User talk:The snare

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Srleffler 05:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I reversed your edit to candela, because the term "brightness" should be avoided as a quantitative description of light. It leads to confusion, since the term can equally well mean any of luminous flux, luminous intensity, luminous emittance, radiant intensity, radiance, etc.--Srleffler 05:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The snare-Yeah, sorry, just thought perhaps it would be more simple, I'm not a scientist, just sometimes a lot of articles are hard to understand if they aren't written plain English. But I guess your right, a lot of things require pre-requistites,

Anyway, I was just wondering perhaps, how many candelas it would take to blind you, either temporarily or permanently, and what exactly happens, the rods and cones just are stunned by the huge input of light, or just plain destroyed and cease to function if they are overloaded.

I also heard there's no limit to the brightness of light or the loudness of sound (though I had previously heard otherwise that a sonic boom is loudest audible phenomenon that could happen) in the latter case would it be quite literally possible to make a sound in the air so loud that whole world could hear it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The snare (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the amount of light it would take to blind you would probably be measured either in cd/m2 or in W&middot;sr-1&middot;m-2, since it's probably the luminance or the radiance of light that would determine whether a source is "bright" enough to blind someone. This confusion of units is exactly why the term "brightness" needs to be avoided. The actual amount of light needed to cause blindness would also depend on the wavelength (or mixture of wavelengths) present. Coherence of the light is also a factor. You can be blinded by a relatively low-power laser, because the laser's beam can be focused by the lens of your eye to a very small spot on the retina, producing a lot of damage very quickly.


 * I recall a discussion of the maximum loudness of sound at talk:decibel a while ago. There is a maximum above which it may not be appropriate to keep calling it "sound". A sound wave consists of a moving pattern of more and less dense regions of air. The more intense the sound wave, the greater the pressure extremes. For a sufficiently intense sound wave, the less dense (lower pressure) regions of air would have to be a vacuum. The pressure can't get lower than that. A wave this intense would distort greatly as it travelled, since the increases and decreases in pressure can't be uniform. More intense "sound waves" do travel, though, and have properties distinct from ordinary sound. Shock waves are an example of this. In principle, one could imagine a shock wave that would vaporize the whole world, so yes I'm pretty sure it's possible in principle to make a "sound" so loud that the whole world could hear it. The amount of energy required would be enormous, though. The listing at Makeitlouder.com gives examples of some things that are louder than a sonic boom. Note that your eardrums rupture at around 195 dB, and that a shock wave of around 200 dB can kill you outright.


 * For light, there is no maximum other than the limits of your source. There is a limit, though, to how much you can concentrate the light from any given source. Light from a given source has a certain luminance, which cannot be increased by any optics. If you imagine a "beam" of light, it has a certain diameter but it also spreads out as it travels. Luminance takes both of these things into account. If you use a lens to focus the beam to a small spot, it spreads out faster after it passes that focus.


 * While there is no maximum intensity for light in general, there is a maximum intensity for light in air. A sufficiently intense beam will ionize the air, producing a plasma, which reflects light. --Srleffler 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More questions and answers
Yes, your talk page is visible to anyone. You also have a user page where you can say a bit about yourself and your interests.

Fusion only works up to iron. The elements heavier than iron are formed only in supernovas. As I recall, the supernova produces an extremely intense wave of neutron bombardment. The neutrons are absorbed by heavy elements, which then beta decay into higher elements on the periodic table. These then absorb neutrons and the process repeats. You get a big chain reaction where, in minutes or hours, huge quantities of iron, etc., are converted into heavier elements. There are several different chain reaction sequences that occur at different rates. The observed abundances of the different elements agree with what one would expect from the rates of the different reactions, so this model is pretty solidly established. In particular, some isotopes can't be produced by any of the chain reactions. Those isotopes tend to be rare unless they are produced by some other process. There's an article on this at Supernova nucleosynthesis, but it doesn't look very good and I see some things there that may not be factually correct. (I'm not an expert on this area of physics.)

The "spin" referred to in the context of Bell's theorem (and other quantum mechanics of subatomic particles) is not really a physical rotation. It is an intrinsic property of many particles that has mathematical properties similar to those of rotating objects. Initially, it was thought that electrons, etc. were like little billiard balls that could be spinning. It was later understood that this is not the case, but the name stuck. Different particles have different spin states that they are allowed to have. For example, an electron or a photon (a particle of light) can only have two spin states. We call these (arbitrarily) "up" and "down". It's not clear what exactly this means physically, but there are various ways to measure the spin of a particle or "flip" it from one spin to another.

Back to Bell's inequality: it isn't possible (we think) to send information instantly using this property, because you don't control the spin. You create two particles from one in such a way that one has spin "up" and the other has spin "down", but you don't know which is which and in fact the particles don't know which is which until they are measured (this can be proven, and has been). At the moment one of the particles' spins is measured, the other particle will "instantly" have the opposite spin, no matter how far away it is. But you can't force the particle to have the spin you want. It's random. Someone looking at the other particle knows that your particle had the opposite spin to hers, but there is no way to send information since you can't control which spin your particle would have. If you change the spin of your particle, you break the connection between them. Also, measuring the particle breaks the connection, so you only get to do this trick once per particle.

Yes, this is a pretty bizarre result. This effect was predicted years before anyone observed it, and the prediction was used in an argument that quantum mechanics couldn't be completely right (Einstein was one of the people making that argument). It turns out, though, that the effect is observed just as predicted. One can show that this result proves that one of several important assumptions of physics is wrong, but we aren't sure yet which one it is. It is usually assumed that the incorrect assumption is "hidden variables", the idea that we could in principle come up with a better theory than quantum mechanics, which has additional variables to describe the particles that are "hidden" from us under quantum mechanics. This is felt to be more palatable than the best-known alternative: giving up the idea of locality, that says that particles can't transmit effects from one to another at faster than the speed of light. It's not actually clear which of these assumptions is wrong.--Srleffler 05:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Again
Well thanks, and it's says your a physicist, are you professor, or just work doing research, etc?

I wasn't vandalizing, there's a lot of evidence that the Q aren't omnipotent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The snare (talk • contribs)
 * Alright, first off:
 * Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.
 * Secondly, I understand your point, but userpages are about users, not for commenting. Talk pages were created for this purpose.
 * Now that the warnings are out of the way: If you have proof, why not post it on the article's talk page? That's what the talk page is for. :) Post something like "I posted [insert what you posted here] because [insert reason here]. I was reverted because it looked like vandalism. The proof it is not vandalism is [insert reason here].". Make sense? I thought it did. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] nathanrdotco m (Got something to say? Say it.) 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, why can't I post the Q aren't omnipotent if they're aren't omnipotent, it's a fact, which is revealed in the episodes, why should I put it on the talk page? if it's true, it's true, and it is The proof it's not vandalism it is in the episodes.I've never had a problem posting a FACT to a wikipedia, especially if it's true, sheesh  The snare 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Minax.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Minax.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on columbus
Another user left the comment below on your user page (I guess by mistake). I've moved it here, and refactored it per Remove personal attacks. I will be dropping him a note about Wikipedia's rule against personal attacks.--Srleffler 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ITALY WAS COMPRISED OF SEPERATE CITY STATES BEFORE THE UNIFICATION IN 1861 [...]! IT WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL COUNTRY BEFORE THEN. DEAL WITH IT! LET ME GUESS, YOUR AN IATALIAN-AMERICAN WHO THINKS COLUMBUS WAS ITALIAN.
 * SORRY, YOU ARE WRONG! HE WAS CATALAN, AND ONE DAY THIS WILL BE COMMON KNOWLEDEGE.
 * VISCA CATALUNYA!


 * colom1492 17:06, January 13, 2007

Just a coincidence. When I welcomed you to Wikipedia months ago I Watchlisted your talk page, in case you had any questions. This automatically Watches the user page as well. I'm not sure why your page never got removed from my list. I normally unWatch new user's pages after a few days or a week.--Srleffler 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What article did you mean
I wasn't signed in, my username is the snare, what article wasn't I neutral about?


 * I think, if I'm right about which editor you were - I was referring to this edit. Perhaps "POV" was a little bit incorrect - while it's probably not wrong to say that they were inspired by the T-1000, it's definitely speculation - and your personal point of view - on the topic, to claim they were "perhaps inspired".  Either they were, or they weren't - however, we don't know, and there isn't any citation or evidence that they were.  I wish there were more templates that fit better, but I think you understand my reasoning.  Anyways, I didn't mean to bite or anything, and happy editing!  --Haemo 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the thing on in a sonic game someone using a shapeshift ability like the T-1000 wouldn't that be speculuation too? The T-1000 and changelings are almost identical, both liquid that can change thier shape.


 * Yes, I agree about many of these - they are by and large original research. Trivia, and "references" sections on Wikipedia tend to be pretty bad about that.  However, as per WP:POKEMON, the fact that bad articles, or content, exist is not a compelling reason to add more.  If you can't find a source that says it was "inspired" by as much, then don't add it.  In fact, I'm deleting all of the "trivia" ones which are either not references, or not blatantly obvious.  --Haemo 04:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanic Radiation and heat
Sorry, I'm not familiar with "Vanic Radiation".

You are right that infrared is not "heat". This is a common misperception, and one that is even sometimes spread by high school science teachers. Any electromagnetic radiation will warm a surface that absorbs it. Heated objects give off infrared radiation, but they can also give off visible light or even UV and higher frequencies by the same mechanism (blackbody radiation). There is no special connection between infrared and heat at all.

If you have a laser that produces a 1 watt beam, the power is the same regardless of whether the beam is IR or UV. The laser that burns the best is the one that is absorbed the best in the target. Some materials absorb IR better, others absorb UV better. Note, though, that it's generally easier to make lasers at longer wavelengths. It's a lot easier to make a high power infrared laser than a high power ultraviolet one.--Srleffler 05:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it I heard that wavelengths are smaller have higher power, like how X-rays and gamma rays have a lot more energy than radio waves? The snare (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please...
If you are still a member of Wikipedia, please join user:TomTheHand and myself in a discussion of which terms should apply to the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Infiltration Unit in its various forms.

To be as neutral as possible, I will relate the views of TomTheHand as well as my own, as accurately as posible:

Tom believes that the term "Android" should apply to all of the incarnations of the Model 101, from Endoskeleton all the way up to the gestalts of flesh-and-blood and the combat chassis played by Arnold in the movies. He furthermore believes that the term "cyborg" does not apply to any of the Terminator's forms.

Thanos777 -myself -thinks that the Terminator is worthy of multiple appelations depending on which configuration (read: Type/Series) the Model 101 is configured as.

That is to say, I believe that the "Base" Model 101, just the endoskeleton with no cosmetic enhancements, is best defined as either a Humanoid Robot, Anthropomorphic Robot, or simply a Robot.

When the Model 101 is outfitted as a Type/Series 600, the endoskeleton covered by rubber skin, I believe that the Terminator is then most correctly classified as an "android."

And finally, when the Model 101 is equipped as a Type/Series 800/850, the endoskeleton with the living flesh-and-blood covering, I believe that the most correct term for the creatre is "cyborg."

Again, I respectfully ask you to come back to the "Terminator" Article and lend your input; those of us who are there in the Article's discussion page are engaging in a lot of back-and-forth regarding the different terms and the disagreements as to when they should be used.

Hope to "see" you there soon!!!

Kardashev Scale
Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some major contributions to the article and are interested in it's progress. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force
I am looking for help improving the dermatology content on wikipedia. Would you be willing to help, or do you have any friends interested in derm that would be interested in helping? Kilbad (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: It is on the Zodiac Killer page
My mistake—I did a text search of the article but did not look at the images. I'll add the info back into the article and look for a source identifying him as hedonistic. Sorry for the conflict,  mo   talk  00:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Insterstellar travel
Hi Snare,

I'm answering your questions from Talk:Interstellar travel here, because we are really not supposed to put tutorials into the talk pages. If you have questions in the next few days, you can reply here (I will watch for a while) or on my talk page.

Re. travel to Andromeda Galaxy in 29 years. I think you basically understand the situation, in that 29 years of time, by the ship's clocks, would have passed, even though it would take a bit over 2 million years by Earth clocks, or other clocks at rest with respect to the stars and nearby galaxies. (Note that we cannot say either clocks are wrong, because there is nothing we can proclaim is absolutely at rest.)

So, in a certain sense, we would seem to have traveled much faster than light: something like 2,000,000/29 light years per year, or almost 70,000 times the speed of light. Relativity permits this, and it is because time is not as we conventionally think. The observers "at rest", back on Earth, would see it as taking the full 2,000,000 years, or a little more. And if we could somehow stop and then return to Earth in the same way, over 4 million years would have elapsed by Earth clocks when we got home. So all our friends and family would be dead and gone, if the Earth even remained recognizable. Not a very satisfactory solution, but not impossible according to current understanding of physical law.

It is however a practical impossibility, simply because we know no practically conceivable way to build a ship that could accelerate at one 1g for 29 years. The rocket equation,

v = ve ln(M1/M0),

(where v is the speed achieved according to Newtonian physics, ln is the natural logarithm,ve is the rocket exhaust velocity, M1 is the mass of the ship with fuel, and M0 is the empty mass of the ship after the fuel is all used up) is for non-relativistic velocities, but because the rocket is always moving moving slowly (at rest, in fact) in its own rest frame, it does give the speed that the ship's occupants might think they were going if they had an accelerometer on board, and just estimated their speed as v = gt using a = g and their clocks to get t. Even if the exhaust velocity were c, the speed of light (we can make particle beams that go almost that fast, or even use a beam of light, a "photon rocket"), we would need the mass ratio to be so large that ln(M1/M0) would be ~70,000, which means the mass ratio would be a staggeringly large number, something with over 30,000 digits, we can hardly even write it down. There is not enough fuel in the galaxy to tank up such a ship.

If it could be built, to observers left behind "at rest", it would appear to be moving at very close to the speed of light within the first few years of acceleration, with the ship clocks enormously slowed.

If you have any thoughts about how any of this material could be usefully incorporated into the article, we can discuss it further there.

Best, Wwheaton (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll probably get to the stars eventually, even if we go real slow. It seems generational ships are the most realistic, though we can't build one yet.

Anyway, since you're here I wondered if you could explain this from this URL: http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm. What I mean is in detail (if you can), about how the solar sail can make the jump to 1/10th light speed. It's in the last paragraph. I read something that said we could get it say to Alpha Centauri in 10 years, but it would have to be an extremely powerful laser/transmitter pushing the sail, and what about problems like micrometeroids punching holes in the sail and/or the appartus the sail comes out of? And, how do you slow down when you reach your destination? The snare (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again -- I really think the solar sail people are a bit optimistic about its use for interstellar travel. The reason is just that as the acceleration is slow, you have to wait a long time, and travel a long way, to reach high speed. At a uniform acceleration a, you reach velocity v after traveling a distance s according to


 * v = sqrt(2as)

in Newtonian approximation, which is applicable at the speeds we could hope to reach. Then


 * s = v2/(2a)

and for a given v, s gets very large if a is small. But since the intensity of sunlight decreases like 1/s2 with distance from the Sun, a does not remain constant, but drops rapidly, making things very much worse. Once you get out to well beyond the orbit of Pluto, where the Sun begins to look like a very bright star, the photon drag of the light of other stars begins to become significant, as well as the cosmic background radiation, which has an energy density comparable to that of starlight. Finally there is the problem that at really high speeds, the light of the Sun would begin to be red shifted, so you lose power from that effect too. Some of these problems can be solved by beaming light or microwaves out to the ship, with a huge power station (a trillion watts, say) near the Earth, and a large aperture mirror to focus the beam on the ship. Then, as long as you can maintain the focal spot as small as the ship's sail, you could get constant acceleration. A calculation I did years ago (which I will not try to reproduce now...) suggested to me that speeds of maybe 0.1c could conceivably be reached in this manner (which is very exciting) — but then, somehow, you have to stop.

(For example, if I recall, if the aperture of the beaming mirror is R, the ship sail dia r, the distance from the Sun D, and the wavelength λ, then you need


 * λ/R = r/D

and acceleration 10-3g will get you to 0.03c in 30 years, at a distance D of 0.5 light years, 1018/2 cm, which makes the mirror R ~ 50 km in diameter for a sail r 100 km, with a 1 um λ. NB the mirror needs to be optically perfect to << λ, but the sail does not.)

Of course 0.1c is a useful speed, and you might split the problem between a beamed laser sailer, with a fusion rocket to stop, but the trillion watt figure I remember was for a fairly small ship, 100 or 1000 tons if I recall, and I think a nuclear-electric ship capable of reaching even a few percent of c is going to be much larger than that for a payload of 100 or 1000 tons. I cannot imagine a decade ship smaller than an aircraft carrier, so it sounds like a pretty tough way to go, though possibly competitive with other approaches.

What I personally think we need to do is work the problem modestly hard from an engineering standpoint, considering all approaches, producing realistic design mission studies that give us the best trade-off solution with current technology. Right now the trip time, for a program we could realistically sell to the combined economies of the planet, would probably last a thousand years or more. So in ten or thirty years we should redo the study, and see how that number has changed due to technological advances. At some point the curve of reasonable trip times will either get down to the order of the time between studies, or else it will flatten out when we hit the wall of feasible engineering. Or maybe there will be a huge breakthrough when somebody figures out how to create a wormhole to a nearby star, or something equally revolutionary. Anyhow, only when the trip time is getting down to the time between studies (which would depend on the rate of technology change) would it be sensible to start a serious program, with what NASA would call a "Phase A study", leading to a program start, then a Preliminary Design Review, and then a Critical Design Review,... which is when you can start cutting metal.

Solar sailing is probably a competitive way of getting around the Solar System, though I think nuclear-electric ion drives are likely to prove better. The latter can certainly take us all over the Solar System in the time scales of the great explorations of the 15th and 16th centuries. Then in 500 years the Solar System will be ours, and we will have a far better idea of exactly what is out there in the dark between the stars, possibly mini-solar systems like Jupiter & its moons. If such systems are common, we might find useful places to go only 1% as far as Alpha Centauri, which would change everything. And the human species would be safe at last from the many disasters which threaten us now.

Sorry I have been inattentive to Wikipedia for a month or two, due to other responsibilities, which may increase or diminish in unpredictable ways. I am watching your talk page still, but hardly check my own watchlist even once a week these days. So drop me a note on my talk page if something urgent comes up.

Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I think about the above, I am worried about arithmetical errors, as I am in a great hurry tonight. You might want to check it over carefully before taking it too seriously.  :)  Sorry...  Wwheaton (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't even know if they are correct or not. I just like hearing the concepts idea's behind them. I never even had Calculus. Though, I plan probably to study it in the future. The snare (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck! I learned much of my calculus when I was a kid, pondering the mathematical appendix to Arthur C. Clarke's book Interplanetary Flight.  Wwheaton (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also Von Neumann Probes. I saw a documentary of the Science Channel (formerly discovery science) about how Jupiter's Magnetic Field could be used to accelerate them, then fling them off in the direction of their destinations. But, would the probe gain speed with every revolution around Jupiter's (I would guess) North Pole, so you could eventually get it near the speed of light? You'll need a hulu account to view this, it's free (I was trying to find it on youtube, sorry) http://science.discovery.com/videos/sci-fi-science-ii-approach-light-speed.html

And there's this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw9-ZaoCG5A I wondered if it would take less negative (and he doesn't explain how we could use the Casimir effect to create the bubble) energy to propel, say a nanobot, rather than needing a jupiter sized bubble. The snare (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

July 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to The Gate (film) does not have an edit summary. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Zombies
Philosophical zombies are not undead; they are defined as looking and acting just like regular people. Despite this, they are somehow supposed to lack consciousness. Don't ask me to defend it; I'm just telling you what supporters says. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Draft moved
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Anna Lunoe. This is because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dark Sun Citation
Hello. Thanks for the edits on Dark Sun. As for the citation on Rajaat's birth being too close to the Pristine Tower being the cause of his deformity I pulled that from here on page 275:

"Near the beginning of the Green Age a pyreen was born close to the Pristine Tower. The influence of the Tower on his body was extreme. Unlike other pyreen, he represented the worst features of the Rebirth races. Very deformed and ugly, he was, however, blessed with an incredible intellect. For millennia, he learned of the Will and the Way, traveled and spoke with the people of the Age. Despite his interactions with those around him, he could not accept himself as he was, and research into the past revealed to him that he was nothing more than a misshapen deformed accident."

I ended up removing it anyway as it comes from 3rd ed stuff. I've been working to reduce the content of that section to more of a summary to avoid excessive detail.

Advert blocker
Hi! Just so you know, uBlock Origin, in my experience, when the Adblock Warning Removal List and the Anti-Adblock Killer are enabled, works very well at removing adverts without Web sites interfering with it. I hope this helps! P.S.: To change the enabled filter lists, click the uBlock Origin icon, then click the gear icon in the upper left corner, then click the "3rd-party filters" tab. Good luck! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;&#124;✝️&#124;ze/zer&#124;😹&#124;T/C&#124;☮️&#124;John15:12&#124;🍂 03:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Anna Lunoe


Hello, The snare. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anna Lunoe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There's actually already a non-draft article on her, so you can go ahead and delete that. The snare (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)