)" – 1:35 * 22) "Santa Cruz (In Situ)" – 2:01 * 23) "Minneapolis (In Situ)" – 0:49 * 24) "Tucson (In Situ)" – 1:54 * 25) "San Francisco (In Situ)" – 0:59 * 26) "Memphis (In Situ)" – 1:10 * 27) "Charleston (In Situ)" – 1:04 * 28) "Atlanta (In Situ)" – 2:02 * 29) "Farmingdale (In Situ)" – 1:02 * 30) "New Haven (In Situ)" – 1:40 * 31) "London (In Situ)" – 1:16 * 32) "Raleigh (In Situ)" – 1:40 * 33) "Towson (In Situ)" – 2:43 * 34) "St. Louis (In Situ)" – 1:13 * 35) "Philadelphia (In Situ)" – 1:31 * 36) "Austin (In Situ)" – 2:43 * 37) "Dallas (In Situ)" – 0:42 * 38) "Albany (In Situ)" – 1:19 * 39) "Los Angeles (In Situ)" – 1:40 * 40) "Anaheim (In Situ)" – 1:03 * 41) "Vancouver (In Situ)" – 1:59 * 42) "Pittsburgh (In Situ)" – 1:20 * 43) "Glasgow (In Situ)" – 1:07 * 44) "Charlottesville (In Situ)" – 1:53 * 45) "Asbury Park (In Situ)" – 0:59 * 46) "Brooklyn (In Situ)" – 1:29 DVD * 1) Greeting from the Deranged Millionaire * 2) The experiment begins * 3) "Dallas" * 4) A concrete shrine * 5) "Albany" * 6) Paradoxically * 7) "Los Angeles" * 8) An oasis of hooch * 9) "Anaheim" * 10) The great walled city * 11) "Vancouver" * 12) Monongahela * 13) "Pittsburgh" * 14) You can’t go home again * 15) "Asheville" * 16) and so * 17) "Glasgow" * 18) Returning to the U.S. * 19) "Charlottesville" * 20) Skee-ball and saltwater taffy * 21) "Asbury Park" * 22) The tour nearly over * 23) "Brooklyn" * 24) Goodbye from the Deranged Millionaire * 25) "Damn Good Times" * 26) "Experimental Film" * 27) "Bastard Wants to Hit Me" * 28) "I'm All You Can Think About"	WIKI
Bill Nye William Sanford Nye (born November 27, 1955) is an American science communicator, television presenter, and former mechanical engineer. He is best known as the host of the science education television show Bill Nye the Science Guy (1993–1999) and as a science educator in pop culture. Born in Washington, D.C., Nye began his career as a mechanical engineer for Boeing in Seattle, where he invented a hydraulic resonance suppressor tube used on 747 airplanes. In 1986, he left Boeing to pursue comedy—writing and performing for the local sketch television show Almost Live!, where he regularly conducted wacky scientific experiments. Aspiring to become the next Mr. Wizard, Nye successfully pitched the children's television program Bill Nye the Science Guy to Seattle's public television station, KCTS-TV. The show—which proudly proclaimed in its theme song that "science rules!"—ran from 1993 to 1998 in national TV syndication. Known for its "high-energy presentation and MTV-paced segments", the program became a hit among kids and adults, was critically acclaimed, and was nominated for 23 Emmy Awards, winning 19, including Outstanding Performer in Children's Programming for Nye himself. Nye continued to advocate for science, becoming the CEO of The Planetary Society. He has written two bestselling books on science: Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation (2014) and Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World (2015). He has appeared frequently on other TV shows, including Dancing with the Stars, The Big Bang Theory, and Inside Amy Schumer. He starred in a documentary about his life and science advocacy, Bill Nye: Science Guy, which premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival in March 2017; and, in October 2017, was named a NYT Critic's Pick. In 2017, the Netflix series Bill Nye Saves the World debuted, and ran for three seasons until 2018. His most recent series, The End Is Nye, premiered August 25, 2022, on Peacock and Syfy. Early life and education Nye was born November 27, 1955, in Washington, D.C., to Jacqueline Jenkins (1921–2000), who was a codebreaker during World War II, and Edwin Darby "Ned" Nye (1917–1997), who also served in World War II and worked as a contractor building an airstrip on Wake Island. He is related to William Foster Nye, founder of Nye Lubricants in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Ned was captured and spent four years in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp; living without electricity or watches, he learned how to tell time using the shadow of a shovel handle, spurring his passion for sundials. Jenkins-Nye was among a small elite group of young women known as "Goucher Girls", alumnae of Goucher College in Towson, Maryland, whom the Navy enlisted to help crack codes used by Japan and Germany. "She wasn't Rosie the Riveter, she was Rosie the Top-Secret Code Breaker", Nye recalls. "People would ask her what she did during World War II and she'd say, 'I can't talk about it, ha ha ha! Nye attended Lafayette Elementary School and Alice Deal Middle School before attending Sidwell Friends School for high school on a scholarship, graduating in 1973. After graduating from Sidwell Friends, he attended Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where he studied at the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. His enthusiasm for science deepened after he took an astronomy class with Carl Sagan at Cornell. In 1977, Nye graduated from Cornell University with a BS in mechanical engineering. Career After graduating from Cornell, Nye worked as an engineer for the Boeing Corporation and Sundstrand Data Control near Seattle. At Boeing, he invented a hydraulic resonance suppressor tube used on Boeing 747 airplanes. He applied four times, unsuccessfully, for NASA's astronaut training program. Comedy Nye started doing standup comedy after winning a Steve Martin lookalike contest in 1978. Nye's friends asked him to do Steve Martin impressions at parties, and he discovered how much he enjoyed making people laugh. He began moonlighting as a comedian while working at Boeing. He has stated, "At this point in our story, I was working on business jet navigation systems, laser gyroscope systems during the day, and I'd take a nap and go do stand-up comedy by night." He also participated in Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, and volunteered at the Pacific Science Center on weekends as a "Science Explainer". Nye quit his job at Boeing on October 3, 1986, to focus on his burgeoning comedy career. During Nye's 10-year college reunion in 1987, he went to great lengths to meet with Carl Sagan at Cornell. Sagan's assistant told Nye, "Okay, you can talk to him for five minutes." In their meeting at the space sciences building, Nye explained that he was interested in developing a science television program. "I mentioned how I planned to talk about bridges and bicycles and so on—stuff that, as an engineer, I'd been interested in—and [Sagan] said, 'Focus on pure science. Kids resonate to pure science rather than technology.' And that turned out to be great advice." Television In 1986, Nye worked as a writer/actor on a local sketch comedy television show in Seattle called Almost Live!. He first got his big break on the show from John Keister who met him during an open mic night. After a guest canceled, cohost Ross Shafer told Nye he had seven minutes of programming to fill. "Why don't you do that science stuff?" Shafer suggested. Nye entertained audiences with comical demonstrations, including what happened when you ate a marshmallow that had been dipped in liquid nitrogen. His other main recurring role on Almost Live! was as Speed Walker, a speedwalking Seattle superhero "who fights crime while maintaining strict adherence to the regulations of the international speedwalking association." A famous incident on the show led to Nye's stage name. He corrected Keister on his pronunciation of the word "gigawatt", and Keister responded, "Who do you think you are—Bill Nye the Science Guy?" Nye's science experiments resonated with viewers, and the local chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences awarded him a talent Emmy for one of his segments. He later hosted a weekly radio show on KJR in 1988 that answered listener questions about science topics. Even though Nye was regular on Almost Live!, he was only doing freelance work for the program. While looking for more TV gigs, he got the opportunity in 1989 to host Fabulous Wetlands, a short educational show about Washington's wetlands, sponsored by the Washington State Department of Ecology. On Fabulous Wetlands, Nye explained the importance of preserving estuaries, and the hazards of pollution. The show was, in many ways, a model for Nye's later show, with "zany camera cuts paired with Nye's humor" that set it apart from other scientific broadcasts. Nye soon got more offers to appear on nationally broadcast programs, including eight segments of the Disney Channel's All-New Mickey Mouse Club. Following his stint on Almost Live!, from 1991 to 1993 Nye appeared on live-action educational segments of Back to the Future: The Animated Series, assisting Dr. Emmett Brown (played by Christopher Lloyd). He was a member of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board from 1992 to 1994. Bill Nye the Science Guy In 1993, collaborating with James McKenna, Erren Gottlieb and Elizabeth Brock, Nye developed a pilot for a new show, Bill Nye the Science Guy, for the Seattle public broadcasting station KCTS-TV. They pitched the show as "Mr. Wizard meets Pee-wee's Playhouse". Nye obtained underwriting for the show from the National Science Foundation and the US Department of Energy. The program became part of a package of syndicated series that local stations could schedule to fulfill Children's Television Act requirements. Because of this, Bill Nye the Science Guy became the first program to run concurrently on public and commercial stations. The series was produced by Walt Disney Television and Rabbit Ears Productions, and distributed by Disney. Bill Nye the Science Guy ran from 1993 to 1998, and was one of the most-watched educational TV shows in the United States. While portraying "The Science Guy", Nye wore a powder blue lab coat and a bow tie. Nye Labs, the production offices and set where the show was recorded, was in a converted clothing warehouse in Seattle's Pioneer Square neighborhood. Although it focused on younger viewers, it also attracted a significant adult audience. Its ability to make science entertaining and accessible made it a popular teaching tool in classrooms. With its quirky humor and rapid-fire MTV-style pacing, the show won critical acclaim and was nominated for 23 Emmy Awards, winning nineteen. Research studies found that regular viewers were better at explaining scientific ideas than non-viewers. In addition to the TV show, Nye published several books as The Science Guy. A CD-ROM based on the series, titled Bill Nye the Science Guy: Stop the Rock!, was released in 1996 for Windows and Macintosh by Pacific Interactive. Nye's Science Guy personality is also prominent at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts—most notably his appearance with Ellen DeGeneres at Ellen's Energy Adventure, an attraction that ran from 1996 to 2017 at the Universe of Energy pavilion at Epcot at Walt Disney World. Nye's Science Guy character is also heard in a voice-over in the DINOSAUR attraction at Disney's Animal Kingdom, and was the on-air spokesman for the Noggin television network in 1999. The Eyes of Nye Following the success of Bill Nye the Science Guy, Nye began work on a comeback project, The Eyes of Nye, aimed at an older audience and tackling more controversial science topics such as genetically modified food, global warming and race. However, "shifting creative concepts, infighting among executives and disputes over money with Seattle producing station KCTS significantly delayed production for years. KCTS was hampered by budgetary problems and couldn't produce a show pilot on time. "KCTS went through some distress", Nye recalled. "When we did The Eyes of Nye, the budget started out really big, and by the time we served all these little problems at KCTS, we had a much lower budget for the show than we'd ever had for the 'Science Guy' show which was made several years earlier." PBS declined to distribute The Eyes of Nye, and it was eventually picked up by American Public Television. "PBS wanted more serious, in-depth Nova-style shows", explained co-producer Randy Brinson. The show, which eventually premiered in 2005, lasted only one season. Nye acknowledged that omitting his bow tie on the program was a mistake. "I tried wearing a straight tie. It was nothing", Nye said. "We were trying something new. It wasn't me." Subsequent series On August 31, 2016, Netflix announced that Nye would appear in a new series, Bill Nye Saves the World, which premiered on April 21, 2017. Its third and final season was released on May 11, 2018. His next series, The End is Nye, was ordered by Peacock in March 2021. Teaming up with Seth MacFarlane and Brannon Braga, the series has Nye exploring natural and unnatural disasters, explaining them scientifically to detail surviving, mitigating, and preventing them. It premiered on August 25, 2022, with six episodes. Media appearances From 2000 to 2002, Nye was the technical expert on BattleBots. In 2004 and 2005, he hosted 100 Greatest Discoveries, an award-winning series produced by THINKFilm for the Science Channel, broadcast in high definition on the Discovery HD Theater network. In 2007, he also hosted an eight-part Discovery Channel series, Greatest Inventions with Bill Nye. A lecture Nye gave on getting children excited about math inspired the creation of the crime drama Numb3rs, where Nye appeared in several episodes as an engineering professor. On October 28, 2007, he also made guest appearances on the VH1 reality show America's Most Smartest Model. Nye appeared on segments of Heidi Cullen's The Climate Code, later renamed Forecast Earth on The Weather Channel, relating his personal ways of saving energy. In the fall of 2008, he appeared periodically on the daytime game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as part of its "Ask the Expert" feature. In 2008, Nye hosted Stuff Happens, a short-lived show on the Planet Green network. In November 2008, he portrayed himself in the fifth-season episode "Brain Storm" of Stargate Atlantis, alongside fellow television personality and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. In October 2009, Nye recorded a short YouTube video (as himself, not his TV persona) advocating clean-energy climate-change legislation, on behalf of Al Gore's Repower America campaign. He joined the American Optometric Association in a multimedia advertising campaign to persuade parents to provide their children with comprehensive eye examinations. Nye was a contestant in season 17 of Dancing with the Stars in 2013, partnered with new professional dancer Tyne Stecklein. They were eliminated early in the season after Nye sustained an injury to his quadriceps tendon on Week 3. In 2013, Nye guest-starred in The Big Bang Theory episode "The Proton Displacement". In the episode, Sheldon Cooper befriends Nye and brings him in to teach Leonard Hofstadter a "lesson" after Professor Proton (played by Bob Newhart) helps Leonard with an experiment instead of Sheldon. Professor Proton accuses Bill Nye of making his TV series similar to Proton's show. After Nye and Sheldon leave, Leonard receives a selfie of the two having smoothies, and later gets a text from Sheldon asking for a ride home, as Nye has ditched him at the smoothie store. In a later discussion with Professor Proton, Sheldon reveals that Nye had a restraining order against him, so he could not help him contact Nye. On February 28, 2014, Nye was a celebrity guest and interviewer at the White House Student Film Festival. Nye appeared in the 2016 documentary Food Evolution, directed by Academy Award-nominated director Scott Hamilton Kennedy and narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson. In 2017, he was the subject of a biographical documentary film, Bill Nye: Science Guy, directed by David Alvarado and Jason Sussberg. Nye was honorary co-chair of the inaugural March for Science on April 22, 2017. In 2018, Nye guest-starred in an episode of Blindspot, "Let It Go", playing a fictionalized version of himself who is the father of the character Patterson. Nye's fictional self also alludes to his rivalry with Rodney McKay, which was established in the aforementioned "Brain Storm" episode of Stargate Atlantis. Also in 2018, Nye made a second guest appearance on The Big Bang Theory as himself, together with fellow scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the first episode ("The Conjugal Configuration") of the show's final season. In September 2019, Nye was a guest on Episode 127 of Jonathan Van Ness's podcast Getting Curious, where they discussed climate change, the failures of cold fusion, the potential of better battery technology for storage of energy produced by wind turbines and solar panels, the benefits of and forthcoming improvements to electric vehicles, and the detriment and failures of fossil fuel and nuclear energy, measures toward water cleanliness, the role of girls' and women's education in improving the environment, and the threat the Trump administration posed to the environment and to scientific thought in general. That same year, Nye's vocals were featured on the closing track "Noble Gas" from electronic music producer Steve Aoki's album Neon Future III. Nye also voiced himself in the animated feature Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo! Nye portrayed Upton Sinclair in the 2020 biopic Mank. Nye later competed on The Masked Singer spinoff The Masked Dancer as "Ice Cube". In 2024, a caricature of Bill Nye (voiced by Marc M.) featured in the adult animation series Smiling Friends episode "Pim Finally Turns Green". In the episode, Nye arrives in a hot air balloon of his own face to sing a song to Rotten (a snowman afraid of his own mortality; voiced by Dana Snyder) to assure him that death is natural and not to be feared; this does not work as mid-song the hot air balloon collides with power lines, violently killing Nye and worsening Rotten's fear of death. Towards the end of the episode, Nye returns as a ghost, much to the joy of his fans. Science advocacy In the early 2000s, Nye assisted in the development of a small sundial included in the Mars Exploration Rover missions. Known as MarsDial, in addition to tracking time, it had small colored panels to provide a basis for color calibration. From 2005 to 2010, Nye was the vice president of The Planetary Society, an organization that advocates space science research and the exploration of other planets, particularly Mars. He became the organization's second Executive Director in September 2010 when Louis Friedman stepped down. In November 2010, Nye became the face of a major science exhibition at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Bill Nye's Climate Lab featured him as commander of the Clean Energy Space Station and invited visitors on an urgent mission to thwart climate change. From 2001 to 2006, Nye served as Frank H. T. Rhodes Class of '56 University Professor at Cornell University. On August 27, 2011, Nye gave a public lecture at Cornell University that filled its 715-seat Statler Auditorium. He spoke of his father's passion for sundials and timekeeping, his time at Cornell, his work on the sundials on the Mars rovers, and the story behind the Bill Nye Solar Noon Clock, which he then presented to the university atop Rhodes Hall. Nye conducted a Q&A session after the 2012 Mars Rover landing. Nye is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. nonprofit scientific and educational organization that promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. Interviewed by John Rael for the Independent Investigation Group (IIG), Nye said that his "concern right now ... [is] scientific illiteracy ... you [the public] don't have enough rudimentary knowledge of the universe to evaluate claims." In November 2012, he launched a Kickstarter campaign for an educational aerodynamics game called AERO 3D, but it was not funded. In September 2012, Nye claimed that creationist views threatened science education and innovation in the United States. In February 2014, he debated creationist Ken Ham at the Creation Museum on whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era. In July 2016, Ham gave Nye a tour of the Ark Encounter the day after it first opened to the public. He and Ham had an informal debate while touring the structure, and footage from Nye's visit was subsequently included in the documentary film Bill Nye: Science Guy, released in 2017. Since 2013, Nye has been a member of the Advisory Council of the National Center for Science Education. On Earth Day 2015, Nye met with U.S. President Obama to visit Everglades National Park in Florida and discuss climate change and science education. In March 2015, Nye announced he changed his mind and now supported GMOs. In a new edition of Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, Nye rewrote a chapter on GMOs reflecting his new position. In a radio interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, he said, "There's no difference between allergies among GMO eaters and non-GMO eaters ... I've changed my mind about genetically modified organisms." In July 2017, Nye observed that the majority of climate change deniers are older people, and said: "So we're just going to have to wait for those people to 'age out', as they say." He has continued to advocate against climate denial. On Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on May 12, 2019, he discussed climate change and the proposed Green New Deal, and said: "Here, I've got an experiment for you—safety glasses on. By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another 4 to 8 degrees. What I'm saying is the planet's on fucking fire. There are a lot of things we could do to put it out. Are any of them free? No, of course not—nothing's free, you idiots. Grow the fuck up. You're not children anymore. I didn't mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12, but you're adults now and this is an actual crisis. Got it? Safety glasses off, motherfuckers." Personal life Nye has residences in the Studio City neighborhood of Los Angeles, in New York City, and on Mercer Island near Seattle. His California house is solar-powered, and often feeds extra power back into the public power grid, something he enjoys showing visitors. Nye and his neighbor, environmental activist/actor Ed Begley Jr., have engaged in a friendly competition "to see who could have the lowest carbon footprint", according to Begley. Nye often appeared on Begley's HGTV/Planet Green reality show Living with Ed. In July 2012, Nye supported President Barack Obama's reelection bid. He frequently consulted with Obama on science matters during Obama's presidency, and famously took a selfie with him and Neil deGrasse Tyson at the White House. Nye attended the 2018 State of the Union Address after being invited by Oklahoma Congressman Jim Bridenstine. Nye's attendance drew scrutiny due to Bridestine's "history of expressing climate change skepticism", but Nye defended him: "While the Congressman and I disagree on a great many issues, we share a deep respect for NASA and its achievements and a strong interest in the future of space exploration. My attendance tomorrow should not be interpreted as an endorsement of this administration, or of Congressman Bridenstine's nomination, or seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community." Nye endorsed Jay Inslee during the 2020 Democratic primaries, until Inslee suspended his campaign on August 21, 2019. On October 28, 2020, Nye took to Twitter endorsing Joe Biden for president, urging his followers to vote on behalf of climate change and science. Nye married musician Blair Tindall on February 3, 2006; however, he annulled the relationship seven weeks later when the marriage license was declared invalid. In 2007, Nye obtained a restraining order against Tindall after she broke into his house and stole several items, including his laptop computer, which she used to send defamatory emails impersonating Nye, and damaged Nye's garden with herbicide. Tindall acknowledged killing the plants but denied being a threat to Nye. Nye subsequently sued Tindall for $57,000 in attorney's fees after she allegedly violated the protective order. In the 2017 PBS documentary Bill Nye: Science Guy, Nye revealed his family's plight of ataxia. Due to his father's, sister's and brother's lifelong struggles with balance and coordination, Nye decided to not have children to avoid the chance of passing on the condition, even though he "dodged the genetic bullet" himself. In July 2018, Nye played for the National League squad at the MLB All-Star Legends and Celebrity Softball Game. After striking out in his first at-bat, he singled in the bottom of the third inning to a rousing ovation from the Nationals Park crowd. Nye is a member of two trade unions. In 2022, Nye married journalist Liza Mundy. Published works Nye has written over a dozen books in his career, including: Also: * Bill Nye the Science Guy's Big Blast of Science (1993) * Bill Nye the Science Guy's Consider the Following: A Way Cool Set of Science Questions, Answers, and Ideas to Ponder (1995) * Bill Nye the Science Guy's Big Blue Ocean (1999) * Bill Nye the Science Guy's Great Big Dinosaur Dig (2002) * Bill Nye the Science Guy's Great Big Book of Tiny Germs (2005) * Bill Nye the Science Guy's Great Big Book of Science - featuring Oceans and Dinosaurs (2005) * Jack and the Geniuses at the Bottom of the World (2017) * Jack and the Geniuses Lost in the Jungle (2017) * Jack and the Geniuses in the Deep Blue Sea (2018) * Bill Nye's Great Big World of Science (2020) * Jack and the Geniuses Lost in the Jungle (2017) * Jack and the Geniuses in the Deep Blue Sea (2018) * Bill Nye's Great Big World of Science (2020) * Time magazine has interviewed him for "12 Questions with Bill Nye". U.S. patents Nye holds three United States patents: one for ballet pointe shoes, one for an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water, and one for a device for training an athlete to throw a ball. He also holds a design patent for a digital abacus. Awards and honors In May 1999, Nye was the commencement speaker at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he was awarded an honorary doctor of science degree. He received honorary doctorates from Johns Hopkins University in May 2008, and in May 2011 from Willamette University. In May 2015, Rutgers University awarded him an honorary doctor of science degree and paid him a $35,000 speaker's fee for presenting the ceremony's keynote address. Nye also received an honorary doctor of pedagogy degree during a commencement ceremony at Lehigh University on May 20, 2013. He received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association. In October 2015, Nye was awarded an honorary doctorate of science from Simon Fraser University. In 2011, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICOP) gave Nye their highest award, In Praise of Reason. On behalf of the committee, Eugenie Scott stated: "If you think Bill is popular among skeptics, you should attend a science teacher conference where he is speaking—it is standing room only ... No one has more fun than Nye when he is demonstrating principles of science." In 1997, CSICOP also presented Nye with the Candle in the Dark Award for his "lively, creative ... endeavor." In 2024, Nye was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.	WIKI
Page:Man in the Panther's Skin.djvu/240 1339. They gave God great thanks. They said: "Thou hast done to us what was best; now we recognize that your mouth would not have adjudged to us the worst." The King of the Indians, with uplifted hand, joyously shouted this. Merry they went into the caves; Asmat'h made ready somewhat for their refreshment. 1340. Tariel said to Avt'handil: "Hearken to these words: I will tell thee something, think me not a tedious narrator. Since the time when I captured the caves (and) slew droves of Devis, their precious treasury lies here. 1341. "Never have I seen it, for I have not wished to do so. Come and let us open it; let us see how much treasure there, is." It pleased him; both arose, nor did Asmat'h stay seated. They broke down forty doors; it was no great struggle for them. 1342. They found unequalled treasure, hitherto unseen by their eyes. There stood a heap of jewels of fair workmanship. There were seen pearls each as big as a ball for play. Who could make account of the gold not to be numbered by any! 1343. Inside those forty rooms were full. They found an armoury newly made for armour; there all kinds of armour were placed like preserves (in a store cupboard); therein was a coffer, sealed, unopened. 1344. Upon it was written: "Here lieth wondrous armour: chain helmet, habergeon, steel-cutting sword. If the Kadjis attack the Devis it will be a hard day. Whoever openeth at any other time is a slayer of kings!" 1345. They opened the coffer; they found in it three suits of armour fit for three warrior knights to don; coats of mail, swords, helmets, greaves of like sort; they were in emerald nests, as it were shrines.	WIKI
Popularity 7.6 Declining Activity 5.1 - 10 12 5 Monthly Downloads: 29 Programming language: Haskell License: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License Tags: Graphics Diagrams Latest version: v1.4.1 diagrams-canvas alternatives and similar packages Based on the "diagrams" category. Alternatively, view diagrams-canvas alternatives based on common mentions on social networks and blogs. Do you think we are missing an alternative of diagrams-canvas or a related project? Add another 'diagrams' Package README diagrams-canvas diagrams-canvas is a canvas backend for diagrams based on the blank-canvas https://github.com/ku-fpg/blank-canvas package. Diagrams is a powerful, flexible, declarative domain-specific language for creating vector graphics, using the Haskell programming language. It supports most features defined in diagrams-lib. Installation cabal update && cabal install diagrams-canvas Usage A simple example that uses diagrams-canvas to draw a square. import Diagrams.Prelude import Diagrams.Backend.Canvas.CmdLine b1 = (square 20 :: Diagram B) # lw 0.002 main = mainWith (pad 1.1 b1) Save this to file named Square.hs and compile this program: ghc --make -threaded Square.hs This will generate an executable which, when run dispays the resulting diagrams to http://localhost:3000/ $ ./Square -w 750	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
China says hopes to get Japan ties back on track January 28, 2018 / 3:00 AM / Updated 3 hours ago China declares intention to improve ties with Japan Ben Blanchard 3 Min Read BEIJING (Reuters) - China hopes to work with Japan to establish more cordial relations, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Japanese counterpart on Sunday, aiming to move on from a series of disputes, some dating back to before World War Two. China and Japan have sparred frequently about their painful history, with Beijing often accusing Tokyo of not properly atoning for Japan’s invasion of China before and during the war. Ties between China and Japan, the world’s second and third-largest economies, have also been plagued by a long-running territorial dispute over a cluster of East China Sea islets and suspicion in China about Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s efforts to amend Japan’s pacifist constitution. The two nations have, however, sought to improve ties more recently, with Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping having met in November on the sidelines of a regional summit in Vietnam. Wang told Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono that his trip to Beijing, coming so early in the year, showed Japan’s strong wish to improve relations and that China approves of this because better ties would be in both nations’ interests. Though there has been positive progress, there are also many “disturbances and obstacles”, Wang said, but the minister also pointed to comments from Abe on wanting to improve relations. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, left, meets with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang at the Zhongnanhai Leadership Compound in Beijing, Sunday, Jan. 28, 2018. REUTERS/Andy Wong/Pool “China-Japan ties always sail against the current, either forging ahead or drifting backward,” Wang said in front of reporters at the start of talks with his counterpart. “We hope that the Japanese side will neither relax in its efforts nor fall back, and turn the spoken statements into concrete actions.” Slideshow (5 Images) Kono, who later met Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, said that the two countries shared a major responsibility in safeguarding the stability and prosperity of Asia and the world at large. “Not only do we need to manage our bilateral relations, but we also need to work together to deal with issues facing the entire globe, in particular the issue of North Korea,” Kono said. “We desire to extend mutual cooperation between our two countries in working towards resolving this issue.” Japan has repeatedly pressed China to do more to help rein in North Korea’s missile and nuclear programmes. China says it is committed to enforcing U.N. sanctions but that all parties need to do more to reduce tensions and restart talks. Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Norio Maruyama told reporters that China and Japan are aiming to hold several high-level visits this year. These would include Abe visiting China and Xi going to Japan, he said, though no dates have been set. “Let’s see. It’s all a question of the schedule,” he said. Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Nick Macfie and David Goodman	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Popularity 7.8 Stable Activity 0.0 Stable 193 4 44 Monthly Downloads: 18,572 Programming language: Elixir License: Apache License 2.0 Tags: XML readability alternatives and similar packages Based on the "XML" category. Alternatively, view readability alternatives based on common mentions on social networks and blogs. Do you think we are missing an alternative of readability or a related project? Add another 'XML' Package README Readability Build Status Readability version Readability is a tool for extracting and curating the primary readable content of a webpage. Check out The Documentation for full and detailed guides Installation If available in Hex, the package can be installed as: 1. Add readability to your list of dependencies in mix.exs: def deps do [{:readability, "~> 0.9"}] end 1. Ensure readability is started before your application: def application do [applications: [:readability]] end Note: Readability requires Elixir 1.3 or higher. Usage Examples Just pass a url url = "https://medium.com/@kenmazaika/why-im-betting-on-elixir-7c8f847b58" summary = Readability.summarize(url) summary.title #=> "Why I’m betting on Elixir" summary.authors #=> ["Ken Mazaika"] summary.article_html #=> # <div><div><p id=\"3476\"><strong><em>Background: </em></strong><em>I’ve spent... # ... # ...button!</em></h3></div></div> summary.article_text #=> # Background: I’ve spent the past 6 years building web applications in Ruby and..... # ... # ... value in this article, it would mean a lot to me if you hit the recommend button! From raw html ### Extract the title. Readability.title(html) ### Extract authors. Readability.authors(html) ### Extract the primary content with transformed html. html \|> Readability.article \|> Readability.readable_html ### Extract only text from the primary content. html \|> Readability.article \|> Readability.readable_text ### you can extract the primary images with Floki html \|> Readability.article \|> Floki.find("img") \|> Floki.attribute("src") Options If the result is different from your expectations, you can add options to customize it. Example url = "https://medium.com/@kenmazaika/why-im-betting-on-elixir-7c8f847b58" summary = Readability.summarize(url, [clean_conditionally: false]) • min_text_length \\ 25 • remove_unlikely_candidates \\ true • weight_classes \\ true • clean_conditionally \\ true • retry_length \\ 250 You can find other algorithm and regex options in readability.ex Test To run the test suite: $ mix test Todo • [x] Extract authors • [x] More configurable • [x] Summarize function • [ ] Convert relative paths into absolute paths of img#src and a#href Contributions are welcome! Check out the main features milestone and features of related projects below Contributing 1. Fork the repo on GitHub 2. Clone the project to your own machine 3. Commit changes to your own branch 4. Push your work back up to your fork 5. Submit a Pull request so that we can review your changes NOTE: Be sure to merge the latest from "upstream" before making a pull request! Related and Inpired Projects • readability.js is a standalone version of the readability library used for Firefox Reader View. • newspaper is an advanced news extraction, article extraction, and content curation library for Python. • ruby-readability is a tool for extracting the primary readable content of a webpage. LICENSE This code is under the Apache License 2.0. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. *Note that all licence references and agreements mentioned in the readability README section above are relevant to that project's source code only.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Sag Harbor (novel) Sag Harbor is a 2009 novel by author Colson Whitehead. Sag Harbor takes place in Sag Harbor, a small village in the exclusive Hamptons on the east end of New York's Long Island. The village of Sag Harbor is on the bay side (northern part) of the South Fork of the tip of Long Island, and an old whaling port where several African-American families have bought property over many years. As Whitehead says, one comes "out" to Long Island from New York City. Then the summer vacation can begin. (The author also mentions the ocean beach, in East Hampton, where he and his friends rarely go. It is a predominantly white area, and blacks and whites do not mingle.) The novel's main character is Benji, an African American teenager spending the summer in this black enclave of the predominantly white and close-knit town along with his brother Reggie. Set in 1985, the novel touches on themes of race, class, substance abuse, and commercial culture. Plot School's finally out for the summer and the return to Sag Harbor is in full swing. Teenage brothers Benji and Reggie Cooper escape their majority white preparatory academy in Manhattan. Still clad in Brooks Brothers polos and salmon colored pants, the pair re-meet all of their friends. Like most well-to-do kids at their families' beach houses during the summer, most of the teens in Sag Harbor go almost the entire season with virtually no contact from their parents (aside from occasional visits on the weekends). Benji and Reggie get summer jobs to cover basic expenses, because with no parents there's no spending money. They tool around on old bicycles and, sometimes, in a friend's old car. With the lack of parental supervision, the boys manage to get into some trouble, like being stuck well out of town when the car won't start, and worse, having a BB gun fight that nearly takes out an eye. No one dies, and no one ends up in the hospital. Teenage foolishness. Life is not carefree, however. Racism is there, just under the surface. The boys trash talk seemingly all the time. When the parents do come out, Benji reveals his father's alcoholism. Yet Benji copes, and finds his music, his friends, his favorite television, his inner life. Benji constantly remakes himself in an effort to become the coolest in town, or at least, cooler than he was the year before. Characters * Benji Cooper * Reggie Cooper, Benji's brother * Various friends in Sag Harbor: Clive, Marcus, Bobby, Randy, NP Analysis According to Touré's New York Times review of the book, Sag Harbor speaks to a new generation of wealthy young black people. In the wake of the election of President Barack Obama and the success of other African Americans in the national spotlight, this story of a wealthy black teenager depicts a situation – "black boys with beach houses" – that was however paradoxical when it took place, in 1985. Himself the son of wealthy parents, the novel is a fictional account of Whitehead's life at that time. The 2009 publication of Sag Harbor coincides with what Touré terms the post-black period, when blacks are less noticed for their color and more for their public achievements. Colson Whitehead wanted to take up a different path in writing Sag Harbor, a novel named after the town in which he used to vacation with his family. In a January 2009 Wall Street Journal article, Whitehead said, "Having written a string of books that were heavy on the ideas and social critique, I wanted to try something more modest and personal." His previous books, The Intuitionist and John Henry Days, are quite different from Sag Harbor in style and genre. Sag Harbor is a very personal depiction of Whitehead's own life as a teenager, giving the novel a much more vibrant context, as Whitehead depicts, in fiction, his own experiences including young love, young hate, and even pop-culture events of 1985 such as New Coke. Release details * 2009, USA, Bantam Doubleday Dell ISBN 0-385-52765-9, pub. date 28 April 2009, hardback first edition Honors * Finalist, PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction * Finalist, Hurston-Wright Legacy Award TV series In August 2021, it was reported that a television series adaptation of the novel was in development at HBO Max. The project will be produced by Boat Rocker Media with Laurence Fishburne as executive producer.	WIKI
Jerry Lohr Jerome Julian Lohr (born January 1, 1937) is an American real estate developer, agriculturist, and winegrower. Lohr is the founder of J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines, a winegrowing, and winemaking company based in San Jose, California. J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines operates vineyards in the Paso Robles AVA in San Luis Obispo County, Arroyo Seco AVA in Monterey County, and the St. Helena AVA in Napa Valley, California. Lohr has earned a reputation as a pioneer of winegrowing on the Central Coast of California. The Jerome J. Lohr College of Engineering opened at South Dakota State University (SDSU) in June 2013 in his honor. Early life and education Lohr was born to Walter and Frances Lohr in Clark, South Dakota. He grew up on their family farm in Raymond, South Dakota, with his four siblings Alan, Sharon, James, and Lynn. During his senior year of high school, he attended an event at SDSU and won the Edgar M. Soreng full-tuition scholarship for his first year of college. During his freshman year, he joined the Air Force ROTC program at SDSU, a requirement for males in the 1950s. Lohr was named Distinguished Air Force Cadet in the ROTC program. U.S. Senator Karl Mundt nominated Lohr for admission to West Point. South Dakota Rep. Harold Lovre nominated Lohr for admission to the Naval Academy. Lohr declined the invitations and continued his studies at SDSU. Lohr worked part-time as a surveyor during college for J.T. Banner and Associates, an engineering and consulting firm. In 1958, Lohr earned a degree in civil engineering from South Dakota State College, now South Dakota State University (SDSU). He then earned a Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Stanford University in 1959. Engineering career After pursuing a Ph.D. in civil engineering at Stanford University until 1961, Lohr began active-duty service for the U.S. Air Force and served as a research scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. Lohr was honorably discharged, with the rank of captain, from the U.S. Air Force in 1964. He continued as a civilian research scientist at NASA Ames until 1967, focusing on "heat shield technology" for crewed U.S. spacecraft, including the Apollo 11 mission in which man landed on the moon in 1969. Lohr also focused on improving the efficiency of solar panels that powered satellites. Lohr earned a U.S. patent in his name for his "energy damper system" to reduce that oscillation. Before leaving Ames, Lohr realized that the population of what is known today as Silicon Valley was expanding and that people would need more homes. He partnered with Bernie Turgeon to create Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., a custom home building business, in 1965. From 1963 to 2003, Lohr's homebuilding business built over 900 custom homes and 15 apartment and condominium projects in Santa Clara, Alameda, and Monterey counties. Winegrowing career During the late 1960s, Lohr began a decades-long investigation into the winegrowing regions of California. Lohr developed his first 280-acre vineyard in the Arroyo Seco region of Monterey County in 1972. He is credited as being among the first to realize the potential of Monterey County's soil and climate for growing white wine grapes. In 1986, Lohr expanded operations to the Paso Robles AVA of California by planting Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, and other red varieties. "What Robert Mondavi was to Napa Valley, Jerry Lohr is to the Central Coast, leading and elevating an entire viticultural region from Monterey County to Paso Robles with perseverance, dedication and a passion for quality," said Adam Strum, the chairman of Wine Enthusiast Companies. In 1975, Lohr co-founded and was later chairman of Monterey County Winegrowers, which eventually became Monterey County Vintners and Growers Association. Lohr is a former director and chairman of Wine Institute and was a founding member of Wine Vision, which promoted making wine more a part of American culture. Lohr also was founding chairman and former director of the National Grape and Wine Initiative, now NGRA, or National Grape Research Alliance. J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines owns and cultivates over 4,000 acres of vineyards across the Paso Robles AVA in San Luis Obispo County, Arroyo Seco and Santa Lucia Highlands AVAs in Monterey County, and the St. Helena AVA in Napa Valley, California. In 2013, Lohr's son, Steve Lohr, succeeded his father as CEO of J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines. Jerry Lohr continues his work as an advocate, philanthropist, and educator in the wine industry and at his alma mater, SDSU. Philanthropy and university leadership In 1976, Lohr was among the original donors for the new Alumni Center at SDSU. Lohr joined the SDSU Foundation in 1987 and served as its chairman from 1992 to 1994. He funded the Jerome J. Lohr Award for Volunteer Leadership. Lohr is former chairman of the UC Davis Executive Leadership Board, and former member of the UC Davis Chancellor's Advisory Committee. Donations to National Breast Cancer Foundation in honor of his late wife, Carol, are one of several philanthropic efforts. Lohr has focused much of his philanthropy on his alma mater, SDSU. He contributed to building projects on campus, including $4 million in 2003 to rebuild Stolberg Hall, home of the College of Engineering, where Lohr did most of his studying. In 2004, Lohr's $2.3 million donation built the Jerome J. Lohr Building at the SDSU Foundation. Lohr raised $254 million for other building projects on campus in 2013. In the same year, SDSU named the engineering building the Jerome J. Lohr College of Engineering. Lohr was a donor to the UC Davis LEED Platinum Research and Teaching Winery at the Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science. In 2021, Lohr donated $5 million to the Jerome J. Lohr College of Engineering's endowment. In 2021, Lohr donated $2.5 million to fund the Justin and J. Lohr Center for Wine and Viticulture at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Personal life Lohr lives in Saratoga, California, where he lived with his first wife, Carol Waldorf Lohr. They met when they both attended Stanford University and married in 1959. Lohr had three children with Carol; Steve, Cynthia, and Lawrence, all of whom share ownership of and manage J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines. Carol Waldorf Lohr died in 2008 from breast cancer. Jerry and the Lohr family have released two wine brands highlighting "Carol's Vineyard", the vineyard named after her in the St. Helena appellation of Napa Valley. In 2009, Lohr married Jolene Johnson Barber, whom he dated while attending SDSU. They were married at Jolene's church in Garretson, South Dakota. Awards * 1998 Distinguished Engineer, South Dakota State University * 2007 Award of Distinction, University of California, Davis * 2007 Lifetime Achievement Award, California State Fair * 2010 Professional Excellence in Oenology award, New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) * 2011 ASEV Merit Award, American Society for Enology and Viticulture (ASEV) * 2011 Lifetime Achievement Award, California Association of Winegrape Growers * 2016 American Wine Legend, Wine Enthusiast Magazine * 2019 Agriculturist of the Year, California Mid-State Fair	WIKI
Harold Pollack Harold Pollack is an American professor at the University of Chicago who has been appointed to two Institute of Medicine committees. His research has focused on public health and health policy. At the University of Chicago, he has chaired the Center for Health Administration Studies. A special correspondent for the New Republic during 2009 and 2010, he writes frequently about public policy for a variety of national publications. Pollack is a frequent contributor to Healthinsurance.org, where he has conducted interviews with other prominent health policy bloggers, including Jonathan Cohn. He is also the Faculty Co-Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab and Health Lab. Background Pollack went to Princeton University for his undergraduate education. He received his masters and doctoral degrees in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. After attending Harvard, he was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation fellow at Yale University before teaching at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and then the University of Chicago. Works * The Index Card: Why Personal Finance Doesn't Have to Be Complicated, Helaine Olen, Harold Pollack, 2017, Portfolio. ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>529	WIKI
Page:Christianity in China, Tartary, and Thibet Volume I.djvu/385 373 DEATH OF ODEKIC DE FRIULI. 373 peared rather extraordinary, we like to quote those ex- pressions of sincerity which he pronounced upon his bed of pain, some moments before he appeared before God. We would willingly believe in the most astonish- ing adventures of travellers, if they always gave us the same guarantees of their good faith. Oderic died at Udine, in the month of January 133 L, and as he had been celebrated for his eminent virtues, for the zeal of his apostleship, and the miracles he wrought during his life and after his death, the church has placed him in the number of the Saints. b b 3	WIKI
R. L. Hudson Robin Lyth Hudson (4 May 1940 – 12 January 2021) was a British mathematician notable for his contribution to quantum probability. Education and career Hudson received his Ph.D. from the University of Oxford in 1966 under John T. Lewis with a thesis entitled Generalised Translation-Invariant Mechanics. He was appointed assistant lecturer at the University of Nottingham in 1964, promoted to a chair in 1985 and served as head of department from 1987 to 1990. He spent sabbatical semesters in Heidelberg (1978), Austin, Texas (1983), and Colorado Boulder (1996). After taking early retirement in 1997, he held part-time research posts at Nottingham Trent University (1997–2005), the Slovak Academy of Sciences (1997–2000) and Loughborough University (2005–21), and a visiting professorship at the University of Łódź (2002) which awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2013. Hudson was a mathematical physicist who was one of the pioneers of quantum probability. An early result, now known as Hudson's theorem in quantum optics, shows that the pure quantum states with positive Wigner quasiprobability distribution are the Gaussian ones. Together with PhD students, Hudson established one of the first quantum central limit theorems, proved an early quantum de Finetti theorem, and introduced quantum Brownian motion as a non-commuting pair of families of unbounded operators, using the formalism of quantum field theory. He collaborated with K. R. Parthasarathy first at the University of Manchester, and later at University of Nottingham and at Loughborough University, on their seminal work in quantum stochastic calculus. In later papers he developed a theory of quantum stochastic double product integrals and their application to the quantum Yang–Baxter equation, the quantisation of Lie bialgebras and quantum Lévy area.	WIKI
Mike Kearby Mike Kearby (born 1952) is an American novelist and inventor. Since 2005, Kearby has published twelve novels and two graphic novels. Biography Kearby was born in Mineral Wells, Texas, and received a B.S. from North Texas State University (now the University of North Texas) in 1972. He worked in the irrigation industry for 20 years where he obtained patents 5,762,270, 5,992,760, 6,478,237, 6,155,493, 6,209,801. He taught high school English and reading for 10 years and created "The Collaborative Novella Project". The project allows future authors to go through the novel writing process from idea to published work. Kearby began novel writing in 2005 and has completed twelve novels, two graphic novels, and written the afterword to the TCU Press 2010 release of western novelist's, Elmer Kelton, The Far Away Canyon. Ambush at Mustang Canyon was a finalist for the 2008 Spur Awards. A Hundred Miles to Water was awarded the 2011 Will Rogers Medallion Award for Best Adult Fiction. Texas Tales Illustrated: The Texas Revolution was awarded the 2012 Will Rogers Medallion for Best YA Non-Fiction. Men of Color was awarded Best Script / Winner from the Hill Country Film Festival, The Los Angeles Movie Awards, and The Indie Gathering Film Festival. Long Term Parking produced in 2013. Kearby was presented a Western Heritage award in 2016 from the National Cowboy Museum for Texas Tales Illustrated: The Trail Drives. The Problem with Time Travel was Grand Prize Winner at Table Read My Screenplay Austin in 2019. The Problem with Time Travel was Grand Prize Winner at the HollyShorts Film Festival in 2020. The Problem with Time Travel had its premiere in Hollywood at the TL Chinese Theaters in August 2022. Western novels * The Road to a Hanging (2006) * Ride the Desperate Trail (2007) * Ambush at Mustang Canyon (2007), 2008 Spur Award Finalist * The Last Renegade (2009) * The Taken (2010) * A Hundred Miles to Water (2010), 2011 Will Rogers Medallion Award for Best Adult Fiction * Dead Man's Saddle (2011) Science fiction * The 13th Baktun (2008) * Men of Color (2012) Horror * The Resonance (2011) * The Devouring~Kavachi's Rise (2012) Graphic novels * Texas Tales Illustrated: The Revolution (April, 2011), illustrations by: Mack White * Texas Tales Illustrated: The Trail Drives (Feb, 2015), illustrations by: Mack White Afterward * The Far Canyon (2010), Kearby wrote the Afterword for the Elmer Kelton TCU Press reprint Screenplays * Long Term Parking (2012) Co-written with Paul Bright * Men of Color (2012) * The Problem with Time Travel (2019)	WIKI
How to choose your cataract surgery implant lens June 21, 2010 — by unknown Tags: Cataract Cataract Surgery Iol Implant Surgeon In cataract surgery, the cloudy or defective crystalline lens of the eye is removed and a new intraocular lens implant or IOL is placed. A cataract should be removed when the lens gets cloudy enough that it causes difficulty with quality of life. After a cataract is removed, the board certified cataract surgeons at North Shore eye care replace the cataract with a variety of top of the line implants. If a patient desires to see far and near without glasses or contact lenses, there are two types of lenses that can accomplish this. Crystalens is an accommodating lens that moves forward and back depending on the involuntary muscles of focus. This gives a patient increased depth of focus and reduces the need for glasses. North Shore eye care is a national Crystalens Center of Excellence. There are also multifocal implants like the restor, rezoom, and tecnis multifocal. These lenses are different from each other, but function by having rings in the implant that alternate for near and far. A patient looking through these implants is able to see near and far without glasses or contact lenses. There are particular benefits to each implant that our board certified cataract surgeons are happy to discuss in a cataract consultation. For patients with astigmatism, we offer a toric intraocular implant to reduce or eliminate astigmatism. In long island new york in suffolk and nassau counties, we see patients from smithtown, nesconset, saint james, kings park, islandia, hauppague, lake grove, islip, holbrook, holtsville, farmingville, bohemia, ronkonkoma, sayville, bay shore, babylon, and many other towns.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
PDA View Full Version : "Skills" window broken?? Pike Tha Blodd January 5th, 2004, 05:48 PM so i decided to give an old char a run around and see how an old server was, and realized that my skills window refused to open, i thought at first that my UI had broken so I loaded up the default but still no skills window. Out of curiousity i created a new char and his skills window wouldnt open either. I went back to my main and all his windows was fine.... anyone else having this problem?? and on a side note does anyone know the command that opens up skills by itself without opening inventory? its the only thing i can think of trying that i havent yet done. Raven00x January 5th, 2004, 06:08 PM for me it isn't, however i've been hearing a lot of people in ooc saying it is. i've been using the T.King Steamworks v1.2(or 1.3) UI, in case that has any effect on it. could be that an unannounced patch slipped in, or there was something serverside that isn't agreeing with the xml, but that's just my uneducated theory. Tsu January 5th, 2004, 06:08 PM mine doesn't work either. and I use the T.king cletic UI.. thargett69 January 5th, 2004, 06:46 PM I don't normally post here much, but I've had the same problem as well but managed to find out how to fix it, at least in my case. Try opening the UI.ini file for your character in the EQ folder (for example mine is called UI_Misaskin_Saryrn.ini) Scroll down through the file and look for a heading that says [SkillsWindow]. Check the numbers at the end of the next four lines and make sure none of them equal zero. If any do, that is the problem, simply add in some different numbers on the end. I run EQ at 1024x768 and using the four values 331, 221, 320, and 262 worked. If anyone has any problems trying this feel free to PM me. Pike Tha Blodd January 5th, 2004, 07:56 PM you sir, are my new HERO!! thanks man, that did tha trick Kelori January 6th, 2004, 01:39 PM Yea, this is a very common bug thats been happening to a lot of people. I recommend moving the Skillswindow file out from the folder (or deleting it) and getting a new one patched. That has been working for everyone I recommended it for. A nice way to try and fix things on your own is say your characters won't load Great Divide, You crash when you try it. Delete (or move the files out of the folder if deleting makes you nervous you will screw something up) and just patch fresh new ones. Then if it works.. You are squared away and can delete the bad ones if you just moved them out of the folder. ANd if you are still having trouble, saves you a step when tech support suggests you do it. I don't know about the changing the numbers thing that Tsu talks about.. it could work too shrug Landsknecht January 6th, 2004, 04:05 PM I got one for ya. Two characters, both use same UI. Skills window works for one of em, but not the other one. Bugging the snot out of me... Pike Tha Blodd January 6th, 2004, 06:02 PM use Tharg suggestion, i was in the same boat, and it worked for both UI's jsut had to change them while the game was not running and its all good and proper now KyrosKrane January 7th, 2004, 01:17 AM The skills window "not working" isn't entirely accurate. It's working in a technical sense; the window is getting displayed. It's just that for some funky reason, it's being displayed off the screen or outside the window, if you use windowed mode. Resetting the numbers as Tharg suggested basically places the window back on the main screen, so you can work with it normally. Landsknecht January 7th, 2004, 02:11 AM Well I'll be damned. I wonder how that got that way to begin with?? I checked and sure enough, the window was being told to open with a 0 height and width. Works like a charm now. Deathbane27 January 7th, 2004, 08:55 PM Ah, good to here there's a fix. I had some people not openning on one computer but the other worked fine. :P I wonder why it's only the skills window that's been doing this? Gozak January 7th, 2004, 09:11 PM No clue... and the window has been acting up for a while. Ever since a few patches back it's not been working. Oddly enough, it's always worked when I've relogged with the same character. I don't know why either. Although changing the numbers in the UI.ini file makes sense. Kelori January 8th, 2004, 07:19 AM Its a known bug and it is very common. My best assumption is they are trying to find out WHY its been happening to try and prevent it from occuring. Supposedly there is also a thread on this at the Eqlive forum as well for anyone who wants to hear a fix for this from "official" type people. Naelaen January 8th, 2004, 09:17 AM The skills windows have been broken for some characters since the big patch in December. For me, whilst my Vazaelle characters seemed to have their skill windows, my shaman on Tunare can't see the skills window. It's all to do with the induvidual character UI files :)	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Henrietta Kelemen Henrietta Kelemen (born 1994) is a Hungarian model and beauty pageant titleholder who was crowned Miss Universe Hungary 2014 and represented Hungary in Miss Universe 2014 pageant. Miss Hungary 2012 Kelemen was crowned as Miss Hungary 2012. Miss Universe Hungary 2014 Kelemen was crowned as Miss Universe Hungary 2014 on September 16, 2014, and represented Budapest. Miss Universe 2014 Kelemen competed at the Miss Universe 2014 pageant but did not place.	WIKI
Marvell (MRVL) Gains on Restructuring Plan Announcement Shares of Marvell Technology Group Ltd.MRVL gained 5% in yesterday's after-hour trade following the company's announcement of a major restructuring initiative, including job cuts. Per the plan, the chip maker intends to significantly downsize the mobile platform business to "refocus its technology to emerging opportunities in IoT [Internet of Things], automotive and networking." Marvell generated nearly $122 million in revenues and $13 million of gross profit from the business in the first half of fiscal 2016. This planned restructuring initiative is anticipated to cut approximately 17% of the company's global workforce and save $170 million to $220 million annually. Marvell expects to incur total charges of $100 million to $130 million as part of the restructuring plans for which adjustments will be made in the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2016. Though the company planned to start the restructuring process immediately, the major activities are likely to take place through the end of fiscal 2016. We believe that this is a strategic move on the company's part given IoT's potential. The IoT is projected to bring about a massive change by increasing connectivity between people and things significantly. It is a computing concept where physical objects of everyday use will be connected to the Internet and characterized by autonomous provisioning, organization and monitoring. IoT will connect billions of devices and systems with applications ranging from sensors and mobile devices to home appliances and cars. Research firm IDC quoted the Wall Street Journal that the market could nearly triple, going ahead. In 2014, the global IoT market was worth $655.8 billion and might hit $1.7 trillion by 2020. According to the news source, more than 90% of the world's data has been created over the last two years and by taping this opportunity would ensure solid long-term growth, in our view. In its Jun 2015 report, the McKinsey Global Institute projected that IoT applications could reach as much as $11.1 trillion every year by 2025. Marvell's efforts toward capitalizing on the emerging opportunities are encouraging. However, we believe that it is too early to determine whether the company's plans will succeed given the new challenges it has been countering over the past two weeks. Recent Troubles Marvell has been in troubled water for some time now following the dismal second-quarter fiscal 2016 results and an internal probe in relation to certain accounting inconsistencies. Marvell's revenues plunged 26% year over year to $711.3 million. Moreover, it was toward the lower end of the company's guidance range of $710-$740 million and missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $723 million. The company blamed the softer-than-expected demand from storage end markets and the emerging markets for the weak performance. The company reported loss per share of 74 cents as against 27 cents earned a year ago. The bottom line also compared unfavorably with the Zacks Consensus Estimate of earnings of 5 cents. Furthermore, Marvell is investigating whether the board had sufficiently discharged its duties related to revenue recognition. The probe came after Levi & Korsinsky, a national law firm, launched an investigation into Marvell for possible violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The complaint alleged that Marvell's revenue recognition and control measures were inappropriate, leading to material misstatements of key metrics including those related to its business, operations and prospects. Secondly, the internal investigation focuses on roughly 7% to 8% of revenue recognized in second-quarter fiscal 2016 which should have been accounted for in the third quarter. Here we note that it if there were accounting irregularities, results may actually be weaker than reported right now. Also, if no inconsistencies are found, it would mean that the next quarter's results will be short by the amount pulled into this quarter. Consequently, the next quarter will also be weak. Currently, Marvell carries a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell). Stocks to Consider Given the sell-rating and challenges associated with Marvell, it is better to avoid the stock. Some better-ranked stocks in the broader technology sector are ARM Holdings plc ARMH , Avago Technologies Limited AVGO and Pixelworks, Inc. PXLW , all carrying a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days.Click to get this free report >> Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report MARVELL TECH GP (MRVL): Free Stock Analysis Report ARM HOLDNGS ADR (ARMH): Free Stock Analysis Report AVAGO TECHNOLOG (AVGO): Free Stock Analysis Report PIXELWORKS INC (PXLW): Free Stock Analysis Report To read this article on Zacks.com click here. Zacks Investment Research The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Northwest Bancshares Inc (NWBI) Q1 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Record Net Income and ... Revenue: $156 million for the first quarter of 2025. Net Income: $43 million, a 48% increase compared to the same quarter last year. Earnings Per Diluted Share: $0.34, up from $0.23 in the first quarter of 2024. Net Interest Margin: Improved by 45 basis points to 3.87%. Non-Interest Income: Decreased by $11.7 million from the previous quarter. Non-Interest Expense: Declined by 3.8% or $4 million compared to the prior quarter. Pre-Tax, Pre-Provision Net Revenue: $64.5 million, a 9% improvement from the fourth quarter of 2024. Average Commercial Loans: Increased by $121 million or 6.2% compared to the fourth quarter. Loan Yields: Increased by 44 basis points to 6.0% quarter on quarter. Average Total Deposits: Increased by $60 million quarter over quarter. Cost of Deposits: Decreased by 9 basis points to 1.59%. Adjusted Efficiency Ratio: Improved to 57.7% from 59.6% in the prior quarter. Annualized Net Charge-Offs: 8 basis points for the quarter. Provision Expense: $8.3 million booked for the quarter. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Sign with CCK. Release Date: April 29, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Northwest Bancshares Inc (NASDAQ:NWBI) reported a record net income of $43 million for the first quarter of 2025, marking a 48% increase compared to the same quarter last year. The company achieved a significant improvement in its net interest margin, expanding by 45 basis points to 3.87%, marking the fourth consecutive quarter of margin improvement. NWBI successfully increased its average commercial CNI loans by 20% over the past year, reflecting a strategic shift towards commercial lending. The company maintained a strong deposit base with average total deposits increasing by $60 million quarter over quarter, and a cost of deposits that remains near best in class at 1.59%. NWBI received all required regulatory approvals for its merger with Penz Woods Bank Corp, which is expected to close by late July, positioning the company among the top 100 banks in the United States by asset size. Non-interest income decreased by $11.7 million from the previous quarter, primarily due to the absence of gains from asset sales recorded in the fourth quarter. The company experienced a decline in its CRE portfolio by 3.5% and its residential mortgage and home equity portfolios by 1.9% and 1.3% respectively. There is significant market volatility and uncertainty over the economic outlook, which may pose challenges to NWBI's operating environment. The company's non-interest expenses increased by 2% compared to the first quarter of 2024, with $1.1 million attributed to merger-related costs. NWBI's annualized net charge-offs returned to historic levels at 8 basis points, with an $8.3 million provision expense, indicating ongoing credit risk management challenges. Q: Could you provide more details on the margin guidance and how potential Fed rate cuts might affect it? A: Douglas Schosser, Chief Financial Officer: We closed the quarter with a core margin of 3.48%. We expect to be at the high end of our range, leaving room for aggressive pricing. We anticipate one to two rate cuts in our guidance, and if three occur, it won't significantly change our margin outlook. We'll update guidance post-Pinewoods acquisition in the second quarter. Q: What are the drivers behind the strong money market growth, and how do you expect deposit growth to trend? A: Douglas Schosser, Chief Financial Officer: We are transitioning CDs into more liquid products like money markets, which averaged 3.75% across the franchise. We see consistent, stable deposit growth and are opening a new branch in Fishers, Indiana, to support this. Q: Can you provide guidance on the impact of the Pinewoods acquisition on tangible book value and purchase accounting accretion? A: Douglas Schosser, Chief Financial Officer: Rates have decreased, benefiting us in terms of portfolio marks. Our stock price has been lower, yielding a lower purchase price. However, due to volatility, we won't provide specific guidance until closer to the deal's closure. Q: What credit trends are you observing, particularly with tariff disruptions and macroeconomic uncertainty? A: Douglas Schosser, Chief Financial Officer: It's early, but industries like manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, and hospitality could be impacted. Our exposure to these industries is about 8% of our loan portfolio, and we're monitoring the situation closely. Q: How is the commercial loan build-out progressing, and in which categories are you gaining market share? A: Douglas Schosser, Chief Financial Officer: We're gaining share in newer verticals like sports and franchise finance. Our commercial business mix remains consistent, and we're seeing growth as employees have had more time to transition and work their books. Q: What is the competitive landscape like, and where are you seeing the most spread compression? A: Douglas Schosser, Chief Financial Officer: The environment is competitive, with new commercial loan yields at 7.26% and roll-offs at 6.76%. We're disciplined in credit and pricing, which may naturally constrict growth. Q: How do you view the potential for additional M&A activity in the current environment? A: Louis Torchio, President and CEO: The current environment is tepid due to stock price volatility. We're focused on internal discipline and growth but remain open to future transactions that are accretive to our revenue and shareholder value. Q: Can you update us on your commercial loan pipelines and credit expectations? A: Douglas Schosser, Chief Financial Officer: Our pipelines are stronger than a year ago, but tariff effects may impact them. Credit expectations are hard to predict due to economic volatility, and we'll continue to operate under current methodologies. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
DEV Community Jasterix Jasterix Posted on What actually is React State? State is a weird concept to wrap your head around. But I hope this short read will help you conceptualize this core concept. Key takeaway React state makes it so that when your state data changes, React triggers a re-render of your components, which then updates the DOM accordingly. So as a developer, you won't have to worry about getting the right elements to change the DOM because React will handle that. Getting started with state Setting the initial state This can be done with a constructor of like this: state = { toggleOn: true }; Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode Updating the state State can be updated with setState. Never update state directly with state = this.setState{toggleOn: false} Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode How it all comes together (codepen class Toggle extends React.Component { state = { toggleOn: true }; handleClick= () => { this.setState(prevState => ({ toggleOn: !prevState.toggleOn })); } render() { return ( <button onClick={this.handleClick}> {this.state.toggleOn ? 'ON' : 'OFF'} </button> ); } } ReactDOM.render( <Toggle />, document.getElementById('root') ); Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode Difference between State and Props • Any data your components use will accessed in state or in props • State is internally maintained (rather than being passed in like prop) • State lets us update the information in a component without requiring its parent to somehow send updated information • You initial state in the constructor If you're still confused, below is a (very) simplified test for determining if a component should have state. Start by understanding what isn't/doesn't have state no state • if a component is passed its data through its props, that piece of data should not be in the state • if a component/data remains unchanged over time, it doesn't need/isn't state state • if a component holds data, it may have state • if a component sets data for its child components, it may have state Here is a great article with a more depth look at React state Top comments (1) Collapse jasterix profile image Jasterix Thanks for the headsup. I haven't reviewed hooks yet, but I think it will be worth an update to either this post or a new one once I get there With each blog post, I want to provide a 1 min summary of each React concept as I learn it. Do you see anything else that's either wrong or worth additional exploration?	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
-- Telekomunikacja Jumps as Mobile-Phone Unit Pushes Profit Above Estimates Shares of Telekomunikacja Polska SA rose to a two-month high after Poland’s largest phone company said second-quarter profit fell by a less-than-estimated 13 percent. Telekomunikacja gained as much as 3.9 percent to 15.85 zloty in Warsaw, the highest level since May 27, outstripping the 0.6 percent gain in the benchmark WIG20 Index. The shares traded up 2.6 percent as of 9:52 a.m. The company “surprised on the positive” side “all across the mobile segment,” posting “very strong” growth in the number of subscribers from the first quarter, and “decent” sales, Pawel Puchalski , an analyst at Bank Zachodni WBK SA in Warsaw, wrote in a note. Net income fell to 325 million zloty ($105.5 million) from 374 million zloty a year earlier, the Warsaw-based unit of France Telecom SA said in a statement today. That compares with the 287.3 million-zloty mean estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 10 analysts. Telekomunikacja’s revenue has been pushed down by reductions in regulated prices. Sales fell 4.7 percent to 3.99 billion zloty, beating a mean estimate of 7.9 percent, and a 10 percent drop in the first quarter, thanks to better than estimated mobile-phone performance. The pace of the decline in sales will slow to less than 4 percent in the second half, the company said. Telekomunikacja also increased its forecast for 2010 free cash flow to at least 2.3 billion zloty from at least 2 billion zloty. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or Ebitda, will probably be 36 percent to 37 percent of sales in the second half, compared with 37 percent in the second quarter, Telekomunikacja added. To contact the reporter on this story: Nathaniel Espino in Warsaw nespino@bloomberg.net	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
半步多玄玉的博客 iBatis集成Spring 2011-04-06 玄玉 iBatis集成Spring的方式，共有三种下面简单描述一下（本文展示的是个人感觉最为方便的那种）第一种 sqlMapClient注入给未继承任何类的DAO接口实现类然后在DAO接口实现类中增加setSqlMapClient(SqlMapClient sqlMapClient)方法接下来就可以基于原生的iBatis-api编程第二种 sqlMapClient注入给继承了SqlMapClientDaoSupport类的DAO接口实现类不同的是该DAO接口实现类不需要添加setSqlMapClient()方法接下来就可以直接使用类似this.getSqlMapClientTemplate().insert()的方法第三种就是本文的例子，个人感觉是最方便的，示例代码如下首先是实体类User.Java package com.jadyer.model; public class User { private int id; private String name; private String content; private byte[] fileContent; /--setter和getter略--/ } 下面是实体类映射文件//src//com//jadyer//model//User.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE sqlMap PUBLIC "-//ibatis.apache.org//DTD SQL Map 2.0//EN" "http://ibatis.apache.org/dtd/sql-map-2.dtd"> <sqlMap namespace="User"> <typeAlias alias="user" type="com.jadyer.model.User"/> <resultMap class="user" id="userResultMap"> <result property="id" column="id"/> <result property="name" column="name"/> <result property="content" column="content" javaType="java.lang.String" jdbcType="CLOB"/> </resultMap> <!-- 很多数据库支持自动生成主键的数据类型 SQLMap通过<insert>子元素<selectKey>来支持自动生成的键值它同时支持预生成（如Oracle）和后生成两种类型（如MySQL/MS-SQLServer） --> <insert id="insert" parameterClass="user"> <selectKey keyProperty="id" resultClass="java.lang.Integer"> SELECT seq_t_user_test.nextval AS id FROM DUAL </selectKey> INSERT INTO t_user_test(id, name, content) VALUES(#id#, #name#, #content#) </insert> <insert id="insertForMySQL" parameterClass="user"> INSERT INTO t_user_test(id, name, content) VALUES(#id#, #name#, #content#) <selectKey keyProperty="id" resultClass="java.lang.Integer"> SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID() AS value </selectKey> </insert> <delete id="delete" parameterClass="java.lang.Integer"> <![CDATA[ DELETE FROM t_user_test WHERE id=#id# ]]> </delete> <!-- 也可以传Map作为参数 --> <update id="update" parameterClass="java.util.Map"> UPDATE t_user_test SET content=#content# WHERE id=#id# </update> <select id="selectByID" parameterClass="java.lang.Integer" resultMap="userResultMap"> SELECT * FROM t_user_test WHERE id=#id# </select> </sqlMap> 下面是数据库脚本 --DB2/Oracle中CLOB对应clob,BLOB对应blob -- MySQL中CLOB对应text,BLOB对应blob -- Java中CLOB对应String,BLOB对应byte[] -- Oracle CREATE TABLE t_user_test ( id NUMBER PRIMARY KEY, name VARCHAR2(50), content CLOB ); CREATE SEQUENCE seq_t_user_test MINVALUE 1 MAXVALUE 999999 START WITH 1 INCREMENT BY 1 CACHE 20; -- MySQL CREATE TABLE t_user_test ( id INT(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name VARCHAR(50) NULL, content TEXT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=UTF8; 下面是iBatis2.x的全局配置文件//src//SqlMapConfig.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <!DOCTYPE sqlMapConfig PUBLIC "-//ibatis.apache.org//DTD SQL Map Config 2.0//EN" "http://ibatis.apache.org/dtd/sql-map-config-2.dtd"> <sqlMapConfig> <!-- 集成Spring之后，数据源的配置就挪到了Spring，所以iBatis本身的配置可以取消 --> <settings useStatementNamespaces="true"/> <sqlMap resource="com/jadyer/model/User.xml"/> </sqlMapConfig> 下面是Spring的全局配置文件//src//applicationContext.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:tx="http://www.springframework.org/schema/tx" xmlns:context="http://www.springframework.org/schema/context" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-3.1.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/tx http://www.springframework.org/schema/tx/spring-tx-3.1.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/context http://www.springframework.org/schema/context/spring-context-3.2.xsd"> <bean id="dataSource" class="org.logicalcobwebs.proxool.ProxoolDataSource"> <property name="driver" value="com.mysql.jdbc.Driver"/> <property name="driverUrl" value="jdbc:oracle:thin:@127.0.0.1:1521:jadyer"/> <property name="user" value="scott"/> <property name="password" value="hongyu"/> </bean> <context:component-scan base-package="com.jadyer"/> <bean id="txManager" class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DataSourceTransactionManager"> <property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/> </bean> <tx:annotation-driven transaction-manager="txManager"/> <bean id="sqlMapClientTemplate" class="org.springframework.orm.ibatis.SqlMapClientTemplate"> <property name="sqlMapClient"> <bean class="org.springframework.orm.ibatis.SqlMapClientFactoryBean"> <property name="configLocation" value="classpath:SqlMapConfig.xml"/> <property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/> </bean> </property> </bean> </beans> 接下来是操作数据库的UserDaoImpl.java package com.jadyer.dao; import java.sql.SQLException; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import javax.annotation.Resource; import org.springframework.orm.ibatis.SqlMapClientTemplate; import org.springframework.stereotype.Repository; import com.jadyer.model.User; //其实不是非得去实现什么接口的 @Repository public class UserDaoImpl { @Resource private SqlMapClientTemplate sqlMapClientTemplate; /** * 批量插入 / public void batchInsert(final String statement, final List<User> userList) throws DataAccessException { this.getSqlMapClientTemplate().execute(new SqlMapClientCallback() { public Object doInSqlMapClient(SqlMapExecutor executor) throws SQLException { executor.startBatch(); int batchCount = 0; for(User user : userList){ executor.update(statement, user); batchCount++; //每200条批量提交一次 if(200 == batchCount){ executor.executeBatch(); batchCount = 0; } } executor.executeBatch(); return null; } }); } /* * @return 返回的是本次新增记录的id（注意配置文件中要在INSERT INTO语句前面指定<selectKey>标签才会生效） / public int insert(User user) { return (Integer)this.sqlMapClientTemplate.insert("User.insert", user); } /* * @return 返回的是本次新增记录的id（注意配置文件中要在INSERT INTO语句后面指定<selectKey>标签才会生效） / public int insertForMySQL(User user) { return (Integer)this.sqlMapClientTemplate.insert("User.insertForMySQL", user); } /* * @return 本次操作影响的行数，即本次删除的记录数 / public int delete(int id) throws SQLException { return (Integer)this.sqlMapClientTemplate.delete("User.delete", id); } /* * @return 本次操作影响的行数，即本次修改的记录数 / public int update(int id, String content) throws SQLException { Map<String, Object> paramMap = new HashMap<String, Object>(); paramMap.put("id", id); paramMap.put("content", content); return (Integer)this.sqlMapClientTemplate.update("User.update", paramMap); } /* * @return 本次查询到的对象 / public User selectByID(int id) throws SQLException { return (User)this.sqlMapClientTemplate.queryForObject("User.selectByID", id); } } 最后是用JUnit4.x编写的单元测试IbatisSpringTest.java package com.jadyer.test; import java.sql.SQLException; import org.junit.Assert; import org.junit.BeforeClass; import org.junit.Test; import org.springframework.context.ApplicationContext; import org.springframework.context.support.ClassPathXmlApplicationContext; import com.jadyer.dao.UserDaoImpl; import com.jadyer.model.User; /* * 本例的依赖包如下 * ojdbc6-11.2.0.3.jar(mysql-connector-java-5.1.26-bin.jar) * proxool-0.9.1.jar * proxool-cglib.jar * ibatis-2.3.4.726.jar * commons-logging-1.1.3 * aopalliance.jar * spring-aop-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-asm-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-beans-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-context-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-core-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-expression-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-jdbc-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-orm-3.1.4.RELEASE * spring-tx-3.1.4.RELEASE * Created by 玄玉<https://jadyer.cn/> on 2011/04/06 19:56. */ public class IbatisSpringTest { private static UserDaoImpl userDao; @BeforeClass public static void globalInit(){ try{ ApplicationContext ctx = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("applicationContext.xml"); userDao = (UserDaoImpl)ctx.getBean("userDaoImpl"); }catch(RuntimeException e){ System.out.println("初始化Bean对象时遇到异常，堆栈轨迹如下"); e.printStackTrace(); } } @Test public void insert() throws SQLException { User user = new User(); user.setName("张起灵"); user.setContent("张起灵是个过客，可吴邪却成了幽灵。"); Assert.assertTrue(userDao.insert(user)>0); } @Test public void delete() throws SQLException { Assert.assertEquals(1, userDao.delete(2)); } @Test public void update() throws SQLException { Assert.assertEquals(1, userDao.update(4, "铁面生可能是最后的黑手")); } @Test public void selectByID() throws SQLException { Assert.assertEquals("张起灵", userDao.selectByID(4).getName()); } } 相关文章 Comments Content	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Pedro Nuño Colón de Portugal, 6th Duke of Veragua Pedro Nuño Colón de Portugal y Castro, 6th Duke of Veragua, 6th Marquess of Jamaica, 6th Count of Gelves (Madrid, Spain, 13 December 1628 – December 8, 1673, Mexico City) was viceroy of New Spain from December 3, 1673, to December 8, 1673. Early life He was born in Madrid, the son of Álvaro Colón de Portugal y Portocarrero, 5th Duke of Veragua, 4th Duke of la Vega, 6th admiral of the Indies, and of Catalina de Castro y Portugal, 5th countess of Gelves, and descendant of the House of Braganza, distantly related to the Portuguese royal family. Career He was a knight of Order of the Golden Fleece, 1670, and also inherited the positions of admiral and governor of the Indies. He became the first viceroy of New Spain named under the authority of King Charles II. On April 28, 1672, Enrique de Toledo y Osorio, Marquess of Villafranca was named viceroy of New Spain, but he declined the post. Instead, Colón de Portugal was named viceroy on June 10, 1672, and he arrived in Veracruz in September 1673. He delayed some time in Veracruz to look over the fortifications there, as Spain was then at war with France. He arrived at Chapultepec November 16, 1673, and remained there three weeks for reasons of health before making his entry into Mexico City. He took possession of the government the night of November 20, but delayed exercising the functions of government. He finally made his solemn entry into Mexico City on December 8, 1673, and his government is dated from this date, rather than November 20. One of his few official acts was to lower the prices of cacao and maize. Colón de Portugal's governorship would not last long, however, as he died on December 13 at 5 am, only five days after formally taking up the position. His term was the shortest of all the viceroys'. His funeral was conducted with great solemnity in the cathedral, where his remains were deposited in the chapel of Santo Cristo. Some historians claim that his remains were later moved to Spain, but others claim they are still in the cathedral. On the day of his death, the Inquisitor Juan de Ortega delivered sealed instructions to the Audiencia that in the event of the death of Pedro Nuño Colón de Portugal, the government was to be transferred to Payo Enríquez de Rivera, archbishop of Mexico. Descendants His first marriage, dated 8 February 1645, when he was 18, was to Isabel de la Cueva y Enriquez de Cabrera, daughter of Francisco Fernández de la Cueva, 7th Duke of Alburquerque. They had a son named Pedro Manuel Colón de Portugal, 7th duke of Veragua, (1651–1710), a Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece, 1675, Viceroy of Valencia, 1696, Viceroy of Sicily, 1696–1701, and Viceroy of Sardinia, 1706–1708. This son, the 7th duke since 1673, married Teresa de Ayala Toledo y Fajardo de Mendoza, born around 1650, on 30 August 1674. A daughter of this 7th Duke, Catalina Ventura (1690–1739), sister of the 8th Duke of Veragua (also named Pedro Nuño), would in turn marry the famous James Fitz-James Stuart, 2nd Duke of Berwick, the Spanish Ambassador in Russia.	WIKI
Talk:1964 United Kingdom general election Project 596 Is it worth including, in the televised section, that it was notable for the reaction of the studio guests when it was announced on air that China has just detonated their first nuclear device at 7am gmt on the 16th as results were still coming in ? 596_(nuclear_test) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgb62uk (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Cities of London and Westminster South by-election Before anyone raises a stink, I had to put Independent Conservative because I couldn't find a colour for Speaker of the House of Commons. Is there such a colour and if so, what's the code? * I've removed the list of by-elections, as this article is on the general election, and we already have details of the by-elections at the list of UK by-elections. You can find the codes for (almost) any affiliation at Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes. Warofdreams talk 12:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Change to external links The political resources at Keele University have moved from: http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/ to http://www.politicsresources.net/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjjm (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Northern Ireland Labour Party Are the votes for the Northern Ireland Labour party (102,759) included in the Labour total, and if so should this not be indicated? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Tables The main election tables vary from year to year. I would strongly suggest just using the same outline for all years. Right now maybe 3-4 different outlines are used which makes it harder to compare elections. JurijFedorov (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC) References for results This page has many quantitative election results, but doesn't provide references for them. Are references available? If not, it seems like the information should be removed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC) * I found some references hiding in the EL section; I've made these into proper references, though that was cumbersome since the templates used here don't seem to support references. I've removed other unreferenced material and marked a section or two unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) "racist.... Peter Griffith" Thats far-left talk and POV, hardly objective. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)	WIKI
AMD Stock Is on the Verge of a Breakout You Don’t Want to Miss InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading Tips Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD) stock has been on a tear since last year, with a slew of positive developments, strong revenue growth, and a robust outlook. AMD) billboard showing two of its popular product lines, Ryzen and Radeon." width="300" height="169"> Source: Joseph GTK / Shutterstock.com Despite its stellar performance, AMC stock has moved sluggishly in the past few months in comparison to its peers. The delay in the approval of its Xilinx deal in China and Europe seems to be holding its stock price back. Hence AMC stock is trading at a fairly reasonable valuation and should break out once it overcomes its regulatory hurdles. 7 Stocks to Buy From the 'Goldman Sachs Renewable Energy Picks' List AMD is coming off one of its strongest years in recent memory, with its year-over-year revenue growth at over 57%. Moreover, its year-over-year EBITDA growth is at an incredible 118%. It enjoys a technical edge over its competitors, such as Intel (NASDAQ:INTC), who have been forced to play catch-up for most of the year. AMD currently trades at roughly seven times forward sales, which is relatively expensive. However, given its business momentum, robust financials and technical superiority, its valuation is more than justified at this point. Glittering Financials AMD recently reported its first-quarter results, where its revenues rose to $3.5 billion, representing a 93% increase from the prior-year period. Consequently, GAAP net income rose shot up to $555 million, representing a 243% growth from year-ago levels. In comparison, Intel generated $19.7 billion in its first quarter, a 1% decline from the same quarter last year. More importantly, net income dropped 41% during the period, mainly due to a restructuring charge of $2.2 billion. Additionally, its revenues rose 8% last year compared with 2019. The technical edge has mainly driven AMD’s success in CPUs. A few years ago, many had written off the company, but under the leadership of Lisa Su, its fortunes have changed completely. A series of game-changing decisions have driven share gains against Intel in the CPU department. Furthermore, AMD has made some great strides as far as free cash flows are concerned. It generated an incredible $832 million in the quarter compared to Intel’s $1.6 billion. However, considering that Intel generates six times as much revenue as AMD, its performance is lackluster. AMD/Xilinx Merger AMD agreed to acquire semiconductor company Xilinx in a $35 billion all-stock transaction late last year. The aim was for both companies to complement each other’s product portfolios, create synergies, and expand AMD’s revenue base. In addition, the acquisition will give AMD’s data center business a massive boost. Both companies have similar competencies in areas such as artificial intelligence and systems-on-a-chip. The merger provides access to new markets in the industrial and automotive realms for AMD. Xilinx’s data center business will effectively complement AMD’s robust server capabilities and will enable it to leverage its EPYC technology. However, the merger had run into regulatory roadblocks in Europe and China. The primary concern of these markets relates to anti-competitive behavior, with the company becoming remarkably powerful. As it stands, the EU’s top antitrust regulator states it has no objections to the merger. The UK’s antitrust regulator is evaluating the merger proposal and will decide by next month. However, the approval process in China will take significantly longer than in Europe. The average review period for such deals in the industry is more than 300 days. Nonetheless, the merger’s approval in the EU and UK will be a major catalyst in itself and should push AMD stock’s price higher. Bottom Line on AMD Stock AMD is coming off one of its most successful years, but its stock price momentum has been sluggish overall. AMD’s merger with Xilinx has stalled in Europe and China, which has slowed down the growth in its stock price. However, these roadblocks are likely to fade away soon, removing any impediments for AMD stock. AMD stock is a definite buy at this stage, with an incredible outlook ahead and its stellar financial positioning. On the date of publication, Muslim Farooque did not have (either directly or indirectly) any positions in the securities mentioned in this article. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer, subject to the InvestorPlace.com Publishing Guidelines. The post AMD Stock Is on the Verge of a Breakout You Don’t Want to Miss appeared first on InvestorPlace. The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
histogram_data_2d_sample histogram_data_2d_sample, a MATLAB code which demonstrates how to construct a Probability Density Function (PDF) from a table of sample data, and then to use that PDF to create new samples. The program presented here is hard-wired to handle a specific problem. However, the ideas used in the program are easily extended to other regions and other dimensions. For the problem given here, we assume we have sample values of a function F(X,Y) for each subregion of a region. These values might actually represent population counts, a density, the integral of some function over the subregion, or simply an abstract function. We implicitly assumed that all the values are positive. The particular region studied here is the unit square, which has been broken down into a 20x20 array of equal subsquares. If we normalize by the sum of the data values, the result is a PDF associated with each subregion. By assigning an arbitrary order to the subregions, we can add the PDF values up to the given subregion to get a CDF (cumulative density function) for that subregion. Now given an arbitrary random value U, we can locate the subregion whose CDF value just exceeds U. Choosing a random point within this subregion gives us the sample point. If we choose many such sample points, the statistics for this sample will tend to the discrete PDF that we defined from the data we were given. Licensing: The computer code and data files described and made available on this web page are distributed under the MIT license Languages: histogram_data_2d_sample is available in a C version and a C++ version and a FORTRAN90 version and a MATLAB version. Related Data and Programs: fem1d_sample, a MATLAB code which samples a scalar or vector finite element function of one variable, defined by FEM files, returning interpolated values at the sample points. fem2d_sample, a MATLAB code which evaluates a finite element function defined on an order 3 or order 6 triangulation. histogram_data_2d_sample_test histogram_pdf_2d_sample, a MATLAB code which demonstrates how uniform sampling of a 2D region with respect to some known Probability Density Function (PDF) can be approximated by decomposing the region into rectangles, approximating the PDF by a piecewise constant function, constructing a histogram for the CDF, and then sampling. prob, a MATLAB code which evaluates and inverts a number of probabilistic distributions. random_data, a MATLAB code which generates sample points for various probability distributions, spatial dimensions, and geometries; rejection_sample, a MATLAB code which demonstrates acceptance/rejection sampling. walker_sample, a MATLAB code which efficiently samples a discrete probability vector using Walker sampling. Source Code: Last modified on 30 January 2019.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
U.S. government and North Carolina escalate legal fight over transgender law WASHINGTON/WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (Reuters) - A fight between the Obama administration and North Carolina over a state law limiting public bathroom access for transgender people escalated on Monday as both sides sued each other, trading accusations of civil rights violations and government overreach. The U.S. Justice Department’s complaint asked a federal district court in North Carolina to declare that the state is violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act and order it to stop enforcing the ban. Hours earlier, North Carolina’s Republican governor, Pat McCrory, and the state’s secretary of public safety sued the agency in a different federal court in North Carolina, accusing it of “baseless and blatant overreach.” The so-called bathroom law, passed in March and known as HB 2, prohibits people from using public restrooms not corresponding to their biological sex. It has thrust North Carolina into the center of a national debate over equality and privacy, and has now led the state into what could be a long and costly legal battle with the U.S. government. Americans are divided over how public restrooms should be used by transgender people, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, with 44 percent saying people should use them according to their biological sex and 39 percent saying they should be used according to the gender with which they identify. By passing the law, North Carolina became the first state in the country to ban people from using multiple occupancy restrooms or changing rooms in public buildings and schools that do not match the sex on their birth certificate. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Monday the department “retains the option” of curtailing federal funding to North Carolina unless it backs down. “None of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something or someone that they are not,” Lynch said at a news conference, comparing the measure to Jim Crow-era racial discrimination laws and bans on same-sex marriage. Lynch said the department is monitoring other U.S. jurisdictions that have passed or considered laws similar to North Carolina’s but declined to say whether the agency was planning any action against them. White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the North Carolina law “mean-spirited” but McCrory said in his complaint that it is “common sense privacy policy.” North Carolina Republicans say the law stops men from posing as transgender to gain access to women’s restrooms. North Carolina stands to lose $4.8 billion in funds, mainly educational grants, if it does not back down, according to an analysis by lawyers at the University of California, Los Angeles Law School. The Justice Department’s complaint named the state of North Carolina, McCrory, the state’s Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina system as defendants. The 17-campus University of North Carolina system says it takes federal non-discrimination laws very seriously but must also adhere to state laws like HB 2. “In these circumstances, the University is truly caught in the middle,” UNC President Margaret Spellings said. McCrory told reporters that North Carolina had been forced to pass the law after the Charlotte city council passed an ordinance that allowed transgender people access to bathrooms based on gender identity in public and private buildings. “We’re taking the Obama admin to court. They’re bypassing Congress, attempting to rewrite law & policies for the whole country, not just NC,” McCrory wrote on Twitter. The Republican leaders of North Carolina’s state legislature also sued the U.S. government over the law on Monday, hours after McCrory’s lawsuit. The law is also being challenged in federal district court by critics including the American Civil Liberties Union. Additional reporting by Julia Edwards in Washington; Editing by Alistair Bell	NEWS-MULTISOURCE
Important: Please read the Qt Code of Conduct - https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct Can't initialise variable of type QRegExp • Hey, I have a very simple question. I have the following code (it's a header file): #ifndef PARSER_HPP #define PARSER_HPP #include <QObject> #include <QString> #include <QRegExp> class Parser { Q_OBJECT public: Parser() = default; Parser(QString str) : searchArgument(str) {} private: QString searchArgument; QRegExp rx("(\\d+)"); }; #endif // PARSER_HPP However, on attempting to compile it, the compiler tells me that it "expected an identifier before string constant" (the QRegExp rx("(\\d+)"); part). I am kind of confused about why it doesn't work, because in the documentation it's stated that you there is a constructor of this type that takes a QString as an argument. Any ideas? • Lifetime Qt Champion Hi, When using initialisation in headers, you have to use the assignment operator not the constructor. Log in to reply	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Counterexample to a conjecture on the algebraic limit cycles of polynomial vector fields Jaume Llibre, Chara Pantazi Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review 3 Citations (Scopus) Abstract In Geometriae Dedicata 79 (2000), 101-108, Rudolf Winkel conjectured: for a given algebraic curve f=0 of degree m ≥ 4 there is in general no polynomial vector field of degree less than 2m -1 leaving invariant f=0 and having exactly the ovals of f=0 as limit cycles. Here we show that this conjecture is not true. © Springer 2005. Original languageEnglish Pages (from-to)213-219 JournalGeometriae Dedicata Volume110 DOIs Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2005 Keywords • Algebraic limit cycles • Polynomial vector fields Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Counterexample to a conjecture on the algebraic limit cycles of polynomial vector fields'. Together they form a unique fingerprint. Cite this	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
MICROSCOPY Vol.46▶No.1 2011 ■Seto Award Visualization Technologies of Neuronal Functions Shigeo Okabe Abstract: Neurons generate a tremendous number of synaptic connections to realize complex brain functions, such as cognition, learning, and motor control. Synapses are specialized cell-to-cell junctions and provide a structural basis for signal transduction between neurons. A variety of protein molecules, including membrane receptors, scaffolding proteins, and signal processing molecules, are known to accumulate at synapses and information about transport, incorporation and stabilization of these molecules is indispensable for the understanding of synaptic functions. Imaging of synapses in live neurons revealed the process of synapse formation and maturation, and also provided the evidences of dynamics molecular redistribution in response to synaptic activity. In this review, I will introduce recent findings related to the topic of synapse formation and remodeling with special emphasis on imaging of GFP-tagged synaptic molecules in living neurons. Key words: Fluorescent protein, two-photon microscope, synapse, single molecule imaging	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
University of Minnesota Institute of Technology http://www.it.umn.edu 612-624-2006 myU OneStop Electrical and Computer Engineering Semiconductor Nanowires: Building Blocks for Future Green Digital Computation Prof. Jie Xiang University of California - San Diego Abstract: For over a decade, nanotechnology has allowed rational synthesis of nanodot, nanowire and nanotube materials with different structure, composition, and with size control at the atomic precision. These nanoscale building blocks make it possible to assemble devices for a wide range of applications from nanoelectronics to ultra-sensitive medical sensors in the “Bottom-up” paradigm with promise for ever more compact, powerful and energy efficient devices that will impact our everyday lives. Underpinning applications of future nanotechnology is the understanding of a fundamental regime change - how electrons, photons and phonons populate and move around differently in such small dimensions compared to in bulk materials. In this talk I will use core/shell Ge/Si nanowire heterostructures as an example to illustrate how we can make a true 1D conductor where electrons only move in one direction, as well as create carriers without doping. These clean, high mobility nanowire channels could extend the roadmap for digital computation into the next a few decades. Fundamental barriers to lowering power dissipation in transistors can also be broken using nanoelectromechanical nanowire devices with the introduction of mechanical degree of freedom, which further extends the application of nanowire building blocks into high speed, low power consumption functionalities. Faster silicon usually means burning more power. In the last part I will discuss a new era of phononic engineering in nanowires to turn waste heat into power and to explore the greener side of silicon. Brief Biography: Dr. Jie Xiang joined the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Materials Science Engineering program at University of California, San Diego as an Assistant Professor in 2009. Prior to his appointment he was a KNI Prize postdoctoral fellow in the Kavli Nanoscience Institute at California Institute of Technology. He received the B.S. degree in physics from Peking University in China (2002), the A.M. degree in physics (2006) and the Ph.D. degree in chemical physics from Harvard University in 2007. His research interests include electron and phonon transport phenomena in nanostructured materials and the development of novel nanodevices for logic, sensing and energy harvesting applications. He is a recipient of the Materials Research Society Graduate Student Gold Award, the KNI Prize Postdoctoral Fellowship and NSF CAREER Award.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Main image of article PHP: A Quick Introduction to a Complex Language PHP is a quarter-century old… and for the first 20 years, it had no written specification. That’s astounding, and probably explains why it was a bit of a challenge for many developers to get their heads around (one critic famously described the language as a fractal of bad design). Nonetheless, PHP, which is used largely in web development, proved compelling enough for developers to stick with it—and they did, using it to create any number of interesting products and tools. There are more than 450 PHP-based apps listed on Softaculous, which is an open-source installer that comes with many website hosting accounts. You might have heard of a few of these fine products: WordPress, Drupal, Laravel, and many, many more! Over the past few decades, PHP has also evolved. In fact, you could argue that the current iteration, 7.0, is where the programming language truly reaches its maturity. Let’s dive in. What's New in PHP? PHP 7.0 made its first appearance in late 2015. It succeeded 5.6; 6.x, which would have provided native Unicode support, was never released (performance issues related to UTF-16 conversion reportedly killed the project, along with a lack of developers). By the start of 2019, only 7.x versions had official support, although I bet there are a load of pre-7 versions still in use (I’m running PHP 5.6.40 on one machine, for instance, and Debian is providing support for PHP 5.6 until June 2020.) Version 7.0 introduced many advances to the language and its internal structures, resulting in considerable speed improvement (100 percent, in some benchmarks). I particularly like intdiv, which makes integer division safer and features the the null coalescing operator ?? (as in C#). If you are used to using lots of isset to check if a variable exists, 7.x cleans up the syntax (and that’s great!). Here's an example from the PHP 7.0 migration guide: $username = $_GET['user'] ?? 'nobody'; // new way // Equivalent to: $username = isset($_GET['user']) ? $_GET['user'] : 'nobody'; // old way I reckon the best feature of 7.x is return type declarations, further enhanced in 7.1 by making them (and parameters) nullable. This is very much like C#, as is the types of return typing like this: function arraysSum(array ...$arrays): array Be sure to use strict type enforcement (from PHP 7.1). Just put this line at the top of the page: ?php declare(strict_types=1);? The developers have moved releases to a consistent three-year supported lifetime. PHP 7.0 went out of support at the end of 2018, with 7.1 reportedly doing the same at the end of this year. Package Support PHP has enjoyed package support for some years with PEAR, officially part of PHP. And 2012 saw the release of Composer, a package manager that manages dependencies using sophisticated SAT solving (a mathematical technique). The official Composer package website packagist.org has almost a quarter-million packages (and over 1.678 million versions). While this is a bit off-topic, I think it gives a lot of credibility when a programming language has a robust repository. It certainly beats searching through innumerable download websites for whatever you need! The Downside If you have a website with PHP 5.x and you moved to PHP 7.x, there's a fair chance that something might break. You can't just change the PHP and guarantee it will run. If this has happened to you, it's worth creating this small script in order to see what’s missing: ?php phpinfo(); ? The phpinfo() function outputs more than 700 lines of text—a mass of information about the modules and features in your PHP installation. Just be careful not to make it publicly available, which would give hackers a jump-start on hacking your site! Also, hosting companies sometimes don't realize they've missed out modules and broken websites. My own website used a feature to run PHP in .HTML files, and the provider (staymommy or something like it) inadvertently broke it, so instead of running the PHP, it listed it. Conclusion PHP has one major advantage: It comes with every Linux system, and also runs on Windows web servers. That means it’s likely to stay in the web-building ecosystem for quite some time (right now, it’s also ranked eighth on the TIOBE Index, signalling a good deal of developer interest). According to Netcraft's monthly web survey, the language’s presence is split mostly between Nginx web servers (29 percent), Apache (29 percent) and Microsoft (19 percent). I wasn’t not sure if the oft-quoted figure of “80 percent of all sites run PHP” was an accurate one, but with a bit of digging, I found a figure of 79 percent (on W3Techs). That’s pretty big! Most of the rest are likely to be IIS servers running ASP.NET MVC, the main alternative to PHP. There are a few others, as well, but ultimately it’s a two-horse race. PHP is easier to learn than the C# powered ASP.NET, which comes with a bit of a learning curve. That being said, there's probably not a lot of difference in execution time between the two. I've timed PHP pages including pulling data from a MySQL database, and it typically takes 1-2 ms to generate the page. That is nothing compared to the few seconds it takes to download and render the page in a browser. I’d gone off PHP programming a few years back… but I’m now quite tempted to get back into it.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Wood Mill, Woodley Wood Mill was a mill located by the River Tame in Stockport, Cheshire. Originally built in the early to mid 19th century and used as a bone mill. After 1848 the building was converted to a woollen mill and was rebuilt in 1864. In the 1930s, the building was used for colour and chemical manufacturing and demolished in 1964. The remains of the building are located on the bend of Lambeth Grove, Woodley between Wellington Works (occupied by Morrells Woodfinishes) and Riverside Kennels. History In 1841, Wood Mill was owned by William Vaudrey and used as a bone mill, the final product of which was used to fertilise local land. Originally the mill was water powered using a fast flowing stream, running from Werneth Low, that ran alongside the building. There was also a water reservoir (mill dam) situated south of the building to increase the head of water available for the water wheel. In 1864, John Lees Buckley acquired Wood Mill. It was at this time that Wood Mill was rebuilt to allow for fur blowing, carding and wool washing for the hatting industry. It was also around this time that the Buckley family rebuilt other mills in the area. Bottom Mill (then renamed Botany Mill, later changed to Wellington Works) in 1864, Top Mill in 1872 (extended in 1877) and Middle Mill in 1883 (later renamed Thorn Works). It is also known that the Buckley family ween keen Methodists, and in 1868 they built Woodley Methodist Church (rebuilt 1998). In the 1930s Wood Mill was occupied by Ashbrooks (1932) Limited (directors: Frederick Fletcher & Gertrude Fletcher), manufactures of fine art colours, pigments and chemicals. It was during this period that the larger chimney was built for the use of a boiler. This company used the building until its subsequent demise in early 1964. It was later in this year that the building was demolished, however it wasn't until a number of years later when the chimney was taken down. Modern day Currently, the site of Wood Mill is heavily overgrown with trees. However two stone walls survive, at around 3 metres in height. Alongside this is the remains of a concrete wall, built around 1950 and used to filter out chemicals and colours that would otherwise flow into the River Tame. Further up the stream is red brick wall with irrigation pipes inside. There is also a concrete floor/foundation running between the end of the stone wall and the start of the red brick wall. The water reservoir (mill dam) has since been drained, however there are still stone walls that were used to hold the water. The stream The stream running alongside Wood Mill can be mapped to a source from Werneth Low. After flowing under The Peak Forest Canal at Woodley Wharf, the water flows through an area that was once a Mill Dam for Top Mill. From here it goes through a culvert under Mill Pool Close into an area that was once the Mill Dam for Middle Mill (now known as Thorn Works). It is from here that it flows under the road once again, past Botany Mill (now Wellington Works) through a number of culverts until it surfaces alongside the site of Wood Mill, under the road and into the River Tame.	WIKI
Syncthing Configuration Guide • OMV 2.x This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy. • Syncthing Configuration Guide Hi Guys, wonder if you can help out. Just installed the Syncthing plugin which worked fine and easy. But know it came to the configuration part, has anybody a tutorial/guide how to get it running? I'm not clear what values I have to set, maybe somebody can help me with a screen dump? best regards openalf • I had this running directly between some PCs before I set it up on my NAS, so that might be a good point for you to trial it first So, from OMV's point of view, the username should be fairly straight forward. The "GUI" is SyncThing's own web page, so I have my NAS' GUI address as 0.0.0.0 and then a separate Port per user - ie user1 would be port 8384, and user2 would be port 8385, etc. - this is what the "Open Web Interface" button will connect to. The Listen port is for the actual SyncThing protocol - so on your end device, this is the address that you would say SyncThing would find your NAS at, for example, tcp://myhomenas:22001 - again, I have different ports for different users. So, in short: User GUI Port GUI Address Listen Port Listen Address Max Send Max Receive Bob 8385 0.0.0.0 22002 0.0.0.0 0 0 Someone Else 8384 0.0.0.0 22001 0.0.0.0 0 0 Once you have configured that, and enabled it, then open the GUI and you can configure SyncThing itself (including user authentication, share locations, etc) From the NAS GUI, select Actions, Show ID - this will give you a long string of 8 groups of 7 characters, which you will need for your end devices to find the NAS (although the "Local Discovery" might now automate this - I'm not using it, so can't comment) Then it's "just" a case of setting up SyncThing on the end device, defining the shares and their location, and you should be away :) To be honest, I would play with some non-critical folders first - it did take me a couple of attempts to understand how to get things to work (especially if you need >1 user to access the same data), but that's where you would need to start asking at the SyncThing forum ;) Hope that helps • Just to add... I've just noticed that the recent OMV updates have bumped SyncThing to v0.13.0... this is not compatible with v0.12.* so make sure that your end device uses the same major version as the NAS. I currently have a couple of laptops that can't sync with the NAS at the moment, but it's not an issue as they sync with each other too, so there's minimal chance of data loss (so far... ;) )	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Page:ScienceAndHypothesis1905.djvu/95 To sum up: 1. In the first place, we distinguish two categories of phenomena:—The first involuntary, unaccompanied by muscular sensations, and attributed to external objects—they are external changes; the second, of opposite character and attributed to the movements of our own body, are internal changes. 2. We notice that certain changes of each in these categories may be corrected by a correlative change of the other category. 3. We distinguish among external changes those that have a correlative in the other category—which we call displacements; and in the same way we distinguish among the internal changes those which have a correlative in the first category. Thus by means of this reciprocity is defined a particular class of phenomena called displacements. The laws of these phenomena are the object of geometry. Law of Homogeneity.—The first of these laws is the law of homogeneity. Suppose that by an external change we pass from the aggregate of impressions A to the aggregate B, and that then this change α is corrected by a correlative voluntary movement β, so that we are brought back to the aggregate A. Suppose now that another external change α′ brings us again from the aggregate A to the aggregate B. Experiment then shows us that this change α′, like the change α, may be corrected by a voluntary correlative movement β′, and that this movement β′	WIKI
Real Minerals Do NOT Taste Like Chocolate! Liquid Molybdenum Supplement Molybdenum is a mineral we hear very little about yet is an essential biochemical that is found in the liver, kidneys, skin, and bone. This element is essential to support the storage of iron and other cellular functions such as growth. Molybdenum functions in the body: Necessary for the function of the kidneys and liver, Essential for the metabolism of nitrogen, Involved in enzymatic functions, Supports the storage of iron and other cellular functions such as growth. As biochemical study continues we find out more about the various trace element needs of the human body. The body for proper metabolism of nitrogen requires molybdenum. This, as in all minerals, is needed as a vital component of enzyme function and production. Molybdenum is involved in the enzyme xanthine oxidase, which is required for the conversion of purines to uric acids, which is a byproduct of metabolism. In addition to the above stated need for molybdenum we find that it is essential to support the storage of iron and other cellular functions such as growth. Molybdenum deficiency is associated with mouth and gum conditions and cancers. The SAD (Standard American Diet) of highly refined and processed foods lead to the deficiency of molybdenum and all other minerals needed for optimum health. Deficiency of this mineral has been associated with impotence in older males, anemia, loss of appetite and weight as well as stunted growth. This mineral is currently being studied further for its application in human health. A study conducted by Dr. Cooter, as shown in his book Beating Chronic Illness, brought out some interesting facts in connection with molybdenum deficiency. He stated, " At least a decade's worth of personal experimentation had led me to find answers to my own poor health involving chronic fatigue, extreme muscular weakness, generalized pain, insomnia, and other disgusting things...The chief player in resolving my problems was an essential trace mineral, molybdenum." More is being discovered about molybdenum and the conditions that can be attributed to its deficiency. There is currently no RDI (recommended daily intake) for molybdenum, the estimated safe range for intake of this trace mineral is up to 250 mcg (micrograms) per day for adults. Excessive intake of this mineral can result in gout like symptoms such as swollen, painful joints, and can interfere with the body's ability to metabolize copper. Dietary sources of molybdenum include lean meats, whole grain cereals, breads, legumes, peas, beans and green leafy vegetables. Moisture and/or heat can effect the action of supplemental molybdenum and high sulfur intake can decrease its levels in the body. Buy It Now !	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Big data ETL – tame the beast! Big data ETL – tame the beast! What is Big Data? Big data refers to large volume of complex data, which generally is difficult to process using relational Database systems. This data is typically gathered from sensors i.e weathers, posts to social media sites, share market transaction records, and cell phone call records to name a few. What is ETL ? ETL is commonly used for data warehousing. It’s a process to transform and load data in data warehouse. It involves three steps – • Extract pulls data from some source. • Transform takes and manipulates the data. • Load into data mart What is Big Data ETL? As the three V’s (volume, velocity and verities) grows, the relational databases started to struggle on query performance and fail to meet the ETL Service level agreements. As the traditional ETL struggled with Big Data new distributed data storage and processing system evolved: Apache Hadoop, built from the ground up to be massively scalable (thousands of servers) using normal standard hardware. In addition Hadoop is very flexible in term of data type, format and structure. 1 In Big data ETL the most common architecture pattern followed is hybrid model, where Hadoop is taking care of the ETL, RDBMS are more dedicated to do the Query, hence used as Data Mart for reporting. In this model datamart can use their existing SQLs or can replace the RDBMS with NoSQL database(s) like Mongo DB, Cassandra or even HDFS. 2 Big data ETL revolves around Hadoop, which apart from being cost effective, provides scalability and flexibility out of the box. Hadoop’s architecture comprise of two major components, HDFS – Massive redundant Data storage and MapReduce – Scalable Batch data processing. 3 Hadoop can perform transformation much more effectively than RDBMSs. Besides the performance benefits it is also very fault tolerant and elastic. These are very useful features for example after running ETL transformation for 6 month an error is being discovered, and now we have run the ETL with last 6 months of data, with Hadoop a few node can be added to cluster temporarily and be removed once the this catch up ETL jobs completes. Conclusion In cases where data volume is high, transformations are kneeling down the RDBM and faces bottleneck on query performance. Transformations is much better suited for a batch processing system like Hadoop which offers the agility to work with any data type, and are very scalable . There are number of ETL tools already provide ETL capabilities for Hadoop using MapReduce (e.g. Informatica and Pentaho). This allows reusing business transformation logic and defines it through the ETL tool, then ETL execution to happen in Hadoop. Leave a Comment Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * * = 4 + 3	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Back pain Back pain during your periodis very common1 and is typically a muscular pain related to cramping, which is caused by contractions in the uterus. If no pregnancy occurs, your estrogen and progesterone levels drop. This signals your uterus to begin contracting to break down and discard the uterine lining. If your uterus contracts strongly, it may press on blood vessels and cut off the supply of oxygen to muscles in the abdominal area. This can cause pain which radiates out to the lower back, the groin, hip region and the thighs. So, back pain and cramps often go hand in hand during your menstruation. It is also common for women with endometriosis to experience back pain during their menstrual cycle.2 Endometriosis is the abnormal growth of endometrial cells in a location outside the uterus. Endometriosis most commonly occurs on organs in the pelvic region. Many women with endometriosis don’t have any symptoms, but pelvic and lower back pain that worsens during menstruation is a known symptom. Endometriosis can be diagnosed from a pattern of symptoms, but is most usually confirmed through a surgical procedure called a laparoscopy. Treatment for endometriosis includes medication and surgery for both pain relief and treatment of infertility, if you want to become pregnant. Discuss the treatment options with your physician. Expert advice • Take a warm bath. The warm water will help your muscles relax. A long, hot shower can help too. Aim the water at your lower back for maximum effect. • Anti-inflammatory medicine (such as ibuprofen and naproxen) may help you manage back pain if you take it a couple of days before your menstruation begins. • Place a covered hot water bottle or heating pad on your abdomen or back. The heat will help your muscles to relax and ease back pain.3 • Stay active, if you can. This will help take the focus off your pain and increases blood flow to your muscles and nervous system. Endorphins are released during exercise and they reduce your perception of pain and trigger a positive feeling in your body.4 • Drink herbal teas. These can help relax your muscles and limit cramping and back pain. When should you visit the doctor? Lower back pain is a common menstrual discomfort for many women.1 If it is a familiar experience for you, it is unlikely to be anything to worry about and will pass as your cycle progresses. See your physician if there is a sudden change in your symptoms or if you are unable to move or function for several days each month because of back pain. Severe pain or dramatic changes may signal endometriosis, uterine fibroids, an infection or pelvic inflammatory disease. If in doubt, get it checked out. References 1. Jang-Won Lee1 and Hye-Sang Park, Relation of the factor to menstrual pain and musculoskeletal pain J. Exerc Rehabil. 2015 Apr; 11(2): 108–111. Published online 2015 Apr 30. doi: 10.12965/jer.150188 2. Troyer, M,R Differential Diagnosis of Endometriosis in a Young Adult Woman With Nonspecific Low Back Pain Physical Therapy, Volume 87, Issue 6, 1 June 2007, Pages 801–810,https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060141 3. Chaudhuri, A., Singh, A. & Dhaliwal, L. A randomised controlled trial of exercise and hot water bottle in the management of dysmenorrhoea in school girls of chandigarh, india. Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 57, 114–122 (2013). 4. Viña, J., Sanchis-Gomar, F., Martinez-Bello, V. & Gomez-Cabrera, M. C. Exercise acts as a drug; The pharmacological benefits of exercise. Br. J. Pharmacol. 167, 1–12 (2012). Tip: TakingNutri-Gyn MenstruComfort in combination with lifestyle changes helps relieve physical symptoms duringmenstruation.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Is it wrong to define a enum instance as optional? Is it wrong to define an enum instance as optional? What do you think? I asked about this and received responses like: enum Optional { case none case some(Wrapped) } So, when you make an enum optional, it’s like you’re wrapping an enum inside another enum. It’s a bit overkill, right? i always held the opposite opinion, that having a none case in an enum was a smell, and indicated that things that hold the enum should be holding an optional of the enum instead. 2 Likes I think the same as you. However, I think this is a controversial topic because some developers recommend avoiding optional enumeration instances. Some previous discussion here: Should you ever have a `.none` case in an enum? (A question posed by @taylorswift themselves!) My personal opinion: Optional<T> communicates different meaning than T.none. Should you ever have a `.none` case in an enum? - #4 by itaiferber 1 Like It's similar to having an Optional inside an Optional, in that there are some cases where that makes sense semantically. But, it's uncommon so indeed it's always wise to ask yourself if you really need it. But there are simple expressivity benefits to an explicit none case as opposed to using optionality. You can distinguish between "unspecified" and "none" for example, which are sometimes different things. 1 Like I don't see an issue here, e.g. enum size is not affected, neither is the runtime. If you do go with your none enumeration value I'd strongly recommend to name it somehow differently, e.g. "nought". There’s nothing wrong with an enumeration holding another enumeration. An optional indicates that there is either a wrapped value or no value. If you want to express either a wrapped enumeration or no value, then an optional enumeration is a perfectly fine way to express that. Can you show an example of a developer recommending avoiding this? I’m interested in seeing their reasoning. Personally, I’ve found that nested optionals are actually something to avoid. The concept of “either a wrapped value, or no value, or no value” doesn’t really make sense. Often, when a double optional is used, there is a more expressive alternative (for example, an enumeration with a “wrapped value” case, a “no value” case, and a “value not yet calculated” case). Additionally, many of Swift’s features interact awkwardly with nested optionals. For example: let doubleOptional0: Int?? = Optional(nil) print(doubleOptional0 as Any) // prints nil let optional1: Int? = nil let doubleOptional1: Int?? = Optional(optional1) print(doubleOptional1 as Any) // prints Optional(nil) This aversion to nested optionals isn’t limited to me, either: there are many features in Swift that are designed to avoid nesting optionals by flattening them, such as optional chaining, as? casting, the nil-coalescing operator ??, and the try? operator. I see nothing wrong with either alternative. I would prefer Wrapped + Optional if Wrapped is used on it's own, and Wrapped with extra case, if otherwise Wrapped would always be used inside Optional. And sometimes it is helpful to have both: enum ValidUseCase { case a case b } enum UseCase { case a case b case invalid init(valid: ValidUseCase) { switch valid { case .a: self = .a case .b: self = .b } } var asValid: ValidUseCase? { switch self { case .a: return .some(.a) case .b: return .some(.b) case .invalid: return .none } } }	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
How to test promise catch with mocha.js? by aniya.jaskolski , in category: Javascript , a month ago How to test promise catch with mocha.js? Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Telegram Whatsapp 1 answer by ryan.murray , a month ago @aniya.jaskolski To test promise catch with mocha.js, you can use the chai-as-promised plugin to handle asynchronous promises in your tests. Here's an example of how you can write a test case for a promise catch: 1. Install chai-as-promised package by running the following command in your terminal: 1 npm install chai-as-promised --save-dev 1. In your test file, import chai, chai-as-promised, and mocha: 1 2 3 4 5 const chai = require('chai'); const chaiAsPromised = require('chai-as-promised'); const { expect } = chai; chai.use(chaiAsPromised); 1. Write a test case to test the promise catch block: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 describe('Promise Catch Test', () => { it('should catch an error in the promise', () => { // The promise that will throw an error const errorPromise = new Promise((resolve, reject) => { reject(new Error('Something went wrong')); }); // Testing the promise catch block return expect(errorPromise).to.be.rejectedWith('Something went wrong'); }); }); 1. Run your test file using mocha: 1 mocha yourTestFile.js Your test should now run and check if the promise is properly catching the error. If the error is caught as expected, the test case should pass.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
share: Create a shared object Description Usage Arguments Details Value Examples Description This function will create a shared object in the shared memory for the object x. There is no duplication of the shared object when it is exported to the other processes. Usage 1 2 3 4 share(x, ...) ## S4 method for signature 'ANY' share(x, ..., copyOnWrite, sharedSubset, sharedCopy, mustWork) Arguments x An R object that you want to shared, see details. ... For generalization purpose. copyOnWrite, sharedSubset, sharedCopy The parameters controlling the behavior of the shared object, see details. mustWork Whether to throw an error if x is not a sharable object(e.g. Character). This parameter has no effect on the S4 object. Details The function returns a shared object corresponding to the argument x if it is sharable. There should be no different between x and the return value except that the latter one is shared. The attribute(s) of x will also be shared. Supported types For the basic R types, the function supports raw,logical ,integer, double, complex. character cannot be shared for it has a complicated data structure and closely relates to R's cache. For the containers, the function supports list, pairlist and environment. Note that sharing a container is equivalent sharing all elements in the container, the container itself will not be shared. The function share is an S4 generic. The default share method works for most S4 objects. Therefore, there is no need to define a S4 share method for each S4 class unless the S4 class has a special implementation(e.g. on-disk data). The default method will share the object itself and all slots it contains. No error will be given if any of these objects are not sharable and they will be kept unchanged. Behavior control In the R level, the behaviors of an ALTREP object is exactly the same as an atomic object but the data of an ALTREP object is allocated in the shared memory space. Therefore an ALTREP object can be easily exported to the other R processes without dulplicating the data, which reduces the memory usage and the overhead of data transmission. The behavior of a shared object can be controlled through three parameters: copyOnWrite, sharedSubset and sharedCopy. copyOnWrite determines Whether a new R object need to be allocated when the shared object is changed. The default value is TRUE, but can be altered by passing an argument copyOnWrite = FALSE to the function. Please note that the no-copy-on-write feature is not fully supported by R. When copyOnWrite is FALSE, a shared object might not behaves as user expects. Please refer to the example code to see the exceptions. sharedSubset determines whether the subset of a shared object is still a shared object. The default value is FALSE, and can be changed by passing sharedSubset = TRUE to the function At the time this documentation is being written, The shared subset feature will cause an unnecessary memory duplication in R studio. Therefore, for the performance consideration, it is better to turn the feature off when using R studio. sharedCopy determines whether the object is still a shared object after a duplication. If copyOnWrite is FALSE, this feature is off since the duplication cannot be triggered. In current version (R 3.6), an object will be duplicated four times for creating a shared object and lead to a serious performance problem. Therefore, the default value is FALSE, user can alter it by passing sharedCopy = FALSE to the function. Value A shared object Examples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ## For vector x <- runif(10) so <- share(x) x so ## For matrix x <- matrix(runif(10), 2, 5) so <- share(x) x so ## For data frame x <- as.data.frame(matrix(runif(10), 2, 5)) so <- share(x) x so ## export the object library(parallel) cl <- makeCluster(1) clusterExport(cl, "so") ## check the exported object in the other process clusterEvalQ(cl, so) ## close the connection stopCluster(cl) ## Copy-on-write ## This is the default setting x <- runif(10) so1 <- share(x, copyOnWrite = TRUE) so2 <- so1 so2[1] <- 10 ## so1 is unchanged since copy-on-write feature is on. so1 so2 ## No-copy-on-write so1 <- share(x, copyOnWrite = FALSE) so2 <- so1 so2[1] <- 10 #so1 is changed so1 so2 ## Flaw of no-copy-on-write ## The following code changes the value of so1, highly unexpected! Please use with caution! -so1 so1 ## The reason is that the minus function trys to dulplicate so1 object, ## but the dulplicate function will return so1 itself, so the value in so1 also get changed. SharedObject documentation built on Nov. 8, 2020, 8:17 p.m.	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
New Patients (404) 418-7734 Current Patients (404) 257-0091 5290 Roswell Rd, Suite F Atlanta, GA 30342 Dental Implant FAQs Sandy Springs, GA Dental implants Atlanta GAAm I A Candidate For Dental Implants? Dental implants are for people who are missing one, several, or all of their teeth. Most of these people will qualify for teeth implants with a few exceptions. The patient must be in good overall and oral health. The implant process will involve surgical procedures so the patient must be in good enough health to undergo that. Dr. Brenda Paulen will want to know the complete oral health history and will also want to know if the patient is a smoker, has diabetes, what their medications are, and how often the consume alcohol. They must also have adequate bone density to make sure it is strong enough to even hold implants. Insufficient bone density will cause the implants to loosen over time and they may fall out. Dr. Paulen will discuss these things and do a complete examination of your mouth at her Sandy Springs, GA dentist office before determining if you qualify for dental implants. How quickly can I have a missing tooth replaced? Once Dr. Paulen determines that dental implants are the right treatment for your missing tooth, a customized treatment plan will be made. She will coordinate the surgical part of the process with a top, local oral surgeon. Once the implant is surgically placed, it will need about three to six months to fully integrate with the surrounding bone and for the soft gum tissues to heal. Next, Dr. Paulen will secure a permanent dental crown to the implant at her Sandy Springs, GA dentist office. For a single missing tooth, the process should take under six months. How Long Do Dental Implants Last? A dental implant is a permanent solution for missing teeth if they are properly cared for and maintained. As the most advanced teeth replacement option available, it would be wise to maintain diligent oral hygiene habits for life. You must also keep yourself in good overall health and maintain a healthy diet while avoiding sugar. These steps will ensure that your implants will last twenty five years or even a lifetime. Can dental implant replace all my teeth? If you are missing one or both arches of teeth, your dentist may recommend dentures secured by dental implants. Dentures can be secured using strategically placed dental implants, as few as four, when all teeth are missing on the top or bottom jaw. Dr. Paulen can restore a full arch of missing teeth using the All-on-4 dental implant technique, also known as immediate load dentures. This revolutionary technique uses four dental implants that are placed at specific angles, utilizing the available bone. Immediately after the implants are placed, a hybrid denture is attached. How are teeth implants better than other treatment options? Dental implants are by far the most superior treatment option for one or more missing teeth. Removable dentures are known to move around in the mouth causing embarrassing slurred speech. They also come with eating restrictions since they are not very durable. Many patients report that dentures are uncomfortable and difficult to get used to. Dental bridges require two teeth to anchor them into place. The two teeth on either side of the gap will be grinded down significantly to accommodate the bridge. Both bridges and dentures do not replace the missing teeth roots. Dental implants, however, act as tooth roots and also anchor dental restorations in place. This will prevent bone loss. You will not have to worry about healthy teeth being damage or slurred speech. They are secured in the jaw bone making them very stable and durable. How do you care for your new teeth implants? Caring for your implant supported restoration is similar to caring for your natural teeth. You must brush your teeth multiple times a day and floss at least once a day. Dr. Paulen will give you specific cleaning instructions if they are required. If cared for properly, your implant retained restoration should last a lifetime. Learn More About Dental Implants	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Handle ambiguous inputs A good dialog system is able to get the conversation back on track if the user makes an ambiguous request. In this how to we'll look at the flow we built in create a custom order group and expand it to help users find the correct answer to their question. We'll do this using flow links, which allow us to send the user to a flow meant to answer the question. In the Partial understanding: coffee flow we'll first present users with likely options of what the question might have been, and allow users to give a clarifying response. Before our changes we would have a conversation like this: User: coffees Bot: I'm not sure what you wanted to ask about coffee. Could you please help clarify? User: your selection Bot: I'm sorry but I didn't get that. After our modifications, it will look like this: User: coffees Bot: I understand you would like to talk about coffee. Can you be more specific? Did you want to order a coffee or see our selection of coffees? User: your selection Bot: We offer a variety of handcrafted coffee drinks - from espressos to macchiatos to flat whites and more. User: espresso Bot: You're talking about coffee. Would you please tell me what you wanted exactly? Did you want to order a coffee or see our selection coffees? User: order Bot: Ok, what coffee would you like? To achieve this, we'll enhance the Partial understanding: coffee flow by following these steps: • Add an additional output to ask if the user wants to order a coffee or see the selection. • Add links to two flows: • User wants to order a coffee • User asks about coffees we order • Make sure we send the user to the correct flow depending on the user's response (order or selection) When we're finished, our flow will look like this: Handle ambiguous inputs Add a new output Let's first expand the current prompt to offer the user several possibilities. 1. Open the flow 'Partial understanding: Coffee' in edit mode. 2. Select the output 'Respond to single synonym: Coffee' and add a new output node. 3. Select the new output, name it Ask user what was meant and the output as response Did you want to order a coffee or see our selection of coffees?. 4. Select the new transition and make sure it is set to Continues without input and Unconditional located under the 'Trigger' section of the Trigger configuration panel.. Now it's time to add a flow link if the user wants to order a coffee. 1. With the output 'Ask user what was meant' selected, add a flow node by clicking the Flow button in the 'Add Node' section of the Ribbon. 2. Name the new flow node User wants to order a coffee. 3. Add the User asks about coffees we offer flow via the Flow Link panel via the Browse button. 4. Open the transition configuration panel by selecting the transition with TODO mark and name it Order. 5. Add Order as an example and generate a match requirement. Now that we've covered the order flow link. It's time to add one more if the user wants to see the coffee selection. 1. With the output 'Ask user what was meant' selected, add a flow node by the clicking the Flow button in the Add Node section of the Ribbon. 2. Name the new flow node User wants to see the selection. 3. Add the User asks about coffees we offer flow via the Flow Link panel via the Browse button. 4. Open the transition configuration panel by selecting the transition with TODO mark and name it Selection. 5. Add Selection as an example and generate a match requirement. 6. Hit the 'Save' button. Test in Try Out User: coffees Bot: I understand you would like to talk about coffee. Can you be more specific? Did you want to order a coffee or see our selection of coffees? User: your selection Bot: We offer a variety of handcrafted coffee drinks - from espressos to macchiatos to flat whites and more. User: espresso Bot: You're talking about coffee. Would you please tell me what you wanted exactly? Did you want to order a coffee or see our selection coffees? User: order Bot: Ok, what coffee would you like? Was this page helpful?	ESSENTIALAI-STEM
Page:Advaiti Management.pdf/83 well in studies and most of them are now well settled as middle class families. This is the difference that roof over their heads made. Since I came in contact with so many families we started anew programme. Every year children of the workers who stood in first ten ranks in their class were given token prizes. These prizes were awarded to the winners in the canteen hall of the company. Later on for some years we arranged children’s plays for them by various drama groups. This was also an indirect sponsorship for the Children’s Theatre. In 1978 Sudha Karmarkar a well known actor and theatre personality, complained to the Prime Minister that industries do not support such movements. We booked their complete show at normal rates and added to the cultural life of our children. These events did not cost much to the company, but I have not seen many companies doing that at that point of time. A thought behind it was that the workers are my brothers and what my children can have should be had by their children also. This idea was further extended by distributing these prizes at the hands of one who stands first in Secondary School Certificate examination from Mumbai, instead of senior managers like me which is a normal practice. To receive a prize at the hands of SSC First rank holder by those class rank holders was an experience for those receivers as well as Guests. Usually we would be the first in July to invite SSC toppers. We went on adding to the programme and the Union gave us full cooperation. Not only our Bulletin but such events reached out to the families of our workers. My company was in a position to create this family feeling in the Megacity that is Mumbai. I have not encountered class conflict in the behaviour of our workers. I was opponent for workers but not a class enemy. I was staying within the factory premises only. When a go-slow agitation was going on in the factory my children would play on the lawns in front of the factory gate. The workers would assemble and shout slogans against me. The slogans were describing their assembly as a procession for my mock funeral. My young daughter was naturally curious to see the mob at the gate and hear the slogans, After some time she lost interest in the slogans and climbed on the nearby Guava tree to pluck the fruit. She fell down from the tree. I was out of the factory at that time. As soon as the workers saw that she had fallen those very slogan shouters came and took her to the doctor, got her the first aid and brought her back and put her to bed in my residence. After doing this they dutifully went back to the gate to shout slogans against me as directed, I learnt about the incident only later. They knew that having my mock funeral procession was as much a ritual as clapping hands at the Aarti at Puja. O1 then life becomes easier. ja. Once you understand this 78 �	WIKI
Munderkingen station Munderkingen station is a railway station in the municipality of Munderkingen, located in the Alb-Donau-Kreis in Baden-Württemberg, Germany.	WIKI
Peritonitis Peritonitis (per-i-to-NY-tis) is an injfammation * of the lining of the abdominal (ab-DOM-i-nal) cavity. The slippery lining has two layers and is called the peritoneum (per-i-to-NEE-um). KEYWORDS for searching the Internet and other reference sources Inflammation Peritoneum What Is Peritonitis? A number of conditions can cause peritonitis. Usually, peritonitis occurs when an infection develops in the peritoneum from a perforation (per-fo-RAY-shun), or hole, in the stomach, intestines, appendix, or one of the other organs covered by the lining. The perforation can come from a knife or gunshot wound or from a cut during surgery. People also can get peritonitis from complications of other illnesses, such as a ruptured appendix, diverticulitis (dy-ver-tik-yoo-LY-tis), a perforated ulcer, or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). In all of these cases, bacteria * can infect the peritoneum. People with cirrhosis (si-RO-sis) of the liver * sometimes get "spontaneous bacterial peritonitis," which means they have no rupture or obvious source for the infection. * inflammation (in-fla-MAY-shun) is the body's response to infection or irritation. * bacteria (bak-TEER-ee-a) are round, spiral, or rod-shaped single-celled microorganisms without a distinct nucleus that commonly multiply by cell division. Some types may cause disease in humans, animals, or plants. * liver is a large organ located in the upper abdomen (AB-do-man) that has many functions, including storage and filtration of blood, secretion of bile, and participation in various metabolic (met-a-BOLL-ik) processes. What Happens When People Get Peritonitis? Symptoms The symptoms of peritonitis range from mild to severe pain in the stomach area. Peritonitis often causes a muscle spasm in the abdominal wall, making the abdomen * feel hard and immobile, as if it were a wooden board. A person with peritonitis usually has a fever and may feel bloated. Vomiting and diarrhea * are common. Diagnosis A doctor often can diagnose peritonitis through a physical examination of the patient. The diagnosis can be confirmed using abdominal x-rays or CT scans * . Occasionally, surgery is necessary to be certain that peritonitis is present. Treatment The treatment of peritonitis usually includes surgery and antibiotics * . Surgery is performed to repair any ruptured organs that caused the infection as well as to drain the infectious fluids from the abdominal cavity. Antibiotics are used to treat the bacterial infection. Most people who get peritonitis recover fully after treatment. * abdomen (AB-do-men), commonly called the belly, is the portion of the body between the chest or thorax (THOR-aks) and the pelvis. * diarrhea (dy-a-REE-a) is abnormally frequent and liquid stool discharges. * CT scans or CAT scans are the shortened name for computerized axial tomography (to-MOG-ra-fee), which uses computers to view structures inside the body. * antibiotics (an-ly-by-OT-iks) are drugs that kill bacteria. See also Appendicitis Bacterial Infections Cirrhosis of the Liver Diverticulitis Diverticulosis Infection Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) Resource Slap, Gail B., and Martha M. Jablow. Teenage Health Care: The First Comprehensive Family Guide for the Preteen to Young Adult Years. New York: Pocket Books, 1994. User Contributions: Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: CAPTCHA Peritonitis forum	ESSENTIALAI-STEM

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.