Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Question for all my "scientist" TP participants <--"participants" borrowed from Tryptofish as it's much better than "stalkers"

I have what some can refer to as a "thawing platform" - and no, it's not used to break the ice during an initial meet-up, and it has little to do with the term "cold fish" as used in society relative to human interactions. I just took a picture of my thawing-board and uploaded it to Commons because its simple engineering design fascinates the hell out of me. It actually does completely thaw a frozen steak or two in under an hour. I've had this little contraption since the 70s, and there are no electronic parts that can break down. I no longer have the instructions, so I went looking for something online that could help me understand how this contraption works without plugging it in. I found the following promo about a similar item. They refer to it as "innovative" which tells me nothing has come along in the past 40 years that surpasses it. Who can share the "science" (in laymen terms) that explains why this contraption thaws frozen food so quickly? Atsme📞📧 22:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer here, you could try posting at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.DrChrissy (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to mention I agree with "Participants" rather than "Stalkers" - how did such a negative term ever get into such common useage! DrChrissy (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
You rang? OK, so the underlying science is too technical to bother with here, but the relevant concept is called heat capacity. Different substances have different heat capacities (for a tedious list: Heat capacities of the elements (data page)). In lay terms, it means that some substances can absorb and contain a whole lot of heat energy, whereas other substances can only contain a little bit of heat energy. Like a black pavement can get real hot when the sun shines on it on a summer day, but if you touch the leaf of a tree nearby, it won't be as hot as that. So your handy-dandy device is made out of something that has a very large heat capacity. You have the board at room temperature, or maybe you have warmed it up. Then you take out your cold steak, which has a lesser heat capacity, and put it in contact with the board. Now the temperatures of the steak and the board are going to try to equalize with each other (that's the Second Law of Thermodynamics!). So the board gives up some heat energy, and the steak absorbs some heat energy. And because the board can "donate" more energy than the steak can "accept", the net change is that the steak thaws out whereas the board just gets a bit cooler. Ta-daa! And you got that for free, no tuition, no bitcoin! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah ha! So basically, it's pretty much the same physics of thermal conductivity that we learned as dive instructors regarding body temp and water temp. Apparently, aluminum is an excellent conductor of heat with its free electrons moving around randomly throughout the plate distributing heat to different parts of the metal. It's pretty fascinating - wish I had paid closer attention in school. On the other hand, aluminum beer cans on ice absorb the cold, but because ice is a liquid that melts, the beer doesn't freeze and the more heat the ice is exposed to, the quicker it melts. That gave me a little brain freeze - kinda like scoffing down a frozen margarita but I get the drift. ??? Thank you! Atsme📞📧 01:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it aluminum all the way through, or aluminum encasing something else? Being a conductor of heat isn't the same thing as being a "container" of heat. (The beer thing involves something else as well. Ice freezes at the freezing point of water, but beer is water plus alcohol plus carbon dioxide plus other stuff, and that mixture has a lower freezing point than pure water does. So at the temperature they equilibrate at, the ice stays mostly frozen, but the beer is not cold enough to freeze. You can think of the alcohol in beer as being like antifreeze in a car radiator.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The aluminum plate appears to be aluminum all the way - and it's 1/8" thick with end-to-end shallow grooving 1-1/4" apart, and two full length "legs" that keep it 5/8" above the bottom of a removable plastic tray. Oh, yes - it's easy to think of beer as antifreeze for the winter and as a coolant for the summer. And I learned the physics of cooling beer from home remedies like this one. The fast twirling in a bucket of ice works, too. 🍺 Atsme📞📧 01:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I was going to suggest pretty much the same as Trypto (my Ph.D. was on thermoregulation in livestock, so I like to think I know a little about this) but I was amazed to see the claimed thawing times. Perhaps there was a bit of "advertising license" in these. A trick for rapid cooling of beer (learnt in Australia of course) is wrap the bottle/tin in a wet towel (to promote heat transfer) and put it in the freezer. But keep watch - if it freezes, it will blow the lid off the bottle. Happy thermodynamics! DrChrissy (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
And that's a true form of alcohol abuse - nothing worse than seeing beer slush all over the freezer. Not, of course, that I've ever done that. Nope, not me. No sir. Statements to the contrary are clearly base lies. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) How long do the steaks take to defrost on a plate? I bet there isn't any difference. I suspect you've been had. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I bet it's exactly the same if it's an aluminum plate. Hey, DrChrissy, I'd like to see someone put live livestock on an aluminum platform, or in a dive suit. And I think the Aussies have it way over the British, who, I have heard, actually like warm beer. By the way, here in the colonies, I recently found (and I'm not making any of this up), a beer made by The Evil Genius Brewing Company that they call Purple Monkey Dishwasher Chocolate Peanut Butter Porter. It's a dark porter that actually tastes distinctly of peanuts. Definitely a strange experience. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Recommended thawing instructions here. I can confirm that the aluminum platform accomplishes the thawing factor at least 10x faster than refrigerated defrosting, the latter of which means you have to plan meals ahead of time. I dislike thawing in water because even though you think you have a leak proof seal, that isn't always the case. Who wants water-logged meat, fish or other foods? In the first link above, it mentions a liquid inside the aluminum casing. Wonder what liquid they used? I just thawed an 8-pak of frozen beef franks on my little aluminum tray - took about 20 minutes to thaw. Of course, I didn't stand there watching the frozen hotdogs thaw, rather I did other things and when I remembered to check on them, I provided an approx. time, so no - it was not what one would consider precise scientific research with results that would pass peer review. More importantly, isn't the term frozen hotdog an oxymoron? 8-) Atsme📞📧 20:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that bit about the liquid which made me think this is not just simple heat transfer to the aluminium. DrChrissy (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) surface.
I agree. There must be a liquid with a high heat capacity inside the aluminum. I propose that we get a patent for using beer as the liquid inside the aluminum, and we will all get rich (not). Myself, I always use refrigerator thawing. Of course, the inside of a refrigerator is going to be colder than the temperature of an aluminum-coated plate at room temperature – and the heat capacity of air, like the air inside the refrigerator, is much less than the heat capacity of the plate. Yay, science! Yay, beer! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a physics issue. I doubt it has anything to do with the heat capacity of aluminium or some mysterious "bio-safe thermo liquid center", and everything to do with heat conductivity and ability to receive heat radiation. The aluminium is rapidly transferring heat to the frozen meat, and in turn receives heat by conduction of the surrounding air and though radiation from its surroundings. I suspect placing frozen meat on a stainless steel bench top would work nearly as well (though you would need to drain the liquid). --Epipelagic (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe that's it. Perhaps it's not heat capacity, but rather heat conductivity aiding equilibration with ambient air temperature. On the other hand, the two mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. If the aluminum is acting only as a conductor, it cannot attract more heat energy than what is locally present. Given the low heat capacity of air, I doubt that putting the frozen steak at room temperature (without the plate) and directing the air from a fan at it would work much better than leaving the steak out without the fan. In that sense, the heat capacity of the aluminum and whatever might be inside it actually contributes to the efficacy of any heat conductivity. (And yeah, who cares how "bio-safe" it is, when it is encased in aluminum!) Atsme, you are witnessing how scientists argue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Tryp, I'm loving it and truly enjoy reading everyone's input. No pressure, interesting yet casual conversation among highly intelligent individuals - it's how I learn. ;-) Atsme📞📧 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Something I ran across a bit ago Aluminum conducts heat more than 200 times as well as regular old dirt and about two-and-a-half times as well as iron. See more here. Atsme📞📧 23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As a scientist, I am getting extremely frustrated at the meandering, pointless conversations of people who really are missing the point and main application of thermodynamics of heat transfer - just how do I get my beer (for me it is cider because I live in Somerset) down to a suitable drinking temperature as quickly as possible. DrChrissy (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As a beer drinker, my quick answer is - buy it cold and keep it on ice. Atsme📞📧 23:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the scientific clarification. Big grin! ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Going back to Trypto's comment about peanut-tasting beer (sounds absolutely revolting to me!) did you guys ever get the colourless flavoured waters that were around a few years ago. These were bottles of what appeared to be water, but in fact had very distinctive tastes such as chocolate milk-shake. It was absolutely bizarre to experience the mis-match of the visual sense and the gustatory sense. Amazing the tricks the brain can play. DrChrissy (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Water with just a tiny bit of flavor in it? Here in the US, we call that Budweiser! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
^_^ Atsme📞📧 00:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, science fans, I did some investigation about whether it is heat capacity or heat conductivity, and the answer is: no! Strictly speaking, we are actually dealing with thermal diffusivity. (No, I do not understand that page.) I got that from: [1]. See also: [2] (also about aluminum in the kitchen!), and [3]. Our main page on this subject is thermal conduction, and the technically minded can wallow in Rayleigh number. Now, I need a drink. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy freeze-zones, Batman! Pyrolytic graphite with its thermal diffusivity of 1220 blows aluminum out of the water with its mere 84.18. It also appears to be used in biomedical applications so it's probably safe to put a steak on it. Let's get our new "P-graph thawing board" to market!! Tryp - you might consider making that drink celebratory! 🍾🍸 From little cow chips allota bullchip grows. Who has some bitcoins we can use to buy the material? Atsme📞📧 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, it even levitates! That would be cool: turn a frozen steak into a flying object! But alas, our page about it also says that it is already being used as a heat sink. We'll have to challenge the patent – call the lawyers! Please note: that was NOT a WP:NLT violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
What the hell - offer 'em bitcoins for the modifications. Atsme📞📧 20:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Bitcoins. LOL --David Tornheim (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You made a mistake asking for scientists, when you should have asked for engineers! Look at this table on heat transfer coefficients. I'm not reading all that above! The table shows the many ways you can get heat to flow. In your case into the meat. Boiling water is way up there on the list. My guess is whatever substance is in that thing is acting similar to water/fluid convection under the surface, but maybe it is acting like a metal and just using conduction_(heat). --David Tornheim (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OMG. The article on conduction looks way too complex for lay people. I have seen this in the other articles, like on Schrödinger equation, Maxwell's_equations. Our audience is not engineers and people with Calculus background. Another day to worry about that... --David Tornheim (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You have hit on a pet peeve. Many of our physics and math oriented articles are waaaaaay more technical and jargonish than they need to be. I'm probably a little more familiar with those fields than the average reader (computational fluid dynamics is my living), yet I find many of those articles nearly impenetrable. Many of these concepts are straightforward when suitably explained -- you'd never know that from reading our articles. That conduction_(heat) article is a prime example: heat conduction is just particles banging into each other, transferring their energy when they collide. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Boris, I agree with you very strongly. I'd love to see such pages written in general-reader English, as opposed to being written in mathematics. Readers should not have to have had two years of calculus to read Wikipedia articles. (Or one year, either.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad we found something that all three of us can agree on. If there is a place to propose doing something about it, like on a Wikiproject, please invite me.
I actually came back here to decide if I should buy my sciency father one of these. He loves "gadgets" like this--the more unusual the better. His favorite gift one year to other people including me was a induction hot plate, which "use magnetic coils to heat more quickly and efficiently than conventional electric hot plates by sending most of the heat to the pan, rather than to the cooking surface." Mine stayed in the box, as I saw no need for using up valuable counter-space when the stove or microwave could already get the job(s) done. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
But, but...Shock Brigade Harvester Boris...I just wanted to thaw out some steaks for dinner. -<-@ I have no stake in the topic as a WP article - but I did have a steak on the thawing board. Will that suffice as a COI declaration? Anyway, while you're here - do you want in on our Pyrolytic graphite invention that levitates, and registers a thermal diffusivity of 1220? David Copperfield may end-up buying us all out. All it takes is a few hundred thousand bitcoins you might have laying around the shop next to your drill bits. Atsme📞📧 01:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I would be willing to offer Bitcoins for development of the levitating thaw-board, but the stakes may be too high! SORRY! DrChrissy (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention the steaks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!

You are invited...

Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hi gorgeous. Kombucha is killing people again.

Hehe, just checked Wikipedia. Seems that old claim has found its way back into the intro, same source we spent months dealing with last year. What a silly, silly place this is. When no one is looking, the truth is yours to create, apparently. What fun!! Love you, petrarchan47คุก 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, Petrarchan47!!! Oh no, not the Kombucha fiasco - cra-cra stuff!! Are you back editing? I've been staying busy creating BLPs and by golly, they reproduce! Wish you'd join us in WikiProject: Women In Red. We need all the help we can get! ❤️-<-@ Atsme📞📧 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

AFD closing

Very few AFDs need someone to request closing assistance; as you may know, WP:AFD#Old discussions lists all the logs with AFDs that are old enough to be closed, and the admins who do a lot of AFD work will notice if the discussion's log has one or more still-open discussions. If you really really need assistance, go to WP:AN/RFC, but because that discussion page is routinely spammed by a couple of users, many of us admins routinely ignore it. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just in case...

I created User:Atsme/Furth. I'm starting to do this for AfDs that I think need to be salvaged, and so did this for yours. You can ASD it if you don't want it, but just an FYI that this is my newest approach when I am ready to rip my hair out. Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Professorships

Hi Atsme. I sense that I am not getting the message across clearly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen, so I thought I would try explaining my comments in more detail here. I hope that I do not come across as patronising, but I understand that some of these distinctions are rather arcane, particularly for people outside of academia (as I presume you are). So, there are different types of professor. Some academics get promoted over the course of their career from assistant professor to associate professor to full professor. Most universities have quite a lot of professors. They have titles such as Professor of Economics, Professor of Physics, etc. Those are not named or distinguished professorships. Named and distinguished professorships are awarded to a much smaller, more select group of academics. They carry more specific titles such as the Langdell Professorship of Law (at Harvard) or the Camden Professor of Ancient History (Oxford). Those named professorships can only be held by one person, so an academic can't be promoted to them as they can to a regular professorship. To become a named professor, one basically has to wait for an existing one to retire or, sometimes, to die! Does that make sense? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: In the case of Pakistan, List of academic ranks#Pakistan suggests that Meritorious Professor and Distinguished National Professor are the relevant titles there. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out, Cordless Larry. I actually do understand about endowments/chairs as I've written about BLPs who are endowed. ^_^ I have also been struggling to save another hair trigger AfD about a notable philanthropist who created a professorship named in his honor at the Yale School of Medicine, and believe it or not, some do not consider him notable. Go figure...but I digress. Endowments are typically monetary gifts that are given to non-profits; in Pakistan things are much different. The University of the Punjab is government owned/operated and it is also linked to certain religious ideologies; therefore, the appointment of a woman as a department chair is as notable, perhaps even more so, as any monetary endowment we see in the West.
According to the University of the Punjab Act 1973 the following applies to Ameen's chair:
  1. 3. Teaching Departments and Chairmen.– (1) There shall be a Teaching Department for each subject or a group of subjects, as may be prescribed by Regulations, and each Teaching Department shall be headed by a Chairman.
     [49][(2) The Chairman of a Teaching Department and the Director of an Institute shall be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the three senior most Professors of the Department for a period of three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment:
Also keep in mind that WP:PROF is a guideline, not a policy, and it has a lower bar when it comes to the notability of an academic. At least WP recognizes the fact that there are limited secondary sources available. Academics are not Hollywood movie stars, or high profile politicians. They often fly beneath the radar, and when you couple that fact with a female in Pakistan at a government operated university that still adheres to religious ideology (and an inherent bias against women who are held in much lower regard than men), that professor has climbed mountains to be holding the position as Chairperson of the department as would any man. You just won't see as many write-ups about it. The birth of male children are celebrated while the birth of female children are not in many areas of Pakistan. I am quite familiar with Pakistan and its customs because I helped with the editing at Faisalabad, Taj Mahal, and Fourteen Infallibles and there may be others I've forgotten. Anyway, we are supposed to take the differences I've mentioned into consideration. Ameen was appointed to the highest authority of that particular department so she is not just any professor. She had to undergo a very stringent process under very strict laws that govern the institution. Also keep in mind that it was less than 2 years ago that the Punjab Fair Representation of Women Act 2014 (IV of 2014) came into play. Regardless, let's not even focus on her professorship or chair position because that isn't all she's done to achieve notability. She is a published author/co-author whose work has been cited and used by academia for teaching. There is no question in my mind whatsoever about Ameen's notability or that it is clearly a snow-keep. Atsme📞📧 20:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
OK - apologies for underestimating your knowledge. This leaves me mystified how and why you would argue that she holds a named chair, however. What you seem to be arguing here is that her achievement is equivalent to being appointed to a named chair - which is a different argument, isn't it? On the publications, I am usually open to being convinced that these demonstrate notability, but in this case I just don't think her citation counts are high enough. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you're too dependent on GNG and in doing so, you're dismissing what WP:PROF suggests as follows: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Perhaps you aren't seeing the forest for the trees? When that happens to me, I walk away from it for a while, and come back with fresh eyes. Atsme📞📧 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily looking for her biography to be covered in secondary sources (though some editors are arguing she meets the GNG). Some evidence, such as citation counts, that she is "notably influential" would do. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering her area of study, you are not going to see as many citations as you would in science and medicine. Also the chair she was appointed to would be considered "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." So right off the bat, there are two arguments in WP:PROF that dismiss your concerns. Atsme📞📧 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm more familiar with social sciences than natural sciences, so I appreciate that citation counts tend to be lower and have taken that into account. I simply don't agree that being head of department is equivalent to holding a named or distinguished professorship - I know senior lecturers who are heads of departments! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? Female international Fulbright scholars in Pakistan? Atsme📞📧 21:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No, but I don't think a Fulbright Scholarship makes someone notable either! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That's an "international" Fulbright scholarship. 😊 Atsme📞📧 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
For information, there are 47 Fullbright Scholars from the UK in 2015-2016. I'll let you guys work it out whether that means notable or not. DrChrissy (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, I really think you should take it a notch down with accusing other editors of personal attacks. Saying that someone misunderstands something, misinterprets a guideline, or even that somebody is confused about something, that is definitely not a personal attack. Saying to somebody that their attitude is racist, or claiming that they are too stupid for their own good, those are personal attacks. I have known David Eppstein since many years and never even once seen him write something that even with fantasy could be construed as being a personal attack. Please, comment on the subject at hand, not the person. --Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Randy, you and David both have to ask if you have an overblown superiority complex if you think that simply pointing out some obvious concerns is a personal attack. Frankly, the both of you need to ratchet it down a notch. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Randykitty, my reply to David's comment was justified. [4]. Did you read his comment and post on his TP to tone it down like you just did to me for defending myself? Following is what he said to me: [5] The part I consider a PA follows: "Perhaps your failure to read and understand comes from your wrong attitude to this AfD — we are not here to twist our standards beyond the point of recognition in order to justify keeping the article, but rather to neutrally evaluate whether the subject actually does pass the standards." When an editor proceeds to tell me I failed to "read and understand" and that it was caused by my "wrong attitude", well...that IS commenting on the editor not the subject at hand, and it IS a PA even under the most minimum of standards. I said my piece following the discussion, and it's bygones as far as I'm concerned. David may very well be a great guy and an excellent admin - and the same applies to you - but I certainly can't testify to that based on the way you've treated me. I tried to politely explain to you on your TP that you misunderstood what I said regarding my comment about judging notability at the AfD, and your response was to ban me from your TP. Now you're here defending another admin who basically called me illiterate when he said I failed to read and understand and that I had a wrong attitude. I don't understand any of this because I certainly didn't do anything to deserve it. My focus was on the AfD and proving the notability of an international Fulbright scholar - a woman who was appointed to be Chair of a Department in a large university which in that particular country was an honorific appointment based on their procedures and PROF actually does allow for that difference. I simply tried to draw attention to those issues and look what happened. You misunderstood my intentions, banned me from your TP, and now you're asking me to tone it down when I'm the one who is under attack? m( Atsme📞📧 23:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
David did not call you illiterate, not did he imply that. He said that you had failed to read and understand WP:PROF, which is a remark about the quality of your arguments, not a remark about your person. Pointing out to an editor that they have the wrong attitude towards something is not a personal attack either. Perhaps you're going to see this as an attack, too, but I simply have to say it: you don't seem to understand the difference between discussing a topic and criticizing a person's arguments and personal attacks. And, yes, perhaps your comment about biases was misunderstood, but if so, that was because it was formulated in such a way that it simply could not be understood differently. But if you really think that David attacked you, then that's a serious misstep for an admin and I invite you to report this at WP:ANI. (Same goes for anything I have said in this debate). Before you do so, I am obliged to point you to WP:BOOMERANG, which you'll hopefully understand better than WP:PROF. I won't post here again. --Randykitty (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Randykitty, it really is time for you to do some self-analyzing because your words are hurtful. You said: "perhaps your comment about biases was misunderstood, but if so, that was because it was formulated in such a way that it simply could not be understood differently." That's precisely the thinking you need to apply to yours and David's comments. It works both ways, Randy. My comment about the way notability is being judged at AfDs was spot on and anyone who interpreted it differently was seeing their own version obviously based on whatever influences guide their good judgment. Reminder: AGF never hurt anyone.
What a person gleans from a comment is based on their perspective, and hopefully sentence comprehension abilities on both sides are up to par which prevents interpreting things out of context. From my perspective, you and David exhibited rude behavior and made hurtful comments. Worse yet, you're here now continuing that same behavior and not taking responsibility for your own actions which is evident in the following statement, "you don't seem to understand the difference between discussing a topic and criticizing a person's arguments and personal attacks." Yes, I actually do understand the difference. Then you followed it up with the threat or warning, choose your own word, of a WP:BOOMERANG if I report the behavior. Oh, my. ;,(
I didn't have any intention of reporting you or David so please stop the warnings and condescension. I'm not a child and I'm certainly not your enemy! I would like to see you take responsibility for your actions and if nothing else, I hope you walk away from this with a better understanding of how hurtful your words have been - every one of them unwarranted. I have no intention of reporting anyone. I actually do understand the pressures admins are under on a daily basis but at the same time, I have no desire to be anyone's whipping post. My intention at the AfD was focused on the merits of both the pro and con arguments, not on editors which is why I hatted your emotional outburst. I had the foresight to see where it was leading, tried to diffuse it, but my edit was REVERTED. Collapsed Reverted And here we are today.
Please, remove all thoughts from your head that I ever intended to report you or David. I simply pointed out to both of you that your comments were hurtful, a friendly reminder to please tone it down. I just want this whole exchange to disappear so as soon as you acknowledge that you've read my response, I will archive this discussion and move forward as if it never happened. I can assure you...my failing memory is your assurance. X-) I hope you will do the same so that our next interaction will be a pleasant one born of respect for one another. Atsme📞📧 14:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD

There are different philosophies here. According to one of them, users who behave badly (COI and WP:SOCK violations) must be punished by removing their contributions, even if they create valid content. According to another view, only content matters per WP:IAR. My very best wishes (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, please remind of the discussion your comment references? I'm working on a couple of AfDs and related discussions and have lost track. Atsme📞📧 00:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ahhhh...just dawned on me. Yes, I agree. It's very confusing. Atsme📞📧 02:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion

Clarification question

Your recent message telling me to "Please stop with your allegations" with edit summary "your attacks need to stop" doesn't make sense to me. I've been very careful to not stray into personal attack territory and if I have done so, I'd like to know so I can make the appropriate apologies and modify my behaviour. Could you please clarify where I attacked you or made allegations against you in this edit? If not, can you please strike the statement that says I made allegations against you? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You isolate one of my comments and expect me to respond to it when your disruptive behavior involves multiple edits? Our "collaborative" history has taught me a great deal about interacting with you, which I've actually made an exerted effort to avoid, but you've managed to make that impossible by randomly showing up from time to time where I happen to be editing. Your behavior today is reminiscent of your past behavior which indicates to me you have no intention of changing, and that's sad. You are still up to your old tricks of trying to discredit me and delete my work (and keep it deleted) like you did WP:AVDUCK, the essay I created & co-authored last year, wherein you made all sorts of false allegations against me & the other co-authors; slamming our experience, editing abilities and implying that our intended goal for the essay was not to help WP - allegations that may well get you blocked today, [6], and [7].
I sincerely have done my best to avoid you but when our paths do cross, I have always AGF and tried to be helpful, but you tend to make doing so a difficult task as evidenced in your comment here. You have consistently responded to me with a rather accusatory, passive-aggressive tone, and have always held whatever position was opposite mine, which is fine under normal circumstances but not when it appears to be disingenuous and/or based of fallacious arguments that are unsupported by PAGs. I've included some diffs below that clearly demonstrate your disruptive and very annoying behavior:
  1. Revert, revert, and revert to eliminate the sources I found to support inclusion of the BLP's national awards, and worse yet, you reverted those edits during the AfD.
  2. [8] my revert of your edit, [9] I added another citation, [10] my revert of your edit.
  3. [11] You reverted me again using TW to rollback all 3 of my edits, including the citation I added. Your revert was highly disruptive, more so because of the AfD, but I chose to AGF and actually tried to help you understand why your reverts were inappropriate;
  4. [12] I posted on the Rascon TP and explained that your reverts were improper.
  5. [13] You smugly argued that your reverts were not improper.
  6. [14] Notified you on your TP that I commented at BLPN.
  7. [15] My request for input at BLPN.
  8. [16] You continued to argue at the TP that your reverts were correct, that the sources were wrong, and that you did nothing wrong;
  9. [17] I requested admin attention because you continued to be disruptive;
  10. [18] After I explained over and over why your revert of my work was wrong and cited PAGs to support my claim, you finally admit on Rascon talk that your edit summaries were unjustified and accuse me of OR, and ask if I think admin action is necessary;
  11. [19] You reject my suggestions to post your source questions at relative noticeboards because you were clearly confused about OR;
  12. [20] I explain at the AfD that admin action would not be necessary if you would demonstrate responsible behavior after I politely tried to explain why your arguments about OR and independent sources were not supported;
  13. [21] You admit again here that your edit summaries were wrong, and then try to blame me for making you feel uncomfortable despite your passive-aggressive behavior and attempts to play "innocent editor";
  14. [22] Accuse me of not examining the sources at all;
  15. [23] I tried to explain normal collaborative behavior which appears to elude you
  16. [24] You blow-up, falsely accuse me of telling you what to do, argue that you're allowed to revert edits if you so choose regardless of any consequences and attempt to defend your wrongful deletes.
Quite frankly, I just want you to leave me alone. Atsme📞📧 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So you don't like my behaviour or I disagree with you, and clearly we don't get along (I dislike you as much as you dislike me), but that's not making false accusations or allegations. I pointed to the one comment because that's the one you replied to, where you told me to stop making allegations and attacks, and it's reasonable to ask where the attack or allegation was. None of the statements I've made to you is false: you did tell me to read this and that (several times): "Also read WP:STATUSQUO" "Also, please read WP:STATUSQUO, and WP:RS""Regardless, before you revert a questionable edit, you should AGF and discuss the edit collaboratively with the other editors first. Please read the following essay: Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. Also read WP:3RR." so I hope you can see that this does come across as you telling me what to do. If you don't have evidence that I made allegations or accusations against you, I again ask that you strike the statement that I have made allegations against you. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, therein lies the major difference between us. I never said I "disliked you" - those are your words. I feel that your interactions where I'm concerned clearly demonstrate ill-will toward me. I have never sought you out to cause you grief, but it appears the opposite is true as far your interactions with me. Offering you help and guidance by asking you to please read applicable PAGs isn't "telling you what to do", especially when the PAGs I'm asking you to read explain why your argument is noncompliant with PAGs. See WP:AFD: When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. I don't understand why you interpret helpful suggestions the way you do but it speaks volumes to your being seen as a disruptive editor. Perhaps you haven't read the guideline? I can assure you that your editing experience will be far more pleasant if you would take the time to become better versed in the PAGs applicable to your interactions. Unfortunately, I don't have time to play games, so consider this conversation over. Thanks for stopping and happy editing! Atsme📞📧 01:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
Volume III, no. 6, August 2016

Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                      

Project News

  • New featured article: Borscht, Good Article nominations
— View by clicking [show] —


For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts.

Article alerts

— View by clicking [show] —
Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts
  • Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
— View by clicking [show] —
7 new members!
MikeHikes
They Terk Err Jerbs
Zefr
sdlsy37
bclavellina
dtoled1
Discott
The project currently has 117 active members.
— View by clicking [show] —
Past newsletters

Food and drink articles by quality and importance

— View by clicking [show] —
Article statistics
Food and Drink WikiProject
article assessment
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 15 31 53
FL 2 2 4
FM 140 140
GA 18 31 76 278 403
B 56 232 344 716 86 1,434
C 77 404 994 3,558 527 5,560
Start 22 329 1,672 12,019 3,897 17,939
Stub 17 545 9,028 4,956 14,546
List 12 71 115 540 23 274 1,035
Category 8,917 8,917
Disambig 218 218
File 3,022 3,022
Portal 811 811
Project 440 440
Redirect 10 72 640 2,869 3,591
Template 1,044 1,044
NA 9 9
Other 205 205
Assessed 185 1,103 3,833 26,812 17,698 9,740 59,371
Unassessed 13 1,964 1,977
Total 185 1,103 3,833 26,825 17,698 11,704 61,348
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,319 Ω = 5.12

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Atsme, self-portrait.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atsme, self-portrait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noël Coward

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noël Coward. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And a lot of thanks you get for responding: Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Cassianto: incivility and rejecting community input at Talk:Noël Coward. Thank you. I'm notifying you because I linked to a diff of your objecting to the behavior of Cassianto. FourViolas (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists

You are invited...

Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - September 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Please comment on Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Hidden text

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Hidden text. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

New article improvement drives

Check out the following new article improvement drives/contests. North America1000 12:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
Volume III, no. 7, September 2016

Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                      

Project News

  • Good article Nominations
— View by clicking [show] —

The following articles were nominated for GA status:


ReaLemon
Carrot
Malvern Water (bottled water)

information Note: The articles ReaLemon and Carrot have not received any responses in weeks. Please help to improve the articles!
Help us out by...

For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts.

Article alerts

— View by clicking [show] —
Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts
  • Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
— View by clicking [show] —
1 new member!
MeowMoon

Please consider joining the welcome squad to invite more members!
The project currently has 114 active members.
— View by clicking [show] —
Past newsletters

Food and drink articles by quality and importance

— View by clicking [show] —
Article statistics
Food and Drink WikiProject
article assessment
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 15 31 53
FL 2 2 4
FM 140 140
GA 18 31 76 278 403
B 56 232 344 716 86 1,434
C 77 404 994 3,558 527 5,560
Start 22 329 1,672 12,019 3,897 17,939
Stub 17 545 9,028 4,956 14,546
List 12 71 115 540 23 274 1,035
Category 8,917 8,917
Disambig 218 218
File 3,022 3,022
Portal 811 811
Project 440 440
Redirect 10 72 640 2,869 3,591
Template 1,044 1,044
NA 9 9
Other 205 205
Assessed 185 1,103 3,833 26,812 17,698 9,740 59,371
Unassessed 13 1,964 1,977
Total 185 1,103 3,833 26,825 17,698 11,704 61,348
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,319 Ω = 5.12

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

History

I believe this was first. Did you ever read the discussion The Rite of Spring? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt - I figured out where my timeline went wrong but by the time I finished gathering the needed diffs, SV had already fixed it. Regarding The Rite of Spring, I have not read that discussion but will when I have a little quiet time after dinner. ;-) Atsme📞📧 21:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
No rush, it's three years old, but so similar ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt I initially thought you were talking about the article, so I started reading it, and grew more confused with each paragraph trying to figure out why you wanted me to read it. I didn't see the connection, so I read your comment again, and click !! I started reading the discussion - oh, my eyes...my eyes...!!! Gee willickers - I never realized infoboxes were so controversial. Cra-cra stuff. I try not to sweat the little things but I will say that I truly do utilize the heck out of infoboxes. The only reason I showed up at the Coward RfC was because bot summoned me. It seemed to be a simple enough task on the surface, so off I went to do my civic duty. Boy oh boy! I had to mix a stout beverage - beer just wasn't enough. *lol* I always thought WP was about accommodating readers, not the likes & dislikes of editors. Oh lawdy, lawd!! m( Atsme📞📧 05:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Mix more beverages. One of the editors in that discussion was to be banned, guess who? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair use of File:Clip breeding-foaling-A Celebration of Horses.webmhd.webm

Hi Atsme,

Since you own the copyright for this video you can release it to us under a free license. Per WP:NFCCP #1 that means that you can't put it under fair use as the video is replaceable with one that is free. You can choose a more restrictive free license like {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} but you can't choose a fair use one. Please pick a free use license to put this video under. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Majora, thank you for your explanation but it actually doesn't apply to this situation. The reason it doesn't is because the copyright for the documentary as a "motion picture" doesn't necessarily carry over to all the individual segments if used as standalone clips. For example, I cannot use the score or background music in a different project. I can't use clips of the on-camera talent to create a new project, and I can't release stock footage licensed to me by 3rd parties into the public domain under a SA license, the latter being the case for the breeding clip. I occasionally utilized 3rd party stock footage in my productions, some of which are subject to 3rd party usage agreements. Prior to my retirement, my entertainment attorney explained in detail how I can and cannot use the programs I produced including any separate use of 3rd party clips. The information I included when I uploaded the Sultan's Great Day clip is correctly cited as NONFREE media which I am legally authorized to do using the description I provided in the tag.
There is no equivalent of that clip freely available anywhere as it has narration of the birthing by William Shatner, and it cannot be created even if we rule out acts of God and various other miracles. Sultan's Great Day died in 2004. As long as the clip remains noncommercial for educational use and is cited to the documentary (wherein the full credit roll exists), that clip and the other Sultan's Great Day clips I intend to upload are policy compliant for use in the articles Sultan's Great Day and A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred. Since the breeding clip qualifies for either or both of the aforementioned articles, there's no reason it can't be used in Horse breeding. Hopefully, I've done a better job of clarifying than what I did previously. In closing, I just wanted to add that as the authorized agent/signatory of the applicable licenses with authorization to utilize the clips per that authorization, as well as being the copyright owner of the documentary itself, I am legally authorized to upload the clips per the NONFREE policy. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have. Atsme📞📧 05:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm pinging Jo-Jo_Eumerus since I first consulted at their TP.Atsme📞📧 05:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Atsme, I see there's already a discussion for this here, so I'll leave you an explanation rather than a template. I've tagged this file for deletion for two reasons. The first is under speedy criterion F5, pretty straightforward: The image is nonfree but not used in any article. That's fixable, but I'm afraid the next one is not. Since the nonfree image rationale is for the general article horse breeding, the file is replaceable by anyone who takes a video of horse breeding and/or foals being born and releases such a video under a free license, and of course horses breeding and having foals is a frequent occurrence. The Shatner narration might be nice, but it's not necessary for the educational purpose, so the file fails nonfree content criterion #1. It is replaceable by free media. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)::

Seraphimblade,I've been in the horse business for over 40 years, a breeder for over 25 of them, and I'd hardly call live cover a frequent experience, or even a common one. We're not talking about stray dogs. Perhaps you know something I don't. Most stallions are collected using a dummy and a boot, and mares are being artificially inseminated more frequently than not, except in the TB industry. This particular scene shows both mare behavior and stallion behavior which is not a frequent occurrence and certainly not available for "free". As I already explained regarding the upload, my experiences with donating images and video to WP have not always been pleasant ones; therefore highly discouraging. I don't see how that helps the project. I've had to jump through hoops trying to explain why the images I've uploaded are indeed compliant. If NONFREE images were not allowed, we would not have a policy allowing them so I would hope any argument against their use would be a substantive one. Perhaps you would be so kind as to discuss this with me a bit more before you speedy delete anything? There are clearly no copyright violations that warrant a SD, but there is a difference of opinion regarding the availability of FREE breeding footage of a specific stallion for the stallion's own article. I also have a much different opinion regarding its use in Horse breeding and whether or not it meets the 10 criteria. Atsme📞📧 17:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, all. Please let me offer a suggestion, because I think that there may be a misunderstanding here. Editors are accustomed to situations in which it is just a matter of someone going out and creating a new file showing something that can be easily found. And it's very understandable that some editors would think that this is one such case. However, as Atsme just explained very convincingly, replacing the file with a new, free one is not as simple as it would sound. In that case, perhaps that NFCC does not really apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Replacement need not be easy or simple for a file to fail NFCC #1. It need only be conceivably possible. There are two main cases where "not replaceable" is satisfied. The first is when the thing being depicted is in and of itself covered by copyright, such as a book or album cover. In that case, it's impossible to create a free replacement, since anything that looks close to the original would be a derivative work and also covered by that same copyright. That certainly doesn't apply here. The second is when the thing depicted doesn't exist any more. That would be true if, for example, it were a video of two now-extinct animals mating or giving birth. Obviously, in that case, free replacement would be impossible. However, horses are still an extant and common species, so it is possible to get a free replacement for them mating or giving birth. It doesn't have to be easy for "replaceable" to apply, only possible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Sultan's Great Day doesn't exist anymore - he died in 2004 - so using NONFREE video clips of him being ridden, or video clips of him as a breeding stallion cannot be used, or are you saying they CAN be used because the horse is dead and there are no free clips available? As I explained earlier, it is my intent to use the clip in other articles once I've had an opportunity to discuss it with Project Equine. What is the hurry to delete the footage? Also, are you quite sure about the "now-extinct" aspect of the "available" requirement? If so, I'm wondering if it is possible to elevate this discussion to Legal for further clarification? Can you do that, please? I find it rather difficult to believe that we would turn away rare video footage that meets a specific encyclopedic need simply because it isn't public domain or not available as SA. I doubt whether that was the actual intent of the policy because if that truly is the case, there are countless fair use images/clips that will have to be removed from the encyclopedia and I find that very disconcerting. Atsme📞📧 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the circumstances. If there's an article specifically about the horse, and it's impossible to obtain free media depicting it (and impossible to create new media, of course, if the animal has died), nonfree media might be acceptable in that case. In the general horse breeding article, however, media depicting any horse will do, so the lack of a specific horse would not matter. It's similar to where we would be able to use a nonfree photo of a deceased actor in the actor's article if no free media were available, but we could not use the same media in filmmaking, since having that specific actor is not needed to illustrate the concept of filmmaking. Additionally, now that I look at the horse breeding article, it already has plenty of free content media, so the nonfree is unnecessary for that reason as well. And no, we do not need to "ask legal", since our nonfree media requirements are specifically and deliberately much stricter than what the law would allow us to do. This is a free content project, we use nonfree media only as an absolute last resort when there's literally no alternative. We legally could go much farther than that under fair use, especially as a nonprofit educational project, so no one is claiming use of the media would be illegal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, who would be the one to determine "impossible" or "acceptable" use? Would that be you? Atsme📞📧 21:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
If I happen to be reviewing nominations, yes. In this case, it will be whoever reviews mine. However, the nonfree content guidelines are in my view pretty unambiguous. If it would be in any way possible to accomplish the overall educational goal using free media, we do that. We don't use nonfree media just because it looks nicer or anything like that, we use it when there is no alternative and no reasonable chance one could be created. If someone can articulate a good reason to believe free alternatives exist or can be created, we always err toward not using anything not free. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply to me above, but I'm also pretty familiar with how NFCC works, having written WP:AAFFD. I remain concerned here that "conceivably possible" is (pardon the pun) a rather difficult conception, in this specific case. Atsme: do any similar images exist at all? I'm not asking about images that Wikipedia can use. I'm asking about existence. If, as I suspect, it is so difficult to find matings that do not involve artificial insemination, then showing that no one else has ever created such an image would go a long way towards demonstrating that the expectation that an editor could "conceivably" go out and make a similar image with some other horse is incorrect. I'm no horse expert, but I'm pretty sure that going out and trying to get a good photo of wild horses that is comparable to this is a non-starter, and that it has become such standard practice to use artificial means for domestic horses that it is now unlikely to be able to get a replacement photo. Alternatively, can you reliably source a statement that present-day veterinary practice regards non-artificial insemination of domestic horses as contraindicated or unethical or as a deprecated practice? If you can show that, for all practical purposes, going out and getting a free replacement is not "conceivable", then NFCC#1 goes away, and so does this deletion discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade and Tryptofish: The use of the video on Sultan's Great Day is an acceptable use under our fair use policy as the horse is dead. The FUR needs to be updated as right now it isn't for the right article. Stating that, Seraphimblade would you be willing to remove the speedy? The video is not acceptable on horse breeding and should not be on that article. As it is conceivable that a free use image could be created. Which is all that matters. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I'm willing to remove it, provided that, first, the video is not used in horse breeding and the NFCR is updated to reflect use in the specific article about the horse (the NFCR is required for every article in which nonfree media is used), and secondly, that it is the only nonfree media used in the article about the specific horse. Use of more than one piece of nonfree media is rarely appropriate. Atsme, is this acceptable to you? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Majora and Seraphimblade:, I added the subject clip to Sultan's Great Day in the section "Breeding career". I am agreeable to the proposed resolution and thank you both for your time and patience. Tryptofish, your input was also much appreciated. Atsme📞📧 23:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/Archive_16&oldid=1183909995"