text:
Lactulose

Lactulose is a non-absorbable sugar used in the treatment of constipation and hepatic encephalopathy. It is administered orally for constipation, and either orally or rectally for hepatic encephalopathy. It generally begins working after 8–12 hours, but may take up to 2 days to improve constipation.

Common side effects include abdominal bloating and cramps. A potential exists for electrolyte problems as a result of the diarrhea it produces. No evidence of harm to the fetus has been found when used during pregnancy. It is generally regarded as safe during breastfeeding. It is classified as an osmotic laxative.

Lactulose was first made in 1929, and has been used medically since the 1950s. Lactulose is made from the milk sugar lactose, which is composed of two simple sugars, galactose and glucose. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. It is available as a generic medication. In 2021, it was the 265th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 1million prescriptions.

Constipation
Lactulose is used in the treatment of chronic constipation in patients of all ages as a long-term treatment. The dosage of lactulose for chronic idiopathic constipation is adjusted depending on the constipation severity and desired effect, from a mild stool softener to causing diarrhea. Lactulose is contraindicated in case of galactosemia, as most preparations contain the monosaccharide galactose due to its synthesis process.

Lactulose may be used to counter the constipating effects of opioids, and in the symptomatic treatment of hemorrhoids as a stool softener.

Lactulose is commonly prescribed for children who develop fear of their bowel movements and are withholders. This is because lactulose, when dosed in the proper amount, causes a bowel movement that is impossible to retain for very long. Lactulose is also used for the elderly because of its gentle and consistent results.

Hyperammonemia
Lactulose is useful in treating hyperammonemia (high blood ammonia), which can lead to hepatic encephalopathy. Lactulose helps trap the ammonia (NH3) in the colon and bind to it. It does this by using gut flora to acidify the colon, transforming the freely diffusible ammonia into ammonium ions, which can no longer diffuse back into the blood. It is also useful for preventing hyperammonemia caused as a side effect of administration of valproic acid.

Small intestine bacterial overgrowth
Lactulose is used as a test of small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). Recently, the reliability of it for diagnosing SIBO has been seriously questioned. A large amount of it is given with subsequent testing of molecular hydrogen gas in the breath. The test is positive if an increase in exhaled hydrogen occurs before that which would be expected by normal digestion by the normal gut flora in the colon. An earlier result has been hypothesized to indicate digestion occurring within the small intestine. An alternate explanation for differences in results is the variance in small bowel transit time among tested subjects.

Pregnancy
No evidence of harm to the fetus has been found when used during pregnancy. It is generally regarded as safe during breastfeeding.

Side effects
Common side effects of lactulose are abdominal cramping, borborygmus, and flatulence. In normal individuals, overdose is considered uncomfortable, but not life-threatening. Uncommon side effects are nausea and vomiting. In sensitive individuals, such as the elderly or people with reduced kidney function, excess lactulose dosage can result in dehydration and electrolyte disturbances such as low magnesium levels. Ingestion of lactulose does not cause a weight gain because it is not digestible, with no nutritional value. Although lactulose is less likely to cause dental caries than sucrose, as a sugar, a potential for this exists. This should be taken into consideration when taken by people with a high susceptibility to this condition.

Mechanism of action
Lactulose is not absorbed in the small intestine nor broken down by human enzymes, thus stays in the digestive bolus through most of its course, causing retention of water through osmosis leading to softer, easier-to-pass stool. It has a secondary laxative effect in the colon, where it is fermented by the gut flora, producing metabolites which have osmotic powers and peristalsis-stimulating effects (such as acetate), but also methane associated with flatulence.

Lactulose is metabolized in the colon by bacterial flora into short-chain fatty acids, including lactic acid and acetic acid. These partially dissociate, acidifying the colonic contents (increasing the H+ concentration in the gut). This favors the formation of the nonabsorbable from NH3, trapping NH3 in the colon and effectively reducing plasma NH3 concentrations. Lactulose is therefore effective in treating hepatic encephalopathy. Specifically, it is effective as secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis. Moreover, research showed improved cognitive functions and health-related quality of life in people with cirrhosis with minimal hepatic encephalopathy treated with lactulose.

Chemistry
Lactulose is a disaccharide formed from one molecule each of the simple sugars (monosaccharides) fructose and galactose. Lactulose is not normally present in raw milk, but is a product of heat processes: the greater the heat, the greater amount of this substance (from 3.5 mg/L in low-temperature pasteurized milk to 744 mg/L in in-container sterilized milk).

Lactulose is produced commercially by isomerization of lactose. A variety of reaction conditions and catalysts can be used.

Name
Lactulose is its international nonproprietary name (INN). It is sold under various brand names.

Availability
Lactulose is available as a generic medication. It is available without prescription in most countries, but a prescription is required in the United States, Philippines, and Austria.

Food additive
In some countries where lactulose may be obtained without a prescription, lactulose is commonly used as a food additive to improve taste and promote intestinal transit.

Veterinary use
Lactulose is used in veterinary medicine.

title: Lactulose


text:
Edward Tsang

Edward Tsang is a Computer Science professor at the University of Essex. He holds a first degree in Business Administration (major in Finance) from the Chinese University of Hong Kong (1977), and an MSc and PhD in Computer Science from the University of Essex (1983 and 1987). Prior to his PhD studies, he served for five years in various positions in the commercial sector in Hong Kong.

Edward Tsang is the Director (and co-founder) of Centre for Computational Finance and Economic Agents (CCFEA) at University of Essex. CCFEA is an interdisciplinary research centre, which applies artificial intelligence methods to problems in finance and economics.

Edward Tsang is the author of Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction, the first book to define the scope of the field. He is also the co-author of Vehicle Scheduling in Port Automation (with Hassan Rashidi) and Evolutionary Applications for Financial Prediction: Classification Methods to Gather Patterns Using Genetic Programming (with Alma Garcia Almanza).

Edward Tsang founded the Computation Finance and Economics Technical Committee in IEEE’s Computational Intelligence Society in 2004, and chaired it until the end of 2005.

Edward Tsang specializes in business application of artificial intelligence. His research interests include artificial intelligence applications, computational finance, constraint satisfaction, evolutionary computation, and heuristic search. He has given consultation to GEC Marconi, British Telecom, the Commonwealth Secretariat and other organizations.

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

title: Edward Tsang


text:
Talk:Water striders

references to hard-copy documents need to be included, or (preferably) links out to other hypertext added.

most of this can be linked out to sexual selection

title: Talk:Water striders


text:
Cullen's sign

Cullen's sign is superficial edema and bruising in the subcutaneous fatty tissue around the umbilicus.

It is named for gynecologist Thomas Stephen Cullen (1869–1953), who first described the sign in ruptured ectopic pregnancy in 1916.

This sign takes 24–48 hours to appear and can predict acute pancreatitis, with mortality rising from 8–10% to 40%. It may be accompanied by Grey Turner's sign (bruising of the flank), which may then be indicative of pancreatic necrosis with retroperitoneal or intra-abdominal bleeding.

Causes
Causes include:
 * acute pancreatitis, where methemalbumin formed from digested blood tracks around the abdomen from the inflamed pancreas
 * bleeding from blunt abdominal trauma
 * bleeding from aortic rupture
 * bleeding from ruptured ectopic pregnancy

Importance of the sign is on a decline since better diagnostic modalities are now available.

title: Cullen's sign


text:
Cromoglicic acid

Cromoglicic acid (INN)—also referred to as cromolyn (USAN), cromoglycate (former BAN), or cromoglicate—is traditionally described as a mast cell stabilizer, and is commonly marketed as the sodium salt sodium cromoglicate or cromolyn sodium. This drug prevents the release of inflammatory chemicals such as histamine from mast cells.

It is considered a breakthrough drug in management of asthma, as the patients can be freed from steroids in many cases; however, it is mainly effective as a prophylaxis for allergic and exercise-induced asthma, not as a treatment for acute asthma attacks.

Cromoglicic acid has been the non-corticosteroid treatment of choice in the treatment of asthma, for which it has largely been replaced by leukotriene receptor antagonists because of their safety and convenience. Cromoglicic acid requires administration four times daily, and does not provide additive benefit in combination with inhaled corticosteroids.

History
Cromolyn was discovered in 1965 by Roger Altounyan, a pharmacologist who had asthma. Altounyan was investigating certain plants and herbs which have bronchodilating properties. One such plant was khella (Ammi visnaga) which had been used as a muscle relaxant since ancient times in Egypt. Altounyan deliberately inhaled derivatives of the active ingredient khellin to determine if they could block his asthma attacks. After several years of trial, he isolated an effective and safe asthma-preventing compound called cromolyn sodium.

Preparations
Cromoglicic acid is available in multiple forms:

 * as a nasal spray (Rynacrom (UK), Lomusol (France), Nasalcrom (the only over-the-counter form, US), Prevalin (non-direct version, NL)) to treat allergic rhinitis.
 * in a nebulizer solution for aerosol administration to treat asthma.
 * as an inhaler (Intal, Fisons Pharmaceuticals, UK) for preventive management of asthma. The maker of Intal, King Pharmaceuticals, has discontinued manufacturing the inhaled form, cromolyn sodium inhalation aerosol, due to issues involving CFC-free propellant. As stocks are depleted, this inhaler preparation will no longer be available to patients. In the EU it is manufactured without CFCs by Sanofi, although it must be imported from Canada or Mexico for USA residents.
 * as eye drops (Opticrom and Optrex Allergy (UK), Crolom, Cromolyn (Canada)) for allergic conjunctivitis
 * in an oral form (Gastrocrom, Nalcrom) to treat mastocytosis, mast cell activation syndrome, dermatographic urticaria and ulcerative colitis. Another oral product, Intercron (sodium cromoglicate in distilled water, from Zambon France), is used for food allergies.

Mechanism of action
"Cromolyn works because it prevents the release of mediators that would normally attract inflammatory cells and because it stabilizes the inflammatory cells. MCT mast cells found in the mucosa are stabilised." Nedocromil is another mast cell stabilizer that also works in controlling asthma. The underlying mechanism of action is not fully understood; for while cromoglicate stabilizes mast cells, this mechanism is probably not why it works in asthma. Pharmaceutical companies have produced 20 related compounds that are equally or more potent at stabilising mast cells and none of them have shown any anti-asthmatic effect. It is more likely that these work by inhibiting the response of sensory C fibers to the irritant capsaicin, inhibiting local axon reflexes involved in asthma, and may inhibit the release of preformed T cell cytokines and mediators involved in asthma.

It is known to somewhat inhibit chloride channels (37% ± 7%) and thus may inhibit the:
 * exaggerated neuronal reflexes triggered by stimulation of irritant receptors on sensory nerve endings (e.g. exercise-induced asthma)
 * release of preformed cytokines from several type of inflammatory cells (T cells, eosinophils) in allergen-induced asthma

Note: Another chemical (NPPB: 5-nitro-2(3-phenyl) propylamino-benzoic acid) was shown, in the same study, to be a more effective chloride channel blocker.

Finally it may act by inhibiting calcium influx.

Cromoglicate is classified as a chromone.

Cromolyn is also being tested as a drug to treat insulin-induced lipoatrophy  and Alzheimer's disease in combination with Ibuprofen. Cromolyn is also known to bind S100P protein and disrupt the interaction with RAGE.

title: Cromoglicic acid


text:
Talk:GWR 4073 Class

Article title
I disagree with the move from GWR Castle class to this. Only strong GWR enthusiasts remember that the Castles were numbered starting with 4073; everyone else knows them as the Castles, and I think they should have remained at a name with Castle in it. Wikipedia has a policy of Use common names which should generally be kept unless there are good reasons not to. —Morven 22:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * That is true, but following this approach keeps the name in line with the title for other pages on GWR classes, reflects their official classification, and avoids potential confusion with the Broad Gauge Classes (which were referred to by a name rather than a number). Musicandcomedy 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I absolutely agree with Morven - removing the obvious and proper name of 'Castle' from the title is utterly absurd. This has happened across the GWR range now and it has made searching for many locos unreliable. Frankly - it's a totally 'anorakish' move and needs sorting pronto. I grew-up with these locos and NO ONE ever referred to them as anything else buy 'Castles'. Someone needs to look at this stupidity right across the range of GWR locos now and ensure the proper name is in ALL of the locos titles. S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.232.58 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I’d prefer 4073 class to castle class, because “4073” is four characters, but “castle” is six characters, therefore being more complicated to type. Ilovejames  5🚂  :)  04:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread was started eighteen years ago. The issues raised are long since settled. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

World Record
The article states: "on June 6th 1932, pulled by 5006 Tregenna Castle, the train covered 77 miles (124 km) from Swindon to Paddington at an average speed of 81.68 miles per hour (131.45 km/h). This world record for steam traction was widely regarded as an astonishing feat." Does anyone know which world record this refers to? Obviously not the all-out speed record for steam, so what? I think the article would benefit from spelling this out if anyone knows. Gw e rnol 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This claim for Tregenna Castle has always puzzled me. I once ran the 2.5 miles from my front door to my place of work in 15 minutes 25 seconds. To   the best of my knowledge, my performance has never been bettered, yet to claim a world record would not be meaningful.  Mabzilla (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

states that the record is for the average speed start-to-stop, and has never been bettered by a steam engine in the UK. Verbarson (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nameplates of the Abbeys
Does anyone know if the Castle Class Abbey locomotives, rebuilt from being Star Class Abbey locomotives, had the words Castle Class beneath the name, or did they use the original nameplates? They clearly had new numberplates as the numbers were different from when they were Star Class.

Locomotives such as Great Western and Viscont Portal had Castle Class below the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.67.2 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they did; see either
 * -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Renaming of Castles -- why? and for how long?
I may have missed this (in which case it's in the wrong place!) but why were a number of the Castle locomotives renamed (eg 5071 Clifford Castle / Spitfire)? (Presumably it was a wartime 'thing', but we need a bit more than that!)

Secondly, did they carry the new name until the end of service, or did they revert to the original name?

Just curious in passing. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The renaming of nos. 5071-82 in 1940/41 was basically a patriotism thing, rather like the Southern Railway's Battle of Britain class 4-6-2 a few years later. The renamings were permanent; many of the names that were removed were subsequently reused - for example, the abovementioned Clifford Castle was applied to three different locomotives:
 * No. 5046 Clifford Castle built April 1936, renamed Earl Cawdor August 1937
 * No. 5071 Clifford Castle built June 1938, renamed Spitfire September 1940
 * No. 5098 Clifford Castle built May 1946
 * -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents
In common with similar sections on many other Wikipedia pages, this refers to trivial incidents which are not noteworthy and simply happened to be recorded in books of photographs. They also have no connection with the engines themselves. Meanwhile, the far more serious and significant collision at Dolphin Junction, Slough, in 1941, causing 5 fatalities and involving 4091 Dudley Castle, is not mentioned (I may add it). There is a case for deleting this section entirely. Hyperman 42 (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hyphenation/dashes
Hi Redrose64, I see you have had occasion to correct this before, thanks for the heads-up. The vagaries of AWB, it perhaps requires an exclusion in this case (Whyte configuration). Neils51 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image captions
Can we come to some consensus about what infobox image captions should contain? It may be assumed that the image represents the subject of the article, but a caption that just says (in effect) 'This is a picture of ' isn't adding anything helpful. Also, clicking through to the image page will give more information, but not every reader knows that or wants to interrupt their reading of the article to do that. In relation to steam locomotives, I suggest: There is my opinion. Agree or differ as you feel moved. -- Verbarson talkedits 07:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even though 'all GWR locos look the same' (joke), there were detail differences between members of the same class, therefore it is not only interesting, but useful, to know which specific loco is pictured. (I personally dislike pictures - eg many calendars - that do not identify the loco.)
 * Individual locomotives were modified over time, so knowing the date of the picture is relevant. (Also, locos in preservation, while providing better pictures in many cases, may not be representative or have modern modifications.)
 * The location is not needed, unless it is significant to the loco (eg Caerphilly Castle at the British Empire Exhibition in 1923)

 * I agree with you, I think certain editors are taking the concept of succint captions too literally. Even with more modern engines, the detail differences between various locos means positive identification is often of value. As you say, the location is usually the least important fact and can usually be dispensed with. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My thinking up until now has been that the infobox is a generic example of the subject of the article, with there being more images and information in the body of the article itself. Obviously happy to go with consensus.
 * I would suggest though that the discussion be moved to a more appropriate venue, such as Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Railways so that a wider discussion can be had. Danners430 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved as suggested. -- Verbarson talkedits 19:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:GWR 4073 Class


text:
Aristoi

The Aristoi (Greek: ἄριστοι) was the label given to the noblemen in ancient Greek society, and in particular ancient Athens. The term literally means "best", with the denotation of best in terms of birth, rank, and nobility, but also usually possessing the connotation of also being the morally best. The term in fact derives similarly with arete: "The root of the word is the same as aristos, the word which shows superlative ability and superiority, and "aristos" was constantly used in the plural to denote the nobility."

History
Originally, the Aristoi were tightly knit families who had noble lineage, such as the Bacchiadae in ancient Corinth.

In the early 6th century BC, Solon promulgated constitutional reforms in Athens. Among the changes, the status and power of the old aristocracy was altered by making wealth rather than birth a criterion for holding political position. This system was called a Timocracy (Greek: τιμοκρατία).

This division called for a new division. Thus, citizens were organized based on their land production:
 * 1) Pentacosiomedimni (or Pentakosiomedimnoi), who had at least 500 medimnoi of wet or dry goods (or their equivalent) as yearly income
 * 2) Hippeis, who had at least 300 medimnoi (or their equivalent) as yearly income
 * 3) Zeugitae, who were possessors of a yoke of oxen, with at least 150 medimnoi (or their equivalent) as yearly income
 * 4) Thetes, who were workers for wages, or had less than 150 medimnoi (or their equivalent) as yearly income

This new system established the pentakosiomedimnoi as the aristoi. As such, they were often split into powerful family factions or clans, who controlled all of the important political positions in the polis. Their wealth usually came from both having property the most fertile or protected lands. However, as the status was predicated on his wealth, and losing it would cause the loss of nobility, the advent of sea trade routes placed the aristoi at risk of losing everything through failed overseas investments.

Pittacus of Mytilene instituted a law stating that crimes committed in drunkenness should be punished twofold; this law was directed predominantly against the aristocrats, as they were more often guilty of drunk and violent behaviour. As such, it was greatly appreciated by the common people.

Customs
In Classical Athens, Thucydides testifies concerning the customs of both citizens and of the rich. He writes that no one bears weapons within the polis, as it permits "an easier and more luxurious mode of life". Where the archaic aristocracy used to carry weapons on their person in the city, the practice was completely abandoned due to cultural shifts. Among the causes were legal changes; an example was the forbidding of people to bear arms in the agora under the penalty of death. The iconography of vases bear witness to this change depicting the transition from men carrying swords, then spears, then staffs, then – for a brief period of time – parasols, to eventually nothing.

Thucydides also speaks of how the Aristoi took cultural cues from the orient, such as "the luxury of wearing undergarments of linen, and fastening a knot of their hair with a tie of golden grasshoppers." This went out of fashion after the Athenian elite began to mimic the Lacedaemonians, wearing more modest garments in order "to assimilate their way of life to that of the common people".

Influences
The Aristoi Classical Academy, formerly West Houston Charter School, takes its name from the concept.

title: Aristoi


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Fictional gods and Category:Fictional goddesses

Category:Fictional gods and Category:Fictional goddesses
These were merged into Category:Fictional deities.

We already had the category "Fictional deities" that could contain the elements of both these categories -- especially since those categories weren't that thickly populated (4 or 5 elements in each, I believe). Moreover the rest of the whole Category:Fictional characters structure doesn't tend to use different subcategs to contain male and female characters. Therefore I merged the few elements of Fictional gods and Fictional goddesses back into "Fictional deities" (noone objected since yesterday in their Talk pages I posted comments in either), and here ask the deletion of these two. Aris Katsaris 21:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I object (darn, I wasn't watching those pages). Why not split into male & female categories? The sex of pantheistic deities is pretty fundamental to their nature, IMHO. Also, these categories make it easy to distinguish between deities who have a sex and those who don't.
 * Seems to me that they had a decent amount of articles, especially when you consider their subcategories (gods & goddesses of D&D).
 * I don't understand why people are so keen to delete categories, when they have a clear purpose.
 * Oh, and also, from the top of this page: Do not depopulate the category (delete category tags from articles) until it has been voted for deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 22:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The gender of *any* character tends to be very fundamental to their nature also, but nonetheless we don't split categories into "Fictional male aliens" and "Fictional female aliens" or "Fictional female detectives" and "Fictional male detectives". Moreover you'd have the additional problem of not knowing whether to put the divinity of a character before its gender (as was now when Fictional deities was split into fictional gods and fictional goddesses) or put its gender before its divinity (Aka have categories of "Female characters" and "Male characters" and then have categories in those that say "Fictional Female deities" and "Fictional Male deities" -- in which case there'd be neuter deities left out.
 * Interjecting a gender into the category is practically a can of worms, especially since many fictional deities don't have a specific gender. As I said --- no other "fictional" category is segregated into male and female subgroups.
 * Apologies for depopulating the category -- the change in the rules of category deletion were only recent and I didn't notice them (earlier on depopulation was recommended). But as I said there were only a handful of specimens in each category to be removed. Most gods and goddesses had already been in [:Category:Deities]] already -- that should perhaps tell you something.
 * Lastly for gods and goddesses of D&D -- don't you think that a single category about these also (Deities of D&D) might even be a way around the naming problem mentioned in those pages? Aris Katsaris 23:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the harsh tone of my above comment - I was annoyed at something else when I wrote it ;/
 * Re the potential problem, the answer is simple: Make "Fictional goddesses" a subcategory of "Fictional deities" and "Female characters".
 * Fictional deities without a specific gender are no problem, they just belong in "Fictional deities". ··gracefool |☺ 00:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There's currently no categories for "Male fictional characters" and "Female fictional characters" -- nor do I believe we need to have ones, same way I don't believe we need to categorize deities by gender.
 * As a sidenote another problem is that several of the subcategories (e.g. Category:Middle-earth Valar don't care to make that distinction between male and female deities either -- and such is the case with pretty much *all* the fictional characters listed -- e.g. there's no "female Friends characters" and "male Friends characters" there's just Category:Friends characters -- and so forth. I really don't think that's a scheme we need to change. Female characters" would a very horizontal category -- such a thing would include about 50% of all fictional characters and become *very* unwieldy. Aris Katsaris 01:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I was responding to a hypothetical problem... To continue, you don't need Category:Female Friends characters, you just add the article to both Category:Friends characters and Category:Female characters. However, this is kinda useless at the moment, since there's no "intersection" tool for categories with which you could do something like "list all fictional female characters who are also Friends characters". So no, Category:Female characters shouldn't be made, at least not yet.
 * However, I don't think these problems apply to Category:Fictional goddesses, since it is unlikely to ever be the parent of many (if any) categories. ··gracefool |☺ 02:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Let them stay Merged into Category:Fictional deities, and delete these. -- Netoholic @ 02:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. We don't classify other articles using gender (Category:Stage actors vs. Category:Stage actresses as one of many examples). —Mike 04:40, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:The Great Movie Ride

Removals from Talk page
I've removed from this (talk) page requests for sequence of vignettes, merge delete request and the "Great Movie Ride" vs "The Great Movie Ride" comments as all had been sorted in main article

TimothyJacobson 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Point of accuracy
>>Scenes from all major film studios are represented with one notable exception; there is no reference to any motion pictures >>released by Universal Studios (who operates the rival Universal Orlando Resort nearby).

Is this true? I think a couple of Universal films (Pschyo? Kong?) have/did appear in the video montage at the end?

TimothyJacobson 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not true. A scene from The Terminator is very prominently seen in the ending clip montage for one. The text should be revised.

 * Terminator is not owned by Universal, the rights are currently held by Warner Bros. If you believe that Universal owns it because they have a Terminator attaction at their theme parks is misguided. That attraction is merely a licensing agreement. ~ Jedi94  (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Question from a user
Does anyone know what music is being played during the Western bank robber scene?

Finale Film montage
I believe I remember seeing Dr. Strangelove in that final film. Does anyone else, or am I wrong? M173627 (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DCA?
What is with constantly adding false info about this nearly 20 year old attraction to California Adventure? That's ridiculous. -- blm07 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

props
Anyone know where the old props like the ruby slippers and the holo-chess board go when theyve been removed?69.204.103.195 (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unverified text
I'm removing the statement from the first paragraph, "Disney has announced that this ride is to be removed sometime in 2010" until it has a source, which it probably never will. I personally find it incredibly hard to believe Disney would remove the attraction that inspired the entire park that was built around it...and even if they wanted to do that, surely a more than adequate replacement would be simultaneously announced. The way the sentence was worded also makes it sound like it was typed on the fly, merely ill-informed speculation by a person, especially since "sometime in 2010" is particularly vague considering it is 2010 already and such a monumental change would surely have more details available at this point.

Merging from List of The Great Movie Ride films
Though it appears this page hasn't been edited in a while, it appears logical to merge it. By itself, the list of films appearing in The Great Movie Ride doesn't seem notable enough, especially given that most people are not familiar with the ride. Also, anyone looking for this information could easily recover it from The Great Movie Ride if these two pages were merged. Fred.Pendleton (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Since the merge tag was proposed three years ago and there has been zero opposition to this, I think the two articles can be merged. Done. WTF? (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Soft Opening Date
the Soft Opening Date is listed as April 31, 1989. 30 days hath September, April, June, and November... DavidErikLarsen (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 * — It turns out it was one of a string of vandalism edits by an IP user, of which only one was properly reverted. It was left unnoticed since last month. Thanks Themeparkgc   Talk  01:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Submitting a request to change the entry about the Casablanca Lockheed Model 12 Electra
Werner Wiess runs Yesterland.com website and has done extensive research on the validity of the plane in Great Movie ride being the actual plane from the movie... While the plane on the ride was not in the scene with the famous actors, it possible was the plane used on some second unit close ups and part of the take off sequence... It is up to you if you would like to update this portion of the entry using Wiess' research, it just seems wrong to out right say "no plane was used in the filming".

Here is the link to the webpage including some sources that are cited by the author... http://www.yesterland.com/casablanca.html

--98.179.29.154 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Dan

Possible vandalism of the list?
It's been a while since I went on the Great Movie Ride, but seeing that it closed in 2017, does somebody want to explain how films such as Avengers: Endgame and Once Upon a Time In Hollywood are included in the final montage? Is the date of the closing wrong or is someone just putting their wishful thinking watchlist onto here?

--50.28.176.57 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I thought I had undo far enough back to get rid of them all, but apparently not. --Elisfkc (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Great Movie Ride


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdakaR

AdakaR
Probable prank, in glorious camelcase. --fvw *  22:33, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
 * Delete Adakar will destroy all who discuss him. adamsan 22:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Googling is difficult, as it's dominated by misspellings of Adarkar (of Magic the Gathering fame).  I wasn't able to find anything relevant, though.  Unsurprising, since the article itself claims unverifiability. (In its dubious favor, I don't see any camelcasing, unless you mean "God".) --Korath会話 23:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I meant the title. Though having all of it camelcased would no doubt be an improvement.  --fvw *  23:20, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
 * I'd vote delete, but then AdakaR would have to kill me. Wait...this is bogus?  Whew!  So delete this, already! - Lucky 6.9 23:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete PranK. --LeeHunter 01:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DeLeTe, or thou shalt suffer the wrath of the glorius AdaKaR! MuaHahahA! Alphax (talk) 03:50, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * DeletE ThiS CrufT. --Szyslak 08:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, obvious prank. Wyss 22:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete Robert Pendray 22:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdakaR


text:
Sai Yok district

Sai Yok (ไทรโยค, ) is a district (amphoe) in Kanchanaburi province in western Thailand.

Geography

The district is in the valley of the Khwae Noi River in the Tenasserim Hills area. It borders Myanmar to the south. Along the river the Death Railway runs to Nam Tok Sai Yok Noi.

Sai Yok National Park was created on 27 October 1980 and covers an area of about 500 km2. The most famous sight in the park is the Sai Yok waterfall.

Neighboring districts are (from north clockwise) Thong Pha Phum, Si Sawat, Mueang Kanchanaburi of Kanchanaburi Province and Tanintharyi Division of Myanmar.

Sights
Apart from the nature of the Kwae Noi River valley, the other main attraction is Mueang Sing Historical Park, which shows the westernmost Khmer-style temple complex. Also popular for tourists is the Tiger Temple.

Central administration
Sai Yok is divided into seven sub-districts (tambons), which are further subdivided into 57 administrative villages (mubans).

Local administration
There are three sub-district municipalities (thesaban tambons) in the district:
 * Nam Tok Sai Yok Noi (Thai: เทศบาลตำบลน้ำตกไทรโยคน้อย) consisting of parts of sub-district Tha Sao.
 * Wang Pho (Thai: เทศบาลตำบลวังโพธิ์) consisting of parts of sub-district Lum Sum.
 * Sai Yok (Thai: เทศบาลตำบลไทรโยค) consisting of sub-district Sai Yok.

There are six sub-district administrative organizations (SAO) in the district:
 * Lum Sum (Thai: องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลลุ่มสุ่ม) consisting of parts of sub-district Lum Sum.
 * Tha Sao (Thai: องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลท่าเสา) consisting of parts of sub-district Tha Sao.
 * Sing (Thai: องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลสิงห์) consisting of sub-district Sing.
 * Wang Krachae (Thai: องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลวังกระแจะ) consisting of sub-district Wang Krachae.
 * Si Mongkhon (Thai: องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลศรีมงคล) consisting of sub-district Si Mongkhon.
 * Bongti (Thai: องค์การบริหารส่วนตำบลบ้องตี้) consisting of sub-district Bongti.

Popular culture

 * Sai Yok was the location of shooting the Vietnam scenes of the 1978 film The Deer Hunter.
 * Sai Yok was mentioned in the song "Mon Sai Yok" (มนต์ไทรโยค - "Magic Of Sai Yok") by the Thai pop rock band The Innocent from an album Yu Hor (อยู่หอ - Stay Dorm) in 1982. The song is about a delightful time in Sai Yok.

title: Sai Yok district


text:
London International Surrealist Exhibition

The International Surrealist Exhibition was held from 11 June to 4 July 1936 at the New Burlington Galleries, near Savile Row in London's Mayfair, England.

Organisers
The exhibition was organised by committees from England, France, Belgium, Scandinavia and Spain.

The English organising committee consisted of:

 * Hugh Sykes Davies
 * David Gascoyne
 * Humphrey Jennings
 * McKnight Kauffer

 * Rupert Lee, Chairman
 * Diana Brinton Lee, Secretary
 * Henry Moore

 * Paul Nash
 * Roland Penrose, Honorary Treasurer
 * Herbert Read

The French organising committee were:

 * André Breton
 * Paul Éluard
 * Georges Hugnet
 * Man Ray

The remaining nations had a single committee representative: The number of exhibits, paintings, sculpture, objects and drawings displayed during the exhibition's run was around 390.
 * E. L. T. Mesens, Belgium
 * Vilhelm Bjerke-Petersen, Denmark
 * Salvador Dalí, Spain

Danish painter Wilhelm Freddie's entries never made it to the exhibition, as they were confiscated by British Customs representatives for being pornographic. According to ruling law at the time, the works had to be destroyed, but this was avoided at the last minute and they were despatched back to Denmark.

Exhibitors
The following artists participated in the exhibition:

 * Eileen Agar
 * Hans Arp
 * Jacqueline B. (Jacqueline Lamba Breton)
 * John Banting
 * Hans Bellmer
 * John Selby Bigge
 * Constanin Brancusi
 * Victor Brauner
 * Edward Burra
 * Alexander Calder
 * Giorgio de Chirico
 * Cecil Collins
 * Salvador Dalí
 * P. Norman Dawson
 * Oscar Dominguez
 * Marcel Duchamp
 * Max Ernst
 * Mervyn Evans
 * Leonor Fini
 * Freddie
 * David Gascoyne
 * Alberto Giacometti
 * S. W. Hayter
 * Charles Howard
 * Marcel Jean
 * Humphrey Jennings
 * Rita Kernn-Larsen
 * Paul Klee
 * Rupert Lee
 * Len Lye
 * Dora Maar
 * René Magritte
 * Maruja Mallo
 * André Masson
 * Robert Medley
 * Reuben Mednikoff
 * E. L. T. Mesens
 * Joan Miró
 * Henry Moore
 * Stellan Mörner
 * Paul Nash
 * Paul Nash

 * Richard Oelze
 * Erik Olson
 * Meret Oppenheim
 * Wolfgang Paalen
 * G. W. Pailthorpe
 * Roland Penrose
 * Francis Picabia
 * Pablo Picasso
 * Angel Planells
 * Man Ray
 * Pierre Sanders
 * Max Servais
 * Styrsky
 * Graham Sutherland
 * Yves Tanguy
 * S. H. Tauber-arp
 * Julian Trevelyan
 * Toyen

The following individuals exhibited objects:

 * André Breton
 * Gala Dalí
 * Claude Cahun
 * Hugh Sykes Davies
 * Rouge Dragon

 * Eric Neville Geijer
 * Geoffrey Grigson
 * Diana Brinton Lee
 * Sheila Legge

 * Margaret Nash
 * Herbert Read
 * Roger Roughton
 * Jean Varda

The following nations were represented at the exhibition:

 * America
 * Austria
 * Belgium
 * Czecho-Slovakia
 * Denmark

 * France
 * Germany
 * Great Britain
 * Greece
 * Italy

 * Roumania
 * Spain
 * Sweden
 * Switzerland

Exhibition programming
The exhibition was officially opened in the presence of about two thousand people by André Breton. The average attendance for the entire run of the Exhibition was about a thousand people per day.

Over the course of the Exhibition, the following lectures were delivered to large audiences:

 * 16 June – André Breton – Limites non-frontières du Surréalisme.
 * 19 June – Herbert Read – Art and the Unconscious.
 * 24 June – Paul Éluard – La Poésie surréaliste.
 * 26 June – Hugh Sykes Davies – Biology and Surrealism.
 * 1 July – Salvador Dalí – Fantômes paranoïaques authentiques.

The most iconic image of the exhibition is the opening day performance of Sheila Legge, who stood in the middle of Trafalgar Square, posing in a white, drop tail hemmed wedding dress ensemble inspired by a Salvador Dalí painting, with her head completely obscured by a flower arrangement. In one variation of the images capturing her performance, pigeons are perched on her outstretched, gloved arms.

Dalí's lecture was delivered whilst wearing a deep-sea diving suit. Nearly suffocating during the presentation, Dalí had to be rescued by the young poet David Gascoyne, who arrived with a spanner to release him from the diving helmet. During the exhibition, Welsh poet Dylan Thomas carried around a cup of boiled string, asking visitors would they rather it "weak or strong?"

The exhibition's catalog (and guide) was printed by the Women's Printing Society, a British publishing house dedicated to employing women.


text:
Battle of Ginchy

The Battle of Ginchy took place on 9 September 1916 during the Battle of the Somme, when the 16th (Irish) Division captured the German-held village. Ginchy is 1.5 km north-east of Guillemont, at the junction of six roads, on a rise overlooking Combles, 4 km to the south-east. After the conclusion of the Battle of Guillemont on 6 September, XIV Corps and XV Corps were required to complete the advance to positions which would give observation over the German third position. The advance was to make ready for a general attack in mid-September, for which the Anglo-French armies had been preparing since early August.

British attacks northwards from the boundary between the Fourth Army and the French Sixth Army, from Leuze Wood north to Ginchy, had begun on 3 September when the 7th Division captured the village, before being forced out by a German counter-attack. Attacks on Leuze Wood and attempts to re-take Ginchy on 4 and 5 September were also defeated by German counter-attacks. The 7th Division was relieved by the 16th (Irish) Division and 55th (West Lancashire) Division on the evening of 7 September and the 5th Division was replaced by the 56th (1/1st London) Division on the right at the boundary with the French.

On 9 September the British began a bombardment early in the morning but waited until late afternoon to advance, to deny the Germans time to counter-attack before dark. The British assault in the south by the 56th (1/1st London) Division and the 16th (Irish) Division reached Bouleaux Wood but the attack in the centre was repulsed. On the northern flank, Ginchy was captured by the 16th (Irish) Division and several German counter-attacks were defeated. The loss of Ginchy deprived the Germans of observation posts from which they could observe the battlefield. The success eliminated the salient at Delville Wood, which had been costly to defend, due to observed German artillery-fire from three sides and the many counter-attacks by German infantry in July and August; the attack on 31 August, being the largest mounted by the Germans against the British during the battle.

The success of the attack by the French Sixth Army on 12 September, in its biggest operation of the battle and the advance of the right flank of the British Fourth Army from 3 to 9 September, enabled both armies to make much bigger attacks. The assaults were sequenced with attacks by the Tenth and Reserve armies in September, which captured much more ground and inflicted approximately 130,000 casualties on the German defenders. Anglo-French attempts to co-ordinate their attacks had failed from July to early September, due to a combination of disagreements between Haig, Joffre and Foch over tactics, supply difficulties, devastated terrain, inclement weather and the increasing defensive power of the German armies. In September, the Allies managed to co-ordinate their attacks; advances on each army front made adjacent German positions vulnerable, which were attacked promptly by the neighbouring army before the Germans recovered from their disorganisation.

Tactical developments
After the capture of 6000 yd of the German second position on Bazentin Ridge by the British on 14 July, the Germans had reinforced the flanks of the captured ground and built more fortifications between the second and third positions. On the right flank the British line formed a salient at Longueval and Delville Wood, which ran west to Pozières and south to Maltz Horn Farm, the junction with the French Sixth Army. The salient was overlooked by German positions from Guillemont to the south-east and High Wood to the north-west. Control of Guillemont and Ginchy also gave the Germans observation of the ground to the south, over the French approaches to the German second line, from the Somme river north to Maurepas and the area between Malz Horn Farm and Falfemont Farm.

German artillery could fire into the salient and the area beyond, where a huge mass of Allied artillery was based and through which the fronts of the Fourth and French Sixth armies were supplied over a small number of poor roads. In August, Joffre had pressed Haig to continue with big attacks on wide fronts but despite conforming to French strategy, Haig had refused to follow these tactics until the British Armies were ready, being unwilling to risk another fiasco like the attacks of 22/23 July. The British made a large number of small, narrow-front attacks, consistent with the state of training and supply of the British divisions, intended to approximate wide-front attacks, while concentrating artillery firepower opposite Guillemont, on the right flank of the Fourth Army. From late July to early September, many attacks took place to establish the British right flank on Guillemont and Ginchy, ready for a big attack combined with the French Sixth Army and the Reserve Army in mid-September.

Publication of German casualty statistics for July 1916, showed that seven of the twelve divisions engaged by the British in July, had lost more than 50 per cent of their infantry, which increased optimism at British Expeditionary Force (BEF) General Headquarters (GHQ), that the German defence of the Somme front was weakening. GHQ Intelligence made a guess of 130,000 German casualties, while Lieutenant-General George Macdonogh, Director of Military Intelligence at the War Office in London, estimated 150,000 and the French 175,000 German losses. The Bavarian divisions south of the Albert–Bapaume road were assessed to have high morale despite "heavy losses" but it was believed that there were no more than five German divisions left in reserve on the Western Front. (British spy networks in northern France and Flanders had been blown in June 1916, which left the Secret Service and GHQ Intelligence ignorant of German troop movements in the area.)

A general relief of the German divisions on the Somme was known to have been completed in late August and the assessment of German divisions available as reinforcements was increased to eight. GHQ Intelligence considered a German division on the British front was worn-out after $4 1/2$ days, even though German divisions averaged twenty days in the line. Of six more German divisions moved to the Somme by 28 August, only two had been known to be in reserve and the other four had been moved from quiet sectors without warning. News of the dismissal of Falkenhayn reached the British on 30 August and it was taken by military intelligence to foreshadow increased German emphasis on the Eastern Front, which would make the German armies in France vulnerable. The "wearing-out" battles since late July and events elsewhere, led to a belief that the big Allied attack planned for mid-September could have decisive effect.

British preparations
The Anglo-French attacks of late July and August had been intended to advance through the un-captured part of the German second position, to Falfemont Farm, Guillemont and Leuze Wood, preparatory to the capture of Ginchy and Bouleaux Wood. The British and French armies were to co-operate to capture the high ground either side of the Combles valley and the French Sixth Army to reach Maurepas, Le Forest, Rancourt and Frégicourt. Fighting to the west of Ginchy at Longueval and Delville Wood had begun on 14 July and continued until 3 September, when all but the eastern corner was captured. The area between the wood and Ginchy, known to the German defenders as the Entschnabel (Duck's Bill) dominated the approaches to the village. An attack from west needed the support of a simultaneous attack northwards on the Entschnabel, to prevent the Germans defeating the attack with enfilade fire and arrangements for the big offensive planned for mid-September continued.

Attacks by XV Corps and III Corps on Delville Wood and High Wood took place during the XIV Corps operations to capture Ginchy. The attacks added to the strain on British engineer services, pioneer, labour and transport units and was made worse by German bombardments, directed from the vantage points still in German possession. In the aftermath of the last attack of the Battle of Guillemont (3 to 6 September), in the XIV Corps area, the 56th (1/1st London) Division relieved the right of the 168th Brigade with the 169th Brigade, from the boundary with the French Sixth Army at the Combles ravine to the southern portion of Leuze Wood. The 168th Brigade sidestepped left to take over part of the line held by the 49th Brigade of the 16th (Irish) Division and an advanced trench dug near Leuze Wood was abandoned. At 11:30 a.m. on 8 September, the 56th (1/1st London) Division attacked down Combles Trench from Leuze Wood, advancing a short distance before a German counter-attack at 5:15 a.m. on 9 September bombed them back to the wood.

British plan
The 22nd Brigade, 7th Division had been withdrawn for only two days, before being sent forward again for the attack on Ginchy. The ground had been torn by shell-fire and made muddy by rain, as the brigade took over the south end of Edge Trench and Devil's Trench in Delville Wood on the left, Stout and Porter trenches on the right facing Ginchy, with a battalion in support in Montauban Alley and a battalion in reserve in Pommiers Trench. A noon attack was planned to mislead the Germans.

On 6 September, a new attack was ordered with XIV Corps to advance to a line from Combles to Leuze Wood road, the Quadrilateral and Ginchy. The 55th Division to the north in the XV Corps area was to support the attack on Ginchy by attacking with the 164th Brigade, between the outskirts of the village and the eastern edge of Delville Wood. The advance was then to continue to Hop Alley and Ale Alley, then from Pint Trench to Lager Lane on the road from Ginchy to Flers; III Corps was to take Wood Lane and the east corner of High Wood. A bombardment was to begin on 9 September at 7:00 a.m., with no increase in intensity before zero at 4:45 p.m., to deceive the Germans as to the time of the attack and to deny them an opportunity to counter-attack before dark.

The French Sixth Army attack as part of the joint plan to isolate Combles further south, also scheduled for 9 September was postponed on 8 September to 12 September due to supply difficulties. On the 56th (1/1st London) Division front, between the Combles ravine and the boundary with the 16th (Irish) Division on the Combles–Guillemont road, the attack of 9 September was to be made behind a creeping barrage from half of the divisional artillery, moving at 100 yd per minute. As the creeping barrage met a standing barrage fired by the other half of the divisional artillery on each barrage line successively, the standing barrage would jump ahead to the next objective.

German preparations
The many British "nibbling" attacks after 14 July had been costly to contain, as German defences had been under frequent artillery bombardment, which had turned German positions into crater-fields, buried the entrances of dug-outs, vaporised barbed-wire and demolished trenches. Allied air superiority and artillery dominated the battlefield and kept the German defenders under constant strain and caused many casualties, the most notable being Falkenhayn who was sacked on 28 August and replaced by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, who scrapped Falkenhayn's policy of rigid defence and automatic counter-attacks.

German field fortifications had evolved since July from a trench-system into an outpost line in shell-holes, with supports and reserves further back in shell-holes or any cover that could be found. The outpost line, containing two or three soldiers every 20 yd and the occasional machine-gun was often overrun, after which similar shell-hole positions were improvised by the British before a German counter-attack could be mounted. The hasty German counter-attack (Gegenstoß) was forestalled and the remedy of a well-prepared methodical counter-attack (Gegenangriff) was rarely mounted because of the chronic shortage of infantry, artillery and ammunition.

Attempts to link shell-hole positions failed, because they were visible from the air and British reconnaissance aircraft directed artillery onto them. Trenches were abandoned during an attack in preference for shell-holes further forward. Unobtrusive positions were much harder for British air observers to spot and much more artillery ammunition was needed to bombard areas which were thought to contain them. Trench-lines retained their value as rallying points and accommodation and new ones were built according to the defensive lessons of the Herbstschlacht (Second Battle of Champagne 25 September to 6 November 1915). Back-lines and switch-trenches were dug, as soon as manpower was available, on reverse slopes with artillery observation posts moved 500 – further back. In early September, the relief of the defenders of Ginchy by Bavarian Infantry Regiment 19 was rushed, giving the regiment no time to study the ground. By mistake, the boundary between the 5th Bavarian Division and the 185th Division was placed in the village, dividing responsibility for its defence, which was made worse by some of the soldiers in the 185th Division being retrained gunners with little infantry experience.

French Sixth and Tenth armies
The Sixth Army attacked north of the Somme at noon on 3 September, capturing most of Cléry, the German position along the Cléry to Le Forêt road and all of the village of Le Forêt. On the left I Corps occupied high ground south of Combles and entered Bois Douage, taking 2,000 prisoners and twelve guns. The Tenth Army attacked on the south bank on 4 September, from Chilly to Barleux and took Chilly and Soyécourt after three days of attacks but failed to capture Vermandovillers, Derniécourt and Barleux.

The Sixth Army attacked on the north bank with VII Corps, which advanced on the left and made more gains around Cléry. To the north, the Germans counter-attacked in the Combles ravine, stopping the French advance towards Rancourt. When the British took Falfemont Farm on 5 September, the French gained touch at the Combles ravine and patrols captured Ferme de l'Hôpital, 880 yd east of Le Forêt. The rest of Cléry was taken by VII Corps and XXXIII Corps, which had taken Omniécourt on the south bank of the Somme, was met on the right flank. An attack by I Corps, on the boundary with the British Fourth Army on 6 September was repulsed.

On 12 September, XXXIII Corps attacked towards Mont St Quentin and VII Corps attacked Bouchavesnes, taking the village and digging in facing Cléry and Feuillaucourt. I Corps took Bois d'Anderlu and broke through the German defences near Marrières Wood, before attacking north towards Rancourt and Sailly-Saillisel. On 13 September, I Corps closed on Le Priez Farm and VII Corps defeated several big German counter-attacks. Next day the attacks of VII and XXXIII corps were stopped by mud and German defensive fire.

I Corps managed to take Le Priez Farm. Attacks were suspended again to bring up supplies and relieve tired troops, despite the big British attack due on 15 September. Frégicourt, which overlooked part of the area to be attacked by the British was still held by the Germans. Although Foch wanted to keep pressure on the Germans south of the river, supply priority was given to the Sixth Army; the Tenth Army met frequent German counter-attacks near Berny, which took some ground and was not able to resume its attacks.

Fourth Army
British attacks on Ginchy began on 3 September in the XV Corps area, when the 22nd Brigade of the 7th Division advanced eastwards, on a line from Waterlot Farm north to Delville Wood on the Guillemont–Longueval road, the objective being Ginchy Telegraph, site of an old semaphore station on the highest ground east of the village. The ground over which the attack was to pass was overlooked by Ale Alley and Hop Alley, German positions at the east end of Delville Wood. Bombers from the 91st Brigade and part of the 22nd Brigade attacked the German positions on the northern flank five minutes before zero, with support from a 24th Division battalion on the left. The British bombardment increased at 10:25 a.m. and at 11:20 a.m. became intense.

A creeping barrage was arranged to begin at zero hour (noon) and dwell for five minutes, so that the infantry could close up to the German front line 400 yd away, then creep forward in three lifts through Ginchy. The bombers advanced towards Hop Alley at 11:55 a.m. but smoke from their fumite grenades alerted the Germans and the 24th Division battalion attacked late, after it received contradictory orders. The eastern edge of Delville Wood up to Hop Alley was captured but the German defenders pinned down the rest of the attacking force, when it tried to advance by moving in the open and by bombing along trenches.

At noon the main attack began and the right-hand battalion advanced into the south of Ginchy out of view, as the left-hand battalion was caught in flanking fire by the German machine-guns in Ale Alley. Part of the battalion got into the north end of Ginchy and also disappeared, while the rest occupied the southern part of Beer Trench or dug in 40 yd short of Hop Alley. A supporting company got a few men into the orchards north-west of Ginchy and were joined by part of another battalion, originally intended to occupy Ale Alley as a defensive flank. On the right flank it was reported at 3:50 p.m. that the far side of the village had been reached and the eastern and south-eastern outskirts were being consolidated.

Germans in the north end of the village then worked round the open left flank and counter-attacked, pushing the survivors back to Porter Trench, except for a party which held on to a position on the Guillemont road, at the boundary with XIV Corps. A new attack at 5:00 p.m. on the northern flank, from Pilsen Lane against Hop Alley was ordered at 2:15 p.m. and extended south to recapture Ginchy, when it was seen to have been lost. The attack in the north failed, apart from some troops reaching the left side of Hop Alley and that on Ginchy was stopped by artillery and machine-gun fire at Stout and Porter trenches, where the survivors of the original attack were holding on.

Heavy and accurate German artillery-fire had begun twenty minutes after zero hour and cut communication with the attacking battalions. Contact aircraft reported seeing flares in the village but received no response when more flares were called for. The 7th Division called on corps headquarters for another bombardment by heavy artillery at 6:50 p.m. and the divisional commander Major-General Herbert Watts, requested the use of the 20th Brigade for another attack.

Lieutenant-General Henry Horne, the corps commander referred this to Fourth Army headquarters, because the brigade was being conserved for the big attack planned for mid-September. Eventually the 20th Brigade was committed to hold the line and the 22nd Brigade ordered to attack again, despite its losses and disorganisation, until a patrol revealed that the Germans had infiltrated a large number of infantry in the village. The attack was cancelled and the 20th Brigade moved up by lorry to Mametz, to take over from Stout and Porter trenches to Delville Wood, ready to reinforce troops in Ginchy or to wait until morning to renew the attack, the attempt eventually taking place next day at 8:00 a.m.

The 20th Brigade attackers quickly occupied Ginchy, came under massed shrapnel-shell and machine-gun fire and was soon pushed back to ZZ, Porter and Stout trenches, west and south-west of the outskirts. The corps commander postponed another attack until 5 September, when a surprise attack was to be attempted. Further north the attack from Delville Wood began at 2:00 p.m. but made no progress beyond Ale Alley and Hop Alley; a later attempt on Hop Alley from Pilsen Lane also failed, the troops being pinned down in shell-holes until dusk. The 20th Brigade attack intended for 5 September was postponed, due to the state of the ground and disorganisation in the front line. Survivors from the 22nd Brigade reported that the village was held mainly by machine-gunners and recommended a night attack, for which a preliminary attack on the eastern fringe of Delville Wood, was made in the late afternoon. The attack reached the edge of the wood to a point north of Hop Alley, despite continuous German artillery-fire. In the early morning of 6 September, another attack on Ginchy began but lost direction in the dark.

A second attack was made at 5:30 a.m. Despite deep mud the attackers reached the western outskirts of the village, before being stopped by German machine-gun fire at close range, from hides in the débris of the village. Attacks between Ginchy and Delville Wood pushed forward from Pilsen Lane, where some of the advanced parties were then pushed back by a counter-attack from Ginchy. After another bombardment at 2:00 p.m. the British attacked from the Guillemont–Ginchy road, behind a creeping barrage and reached the village, taking a number of prisoners, before being cut off by a German counter-barrage, attacked at 4:30 p.m. and pushed back to the original front line. The 7th Division commander reported that the division was incapable of another effort and no attack on Ginchy was made on 7 September. An attempt was made to capture the last part of Delville Wood, behind a rifle-grenade barrage which was repulsed.

On the right of XIV Corps, the 56th (1/1st London) Division attacked on 9 September at 4:45 p.m. A battalion of the 169th Brigade advanced from the south-east of Leuze Wood towards Loop Trench, to establish a defensive flank along the Combles ravine. German artillery and machine-gun fire forced the battalion back; another battalion was sent forward as reinforcements but took until 11:00 p.m. to find its way through German artillery-fire and the dark. A battalion attacking from inside Leuze Wood, managed to capture the main German line beyond the sunken road into Combles at Bouleaux Wood, then advance north-west to the Guillemont–Morval road, south-east of the Quadrilateral and dig in.

The 168th Brigade advanced to the north-east, from south of the Leuze Wood–Guillemont road by pivoting on its right flank, intending to reach the German line from Leuze Wood to the Quadrilateral. The right-hand battalion hugged the barrage and reached its first objective easily about 300 yd forward, despite small-arms raking the left flank battalion and only the company on the right reaching its first objective on the Leuze Wood–Ginchy road. The battalion on the right advanced again, when the barrage began to move forward at 5:25 p.m. to the final objective, at the German trench from the Quadrilateral to Bouleaux Wood. Despite many losses the objective was reached and consolidated, touch being gained with the left of the 169th Brigade and patrols pushed forward towards Morval. Small parties of German infantry were engaged by Lewis-gun fire in the gloom and driven off.

The left battalion was pinned-down by fire from German positions south-east of Ginchy and the advance to the Quadrilateral stopped. Air reconnaissance of the Quadrilateral which lay in dead ground, had shown that its outer belt of barbed-wire had been cut by the British artillery but not wire covered by long grass for 60 yd behind. A second attempt lost direction and veered to the right, as German artillery-fire and a thick mist at sunset cut off the attacking troops from communication to the rear. Troops had been brought forward to form a defensive flank on the left and after dark a battalion was sent to link the line left from the Quadrilateral, erroneously believed to have been captured, to Ginchy where troops of the 16th (Irish) Division were thought to be. The advance began at 12:15 a.m. but also got lost in the dark and mist. The German defence collapsed into confusion, with one party attacking the British from behind. As dawn broke some of the battalion found that they were at the trench south-east of the Quadrilateral.

The two 16th (Irish) Division brigades began the attack tired and worn down, after earlier attacks while attached to the 5th Division and 20th Division. The two attacking battalions of the 47th Brigade on the right flank were held back for two minutes after zero hour for a final hurricane bombardment. The 48th Brigade on the left attacked on schedule, which brought down a German counter-barrage. The battalions of the 47th Brigade were stopped by close-range machine-gun fire, most of the British bombardment having fallen on the German second line. Further attempts to advance with reinforcements also failed. North of the 47th Brigade, the battalion on the right side of the 48th Brigade was also stopped but wheeled, forced back the Germans in the vicinity and pressed on. The brigade advanced either side of the Guillemont–Ginchy road, against slight opposition and reached the first objective along Hans Crescent, on the western outskirts of Ginchy at 5:00 p.m. Two battalions leap-frogged through at 5:25 p.m. and took the village and 200 German prisoners, the rest withdrawing towards Flers and Lesbœufs.

Some of the Irish pursued the Germans, until they were recalled, to consolidate a defensive line around the eastern outskirts of Ginchy. Engineer field companies built a strongpoint on the road to Lesbœufs and one at the XIV Corps–XV Corps boundary on the Delville Wood road. On the right of XV Corps, an attack by 164th Brigade of the 55th Division captured the east end of Delville Wood and took Hop and Ale alleys but failed to hold them against German artillery and machine-gun fire. A camouflaged trench had been taken to be the objective for a few moments, causing a delay which proved disastrous. After advancing to within 20 yd of Hop Alley, the few survivors withdrew to Pilsen Lane. Several German counter-attacks were made in the evening and repulsed.

Air operations
On the evening of 6 July, German troops were spotted moving into Ginchy, by a 9 Squadron observer and were machine-gunned but a call for artillery-fire went unanswered. Later on more troops were seen and engaged by artillery, prisoners later stating that a battalion lost half its men. On 22 July, 9 Squadron observers reported that new digging was seen around Ginchy, part of a line of entrenchments from Combles to Geuedecourt. On 18 August, British artillery-fire was directed on Ginchy, again by 9 Squadron. On 3 September a reconnaissance flight by 3 Squadron over Ginchy reported no great mass of German infantry, the aeroplane was not fired on and huddled bodies were taken to be German dead.

Another aircraft flight took place during the attack and observed British infantry enter the village at 1:00 p.m., then saw the advance move through the centre of Ginchy towards the eastern edge. German troops north of the village and more troops moving down Lager Lane were machine-gunned by the aircraft, which also called for artillery-fire by wireless and observed the shells falling on the German positions. At 2:40 p.m. British troops were still visible at the east end of Ginchy but the German troops seen earlier managed to counter-attack at 3:00 p.m., despite the British artillery-fire and recapture the village up to the western outskirts. On 9 September the final attack on Ginchy began in a haze in the late afternoon, with three aircraft of 9 Squadron on contact-patrol over the area, which reported the progress of the attack.

German 1st Army
The 4th Bavarian Division moved its left boundary to the Longueval–Flers road and the 56th (1/1st London) Division withdrew Infantry Regiment 88 (IR 88) into reserve, which became available to reinforce Fusilier Regiment 35 (FR 35) in Ginchy, which held the western edge of the village with I Battalion FR 35 and part of I Battalion, IR 88, until forced back by the British attack on 3 September. Parts of both battalions counter-attacked from Pint Trench at 3:30 p.m. as parts of I Battalion, IR 88 and III battalion, F R 35 advanced slowly through the south of the village to the south-eastern corner. Elements of both regiments attacked again at 6:00 p.m. and after hand-to-hand fighting recaptured the rest of the village but were not able to link with IR 76 to the south-west, which had been forced out of Guillemont.

A British attack at 8:00 a.m. was repulsed by small-arms fire, after signals to the German artillery went unanswered and I Battalion, F R 35 had many casualties defending Delville Wood to the west. On 6 September, the British attack got into Ginchy and took a number of prisoners, before being forced back out by a counter-attack at 4:30 p.m. by III Battalion, I R 88 and I Battalion, Reserve Infantry Regiment 104 (RIR 104) of the 24th Reserve Division, which had arrived as a reinforcement. Next day was relatively quiet and the 5th Bavarian Division began to relieve the 56th (1/1st London) Division, Bavarian Infantry Regiment 19 (BIR 19) taking over the defence of Ginchy amid considerable confusion caused by ignorance of the situation in the village, which had disappeared due to the effect of constant bombardment.

On 8 September, the men of I Battalion, I R 88 at the Entenschnabel (Duck's Bill), a former meadow in the area between Delville Wood and Ginchy, were subjected to Trommelfeuer (drumfire) which sent plumes of mud high into the air. Digging-in deeper revealed British corpses, whose decomposition fouled the atmosphere; British bodies were thrown forward of the German defences and German ones thrown into shell-holes behind. South-west of Ginchy, the 111th Division had been relieved by the 185th Division of the XII Reserve Corps on 7/8 September, on the left of the 5th Bavarian Division. Loop Trench was defended by III Battalion, RIR 28 which was reinforced by part of the II Battalion and I Battalion, IR 65 (in line to the south, defending Combles). Part of III Battalion was overrun in Leuze and Bouleaux woods, which was reinforced by part of I Battalion, RIR 28 and some ground was recaptured; contact with Infantry Regiment 161 (IR 161) towards Ginchy was lost temporarily. The left flank of IR 161 had been "demolished" by the British attack and reinforcements from IR 65, were only able to reach the railway north-west of Bouleaux Wood.

The area from Ginchy to Delville Wood was held by the 5th Bavarian Division, with I Battalion, BIR 19 from Ginchy to trenches west to Delville Wood and II Battalion, BIR 19 in support; touch with the 185th Division was maintained by patrols. The left of I Battalion, south-east of Ginchy held its ground, although contact with the rear was lost. Opposite Delville Wood, the British attack was defeated but a company in Ginchy was rolled up from the south and part of II Battalion was also pushed back. Attempts by the II Battalion to counter-attack from north of the village at 6:20 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. failed, the troops getting lost in the dark during the second attack. Next day at 7:25 a.m., the III Battalion, BIR 19 counter-attacked along the Ginchy–Lesbœufs road into a "terrible bombardment" and was stopped short of Ginchy. A report took until nightfall to reach the battalion headquarters. III Battalion, BIR 19 then counter-attacked again into massed artillery and machine-gun fire; part of the battalion penetrated Ginchy, where they were overwhelmed.

Analysis
Crown Prince Rupprecht wrote later that the confusion in Ginchy had been caused by two divisions having responsibility for the defence of the village. The hurried relief of the defenders and lack of organisation at the divisional boundary, enabled a British battalion to find its way in small groups through a gap between German units and get round the flank of the 5th Bavarian Division, forcing it to withdraw. Counter-attacks were said to have failed, because the English (sic) had defended Ginchy with few men but many machine-guns, dug-in around the fringes of the village, which stopped the German counter-attacks short of the village. A final attempt failed on 11 September, leaving Bavarian Infantry Regiment 19 with losses of 884 men. Franco-British attacks in September caused a crisis in the German defence and by 5 to 6 September, many German infantry units were at the end of their endurance.

It had taken the Fourth Army from 15 July to 14 September to advance 1000 yd on a 5 mi front and cost 82,000 casualties but capture of the ground north of Ginchy gained the British another 3000 yd of the crest from Leuze Wood to Delville Wood, which overlooked the German third position for 9000 yd, from Delville Wood to Mouquet Farm. On 11 September, Gallwitz wrote that if the process continued, Germany would run out of men and equipment and that the British heavy guns were destroying the German artillery. The 4th Bavarian Division at Flers, reported that the loss of Ginchy exposed the area from Flers to Martinpuich to attack. British and French prisoners had said that in the recent attacks, German artillery-fire had begun too late and that attacks had caught Germans while they were still under cover in dugouts and also managed to overrun troops further back, held ready to counter-attack.

Prior & Wilson wrote that Guillemont had eventually been captured, using improved tactics but that the 7th Division attacked Ginchy with insufficient weight, seeking to keep troops fresh for the big offensive planned for mid-September. Insufficient attention was paid to mopping-up captured ground, German troops hiding in village cellars were overlooked and the artillery failed to suppress German machine-gunners firing from the flanks. The same form of attack was repeated until the 7th Division was relieved by the 16th (Irish) Division, which moved into line just as the weather deteriorated and rain turned the ground to mud. It was possible to attack Ginchy from the south once Guillemont had fallen and six battalions (albeit tired and depleted by losses) attacked instead of two in previous attacks. A stroke of ill-luck left the Germans in Ginchy unsupported, when the Irish attacked with twice as much field artillery than the previous attacks and took the village in two hours.

In the 7th Division history, Charles Atkinson, called the attacks on Ginchy most unsatisfactory, despite having plenty of artillery and ammunition in support. The fighting in Delville Wood in the aftermath of the big German counter-attack of 31 August had depleted the division; some of the lost ground in the wood had not been recaptured, which left the Germans well placed to enfilade attacks towards Ginchy from the west and north. Atkinson claimed that fighting for the village covered the left flank of the troops further south attacking Guillemont and absorbed German reinforcements in the area. The 7th Division had been used in "driblets", when a co-ordinated attack on a broader front may have succeeded. There had been insufficient time to rest troops, who were poorly trained, led by inexperienced NCOs and the "musketry" of many of the men from recent drafts was inadequate.

J. P. Harris described British efforts between 15 July and 14 September, a "dissolution" and that the large number of piecemeal attacks demonstrate a failure of command, primarily by Haig. He suggested that the British could have established an army group level of command, similar to those in the French and German armies. Despite criticism of British methods and results, Harris noted that things were worse for the Germans, who were deluged by British artillery, directed by "ubiquitous" Royal Flying Corps (RFC) observers overhead. German troops made seventy counter-attacks against ninety British attacks from 15 July to 14 September, most of which were costly failures, were too frequent and wasted troops on insignificant objectives.

Jack Sheldon wrote in 2005, that the defence of Ginchy had driven some of the best German regiments close to collapse. The commander of the 10th Company, Infantry Regiment 88 wrote a report to the battalion commander on 5 September, that if the company was not withdrawn, he could not answer for the consequences. The report was endorsed and forwarded by the battalion commander but the company was required to counter-attack at Ginchy on 6 September, before being relieved. In contrast to the criticism from Joffre and Foch at the time and by writers and historians since, that the British in this period conducted too many narrow-front attacks, which conceded a tactical advantage to the Germans, Dudley Ward in the 56th (1/1st London) Division history, noted that broad-front attacks were futile when delivered with insufficient weight, since troops edged away from return fire and moved through gaps in defences, bypassing German infantry who could cut them off from reinforcements and supplies.

Casualties
From 7 to 12 September, Bavarian Infantry Regiment 19 lost 884 men in the defence of Ginchy. The 16th Irish Division suffered 4,330 casualties from 1 to 10 September and was transferred to the Second Army in Flanders. From 23 August to its relief on 7 September, the 7th Division suffered 3,800 casualties. The 24th Division had suffered approximately 2,000 casualties since the end of August.

Subsequent operations
Attacks were made from the Guillemont–Combles and the Guillemont–Ginchy roads to reach the Quadrilateral, a rectangular trench 300 × on a sunken part of the Ginchy–Morval road, which was one of the preliminary objectives of the Fourth Army, before the big offensive planned for 15 September. The 16th (Irish) Division was relieved by the Guards Division on the night of 9/10 September, from the edge of Leuze Wood along the Ginchy road to Ginchy, as the British hold on Ginchy was consolidated. Next day the 56th (1/1st London) Division attacked south-east from Leuze Wood at 7:00 a.m. but was stopped by machine-gun fire from Loop Trench and the sunken road into Combles; a second attempt at 3:00 p.m. also failed. Operations began to capture Ginchy Telegraph and the Quadrilateral on the Ginchy–Morval road, at the top of the Ginchy–Morval spur. An attempt to bomb up to the Quadrilateral from Bouleaux Wood also failed in the face of German machine-gun fire. A brigade from the 5th Division began to relieve units of the 56th (1/1st London) Division and the Guards Division defeated German attempts to re-capture Ginchy.

Ginchy Telegraph was attacked by the Guards Division on 12 September at 6:00 a.m. along the Morval road, as the 56th (1/1st London) Division attacked towards the Quadrilateral again and the 6th Division began to relieve the left flank of the 56th (1/1st London) and right flank of the Guards divisions. Next day the 6th Division had taken over from Leuze Wood to the edge of Ginchy and attacked the Quadrilateral from the south-west, reaching the Leuze Wood–Ginchy road before being held up by machine-gun fire. A second attempt at 6:00 p.m. failed with 521 casualties in the two attacking battalions. An attack by the Guards at the north end of Ginchy straightened the line and an attack after dark was made on German machine-gun nests along the road to Morval. On 14 September a battalion of the 56th (1/1st London) Division dug assembly trenches south of Leuze Wood parallel to Combles Trench, preparatory to the Battle of Flers-Courcelette (15 to 22 September). The Quadrilateral was captured by the 6th Division on 18 September.

title: Battle of Ginchy


text:
Andrew Lincoln

Andrew James Clutterbuck (born 14 September 1973), better known by his stage name Andrew Lincoln, is an English actor. His first major role was as the character Egg in the BBC drama This Life (1996–1997). Lincoln later portrayed Simon Casey in the Channel 4 sitcom Teachers (2001–2003), Mark in the Christmas-themed romantic comedy film Love Actually (2003) and Dr. Robert Bridge in the ITV television series Afterlife (2005–2006).

Beginning in 2010, Lincoln gained recognition for his portrayal of Rick Grimes, the lead character on the AMC post-apocalyptic horror television series The Walking Dead. For his portrayal of Rick Grimes, Lincoln won the Saturn Award for Best Actor on Television in 2015 and 2017. He departed the cast of The Walking Dead in 2018, but reprised his role as Rick in 2022 in the series finale and in the spin-off The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live in 2024.

Early life
Lincoln was born on 14 September 1973 in London, the son of an English civil engineer and a South African nurse. His family moved to Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire, when he was 18 months old, and then to Bath, Somerset, when he was eight or nine. He attended Beechen Cliff School, where at age 14 he had his first acting role as The Artful Dodger in a school production of Oliver!. He spent a summer at the National Youth Theatre in London and became interested in acting as a career. After leaving school, he studied at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA) drama school and began to use "Andrew Lincoln" as his stage name.

Career
In 1994, Lincoln made his TV debut in "Births and Deaths", an episode of the Channel 4 sitcom Drop the Dead Donkey. In 1995, soon after finishing drama school, he was cast in his first major role playing Edgar "Egg" Cooke, one of the lead characters in the BBC drama This Life. He went on to appear in British television series and dramas such as The Woman in White, The Canterbury Tales, and Wuthering Heights, including probationary teacher Simon Casey in the Channel 4 sitcom Teachers. He also had a lead role as university lecturer and psychologist Robert Bridge in Afterlife, and starred in the Sky 1 series Strike Back with Richard Armitage in 2010. Lincoln appeared in several films such as Human Traffic and Gangster No. 1 and starred alongside Vanessa Paradis in Pascal Chaumeil's Heartbreaker. In particular, his role as Mark in the 2003 film Love Actually gained him wider recognition.

Lincoln has performed in plays, including Hushabye Mountain in 1999, Blue/Orange in 2000 and 2001, The Late Henry Moss in 2006, the Parlour Song in 2009, as well as radio productions. He has done voice-overs for documentaries, advertisements, and government campaigns. He directed two episodes in the third series of Teachers for which he received a BAFTA nomination for Best New Director (Fiction) in 2004.

In April 2010, Lincoln was cast as Rick Grimes, the protagonist of AMC's post-apocalyptic series The Walking Dead. Grimes is a sheriff's deputy who awakens from a coma in the midst of a zombie apocalypse. He becomes the leader of a group of family and friends who are forced to relentlessly fight off flesh-eating zombies and hostile humans. In 2010, Lincoln signed up for the show for a potential six years and renegotiated a deal for two further seasons. Lincoln appeared on the show for the final time on 4 November 2018, having previously stated that he wished to spend more time with his children. According to The New York Times, Lincoln's role on The Walking Dead made him "the center of one of the world's biggest pop culture franchises". Following Lincoln's departure from The Walking Dead, it was planned that he would reprise his role of Rick Grimes in a trilogy of feature-length films. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the films were delayed. They were subsequently replaced with a 6-hour show starring both Lincoln and Danai Gurira.

Lincoln has received various awards and nominations for his portrayal of Rick Grimes; he won the Saturn Award for Best Actor on Television in 2015 and again in 2017. In 2012 and 2015, TVLine spotlighted Lincoln as "Performer of the Week" for his performance in the fourth episode of season 3 ("Killer Within") and for the fifteenth episode of season 5 ("Try"), respectively. Regarding Lincoln's performance in "Try", TVLine said that he "could act his way from A to Z all within the span of a single hour". Jacob Stolworthy of The Independent said that Lincoln's performance in the first episode of season seven is "a moment where Andrew Lincoln excels, his character coming full circle".

In 2019, Lincoln was cast in and filmed in the drama Penguin Bloom, his first non-The Walking Dead role since 2010.

Personal life
On 10 June 2006, Lincoln married Gael Anderson, daughter of Ian Anderson, flautist and vocalist of Jethro Tull. They have two children, Matilda (born 2007) and Arthur (born 2010).

He was educated in Bath, where he was childhood friends with former Exeter City manager Paul Tisdale. In 2017, Lincoln said "One of my oldest and dearest friends happens to be Paul Tisdale. So I've been watching him very avidly throughout his whole career and I've been very proud of him."

Politics
Lincoln has appeared in a video in support of the Robin Hood tax in 2014. Along with others involved in the video he has encouraged the public to get behind the measure, noting its "incredible support from people across Europe."

title: Andrew Lincoln


text: File:TogetherWereHeavy cover.jpg

title: File:TogetherWereHeavy cover.jpg


text:
Fionnphort

Fionnphort is the principal port of the Ross of Mull, and the second largest settlement in the area (its population is approximately 80). The village's name is the anglicised pronunciation of the Gaelic for "White Port" and previous names have included Caol Idhe, Gaelic for "Sound of Iona".

History
Historically, Fionnphort has been a fishing village offering religious pilgrims and tourists access to Iona; more recently, it has facilitated the movement of stone from a quarry in the vicinity. The granite which was extracted from Tòrr Mòr Quarry until around 1907 was highly prized for its density and hardness.

Geography
The beach at Fionnphort has a distinctive split granite boulder in the centre that is classed as an erratic and deposited here by an ice age glacier. The beach has a car park and a nearby cemetery.

From Fionnphort, the entire east side of Iona can be seen, including Iona Abbey. To the south of the village lies the district of Fidden and the island of Erraid, mentioned in Robert Louis Stevenson's novel Kidnapped and accessible to walkers at low tide.

Economy
Fionnphort has an active fishing industry, noted principally for shellfish, particularly crabs and lobsters, the majority of which are exported by container truck to Spain and France.

In April 2008, residents finally had the opportunity to use a cash machine, putting an end to the 100 mi round-trip to Salen villagers previously had to endure. Sandy Brunton, the local postmaster said that residents are claiming they now have the best view from a cash dispenser anywhere in Britain: "As you stand at the ATM, you have a view of Iona to the west, Coll to the north and looking east you can see the island's only Munro, Ben More."

Transport
Fionnphort is the base of the ferry service between Mull and Iona, and also boat trips to the isle of Staffa.

title: Fionnphort


text:
Rupert Lee

Rupert Lee (1887–1959) was an English painter, sculptor and printmaker. He was one of the organisers of the London International Surrealist Exhibition in 1936.

Life
Lee was born in Bombay in 1887. In 1911 Lee entered the Slade School of Art, where he became friendly with Robert Gibbings and Paul Nash. Soon after leaving the Slade he was employed by Edward Gordon Craig to be his musical director at his theatre school in Italy, but the position was cut short by the outbreak of the First World War. Lee served with the Queen's Westminster Rifles in the Machine Gun Corps and suffered shell shock following the 1918 Spring Offensive. The series of paintings and drawings he produced while serving in the trenches showed him to be in sympathy with elements of Futurism and Vorticism. Between 1919 and 1922 he collaborated closely with Paul and John Nash producing wood engravings for the Sun Calendar Yearbook and the Poetry Bookshop. At this period his paintings and wood engravings were bought by notable collectors such as Arnold Bennett, Roger Fry and Edward Marsh. Turning his attention to sculpture during the 1920s, he was elected President of the London Group in 1927 and was responsible for organising the important open-air sculpture exhibition on the roof gardens of Selfridges in 1930, after which he became affiliated with Duncan Grant and Vanessa Bell of the Bloomsbury Group. He was Chairman of the 1936 International Surrealist Exhibition at the New Burlington Galleries and worked tirelessly to encourage the modern movement in England. Moving to Spain in 1946, Lee was killed in a motor accident in 1959.

A major book about his life and work was published by Sansom and Co. and a retrospective was staged at the Court Gallery at Gallery 27, Cork Street (London), in May 2010.

title: Rupert Lee


text:
Hep-Me Records

Hep-Me Records is a Mississippi based blues and zydeco record label. It is affiliated with Mardi Gras Records and was run by music industry veteran Senator Jones prior to his death in 2008.

title: Hep-Me Records


text:
Verity Stob

Verity Stob is the pseudonym of a British satirical columnist. Stob is an anonymous software developer, the author of humorous and satirical articles about information technology, particularly software development. Since 1988, she has written her "Verity Stob" column for .EXE magazine, Dr. Dobb's Journal, and website The Register. Stob was described as "the author of the longest-running satirical column on computer programming" by her fellow columnist, Andrew Orlowski.

Career
Stob has been a computer and web programmer since 1984, mostly using Delphi, C++, and PHP.

In 1988, she started her pseudonymous "Verity Stob" column for .EXE magazine (now defunct). Later, she moved it to Dr. Dobb's Journal. Since 2003, her column has appeared in the British technology news and opinion website, The Register.

She lives and works in London, United Kingdom.

Articles

 * "How to survive a code walk-through" (originally from .EXE Magazine) at JSquared
 * List of Stob articles at The Register (since 2003)
 * List of Stob articles at Dr. Dobb's Journal (some articles require subscription)

Books

 * The Best of Verity Stob at Apress (publisher)
 * The Best of Verity Stob at The Register (review)

Other

 * "Aspect-Oriented Programming with AspectJ" at Slashdot

title: Verity Stob


text: User talk:207.6.118.65

title: User talk:207.6.118.65