User:Bob K31416/Sandbox

Hello, world! Hello, world!

Web_colors Template:Background color Template:Font color/doc

REFLINKS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex

http://books.google.com/books?id=b95tLpKRy3oC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=leo+frank+bachelors+degree&source=bl&ots=STLfpq5O7e&sig=31owmWjo2DVRcfWqnq20cuGimVc&hl=en#v=onepage&q=leo%20frank%20bachelors%20degree&f=false

Consensus poll regarding _____________________
Proposal to
 * Current version:
 * Proposed version:

signature

Support



Oppose

Additional Comments

Mathematical symbols

Luca leaves big wink smiley

Isham see chapter "Technical Developments", section 6.2, p. 113

http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/topics/urlencoding.htm allowed characters for URLs and how special characters are encoded so that URL will work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Quality

To specify that this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXI-e8p1Adc should start 1 minute 34 seconds in, you add #t=1m34s to the URL, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXI-e8p1Adc#t=1m34s

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_93#Verifiablility_not_truth_proposals_are_back_again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_93#Verifiablility_not_truth_proposals_are_back_again.]

If a reliable source A misquotes another source B, in a way that has a significant effect on A's interpretation of B, should that material in A be considered unreliable and not usable in Wikipedia?

While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion.

While verifiability is required, it does not guarantee inclusion of material. Other policies and guidelines have additional requirements, and there are basic writing considerations such as whether the material improves the article.

While verifiability is a requirement, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. There are additional requirements from other policies and guidelines, and there are other considerations such as whether the material improves the article.

With the presence of mitral regurgitation, there are two ways for blood to leave the left ventricle when it contracts. The normal way is through the aortic valve and out to the rest of the body's vascular system. The abnormal way is back through the mitral valve and into the left atrium. Almost half of the regurgitant volume of blood will go back through the mitral valve before the aortic valve opens.

Functional or secondary mitral regurgitation can occur for normal papillary muscles, chordae, and valve leaflets. Regurgitation is caused by dilatation of the left ventricle, which stretches the mitral valve annulus and displaces the papillary muscles. This dilatation of the left ventricle can be due to dilated cardiomyopathy, including aortic insufficiency, nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and noncompaction cardiomyopathy.

http://www.mla.org/store/CID29/PID341 attribution publishing glossary

cartoon someone is wrong on the internet

&lt;  (&amp;lt;) &gt;  (&amp;gt;)

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/attribute.htm

http://www.themathpage.com/atrig/measure-angles.htm

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsAngle.shtml

http://books.google.com/books?id=TB6xYdomdjQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=basic+geometry+birkhoff&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

In my experience, when something looked like OR, I would simply ask the editor where he got the information or if he came up with the information himself. Usually they are honest about it and then it is simple just to refer the editor to WP:NOR, delete the material, and that's usually the end of it. If instead you have a discussion re WP:VER, then I don't think it would be so simple.

I feel that the problem with the present lead sentence is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the tendency of some active editors of this policy to write for each other, rather than for the people who come to this policy page to learn about NOR. The style is awkward and there's simply poor communication here. For the most active editor here, this may be due in part to having a less than desirable understanding of the language, as evidenced by that editor's non-standard interpretations of english in a recent discussion on this talk page. See SlimVirgin's message of 22:40, 9 May 2010 near the end of the previous section.

The Pythagorean theorem has been generalized to the Law of cosines, which is similar but has an additional term involving a cosine, so that it applies to triangles in general, not just right triangles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_War&action=historysubmit&diff=275938313&oldid=275931371 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=354093322

L A

S          A  IL

http://www.maa.org/editorial/knot/memes.html

...


 * I think they each have their place. Taken alone, the ABOUT text needs explaining, e.g. since taken alone it is false. Wikipedia accepts original research that has been published, so the term "original research" as it is used in Wikipedia needs to be explained before that statement from ABOUT is understood.


 * The one I suggested above stands by itself and doesn't use any terms like verifiable and original research that need further explaining. It speaks in terms of being either published or not and is simple and clear.  Note that the suggested sentence is only meant to be a lead-in  and basis to explain NOR, which will follow and, for example, will explain that the Wikipedia term "original research" means unpublished original research and more.

In the past bacteremia caused by dental procedures (in most cases due to viridans streptococci, which reside in oral cavity), such as a cleaning or extraction of a tooth was thought to be clinically significant. It is important that a dentist or a dental hygienist is told of any heart problems before commencing treatment. Antibiotics are administered to patients with certain heart conditions as a precaution, although this practice has changed in the US with new American Heart Association guidelines released in 2007. Everyday tooth brushing and flossing will similarly cause bacteremia, and there is little evidence to support antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment. Only an extremely small number of cases of infective endocarditis might be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures. Using antibiotics because of an upcoming dental procedure is reasonable only for patients with underlying cardiac conditions associated with the highest risk of adverse outcome from infective endocarditis. There have been similar changes in the UK as of March 2008 due to new NICE guidelines.

WP:burden

Ever since the release of the multimillion-selling Duotones in 1986, he has withstood a veritable onslaught of abuse from critics and fellow musicians alike. The heaps of invective flung in Kenny’s direction intensified when his follow-up, 1988’s Silhouette, went platinum. In fact, critical disparagement seems to run inversely to Kenny’s popularity. In truth, his rapid and seemingly effortless rise to success may be part of the reason critics and musicians come down so hard on him.

As he became more successful, he was attacked more by critics and fellow musicians. His rapid and seemingly effortless rise to success may be part of the motivation for the attacks.

table 1

✅

hyphen -

en dash –

Minus sign &minus;   −

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.

==Additional images==

Template:Harvard_citation

Parts I and II together copied from Talk:Blood pressure #Sources with multiple authors:

Part I - copied from Template talk:Citation/core #Sources with multiple authors

I've been having a problem in the Blood pressure article with the links from the footnotes for Pickering 2005 to the References section. I've tried to debug it in various ways without success, except to find that the problem is related to the presence of one or more coauthors in the Pickering 2005 article. Have you tested the changes to see how they work for sources with multiple authors with respect to the link from the harv footnote to the source in a Reference section, like in the case of the Blood pressure article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the, instead of
 * use this:
 * use this:


 * and instead of
 * use this:
 * Since there are more than 3 names, the "et al" thing will happen automatically. You could also try putting in further firstn/lastn pairs up to a total of 9 (and renumber the one which I've shown as author9, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field coauthors doesn't work when last2 is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are more than 3 names, the "et al" thing will happen automatically. You could also try putting in further firstn/lastn pairs up to a total of 9 (and renumber the one which I've shown as author9, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field coauthors doesn't work when last2 is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are more than 3 names, the "et al" thing will happen automatically. You could also try putting in further firstn/lastn pairs up to a total of 9 (and renumber the one which I've shown as author9, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field coauthors doesn't work when last2 is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work! I incorporated your suggestion into the article. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Part II - copied from User talk:Bob K31416 #Blood Pressure

Nice to see that my suggestions worked... there's one small matter of style, that is entirely up to you. It does not affect the mechanism for the citation linking.

As I read it, the journal article in question has ten authors; however, the cite journal template allows for no more than nine authors (whether specified as authorn, as pairs of firstn/lastn or a mixture. I suggested four, being the minimum required for harv to behave properly and still show "et al" in the Footnotes section; but it might be better to show as many as possible under "References" (give credit where credit is due) - unfortunately there is no official method to show more than eight distinct authors, but I think that we can fiddle the system to get the last two into the page source (even though they won't actually display), by cramming them into author9, as below.

Basically, I have found that if you provide nine authors to cite journal it will automatically do an "et al" after a certain point; by default, this is after the eighth author, but other positions may be set (see later). So, instead of this:

try this:

which will give something like this (I shortened the title here, and removed the URL, DOI etc. purely for demonstration purposes):

You might feel that fewer than eight distinct authors would be better. I'm not sure just how many authors are best to show; and I don't really know where to look for guidance; but let's say that you felt that six was best. You would do it using display-authors like this:

will give something like this:

Really though, it's entirely up to you whether you want to specify further authors in cite journal - but as I mentioned before, leave harv alone, because that won't handle more than four. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I had thought that Wikipedia style had 3 authors and then et al, but I was unable to find that recommendation anywhere when I looked for it after reading your message.  I just now posed the question at the Help Desk. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To which I have added a supplementary, which covers my earlier observation about the nine-author restriction. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good addition to the good discussion there. After reading yours and other discussion, my current feeling is: 1. all authors should be displayed in the references or footnotes sections except in additional mentioning of a reference, e.g. when something like harv is used. 2. the undocumented "display-authors=" should be documented. 3. the number of authors in cite journal and similar templates should be increased beyond 9, as one of the respondents at the Help Desk suggested. If that's not feasible, your workaround for increasing the number should be documented, and lastly 4. guidance for the use of "et al" should be given in the guidelines. I'll wait a little while to see what else comes up in the discussion before mentioning these points at the Help Desk discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I found where I got the idea that et al. should be used after 3 authors, sort of. (I was editing a medical article at the time.):


 * But the sentence that came after it said something different:
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I modified the article to follow the AMA guideline for Pickering 2005. Also modified 6 harv inline citations that were affected by the Pickering 2005 modification. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have just looked at that edit. I guess it works; but to meet the same guideline, you could have left all the harv alone, and also left cite journal as it was with the exception of simply adding 3 to it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I recognized that but I felt that it might give an editor the false impression that there were only 4 authors.
 * BTW, I was curious how you came across or discovered the very useful "display-authors=".


 * Just for fun, I looked to see if there was a Wikipedia article on "et al." and I was redirected to et al. Here's an excerpt from it.
 * Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at cite journal, display-authors is not shown in the five different sets of blank parameters; but later on, under Legend:
 * {|class=wikitable
 * {|class=wikitable


 * author: Author. Use to specify a single author of the paper, or alternately, to specify all the authors of the paper in whatever format desired. If you use author to specify all the authors, do not specify the following author-related parameters.
 * last works with first to produce .  These parameters produce the maximum metadata and should be used if possible.
 * author2, last2, first2 and subsequent should be used for co-authors (up to 9 will be displayed before truncation with "et al".
 * authorlink works either with author or with last & first to link to the appropriate article (InterWikimedia links)
 * coauthors: Full name of additional author or authors. Please use 'author2', 'author3', etc instead.
 * author-separator: over-ride the default semi-colon that separates authors' names.
 * author-name-separator: over-ride the default comma that separates authors' names.
 * display-authors: Truncate the list of authors at an arbitrary point with "et al". Still include the first 9 authors to allow metadata to be generated.
 * }
 * The main thing that makes me want to fit in as many authors as poss (even if only three are actually displayed) is this business about "metadata". It's principally to do with COinS, see also WikiProject Microformats/COinS. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very good point re COinS. I haven't looked into COinS before but it looks like all the authors should be put in the metadata for this reason that  you mentioned. It seems that your workaround for adding more authors than 9 would work with COinS too. I plan to make that change in Pickering 2005 if it works with harv. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just made the change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since the COinS metadata is generated by the cite journal, and not by harv, you only need four authors in harv and it will et al. automatically. I would suggest "Falkner" for the fourth, rather than that long string that you have used. For cite journal, fit in as many as possible. Having reviewed the mechanism by which it works, I'd say that the following may give the best result:
 * --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I was trying to make the situation clearer for other editors who would encounter the harvs on the edit page and may not know that there are other authors. Perhaps I should use what you suggested and clarify for editors using hidden comments. How does that sound?--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hidden comment, yes; this could contain a list of the fifth and subsequent authors - or an instruction such as "fifth and subsequent authors omitted, see documentation for Template:Harv" --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and for all your help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I was trying to make the situation clearer for other editors who would encounter the harvs on the edit page and may not know that there are other authors. Perhaps I should use what you suggested and clarify for editors using hidden comments. How does that sound?--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hidden comment, yes; this could contain a list of the fifth and subsequent authors - or an instruction such as "fifth and subsequent authors omitted, see documentation for Template:Harv" --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and for all your help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

beta-blockers or rate-limiting calcium antagonists should be the preferred initial monotherapy in all patients digoxin should only be considered as monotherapy in predominately sedentary patients. p. 17 25 sedentary patient. beta-blockers or rate-limiting calcium antagonists should be the preferred initial monotherapy in all patients A digoxin should only be considered as monotherapy in predominately sedentary patients. D(GPP) R24 In patients with permanent AF where monotherapy is inadequate: to control the heart rate only during normal activities, beta-blockers or rate-limiting calcium antagonists should be given with digoxin B to control the heart rate during both normal activities and exercise, rate-limiting calcium antagonists should be given with digoxin. B
 * p. viii - Other key recommendations cover the use of the electrocardiogram in diagnosis, and the preference in most patients for beta-blockers or rate-limiting calcium antagonists over digoxin for rate control.
 * p. 17 - 3. In patients with permanent AF, who need treatment for rate control:
 * p. 59 -  In clinical practice, digoxin monotherapy may only be adequate for the older,
 * p. 59 - Rate control may not always be achieved with a single drug. Combination therapy, for example digoxin plus a beta-blocker or rate-limiting calcium-channel blocker is often considered for AF uncontrolled with a single agent.
 * p. 61 - During rest the combination of beta-blockers with digoxin was more effective than betablockers alone for the control of heart rate.154,161 The combination of calcium antagonists with digoxin was more effective than calcium antagonists alone for the control of heart rate both during normal activities and rest, as well as during exercise.154,156,159
 * p. 61 - R23 In patients with permanent AF, who need treatment for rate control:

For simplicity, consider the universe as an expanding 3-dimensional hypersphere with radius r(t) in a 4-dimensional space. The distance s between two points would be measured along a great circle of the hypersphere and would be given by the radius r(t) times the angle θ in radians that is subtended by the arc between the two points.
 * $$ s = r(t) \ \theta $$

If the radius of the universe was expanding at a rate linear in t,
 * $$ r(t) = r_0 + v_0 \ t $$    with constants  r0 and  v0,

then the two points would be moving away from each other at a constant velocity
 * $$ v = \frac{ds}{dt} = v_0 \ \theta $$.

Note that the velocity depends on the angular separation θ between the two points, so that at any particular time, points farther away from each other are  moving away from each other faster than points that are closer to each other. However, note that θ is constant for two given points and that the points are moving away from each other only because the radius r(t) of the hyperspherical universe is increasing.

It seems like there's too much conflict in Wikipedia. Maybe it is partly due to stress addiction. Conflict can be stimulating. And stimulation can be addictive, like a cup of coffee. Conflict in Wikipedia may be due in part to a need for this stimulation.

The html for a bullet includes an implicit. For example, text results in: text But this is useful for arbitary indenting with a bullet using, for example, "::::" :
 * text

Test1 Test2

Archived version April 20, 2010 ............ Archived version April 20, 2010

dead link                     {&#123;dead link|date=July 2024}}

Failed verification      {&#123;Failed verification|date=July 2024}}

results in:

displays as

reverted edits by  to last version by Example

reverted edits by  (talk) to last version by Example

reverted edits by  (talk) to last version by 

user name —       (for use in edit summaries)

IP   —        (for use in edit summaries)

subpages

The time has come

Example Notes
See WP:REFGROUP and WP:REFNEST.

Examples tend to pop up here and there.

( Examples tend to pop up here and there.     )

(The following list was generated with:  )



See Example in Template:Refn for naming notes to use more than once.