Who here thinks it would be a better idea to make one template just for Grand Slam champions and Triple Crown champions. There are templates for this on the WWE side. I would make one for the TNA side but thought it would be a better idea not to waste the space instead just making a template just for these champions alone. Something like these two. The championships share an article, why not just a template.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one is just obvious. Read the article, the article is completely about the Paul Bearer character, the small mention of the Percy Pringle character is overshadowed by He is best known for his career with World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment as the manager of The Undertaker, Kane (Undertaker's storyline brother), and Mankind. So, anyone who can read, will notice the article should be under Paul Bearer. Raaggio 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
championship manager 01 02 crack no cd
Couldn't we look at it the other way and say how can we assume a championship held by two members of ECW, with the championship on the ecw page, is a part of Raw? Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, Falegas and Ive Cena nuff... if this were true what you were saying, then when Kurt Angle won the World Heavyweight Championship, he would've taken it to Raw and not moved to Smackdown. When Helms won the Cruiserweight Championship, he would've taken it to Raw instead of moving to Smackdown. When Edge cashed in his Money in the Bank and won the World Heavyweight Championship, he would've taken it to Raw instead of moving to Smackdown. When Matt Hardy won the World Tag Team Championship with his brother, he would've moved it to Smackdown instead of staying on Raw. When Rob Van Dam won the WWE Championship, he would've taken it to Raw instead of staying on ECW. You see, these people won titles from other brands, and the championships stayed on their brands. Regardless if Matt Hardy stayed on the Smackdown roster, Rob Van Dam stayed on the ECW roster, and so on, they all kept defending their championships in their original brand. It's the same case with John Morrison and The Miz. Raaggio 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ROH Championship article includes a section called "number of defenses", counting all successful defenses each champion has had. Why is it inconsistent with every other championship article which doesn't have it? Raaggio 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soil physical properties are critical in the efficient use of the scanty variable rainfall in semiarid regions. Infiltration instead of runoff and retention instead of deep percolation in soil surface layers are processes affecting water availability and hence crop growth, response to fertilizers, nutrient and residue input and, ultimately, the sustainability of the whole system. Soil porosity, pore size and geometry control water transmission and storage, and provide air and space for root growth (Azooz et al., 1996). Different pore sizes, which fulfill various roles in aeration, infiltration, drainage and storage of water, contribute to total soil porosity. Both soil porosity and pore size distribution integrally affect soil water movement. Agricultural management modifies pore size distribution as well as pore connectivity. Tillage disrupts pores generated by the biological activity of roots, insects and earthworms, and increases total porosity owing to random fractures. Conservation tillage systems (no-tillage and reduced-tillage) are effective means of reducing water loss in the soil and improving its moisture regime (Hatfeld & Stewart, 1994). However, tillage effects on soil physical properties are uncertain and variable (Kay & VandenBygaart, 2002). Sustainability of mixed systems (agriculture and cattle production) depends heavily on maintaining forage and crop productivity over time. The main factors affecting this productivity are soil chemical fertility and the adverse effect of animal trampling on soil physical properties (Holt et al., 1996; Villamil et al., 1997; da Silva et al., 2003). Most soil compaction is caused by grazing animals and machinery (Hamza & Anderson, 2005). Soil compaction due to animal trampling is one of the factors degrading soil physical quality (Imhoff et al., 2000; da Silva et al., 2003). The effect becomes stronger in frequently trampled areas, such as animal trails and resting or drinking places, and in wet soils where water acts as a lubricant helping the intimate packing of mineral particles (Baker & Davis, 1995; Hamza & Anderson, 2005). Surface residue cover and root networks can often reduce the mechanical forces protecting the soil from compaction (Greene et al., 1994; Russell et al., 2001). Pietola et al. (2005) found that even low grazing intensities will reduce infiltration and hence increase erosion susceptibility. Compaction reduces total soil pore space and may increase its shear strength, reduce transmission of water and air through the soil profile, change soil heat capacity, and increase surface runoff and potential erosion (Al Adawi & Reeder, 1996). Soil pore volume as well as pore size, shape, type (i.e., biopore vs. crack), continuity, and distribution in soil affects soil water and gas exchange. Vertical drainage and lateral drainage of water by gravitational forces occur through large non-capillary soil pores, but redistribution and upward movement of water occur through capillary soil pores (Amer et al., 2009). Animal grazing may also directly contribute to higher soil bulk density and reduced pore size and connectivity with the soil surface (Holt et al., 1996). Compaction-induced soil changes may significantly reduce root growth (Venanzi et al., 2004). Pabin et al. (1998) reported restricted pea root growth not only in non-irrigated compacted soils but also in irrigated soils or in wet growing seasons due to anoxia, N loss and root rot infestation, with a subsequent yield reduction. Some studies have found that the effects of animal grazing were confned to the upper 5 cm soil layer (Greenwood et al., 1997). However, in wet or recently tilled soils, compaction effects may extend down to 15 cm (Donkor et al., 2002; Hamza & Anderson, 2005). Soils managed under different tillage systems vary in their response to compaction by direct grazing. Their different organic carbon contents and distribution in surface horizons (Galantini et al., 2006; Galantini & Suñer, 2008) may give rise to differences in the characteristics of their porosity system and in their response to trampling. Over the last decade, most agricultural activities in Argentina have switched to no tillage (up to 80% during 2013). However, cattle production was maintained under the traditional tillage systems. This is because animal trampling effects on soil pore space and their impact on water dynamics are still under study. Information is scanty with regard to the potential changes caused by direct animal grazing in total soil porosity, water storage and transmission properties under different tillage systems, mainly in semiarid environments (Kay & VandenBygaart, 2002). We hypothesized that pores naturally produced under NT by biological activity (roots and soil biota) are more resistant to the negative effects of direct grazing than pores produced by tillage.This study was therefore undertaken with the aim of assessing the effect of direct animal grazing on soil pore space and pore size distribution under reduced and no-till systems.
Solutions for very difficult problems cannot be reached with asingle investigation technique, but can be reached with the complementary useof a variety of different techniques (Binda et al. 2000, 2001). Therefore,the designer is asked to interpret the results and use them at least ascomparative values between different parts of the same masonry structure(Binda et al. 2003a) or by using different NDTs. Within the aforementioned ECcontract, an atlas of different types of problems to be solvedand adescription of the strategies of investigation involving the complementaryuse of on-site and laboratory tests was set up. Lastly, guidelines wereproduced for the correct application of investigation techniques for thediagnosis of different classes of masonry (Binda et al. 2003b). The diagnosisprocess should be based on an accurate survey, which should document thecurrent state of the building. A preliminary in situ survey is useful toprovide details on the geometry of the structure and to identify the pointswhere more accurate observations must be concentrated. Following this survey,a more refined investigation must be carried out to identify irregularities(vertical deviations, rotations, etc.). In the meantime, the historicalevolution of the structure must be known to explain the signs of damagedetected on the building. The crack pattern should be classified andaccurately documented by pictures and drawings on the geometrical survey, anda monitoring system can be installed. The NDTs or slightly destructivetechniques can be applied at strategic points in the structure to solve themost difficult problems of hidden situations (Fig. 3). Lastly, the definitionof the structural model can be defined on the basis of the geometrical surveyand the crack pattern (Bosiljkov et al. 2004; Binda et al. 2006).
The two castles have similar problems from the point of view ofthe structural characterization of the stonework masonry. Extended crackpatterns are visible on the main walls of the towers, and many rooms arecharacterized by remarkable vertical cracks crossing the wall section. Thecrack-pattern survey and classification and mapping of the discontinuitiesand the masonry textures, were carried out to provide an important evaluationof the state of conservation of the building.
2ff7e9595c
Commentaires