text:
Talk:Drum and bugle corps (classic)

Untitled
Fair warning that I intend to do a significant revert on this article in the near future (i.e. tomorrow, Wednesday September 29th 2004). A "drum and bugle corps" is a "drum and bugle corps", not a "DCI and DCA corps". While drum and bugle corps are certainly evolutions of military drum and bugle corps, they are commonly referred to worldwide as "drum and bugle corps".

A lot of the update which made this change is highly antagonistic. Mention of the failure of the Combine and the formation of DCI for that should definitely be made, but a lot of the 'conspiracy' business about manufacturers et al is truly unbelievable and is likely to get hacked to pieces.

My creds: My father brought drum corps to the United Kingdom over 30 years ago. I am active in the UK DC/WG movement.

MattJ 22:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reverted the name change (so "DCI and DCA corps" now redirects to "drum and bugle corps"). Please do not enter into a revert war! I will update the article tomorrow.

MattJ 23:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankenstein problem: Drum and bugle corps and Drum & bugle corps are currently not the same content. Probably the most elegant solution will be a disambiguation page at Drum and bugle corps leading to pages serving "modern" DCI-style drum corps and "classic" drum corps. I intend to do the following:

 * Make Drum and bugle corps a disambiguation page only, forming equal disambiguation to:
 * Drum and bugle corps (classic) -- to contain the content right now at Drum & bugle corps
 * Drum and bugle corps (modern) -- to contain the content right now at Drum and bugle corps
 * Drum & bugle corps will become a redirect to the disambiguation page Drum and bugle corps. Having an ampersand in a title is a really bad idea anyway (technical reasons and "principle of least surprise".
 * DCI and DCA corps will become a direct redirect to Drum and bugle corps (modern). I may put it up as a candidate for deletion since I'm not convinced anyone refers to corps by that title, as well as it being not particularly helpful, c.f. DCUK, DCH and other movements.

MattJ 23:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's good to see the contributions thus far to the drum and bugle corps Wikipedia article. I contributed a few paragraphs myself a couple months ago and just took another look today. I was a little shocked at the transformation of the article since I last saw it! I have some issues with what has become of it.

First, at a most basic and irrefutable level, the article has become unwieldy. It desperately needs some structural revisions and section headings. I would be happy to work with anyone else who's interested in achieving this.

Second, the refutable stuff. While there has undoubtedly been a wealth of information added to the article, I don't like the direction it's taken. I marched in a DCI drum corps (although after reading the new contributions, I don't know if I'm even allowed to call it that anymore) for 4 years, aging out in 2000. So I'd like to think that I know at least a little bit about it. I'll be the first to admit that I know more about the current state of drum corps than its history. Some others obviously know a lot about the history. That's great; I think maybe we could combine our knowledge into an excellent article about drum corps.

The fundamental problem with the article is that I have no idea what audience it's supposed to be appealing to. What kind of information do you think someone is looking for when s/he looks up "drum corps" (or any variation thereof) in the Wikipedia? I find it unlikely that most people are looking for a grueling history of the warring factions within the activity. That's what is presented. It is an uninviting mishmash of information that is not giving anyone who reads it a good idea of what the heck drum corps is. For sure, what has been contributed deserves a place in the article, but it's forcing the reader to jump straight into the fire. Only someone who already knows a fair amount about drum corps would care (or even understand) what is being talking about. That is NOT an assumption that can be made when writing an article for general consumption. You cannot assume anything about the knowledge of your readers. Think big picture. Let's start at the beginning - and the best place to begin is probably not with a history lesson about the dividing forces of the activity.

So, MattJ, you say some people have started a revert war? Can we join forces to try to write a great article about drum corps?

lazytiger 04:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Man, only now after reading and rereading the article(s) a few times am I starting to make sense of all this "old" vs. "new" drum corps stuff. ...and it still doesn't make sense. I marched drum corps for four years and have been a fan for over 10 and I NEVER heard anything about this schism before it reared its ugly head in the Wikipedia of all places.

I dunno... at the risk of pissing someone off, I'll say it anyway: Someone is really living in the past here. A Wikipedia article about drum corps is NOT the place to be bringing all this up. There does not need to be any separation of what is "true" (the VFW et al era) drum corps and what is "fake" (apparently DCI falls into this category). To me, this is a real simple situation: The "true" drum corps movement belongs under the HISTORY section of the article, and DCI, DCA, DCUK, etc. should be presented as the modern face of drum corps - the one that should be explained to a total newbie coming to the Wikipedia trying to find out what drum corps is. THAT should be our audience. THAT is the angle that we should approach the article from, in my opinion. Parallels should be drawn from modern marching bands to drum corps, not historic drum corps to "new wave" drum corps. All that's going to do is confuse people (even ones that actually know something about drum corps already) and make them wonder what kind of loonies are involved in this "drum corps" thing (or at least are writing the Wikipedia article).

Anyone agree or disagree? I don't want to spend time on the article until I know there's a consensus and people's work won't be torn apart by dissenters.

lazytiger 04:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looking through the revision history of "drum and bugle corps" and "drum & bugle corps", I see that two people, catherineburr and an anonymous person (IP 69.211.128.96) are largely responsible for all the new content. We all know the strengths and weaknesses of the Wikipedia. I think this anonymous person is one out of a ridiculously small group of people who subscribes to this conspiracy theory on modern drum corps. I understand that the objection is at such a fundamental level that it would in fact require two different articles to explain two totally different activities, but the objection is nonsense. It's making me twitch. This person should not be writing an article about drum corps, as s/he does not at all represent what 99.9% of drum corps fans believe, or indeed, are even aware of. This person needs to crawl back under their rock and stay there.

I am all for the inclusion of the historical information that has been presented, but it is just that: history. The conspiracy baloney needs to be eliminated, or at the very least should only be a footnote in the article, not a dominant feature. /rant

Lazytiger 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, this article and discussion page don't seem to be too active. That's a good thing, since that probably means not many people have read the article, either. I've rationalized a bit, and I think I have a good solution to our problems. Since no one is in this discussion to tell me otherwise, I intend on implementing my plan and writing new articles to the extent that my knowledge of the subject allows. However, I will not actually commit these plans to the Wikipedia until I have new material to contribute. I plan on fully integrating the existing content, subject to my comments below. By no means will my writing being definitive; I just want to establish the proper framework to which I hope others will contribute.

1. "Drum and bugle corps" will be the main article. 2. "Drum & bugle corps" will be a redirect to "Drum and bugle corps". 3. The "DCI and DCA corps" redirect will be eliminated; it never should have existed. 4. There will NOT be any "drum and bugle corps (modern)" or "... (classic)" articles. 5. Rather, "Drum and bugle corps" will be an article that focuses almost exclusively on the history of the activity, scarcely mentioning DCI or DCA beyond their due places in the history of drum corps and prominent links to their respective articles. 6. The "Drum Corps International" and "Drum Corps Associates" articles will be the appropriate places to discuss those respective activities. They will become full, comprehensive articles discussing the "modern" drum corps activity. 7. Any contributions about "modern" drum corps activities in other parts of the world should be added to the DCI article, or if the author wishes, as separate new article(s). Mention them in the "Drum and bugle corps" article only in the same capacity that DCI and DCA are mentioned. 8. Any opinionated or loaded commentary (explicitly including the conspiracy theories) will be eliminated from the articles. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article; there is absolutely NO room for opinion or bad informal writing. Encyclopedia articles are written in a 100% formal, factual manner appealing to the lowest common denominator. Assume the reader knows nothing about the subject. The formality is less important than the factuality, but we should strive to maintain at least some level of formality. I tend to write in a semi-formal manner, which I think is more inviting to the reader.

I hope to have some new content ready later this week. Lazytiger 04:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've implemented several parts of my plan as I laid out in my previous post. I've written a new (incomplete) article at Drum Corps International for "modern" drum corps. However, I do not plan on doing anything more with this article. I added the "disputed" status to the top of the page, along with a link to the DCI and DCA articles. This article should be a comprehensive non-conspiratorial history of the drum corps activity. I do not know enough about the history of drum corps to do it justice. I really hope someone else does, because this article needs serious help.

Lazytiger 03:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Star Of Indiana: I am searching for information regarding them. While they do have a site that covers some information on BLAST! and Cyberjam (as well as those shows having their own sites) and much information on the corps, what I'm actually looking for is the ill fated BLAST! II: Shockwave. I know as much as that it was a short-lived sequel to blast that used a more traditional marching-band instrumentation, but after that, I'm stumped.

Also, as a fan of both drum corps and wiki, I appreciate what you're doing with this article. Thank you.

--Mr Bound 20:44, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Burr responds
Interesting misspelling of the link with my name above - not alleging a conspiracy (unless the shoe fits) because it doesn't matter.

What does matter is what is becoming more and more of an intelligent setting-forth of the differences between DCIA corps and drum & bugle corps (which is the same thing as "drum and bugle corps" - I just like the ampersand). BTW, it's a fair attempt, Matt - but attempting to make the distinction between camps by varying and/& puts too much to chance. Most people will read the main page, and IMO not all will read this discussion page. Thus, I've referenced both pages at the top - along with the DCA and DCI links on BOTH pages (nice try there, Lazytiger).

As to alleging that DCIA opinions are somehow "factual" and classic alumni opinions are not (or dead or stuck-in-the-past or whatever), puh-leeeze. Drum & bugle corps people were drummers and buglers FIRST. It's our opinions that matter and are deserving of respect - such is yet another drum & bugle corps value which DCIA has got rid of for the "latest and greatest" - and the unbiased observer can easily see the political implications and the feeding of divisions on both sides, of young against old.

I feel sorry for corps rookies today who cannot feel as we did - and do - a continuous part of a glorious past activity that will be passed on intact. In two years, what you have spent so much money on and so much sweat on will be "old" and "outdated" and no one will care. The only thing left will be the resume credit and you'll get to say you marched. You'll also have a DVD. Whoopie. I'll take being a part of a proud tradition, of drum & bugle corps at large, and being one of the many, some of whom I first marched with 34 years ago who are still my drum corps brothers. We earned what we did, and still own it, intact, while with all of DCIA's money and politics (stolen from us, whom they never credit other than to market themselves) you have to beg to even be recognized as a genuine drum & bugle corps - by alumni who love drum & bugle corps most. That's really sad. That so many people (who are becoming fewer and fewer) I know actually encourage young people in this is something I find abominable.

Let what DCIA does - and whom they really are - stand on their own merits, such as they are. I checked your page Lazytiger - you're 25 years old and haven't lived through the changes I have. That's not to say that I'm smarter because I am older than you. I will rest my arguments on the merits. It's up to you to neglect my experiences or not - many do.

I have marched in pre-DCI corps (including Velvet Knights), DCI corps (Velvet Knights first making associate membership - against a total of 46 "Class A" corps, when there were 46 or so Class A junior corps who would make the trek), to Blue Devils (my first real experience with what I call a DCIA corps, and an experience I can't recommend to anyone), to DCA in Minnesota Brass and Kilties, and now I am FIRMLY committed to the classic alumni camp.

I was never interested in marching band. Concert band, YES (have recently done this in a brass band). Orchestra, YES (which I did as a violinist). Choir, YES. But no one is really interested in marching band other than people in marching band - or in a parade or band shell. And no one is really interested in drum & bugle corps other than drum & bugle corps people - or in a parade, for military honors or on a football field doing a genuine drum corps show, which TAKES THE FIELD, from end zone to end zone. Morphing mutated sperm just doesn't do it, and dancing on a football field is ridiculous except at a half-time - where the band ISN'T the main event, but a diversion.

Such is what it always has been, is and always will be - not because I say so, but because of the nature of the genres and their settings. Anything else is an experiment - good at best, but also sterile and incapable of healthy, wholesome growth.

And remember - Gore Vidal points out that conspiracies are the human condition, except when geniuses are involved. And DCIA got rid of their geniuses (or they died off) a looooong time ago...

Fortunately, drum & bugle corps still has 'em.

In Regard to Ms. Burr's Changes
I do not feel that the recent information you added to this page has helped in the least to try and resolve the NPOV dispute here. Both sides have a point, and you have made it clear where you stand, but I cannot help but feel that there is quite a bit of personal influence in your additions to the article.

I can believe that you are malcontent with the state of Drum Corps as is, but I know that as someone who recently became interested in the Drum Corps concept I would not want to go to the main page and see a lengthly diatribe about DCI/DCA corps moving towards, as I get the impression, oblivion.

There may well have been bias in the previous version of the article, but I do not feel the latest edits have helped.

--Mr Bound 13:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ms. Burr, I assure you that my misspelling of your name was entirely unintentional. You seem to be a little too quick considering things as possible conspiracies. Calm down. I'm trying to come up with a solution here, which I hope everyone can recognize. Yes, I'm 25, and I volunteered that information precisely because I want everyone to understand what I know and don't know. I've said repeatedly that I don't know much about the history of the activity. That's why I have avoided editing this article, instead creating my own under Drum Corps International.

Don't tell me any more about what Drum & bugle corps is and isn't. There is no right or wrong answer; I believe what I know, and you believe what you know. I've already given up on this article (both Drum and bugle corps and Drum & bugle corps); you are free to do whatever you see fit with it. I can tell you purely from a writing and editing standpoint that this article is a piece of crap. If I was you, I'd be more concerned with overhauling it to create an actual cohesive article. Then I'd worry a little bit more about the finer points of your conspiratorial arguments. Please, strip all mention of DCI and DCA out. I would in fact prefer that they weren't included in what has become of this article. I hope removing them makes the article more readable, and you can be happy in your world and I'll be happy in mine.

As long as the DCI and DCA links remain at the top, I'm never touching this article again.

Lazytiger 17:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Burr again...
The fact that some of my critics allege they cannot see the importance of my points, and the reasons therefore, is an indication that they are lacking understanding, IMO. As to LazyTiger's advising me to "calm down" - I know that language. You can deny conspiracies all you like, sir - such doesn't make it true. After all, what is a conspiracy but some people working together in ways others don't know about - often for good reason.

It was alleged the articles were disjointed before I re-edited them. Perhaps if the both of you had left them alone?

And I proudly acknowledge my bias towards classic alumni corps. The articles are allegedly about drum & bugle corps - not a politicized form of band. Deny the controversies and what has been done and not done, covered up and not covered up.

It doesn't wash any more.

The sooner DCIA corps starts calling itself field performance theater (or whatever) and leaves drum & bugle corps alone, the better. As Blast! has already proven, however, without drum & bugle corps and its fraternity to exploit, it won't last.

And the most talented marching band kids will choose marching bands which neither lie about what they are nor participate in the destruction of another musical/fraternal genre. And decent adults, managers, fundraisers and teachers will refuse to indoctrinate kids (of all ages) into a meaningless (next year) activity such as DCIA which is so widely hated.

So y'all honestly remain "proud" - as long as you can. It will continue to make an interesting story of ego and denial, for no one's lasting good.

YOU BETCHA I have a bias - and I don't have to insult your emotions, intelligence or writing skills in a sorry attempt to defeat my opponents. The only oblivion to come are in meaningless "morphed/mutated/ genres which have neither meaning nor reason for being other than faddish marketing opportunities for a few.

-- Catherine

You are truly off your rocker, Catherine. I don't lack in understanding of your points, I simply think they are ridiculous. The vision you have of DCI is absolutely nothing like the DCI that I and tens of thousands of others have been a part of and enjoyed since its inception. All that matters not, of course, as you have entrenched yourself as a conspirator. Your opinion, no matter how valid you feel it is, is representative of an incredibly small number of people. I imagine that's why you are so emphatic about your points. But that does not give you license to hijack an article and turn it into a dissertation on your pet conspiracy theories. You openly boast that you have a huge bias toward "true" drum & bugle corps. I have to tell you that your biases (or anyone elses, including mine) have no business being in a publication that is supposed to serve explicitly as an unbiased reference source. That's what an encyclopedia is, and that's what we're trying to accomplish with Wikipedia. You are entitled to your opinions, but there are proper and improper places to express them.

I think you're despicable and very misguided, and I'm sure you think the same of anyone who supports DCI. But here's what it comes down to: I wrote an article about DCI and managed to not slander "classic" drum corps in any way. I expect the same of this article: you can talk factually as much as you like about your version of drum corps, but there is no place for conspiracy theories about DCI in a reputable article about drum corps. I would suggest that you quell your hatred for DCI by simply not discussing it rather than slandering it in your article.

For all your talk, you've more than made clear your hatred for DCI, but have said comparatively very little about the activity that you apparently love so much. I really hope there's more to the "true" drum corps activity than sitting around bitching and moaning about how DCI stole your thunder, because that's pathetic. Prove me wrong by writing a good conspiracy free article about "true" drum corps as you know it. I would really like to read that, and I'm not being sarcastic. You could garner a lot more support for your cause if you explain what your activity is all about without taking jabs at DCI. If you feel that you can't make your argument without taking DCI through the mud, well, I don't think you have a very good argument. Either you have a viable, existing activity or you don't. Don't cry, "Boo hoo, it's all DCI's fault. DCI is the devil." All that's doing is creating animosity.

If you have something constructive or enlightening to say about drum corps, please, let's hear it. If all you want to do is bitch about the abomination known as DCI, you are in the wrong place, ma'am. Wikipedia should maintain absolute neutrality; if you want to advocate conspiracies, I suggest you post to some newsgroups.

Lazytiger 14:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have some gripes about points made previously.

"You can deny conspiracies all you like, sir - such doesn't make it true."

And you can claim conspiracies all you like, but that also does not make them truth. I can claim that there is a sentient civilization growing inside my computer monitor and that there's a government conspiracy to keep the world from knowing about it, but that's only true insofar as I believe it.

"It was alleged the articles were disjointed before I re-edited them. Perhaps if the both of you had left them alone?"

They would have remained disjointed. Neither of us wanted that, and I believe Lazytiger was working to improve them. In our opinions, however, you have not helped to correct them.

"And decent adults, managers, fundraisers and teachers will refuse to indoctrinate kids (of all ages) into a meaningless (next year) activity such as DCIA which is so widely hated."

Widely hated? Where, then, are all the detractors? They certainly aren't heard of much. Perhaps they're drowned out by the many who have accepted that drum corps is evolving and are loving it.

"The only oblivion to come are in meaningless "morphed/mutated/ genres which have neither meaning nor reason for being other than faddish marketing opportunities for a few."

I do not know where exactly you are finding these power and money-hungry figureheads from DCI/DCA. It's fairly difficult to make yourself wealthy and powerful running a nonprofit organization.

--Mr Bound 19:26, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify this myself before someone else does it for me, I realize that neutrality allows for all points of view to be presented, but none should dominate the article. And I would further argue that it is possible to present grievances in a manner that is not so antagonistic.

Therefore, I should revise my earlier statements to say that the haters of DCI are entitled to have their view represented in this article, but the current state of the article is hardly neutral. In order to avoid any possible edit wars, no one that is a fan of "modern" drum corps has touched the article since the "classic" fan(s) started taking over.

As I've already made clear, I don't plan on having much detail on DCI in this article; I've already started another article at Drum Corps International for that. However, I think it is very important that the unsuspecting Wikipedia user does not come across this article and leave with a bad impression of drum corps, both "classic" and "modern". That helps no one. I hope we can collaborate without getting the urge to spit in each other's eyes.

All I'm saying is, present your information without the insinuation that it is anything more than opinion. People have the right to know that there are people who think DCI is a sham, but that cannot be forced down people's throats as it is now.

I think it's important to acknowledge that there are only 3 or 4 people at most involved in the editing of this article right now. Can we please all take turns at editing the article with the understanding that everyone is simply trying to achieve neutrality? And beyond neutrality, I want the article to have good structure. That shouldn't be so controversial, but with this group, I'm not holding my breath.

As is the nature of Wikipedia, our trial-and-error edits will be immediately visible to anyone. But let's go ahead and get started on the editing and hope for the best.

Lazytiger 03:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the Combine (of the articles, that is)
The first order of business as I see it, and (amazingly) I think everyone is actually in agreement here, is that the Drum and bugle corps and the Drum & bugle corps articles need to be combined. There should be be no distinction between the two, and one should simply be a redirect to the other. I don't think anyone will strenuously object to Drum and bugle corps being the main article, so that's what I'm going to do. I'm simply going to dump the contents of the Drum & bugle corps article at the end of the Drum and bugle corps. Then, it will be edited and combined along with the existing content by everyone. I'll also take care of any links pointed at Drum & bugle corps. (not that it really matters since the article isn't being deleted, it's just becoming a redirect.)

Lazytiger 13:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Editing procedures
I have put an edit warning at the top of the article. I'm currently working on a major rewrite. No one seems to be in much of a hurry to work on this article, which is a good thing. I'm not sure how long it's going to take me to rewrite the article, but it will only serve as a pain if someone alters it in the meantime. Let's try to maintain a single line of edits. Everyone will have their say, but let's not trip all over each other's edits by doing them at the same time.

I know some of my comments in this discussion have been hasty, but I assure everyone that my utmost goal of this article is simply to have a good one. I don't want nasty disagreements, and I promise that with my edits I am trying to keep everyone happy. AND to end up with an article that is understandable to a newbie. Also, I want to be right up front in saying that I think this article should be a lot shorter than it currently is. Beyond simple readability, Wikipedia starts objecting to pages bigger than 32 kilobytes (which we have already reached since I added the content from Drum & bugle corps).

Remember, Wikipedia is not meant to be an end-all, be-all source of information. We are just trying to create a good summation of the topic.

So, if you will please, everyone hold off on edits until I am done with mine. I won't hold the page up any longer than until this evening. Then we'll move on to the next person's edits, if anyone's waiting.

Thanks.

Lazytiger 15:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

not even close to done
Well, I went ahead and removed the "edit" notice from the page. I'm not even close to being done editing the article yet, so I figured it wasn't appropriate to keep that message up any longer.

So, there are no changes to the article yet. I'm completely tearing the article apart and putting it back together, so there's no intermediary edits that I can post. If no one is really burning to edit the article as well, please give me a chance to finish. I hope to have it done within a few days.

I'm trying to remain as impartial as I can. I am learning to look at the issue from both camps, and I hope to achieve something that is, well, not abhorrent to either side. If you hate what I've done, you can always revert to the previous version, so give me a chance.

Lazytiger 22:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A quick note: I support the two aforementioned pages ("drum and bugle corps" and "drum & bugle corps") becoming the same page. It does not make sense for a person's choice to use or not use an ampersand to change the information they receive

--Mr Bound 01:37, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Whew...
Well, it's done... for now, at least. Some spots are still kind of weak, but I was getting weary of more writing and editing.

Hopefully, everyone can be somewhat satisfied with the changes. If there's something essential you feel is missing or wrong, by all means please add or fix it. But I plead with you - please don't get into any nitty-gritty details or name any names. The article is pretty long already, and I don't want it to get bogged down by too many details. That's really not how an encyclopedia article should be.

Some weak spots of note:

 * the "combine" (I really don't know much about it, so I just sped over it)
 * Evolution of the Field Drum (I'm a drummer, so I ought to have had more detail here, but it was the last thing I did and I was getting tired of editing)
 * the end - after describing the two camps' points of view, it becomes kind of directionless. Need a good, strong ending to the article.
 * inspection and competition - coverage is kind of spotty. I just cobbled together some paragraphs.
 * not sure exactly what all should be included in the intro section (before the table of contents), before it jumps into other sections to be continued. See note below.

Other notes:

I made a concerted effort to avoid talking about the divide in the activity until it was discussed in the article. I would advise others to do the same, as it's important to develop the article properly and not introduce information that isn't explained until later. I know it can be difficult, but that's what good writing is all about.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

Lazytiger 20:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But DCUK isn't DCI!
First of all, Lazytiger, thank you for stepping into the breach here. Work came up and bit me soon after I laid my great plans, and I've only just gotten back to Wikipedia.

I'm going to have a look at the articles shortly. However, there was specific "method behind my madness" in suggesting drum and bugle corps (modern) -- in that the many "modern" drum corps organizations throughout the world, while they may have been based on DCI, are not DCI, if you see what I mean.

I'm still in preference of drum and bugle corps (classic) and drum and bugle corps (modern) with drum and bugle corps (with redirects to it up the wazoo) being a pure disambiguation page, for this reason.

Thanks,

MattJ 20:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation page is fine with me
Whatever you want to do is fine, really. Having modern and classic articles with a disambiguation page certainly isn't unreasonable. I see how that could work, and I also see how the current solution has its weaknesses. I tried to convince myself that the DCI article could serve as an article for the discussion of all modern drum corps (and in some yet-to-be-determined relation to the DCA article and DCUK, etc.). But in the end, I'm not so sure that DCI shouldn't have an article to discuss just DCI itself (not the activity), and another article should discuss modern drum corps without being exclusive to DCI, DCA, DCUK, etc. There's so much overlap between them that it would be kind of stupid to re-explain it in each article.

I think it would be good to have a brief explanation of the divide in the activity on the drum and bugle corps page, and then have links to the classic and modern articles. And then the proponents of each can have their way with their article.

Lazytiger 01:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I hope that settles things a bit.
As an independent observer (and the editor who produced the current version of the marching band article), I think I've settled things out a bit. This article is now focused on "classic" drum and bugle corps, but states that clearly in the opening paragraphs and suggests looking at the DCI and DCA entries. I've also boiled down the invective to a much shorter section, moving some of the information about the schism between old and new styles to the history section, and editing the rest into a simple contrast between the two.

I understand that emotions are running high here. There are people who have been very hurt by DCI/DCA, and want to vent. I feel your pain - I'm a marching band guy and don't like DCI much at all - but this is not the place for opinion, or thinly-veiled opinion masquerading as fact. Rather than focusing on how DCI/DCA is killing "real" drum corps, why don't we try to add some more useful information?
 * The section on the evolution of the bugle is great. How about more info on the marching style, uniforms, etc.?  I don't know enough to add that stuff.
 * Also, in the same vein, it might be nice to say how "classic" corps is different in style from marching band or DCI/DCA. What, in a technical sense, makes it unique?
 * In general, don't be afraid to use headings, and to nest them. The automatic table of contents feature is really nice, and we should use it.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts. Enjoy!

Looks good, but...
Thanks to Dave_Fried for working on the article. I think it's really respectable and neutral now. However, there's still one problem: as MattJ has pointed out, modern drum corps consists of more than just DCI and DCA. Right now, all we have are the drum and bugle corps article and the DCI article. There's no real content in the DCA article, and we haven't covered DCUK and DC Europe at all. This article is great, except that it gives preference to classic corps while modern corps have no corresponding article (the DCI article doesn't fit the bill). There needs to be an equal (and not DCI-exclusive) article for modern drum corps. It is unfair to discuss classic drum corps in the drum and bugle corps article and then relegate modern drum corps to an article with some other name. Hence, there's still a need for two separate articles, modern and classic, along with an equal disambiguation page. So, as good as the article is with your edits, I think it will have to be short-lived in order to address this problem.

I know it's a very tricky situation deciding what information should go where. Obviously, modern drum corps shares its history with classic corps. We have to decide what belongs in the main (disambiguation) article and what belongs under each of the new articles. This is going to require revision and rearrangement of content between the existing articles into the new articles.

Lazytiger 19:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Catherine Burr responds again
Fortunately, for me, Lazytiger, your accusations in one post and then following up with a calmer "opinion" is self-evident.

DCI is not drum & bugle corps. George Hopkins and others have themselves said that "drum & bugle corps is marching band" and DCI markets itself to marching bands - despite claiming to be a different genre.

Drum & bugle corps traditionalists do not recognize and patronize DCI as drum & bugle corps, and all the DCI corps members - of which I was once one - were misled and/or lied to by people who nevertheless still state that they are "educating" young people and DCI's fans (as few of them as there are outside of marching band and parents) by flat-out lies, couched in the same defrauding language that child molesters use. Indeed, quite a few of the leading organizers and motivators were and are child molesters - you should check into the blemished history. I have articles I can fax to you if you (or anyone) cares to take a look.

I understand how difficult it is to face facts. It was difficult for me, and it is difficult for many in the classic alumni corps movement who love drum & bugle corps and what it has been for them (and me) to face what some have done - many whom we marched with and marched under - in our name.

There's a reason that DCI, as a youth activity, was chosen. And as time passes, more and more will have to face this. Look at the sponsors and other responsible and decent people who have come and gone. Look at how the resume credits are either self-serving, untrue and/or simply a part of a self-supporting network of a few.

It's been a decades-long scam. But now it's over. Most of the originators of DCI are dead, a few of the most powerful are nearing their retirement, and more and more who have unfortunately gotten along in DCI are leaving for more reputable associations - even many of the defrauders are looking for other avenues for their groups, away from the drum & bugle corps activity.

This is all good for classic and alumni corps, which have quite often retained - throughout it all - their relationships with their sponsors, their posts and their communities. I have no doubt many good people have and are being misled by DCI and DCA - as I once was. But the older we get, the more we have to - and are able to - face the truth of what was, as we preserve what is worth preserving.

DCI and DCA have nothing worth preserving. There are plenty of good marching bands out there for those who are interested in that. Drum & bugle corps needs to be left alone. DCI and DCA are only being fought for by the sort of people who won't let go of the fraud and its benefits, or who feel they have nothing else. I feel sorry for such people - for the basic rule of drum & bugle corps was always that all you needed to be was a living and breathing body who wanted to join a drum & bugle corps, and drum & bugle corps would do the rest.

I am well-known - for good and ill - in the online debates about drum & bugle corps and DCI. I don't know who "LazyTiger" is at all - but I can guess at those persons you are involved with, from your tone and word usage. You really ought to delete those more virulent posts - such are a dead give-away, even without anything I write, to any parent or kid who would like to grow into something better than that.

If I am wrong, I will deal with that. But I am not, and am well-supported even though posts and other "techniques" by those such as LazyTiger have come my way for the past six years as I have made the truth about DCI more public. For anyone to bring any kid into this activity without full disclosure is proof in and of itself of fraud. What is DCI and DCA so afraid of, hmmmmmmmm?

Let the buyer and prospective DCIA member beware... and may each prospective member have better people and opportunities than this mess.

-- Catherine

To LazyTiger...
Sorry, guy, but you don't get to control the definitions of drum & bugle corps from the classic/alumni standpoint - the continuous tradition - and DCI. I also note you haven't bothered with DCA - feel free to paste your DCI page there as well over my statement (copied from the DCI discussion page). After all, DCI and DCA are more and more the same each year, sharing people, politics and company endorsements.

I find it interesting - and familiar - that you want to control both pages. There's a lot of that amongst DCI types. I will continue to answer (if I care to add anything) on the DCI discussion page, and you can type whatever you wish on the main page. If you - or whatever new screen name - doesn't want to leave drum & bugle corps to those who love it and advocate for it, I'll be quite ready to come over and "play" on the DCI page.

But leave drum & bugle corps alone. And tell your friends that drum & bugle corps people feel that way. I'm simply the most vocal - and proud to be so - because none of the rest of my friends like to get (any more) of the treatment I get, and they get quite a lot of it.

Responsible people will check all this out for themselves. And if you don't get clear answers, let me know - I have a way of bringing up the blank walls, and do so quite publicly amongst all audiences, so that people can see well enough for themselves through what scam artists have really achieved the most in these past 30 years.

-- Catherine

Enough! Name change and disambiguation
Okay, I have moved this page to "(classic)", the DCI page to "(modern)" and have built a bare "disambiguation" page at "drum and bugle corps".

The disambiguation page is deliberately sparse. While a discussion of the schism between classic and modern drum corps may have been well-suited to the page, I believe there is not a way of doing this to the satisfaction of devotees of both circuits.

I have edited this page, removing a significant amount of detail relating to DCI and DCA. Several aspects of the history relating to the changes which created the Combine in the mid-70s are extremely well-written, and so I have tried to retain this as much as possible while retaining NPOV. I have however removed negative rhetoric pertaining to both sides of the debate; I do not expect this to return.

Catherine, it is very obvious that you now strongly dislike DCI, and seem to take every opportunity you can to discredit it; Google pretty much explains your viewpoint. Not that I can understand it, particularly since you marched VK and BD in the late seventies, lauded the heck out of Jim Ott, and apparently enjoyed the experience a lot.

However, Wikipedia is not the place for such attacks nor debasement, nor is it the place for ad-hominem attacks. Instead, use the space to explain why classic drum corps was (and is) so good. We'll do the same with modern drum corps.

MattJ 17:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Matt --
Well, it was no surprise seeing you post to RAMD (that's rec.arts.marching.drumcorps) where the actual warfare is taking place on DCI's attempt to "own" the term drum & bugle corps.

People don't mind an open and honest competition. What people do mind is a hidden and dishonest bit of cheating.

I don't know who your father was, or where he came from. But the continuing attempts of DCI-DCA people to exploit the British brass band movement and other more decent organizations is continuing to fail - particularly as more and more people interact with the lovely (not) and talented (not) bunch of people who run DCI and DCA, and ask solid questions about all the scandals over the years, and the "techniques" publicly used to squelch dissent.

You can defend corporate exploitation and coverups of corruption all you wish. You can threaten legal action against me and all those people whom you deny exist - simply because they don't like what they did corrupted by people like you.

Or, decent people who feel that persons should earn their trust and be accountable over the years - to the members, to the fans and to the communities, rather than to the corporate sponsors, "arteestes" and other exploiters of children - will find out on their own.

Particularly once they know that they had better keep their eyes and ears open - and their hands on their wallets.

There are plenty of decent avenues for people who are more interested in music and camaraderie than the fake garbage being promulgated by DCI and DCA. Nor is the "international movement" in DCI/DCA corps as widespread as you like to publicize. There are plenty of marching bands and drum & bugle corps and community groups who already know to have nothing to do with y'all.

As for me, I shall continue to show you and whatever screen name you use here for what you are. After all, we already have on record that even though assertions of "links to DCI and DCA corps" pages were all you wanted, you are already proved to be a phony.

Next stop - the DCI page... And be sure to comment upon the deficient histories and self-serving errors on both Soundmachine and Corpsreps, since you allege you know so very much.

-- Catherine

Thanks for the factual correction
To the not-logged-in user who corrected the factual inaccuracy in the article regarding the Schlecta walkout, thanks for your contribution!

MattJ 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I suppose I should create an account on here one of these days. This is Dave Seip; I marched with Big Country (lazytiger) at Blue Stars.  A big thanks to the folks at Sound Machine for the information about that particular issue.

Catherine's "triumphant" return
Regarding what some might call "vandalism" of the pages on April 17,

Catherine Burr appears to have once again returned to lend her extremely conservative views regarding the Drum and Bugle Corps activities to our work here. I'd like to remind Catherine that she is, of course, free to lend her opinions as long as she does so in a manner that fits a neutral point of view (Catherine, feel free to see Neutral point of view for more on this). Until then, I will continue to be reverting pretty much everything Catherine attempts to lend to these pages, as most of it is bias bordering on reactionary.

As to Catherine directly: welcome back! Things are much more lively with you here. Do you work for Ameritech, or what? All your IP edits have been from "Ameritech Electronic Commerce". --Mr Bound 00:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Mr. Bound"
I really don't know what you are talking about.

As to my reasonings, most people I know in drum & bugle corps don't think I am "conservative" enough.

If you would like to discuss specific points, fine and good. In the interim, you can continue to mischaracterize reasoning as "reactionary" all you like.

The nature of Wikipedia is that people who have an agenda, and are paid very well for marketing therefor, can continue to do what they have been doing in their propaganda.

As for me, I am simply one person. I feel passionately about what I believe, it is true - but that's because of my history and my experiences. And the fact that I cannot be refuted, nor will I be deterred, by mobbing and bullying tactics, is why unnamed and unknown people continue to take issue with me. The absolute lack of more professional and accountable methodologies is proof in and of itself of the corruption - and the importance to propagandists - of this domination of what are alleged to be "resources".

It's a sad thing for Wikipedia, to be sure. But fortunately, there are other resources available - and will continue to be available - for those who seek the truth and characters worth learning from. And fortunately, I am merely One of the Many.

-- Catherine

Catherine,

Saw your edits to the page, and while the bugle commentaries were good and factual, I once again dispute your commentaries about corruption in modern corps. You seem to have a wealth of knowledge regarding the properties of bugles and other classic marching instruments; feel free to make additions as you see fit. Also, let's both refrain from personal attacks. I know your experience with editors here in the past has been less than savory, shall we try and start things off on a better foot? Mr Bound 03:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why?
This article is back to being a flowery, POV mess. Can someone please tell me why we have two drum corps articles? I think the evolution over the course of history can be more than adequately described in a single article.--Frontierbrass (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It could be described in a single article, but back in the day (wow... it's been a couple years now) we split the article up as a compromise. If you read through the various talk pages, you'll see the heated debates that happened. At some point after the combatants (namely one) had not shown their faces for a while, we were planning on recombining the articles and trying to achieve featured article-quality, but the articles fell into relative dormancy.  I don't know about the other formerly-active authors, but I've lost a lot of interest.  Please, feel free to pick up the torch if you have the desire.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Anyone wante to revisit this? There is also an article for fanfare band which appears to be describing a type of drum and bugle corps found in northern Europe.  Any way to revisit some of the decisions about page location listed above? Telescopium1 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What a stinker!
This Wiki is terrible. I don't mean that some people have made this Wiki terrible - I mean everyone involved in editing the page has done a bad job. Regarding history - here's a hint - 'history' can actually mean something that happened before you came along. American drum and bugle corps did not originate in post-WW I veteran's groups. The Girl Scouts of Massachusetts had drum and bugle corps during the First World War, and before Americans ever fired a shot in that war. Boston schoolboys had marching competitions that were led by their own drum and bugle corps at the turn of the 20th century. Fife drum and bugle corps go back into the 19th Century.

This whole article is obviously based on personal research, and I would vote to dump the whole thing - it's that bad. MarkinBoston (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Drum and bugle corps (classic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709043821/http://www.drumcorpsworld.com:80/links.cfm?LinkID=26 to http://www.drumcorpsworld.com/links.cfm?LinkID=26
 * Added tag to http://www.philadelphiabrassdrumcorps.org/news.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115084112/http://www.desplainesvanguard.com:80/ to http://www.desplainesvanguard.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drum and bugle corps (classic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140609210054/https://historypress.net/catalogue/bookstore/books/Racine%E2%80%99s-Horlick-Athletic-Field/9781626194441 to https://historypress.net/catalogue/bookstore/books/Racine%E2%80%99s-Horlick-Athletic-Field/9781626194441
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.desplainesvanguard.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Drum and bugle corps (classic)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Fernandez

Ken Fernandez
This article is associated with an unsuccessful candidate whose attempt is documented in the associated election results article. The article seems to be non-notable and was flagged for cleanup.

 * Keep. As a general rule, I'd suggest that anyone who campaigns for the Canadian House of Commons is eligible for an entry on Wikipedia.  This page needs a cleanup; it doesn't need to be deleted.  CJCurrie 00:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I presume if this person had run for office on a Star Trek episode it would be fine to keep them. The Recycling Troll 04:47, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. All it says is he ran for election (and presumably lost). Lots of people lose elections, there is no astonishing achievement to run for an election. I could run for election in the next UK general election, and although I'd undoubtedly lose my deposit, I'd bet I could get more than 84 votes, which this guy did. CBCAverage Earthman 10:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Average Earthman. --Improv 12:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As what "Average Earthman" mentioned. --*drew 12:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it - this person was on the ballot in a real election. That's notable enough. Intrigue 19:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. Wiki is the only place you'll find this info. the world needs a place for these people.Kevintoronto 21:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That argument would hold water a little better if I hadn't provided a link with more info in it already - CBC. Average Earthman 08:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the only place you will find information for this unsuccessful candidate for an election is in Wikipedia, then that candidate is certainly non-notable. If someone wants to keep this information, put it on a site that is less encyclopedic. Jallan 22:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep but fix (ie get rid of "legend of Pierre Trudeau", give riding he ran in and votes received)AndyL 22:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete got same reasons as for Rick Barsley plus what Jallan says above. Jongarrettuk 23:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 04:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Losing an election just don't cut it. GWO 18:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As with Ian Woods, Fernandez is notable beyond simply being a failed electoral candidate. Admittedly the article didn't do a very good job of imparting this, but he's the president of the party's Quebec wing, and therefore legitimately important in the development of a legitimate political party. I've added some info to the article now to make its notability a bit more clear, so I guess I'm with the keepers. Bearcat 23:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * keep same reason as Ian Woods Earl Andrew 21:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Catherineburr

Hi,

We are in significant disagreement regarding the "drum and bugle corps" article. I intend to make a revert of the article tomorrow (9/29/04) to something resembling its original state; although I agree that some of the history you have added regarding the Combine and similar should definitely be retained.

Furthermore, it is not good Wikietiquette to mask significant changes behind a "name change" comment. If you are going to make significant changes, it is good to make content changes distinct from name changes.

Best wishes,

Matt

MattJ 22:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Catherineburr


text:
User talk:Mrece

I'm still very new to wikipedia. I'd appreciate any suggestions from old hands on how to use my talk page and how to upload images

Thanks
 * Hi Mrece, and welcome to Wikipedia. We're happy to have you.  Each user on Wikipedia has a talk page to go with their user page.  This page is generally used when another user wants to leave you a message - maybe about an article you've been working on, maybe just a question.  You'll be notified with a box at teh top of each Wikipedia page when you have new messages.  You can also leave a message for a user on their talk page - just go to "User_talk:username" and click "edit this page" or the "+" next to it, to edit or to add a new message.  Sorry, but I don't know much about doing uploads - there's a link at the side of each page that says "Upload file" and I think this will take you to the upload form.  Hope this helps, and good luck.  Cheers, Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mrece


text: User talk:69.150.176.127

title: User talk:69.150.176.127


text:
Jaime Paz Zamora

Jaime Paz Zamora (born 15 April 1939) is a former Bolivian politician who served as the 60th president of Bolivia from 1989 to 1993. He also served as the 32nd vice president of Bolivia from October 1982 to December 1984 during the presidency of Hernán Siles Zuazo.

Foundation of the MIR and alliance with Siles Zuazo
Jaime Paz Zamora studied in Belgium and became an ardent supporter of left-wing/progressive causes in the turbulent 1960s. Exiled by dictator Hugo Banzer in 1971, he co-founded in Chile the Revolutionary Left Movement (Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria, MIR), originally a member of the Socialist International.

Soon, the MIR attracted the support of a large portion of the Marxist intelligentsia, especially university students. Upon returning to Bolivia in 1978, Paz's MIR cemented an alliance with the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario de Izquierda of former President Hernán Siles. The result was the formation of the Unidad Democrática y Popular (UDP).

It was a mutually beneficial pact, since Siles offered everything the MIR lacked (experience and legitimacy with the working class stemming from the 1952 Revolution) while Paz, in turn, provided Siles what he did not have: the support of the university students and younger intellectuals.

The inconclusive 1978 and 1979 elections
The UDP participated in the June 1978 elections, with Siles at the head of the ticket and, by all accounts won a plurality. The vote was annulled, however, due to the discovery of massive fraud on behalf of the government endorsed candidate, General Juan Pereda. New elections were conducted in 1979. They, too, turned out to be a fiasco, as the UDP's Hernán Siles, with Paz as his vice-presidential running mate, finished first at the ballot box, but without attaining the 50% majority necessary for direct election. Thus, it was left to Congress to determine the next Chief Executive, as stipulated in the Bolivian Constitution. Surprisingly (or perhaps not, given the lack of democratic practice in Bolivia at that time) Congress could not agree on any candidate, no matter how many votes were taken. Eventually, Congress proclaimed as temporary President the head of the Senate, Dr. Wálter Guevara, pending the calling of yet a new round of elections in 1980.

The 1980 elections
Ominously, the ultra-right wing of the Bolivian military began to intimate that it would never stand for the installation in the Palacio Quemado of the "extremist" Siles and Paz, but the 1980 campaign continued unabated. In April, the small rented plane in which Paz and a delegation of UDP politicians were traveling crashed in the Altiplano near La Paz, with the resulting death of all on board except the vice-presidential candidate. The plane had belonged to a company owned by Colonel Luis Arce, who would surface as Minister of Interior in the upcoming (and quite ruthless) military dictatorship of Luis Garcia Meza. No one doubts that it was an assassination attempt. In any case, Paz recovered from his burns and resumed campaigning, buoyed by the increasing support received in the aftermath of the "accident." The winner of this third vote in three years was, yet again, the Siles Zuazo-Paz Zamora formula. The two would have been sworn in, were it not for the July 17, 1980, coup of General Luis García Meza, which brutally interrupted the democratic process.

The UDP in power and Paz as Vice-President (1982–1985)
Paz fled to exile, but returned in 1982, when the military's experiment had run its course and the Bolivian economy was on the verge of collapse. With the reputation of the armed forces badly damaged by the excesses of the 1980–82 dictatorship, the only way out was a hasty retreat. In October 1982 the results of the 1980 elections were upheld to save the country the expense of yet another vote, and Siles was sworn in, with the MIR's Jaime Paz as his vice-president. The economic situation was dire indeed, and soon a galloping hyperinflationary process developed. Siles had great difficulty in controlling the situation. In all fairness, he received scant support from the political parties or members of congress, most of whom were eager to flex their newly acquired political muscles after so many years of authoritarianism. The unions, led by the old firebrand Juan Lechín paralyzed the government with constant strikes. At this point, the MIR (led by Paz) disassociated itself from the regime (1984), deserting the sinking ship when Siles' popularity sank to an all-time low. The 1982-85 hyperinflation would end up being the fourth largest ever recorded in the world.

Ideological revision (1985–1989)
By 1985, the government's impotence prompted Congress to call early elections, citing the fact that Siles had been originally elected five years before. Having broken with Siles, the MIR this time ran on its own, led by the ubiquitous Paz as its presidential candidate. Paz finished a respectable third, and the MNR's Víctor Paz Estenssoro was elected president (1985–89). During the 1985–1989 period, the MIR underwent major ideological transformations, with Paz and Oscar Eid advocating a break with Marxist notions and with any call for class-based struggle. These were the days of Perestroika, and the handwriting seemed to be on the wall (so to speak) for the Eastern European totalitarianisms. The MIR's programmatic shift entailed some major defections (most notable of which was that of Antonio Araníbar), but at least the party emerged more united and cohesive than it had been. It also had increased its electoral appeal considerably.

The 1989 election and the "Patriotic Accord"
Paz once more ran for president in May 1989. He finished third, although not far behind the top two vote-getters, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and former dictator Hugo Banzer. As usual, no candidate received the 50% necessary for direct election, so Congress began deliberations to choose the next Head of State. Paz had vowed to never cooperate with Banzer, who had exiled and persecuted the MIR in the 1970s. But Banzer had broken acrimoniously with the MNR of the first-place finisher Sánchez de Lozada; when the opportunity for an alliance with Banzer materialized, Paz took it. It was a move that would cost him, and the MIR, everything in the years to come. On August 5, 1989, he was elected president by Congress—thanks to the political support received from General Banzer. This seemingly unlikely MIR-ADN (Banzer) entente was officially referred to as the "Patriotic Accord," with both leaders announcing the forgiveness of past enmities for the betterment of Bolivia and the consolidation of the as yet fragile democratic process. Many citizens were admired, others revolted.

The Paz Zamora presidency (1989–1993)
The administration of Jaime Paz was rather successful. Limited by his alliance with Banzer (and perhaps by his own new convictions), the President "refrained" from attempting major transformations. He opposed the complete eradication of the coca leaf, as proposed by the U.S. administration of George H. W. Bush while cooperating with the main thrust of the so-called War on Drugs. He advocated the potential medicinal and industrial use of coca, but achieved very little in the way of concrete results. His repeated pre-electoral statements about "rolling back" the neoliberal policies of his predecessor, Dr. Paz Estenssoro, came to nothing too, as the bulk of the privatization and de-statization reforms remained in place. All in all, Paz "muddled through," Perhaps the high point of the Paz Zamora years on the domestic front had a lot to do with the president itself; it "centered" on the  final qualification of Bolivia for the Soccer World Cup in 1993. The education, medical and general services were improved. On the other hand, corruption allegations disrupted his term; these would eventually lead to the jailing of his chief aide and MIR co-founder, Oscar Eid, for drug trafficking connections. He served his full four-year prison sentence. In foreign policy, Paz did successfully negotiate the cession of a sovereign port on the Peruvian coast, although without territorial continuity from Bolivian territory its benefits proved rather limited. In 1990 and in 1992 his presidency achieved to restore non-diplomatic and unofficial relationships between The Republic of Bolivia and The Republic of China (Taiwan) through representative and commercial offices in La Paz (opened in 1990) and in Taipei (opened in 1992) and vice-president Sajines personally meet with then Taiwanese president Lee Teng Hui and expressed that Sajines'visit was going to increase the economic and technical cooperation between The Republic of China (Taiwan) and The Republic of Bolivia and as well to improve the friendship relationships between the Bolivian and Taiwanese peoples.

The debacle
The MIR, and Paz, emerged from the 1989–93 considerably damaged, especially after Eid's incarceration. As per the stipulations of the "Patriotic Accord," the MIR supported Banzer in the 1993 presidential elections, but failed to have him elected in Congress. The MNR's Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was sworn in instead. Paz again ran for the top post in 1997, finishing third. He tried again in 2001, finishing a distant fourth. All the while, the MIR's presence in Congress was diluted to a fraction of what it once was. Paz's latest participation in an election occurred in the 2005 Tarija Prefectural (the equivalent of a U.S. governorship) contest. Jaime Paz this time lost to the MNR's candidate, a man by the name of Cossío, who had been former President of the Bolivian Congress. This seems to have brought a rather sad end to a career marked by great expectations, many corruption scandals, never proved to be right and a share of electoral defeats. Perhaps Paz sealed his own fate when he signed the 1989 accord with General Banzer. The short-term benefits (the presidency) may not have been worth the long-term losses, especially as regards to legitimacy.

title: Jaime Paz Zamora


text:
Alexey Fyodorovich Orlov

Prince Alexey Fyodorovich Orlov (Алексей Фёдорович Орлов; 30 October 1787 – 2 June 1862) was a Russian diplomat, the natural son of Count Fyodor Grigoryevich Orlov. Born in Moscow, he took part in the Napoleonic Wars from 1805 to the capture of Paris in 1814. For his services as commander of the cavalry regiment of the Horse Life Guards during the rebellion of 1825 he was granted the title of count, and in the Turkish War of 1828–1829 he rose to the rank of lieutenant-general.

At this time his diplomatic career began. He served as the Russian plenipotentiary at the Peace of Adrianople, and in 1833 was appointed Russian ambassador at Constantinople, holding at the same time the post of commander-in-chief of the Black Sea Fleet. He became, indeed, one of the most trusted agents of Emperor Nicholas I, whom in 1837 he accompanied on his foreign tour. From 1844 to 1856 Orlov headed the infamous Third Section (secret police).

In 1854 he travelled to Vienna to bring Austria over to the side of Russia during the Crimean War of 1853–1856, but without success. In 1856 he was one of the plenipotentiaries who concluded the Peace of Paris. In the same year, raised to the dignity of prince, he was appointed president of the Imperial Council of State and of the Council of Ministers. In 1857, during the absence of Emperor Alexander II, he presided over the commission formed to consider the question of the emancipation of the serfs, to which he was altogether hostile. He died in Saint Petersburg.

In popular culture
Orlov was the subject of a satirical verse by Alexander Pushkin, alleging that Orlov's mistress, the dancer Istomina, could see his penis only through a microscope.

title: Alexey Fyodorovich Orlov


text:
Formica cunicularia

Formica cunicularia is a species of ant found all over Europe. They are especially common in western Europe and southern England, but they can be found from southern Scandinavia to northern Africa and from Portugal to the Urals. In England, Donisthorpe records the species as having occurred as far north as Bewdley in Worcestershire. In Formica cunicularia, the worker is an ashy grey black color and is usually 4.0–6.5 mm long. The males are found to have a uniformly dark body and are 8.0–9.0 mm long. The queen is yellowish red to dark black and is 7.5–9.0 mm.

Habitat
F. cunicularia has habitat ranging from open to relatively cluttered to visually rich. In Finland, Albrecht found that all nests were small, with single entrances in dry, hot environments with low vegetation. They nest under stones or in small earth mounds. Nests are usually separate, containing one queen. F. cunicularia, unlike most other Formica fusca-group species, can form noticeable hillocks over its nests, and in addition to these produces rufibarbis-like runs in the vicinity of its nest.

Biology
When found in arid and semi-arid regions, these ants feed primarily on seeds and as such, their anthills have a much higher density of seeds, but due to the seed preference of the ants there is less seed diversity. F. cunicularia will follow irregular paths while they forage, but will follow a straight path home when finished. They do this by a process called path integration where they analyze their total distance and direction on their foraging trips so that they can follow that straight path home. That isn't the only mechanism that explains their homing behavior though. They can also find a path home based on visual cues in their surroundings. An interesting facet of their homing behavior is that they will combine these two methods when in unfamiliar terrain. F. cunicularia have the ability to discern between multiple shades of a color and they are particularly good at distinguishing two different greens; This is probably because they often live in very green rich environments. They live in small colonies of around 5000 individuals. They are predaceous but are often scavengers. Its appearance and habits ally it, to some extent, with Formica rufibarbis, although the former's red markings are far less conspicuous. Horace Donisthorpe comments:

 * Forel points out that [Formica fusca var.] rubescens [=F. cunicularia] has frequently been confounded with rufibarbis, and it is probable that some British records of ... rufibarbis really refer to this variety.

Lichen dispersal
An interesting coincidence of these ants is that they help lichen disperse. Lichen has trouble on its own and the soredia of the lichen can attach to the ants by virtue of being so small. In areas where they overlap we see more of certain types of lichen growing due to the F. cunicularia's help. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to the ants.

As a slave species
F. cunicularia is a host of the slave-making ant Polyergus rufescens. Slave makers P. rufescens will raid to kill adults in the F. cunicularia colony and steal their brood to be raised to do domestic tasks. P. rufescens will choose to parasitize F. cunicularia over other choices even when available. A gland not unique to F. cunicularia is the Dufour's gland. It is involved with many behaviors of ants, such as trail following, clustering, but also alarm and defense. When F. cunicularia daubed with extract from a slave-maker ant's Dufour's gland, there was a significant decrease in aggression towards invading workers. This facilitates the takeover of the hosts colony. Another possible reason for F. cunicularia being chosen as a host species more often because they don't resist as much as other species. In an experiment involving cocoons of multiple species, they didn't discriminate between their own and the slave-making species.

title: Formica cunicularia


text:
Communicative language teaching

Communicative language teaching (CLT), or the communicative approach (CA), is an approach to language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of study.

Learners in environments using communication to learn and practice the target language by interactions with one another and the instructor, the study of "authentic texts" (those written in the target language for purposes other than language learning), and the use of the language both in class and outside of class.

Learners converse about personal experiences with partners, and instructors teach topics outside of the realm of traditional grammar to promote language skills in all types of situations. That method also claims to encourage learners to incorporate their personal experiences into their language learning environment and to focus on the learning experience, in addition to the learning of the target language.

According to CLT, the goal of language education is the ability to communicate in the target language. This is in contrast to previous views in which grammatical competence was commonly given top priority.

CLT also positions the teacher as a facilitator, rather than an instructor. Furthermore, the approach is a non-methodical system that does not use a textbook series to teach the target language but works on developing sound oral and verbal skills prior to reading and writing.

Societal influences
The rise of CLT in the 1970s and the early 1980s was partly in response to the lack of success with traditional language teaching methods and partly by the increase in demand for language learning. In Europe, the advent of the European Common Market, an economic predecessor to the European Union, led to migration in Europe and an increased number of people who needed to learn a foreign language for work or personal reasons. Meanwhile, more children were given the opportunity to learn foreign languages in school, as the number of secondary schools offering languages rose worldwide as part of a general trend of curriculum-broadening and modernization, with foreign-language study no longer confined to the elite academies. In Britain, the introduction of comprehensive schools, which offered foreign-language study to all children, rather than to the select few of the elite grammar schools, greatly increased the demand for language learning.

The increased demand included many learners who struggled with traditional methods such as grammar translation, which involves the direct translation of sentence after sentence as a way to learn the language. Those methods assumed that students aimed to master the target language and were willing to study for years before expecting to use the language in real life. However, those assumptions were challenged by adult learners, who were busy with work, and by schoolchildren who were less academically gifted and so could not devote years to learning before they could use the language. Educators realized that to motivate those students an approach with a more immediate reward was necessary, and they began to use CLT, an approach that emphasizes communicative ability and yielded better results.

Academic influences
Already in the late 19th century, the American educator John Dewey was writing about learning by doing, and later that learning should be based on the learner's interests and experiences. In 1963, American psychologist David Ausubel released his book The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning calling for a holistic approach to learners teaching through meaningful material. American educator Clifford Prator published a paper in 1965 calling for teachers to turn from an emphasis on manipulation (drills) towards communication where learners were free to choose their own words. In 1966, the sociolinguist Dell Hymes posited the concept of communicative competence considerably broadening out Noam Chomsky's syntactic concept of competence. Also, in 1966, American psychologist Jerome Bruner wrote that learners construct their own understanding of the world based on their experiences and prior knowledge, and teachers should provide scaffolding to promote this. Bruner appears to have been influenced by Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist whose zone of proximal development is a similar concept.

Later in the 1970s British linguist M.A.K. Halliday studied how language functions are expressed through grammar.

The development of communicative language teaching was bolstered by these academic ideas. Before the growth of communicative language teaching, the primary method of language teaching was situational language teaching, a method that was much more clinical in nature and relied less on direct communication. In Britain, applied linguists began to doubt the efficacy of situational language teaching, partly in response to Chomsky's insights into the nature of language. Chomsky had shown that the structural theories of language then prevalent could not explain the variety that is found in real communication. In addition, applied linguists like Christopher Candlin and Henry Widdowson observed that the current model of language learning was ineffective in classrooms. They saw a need for students to develop communicative skill and functional competence in addition to mastering language structures.

In 1966, the linguist and anthropologist Dell Hymes developed the concept of communicative competence, which redefined what it meant to "know" a language. In addition to speakers having mastery over the structural elements of language, they must also be able to use those structural elements appropriately in a variety of speech domains. That can be neatly summed up by Hymes's statement: "There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless." The idea of communicative competence stemmed from Chomsky's concept of the linguistic competence of an ideal native speaker. Hymes did not make a concrete formulation of communicative competence, but subsequent authors, notably Michael Canale, have tied the concept to language teaching. Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence in terms of three components: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. Canale (1983) refined the model by adding discourse competence, which contains the concepts of cohesion and coherence.

An influential development in the history of communicative language teaching was the work of the Council of Europe in creating new language syllabi. When communicative language teaching had effectively replaced situational language teaching as the standard by leading linguists, the Council of Europe made an effort to once again bolster the growth of the new method, which led to the Council of Europe creating a new language syllabus. Education was a high priority for the Council of Europe, which set out to provide a syllabus that would meet the needs of European immigrants. Among the studies that it used in designing the course was one by a British linguist, D. A. Wilkins, that defined language using "notions" and "functions," rather than more traditional categories of grammar and vocabulary. The new syllabus reinforced the idea that language could not be adequately explained by grammar and syntax but instead relied on real interaction.

In the mid-1990s, the Dogme 95 manifesto influenced language teaching through the Dogme language teaching movement. It proposed that published materials stifle the communicative approach. As such, the aim of the Dogme approach to language teaching is to focus on real conversations about practical subjects in which communication is the engine of learning. The idea behind the Dogme approach is that communication can lead to explanation, which leads to further learning. That approach is the antithesis of situational language teaching, which emphasizes learning by text and prioritizes grammar over communication.

A survey of communicative competence by Bachman (1990) divides competency into the broad headings of "organizational competence," which includes both grammatical and discourse (or textual) competence, and "pragmatic competence," which includes both sociolinguistic and "illocutionary" competence. Strategic competence is associated with the interlocutors' ability in using communication strategies.

Classroom activities
CLT teachers choose classroom activities based on what they believe will be most effective for students developing communicative abilities in the target language (TL). Oral activities are popular among CLT teachers compared to grammar drills or reading and writing activities, because they include active conversation and creative, unpredicted responses from students. Activities vary based on the level of language class they are used in. They promote collaboration, fluency, and comfort in the TL. The six activities listed and explained below are commonly used in CLT classrooms.

Role-play
Role-play is an oral activity usually done in pairs, whose main goal is to develop students' communicative abilities in a certain setting.

Example: This activity gives students the chance to improve their communication skills in the TL in a low-pressure situation. Most students are more comfortable speaking in pairs rather than in front of the entire class.
 * 1) The instructor sets the scene: where is the conversation taking place? (E.g., in a café, in a park, etc.)
 * 2) The instructor defines the goal of the students' conversation. (E.g., the speaker is asking for directions, the speaker is ordering coffee, the speaker is talking about a movie they recently saw, etc.)
 * 3) The students converse in pairs for a designated amount of time.

Instructors need to be aware of the differences between a conversation and an utterance. Students may use the same utterances repeatedly when doing this activity and not actually have a creative conversation. If instructors do not regulate what kinds of conversations students are having, then the students might not be truly improving their communication skills.

Interviews
An interview is an oral activity done in pairs, whose main goal is to develop students' interpersonal skills in the TL.

Example: This activity, since it is highly structured, allows for the instructor to more closely monitor students' responses. It can zone in on one specific aspect of grammar or vocabulary, while still being a primarily communicative activity and giving the students communicative benefits.
 * 1) The instructor gives each student the same set of questions to ask a partner.
 * 2) Students take turns asking and answering the questions in pairs.

This is an activity that should be used primarily in the lower levels of language classes, because it will be most beneficial to lower-level speakers. Higher-level speakers should be having unpredictable conversations in the TL, where neither the questions nor the answers are scripted or expected. If this activity were used with higher-level speakers it wouldn't have many benefits.

Group work
Group work is a collaborative activity whose purpose is to foster communication in the TL, in a larger group setting.

Example: Students can feel overwhelmed in language classes, but this activity can take away from that feeling. Students are asked to focus on one piece of information only, which increases their comprehension of that information. Better comprehension leads to better communication with the rest of the group, which improves students' communicative abilities in the TL.
 * 1) Students are assigned a group of no more than six people.
 * 2) Students are assigned a specific role within the group. (E.g., member A, member B, etc.)
 * 3) The instructor gives each group the same task to complete.
 * 4) Each member of the group takes a designated amount of time to work on the part of the task to which they are assigned.
 * 5) The members of the group discuss the information they have found, with each other and put it all together to complete the task.

Instructors should be sure to monitor that each student is contributing equally to the group effort. It takes a good instructor to design the activity well, so that students will contribute equally, and benefit equally from the activity.

Information gap
Information gap is a collaborative activity, whose purpose is for students to effectively obtain information that was previously unknown to them, in the TL.

Example: Completing information gap activities improves students' abilities to communicate about unknown information in the TL. These abilities are directly applicable to many real-world conversations, where the goal is to find out some new piece of information, or simply to exchange information.
 * 1) The class is paired up. One partner in each pair is Partner A, and the other is Partner B.
 * 2) All the students that are Partner A are given a sheet of paper with a time-table on it. The time-table is filled in half-way, but some of the boxes are empty.
 * 3) All the students that are Partner B are given a sheet of paper with a time-table on it. The boxes that are empty on Partner A's time-table are filled in on Partner B's. There are also empty boxes on Partner B's time-table, but they are filled in on Partner A's.
 * 4) The partners must work together to ask about and supply each other with the information they are both missing, to complete each other's time-tables.

Instructors should not overlook the fact that their students need to be prepared to communicate effectively for this activity. They need to know certain vocabulary words, certain structures of grammar, etc. If the students have not been well prepared for the task at hand, then they will not communicate effectively.

Opinion sharing
Opinion sharing is a content-based activity, whose purpose is to engage students' conversational skills, while talking about something they care about.

Example: Opinion sharing is a great way to get more introverted students to open up and share their opinions. If a student has a strong opinion about a certain topic, then they will speak up and share.
 * 1) The instructor introduces a topic and asks students to contemplate their opinions about it. (E.g., dating, school dress codes, global warming)
 * 2) The students talk in pairs or small groups, debating their opinions on the topic.

Respect is key with this activity. If a student does not feel like their opinion is respected by the instructor or their peers, then they will not feel comfortable sharing, and they will not receive the communicative benefits of this activity.

Scavenger hunt
A scavenger hunt is a mingling activity that promotes open interaction between students.

Example: In doing this activity, students have the opportunity to speak with a number of classmates, while still being in a low-pressure situation, and talking to only one person at a time. After learning more about each other, and getting to share about themselves, students will feel more comfortable talking and sharing during other communicative activities.
 * 1) The instructor gives students a sheet with instructions on it. (e.g. Find someone who has a birthday in the same month as yours.)
 * 2) Students go around the classroom asking and answering questions about each other.
 * 3) The students wish to find all of the answers they need to complete the scavenger hunt.

Since this activity is not as structured as some of the others, it is important for instructors to add structure. If certain vocabulary should be used in students' conversations, or a certain grammar is necessary to complete the activity, then instructors should incorporate that into the scavenger hunt.

Criticism
Although CLT has been extremely influential in the field of language teaching, it is not universally accepted and has been subject to significant critique.

In his critique of CLT, Michael Swan addresses both the theoretical and practical problems with CLT. He mentions that CLT is not an altogether cohesive subject but one in which theoretical understandings (by linguists) and practical understandings (by language teachers) differ greatly. Criticism of the theory of CLT includes that it makes broad claims regarding the usefulness of CLT while citing little data, it uses a large amount of confusing vocabulary, and it assumes knowledge that is predominately not language-specific (such as the ability to make educated guesses) to be language-specific. Swan suggests that those theoretical issues lead to confusion in the application of CLT techniques.

Where confusion in the application of CLT techniques is readily apparent is in classroom settings. Swan suggests that CLT techniques often suggest prioritizing the "function" of a language (what one can do with the language knowledge one has) over the "structure" of a language (the grammatical systems of the language). That priority can leave learners with serious gaps in their knowledge of the formal aspects of their target language. Swan also suggests that in CLT techniques, the languages that a student might already know are not valued or employed in instructional techniques.

Further critique of CLT techniques in classroom teaching can be attributed to Elaine Ridge. One of her criticisms of CLT is that it falsely implies that there is a general consensus regarding the definition of "communicative competence," which CLT claims to facilitate. Because there is no such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full or even adequate use of the language. That individuals are proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is an endangered language. That criticism largely has to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular though it may not necessarily be the best method of language teaching.

Ridge also notes that CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely standard definition of what CLT is, which is especially true for the teaching of grammar, the formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question. Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances, despite being grammatically incorrect, as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.

Stephen Bax's critique of CLT has to do with the context of its implementation. Bax asserts that many researchers associate the use of CLT techniques with modernity and so the lack of CLT techniques as a lack of modernism. That way, those researchers consider teachers or school systems that fail to use CLT techniques as outdated and suggest that their students learn the target language "in spite of" the absence of CLT techniques, as if CLT were the only way to learn a language, and everyone who fails to implement its techniques is ignorant and cannot teach the target language.

title: Communicative language teaching


text:
Reynolds decomposition

In fluid dynamics and turbulence theory, Reynolds decomposition is a mathematical technique used to separate the expectation value of a quantity from its fluctuations.

Decomposition
For example, for a quantity $$u$$ the decomposition would be $$u(x,y,z,t) = \overline{u(x,y,z)} + u'(x,y,z,t) $$ where $$\overline{u}$$ denotes the expectation value of $$u$$, (often called the steady component/time, spatial or ensemble average), and $$u'$$, are the deviations from the expectation value (or fluctuations). The fluctuations are defined as the expectation value subtracted from quantity $$u$$ such that their time average equals zero.

The expected value, $$\overline{u}$$, is often found from an ensemble average which is an average taken over multiple experiments under identical conditions. The expected value is also sometime denoted $$\langle u\rangle$$, but it is also seen often with the over-bar notation.

Direct numerical simulation, or resolution of the Navier–Stokes equations completely in $$(x,y,z,t)$$, is only possible on extremely fine computational grids and small time steps even when Reynolds numbers are low, and becomes prohibitively computationally expensive at high Reynolds' numbers. Due to computational constraints, simplifications of the Navier-Stokes equations are useful to parameterize turbulence that are smaller than the computational grid, allowing larger computational domains.

Reynolds decomposition allows the simplification of the Navier–Stokes equations by substituting in the sum of the steady component and perturbations to the velocity profile and taking the mean value. The resulting equation contains a nonlinear term known as the Reynolds stresses which gives rise to turbulence.

title: Reynolds decomposition


text:
User talk:Nintendomon74

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

For image use, see Images and Extended image syntax. As for preventing edits, I'm afraid only Sysops can do that, and it's not normally done for regular articles unless there's a problem with vandalism or edit wars... Evercat 23:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For image use, see Images and Extended image syntax. As for preventing edits, I'm afraid only Sysops can do that, and it's not normally done for regular articles unless there's a problem with vandalism or edit wars... Evercat 23:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sor Enne (talk • contribs)

For image use, see Images and Extended image syntax. As for preventing edits, I'm afraid only Sysops can do that, and it's not normally done for regular articles unless there's a problem with vandalism or edit wars... Evercat 23:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For image use, see Images and Extended image syntax. As for preventing edits, I'm afraid only Sysops can do that, and it's not normally done for regular articles unless there's a problem with vandalism or edit wars... Evercat 23:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sor Enne (talk • contribs)

title: User talk:Nintendomon74


text:
User talk:Lenore (usurped)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Talk:Oscar Wilde
Usually we don't make deletions of anything other than blatant vandalism from article talk pages. I've left your deletion alone, since it seems harmless, but probably you shouldn't do this: people think of it as hiding evidence of process. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lenore (usurped)


text:
Selwyn

Selwyn may refer to:

Institutions

 * Selwyn College, Auckland, is a multicultural, co-educational high school in Auckland, New Zealand
 * Selwyn College, Cambridge, one of the University of Cambridge colleges, UK
 * Selwyn College, Otago, hall of residence at the University of Otago, New Zealand
 * Selwyn House School, private independent boys' school in Westmount, Quebec, Canada
 * Selwyn School, a private school in Denton, Texas, US
 * Harris and Selwyn Theaters, twin theatres in Chicago, Illinois, US
 * American Airlines Theatre, New York City, originally called the Selwyn Theatre

People

 * Selwyn (name), including lists of people with the surname and given name
 * Selwyn (singer), Australian R&B singer

Australia

 * Selwyn, Queensland, a ghost town
 * Selwyn County, New South Wales, one of the 141 Cadastral divisions of New South Wales, Australia
 * Selwyn Snowfields, a ski resort in New South Wales, Australia
 * Selwyn Range (Australia), a range of highlands in north-west Queensland, Australia
 * Selwyn's Rock, glaciated pavement in Inman Valley, South Australia

Canada

 * Selwyn Range (British Columbia), a subrange of the Canadian Rockies near Mount Robson
 * Selwyn Mountains, a large mountain range in Yukon and the Northwest Territories
 * Selwyn, Ontario, a township

New Zealand

 * Selwyn District, rural district in central Canterbury, New Zealand
 * Selwyn (New Zealand electorate), one of the current electorates in the New Zealand House of Representatives
 * Selwyn River / Waikirikiri, a river in the Selwyn District
 * Selwyn, New Zealand, a settlement on the south bank of the Selwyn River

United States

 * Selwyn, West Virginia
 * Selwyn (Mechanicsville, Virginia), a historic home

title: Selwyn