text:
User talk:Cecropia/Archive 5

=July 2004=

NB Questions
Its all a little confusing about several things, its very hard do things effective, but I feel talking in this form makes it that much more difficult. Do any of the folks that do things for the site have an Instant Messenger service I could talk with on?

 * I suggest you post exactly that question to Village Pump. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you reset the picture from its original source? http://www.geocities.com/pokemontours/Hoenn/people/Advance.jpg I'm too green to correct it unfortunately

Recent elections
Hi GBWR, Since I live here in Kowboy Kountry, I'd be very interested to hear your take on recent elections in Europe and Canada. From my perspective, voters seem unusually interested in turning out (or at least lowering support for) their current governments. Why? I don't see any obvious pattern (such as support/opposition to US). Can you shed some light on this?

We haven't communicated much lately, but if you have any current questions for me, I'll be happy to take a stab at them. Cheers! -- the semi-evil Cecropia | Talk 14:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You still have a long unanswered message from me on your talk page, remains actual. Regarding the elections, the relationship with the US is no primary reason for voting in other countries. Might change if Bush chooses to invade another country or if he invents some new "anti-dumping" tariffs. Even in Spain, where more than 80% of the population were furious about Aznar's blind support for the US war in Iraq people seemed to stick with him, probably mostly due to economic reasons. Sadly Aznar had to commit another outrageous error in lying about the Madrid attack in order to open people's eyes again. The Brits seem to have a better memory, and with Blair as the prime ally of Bush the war is more in the focus. Plus, Blair had a lot of opponents in to the war in his own party and people feel betrayed by hypocrisy like the Hutton report. But I guess other topics play a bigger role, e.g. Blair's ruling that students have to pay higher fees. Berlusconi seems in better control of his men. In Germany people are dissatisfied with economic problems and many of the traditional social democrat voters are depressed about the governments insight that reforms are needed. In Eastern Europe people just did not seem to care about the European elections. Maybe they did not know well how much power the European Parliament has. Or they thought that the candidates were equally bad. You should not overestimate the significance of that election since many people just do not care. In Canada the ruling liberal party recently had a funding scandal in Quebec, such things are always really bad for elections. It also needed a funding scandal to finally get rid of Helmut Kohl although people knew he had lied to them about the eastern economy which he forecasted to become "flourishing countrysides". People just tend to expect that the German economy has to be great as usual although we are the only country where a western economy united with a devastated communist economy. Just imagine Florida merged with Cuba... As you know I like discussing but I think we should not abuse wikipedia sites for it. Get-back-world-respect 17:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sysop Election
Hello! Just a quick note to thank you for promoting me, following the Sysop vote. A quick look at the reading list tells me that I've got my work cut out now! I'll take my time to learn the ropes, and will act cautiously in the meantime. Again, thank you for promoting me. David Cannon 09:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, mi esprimu mian koran dankon pro via vocxdono kaj viaj vortoj min subteni (Let me express heartfelt thanks for your vote in my favour and for your words of support). You can guess what language that is:-)  Now, that wasn't so scary, was it?  David Cannon 09:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some answers to your questions at Requests for Adminship Cutler 14:26, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Fear not, I was still watching the situation. EddEdmondson 06:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent nomination to become an administrator. I really appreciate it. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A special thanks to you, for coming back from your objections and all. And I see you were the one who finalised the deal.  спасибо.  Hope we get along in the future!  blankfaze | •• | •• 15:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for your recent support for me as sysop. I think that I'll take some time playing myself in before I go mad! Cutler 12:37, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Consensus for nominations
Is there a way to know (roughly) what constitutes consensus? In my own example, there were 11 votes for, 6 votes against, and 5 neutral votes. I was under the mistaken impression that a sold majority was enough. The meaning of consensus is not given on WP:RFA, and one could easily get the impression that in a vote, only a majority is required. Quadell (talk) 13:18, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC) (P.S. Thank you for your kind words.)

Separately, Cecropia said: "Quadell, I have heard from Jimbo on this matter. He is mostly supportive and I want to restore your nomination for the amount of time since the original critical posting (about 3 days). Is this all right with you? Or, if you prefer, I could post it as a new nomination (7 days, votes wiped)."

Wow. I'm honored. I don't feel bold enough to venture an opinion on the best way to proceed, but I'll happily accept whatevery action you wish to take. Quadell (talk) 16:29, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

See my userpage.
Thanks. Neutrality 03:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bah
When I saw that you had edited that, I thought to myself "Old Man Cecropia likes the hip new music of today's youth?". Surprised, I couldn't think of a good edit summary. Honestly, though, can I ask how you found that article? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse
Hi there, yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Checking his contribution list tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Would you help me taking care of the trouble here as well? Get-back-world-respect 12:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images on Childlover
Do we really need these images on the article? They are both offensive (to me, anyway) and almost as redundant as the image on sexual harassment. - Mark 14:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see no magazine covers on homosexuality. In fact, I see no images there at all. Why is this different? - Mark 14:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From my contribution the current IRC discussion on these images: I guess when it all boils down, my main objection to the images is their tastelessness/tackiness. A topic that should be handled extremely delicately in the encyclopedia seems for all intents and purposes to have become the latest crusade for excessive NPOV to the point where it has become a POV trumpet for pedophiles. Which worries me a lot. - Mark 15:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. Well you know where I stand on this, anyway. I just wish there were more emphasis in these articles on child sex abuse as a crime, and less emphasis on the misunderstood-childlovers-deserve-love attitude. Please don't take this opinion of mine personally, by the way. - Mark 15:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Those tricky mice!
Cecropia, I had to LOL when you wrote about needing a source for the POV that cats kill mice (since the mice might just be playing dead :-) --Uncle Ed 15:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Montt "protected"
Why did you lock up the article on Rios Montt from changes when it is obvious to anyone who looks upon it with a balanced eye that it is HEAVILY slanted against Montt (and rightists in general) and needs changing to bring it to a place where it can legitimately be termed NPOV ?

I thought the Wikipedia was supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA, a balanced collection of facts and figures on important persons, events, and objects, NOT somebody's personal polemics. So why are you letting 172 lock up the piece in an attempt to make the article inform to his particular bias.

Please unlock the article so we can hash it out and attempt to restore some credibility to the wiki piece on Montt by restoring some BALANCE.

ANTI-COMMUNIST.

(Above attributed to 209.214.44.157 and not signed.)

 * I direct you, anon, to The wrong version. -- Grunt (talk) 03:12, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
 * I didn't post anything prior to this comment. The anonymous user 209.214.44.157 did so. -- Grunt (talk) 03:31, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

 * Response to anon who asked why page was protected:

I am not an editor on this page and have no opinion on which is the correct version. I protected the page after I picked up the request from Recent Changes and saw that an edit war was, in fact, going on. As it happens, the protected version is the same as the version before the edit wars.

I suggest you and others make their case on the talk page of the Montt article and that you also post a neutral description of the dispute at Requests for comment, so others can comment as well.

Regards, Cecropia | Talk 03:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questionaire on RFA
Those questions look way too much like an interview questions. No one who accepts is going to have anything bad to say about themselves. It's just clutter IMO, and it could put off some good admins without identifying any bad ones. Dori | Talk 01:28, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * In addition to my response on Dori's Talk Page, we had previously been voting in a sort of vacuum, with some people voting "for" with no obvious thought given to it, and then someone would come along with a negative and then there would be an uproar. I think the questions have given the candidates a standardized way to introduce themselves, and a chance to display their people skills, which are very important for an admin. The minute an admin pushes the "revert" button and someone disagrees, they need to be able to deal with the situation. Better to get an idea of how they express themselves now than later. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry

 * I added a military criticism section that I think is NPOV. What say you?

Personal attacks on the mailing list
I am sending the following message to multiple users I'd strongly appreciate it if fair-minded users responded to the latest string of baseless personal attacks on the mailing list. Stan Shebs, Fred Bauder, and RickK started attacking me ferociously since it came up on the mailing list that one of the articles I'd written was featured, Russian constitutional crisis of 1993.

I know that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia; but those mistakes were not motivated by anything other than a passion to make Wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for ungrammatical POV rubbish and fiction. This is making it harder and harder for me to be as efficacious as a user as I want to be. (The distorted impression of my work that these attacks engender are at the root of quite a large number of conflicts on Wikipedia.) That's why I feel that they should finally be thoroughly discredited. 172 05:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection
Hi Cecropa, I requested protection for Anti-Semitism yesterday, but no one has acted on it yet. It was unprotected without any prior attempt at consensus by Ed Poor, despite the ongoing arguments on the Talk page for keeping it protected until the most recent contributors get their Request for Mediation resolved - the initial protection was part of an older, but still continuing, debate over the POV of the contributors which always threatens to unbalance the article. Steve claimed to have protected the page, but didn't really, and I have no idea why - but if you can, please go ahead and slap the Protected template onto the article. -- Simonides 06:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you are going to Edit John Kerry....
Please STOP your WHOLESALE DELETIONS of my fully accurate and NPOV text! Your wholesale deletions are tantamount to pro-Kerry censorhip!

Rex071404 19:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you have problems with my "non-wiki" of external links, please ASK before you change them! You are butchering my text! Especially on the NYT link, the name of the link IS IMPORTANT!

Here is what I have been posting mpost recently; What problems do you have with this?:

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. At this meeting, one of the VVAW activists reportedly made the suggestion that the VVAW members should assassinate various United States politicians (including US Senators) who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War. According to reports, that statement was immediately shouted down by a large majority.

Over the years, Kerry has at various times, stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating instead that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. Some reports place him at the meeting, but none report him participating in the suggestion in any way.

However, as reported in the New York Sun on Mar 12, 2004;  Page:1 Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not rememeber attending.

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times, was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" (NY Times Jan,26th 1972, pg 17)

Thank you for the kind word
I am still new here.

Rex071404 22:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Help! the pro-Kerry crowd has "protected" John Kerry
And now they are saying "vote" (which I do not understand the method) and have frozen in place the pro-Kerry mush I have been up against for (2) days.

Rex071404 04:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 Request for Comment
I'm just giving you a heads up that I've posted a Request for Comment in regards to user Rex071404 and his conduct on John Kerry, Talk:John Kerry and the user pages of numerous people. I may object to his behaviour, but please don't regard this as an attempt to silence the anti-Kerry crowd. As I posted on the Kerry talk page earlier, while I think that Rex's version was extremely POV, I don't think the current version is that much better. Would you be prepared to consider calling in someone from outside to try and sort this out? Ambivalenthysteria 07:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've responded to your outside view on the RfC talk page. I generally try to stay out of disputed articles generally, unless I'm mediating on them, but it seems I've gotten caught up in this one. I don't know whether Rex hasn't received enough guidance - numerous people have suggested how he might clean up his act, both inside and outside of the dispute, and as of now, I don't think he's even stopped shouting.

I don't really agree that it's censorship of outside views. After all, you seem to hold the same views about the article as Rex, and yet I don't think anyone's calling for your head! I can deal with POV warriors who behave themselves, like Herschelkrustofsky, but when people start ranting on user and talk pages like he has, and don't seem to respond to anything said, one starts to wonder what to do with them.

As I've mentioned somewhere else, I think the best course right now would be to pull in a mediator (geez, this looks bad...a candidate for member of the MC, and having to use them at the same time), and try and work this out piece by piece.

Finally, I don't think Neutrality's handled himself wonderfully on this either, but at least he's a wee bit more responsive to criticism. Ambivalenthysteria 08:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

rex reply

 * Ok, but I don't see any link to have started entering data on a page for that. This is how they beat me to it and made me the issue on a user Rfc, rather than the page being the issue as I had requested. Also, my edit links on my personla discussio page o not seem to work right. Try editing the last section and the 2nd to last opnes instead. The only way to get to the bottom of my page is via the master edit tab at the top of the page. The sectional edit html links do not work rightRex071404 06:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Admin boilerplate
The questions you ask on rfa are very useful to me; thanks. I wanted to suggest an addition--please have one question specifically about conflicts (perhaps "Have you ever been in any conflicts over editing in the past? Have other users ever caused you stress? If so, how did you respond?"). That, IMO, is one of the key things about being an admin, and isn't really adressed by any of the current questions. Best wishes for the future, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:11, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation
I protected it because protection was requested at Requests for page protection. According to SEWilco (who has been reverting the article), there is information being "deleted and meanings reversed by multiple anonymous editors". Angela. 03:09, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please Help!
Please take notice that user Neutrality is following me around this Wiki, changing questions I pose and entering misleading notations. It appears that he has taken too strong of a personal interest in the controversy of this dialog. See my notes (and the evidence of what he is doing) here: Requests_for_mediation#User:Rex071404_and_User:Gamaliel. Any advice or assistance you could give would be appreciated. Rex071404 04:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cecropia/Archive 5


text:
Santa Clara River Valley

The Santa Clara River Valley is a rural, mainly agricultural, valley in Ventura County, California that has been given the moniker Heritage Valley by the namesake tourism bureau. The valley includes the communities of Santa Paula, Fillmore, Piru and the national historic landmark of Rancho Camulos. Named for the Santa Clara River, which winds through the valley before emptying into the Pacific Ocean between the cities of Ventura and Oxnard, the tourist bureau describes it as ".... Southern California's last pristine agricultural valley nestled along the banks of the free-flowing Santa Clara River."

Geography
The Santa Clara River Valley is bordered by the Topatopa Mountains, Los Padres National Forest, and Sespe Condor Sanctuary to the north and the Santa Susana Mountains to the south. The valley stretches from the boundary of northwest Los Angeles County and the northern Santa Clarita Valley on the east to the Oxnard Plain on the west marked by South Mountain on the south bank of the river. The Santa Clarita Valley is part of the upper watershed of the river.

Climate
The valley has been called one of the "most dangerous wind and fire corridors in Southern California." It forms a connection between the high desert and the coast, which serves as a "wind-tunnel-like-corridor" for funneling Santa Ana winds, which spread wildfires. This served to spread the Maria Fire, one of the 2019 California wildfires. This valley has also suffered through the Saddleridge Fire in 2019, the Creek Fire and the Thomas Fire in 2017, and the Sayre Fire in 2008.

Floods
Further information: Great Flood of 1862

The failure and near complete collapse of the St. Francis Dam took place in the middle of the night on March 12, 1928. The dam was holding a full reservoir of 12.4 billion gallons (47 billion liters) of water that surged down San Francisquito Canyon and emptied into the Santa Clara River, flowing down the river valley to the ocean.

History
A footpath through the valley was the only route linking the San Fernando and San Buenaventura missions for 18th-century Spanish missionaries. Thomas Bard launched a campaign in the 1870s to build a road through the valley as he wanted to connect the new Hueneme wharf with ore mines in Inyo County

The valley is an exception to the post-war urban development that has almost entirely eliminated citrus cultivation throughout most of Southern California.

Transportation

 * Route 126 - the main E-W highway serving the valley.
 * Route 150 - a minor E-W highway connecting Ojai to the valley.
 * Route 23 - a minor N-S highway connecting Fillmore to the Conejo Valley.
 * Santa Paula Branch Line - the railway corridor through the valley, mostly used for excursions.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Santa Clara River Valley


text:
Batting order (baseball)

In baseball, the batting order or batting lineup is the sequence in which the members of the offense take their turns in batting against the pitcher. The batting order is the main component of a team's offensive strategy. In Major League Baseball, the batting order is set by the manager, who before the game begins must present the home plate umpire with two copies of his team's lineup card, a card on which a team's starting batting order is recorded. The home plate umpire keeps one copy of the lineup card of each team, and gives the second copy to the opposing manager. Once the home plate umpire gives the lineup cards to the opposing managers, the batting lineup is final and a manager can make changes only under the Official Baseball Rules governing substitutions. If a team bats out of order, it is a violation of baseball's rules and subject to penalty.

According to The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, a team has "batted around" when each of the nine batters in the team's lineup has made a plate appearance, and the first batter is coming up again during a single inning. Dictionary.com, however, defines "bat around" as "to have every player in the lineup take a turn at bat during a single inning." It is not an official statistic. Opinions differ as to whether nine batters must get an at-bat, or if the opening batter must bat again for "batting around" to have occurred.

In modern American baseball, some batting positions have nicknames: "leadoff" for first, "cleanup" for fourth, and "last" for ninth. Others are known by the ordinal numbers or the term #-hole (3rd place hitter would be 3-hole). In similar fashion, the third, fourth, and fifth batters are often collectively referred to as the "heart" or "meat" of the batting order, while the seventh, eighth, and ninth batters are called the "bottom of the lineup," a designation generally referring both to their hitting position and to their typical lack of offensive prowess.

At the start of each inning, the batting order resumes where it left off in the previous inning; it does not reset to start with the #1 hitter again. If the current batter did not finish his at-bat during the previous inning (because another baserunner becomes the third out, by being picked-off or caught stealing), he will lead off the next inning with the pitch count reset to 0-0. While this ensures that the players all bat roughly the same number of times, the game will almost always end before the last cycle is complete, so that the #1 hitter (for example) almost always has one plate appearance more than the #9 hitter, which is a significant enough difference to affect tactical decisions. This is not a perfect correlation to each batter's official count of "at-bats," as a sacrifice (bunt or fly) that advances a runner, or a walk (base on balls or hit by pitch) is not recorded as an "at-bat" as these are largely out of the batter's control, and does not hurt his batting average (base hits per at-bats.)

Development of the set batting order
Early forms of baseball or rounders from the mid 19th century did not require a fixed batting order; any player who was not on base could be called upon to bat. The concept of a set batting order is said to have been invented by Alexander Cartwright, who also instituted rules such as the foul ball and tagging the runner (as opposed to pegging him with the ball), and devised the shortstop position. In the early days of baseball, the rules did not require that the batting order be announced before game time. This permitted strategic decisions regarding batting order to occur while the game was in progress. For example, Cap Anson was known to wait to see if the first two men got on base in the first inning. If they did not, he would wait and hit in the next inning. However, in the 1880s, organized baseball began mandating that the batting order be disclosed before the first pitch.

For example, Rule 36 ("The Batsman's Position--Order of Batting") in The Playing Rules of Professional Base Ball Clubs of 1896 stated the following: "The Batsmen must take their positions within the batsmen's lines ... in the order in which they are named in the batting order, which batting order must be submitted by the Captains of the opposing teams to the Umpire before the game, and this batting order must be followed except in the case of a substitute player, in which case the substitute must take the place of the original player in the batting order.  After the first inning the first striker in each inning shall be the batsman whose name follows that of the last man who completed his turn ... in the preceding inning."

Contrast with cricket
In cricket, the batting order is generally fixed so that players are sure of their role within the team, but there is no obligation to submit a definitive batting order and stick to it. A batsman can be "promoted" to a higher spot (or conversely, demoted to a lower one) in the batting order according to the team's wishes.

The idea of a "revolving" batting order is unique to baseball, in which the on-deck batter at the time the final out is made in one inning becomes the lead-off batter (unless the current batter had not been struck-out or put a ball in play, in which case he returns as the lead-off batter with a 0-0 reset pitch count) in the next inning (unless his spot is taken by a pinch-hitter).

In the shorter form of cricket, there is only one innings per side, while in the longer form each side bats a maximum of two times. In a typical innings of this latter form, all eleven players on the team will have a chance to bat, and the innings finishes when 10 players are out. In the team's second innings, the batting order is usually maintained, but the team can make any changes it desires.

As in baseball, many batting order configurations are possible, but a standard order might be:

 * Two opening batsmen - able players who can negotiate a typically difficult period of play.
 * Four middle order batsmen - specialist batsmen who may be more attacking.
 * A wicket-keeper - the equivalent of the catcher, who is also expected to contribute with the bat.
 * Four bowlers - the equivalent of pitchers; players who may or may not have any ability with the bat.

The concept of a batting order in baseball is "profoundly democratic; no matter how good a hitter you are, you have to wait your turn." In that respect, although baseball, like cricket, "may have begun as a gentlemen's game," Americans gravitated toward baseball as a better embodiment of the country's egalitarian ideal, and as a symbol of cultural as well as political independence from the British colonial legacy.
 * The closest equivalent in cricket would be the 20% limit on the number of overs (sets of consecutive pitches) that a player can deliver in a one-day game; these force teams to have at least 5 players who can bowl parts of the inning.

However, it should also be remembered that in cricket a single innings lasts hours or even days, and there are periods in which batting can be markedly easier or more difficult. A related factor is that a single ball is used in an innings for around 80 overs (approximately 5 hours of play). At the beginning of an innings, therefore, when bowlers are fresh and the ball is hard, it would be appreciably more challenging for the non-specialist batsmen to make an impact. Conversely, if such a player bats when the ball is old and the bowlers are tired, he can thrive, and this can often be a great source of pleasure to spectators, as insult is added to injury for the other side.

Finally, in cricket, there is no such thing as a designated hitter, so even if a bowler has no batting ability, he will still be required to bat, usually as the last man in the order.

Batter #1
The first player in the batting order is known as the leadoff hitter. The leadoff batter is traditionally an individual with a high on-base percentage, plate discipline, bat control, good speed, and the ability to steal bases. His goal is to ensure the team has baserunners when the later, more powerful hitters come to bat. Once on base, his main goal is to get into scoring position (that is, 2nd or 3rd base) as quickly as possible, either through steals, hit and run plays or intelligent baserunning decisions, and then on to score.

His need for a high on-base percentage (OBP) exceeds that of the other lineup spots. Because leadoff hitters are selected primarily for their speed and ability to reach base, they are typically not power hitters, but contact hitters. Leadoff hitters typically hit mostly singles and doubles and draw walks to get on base. However, speed is not essential, as was shown by Wade Boggs, but it is highly desired among leadoff hitters.

However, today's model for a leadoff hitter developed only gradually. An early "job description" for a leadoff hitter by baseball pioneer Henry Chadwick in 1867 advised only, "Let your first striker always be the coolest hand of the nine." By 1898, though, a Sporting Life article noted, "It is customary to have a small, active fellow who can hit, run and steal bases, and also worry a pitcher into a preliminary base on balls, as a leader in the list."

Examples of classic leadoff hitters are Phil Rizzuto, Richie Ashburn, Maury Wills, Lou Brock, Pete Rose, Rod Carew, Tim Raines, and Ichiro Suzuki, with some having somewhat more power (Dick McAuliffe, Lou Whitaker, Rickey Henderson, Paul Molitor, Derek Jeter, Carlos Gómez, Gerardo Parra, Johnny Damon).

The term “leadoff hitter” can be used interchangeably to describe not only the first batter on the lineup card, but also the first batter up in any particular inning. For example, if, in the second inning, the fifth batter in the lineup card is the first batter up, it will be said that he is leading off or that he is the leadoff batter for that particular inning.

#2
The second batter is usually a contact hitter with the ability to bunt or sacrifice a baserunner over or get a hit. His main goal is to move the leadoff man into scoring position and to avoid grounding into double plays. Managers often like to have a left-handed hitter bat second because of the potential gap in the infield defense caused by the first baseman holding the leadoff batter. As early as 1892, it was recognized that a left-handed hitter in the second spot would make it easier for a man on base to steal second. On a very good team this batter can have characteristics of both a leadoff hitter and a power hitter (Manny Machado, Curt Flood, Joe Morgan, Christian Yelich, Robin Yount, Alan Trammell, Ryne Sandberg, Aaron Judge, Freddie Freeman), in some such cases abandoning the advantage of having a left-hand hitter in favor of a good right-handed hitter.

#3
The third batter, in the three-hole, is generally the best all-around hitter on the team, often hitting for a high batting average but not necessarily very fast. Part of his job is to reach base for the cleanup hitter, and part of it is to help drive in baserunners himself. Third-place hitters are best known for "keeping the inning alive". However, in recent years, some managers have tended to put their best slugger in this position.

Typically the greatest hitters for a combination of power and OBP on their teams bat third, as is shown by the use of such hitters as Rogers Hornsby, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn, Willie Mays, Chipper Jones, Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, Carl Yastrzemski, Duke Snider, Albert Pujols, Joey Votto, Andrew McCutchen, Miguel Cabrera, Ken Griffey Jr., Ryan Braun, Josh Hamilton, Evan Longoria, José Bautista, Edwin Encarnación, Mike Trout, and Hank Aaron in this position in the lineup. Even without the combination of extreme power (Yogi Berra, Al Kaline, George Brett) or high batting average (Ernie Banks, Harmon Killebrew, Johnny Bench, Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson) this batting position contains an inordinate number of hitters who eventually become members of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

#4
The fourth player in the batting order is known as the cleanup hitter, also known as the cleanup spot and in modern baseball is almost always one of the best hitters on the team, often the one with the most power and ability to drive in runs with extra-base hits (double, triple, or home run). Baseball managers tend to place hitters who are most likely to reach base ahead of the clean-up man, so that the fourth batter can "clean" the bases by driving these baserunners home to score runs. His main goal is to drive in runs, although he is expected to score runs as well. Hitting cleanup requires an exceptional level of talent, and the ability to deliver big hits in important situations (such as the bases loaded with two out). Examples of #4 hitters include Edgar Martínez, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Eddie Mathews, Norm Cash, Willie McCovey, Billy Williams, Tony Pérez, Fred McGriff, Eddie Murray, Daniel Murphy,  Alex Rodriguez, Prince Fielder, David Ortiz, and Ryan Howard.

The theory behind the cleanup hitter is that, at the beginning of the game, if at least one of the first three batters reaches base with a single-base hit or walk, a home run will result in two or more runs rather than just one (a "solo" home run). If all three players reach base, thereby loading the bases, the cleanup hitter has the chance to hit a grand slam, scoring four runs. But even without the grand slam, this batter can extend an inning with a high batting average and frequent walks.

However, since home runs were a rarity before 1920, the concept of slotting a home run hitter fourth was slow to develop. Regardless, the need for a good run producer in that position was recognized from the early days in baseball history, as demonstrated by player-manager Cap Anson generally penciling his name there. As power came to play a larger role in the game, the tendency to bat home run hitters fourth developed accordingly. In 1904, sportswriter Tim Murnane stated unequivocally that "The heavy hitter of the team is located at the fourth place."

The #3 and #4 hitters can often be switched in roles. For example, the 2011 Detroit Tigers had Miguel Cabrera as their #4 hitter but moved him to the #3 hitter after acquiring Prince Fielder as a free agent before the 2012 season.

#5, #6
The fifth and sixth (and sometimes seventh) batters have traditionally been RBI men, with the main goal of driving runners home, especially with sacrifice flies. The 3rd, 4th and 5th hitters in the lineup are called the "heart of the order", signifying their collective ability to get on base, hit for power and drive in runs. Modern sabermetric baseball theories suggests that even the 5th and 6th batters should have high on-base percentages, though this approach has not been universally adopted. The fifth batter is usually a team's second-best power hitter, and his purpose is often to "protect" the clean-up hitter in the batting order. He is expected to pose enough of a threat that the opposing team refrains from intentionally walking the clean-up hitter in potential scoring situations. The sixth hitter serves as a backup to the fifth hitter in case he fails to score runs or to drive more in himself if another scoring opportunity presents itself.

#7, #8
The seventh and eighth batters are often not as powerful as the earlier batters, and do not have as high a batting average. They are often players who are in the lineup more because of their defensive ability (typically catcher, second baseman or shortstop) than their ability as hitters. They are still expected to produce (as is the case for any regular starter), but they have less pressure in those spots. The main pressure on the eighth hitter comes when there are two outs: in this case, he must battle the pitcher to get on base so that the ninth hitter can come up. That way, even if the ninth hitter gets out, the top of the order comes up next. Very often the #7 hitter is a catcher, commonly the slowest baserunner on a team whose lack of speed would contribute to a large number of double plays higher in the order even if he is a good hitter (Bill Freehan). The eighth batter is often a good contact hitter, and can be used as a back-up #2 hitter. In leagues without designated hitters (DHs), the catcher often bats eighth, as they are often employed for their defensive skills and handling of the pitching staff, and tend to have a relatively low batting average. However, this is by no means always the case. In a situation where the pitcher is batting in the #9 slot, #8 hitters are sometimes intentionally walked to get to the pitcher's spot in the #9 hole; however, with two outs the opposing pitcher is expected to battle the #8 hitter, so in the event of an out the pitcher leads off the following inning.

#9
The nine hole is traditionally meant for people that struggle to bat.

In leagues where the DH rule is not in effect, the starting pitcher almost always fills the ninth spot, although relief pitchers may occupy a different spot due to a double switch. If there is a man on first or second base with fewer than two outs when the ninth hitter is up, he almost always bunts. However, a notable alternative exists to this, in which the pitcher or weakest hitter actually bats in the 8th slot, and another player with decent OBP and speed bats in the 9th slot, thus creating a kind of second leadoff hitter, at the bottom of the lineup, that loops to the top of the order afterwards. This has been used sparingly in the major leagues, but was notably employed by St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa in the second half of the 1998 baseball season, and again in August 2007 and in 2008, and by Milwaukee Brewers manager Ned Yost in 2008. Chicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon placed the pitcher in the #8 spot during the beginning of the 2017 Cubs season.

Bragan's brainstorm
On August 18, 1956, major league manager Bobby Bragan placed his best hitter in the leadoff position and the remainder of his lineup in descending batting average order. In his 1966 book, Percentage Baseball, Earnshaw Cook claimed that Bragan's lineup would result in 1 to 2 more wins per season. A computer simulation demonstrated the superiority of Bragan's lineup.

title: Batting order (baseball)


text:
Richard Taylor (skater)

Richard Taylor (6 July 1981 – 8 August 2004) was a Welsh inline skating and freestyle skiing champion.

Taylor, from Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, learned to skate because he wanted to become a stuntman. He turned professional at the age of 15 after winning the World Amateur International Inline Skate Series (IISS) and qualifying 6th in the Professional Competition in Amsterdam 1996. He went on to win the UK National In-Line skating championship twice. Taylor had a large fanbase, especially in Europe. He also competed in the British Freestyle Skiing and Snowboarding Championships in Les Deux Alpes in March 2004, winning the Big Air ski title and was about to join the Line Skis Professional Team that winter season.

Death
He collided with a concrete lamp-post while skating near his home on 3 August 2004 and suffered a skull fracture that caused a coma. He also broke both legs in the accident. When he failed to regain consciousness, his parents on 8 August 2004 consented to his life support machine being turned off. His parents Gaynor and the now late John Taylor set up the Richard Taylor Memorial Fund to raise funds to have the Skatepark at the Knap, Barry upgraded and dedicated to his memory.

title: Richard Taylor (skater)


text: User talk:80.42.71.188

title: User talk:80.42.71.188


text:
Picardy third

A Picardy third, (tierce picarde) also known as a Picardy cadence or Tierce de Picardie, is a major chord of the tonic at the end of a musical section that is either modal or in a minor key. This is achieved by raising the third of the expected minor triad by a semitone to create a major triad, as a form of resolution.

For example, instead of a cadence ending on an A minor chord containing the notes A, C, and E, a Picardy third ending would consist of an A major chord containing the notes A, C♯, and E. The minor third between the A and C of the A minor chord has become a major third in the Picardy third chord. Philosopher Peter Kivy writes:"Even in instrumental music, the picardy third retains its expressive quality: it is the 'happy third'. ... Since at least the beginning of the seventeenth century, it is no longer enough to describe it as a resolution to the more consonant triad; it is a resolution to the happier triad as well. ... The picardy third is absolute music's happy ending. Furthermore, I hypothesize that in gaining this expressive property of happiness or contentment, the picardy third augmented its power as the perfect, most stable cadential chord, being both the most emotionally consonant chord, so to speak, as well as the most musically consonant."

According to Deryck Cooke, "Western composers, expressing the 'rightness' of happiness by means of a major third, expressed the 'wrongness' of grief by means of the minor third, and for centuries, pieces in a minor key had to have a 'happy ending' – a final major chord (the 'tierce de Picardie') or a bare fifth."

As a harmonic device, the Picardy third originated in Western music in the Renaissance era.

Illustration

What makes this a Picardy cadence is shown by the red natural sign. Instead of the expected B-flat (which would make the chord minor) the accidental gives us a B natural, making the chord major.

Listen to the final four measures of "I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say" with and without  Picardy third (harmony by R. Vaughan Williams).

Name
The term was first used in 1768 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, although the practice was used in music centuries earlier. Rousseau argues that “the term is used jokingly by musicians”, suggesting it might have never had an academic basis, a tangible origin, and might have sprung out of idiomatic jokes in France in the first half of the 18th century. But his attempt at explaining why this term was used remains unconvincing: “the [practice] remained longer in Church Music, and, consequently, in Picardy, where there is music in a lot of cathedrals and churches”. Robert Hall hypothesizes that, instead of deriving from the Picardy region of France, it comes from the Old French word "picart", meaning "pointed" or "sharp" in northern dialects, and thus refers to the musical sharp that transforms the minor third of the chord into a major third.

The few Old French dictionaries in which the word picart (fem. picarde) appears give “aigu, piquant” as a definition. While piquant is quite straightforward—meaning spiky, pointy, sharp—aigu is much more ambiguous, because it has the inconvenience of having at least three meanings: “high-pitched/treble”, “sharp” as in a sharp blade, and “acute”. Considering the definitions also state the term can refer to a nail ("clou") (read masonry nail), a pike or a spit, it seems aigu might be there used to mean "pointy" / “sharp”. However, not “sharp” in the desired sense, the one relating to a raised pitch, but in the sense of a sharp blade, which would thus completely discredit the word picart as the origin for the Picardy third, which also seems unlikely considering the possibility that aigu was also used to refer to a high(er)-pitched note, and a treble sound, thus perfectly explaining the use of the word picarde to designate a chord whose third is higher than it should be.

Not to be ignored is the existence of the proverb "ressembler le Picard" ("to resemble an inhabitant of Picard") which meant “éviter le danger” (to avoid danger). This would link back to the humorous character of the term, that would have thus been used to mock supposedly cowardly composers who used the Picardy third as a way to avoid the gravity of the minor third, and perhaps the backlash they would have faced from the academic elite and the Church by going against the time’s scholasticism.

Ultimately, the origin of the name "tierce picarde" will likely never be known for sure, but what evidence there is seems to point towards these idiomatic jokes and proverbs as well as the literal meaning of picarde as high-pitched and treble.

Use
In medieval music, such as that of Machaut, neither major nor minor thirds were considered stable intervals, and so cadences were typically on open fifths. As a harmonic device, the Picardy third originated in Western music in the Renaissance era. By the early seventeenth century, its use had become established in practice in music that was both sacred (as in the Schütz example above) and secular: Examples of the Picardy third can be found throughout the works of J. S. Bach and his contemporaries, as well as earlier composers such as Thoinot Arbeau and John Blow. Many of Bach's minor key chorales end with a cadence featuring a final chord in the major:

In his book Music and Sentiment, Charles Rosen shows how Bach makes use of the fluctuations between minor and major to convey feeling in his music. Rosen singles out the Allemande from the keyboard Partita No. 1 in B-flat, BWV 825, to exemplify "the range of expression then possible, the subtle variety of inflections of sentiment contained with a well-defined framework". The following passage from the first half of the piece starts in F major, but then, in bar 15, "Turning to the minor mode with a chromatic bass and then back to the major for the cadence adds still new intensity."

Many passages in Bach's religious works follow a similar expressive trajectory involving major and minor keys that may sometimes take on a symbolic significance. For example, David Humphreys (1983, p. 23) sees the "languishing chromatic inflections, syncopations and appoggiaturas" of the following episode from the St Anne Prelude for organ, BWV 552 from Clavier-Übung III as "showing Christ in his human aspect. Moreover the poignant angularity of the melody, and in particular the sudden turn to the minor, are obvious expressions of pathos, introduced as a portrayal of his Passion and crucifixion":

Notably, Bach's two books of The Well-Tempered Clavier, composed in 1722 and 1744 respectively, differ considerably in their application of Picardy thirds, which occur unambiguously at the end of all of the minor-mode preludes and all but one of the minor-mode fugues in the first book. In the second book, however, fourteen of the minor-mode movements end on a minor chord, or occasionally, on a unison. Manuscripts vary in many of these cases.

While the device was used less frequently during the Classical era, examples can be found in works by Haydn and Mozart, such as the slow movement of Mozart's Piano Concerto 21, K. 467:

Philip Radcliffe says that the dissonant harmonies here "have a vivid foretaste of Schumann and the way they gently melt into the major key is equally prophetic of Schubert". At the end of his opera Don Giovanni, Mozart uses the switch from minor to major to considerable dramatic effect: "As the Don disappears, screaming in agony, the orchestra settles in on a chord of D major. The change of mode offers no consolation, though: it is more like the tierce de Picardie, the 'Picardy third' (a famous misnomer derived from tierce picarte, 'sharp third'), the major chord that was used to end solemn organ preludes and toccatas in the minor keys in days of old."

The fierce C minor drama that pervades the Allegro con brio ed appassionato movement from Beethoven's last Piano Sonata, Op. 111, dissipates as the prevailing tonality turns to the major in its closing bars "in conjunction with a concluding diminuendo to end the movement, somewhat unexpectedly, on a note of alleviation or relief".

The switch from minor to major was a device used frequently and to great expressive effect by Schubert in both his songs and instrumental works. In his book on the song cycle Winterreise, singer Ian Bostridge speaks of the "quintessentially Schubertian effect in the final verse" of the opening song "Gute Nacht", "as the key shifts magically from minor to major". Susan Wollenberg describes how the first movement of Schubert's Fantasia in F minor for piano four-hands, D 940, "ends in an extended Tierce de Picardie". The subtle change from minor to major occurs in the bass at the beginning of bar 103:

In the Romantic era, those of Chopin's nocturnes that are in a minor key almost always end with a Picardy third. A notable structural employment of this device occurs with the finale of the Tchaikovsky Fifth Symphony, where the motto theme makes its first appearance in the major mode.

Interpretation
According to James Bennighof: "Replacing an expected final minor chord with a major chord in this way is a centuries-old technique—the raised third of the chord, in this case G♯ rather than G natural, was first dubbed a 'Picardy third' (tierce de Picarde) in print by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1797 ... to express [the idea that] hopefulness might seem unremarkable, or even clichéd."

Notable examples

 * The Christian hymn tune "Picardy", often sung with the text "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence", is based on a French carol from the 17th century or earlier. It is in a minor key, but the final chord is changed to major on the final verse.
 * (Unknown) – "Coventry Carol" (written not later than 1591). Modern harmonisations of this carol include the famously distinctive finishing major Picardy third in the melody, but the original 1591 harmonisation went much further with this device, including Picardy thirds at seven of the twelve tonic cadences notated, including all three such cadences in its chorus.
 * The Band – "This Wheel's On Fire", composed by Rick Danko and Bob Dylan, and appearing on both Music From Big Pink and The Basement Tapes, is in A minor and resolves to an A major chord at the end of the chorus.
 * The Beatles – "I'll Be Back", from the soundtrack album of the film A Hard Day's Night. Ian MacDonald speaks of the way "Lennon is harmonised by McCartney in shifting major and minor thirds, resolving on a Picardy third at the end of the first and second verses".
 * Beethoven – Hammerklavier, slow movement
 * Brahms – Piano Trio No. 1, scherzo
 * Sarah Connor – "From Sarah with Love", final cadence
 * Coots and Gillespie, "You Go to My Head". Ted Gioia describes the song as starting "in the major key, but from the second bar onward, Mr. Coots seems intent on creating a feverish dream quality tending more to the minor mode" before finally reaching a cadence in the major.
 * Dvořák – New World Symphony, finale
 * Bob Dylan – "Ain't Talkin', the final song on Modern Times (2006), is played in E minor but ends (and ends the album) with a ringing E major chord.
 * Roberta Flack – "Killing Me Softly with His Song" ending and resolution. According to Flack: "My classical background made it possible for me to try a number of things with [the song's arrangement]. I changed parts of the chord structure and chose to end on a major chord. [The song] wasn't written that way."
 * Oliver Nelson – "Stolen Moments", from the 1961 album The Blues and the Abstract Truth; Ted Gioia sees "the brief resolve into the tonic major in bar four of the melody" as "a clever hook... one of the many interesting twists" in this jazz composition.
 * Joni Mitchell – "Tin Angel", from Clouds (1969); the Picardy third lands on the lyric "I found someone to love today". According to Katherine Monk, the Picardy third in this song, "suggests Mitchell is internally aware of romantic love's inability to provide true happiness but, gosh darn it, it's a nice illusion all the same."
 * Donna Summer – “I Feel Love” (1977) alternates throughout with an accompaniment of "synth swirls: major and minor; it’s basically a version of what Franz Schubert did for his whole career."
 * The Fireballs – "Vaquero", This (1961) Tex-Mex instrumental composed by George Tomsco and Norman Petty is clearly in the key of E minor, and yet ends with a ringing E Major chord."
 * Hall & Oates – "Maneater"; each verse has a Picardy third in the middle, moving from a major seventh in the second measure to a flat second in the third measure, and finally ending on a major first in the fourth measure. In the song's original key of B minor, this is an A major chord to a C major chord, ending on a B major chord.
 * The Turtles – "Happy Together" (1967) alternates between major and minor keys with the last chord of the outro featuring a Picardy third.
 * The Zombies - "Time of the Season", from the 1968 album Odessey and Oracle, is in E minor with each chorus ending on an E major chord.

title: Picardy third


text:
Cryptographic Module Validation Program

The Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) is a joint American and Canadian security accreditation program for cryptographic modules. The program is available to any vendors who seek to have their products certified for use by the U.S. Government and regulated industries (such as financial and health-care institutions) that collect, store, transfer, share and disseminate "sensitive, but not classified" information. All of the tests under the CMVP are handled by third-party laboratories that are accredited as Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratories by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Product certifications under the CMVP are performed in accordance with the requirements of FIPS 140-3.

The CMVP was established by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) of the Government of Canada in July 1995.

The Cryptographic Algorithm Validation Program (CAVP), which provides guidelines for validation testing for FIPS approved and NIST recommended cryptographic algorithms and components of algorithms, is a prerequisite for CMVP.

title: Cryptographic Module Validation Program