User talk:Algr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] National bird of Puerto Rico?

  • Algr, I know that you are well intentioned however, I would like to remind you that the article is an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia policy does not permite POV based on political or religious beliefs but, only information based on facts. I have written over 300+ articles and I have never imposed my personal beliefs but, based my information on verifiable facts. My personal profile should not bother you but, should show you that I am a person with nothing to hide. I hope that you make positive contributions to the pedia instead of creating debates. Take care, Tony the Marine 19:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • POV is why I'm trying to stop you from injecting Puerto Rican nationalism into an article about birds. "Official bird" is neutral. "National bird" makes false implications.

[edit] Consensus

Wikipedia operates by consensus (see WP:CON), or as close as we can. Mediation in only a process to try to bring people together and get them talking - mediators have no special status to make pronouncements. On the other hand, bringing people here to stack a vote is considered meatpuppetry and is frowned upon. Guettarda 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Consensus: Puerto Rican Spindalis

An organized consensus in regard to the Puerto Rican Spindalis has been placed at [1]. Please express your opinion. Tony the Marine 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Guettarda, recently you posted on my talk page "bringing people here to stack a vote is considered meatpuppetry and is frowned upon." It now appears that Tony the Marine has done precisely that with his post above. This message went out only to people who supported his position on Puerto Rico. Pmsyyz and Sceptre were not invited. As a new user I want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines of behavior, but this is certainly a case where actions speak louder then words. What do you plan to do about Tony the Marine's action? Algr 09:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What do I plan to do? Nothing - he acted correctly, informing involved parties (as should have been done with the mediation). Sceptre was only involved in the mediation attempt (and I would say gave up on it). I don't know how Pmsyyz was involved at all (or who s/he is). Guettarda 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Puerto Rican bird matter

Hi, I just noticed the message you left. I reviewed the relevant pages. I can see the dispute is heated, and I would like to be of assistance. Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge on this issue, so I will not weigh in officially. If you think something I say is useful, feel free to quote me.

I agree that many (possibly most) Puerto Ricans consider themselves a nation, though obviously not a sovereign one. However, I think it would confuse the issue for anyone to claim that the Spanish term "nación" is used differently than the English "nation". They have different connotations, but can be used to refer to the same concept. Puerto Rican nationalists seem to use "nation" as Scottish and Welsh nationalists do. However, in English, to use the term "national" is probably seen as a more political statement, because it tends to imply sovereignty or nationalist feelings. On the other hand, Scotland, Wales, and other entities are widely referred to as nations, even by non-nationalists, so the argument could be made either way. Bhumiya/Talk 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word nation regarding Puerto Rico

First of all welcome to the 'pedia, if there's anything that I can help you with let me know. You may want to read the United Nations Special Commitee on Decolonization press release regarding Puerto Rico's self-determination process [2]. Specifically this text:

Reiterating that the Puerto Rican people constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation that has its own unequivocal national identity, the Special Committee would call upon...

Therefore, there shouldn't be any problem if 'nation' is used to refer to Puerto Rico or to things related to Puerto Rico such as its anthem or endemic fauna and flora.

I understand your concerns, but the truth is the problem roots on the meaning of nation (read that article). Nation is not synonymous to sovereign state, even tho it's incorrectly used as such.

—Joseph | Talk 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, the thing is that while it will indeed mislead people, it will mislead people that do not know the real meaning of 'nation'. By your premise, we can argue the same with all the nouns of the English language. You have to understand that just because words can have different meanings, it doesn't mean we have to exclude them. As long as the word is used appropiately, correctly, and in context, there's no reason to switch it with one that doesn't follow the norm (in this case, 'official'). Evidence has been shown regarding the use of 'nation' and 'national' to refer to topics related to Puerto Rico.
I haven't not read every single post on that discussion, but if you're being attacked at a personal level I suggest that you contact the Mediation (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation) or Arbitration Commitee (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee). If it's bothering you, just stay cool (see Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot) and move onto something different.
What suggestions have you made that include 'nation'? I thought the dispute was about the use of 'national bird' vs. 'official bird'.
—Joseph | Talk 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico

Hello Algr, I would like to invite you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico. Take care, Tony the Marine 21:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camera aperture vs. mask/crop

Algr -

As this isn't germane to the Univisium discussion, I'll answer your question here.

It really comes down to definition of the words - much like the larger debate on the Univisium page regarding "standard."

Aperture and Crop are are two very different concepts. The camera aperture plate is required, not only as a place to make contact with the film emulsion, but to define the format frame size. Cropping is an artistic choice within an aperture. Many formats require different aperture plates and, within those apertures, are the acceptable (usable) frame and multiple crop choices.

The standard "Academy" frame (which accounts for an optical soundtrack on the side of the film, and therefore does not expose an image across the full width of the frame (but rather offset to the right) - not technically the correct term (Silent Aperture is correct), but universally used and understood) is .866" x .630" (22mm x 16mm). That is the physical camera aperture. From there, the usuable image area is .825" x .602" (20.96mm x 15.29mm). This is the "full frame" (a somewhat overused and incorrect term, but it works here for simplicity) area - within the full camera aperture. Notice that it is nearly 5% smaller than the aperture size. This is NOT a "crop" - it is merely the full usable area, accounting for imperfections in the aperture itself. It is possible that (especially in today's day and age of telecine) one could pull out and utilize the full .866" x .630" exposed area - but they would see the edges of the aperture plate (whic are not rounded, but are not necessarily clean, sharp lines, either). WITHIN the .816" x .612" usuable frame area, are various standard cropping sizes, most commonly:

.825" x .497" for European 1.66:1 (20.96mm x 12.62mm) and .825" x .466" for 1.85:1 (20.96mm x 11.33mm).

These are crops within the standard "Academy" aperture. One could utilize a "hardmask" in the camera, within the aperture to create these aspect ratios, but that is rare. Mostly the full frame is exposed and the aspect ratio is defined either in telecine or in the theatrical projector. Allen Daviau, ASC, however, on Empire of the Sun and, I believe also on E.T., The Extra Terrestrial (although I'm not positive about E.T.) utilized a 1.66:1 hardmatte in the camera for the film, which was intended for 1.85:1. His rationale was to protect the intregrity of the composition just a bit more in the event of a projection error.

Note that the "Academy" aperture does NOT utilize the full area "perf-to-perf" of the 35mm film - but it is NOT a crop.

Likewise, another possible camera aperture is Super 35: .980" x .735" (24.84mm x 18.67mm), which DOES utilize the full usuable negative area "perf-to-perf".

Common viewfinder markings are available for 1.33:1 (TV), 1.78:1, 1.85:1 and 2.40:1. In this case, although 2.40:1 is only exposing a fraction of the frame size (.945" .394" (24mm x 10mm)) it is not actually called a crop, but an extraction because an intermediate process is required to get the 2.40:1 aspect ratio to a print format. So that area of the image isn't technically "cropped" out of the full Super 35 frame (although, technically it kind of is), it is "extracted" from that area and optically (either digitally or optically/photochemically) squeezed into a .825" x .690" size (offset for soundtrack). If this was for television (video) and the actual negative was used (say Super 35 for 1.78:1 TV) then it would be called a "crop". Theatrically, though, it's an extaction.

Now - in the case of Univisium (Univision) - the cameras are modified not only for 3 perf frame sizes, but with a camera aperture at .945" x .472"(24mm x 12mm). That is the physical camera aperture. The usuable image area is (by estimate, not hard data) .900" x .450" - still a natural 2:1 aspect ratio. This also is, technically, an extracted aspect ratio (unless his projection system comes to fruition) as it must be squeezed into the .825" x .690" anamorphic projection frame. But it is not a crop because it utilizes the full 3-perf camera aperture for the image.

Aperture is different depending on the camera setup. Cropping is something that happens WITHIN the camera aperture. These are important distinctions in the definitions of the terms.

For more reading and understanding of all of the above, I would highly recommend getting a copy of the American Cinematographer Manual which is available through the ASC press ([www.theasc.com])

I hope that helps. LACameraman 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IsometricFlaw.png

If you would upload a larger version of Image:IsometricFlaw.png, I would probably nominate it for Featured Picture status (the current version doesn't meet the size criteria)... AnonMoos 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I put up a higher rez version. Thanks. Algr
I finally nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates . Sorry it was a little slow... AnonMoos 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
They would seem to slightly prefer an SVG version. If your software allows you to easily save as SVG, then we could throw that into the mix as an alternate version. If not, don'tbother with it... AnonMoos 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interlace

(Please reply on this page; I dislike breaking conversations up)

This is directly about the article, so it ought to be on it's talk page. Algr

Your partial reversion has missed many of the subtle points I changed:

  • Interlace is not merely a technique of transmission, it is also intimately tied to the details of storage and display, hence my use of the general word "representation".
Any video image is transmitted, even if it is just along a short cable, so the word seems general enough. "representation" is okay too, if you want it.Algr
  • 50-60Hz interlacing with one refresh per field does improve flicker, when compared to the option of 25-30Hz progressive with one refresh per frame, which was the only feasible alternative until the 1990s.
But you are comparing interlace to a pathological system that no one ever advocated. The REAL alternative was 240p 60 hz the way I described how computers did it in the 1970s. (and videogames did until the 1990s) Compared to any _real_ progressive system, interlace has more flicker. Algr
  • 50-60Hz interlacing does improve smoothness of motion when compared to 25-30Hz progressive – there can be no argument about that.

– Smyth\talk 07:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it isn't interlace that is improving smoothness of motion, it is the increased number of images per second. Again 240p 60hz would have even better smoothness of motion. If the original was on 24 hz film, interlacing the frames would make no improvement on smoothness.Algr 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo hoax

Thank you for your well-written intro on the talk page (and for archiving that megillah). That one user got under my skin a bit, but you'll notice he disappeared (or maybe just went to bed) when he had enough fun for the night. He was a new user who had touched only this article (as with a few others recently), so I figured it was safe to throw the "sockpuppet" charge at him (which I would not do lightly) after which he vanished. This guy, though, was even more extreme in his approach than the others have been. Hopefully he won't be back, but I'm not betting the family jewels on it just yet. Wahkeenah 08:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. :) It's nothing we haven't said before, but hopefully it will prevent some of the same arguments going round and round. Algr
I see that a couple of users have expanded on it. I'm not sure this pre-emptive set of guidelines will prevent the hoaxsters from doing what they do, but at least they can't say they weren't told. Wahkeenah 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done for your excellent work on the article recently. Keep it up. --Guinnog 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POTD

This is to let you know the Featured Picture based on an image you uploaded Image:IsometricFlaw 2.svg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 23, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 18:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution Chart

Algr, Are you the original author of this resolution chart? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Resolution_chart.svg

I have some questions about this chart, and the description... "It does not accuratly reflect the screen shape (aspect ratio) of these formats, which is always stretched or squeezed to 4:3 or 16:9. The table assumes an average vertical detail loss of .75x due to interlace. The actual loss is variable due to content, motion, opinion on acceptable levels of flicker, and possible success of deinterlacing. 1920x1080i is not included because all common use of 1080i is filtered to 1440 or less."

I don't understand why interlace artifacts are discussed or factored in to this chart. It would seem to be better to reference this as a separate discussion. The resolution of HDTV is identical for interlaced or progressive scan formats for the same signal type (1920x1080 or 1280x720).

I don't understand the justification for the statement "all common use of 1080i is filtered to 1440 or less". 1080i is defined by SMPTE 274M, and is broadcast in the US using ATSC. Neither of these specifications filter the horizontal resolution to 1440. Only HDV uses anamorphic pixels to record 1440x1080 as 1920x1080. Most of the broadcast 1080i material is shot and edited with full 1920x1080 resolution equipment.

This chart has been placed on many different wikipedia pages, and I am interested in working with the author(s) to improve it.

Thank you!

Tom Vaughan Tvaughan1 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I created that chart. The reason for the .75x interlace loss is that pixels do not automatically translate into detail. While you can COUNT 1080 lines in 1080i, you can't USE them as you would in 1080p - you must blur out details that would cause one field to become brighter then the other. This blurring always happens before broadcast, (usually in the camera) and can't be undone by a de-interlacer - the detail is removed, not just hidden. This is why VGA is so much sharper then NTSC, even if the NTSC has component inputs. The chart is intended to show how much detail you can actually SEE with these formats.

This isn't true at all. Why would one field become brighter than another, just because there are 2 interlaced fields per frame? Why would blurring reduce brightness? Do you have any references for this idea? Have you ever seen broadcast quality NTSC? It's sharper than VGA... roughly 800 lines of horizontal resolution. Yes... motion of the camera or subject can cause a reduction in detail when the video is shot and displayed with interlacing... but this is a separate subject than the native resolution of the signal format. If the entire capture, storage/transmission and display system are interlaced, motion artifacts are nearly zero (which is what NTSC or 1080i on a CRT are designed to be). I understand that displaying interlaced video on a native-progressive scan monitor will introduce deinterlacing... but that is a separate subject.

As for the horizontal resolution, it is not just HDV, but most HD formats that run at 1440. DVCpro is even lower: 1280 x 1080i pixels. Even uncompressed formats reduce pixel count. Attack of the Clones was shot with 1440 horizontal pixels. Newer high end gear can shoot true 1920, but this is only being used in 24p mode. Even when such is available, (Revenge of the Syth) broadcasters have found that they get too many artifacts if they try to broadcast it that way - 19 mbps just isn't enough data. So they are filter any 1080i down to 1440 or less, so that the softer images will look cleaner. Blu Ray and HD-DVD run at higher data rates, so in theory, they could use 1920x1080i, but in practice, all the content that people want to buy disks of is 1080p, and/or film. Hence 1920x1080i is not "in common usage", and isn't included.

HDV and DVCPro are consumer and semi-professional formats. They aren't main-stream professional formats... they are second-tier formats for people who can't afford the real deal. HDTV programs that you watch on TV aren't shot, edited, or broadcast in these formats.

The standard professional high-definition interface is SDI (SMPTE 259M). This interface transfers the high definition video signal uncompressed. The data rate of an uncompressed HDTV (HD-SDI) is 1.485 Gbit/s. 1080i HDTV is broadcast using ATSC.

Star Wars "Attack of the Clones" was shot in 1080p24 with Sony HDW-F900 Cinealta Cameras - which use full 1080 resolution sensors... http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/docs/brochures/hdwf900_v11122b.pdf http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/technical

1080i and 1080p are 1920x1080 signals. There is no such thing as 1440x1080 HDTV... even if the sensor is 1440x1080, or if the signal is down-sampled, or if the display is 1440x1080.

True, HDCAM cameras downsample to 1440x1080... but other cameras and storage systems don't down-sample... and live 1080i broadcasts aren't downsampled.

My concern with the resolution chart is that you are showing that 1080i has a native resolution less than 1920x1080... and it doesn't. Done right, 1080i has 1920x1080 resolution.

We should carry on this discussion on the talk page for the image... OK? Tvaughan1 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TV_resolution

Revert. 852 or 768 horizontal are not part of any standard. (non-square pixels)

First of all, 852x480 is the resolution of the 480p EDTV standard with square pixels. Just because DVDs use non-square pixels to achieve 852x480 and claim to be 480p, it doesn't change the EDTV standard (See de facto standard). As for 768, that is one of the PAL standards (the specifics of which I am not as familiar with, so I may have incorrectly assumed square pixels where they were not, in which case that box can be removed or resized). Finally, I don't see why you would do a hard revert to the older, even more incorrect graphic instead of just downloading and editing the new one. Noclip 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:: See discussion...  Algr 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Algr - I responded to your concern on Template_talk:TV_resolution. I agree, the image should be updated to show that NTSC 480i / 480p (CCIR 601) has a pixel resolution of 720x480, and PAL 525i has a pixel resolution of 720x576. Tvaughan1 20:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguing over video

Algr - Why are you arguing with me on poor Herr Hornig's talk page? I'm done arguing. Good luck... Tvaughan1 01:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TV_resolution (again)

I notice you have edited the image again to show 480p as having 720x480 resolution. In the interest of not escalating this situation into an edit war I will not change the image. I do, however, strongly urge you to. I am aware of the fallacy in claiming that Google is always right, but the number one result on Google for "480p resolution" [3] is a CNET page [4] which lists the native resolution of EDTV to be 852x480. The "more info" link lists the resolutions of common TV formats in a table, and notes that 480p is 852x480 [5]. A search [6] for "480p 720x480" returns 34,800 results, most being pages discussing the resolution of DVDs, which with a wide pixel aspect ratio end up stretched to, but not stored at, native 480p. On the other hand, a search for "480p 852x480" [7] produces 149,000 results, with an additional 54,600 [8] for "480p 854x480". You are absolutely correct that the 480i standard provides for a 4:3 progressive format of the same dimensions as 480i. But a widescreen version of 480p, sometimes called EDTV, is not mentioned in any standards document I am aware of and is nevertheless significantly more widespread than the 4:3 variant. Because the template is for common TV resolutions and not restricted to only standards 480p's most common resolution should be represented also, but not exclusively. In the interest of a compromise, I would suggest modifying the 720x480 box's label to "NTSC DV/DVD/4:3 480p" and including a separate box labeled "EDTV/480p" at 852x480, with a footnote that while the "ideal" size of 480p is 853x480, 852x480 and 854x480 are most commonly used in order to avoid dealing with odd pixel counts. - Noclip 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create the current image there, but it is correct in excluding 852x480. The reason for your google hits count is simple: Advertisements for plasma displays are everywhere, but correctly quoted standards from the ATSC are less common. There is a lot of misinformation about this, and I see this as all the more reason to be clear about mistakes that others have made. The point is also moot because manufacturers have abandoned the 852x480 resolution anyway, all plasmas are now at least 1280x720.
Again, it is not Template:TV_Standards (which you are free to create), it is common resolutions. In regard to the manufacturers "abandoning" it, does this mean we should also remove the lead paint article? Manufacturers have abandoned its use, so it must no longer be noteworthy.
An article about paint in common use today certainly should not mention lead paint prominently. 480p is fairly common, but the nonstandard 856x480 variant is only a footnote about plasma displays. All else is misinformation from third or forth party sources. Algr 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
For the 700th time, the template is not limited to standards. If you feel so strongly about this, I urge you to create Template:TV_resolution_standards and nominate the current template for deletion. Noclip 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And you can create "Template:Quicktime_Resolution" because downloaded film clips are no more "TV" then a digital movie projector is. Algr 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is from the ATSC themselves:
http://www.atsc.org/standards/a53.html
This is not someone describing the standard, it IS the standard. This is the document that defines HDTV in the US. 704x480 is part of the standard because page 28 says so. 852x480 is just a quirk of a few sets built between 2001(?) and 2005, and it will only get less common as time goes on. Algr 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, if we include every pixel count ever broadcast we will end up with something as clear and useful as this:
Data is not knowledge.
Data is not knowledge.

Algr 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't honestly be implying that widescreen 480p and QSXGA+ are equally common TV resolutions? 852x480 480p was broadcast by a major network (Fox), is used on a multitude of TVs still on the market, and has gained increasing popularity for internet video since Apple began using it on its movie trailers [9] site. Noclip 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Where are you getting this information from? 480p NEVER means 852x480 unless it is explicitly stated, and that only happened with plasma displays. Those displays are no longer on the market. No camera or video signal ever used this resolution. Fox broadcast 704x480, because that is what cameras produce. QSXGA+ might well be more common then 852x480 soon, neither are mainstream now. Apple's downloads are 640x480 for 4:3, and 640x360 for 16:9 widescreen. Algr 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If you click the link I've provided and select any of the HD trailers, then select the 480p button (claimed by Apple as HD, albeit incorrectly), you will get a movie very close in size to 852x480 (Usually smaller, I assume they chop off the black bars from the sides of the scan). While Apple is not a standards making organization, the use of native 852x480 video on the internet (which does not resort to non-square pixels) is rapidly increasing in popularity. You'd be hard pressed to find any use of non-square pixels anywhere near the commercial online video distribution mainstream. My offer for a compromise still stands, and I strongly feel that the template would be of better accuracy were it to represent both the standardized size of 480p, along with the common non-standardized variant. Noclip 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As I just posted above, streaming video isn't "TV". It can have any aspect ratio you can dream up, all the bandwidth you can afford, and it is not "broadcast"; each download is a separate dialog between the server and one computer. (The numbers I quoted above for Apple are for videos purchased from iTunes.) Algr 05:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Wii

who's -> whose; it's -> its -lysdexia 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're side didn't really "win" the poll. Polls are not just votes, it's about the arguments too and the arguments for including urine references was far weaker than arguments not to include it. TJ Spyke 04:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
17 people agree with your opinion, 18 don't. Algr 04:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Please invest in a good calculator, because you look awfully silly when you start throwing numbers in people's faces, and they're wrong. (~Bladestorm)

[edit] Happy New Year!!!

Image:NewYearCard_Eugene2x.jpg ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richman's article

Your claim that Fred Richman's article "demolishes" the statements made in 0.999... has qualified you as a crackpot in my view. Richman merely says that if decimal numerals are used to represent a different sort of object from the usual real numbers, then different results follow. I'll be very surprised if Richman expresses agreement with what you're saying, or disagreement with what the article says. Michael Hardy 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can call me names, then that proves you must be right. Algr 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo

Beware of that redlinked user on the Apollo hoax pages. My guess (based on his subtle-as-a-sledgehammer user ID) is that his sole purpose is disruption. He might stop here, or he might just be testing the waters to see what arguments he can start. Wahkeenah 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] VHS-C maxed out at 1 hr, not 2

T-40 tape. Recorded at SLP/EP speed. That's 120 minutes or two hours. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those were never very common, and appeared late in the format's life. They were also kind of a bad idea because there was so much loss in picture and sound quality, and risk of damage to thin tape. Why subject your once-in-a-lifetime memories to that? 8mm P6-150's also existed that let 8mm record 5 hours on a tape, and these did not have as much quality loss as VHS-EP. Algr (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review and contribute please

Hi Algr,

I’ve started an article on Broadcast safe can you please make any corrections if required, give some feedback if it was written well or not, and help expand the article?

Thanks,
—IncidentFlux (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for your loss

I hope you're reasonably okay. Melchoir (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)