text:
Talk:Murray River

Indigenous names
I would propose using five different indigenous names for the Murray.

(Ngarrindjeri: Murrundi, Barapa Bapara: Mile or Mirri, Yorta Yorta: Dhungala, Wiradjuri: Milawa, Ngarigu: Indi)

The entry for Ngarrindjeri is currently wrong. This should be Murrundi.

Reference: https://nativetitle.org.au/publications/ngarrindjeri-nation-yaruwar-ruwe-plan

The majority of the tribes appear to use a variation on Mile or Milloo (i.e. Barapa Bapara: Mile or Mirri; Wemba Wemba: Mile; Wadi Wadi: Miilu, Milu, Milloo, Millooie; Latje Latje: MiUoo, Millieu; etc). The following is a reference for the Barapa Bapara usage of the names.

Reference: http://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2019.1701574

The Yorta Yorta word Dhungala to remain unchanged but remove Tongala. There are simply too many variations to list these per language group (i.e. just for Yorta Yorta you have Dhungala, Dunghala, Tongala, Dungala, Dunggula, Dhungulla, Fingola)

The word Millewa seems to be the generic word used as an aboriginal name for the Murray, but I haven't managed to locate a reference to any particular tribe. I'm speculating that this word was taken was from the Wiradjuri people at Albury. They currently use Milawa.

Reference: https://wiradjuri.wcclp.com.au/letters/m/words/89839

Indi for the upper Murray above Bringenbrong. It is likely a Ngarigu word from either the Ngarigo or Yaitmathang tribes that historically lived in the upper Murray, taken from a word that means "water plant" (indi or ingi). The Wiradjuri use the word Yindi for this section.

Reference: https://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/vic/indi.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETA Unknown (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

25,000 years BP
In the Cadell Fault section BP is used. What does that signify? Thanks.Kyle Andrew Brown (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before Present. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The real length?
The article states the Murray is 3,750km in length, which would appear to make it the longest flowing river in Australia. However, the infobox states that it is 2,575km in length. Which is correct? There should be no ambiguity here due to the fact that the Murray-Darling is sometimes considered a single river including only the lower part of the Murray and the Darling river, as this article surely deals with the entire river that goes by the name of the Murray. Danielfranklin78 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

--Brooks1970 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)== Murray River the longest river in australia! ==

In this article it states that the Murray river is the second largest river in australia at 3750 Km (approximately). The article states that the Darling river and it tributories is longer. I looked up the Darling River, where it states it is the longest river in Australia, but the figure given is only 2739 Km. I think both articles stating that the Darling river is Australia's longest river is wrong. The Murray river is Australia's longest river even the figures in these two articles conclude this. Another problem with this article is that it states that the Darling river including it tributories are longer than the Murray river. If you are to include the Darling river tributories, why not include the Murray river tributories the Murrumbigee river to name just one? --Brooks1970 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The lenght of the South Australian/ Victorian border is state as 3.6 km- the river distance is actually 10.7km - the 3.6 is the distance between the two lines of longitute that the border meets the river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roo1000 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the Lower Lakes?
News articles often talk about the imminent death of the "Lower Lakes" of the River Murray, so I came here hoping to find a geographical definition of the "Lower Lakes". A few mentions of one Lake or another, but no explanation of the "Lower Lakes" - can anyone help? 150.101.78.49 (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lower lakes are Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina in South Australia. Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Border between NSW and Victoria

 * Everyone knows this, but maybe it needs a little tightening up. There was a case some years ago where a guy lived on an island in the middle of the river, and claimed he wasn't liable for state taxes from either state.  I believe the High Court saw some merit in his logic, and later the border was officially moved to the southern bank of the river, so that the water is all now officially within NSW (or maybe the other way around).  Anyone have any info on this?

 * I've heard of the court case with the taxes which but I'm unsure if it's true since there is many myths. Some information I've heard is that half of the river is in NSW and VIC, Sections of the river are in NSW or VIC states ect but this issue is I've never found any sources to see what is fact. Bidgee (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Here in Mildura (and I assume everywhere else within Victoria along the Murray), the river belongs to NSW. To give one example, should one choose to catch fish using a line from the Victorian bank, a NSW fishing licence is required as your line is effectively entering NSW property. More info here. -- Longhair\talk 02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 * That makes some sense. At one time, the entire river was the border, but in the relatively recent past this was changed to a line running along the southern edge.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure the border was always the mean high-water mark on the left bank (looking downstream). NSW was reluctant to have a large and (becoming) prosperous section of its territory removed and fought hard to minimise the area involved. Despite the southern Riverina naturally gravitating to southern ports, such as Melbourne, and even more so, lower Murray ports such as Goolwa, NSW wanted to retain control of navigation on the major river in its territory. Waterway navigation was very very important before the roll-out of railroads. As part of the compromises developed to seal to the deal on the separation, the Port Phillip side were forced to concede the entire Murray. At least that's the story I remember reading. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The transcript here seems to support the idea the border was set at the southern bank back in 1851. "The story really begins in 1851 when a border was drawn between the new colony of Victoria and New South Wales. The leaders of New South Wales placed that border on the southern bank of the Murray River, and as Environmental Historian, Daniel Connell argues, they did so for a reason." -- Longhair\talk 03:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Murrumbidgee

 * Also, I read somewhere that the border was originally going to be the Murrumbidgee, but they changed their mind and made it the Murray. Any details available on this?  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I've also have heard of the Murrumbidgee story as well. Must like the Murray there is many versions. One is that they drew the border on the wrong river (IE: Murray), Second is that NSW didn't want to give up the land south of the Murrumbidgee but compromised on the Murray and the third is that the border if they used the Murrumbidgee that they would have to use to the a small section of the last half of Murray since the Murrumbidgee is a tributary so they used the most of the Murray to form the border. Again I've not found any sources for the facts that the Murrumbidgee was to be the border. Bidgee (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, I've tracked down where I read this. It was an article by Seamus Bradley in The Age on 24 November 2004 ("After 153 years, time to proclaim Victoria's final frontier", p. 3), about the restoration of the cairn marking the official start of the river at Forest Hill, neat Mt Kozzy.  The cairn also marks the start of the straight part of the border, which is apparently called the Black-Allan Line, in honour of the original surveyors, Alexander Black and Alexander Allan (1872).  I never knew that.  The Black-Allan line was supposed to have been formally proclaimed as part of the border in 1874, and a draft proclamation was prepared, but for some reason it was never invoked.  The restoration of the cairn in 2004 was apparently meant to precede the proclamation finally happening in 2005, but I have no info on exactly when, or even if, that happened.  Anyway, as part of the article it was mentioned that the border was originally planned for the Murrumbidgee.  But "the discovery of gold at Delegate, and the question of which colony it lay in, prompted the first survey of the line from the Murray to Cape Howe nearly 20 years after the colonies had split".  That's all it says about the Murrumbidgee.  My reading of that is that, by the time this survey happened (1872), the question of whether the Murray or the Murrumbidgee was the border had long been settled (the colonies split in 1851), and the only remaining issue was exactly where the straight-edge part of the border lay.  But allegedly, prior to the 1851 split, it was an open question about which river was to be the border.  If we can find some info about exactly who made the final decision, and when, that would be good.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

River diversion
Perhaps a small section can describe the plan to divert the murray river inland and break the connection with the sea. This could halt the salination which is now on the rise and increases water availability for adelaide. See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/04/murray-darling/draper-text/9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.172.175 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Different lengths
List_of_rivers_of_Australia, and Murray River articles state different lengths for the river? Carlwev (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Murray River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070829075254/http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/river_murray/river_murray_system/murray_mouth/murray_mouth.htm to http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/river_murray/river_murray_system/murray_mouth/murray_mouth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Murray River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151016012147/http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/index/murray.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/index/murray.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Murray River. 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/20110913173419/http://www.thebasinplan.mdba.gov.au/ to http://thebasinplan.mdba.gov.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926161251/http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/104377/NSW-VIC_Border_Determination.pdf to http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/104377/NSW-VIC_Border_Determination.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003023031/http://www.mdbc.gov.au/river_murray/river_murray.htm to http://www.mdbc.gov.au/river_murray/river_murray.htm

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) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

PS Etona
A Google search shows that this 124-year-old vessel still exists, and has been fully restored. IMHO this article is definitely a keep, and should have been marked as a stub instead of being nominated for merging into the Murray River article. Bahudhara (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two Etonas listed at List of Murray–Darling steamboats. Was there also a separate article? Doug butler (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but the earlier vessel is now briefly mentioned in the stub article. In the List of Murray–Darling steamboats, the first vessel is mentioned twice, as Etona (1), and as Alma. Bahudhara (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

First crossing?
The article currently has River crossings Main article: List of crossings of the Murray River The Murray River has been a significant barrier to land-based travel and trade. Many of the ports for transport of goods along the Murray have also developed as places to cross the river, either by bridge or ferry. The first bridge to cross the Murray, which was built in 1869, is in the town of Murray Bridge, formerly called Edwards Crossing. To distinguish this bridge from the many others that span the Murray River, this bridge is known as Murray River road bridge, Murray Bridge Tolls applied on South Australian ferries until abolished in November 1961.

But the Union Bridge at Albury-Wodonga opened in 1861??? See OPENING OF THE UNION BRIDGE, ALBURY. (1861, September 4). The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express (NSW : 1860 - 1938), p. 3. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article264149304

and there are other articles

The main article does not list earlier iterations of the Union Bridge.

Matilda talk 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Drying up
"It has dried up completely during extreme droughts on three occasions since official record-keeping began." More info would be great! When did this happen? What is the source for this statement? yoyo (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That statement is quite probably true, but to remain in the article, it really should be sourced. I just did a quick search. There's a quite a lot of articles out there that talk about droughts and their effects on the Murray-Darling river system. This one mentions several times when the Darling ceased to flow, but is a bit thin on such details for the Murray itself. There probably are sources, but someone with more time than I have right now needs to hunt them down. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Murray River


text: Talk:Rockin' into the Night

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

title: Talk:Rockin' into the Night


text:
General Motors L platform

The General Motors L platform (commonly called the L-body or L car) was a front-wheel-drive compact car automotive platform that was produced from 1987 through 1996.

The L platform was very similar to the GM N platform; however, the first-generation N-cars were engineered by Oldsmobile, while the L-cars were engineered by Chevrolet. The L platform used a twist-beam rear suspension and MacPherson struts in the front and featured a 103.4 in wheelbase.

Both platforms were used to replace the GM X platform on which the Citation, among others, were based.

GM also used a different L platform for the all-wheel-drive versions of the Chevrolet Astro/GMC Safari mid-size vans.

Canadian Pontiac Tempest
Pontiac sold its own version of the L-body in Canada only. It was marketed as the Tempest from 1987 to 1991. This model featured a unique grill and tail lamps (which were later used on the updated Corsica). This model was dropped after 1991, being replaced by the new 1992 Grand Am sedan.

The L-car lasted just one generation, with the nameplates being retired and replaced by the N-body Chevrolet Malibu.

This platform was the basis for the following vehicles:
 * 1987–1996 Chevrolet Beretta
 * 1987–1996 Chevrolet Corsica
 * 1987–1991 Pontiac Tempest (Canada)

title: General Motors L platform


text:
Talk:Penguin sweater

Untitled
WWF link is dead. Haligonian1 17:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC) OK, I changed it to an ABC link with a knitting pattern.Pustelnik 02:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Looks like the ABC link is dead now. Pustelnik (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Projcet
The page says "The original project has been completed" without any reference to what the original project was. Later in the page it mentions New Zealand but not whether this was the "original project". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.237 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; this is very confusing. Someone please fix. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just found the original oil spill that called for penguin sweaters. Will edit article now. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Project Dead, Needs Update
The project in response to the 2000 oil spill is long dead, though thousands of sweaters were donated. The New Zealand 2011 project similarly is dead, again with thousands of stockpiled sweaters. The veterinarians concerned never used the sweaters, and thought they'd be too traumatic for the penguins. Both organisations now just sell the donated sweaters to raise cash. A March 2014 publicity campaign by the Australian group called for more sweaters, implying they'd be used for oil-soaked penguins, but again intend to sell them in their gift shop. Debunking article with links to newspaper stories backing up all of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantflightlessbirds (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Mike | Giantflightlessbirds 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Penguin sweater


text:
The Long Patrol

The Long Patrol is a fantasy novel by Brian Jacques, published in 1997. It is the tenth book published and the twelfth chronologically in the Redwall series, and it was a New York Times bestseller.

Plot summary
Tamello De Fformelo Tussock (or Tammo), a young hare who lives at Camp Tussock, longs to be part of the Long Patrol at Salamandastron. However, his father, Cornspurrey De Fformelo Tussock, will not hear of it. He believes that his son is too young to join up.

Against her husband's wishes, Tammo's mother, Mem Divinia, prepares for him to leave during the night with Russa Nodrey, a wandering squirrel who is a friend of the family. The two then set off to find the Long Patrol. Along the way, they encounter the ferrets Skulka and Gromal. They do eventually meet up with the Long Patrol, but Russa is killed saving a baby badger, who is named Russano by one of the hares, Rockjaw Grang, in Russa's honour.

Meanwhile, Gormad Tunn, the rat leader of the Rapscallion army has been dying from mortal wounds. The Rapscallions are in fear of Cregga Rose Eyes, the ruler of Salamandastron. Tunn's two sons, Byral Fleetclaw and Damug Warfang, fight to the death to determine who will be the new commander of the Rapscallions. Damug kills Byral through treachery and takes over control of the army, which he commands to move inland.

At Redwall Abbey, the inhabitants discover that the south wall is mysteriously sinking into the ground. Foremole Diggum and his crew believe the best thing to do is to knock the wall down and re-build it. During the night, a storm brings a tree down on the wall, making the moles' job easier but also leaving the Abbey open to attack. The broken wall reveals a well, which turns out to be part of the ancient castle Kotir. Abbess Tansy, Friar Butty, Shad the Gatekeeper, Giygas, and Craklyn the Recorder investigate below. After a harrowing journey, they find the treasure of Verdauga Greeneyes, the long-dead lord of Kotir.

The Long Patrol goes to Redwall, hoping to inform the denizens about the threat posed by Damug. At the abbey, the spirit of Martin the Warrior appears to Tammo, instructing him to go in the company of the hare Midge Manycoats to Damug's camp. Disguised as a vermin seer, Midge advises Damug not to attack the vulnerable abbey directly, but suggests an alternate place and time instead, buying the defenders precious time to prepare themselves.

When the hare Rockjaw Grang is killed by the Rapscallions, Cregga's dreams direct her to the ridge where Midge has directed the battle to occur. Meanwhile, the Redwallers have gathered all the allies they can find, and with the Long Patrol, they battle a losing effort against the rat hordes. At a crucial point in the battle when it seems Damug has won, Lady Cregga Rose Eyes appears with the rest of the Salamandastron hares. She seizes Damug and strangles him, but he hacks at her face, blinding her in the process. The hares and Redwallers are eventually victorious, and the treasure brought back from Kotir by the Friar Butty is melted down into medals for the creatures that fought in battle. The ridge is named The Ridge of a Thousand after the vermin horde that lost all thousand of their number.

In the end, Tammo marries the beautiful Pasque Valerian, the healer of the Long Patrol, and travels to Salamandastron. Cregga remains at Redwall Abbey as the new Badger Mother, and Russano, later on, journeys to Salamandastron, with Russa's hardwood stick as his weapon. He will turn out to be one of the only Badger Lords never to be possessed by the Bloodwrath (the berserker rage Cregga and others suffered from).

Characters in The Long Patrol

 * Tamello De Fformelo Tussock (Tammo)
 * Cornspurrey De Fformelo Tussock
 * Mem Divinia
 * Russa Nodrey
 * Russano the Wise
 * Long Patrol
 * Major Périgord Habile Sinistra
 * Captain Twayblade Sinistra
 * Pasque Valerian
 * Rockjaw Grang
 * Midge Manycoats
 * Drill Sergeant Clubrush
 * Galloper Riffle Swiftback
 * Galloper Algador Swiftback
 * Lance Corporal Ellbrig
 * Shangle Widepad
 * Sergeant Torgoch
 * Lieutenant Morio
 * Corporal Rubbadub
 * Colonel Eyebright
 * Tare and Turry
 * Trowbaggs
 * Deodar
 * Furgale
 * Reeve Starbuck
 * Cheeva
 * Gormad Tunn
 * Byral Fleetclaw
 * Damug Warfang
 * Arven
 * Cregga Rose Eyes
 * Foremole Diggum
 * Abbess Tansy
 * Friar Butty
 * Shad the Gatekeeper
 * Craklyn the Recorder

Book divisions (English)

 * Book 1: The Runaway Recruit
 * Book 2: A Gathering of Warriors
 * Book 3: The Ridge

Translations

 * (Finnish) Jänisten kaukopartio
 * (French) Rougemuraille : La Patrouille
 * Tome 1 : La Fugue de Tammo
 * Tome 2 : Les Pièges de Mousseray
 * Tome 3 : Sous les remparts de Rougemuraille
 * Tome 4 : La Crête des mille
 * (Italian) La Pattuglia Delle Dune
 * (Swedish) Långa Patrullen
 * (Russian) "Дозорный отряд"

title: The Long Patrol


text:
Talk:Gaudy

Reunions
Gaudies are not always reunions of old members. For example, because in the middle ages members of the Queen's College could not return to the north of England over the winter break, two major feasts were held, the Boar's Head Gaudy on Christmas Day and the Needle and Thread Gaudy held on New Years Day. The former is now the major Gaudy for old members and is held just before Christmas. I believe the latter is still held in January, but it is not a reunion. Note also that Queen's now has a Gaudy Lunch on matriculation day for those who matriculated 50 years ago. The "three consecutive matriculation years" may be followed in some colleges, but not in all. My experience at Queen's is that it is two consecutive years plus one or more years from much further back where the number of old members is now rather small. I would also add that Queen's, at least, holds an old members dinner every year and this has all the features of a Gaudy. It is open to all old members on a first come, first served basis. We need to make sure that this artcile reflects practice across the university. --Bduke 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Farkin" events at Dundee
If you wish to include events based around pseudo-histories and fictitious characters, they must be specified as such. Dundee has never had a "Lord Mayor" and there are certainly no records of a Lord Provost of such a name.

Any reversions should be treated as vandalism. Have a nice day, now.Steelwool (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

terms needing explanation
Please explain "college invasions", "green breakfast", "the issue" of junior students, "Bejant/Bejantine", a "Raisin Weekend", a "Raison string", "graduate alumni" (is there any other kind?), etc. It is fine for these places to rejoice in their traditions, but this is Wikipedia.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

University of Cambridge
Are we to assume that the University of Cambridge does not have this tradition? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaudy. 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/20100324201001/http://www.katekennedyclub.org.uk/history.aspx to http://www.katekennedyclub.org.uk/history.aspx

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) 20:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaudy. 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/20070821175458/http://www.radley.org.uk/pages/admin/letters/notices.pdf to http://www.radley.org.uk/pages/admin/letters/notices.pdf

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) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

When?
Can anyone explain when Gaudies are held? Is there a Gaudy season, or do Gaudy dates vary widely by college or university? 84.9.16.97 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gaudy


text:
Michael Burkett

Michael Burkett may refer to:

 * Mike Burkett (politician) (born 1948), American attorney and politician from Idaho
 * Mike Burkett, popularly known as Fat Mike, punk musician
 * Michael Burkett (cricketer) (born 1950), South African cricketer

title: Michael Burkett


text:
Wild-Eyed Southern Boys

Wild-Eyed Southern Boys is the fourth studio album by American Southern rock band .38 Special, released on January 3, 1981, by A&M Records. The album spawned the hit single "Hold On Loosely", which remains a staple track of classic rock, as well as the group's discography. The album reached No. 23 on the Canadian charts. A remastered CD, with four bonus live tracks, was reissued by Rock Candy Records in September 2023.

Critical reception
Record World said that the single "Fantasy Girl" has a "smooth vocal and a virtuoso guitar display."

Track listing

 * 1) "Hold On Loosely" (Don Barnes, Jim Peterik, Jeff Carlisi) – 4:39
 * 2) "First Time Around" (Barnes, Carlisi, Larry Steele, Donnie Van Zant) – 3:59
 * 3) "Wild-Eyed Southern Boys" (Peterik) – 4:18
 * 4) "Back Alley Sally" (Carlisi, Van Zant) – 3:11
 * 5) "Fantasy Girl" (Carlisi, Peterik) – 4:06
 * 6) "Hittin' and Runnin'" (Barnes, Peterik) – 4:55
 * 7) "Honky Tonk Dancer" (Barnes, Steele, Van Zant) – 4:59
 * 8) "Throw Out the Line" (Barnes, Carlisi, Van Zant) – 3:45
 * 9) "Bring It On" (Carlisi, Steele, Van Zant) – 5:38

Personnel

 * Donnie Van Zant – lead vocals (2–4, 7–9), backing vocals
 * Don Barnes – rhythm and lead guitar, piano (3), lead vocals (1, 3, 5, 6), backing vocals
 * Jeff Carlisi – lead and rhythm guitar, steel guitar
 * Larry Junstrom – bass
 * Steve Brookins – drums
 * Jack Grondin – drums

Additional personnel

 * Steve McRay – piano (4, 6, 7)
 * Terry Emery – percussion
 * Carol Bristow – backing vocals
 * Lu Moss – backing vocals
 * Carol Veto – backing vocals

Production

 * Rodney Mills – producer, engineer
 * Greg Quesnel – engineer
 * Bob Ludwig – mastering at Masterdisk (New York City, New York)
 * Chuck Beeson – art direction, design
 * Mick McGinty – illustrations
 * Willardson & White, Inc. – illustrations
 * Paddy Reynolds – sleeve photography

title: Wild-Eyed Southern Boys


text:
Russ Ortiz

Russell Reid Ortiz (born June 5, 1974) is an American former professional baseball pitcher. Ortiz during his career played for the San Francisco Giants, Atlanta Braves, Arizona Diamondbacks, Baltimore Orioles, Houston Astros and Los Angeles Dodgers of Major League Baseball. He is 6ft 1in tall, and weighs 220 pounds.

Early life
Russell Reid Ortiz was born on June 5, 1974, in Van Nuys, California. Ortiz attended Montclair College Preparatory in Van Nuys, California.

College career
Ortiz attended University of Oklahoma. In 1994, he pitched for a Sooners squad that would win the College World Series. In 38 innings, he had three saves and 30 strikeouts. In 1994, he played collegiate summer baseball in the Cape Cod Baseball League for the Yarmouth-Dennis Red Sox.

Draft and minor leagues
The right-hander was selected by the San Francisco Giants in the 4th round of the June 1995 Major League Baseball draft. He was drafted as a closer, but converted to the starting rotation while in the Giants' farm system.

San Francisco Giants (1998–2002)
On April 2,, Ortiz made his major league debut in relief, collecting four strikeouts over two innings. The rookie bounced all over the Giants pitching staff and between San Francisco and Triple-A Fresno, working in relief, out of the rotation and in the minors as injuries and inconsistency plagued the Giants rotation.

In, Ortiz came into his own and held on to his spot in the Giants' rotation, jumping on the scene as one of the National League's premier starters. His 18 wins was good for a tie of fourth in the NL and was in the top ten in the senior circuit in many other pitching statistics.

was a tale of two seasons for Ortiz, as he was rocked hard before the All-Star break to a tune of three wins, eight losses and 7.55 ERA falling out of favor with manager Dusty Baker. He allowed ten runs in a game versus the Milwaukee Brewers on May 21, 2000. Despite the ten runs, Ortiz won the game as the Giants outslugged Milwaukee 16–10, making Ortiz the first pitcher since Bob Friend in to allow ten or more runs and still earn a win. Injuries in the second half of the season gave Ortiz the opportunity to redeem himself, and the California native shined. His 10–4 record and 3.22 ERA after the mid-summer classic helped San Francisco into the National League playoffs, and Ortiz started Game 3 of 2000 NLDS versus the New York Mets.

Ortiz returned to form in owning a 17–9 record a solid 3.29 ERA, anchoring the pitching staff for a competitive Giants squad. He also set career highs in innings ($218 2/3$ innings) and strikeouts (169).

would prove to be another good effort on Ortiz's part as he and the Giants came within one game of a world championship. Yet again, Ortiz had another stellar second half effort helping the Giants capture the 2002 NL Wild Card. His personal six-game winning streak down the stretch propelled San Francisco into the playoffs and Ortiz captured two more victories (with a 2.19 ERA) over Atlanta in the Division Series. He was not as successful however in the NLCS versus St. Louis surrendering four runs in $4 2/3$ innings in Game 3 of that series. The World Series versus the Angels also featured two polar opposite games for the starter. The Halos shelled him for seven runs in Game 2 of the World Series, as the Giants went on to lose 11–10. He returned to pitch the pivotal Game 6, and again redeemed himself working $6 1/3$ innings of two-hit baseball before giving up consecutive singles in the seventh inning. Manager Dusty Baker gave him the game ball when he took him out, assuming they would hold on to a 5–0 lead. The Angels came back to win the game by a final score of 6–5, and went on to win the World Series in seven games.

Years later, Ortiz reflected on the moment of getting the ball from Baker, stating that it was an "honor" getting the ball as a sign of Baker's affection for his players, and Ortiz stated that he has it displayed in his office; while he mused that he wish he had not been taken out, he stated that if "You hand it off to those three guys, I guarantee you if there was a chance again, it would’ve gone our way.”

Atlanta Braves (2003–2004)
Ortiz landed on the trade block in the 2002 offseason and was dealt to Atlanta for pitchers Damian Moss and Merkin Valdéz on December 17, 2002. United with pitching guru Leo Mazzone, Ortiz put together a spectacular season, going 21–7 with a 3.81 ERA and collecting his only All-Star nod. With Ortiz as staff ace, the Braves won their 12th consecutive NL East title, and Ortiz took fourth place in the NL Cy Young voting. In a demonstration of how far the pitcher had come, Ortiz pitched a 1–0 complete game shutout and knocked in the game's only run against the eventual world champion Florida Marlins. Ortiz lost Game 1 of the 2003 NLDS against Chicago however, but once again bounced back to win Game 4 and force a deciding Game 5 that Atlanta would lose.

Ortiz displayed more pitching prowess in helping Atlanta to another division title while collecting a 15–9 record, with a slightly inflated 4.19 ERA. Another stellar late season game came in Montréal on September 4, as Ortiz carried a perfect game into the 6th inning and allowed only two Expos to reach second base in the complete game 9–0 shutout. That improved Ortiz to 5–0 with 1.13 ERA against the Expos in 2004. Still, Ortiz and the Braves could not advance past the first round of the playoffs as he was clobbered by Houston for 5 runs in 3 innings as the Astros advanced.

Arizona Diamondbacks (2005–2006)
Ortiz was on the move again in, this time to Arizona as the Diamondbacks tried to overhaul their starting rotation and line-up after a 111 loss season the year before. Arizona's hefty four-year, $33 million deal lured the righty to the desert. The pitcher who had never spent as much as a day on the disabled list in the previous seven seasons, battled a rib fracture after winning four of his first six games for the D-Backs. When he returned from the disabled list, Ortiz proceeded to lose six straight decisions and ended the year on a 1–9 slide.

saw another injury (this time to his calf) and more poor pitching performances. On June 13, 2006, Ortiz was designated for assignment by the Diamondbacks as he sunk to 0–5 with an ERA of 7.54. The five losses contributed to 1–14 mark from May 2005 to May 2006, and the Diamondbacks simply could not afford to allow Ortiz to work out his issues at the major league level. With nearly $22 million and over two-and-a-half years remaining on the contract, Arizona's cut of Ortiz is thought to be the most expensive release in Major League Baseball history.

Baltimore Orioles (2006)
On June 25, 2006, the Orioles signed Ortiz to a one-year deal. His first start for Baltimore and in the American League ended in a no decision on July 1 against one of his former clubs, the Atlanta Braves; but by the time the season ended, Ortiz had compiled a record of 0–8 with an ERA of 8.14.

To his credit up to this point, in 251 career games (241 starts) and 1,483.2 IP, Ortiz had 108 career wins to 76 losses, and an overall ERA of 4.28. He also had 1,072 career strikeouts to 773 walks. Ortiz had been a decent batter (for a pitcher) with a .208 lifetime batting average and 96 hits in 462 at-bats. He also had 22 career doubles, 6 career home runs and 44 total RBI. The pitcher also had a solid glove, committing only four errors in over 1,400 innings of work.

Return to San Francisco Giants (2007)
Ortiz was picked up by the Giants on January 9,, and signed to a one-year contract for $380,000 to compete in spring training for the fifth starting position in the Giants' rotation. San Francisco general manager Brian Sabean noted that Ortiz while pitching winter ball in Puerto Rico showed both increased velocity and renewed movement in his pitches and was signed on that basis.

Ortiz won the fifth starter spot with an excellent spring training, posting a 3.00 ERA – over five points lower than his regular season ERA the previous year – in 18 innings pitched. In his second regular start, he posted his first win since 2005, and in his third start, he won again, this time defeating the Diamondbacks, who were still paying Ortiz the large majority of his salary.

However, later in the year, Ortiz was placed on the DL for an inflamed elbow, and when top prospect Tim Lincecum shined in his place, Ortiz was sent to the bullpen after his return. Ortiz was later placed again on the DL for a forearm strain and he returned in early August. On August 21, 2007, Ortiz left a game in the 5th inning after throwing three balls. Ortiz appeared to be suffering from elbow pain. Ortiz had missed 73 games in 2007 before this injury. Ortiz underwent Tommy John surgery, and missed the entire MLB season.

Houston Astros (2009)
On January 13, 2009, the Houston Astros signed Ortiz to a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training. Ortiz won the job as the fifth starter for the Astros with a 3.18 ERA in seven spring training games. Pitching in relief on April 8, 2009, he gave up a three-run home run to Mike Fontenot on his first pitch in an official major league game in almost two years. However, after struggling in his first outing, Ortiz started this season 2–0. After that he went 1–6. He had a record of 3–6 with a 5.57 ERA on July 30, 2009, when he was released by the Astros.

New York Yankees (2009)
On August 5, 2009, Ortiz signed a minor league contract with the New York Yankees. He reported to AAA Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and joined a minor league starting rotation. On August 17, Ortiz opted out of his contract with the Yankees to become a free agent.

Colorado Rockies (2009)
On August 22, 2009, Ortiz signed a minor-league deal with the Colorado Rockies and was assigned to the Triple-A affiliate Colorado Springs. After going 0–1 with a 7.07 ERA for Colorado Springs he was released by the Rockies on September 5, 2009.

Los Angeles Dodgers (2010)
On January 8, 2010, Ortiz signed a minor league deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers with an invite to spring training. After good performances in spring training games, Ortiz was added to the Dodgers Major League roster to start the season. He was 0–1 with a 10.29 ERA in six appearances for the Dodgers and then was designated for assignment on April 18. He chose to decline a minor league assignment and became a free agent. He announced his retirement shortly afterward.

Personal life
Ortiz resides in Mesa, Arizona with his wife Stacy, two daughters Grace Elaine and Lilian Reid and son Hudson.

In high school he was a teammate of future major league DH Brad Fullmer. Fullmer's Angels faced off against Ortiz' Giants in the 2002 World Series, and a 7th inning, Game 6 single by Fullmer led to Ortiz's exit from the game (despite the Giants being up 5–0 at the time). Anaheim would rally to win the game 6–5 and eventually the World Series four games to three.

He was the creator/owner of 2nd Guy Golf, a clothing company. One-hundred percent of proceeds from sales went to charity, which ran for seven years. He also has served in volunteer work with youth sports such as athletic director and Little League.

title: Russ Ortiz


text:
Talk:Wild-Eyed Southern Boys

Jeff Smith
Is the information about Jeff Smith true? The dearth of information about this on the internet makes me suspicious, as does the idea that underage people wouldn't be able to receive songwriting or playing credits. Why not? What about Stevie Wonder, Lorde, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4300:BBF:9E7:8E1F:D3EA:F8C8 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

JEFF SMITH IS A FRAUD!
This fraud is plagiarizing the hard work of the men who created this classic album. He is a poseur and has never been a part of anything to do with 38 Special. The band has never heard of him and they are PISSED that he would be such a lowlife to rob them of their credits. He should be BANNED by Wikipedia. 68.250.162.248 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wild-Eyed Southern Boys


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScudLee

ScudLee
(14/10/2) ending 00:00 03:02, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

ScudLee was nominated awhile back, but declined the nomination. Some concerns were voiced about lack of experience. He's been an editor since January now, and is now quite experienced. He has always been a reasonable participant, and I would trust his maturity to follow the rules of adminship. Some concerns were voiced last time that his lack of a userpage was unusual and perhap undesirably. I tend to agree that it is unusual, and also undesirable (if only because it draws my attention on recent changes when I'm looking for possible vandalism). I don't think it's a big deal though, and don't think it should impact his adminship. (note: he has a userpage at the moment, but it is currently filled with a message that was meant for talk) Tuf-Kat 03:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure. - 11:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)

Support
 * 1) Tuf-Kat 03:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Acegikmo1 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC). ScudLee is a meticulous and driven contributor whose work has been vital in the success of WikiProject Albums.
 * 3) Ok. But you really should consider making a userpage, even if it's just a redirect to your talk page or something similar. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:57, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * 4) ugen64 00:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC) - Three oppositions because the user doesn't have a user page... and I thought I'd seen everything...
 * 5) Great work! I will support you after you create a user page. --Lst27 21:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) I support.
 * 6) Ejrrjs 23:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Well I think you should create a user page, but I'm not going to oppose you because of it. That's kind of silly. Andre ( talk )A| 04:31, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) I am considering blanking my user page in protest over the opposing votes.... func(talk) 18:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Goobergunch 20:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) CryptoDerk 02:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Don't consider not having a user page to be a reason against adminship... Cyp  2004年10月25日 (月) 11:44 (UTC)
 * 12) I don't see such a mild eccentricity as reason to oppose, since it does not in any way suggest that ScudLee would abuse his capabilities. I've never had any problem with the edits of his that I've seen. Isomorphic 22:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. What Cyp said above. - RedWordSmith 02:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) While I would prefer Lee to have a userpage just cos the red link looks weird, I respect his reasoning below. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 19:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Won't support users without a user page. I don't like being forced to look twice if it is a newbie or not. Anárion 11:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Yeah, that irked me too. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Will support if user creates a user page (even if it's just a redirect to his talk page or something similar). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I find this nomination, at a time when there was no user page, as either significant of a lack of respect for fellow wikipedians or of a lack of understanding for the workings and social codes of wikipedia that after all is one of the most basic requirements for an administrator. A later construction of a user page won't change this perception. There might be other reasons to oppose this candidacy too, but I see no reason to investigate further. /Tuomas 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Opposing, for the same reason as the above three. Ambi 14:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Adminship is as much a social issue as anything else, imho. User pages are useful for finding out about someone's habits and beliefs on Wikipedia, and for someone with admin responsibilities, there should at least be a few words on it.  — siro  χ  o  02:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose --fvw 12:02, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
 * 8) Same reasoning as Anárion, above.  —Lowellian (talk)   07:51, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I know nothing about him, and after looking at the deletion history of his userpage I see I never will. Oppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Wikipedia works because its contributors mostly respect its social norms and "soft" limits.  While there is a place and time to challenge the status quo, this isn't it, and I am singularly unimpressed that in the comments below, ScudLee considers the relatively low-content user pages of certain other pseudonymous low-profile contributors to be disingenuous.  uc 13:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Same as three. I've simply never head of him. -- user:zanimum

Neutral
 * Neutral, pending a more thorough examination of edits. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) Didn't he have the vote go on for a while last time, only to have it turn out he had no intention of accepting the nomination? Everyking 10:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See here for the old nomination. Tuf-Kat 19:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Obsession w/ pop culture trivia shows a lack of judgement. Otoh I think ScudLee rocks for not having a user page. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7086 edits since 19 January 2004, for those interested. In the interests of full disclosure I am obliged to mention that the overwhelming majority of his edits are minor ones.  BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to make sure that the matter is perfectly clear: Are all 6 oppose votes over nothing more than the user page issue? No one has had any problems with this user, it's just the user page, is that right? Very strange criteria we have.... func(talk) 20:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This whole "no user page" thing

I wasn't going to bother explaining my lack of user page unless directly asked why, but I'm slightly disturbed by the assumption of bad faith being made by some people. I'm not doing it to irritate people. I'm not trying to pretend to be a newbie. I'm not doing it because I'm unaware of the social norms on Wikipedia, I'm well aware of these. I'm just a private person who doesn't particularly want to reveal any details about himself. So why not just have something else on my user page, like admins Tuf-Kat, Docu or Kate (all three of whom I respect greatly)? Because, and I mean this as no offence to those users, to my mind it's a form of lying, deception. Your user page should contain information about you! A person who sees a live link to someone else's user page should reasonably expect to find out something about the person who made that edit, who made that comment. I don't want someone winding up on my page and finding nonsense, or finding themselves redirected to my talk page and thinking "Hey, what gives?". I would rather have them know from the outset that there is nothing there. I don't like lying, I don't like feeling like I'm lying. So, no user page. If people can't trust me because of that, fair enough.

Oh, and even if I were to create a user page, I would still have to wait until after the nomination period, because otherwise it would give the impression that I'm doing it solely to secure votes. I'm not going to change my behavior or beliefs just to become an admin. - 16:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)
 * I understand you sentiments. And I see how some could construe this a petty objection.  But because you don't have a user page, your username always shows up as a red-link.  Besides being annoying, it's distracting.  If you're a very private person, what's wrong with just creating a user page that reads, "I am a very private person, so you won't find information about me here", or something of the like?  blankfaze . (что??) 18:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The point is a person who looks at a live link to my user page would reasonably expect to find something more than "I am a very private person, so you won't find information about me here", by not providing it I am in effect deceiving that person. I just can't do it and I know it probably sounds silly, but I really can't.  The only honest option is to have it as a red link. - 18:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee   (talk)
 * While I understand your sentiments, I stand behind my decision to oppose your nomination based on the lack of a user page. The greater majority of userpages in the Wikipedia I have seen has little or no real info on the editor (mine lacks much info), but unwillingness to write a short text on oneself is no reason not have a userpage. I will change my vote to support if any userpage is made and kept, even if it is just a period or a redirect. The red link just irks me too much. Anárion 02:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nobody will think you're dishonest, ScudLee, if you just redirect your user page to your talk page, as many users do. Andre ( talk )A| 04:31, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm sure I wouldn't see it as pandering for votes.  Really though, opposition based on the lack of a userpage seems silly to me.  It's an incredibly minor annoyance on Recentchanges, and doesn't otherwise matter.  Scudlee's userpage is no less informative than mine, among others.  Despite concerns having been raised, Scudlee has been a fully functioning member of the Wikipedia community for months even without a userpage, and has been an integral part of the evolution of WikiProject:Albums, proving that the lack of a userpage does not significantly impede the pedia's progress, nor his ability to participate in it. Also, it's significantly less intrusive and annoying than people with weird characters or images for signatures. Tuf-Kat 21:07, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Probably just the Recent Changes stuff, reverting vandalism, speedy deletes, warning/blocking persistant vandals. I usually keep a weather eye on recentchanges and my watchlist, even if I'm not actively editing. I could probably be persuaded to help with clearing backlogs on deletion pages, particularly WP:VFD/Old, but I wouldn't want to make promises to that regard.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Ah, err, yes, as even a cursory glance at my contributions would show, I'm not a big content provider. I did for some strange reason write Cognoscenti Vs. Intelligentsia... I forget why.  I also wrote a fair chunk of The Delgados, which I should get around to finishing someday.  Outside the article namespace, I guess the most rewarding is answering questions on the help desk, including one time I helped an anonymous user track down his forgotten username, for which I was particularly smug about.  And of course, most of my time and effort has been at WikiProject Albums.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. We're a pretty easygoing bunch on WikiProject Albums, so I can't think of any conflict I've gotten into relating to my contributions there.  I did have a rather silly and regrettable run-in with Mr-Natural-Health at Wikipedia talk:Article series boxes policy (proposed) (this was pre-1.3), which was embarrassing if only for it's triviality.  As for how I would deal with more serious conflicts, I'm not sure.  One thing I dislike is the impatience edit-warriors show, if someone reverted an edit I made, even if I felt strongly enough about it, I'd still be more inclined to go to the talk page first and get agreement before reverting back.  It strikes me as dumb to think that Wikipedia will be seriously harmed if the "wrong version" of a page stays up for longer than a minute.


text:
Internet (disambiguation)

The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks.

Internet may also refer to:

 * Internet (web browser), by Amazon
 * Internet Co., Ltd., a software company based in Japan
 * The Internet (band), a soul music band
 * "Internets", a catchphrase to portray someone as ignorant about technology
 * "Internet", a song by Post Malone from Hollywood's Bleeding
 * International Project Management Association, known as INTERNET before 1996; see Association for Project Management

title: Internet (disambiguation)


text:
John Thomson (baseball)

John Carl Thomson (born October 1, 1973) is an American former starting pitcher who last played for the Kansas City Royals of Major League Baseball. He is a 1991 graduate of Sulphur High School in Sulphur, Louisiana. He went undrafted out of high school and pitched for McNeese State University (Lake Charles, Louisiana) in 1992 and Blinn Junior College (Brenham, Texas) in 1993. The Colorado Rockies selected him in the seventh round of the June 1993 amateur draft and he made his major league debut for the Rockies on May 11, 1997. 2007 is his eleventh major league season. In addition to the Rockies, he has played for the New York Mets, Texas Rangers, Atlanta Braves and Kansas City Royals and also pitched in the Toronto Blue Jays organization from April through June 2007. He currently resides in his hometown of Sulphur, LA.

Colorado Rockies
Thomson pitched in the Rockies minor league system for the Arizona Rockies of the Arizona Rookie League in 1993, the Asheville Tourists of the low single-A South Atlantic League (1994), the Central Valley Rockies of the advanced single-A California League (1994), the New Haven Ravens of the double-A Eastern League (1995–1996) and the Colorado Springs Sky Sox of the triple-A Pacific Coast League (1996–1997).

In his major league debut May 11, 1997, Thomson gave up three runs (only one earned) on five hits in 7$2⁄3$ innings with 7 strikeouts and 4 walks in a 3–1 loss to the Philadelphia Phillies. He earned his first major league win in a complete game against the Florida Marlins June 1. He remained in the Rockies starting rotation for the rest of 1997, posting seven wins and nine losses with a 4.71 ERA and 106 strikeouts in 166$1⁄3$ innings pitched.

Thomson made 26 starts for the Rockies in 1998 and led their starting pitchers with a 4.81 ERA. He missed a month of the season with a blister on his right middle finger that would become a recurring problem for him over the ensuing years.

The 1999 season was a poor one for Thomson. After six appearances (five starts), he was 0–5 with an 11.84 ERA and the Rockies sent him down to triple-A Colorado Springs where he didn't fare much better (0-2, 9.45 ERA in five starts). He returned to the Rockies August 14 and was credited with his first win since September 8, 1998, but failed to win another game the rest of the season. He finished 1999 at 1–10 with an 8.04 ERA. After the season, it was discovered that Thomson had a torn labrum (another injury that would recur later in his career). He had shoulder surgery October 12 and a second surgery the following day to repair his blister-prone right middle finger. With the exception of four rehabilitation appearances with the Rockies' Arizona Rookie League team and the Portland Rockies of the short-season, single-A Northwest League in August and September, he missed the entire 2000 season.

Thomson began 2001 on the disabled list (DL) as he continued rehabilitation of his surgically repaired shoulder. After five rehabilitation starts at Colorado Springs, he was activated May 12 and made three starts for Colorado before returning to the DL just two weeks later on May 26. This time, he made seven rehabilitation starts for the Sky Sox and returned to the Rockies August 2. He got his first win in more than two years August 19 against Florida. Over his final eight starts, he was 4–0 with a 3.36 ERA and for the season, he was 4–5 with a 4.05 ERA. On the final day of the season, he gave up Rickey Henderson's 3000th hit.

2002 would be Thomson's final season with the Rockies and he returned to his pre-injury form. In his first 11 starts for Colorado, he was 6–3 with a 3.86 ERA. With the Rockies unlikely to compete for a National League playoff spot and Thomson a free agent at the end of the season, he became a target of trade talks as the July 31 non-waiver deadline approached. After his final start for Colorado July 23, he was 7–8 with a 4.88 ERA in 21 starts.

New York Mets
On July 31, 2002, the Rockies and Mets made a trade deadline deal that sent Thomson and outfielder Mark Little to New York for outfielder Jay Payton, relief pitcher Mark Corey and minor league outfielder Robert Stratton. He made nine starts for the Mets, going 2–6 with a 4.31 ERA. For the season, he was 9–14 with a 4.71 ERA in 30 starts.

Texas Rangers
Thomson was granted free agency after the 2002 season and signed with the Texas Rangers January 3, 2003. He was 13–14 with the Rangers in 2003 with a 4.85 ERA in 35 starts and 217 innings pitched, leading the team in most statistical categories.

Atlanta Braves
Thomson was again granted free agency in October 2003 and signed a two-year contract (including a club option for a third year) with the Atlanta Braves December 9. He had his best season as a major leaguer in 2004, posting a career-high 14 wins against only eight losses and a career-best 3.72 ERA. He carried this success over into 2005, going 3–2 with a 3.42 ERA over his first eight starts before a finger injury landed him on the DL May 17. He returned to the Braves August 13, but was unable to consistently regain his early season form and finished 2005 with a 4–6 record and a 4.47 ERA.

In spite of Thomson's injury troubles in 2005, the Braves exercised their option to bring him back for a third season in 2006. He struggled to a 2–6 record and a 4.68 ERA over his first 13 starts and went on the DL with a finger blister following his June 14 start against the Florida Marlins. He returned for two ineffective starts in July and was placed back on the DL—for the seventh time in his career—July 14 with shoulder stiffness. An MRI eventually revealed some fraying of his labrum and he made only one more appearance for the Braves, pitching an inning of relief September 27.

Toronto Blue Jays
On January 9, 2007, Thomson signed a one-year contract with the Toronto Blue Jays for a base pay of $500,000 plus up to $4,000,000 in bonuses based on the number of starts he made. The team placed him on the disabled list at the end of spring training with a recurrence of his shoulder injury and released him June 20 before he ever made an appearance with the major league club.

Kansas City Royals
Thomson was signed by Kansas City on June 22, 2007, and replaced the injured Scott Elarton in the Royals' starting rotation. He filed for free agency on November 1, 2007.

Amateur Golf Career
On August 29, 2015, Thomson was declared champion of the 35th Annual AI Hesch golf tournament, played at the Wellshire Golf Course in Denver. Colorado.

title: John Thomson (baseball)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rockin' Bricks

The Rockin' Bricks was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 22:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Rockin' Bricks
Non-notable band. Recorded one ep "to wild weeknight acclaim." Say what? -Vina 03:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete, non-notable band vanity. Ian Pugh 04:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If a band isn't on Allmusic.com, it's not notable. Wyllium 14:49, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Delete. One EP? Not notable. Gamaliel 20:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable band. Just because they used to play gigs with a group that actually did go on to be noteworthy (The Smithereens) doesn't make them notable.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. a Google search finds 128 references, with quite a few to Wiki-feeds. I would suggest it's not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: User talk:65.94.36.97

title: User talk:65.94.36.97


text:
Special Forces (38 Special album)

Special Forces is the fifth studio album by American rock band 38 Special, released in 1982 by A&M Records. The band embarked on the Special Forces Tour to support the album.

Special Forces peaked at number 10 on the Billboard 200, making it the band's highest-charting studio album in the United States. Three of the four charted singles from the album were co-written with Survivor's Jim Peterik, including "Caught Up in You", the band's first Top 10 hit on the Billboard Hot 100. A remastered CD, with three live bonus tracks, was reissued by Rock Candy Records in September 2023.

Track listing

 * 1) "Caught Up in You" (Don Barnes, Jeff Carlisi, Jim Peterik) - 4:37
 * 2) "Back Door Stranger" (Carlisi, Larry Steele, Donnie Van Zant) - 4:38
 * 3) "Back on the Track" (Carlisi, Steele, Van Zant) - 4:45
 * 4) "Chain Lightnin'" (Barnes, Peterik, Van Zant) - 5:01
 * 5) "Rough-Housin'" (Barnes, Steele, Van Zant) - 4:08
 * 6) "You Keep Runnin' Away" (Barnes, Carlisi, Peterik) - 3:56
 * 7) "Breakin' Loose" (Carlisi, Jack Grondin, Steele, Van Zant) - 3:32
 * 8) "Take 'Em Out" (Barnes, Carlisi, Steele, Van Zant) - 4:07
 * 9) "Firestarter" (Barnes, Steele, Van Zant) - 5:01

Personnel

 * Donnie Van Zant - lead vocals (2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9), backing vocals
 * Don Barnes - guitar; lead vocals on tracks 1, 4, 5, 6, 8; backing vocals
 * Jeff Carlisi - guitar, steel guitar
 * Larry Junstrom - bass guitar
 * Steve Brookins - drums
 * Jack Grondin - drums

Additional Personnel

 * Terry Emery - percussion, piano
 * Steve McRay - keyboards
 * Jimmy Barnes - harmonica, harp
 * Carol Bristow - vocals, backing vocals
 * Lu Moss - vocals, backing vocals

Production

 * Producers: Don Barnes, Jeff Carlisi, Rodney Mills
 * Engineers: Rodney Mills, Greg Quesnel
 * Art direction: Jeffrey Kent Ayeroff
 * Design: Philip Gips
 * Cover art concept: Philip Gips
 * Cover art painting: Larry Gerber
 * Mastering: Bob Ludwig

Charts
Album - Billboard (United States) RPM Magazine (Canada)

Singles - Billboard (United States)

title: Special Forces (38 Special album)


text: Talk:Special Forces (38 Special album)

title: Talk:Special Forces (38 Special album)


text:
Antonio Alfonseca

Antonio Alfonseca (born April 16, 1972) is a Dominican former relief pitcher. He last pitched in Major League Baseball for the Philadelphia Phillies in 2007. Alfonseca also played for the Florida Marlins (1997–2001, 2005), the Chicago Cubs (2002–2003), the Atlanta Braves (2004), and the Texas Rangers (2006).

He is known for having an extra digit on each hand and foot.

Biography
Alfonseca was originally signed by the Montreal Expos as a non-drafted free agent in July 1989. On December 13, 1993, he was taken by the Florida Marlins from the Montreal Expos in the 1993 expansion draft. He made his debut during the 1997 season, and his rookie campaign saw him win a World Series ring with the Marlins. His best year was in 2000 with the Marlins, when he led the National League in saves with 45, and won the National League Rolaids Relief Man of the Year.

At the end of the 2001 season, Alfonseca had surgery to repair a herniated disc. Subsequently, the Marlins asked Alfonseca to lose 15 pounds to help to relieve stress on his back. At a weigh-in during 2002 spring training, Alfonseca had a confrontation with Dale Torborg, the son of then manager Jeff Torborg, and a former professional wrestler. While the Marlins denied any connection, shortly afterwards, on March 27, 2002, he was traded, along with Matt Clement, to the Chicago Cubs for Julián Tavárez, Ryan Jorgensen, Dontrelle Willis, and minor league pitcher Jose Cueto.

On September 2, 2003, while with the Cubs, Alfonseca was thrown out of a game for bumping an umpire with his stomach. He was subsequently suspended for five games.

After the 2004 season, he filed for free agency, and signed back with the Marlins, but in July 2005, he suffered a right elbow injury and missed the rest of the season. He was released by the Marlins, signed with the Rangers, but after another mid-season elbow injury was released by them. He pitched for the Phillies in 2007 and for the Lancaster Barnstormers and Bridgeport Bluefish of the Atlantic League from 2009 to 2011.

Personal life
His nicknames are El Pulpo ("The Octopus"), The Dragonslayer, and Six-Fingers. He has six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, a condition known as polydactyly. His grandfather also had this trait. Alfonseca regards it with pride, as a kind of family emblem.

Alfonseca and his wife Rocío have two sons: Antonio, Jr. and Mark Anthony, and two daughters, Jenitza and Asia.

title: Antonio Alfonseca


text:
Talk:Anaconda Plan

NPOV?
This is a very nice and interesting article, but is it entirely NPOV? It seems to lay a very heavy emphasis on the Western theater and on the Tennessee Valley in particular.

Three points might be made (and hopefully can be, by editors who know their Civil War better than me):

 * Richmond, I believe, was the location of the "Tredegar Iron Works", an important weapons factory, so it wasn't entirely a symbolic target.
 * Northern morale was a major factor in the war--would they manage to keep going long enough for the Anaconda Plan to work? And the long string of failures in the East did indeed take Northern morale very low.
 * Lastly, I believe the size of the contending armies was generally somewhat larger in the East.

Might these points serve as the basis for making the article a bit more balanced? Opus33 03:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blockade Successful?
The most successful blockade to date? That's a pretty bold statement. While I'm not a Civil War expert, I believe that the blockade was initially unsuccessful. The Union navy only had about thirty ships to block about 190 southern ports. In 1862 nearly all Confederate ships made it through the blockade. It took about two years for the Union navy to build up enough ships to be effective. By 1865 when the blockade was most successful, the Union navy was still only blocking about half of the Confederate blockade runners. While this still severely hindered the south, I wouldn't call it the most successful blockade to date.

I'm also fairly certain that the price of cotton overseas went down instead of up during the war. Britain and France refused to recognize the Confederacy of the southern states and as a result the south refused to sell cotton to them. But this tactic was unsuccessful and Britain and France instead turned to Egypt and India as their source of cotton. By the time the south realized that their tactic was not effective and lifted the embargo, Britain and France would no longer buy their cotton. When the Civil War was over the South found that their cotton wasn't worth as much as it used to be.

Skiguy330 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course the blockade was initially porous. However, note that you refer to "blockade runners" rather than "cargo ships," which implies that the blockade had an effect even early in the war.  One of the problems the Confederacy had was that the blockade runners concentrated on high-dollar-value luxury items rather than arms for import or cotton for export.  Early in the war, Jefferson Davis and the Confederate government deliberately withheld cotton exports, in the hope of compelling Great Britain to break the blockade.  This turned out to be a grave strategic error because by the time they realized their strategy was not working, the Union blockade had tightened and such exports were impossible.  There's a good discussion of cotton exports and the blockade in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. Hal Jespersen 18:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes
User:Rjensen is making major changes to this article without discussion? Could you discuss first, especially since you are deleting large portions of the original article? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * If I asked for discussion before I made major changes to articles, my work would probably grind to a halt. Wikipedia doesn't do well at prepublication reviews of submissions. Jensen's mod was actually pretty good, focusing on the actual content of Scott's plan, rather than a larger discussion of overall Union strategy. Hal Jespersen 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What about "On to Richmond"?
I'm currently taking AP US History and was taught that the 3rd part of the plan was to capture Richmond in the East, which was unsuccessful (until the end of the war) due to the skill of Lee and Jackson.

I realize this is contradictory but I'm just throwing it out there for review.

Thehebrewhammer 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Although Richmond was a key objective through most of the war, it was not part of Scott's letter to McClellan, and thus not part of what was derided by the press as the Anaconda Plan. Hal Jespersen 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Thehebrewhammer

Implementation
The statement that "Lincoln did implement the two parts" oversimplifies the development. The Mississippi was opened only because the Navy, against explicit opposition of General-in-Chief McClellan, captured New Orleans and thereby inverted Scott's strategy. A thorough evaluation of the original Anaconda strategy would show that the Army fought only one major battle (Vicksburg) on the river. Columbus and Memphis were outflanked and ceded without fighting, and Island No. 10 would have been likewise (the victory was as much due to the gunboats there as the conventional army units, anyway). The real author of the naval strategy was Gustavus V. Fox, and it is a shame that historians neglect his contribution.PKKloeppel (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST template?
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I am new to Wikipedia and do not know many of its policies. Is there a reason for this talk page not to include the WP:MILHIST template?PKKloeppel (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have taken my own advice (see two comments above) and have rewritten the article. For better or for worse. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Very nice job. I have to admire one of the very few members of the Wikipedia ACW community who understands what the "Show preview" button does and is able to commit a large change in a single edit. A few constructive comments:
 * I don't understand why you removed the quotations from Scott's letter in the previous draft. You also removed the links from the footnotes that point to the full online text of the documents.
 * You are making heavier use of primary sources -- the ORA and ORN (which abbreviations you do not explain in your citations) -- than secondary sources, often in those places where judgments or historical insights are offered. Your Conclusion section should be based entirely on secondary sources, for example. See WP:PSTS.
 * You go into great detail about the campaigns on the Mississippi, but give no corresponding details of the part of the plan that you consider "core" -- the blockade. I am inferring that you did this because you believe that, since the idea of a blockade preceded Scott's letter, that it was not a legitimate part of his plan. In fact, selecting/validating a course of strategic action as being sufficient (and omitting other courses of alternative actions) is just as valid as originating the idea.
 * Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Hal, for your constructive criticism. I will try to reply to each point in turn. So long as we are at it, do you think it is possible to point out that BOTH "Anaconda" and "On to Richmond" were used to bring the Confederacy down? Their relative merits are a judgment call, and I don't know how to state it in an article devoted to one side without injecting my own POV. PKKloeppel (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I removed the quotes only because of style-I mean, that's the way I write. It's mostly a matter of making things concise. As for removing the links, that was unintended and I will try to restore them.
 * 2) The Official Records (both services) are a special case. They may be primary sources, but they are actually more widely available than most secondary sources. Since the secondary sources are often redirects (when it comes to facts, and not interpretations), I see no reason not to refer to them (the Official Records) when they have the needed information. As for explaining the abbreviations--that was an oversight, pure and simple. I meant to do so.
 * 3) You are correct in interpreting my reasoning for emphasizing the Mississippi campaign, but your point about Scott's plan validating the blockade is well taken. I should at least give a nod to the blockade. The article could support a section devoted to it. It will take me time to put my materials in order, but I will do it, if no one else does so first.

 * The availability of the official records is not really an issue. Whenever it is reasonably possible to find a secondary source to provide factual information for a Wikipedia article, you should attempt to do so. It is well-known that the official records contain information that is sometimes incomplete and sometimes modified to meet the political or legacy requirements of its authors, often long after the fact. Even things that seem cut and dried, such as casualty figures, can benefit from the attention that a professional historian will apply in evaluating multiple sources of information. I have found a number of battles in which the modern interpretation of casualty figures has been modified from those in the official records. (The battle of Gettysburg is one very significant example.) About the only thing I would accept with 100% assurance from the official records would be that the texts of military correspondence are accurately recorded (whether the content of those dispatches represent the truth or not is another matter).

 * It is possible to include information about other aspects of the Union military strategy beyond the Anaconda plan, although I would not spend a lot of time on it. The "On to Richmond" strategy is worth mentioning simply because many people do not understand that it was not part of Scott's plan. However, it would be simplistic to say that the war was won as a combination of Anaconda plus Richmond. Many historians (including an amateur one, me) would suggest that the Union efforts in Tennessee and Georgia were of equal significance to anything going on in Eastern theater, except in terms of public relations. Your article about the Anaconda plan essentially denigrates anything that did not happen on the Mississippi River -- such as Halleck's and Grant's interest in the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers -- which I think is misleading.

 * The really interesting aspect of your article that I had not considered previously was pointing out that Scott planned to go strictly from north to south to New Orleans, which did not turn out to be the case. This is another instance of where you should get a secondary source to make that evaluation because I, for one, did not interpret the contents of his letter as meaning that literally. Another area you should get a secondary source would be to describe Scott's retirement. You portray it as a matter of his being old and infirm, whereas the political maneuvering of George B. McClellan had a lot more to do with it. It is difficult to determine that sort of thing only from primary sources. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry I have taken so long to reply. My system was hacked, literally. A backhoe cut the cable, and we were down for a little while, along with the rest of the county.

 * Now, as for the Official Records as opposed to secondary sources: I do not disagree that the records need both interpretation and adjustment on occasion, but many times they remain better then anything else. Consider for example orders of battle. If a secondary source says that Unit A was at Battle B, and as evidence has a footnote pointing to the OR, I see no reason not to cut out the middleman. That is verification of sources, not original research. Let's grant that the OR is sometimes just plain wrong; a case in point is that the Confederate reports refer to 'ironclad' gunboats at Shiloh, although the two gunboats there were not armored. (But what the hell, I think I've seen the same statement in secondary sources—I'm relying on my memory, and it may be incorrect, but the point is that secondary sources can be wrong, too.) My original statement was meant to apply to uncontested facts, and to that extent I stand by my remarks: so long as secondary sources do not disagree with the OR's, the greater availability of the latter would make them the preferred source even if everything else were equal. But they are not equal, by arguments that can be based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 * As for the inversion of the Mississippi River campaign, i.e. from south to north: That does appear in a secondary source, in the Galaxy article referred to in the notes. The Galaxy is not often found even in libraries now (although I did find it, which is why I knew about it), but it is available online in Cornell Univ.'s Making of America collection:
 * cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse.journals/gala.html.
 * The question is not whether Scott would have allowed his plan to be altered in this way. It is that the strategy of dividing the South along the line of the Mississippi had been abandoned, if it had ever been seriously considered, until Fox (and of course Farragut) forced the issue. Fox was not simply carrying Scott's baggage for him after he retired. His hidden agenda was actually to bring the Navy out from under Army domination. That was the motivation behind Port Royal, New Orleans, and the failed attack on Charleston. (Sorry I can't lay my hands on a source for that statement, but I think it is pretty commonly accepted.)
 * Mentioning Scott's retirement brings me to the next point. There may have been (weasel words, those; actually, I KNOW there was) some political maneuvering that forced him out, but I do not see where it is relevant to the article, which is concerned with how the plan was or was not implemented over the course of two years of the war.
 * Finally, I'm sorry that my contrast of the Anaconda with "On to Richmond" was opaque. What I meant to imply was that the Anaconda was an effort to avoid pitched battles of the sort that were associated with the campaign against Richmond. Obviously, they were not confined to the Richmond area, and Shiloh, Vicksburg, Stones River, Chickamauga, Franklin, etc., were cumulatively as important as were, also cumulatively, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, Spotsylvania, etc. Only Vicksburg in this list can be conceived to be part of the Anaconda as commonly interpreted. I could add many more to the list, and the fundamental point would be unchanged: the thought of dividing the Confederacy was not an underlying strategy of the Federal military establishment. The Anaconda is remembered because it happened that way, more or less; but the Mississippi River part of it came about because of the coming together of any number of circumstances, and was not the result of adhering to a grand plan. PKKloeppel (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One more try on primary sources and the official records: in any case where information is available in secondary sources and in the ORs, you should cite the secondary source. This is not a matter of a middleman, it is a matter of verifying primary sources. If you go directly to the primary source, the Wikipedia reader has no way of knowing that the information is verified by a secondary source. Your example of orders of battle is appropriate because virtually all notable battles of the Civil War have secondary sources in which orders of battle are listed, and occasionally corrected. Why should the reader be left wondering about whether he is reading a corrected order of battle or the raw data? Other examples of data in the ORs that would seem to be immutable, but aren't always, are casualty figures, number of effective combatants, number of artillery pieces, times of day, geographic names, accounts of the actions of individuals and units, etc. As I think I said previously, the only data I would consider to be gospel in the ORs would be the text of correspondence sent during the war, which is presumably transcribed correctly, although the accuracy of the contents of the correspondence needs verification.

As to your other comments, one of my methods of reviewing material is to pose questions for the author where I think that the material is unverified, incomplete, or could be improved. The intent of the question is to prompt modifications to the source document and its citations, not to receive answers on the talk page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates

 * Hi Pkkphysicist. I wanted to thank you for the hard work you done on this article.  Honestly, I was very surprised and happy to see you emphasis on the role of Scott and George McClellan. In fact, I remember being very pissed when my book (in contrast to wikipedia) for AP US History in 2003 actually had the arrogance to say Grant came up with the Anaconda Plan.   Anyways, as I was ready your article, I felt like you are suggesting that General Scott, during the Civil War, came up with the Anaconda plan after Fort Sumter in response to McClellan letter sent on 27 May 1861.  However, I recall from my knowledge learning about how in fact this conversation of war strategy between McClellan and Scott began (though clearly not in the level detail as in May) slightly before Fort Sumter; therefore, I implore you to double check the dates on you primary sources and specifically mention a letter from Scott to McClellan found in the National Archives around Annapolis Maryland area.  The reason I implore you to look into this is because my father, along with a colleague, found part of the letters you mentioned between Scott and McClellan while he was stationed in Annapolis Maryland from 1995-1997.  (When I asked him about it again today, he mentioned again how one letter from Scott to McClellan was dated before 19 April 1861). If it helps, I did a quick search of the national archives under phrases "Annapolis" and "Winfield Scott" and found "393.2 RECORDS OF DIVISIONS 1837-1907, 1911-13" under "Records of the Headquarters of the Army".

128.61.43.160 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the kind words. I share your distaste for textbooks that can't get even elementary facts right.
 * As for the possibility you raise that Scott may have come up with something like the Anaconda Plan even before Fort Sumter, I'm afraid that I can't help you. It seems quite possible. Certainly the government was doing something in the six weeks between Lincoln's inauguration and the bombardment, and the rapid proclamation of blockade suggests that it could have been thoroughly considered beforehand, as a sort of contingency plan. Unfortunately, it would require some original research to find just what Scott was doing at that time. It is not only Wikipedia policy that keeps me from doing the research necessary to find out (see my discussion with Hal Jesperson above); it is also that I am not a historian, either professional or amateur. There is a hint here: As you seem already to have access to some relevant records, you might wish to try your own hand at it. Or point them out to a real historian, if you would rather not. — As for McClellan's early (i.e pre-Fort Sumter) contributions, I am more skeptical. He wasn't even in the Army at the time, and I can't imagine that Scott would have any reason to discuss strategy with him until he was more or less forced to do so by M's letter. I can be proved wrong, but again it would require original research. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New study of strategy
A history of Civil War strategies, both Northern and Southern, has recently been published: Donald Stoker, The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War (Oxford, 2010). ISBN 978-0-19-537305-9. It is worth pursuing because Stoker asserts that it is the first history devoted to its topic. (So far as I know, the claim is correct.) I do not believe that it contravenes anything written in the article, but it provides fresh insights. Certainly anyone who wishes to rewrite or otherwise extensively modify the article should first read Stoker. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Check your words.
1st paragraph Derived /= Derided I presume that was the intended meaning. Please for an editor to double check/change

western campaign equal in significance to eastern
"Virtually all present-day historians agree that the Union's Western campaign was at least as significant as that in the East"

Is this true? All present day historians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.0.105 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge?
Should this be merged with Union Blockade? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I am in favor of merging and will start drafting out how that might look. Amscheip (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you end up drafting this? I agree this would be good to do TokenByToken (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anaconda Plan


text:
Bracket clock

A bracket clock is a style of antique portable table clock made in the 17th and 18th centuries. The term originated with small weight-driven pendulum clocks (sometimes called 'true bracket clocks') that had to be mounted on a bracket on the wall to allow room for their hanging weights. When spring-driven clocks were developed, which didn't require hanging weights to power them, they continued to be made in the bracket style. Often they are composed of two matching pieces created as an ensemble: the clock and its small decorative shelf. They are almost always made of wood, often ebony, and often ornamented with ormolu mounts, brass inlay, wood or tortoise shell veneer, or decorative varnish. Since in their day clocks were expensive, and a household would not have one in every room, bracket clocks usually had handles to carry them from room to room.

These clocks were almost always repeaters, that is striking clocks which could be made to repeat the striking of the hours at the pull of a lever or cord. This feature was used before artificial illumination to tell what time it was at night. However, because they were often used in bedrooms where the hourly striking of the bell could disturb sleepers, they either had a knob to silence the hourly striking, or did not strike on the hour at all but only at the pull of the cord. These were called 'silent pull repeaters'.

title: Bracket clock


text:
User talk:Deshkanna

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page; Editing tutorial; Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article; Naming conventions; Manual of Style

Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page moving
Hi - I noticed you just moved Penteala Harikrishna to Pentala Harikrishna; that's fine, but next time when you move a page, could you please use the "move" links at the top and bottom of the article. This will move the current version of the page, plus all previous versions in the history, to the new location. See m:Help:Renaming (moving) a page for more details. Best--Camembert

title: User talk:Deshkanna