text:
Talk:MVS

Non-POV claims
> Japanese mainframe manufacturers Fujitsu and Hitachi both repeatedly and illegally obtained IBM's MVS source code and internal documentation in one of the 20th century's most famous cases of industrial espionage.[citation needed]

I found some references to this from old ComputerWeek articles from 1980s, but even those don't read quite like the above, sounds like a much more complex case.... the above sounds like something out of IBM lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:600:E20:99A6:13B5:83E8:B008 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Here's a U.S. Congressional hour of hearings testimony, including FBI, fines, etc.: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1989_cr/h890712-japan.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.58.10 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Post-MVS features
Should features mentioned on this page be moved to the OS/390 page if they first appeared in OS/390 or to the z/OS page if they first appeared in z/OS? Guy Harris 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Presumably this would be covered by the reorganization discussed below. Guy Harris 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * First and foremost, keep in mind that OS/VS Rel.2 (a.k.a. VS2 or MVS), MVS (MVS Rel.3), MVS/SP, MVS/XA, OS/390 and the early z/OS are nothing but enhanced, expanded releases of the original OS/360 PCP stock. The name changes are confusing though they were necessary for marketing and legal reasons. While the early OS/360 versions (MFT an MVT) were "bundeled", all subsequent releases were leased / licensed software. As the operating systems evolved, so did the terms and conditions of the licenses. Case in point well worth noting: If it was written respecting the rules, any program which once worked and ran under OS/360 MFT/MVT could have and often did run on all subsequent operating system releases and will still run on the latest z/OS release. AndreasCA (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

MVS is still the name of today's z/OS products' core services. Therefore, it would be better to structure along the lines of major enhancements (see: "z/OS V1R10.0 MVS ...").

 * I think AndreasCA's comment "OS/VS Rel.2 (a.k.a. MVS) ... and the early z/OS are nothing but enhanced, expanded releases of the original OS/360 PCP stock" is an exaggeration. I was an IBM employee when MVS was introduced and was told by some of IBM's best technical people that MVS was a complete re-write in a different language (PL/S instead of Assembler). It's true that "If it was written respecting the rules, any program which once worked and ran under OS/360 MFT/MVT could have and often did run on all subsequent operating system releases and will still run on the latest z/OS release," because IBM took backwards compatibility very seriously, if only to avoid having to write all its software products simultaneously. However MVS had completely different memory management and security from SVS, which was just MVT with virtual memory bolted on. Functional structure of IBM virtual storage operating systems Part II: OS/VS2-2 concepts and philosophies by A. L. Scherr makes these and other differences clear. In short, these systems retained very similar externals but had very different internals. -- Philcha (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Philcha understood correctly that IBM partially (re-)wrote / replaced substantial parts of the old OS/360 code by new functions written mostly in PL/S, namely those parts which had to be changed to go from vertical mapping of regions to the horizontal one. Also, a lot of new functions and features were added (VSAM, VTAM) which replaced similar ones from the OS/360 era, eg. BTAM/QTAM, QISAM and many releases later TCAM, CVOL catalog management and others. The "completely different memory management" talk refers to is a fine example of a lot of IBM Marketing hype. The old MVT memory management was partially eliminated. The rest was ported to MVS with little more than "minor" changes as the new MVS memory management of virtual storage, the same 'ol GETMAIN, FREEMAIN, subpools, FQEs (though better protected). Of course, a completely new real-storage management was added, including a completely redesigned swapping and paging. The next big partial rewrite occured when IBM reworked MVS/SP to support 31-bit addressing. At no point in the evolution did IBM rewrite OS/360 MFT/MVT. Although many original components are still around I can't imagine anyone except IEFBR14 still being in its original state. AndreasCA (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Also, :Philcha wrote "MVS had completely different memory management and security from SVS, which was just MVT with virtual memory bolted on." may be misleading since SVS was really an MFT extension with 16 vertically mapped partitions, mapped in virtual storage, but included JES1 or JES2, TSO, VSAM and VTAM. Though the last two I could be wrong because I used TCAM for TSO and had no ISAM on that 370/158 VS1 system (1974-1975). No new or better security features were introduced with either VS1 or VS2. RACF wasn't available or usable until MVS Rel.2.3 (or thereabouts, say 1979). MVS Rel.2 used the exact same security components (Assembler programs, SYS1.UADS, etc.) as MFT and/or MVT did, all Assembler modules, all ported from MFT and/or MVT. AndreasCA (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * "GETMAIN, FREEMAIN, subpools, FQEs" remained the same for backwards compatibility, and because they seemed to do what was needed at the time. However internally MVS' memory managemnt was totally different, because it was more efficient (no more fragmentation) and inherently more secure - in 1976 IBM announced that it would treat corruption of one MVS address space by another without the help of a rogue SVC as a priority 1 bug, something they had not felt confident of doing with MVS' predecessors. -- Philcha (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC). Unfortunately Philcha quotes from IBM Marketing literature and is getting confused, Security and RAS, though related, are two different topics. MVS Rel.2 fragmented virtual storage no more and no less than MVT fragmented real storage. However MVS generally makes better use of real storage than MVT does. AndreasCA (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

From OS/360 PCP to z/OS, MVS has been continually expanded, enhanced and adapted. And it shows. There are many "questionable" features and quirks that have their justification and origin in a long forgotten world of System/360 with its SIO and CCWs and the OS/360 designed to hog not much more than the 56KiB of real core storage. AndreasCA (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC). Coming back to "questionable" features and quirks, here are some of them:
 * many files have 80-byte long records and the last 8 or 9 are reserved
 * MVS assists but it is still the users (plus add-on software) who manage disk space (ref: x37 abends).
 * the dataset catalog isn't a directory but there is exactly one directory called VTOC per disk
 * DOS/360 and OS/360 and their offspring, all use CKD disk formats
 * AndreasCA (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

31-bit addressing
OS/360 right up to MVS/SP only supported 24-bit addressing. As the underlying hardware progressed it supported 31-bit (XA and ESA) and now (as z/OS) 64-bit addressing were added.

Should this say "it supported 32-bit (XA and ESA)"? No, because the 32nd bit, the top/left-most bit is used to distinguish between 31-bit and 24-bit addressing modes, as well as being used as a special "end-of-list" marker known as the VL-bit. Both adressing modes can be intermixed in the same program, as documented in the respective "Princple of Operations" manual. Special instructions were introduced to let any program switch from one addressing mode to another AndreasCA (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an early attempt at 32-bit addressing in the System/360 Model 67, and the weird bugs deriving from unsigned addresses in a milieu where sign bits hadn't previously participated were legendary horror. When Extended Addressing (XA) came it did in 31-bit form to avoid repeating those problems.  When System/390 extended the addressing to 64 bits, a lot of us said "surely you mean 63 bits - no sign, right?".  The response from IBM was that they had spent so much time and effort dealing with public relations etc. fallout from the 31-vs.-32 bit decision that there was only one acceptable answer to the 63-vs.-64 bit question. RossPatterson 03:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. How did 64-bit systems handle variable-length argument lists in subroutine calls (see below re CALL macro)?Philcha 05:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The high order bit running in XA mode (31-bit addressing) was typically used to indicate the last element in a series of link listed addresses, i.e. there were not any more tokens in the chain.
 * That's right. More specifically, from DOS/360 and OS/360 onwards subroutine calls passed the addresses of their arguments (like references in C); the last of a variable-length set of arguments had the high bit set to 1 (by the CALL macro in Assembler; by compilers for high-level languages). Philcha 05:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC) In all cases of 24-bit adressing modes the hardware always did and still does ignore all 8 high-order bits. Only the lower 24 bits of an address are used to access memory.AndreasCA (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont' see any reference to MFT an ancestor of MVT.--Les 14:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Correct, though technically a revised PCP was released as MFT. Going back to 1968 I never knew of anyone having ever used OS/360 PCP. MVT was as much a revised MFT as MFT was a down-scaled "lighter" MVT. To use MVT one needed at least a 512KiB machine (typically 360/65s) whereas most MFT shops had 360/40's or 360/50's with 256KiB. AndreasCA (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Benefit of running MVS now z/OS
MVS will run the processor at 100% utilization while still performing real work. Try that on UNIX or Windows based systems.
 * More precisely, MVS requires hardly any tuning to run the processor at 100% utilization while still performing real work. In the early 1970s the large UK clearing banks ran their overnight systems at 100% just to get all the work done, but that required careful system design and heavy tuning of MVT. Philcha 06:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to restructure IBM operating system articles?
Long discussion on the topic, with a plan of new structure, has been moved to Talk:History of IBM mainframe operating systems. Please continue there.

--Kubanczyk 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Job Control Language in progress
As part of the proposed restructure of articles on IBM mainframe operating systems (above), I've rewritten Job Control Language to: cover IBM's DOS/360 and its descendants as well as OS/360 and its descendants; focus more on the facilities and flavour of the 2 JCLs rather than on details of some statement types and some of their options. Please comment in Talk: Job Control Language. I'd be particulary grateful for more info on DOS/360 and its descendants, especially after 1980 - I only used DOS JCL a handful of times, and only in the late 1970s.

The rewrite does not currently take account of Truthanado's point in Talk: Job Control Language about use of "JCL" by computer suppliers other than IBM, which may entail further restructuring of articles about JCLs.Philcha 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Name standardization
Some time ago there was a push to standardize the names of articles related to exclusive IBM products (OS/2 → IBM OS/2). I've moved a few of the more obvious ones... would the move here be appropriate? /Blaxthos 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How this ummmm "standardization" effort relates to official Wikipedia guideline WP:COMMONNAME? The two seems to be in conflict, aren't they? May I ask about the reasons for this renaming push? --Kubanczyk 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not rename until merger proposal decided (see below). If the pages are merged, renaming will be unnecessary. Philcha (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
To reduce duplication of content re features inherited from MVS's predecessors and to fit into the framework provided by History of IBM mainframe operating systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern definition of MVS?
I'm a person who sometimes uses z/OS but I did not cut my teeth on IBM mainframes. I encounter the term MVS often, so I came here hoping to see a definition, but I don't see what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for "Multiple Virtual Storage" which may be the term's origin but clearly has little relevance to it's current meaning. And I'm not looking for "MVS was the most commonly used operating system on the System/370 and System/390 IBM mainframe computers," (note the past tense), or "MVS is no longer supported by IBM." This may be one meaning of the term, but it is not the way the term is currently used (in my experience). IBM still uses the term widely, see http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/bkserv/r9pdf/#mvs, and IBM's usage doesn't fit the definitions presented in this article. If MVS is just an old name for z/OS, then why does IBM still use the term so often, in current publications?

I'm afraid this sounds like a rant. I don't mean it to be, I'm just suggesting that this article should start with the information that most non-mainframe people are going to be looking for -- a straightforward definition of the current meaning of the term. Historical information can come after that. I would suggest a definition to you, if only I knew what it would be. MVS currently seems to be used as a generic term for the non-POSIX portion of z/OS, as far as I can tell, but as a non-expert on the subject I'm not really sure (which is why I turned to Wikipedia). I have not been able to find the answer on the IBM website either. Doctorpepper (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Interesting question. I just googled for "MVS" and found (among a load of irrelevant stuff, nothing to do with IBM OSs):
 * FolDoc on OS/390 - appears to suggest that OS-390 = MVS + Unix. If true, that would support your "MVS currently seems to be used as a generic term for the non-POSIX portion of z/OS".
 * a UK contracts site that is try into recruit for "MVS" contracts - so the term is still in use and widely recognised, despite the fact thatIBM introduced the OS/390 "brand" in 1995.
 * I'll ask around. Philcha (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid that in this field history is important, so if readers don't want to read about the history, they may have serious problems with figuring out anything. In the same way, to provide an example from the PC field, most people say "DOS commands" instead of "Windows Command Prompt commands" (whatever...). Just try to explain this to somebody that does not want to know a bit of DOS/Windows history. --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I *think* that in a modern context, MVS refers to the supervisor portion of z/OS. I'd say that MVS is to z/OS what linux is to gnu/linux. Ivan Scott Warren (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While much new code was written in BSL and  PL/S, MVS inherited a huge amount of Assembler code from  OS/360. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * For those of us who worked on MVS, the acronym became a metonym. Metonymy is a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. For instance, "Hollywood" is used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for American cinema, because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of Los Angeles, California as the historical center of movie studios and movie stars. Another example is "Westminster," which is used as a metonym for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because it is located there.

 * In the early part of my career (beginning in 1967) I was a DOS/MVT/MVS systems programmer. When I got out of day to day SP work and became a manager, MVS was etched in my mind as THE operating system. As MVS evolved into z/OS the name just stuck for me and all my fellow old-timers. So forget your quest to figure out the current definition, ain't gonna happen...67.183.176.27 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Bill Anderson

 * Well, z/OS V1R11.0 Information Roadmap z/OS V1R10.0-V1R11.0 speaks of "documents for MVS™ (Base Control Program)", and of "MVS and other z/OS elements", suggesting that what IBM calls "MVS" these days is a component of z/OS. Networking on z/OS speaks of "MVS application[s]" and "z/OS UNIX application[s]", suggesting that "MVS" might be the component of z/OS that supports the "classic" part of z/OS rather than the "support UNIX APIs" part, i.e. the component that isn't descended from the stuff added in MVS/ESA OpenEdition, or, to put it another way, not the "Unix System Services" part. Guy Harris (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

History and names
First, the genealogy of z/OS is a bit longer than the article states. There were also several add-on program products that were eventully meged into the base. Off the top of my head:

 * OS/VS2 Release 2 through 3.8

 * MVS/System Extensions
 * Release 1 based on 3.7 and SU7
 * Release 2 (SE2) based on 3.8 and SU64
 * MVS/SP Version 1
 * MVS/SP Version 2 (MVS/eXtended Architecture)
 * MVS/SP Version 3 (MVS/ESA)
 * MVS/SP Version 4 (MVS/ESA)
 * Release 3 introduced OPEN EDITION (Unix)
 * MVS/ESA Version 5
 * OS/390 Version 1
 * OS/390 Version 2
 * z/OS

Unix came in with MVS/SP 4.3, under the name MVS OPEN EDITION.

Several older add-on packages were swallowed up by TSO/E and DFP; the latter was eventually renamed to DFSMS and incorporated several other add-on products.

Officially Unix System Services does not have an acronym; USS refers to Unformatted System Services, a part of VTAM, and by extension to equivalent services in the TN3270 server. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I've edited the article to address some of the above. In the process I noticed a claim that MVS was the most common mainframe operating system. I've always understood the DOS/VSE, VSE/AF, VSE/SP. VSE/ESA and z/VSE were each, in their day, more popular. If anybody has any documentation one way or the other, please add a citation. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Where does MVS fit into this? I've just merged the article in and I can't find many references to it.--Salix (talk): 12:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * As mentioned in Talk:MVS/370, IBM introduced the term MVS/370 to refer to all versions of MVS that required S/370 (24-bit address) architecture rather than XA (31-bit addressing) architecture . Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge MVS articles
I proposed MSV, MVS/370, MVS/XA, MVS/ESA be merged into this article.--Salix (talk): 05:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 * MSV?

 * approve, however
 * Should the gaps be filled in first?
 * Is there an editor willing to undertake the work? I can help, but I doubt that I'd have time to do it all myself. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I've now merged the articles is. There are probably quite a few repeated part and gaps still remain.--Salix (talk): 12:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DSS was not a hypervisor
DSS was not qa hypervisor, it was an interactive debugging facility for the operating system. It was much more primitive than the similar TSSS in TSS/360.

Also, IBM killed DSS twice. After the announcement that Selectable Unit 7 would remove support for DSS, the user organization Share passed an Imperative requirement to reinstate DSS, and IBM caved in. Rumor had it thaqt the massive code change required to allow DSS to coexist with SU 7 was actually a single line. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

References to MVS/370
There are several problems with the references to MVS/370 in this article

 * MVS/370 refers to all of OS/VS2 (MVS), MVS/SE and MVS/SP Version 1

 * MVS/370 has not been supported for decades, so the reference to being supported should be removed.

 * The earliest MVS/370 was OS/VS2 R2; the latest was MVS/SP V1.3 (1.3.7?)

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted of good faith edits by Rfc1394
My edit summary for my revert of two edits by Rfc1394 was truncated. In its entirety: "The comparison of PDSs to ZIP files is marginal, ZIP files are not really meant to be updated, whereas PDSs are, and the above/below the line distinction is an RMODE distinction whereas the description describes AMODE differences.". And to further expand on the AMODE/RMODE thing, the residence mode (RMODE) of an application controls whether it runs below (RMODE(24)) or (potentially) above the line (RMODE(ANY)), whereas the addressing mode defines if the program uses 24 bit (AMODE(24)), 31 bit (AMODE(31)), or in either (AMODE(ANY)), based on the caller. While a program running AMODE(24) must be RMODE(24), programs running with 31 bit addressing may (and commonly do) run below the line, so that the can be easily called from 24 bit programs. There are additional complications (newer versions of the OS support 64 bit addressing and programs that have bits loaded into separate areas), but they're not really relevant here. Rwessel (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

 * In addition, AMODE and RMODE are attributes of individual load modules or program objects, not of entire applications. Further, an RMODE(24) AMODE(24) module can still allocate storage above the line, using the appropriate parameters of the GETMAIN or STORAGE macro, and an AMDE(31) RMODE(ANY) module can still allocate storage below the line. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of extension versus extensions
The MVS/SE program products were Extensions (plural); however, the processor feature 3033 Extension Feature is singular. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MVS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104072057/http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/bkserv/r8pdf/mvs.html to http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/bkserv/r8pdf/mvs.html
 * Added tag to http://www.os390-mvs.freesurf.fr/mvs.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.os390-mvs.freesurf.fr/mvshist.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MVS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316215836/http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/OS_VS2/GC28-0984-0_OSVS2_MVS_Overview.pdf to http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/OS_VS2/GC28-0984-0_OSVS2_MVS_Overview.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 * The first edition is indeed gone from bitsavers, but I notice that the second edition is still there at . Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Actually, the first edition is still at bitsavers, but that's a different scan, and doesn't seem to be as good a scan as the archived version. Guy Harris (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

image
The lede image showing the Hercules console really seems to hsve nothing to do with MVS. Does some Herculean have a screenshot of an actual MVS console display that could be used instead? Peter Flass (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

ipad problem
This page seems to go crazy with Safari/iPad - keeps flashing, possibly reloading. This is the only page I’ve seen that this happens to. Peter Flass (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Plus one to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.185.77.31 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

How does evolution differ from history?
The article has sections called MVS and MVS. Either the sections should be merged or the names changed to make it clear who did what to whom. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusing text in MVS
I find the paragraph Modern versions of MVS (e.g., z/OS) also support POSIX-compatible "slash" filesystems along with facilities for integrating the two filesystems. That is, the OS can make an MVS dataset appear as a file to a POSIX program or subsystem. These newer filesystems include Hierarchical File System (HFS) (not to be confused with Apple's Hierarchical File System) and zFS (not to be confused with Sun's ZFS). in MVS to be confusing. I'm not aware of anything called a slash filesystem, and the second sentence is not true. To clarify:

 * MVS-OE uses MVS datasets as containers for Unix filesystems.
 * A user can specify a path (Unix file) on a DD statement or dynamic allocation.
 * In some, but not all, cases, a classic MVS program can use a Unix file.
 * IBM has enhance some Unix utilities to support special systax for referring to classic MVS datasets.
 * Unix programs that do not use the enhanced library and that have not been modified are not able to use classic MVS datasets

Before I edit that text I want to understand what the author is trying to say. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

New section Upgrades to MVS
I've created an Upgrades to MVS section that lists enhancements that came as optional features or products rather than as new releases or sub-releases. I currently don't show any of the ICRs prior to OS/VS2 Release 3.7. If anybody spots any errors or omissions, or has relevant announcements that they can link to, please edit appropriately. I plan to create subsections for the more important products, probably including DFP, DFSMS, MVS/SP and TSO/E. I will probably describe the products that each replaces as leadins, rather than giving them their own subsections.

Would the list of Incremental change releases, Field Developed Programs and Program products be better as a collapsible table? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Contents, location and organization of timeline?
Now that IBM has put up a repository of announcement letters at https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ going back to 1981, I'm considering building a timeline for selected MVS software, starting with User:Chatul/References as a sandbox. I'm currently thinking of

 * Products in the DF/foo, DFP and DFSMS line
 * Products in the MVS/SE and MVS/SP line, through z/OS
 * Products in the SCRIPT line
 * Products in the SPF line
 * TSO/E
 * MVS/XA replacements for free access methods, e.g., BTAM/SP, GAM/SP
 * Communications products, e.g., ACF/VTAM

I'd like feedback on Thoughts? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What products to include or exclude
 * Whether to put the timeline in the MVS article or elsewhere
 * Whether to put everything in a single table or create multiple tables, either by category or chronology
 * Whether to make the table(s) collapsible or sortable?

Copy information from Draft:Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem (MVS)?
I've created the article Draft:Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem (MVS), with citations to all of the relevant IBM announcement letters that I could find. Some of the information should fit in well here, although I suggest keeping DFP and DFSMS text short, with a main template once the draft is in the article namespace. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Multitasking with a Variable number of Tasks
The article currently says OS/360 MVT (Multitasking with a Variable number of Tasks) but the article in that link says Multiprogramming with a Variable number of Tasks (MVT). The name Multitasking with a Variable number of Tasks is redundant. My memory is fuzzy but I do not remember the name being redundant like that. I cannot find something authoritive but one of those two names is incorrect. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure I see the redundancy (an OS could support multitasking with a fixed maximum of N tasks, or it could support multitasking without a fixed maximum, with any maximum being imposed based on available system resources such as main memory), but, indeed, at least according to the OS/360 Concepts and Facilities manual, Seventh Edition, it's "multiprogramming with a fixed number of tasks (MFT)" and "multiprogramming with a variable number of tasks (MVT)".
 * (Confusingly, MFT with subtasking supports more than one task per partition, so the total number of tasks might not have a fixed limit; only the number of main tasks, or whatever it is that's limited to one-per-partitionk has a fixed limit.) Guy Harris (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the expansions of both MFT and MVT to say "Multiprogramming" rather than "Multitasking", and provided the Concepts and Facilities manual as a reference. Guy Harris (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiprogramming is correct for both MFT and MVT. The original OS/360 Option 2 (MSS) and MFT only allowed a single task per partition and when IBM added MFT multitasking support it was an option on the SUPRVSOR sysgen macro. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiprogramming is correct for both MFT and MVT. The original OS/360 Option 2 (MSS) and MFT only allowed a single task per partition and when IBM added MFT multitasking support it was an option on the SUPRVSOR sysgen macro. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

MVS is the most commonly used OS on IBM Z?
As a result of the present-tensification of the article (most of which is fine), the article now says

"Multiple Virtual Storage, more commonly called MVS, is the most commonly used operating system on the System/370, System/390 and IBM Z IBM mainframe computers."

Does this mean that OS/390 and z/OS are considered to be versions of MVS for the aske of that statement, or are IBM Z systems (and maybe even System/390 systems) mostly still running pre-z/OS (and maybe even pre-OS/390) versions of the OS? seems to be saying the first of those (although I had to fix it not to suggest that the strings "OS/390" and "z/OS" have the string "MVS" as a substring). Guy Harris (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * MVS remains as a documented component of OS/390 and z/OS. Possibly something like
 * "Multiple Virtual Storage, more commonly called MVS, is the most commonly used operating system on the System/370, System/390 and IBM Z IBM mainframe computers, although it can no longer be ordered as a separate product."
 * There is, however, the question of whether z/Linux has overtaken MVS. Does anybody have relevant data? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

recent edit
A recent edit changed HTML tags to XHTML   tags, changed https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/2/897/ENUS283-042 to https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/2/897/ENUS283-042/index.html&request_locale=en, changed Announcement Letters to Announcement Letters and changed IBM to IBM.

The change to url is legitimate. However:

 * 1) There have been recent discussions on changing HTML5 markup to XHTML markup, and the consensus seems to be to leave  alone.
 * 2) Announcement Letters is inappropriate because there is no such department. The body of announcement letters is just one work of many published by the same department. This should remain as changed Announcement Letters.
 * 3)  IBM is inappropriate; IBM has many web sites. This should remain as IBM or be linked as [IBM].

Changing cite document to cite web is more ambiguous; at one time IBM published announcement letters on paper, but I don't know whether they still do. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. I did all of those things and more; you left out that I deleted dead ...
 * As you know, is a (usually inappropriate) redirect to .  Because of that, a real cs1  is in the process of being created.  The new template will only support a limited subset of the complete cs1|2 parameter set because cs1 has templates that will satisfy most needs.  The new  is intended to support short, published stand-alone sources that are not part of a book, periodical, encyclopedia, website, etc.  If I had not touched your  templates, this would have been the result on the day that the new template goes live:
 * It is interesting to me that you have used for other 'Announcement Letters' in this article... See §MVS/ESA
 * You complain about Announcement Letters. That parameter is an ancient alias of title-note which seems to have disappeared.  I'll look into why it's gone and see if it oughtn't to be restored.  The other alternative for 'Announcement Letters' was type but, that parameter renders in parentheses at a different location.  Cf:
 * As you know, work is an alias of journal (because is a redirect to ) so what you have told cs1 is that you are citing a journal called Announcement Letters.  There is no such journal.  Switching to  means that you are telling cs1 that you are citing a website called Announcement Letters.  There is no such website.  There is, however. a website called IBM → https://www.ibm.com and that is where these letters reside.  As such it is wholly appropriate to use  and IBM.
 * There may have been discussion about v .  I haven't seen it.  But, so long as MediaWiki allows, nay, uses, so will I.  You can see that MediaWiki does use  if you open this version of the article (the version just before my edit – there are no  tags) and then right click → View page source; Ctrl+F  .  The real reason that I switch these tags is because I and other editors use the older syntax highlighter which, admittedly, has its limitations, one of which is that it doesn't understand self closing tags; the edit window gets painted pink.  No one is harmed, and it makes life a bit easier for those editors and me.  If the highlighter gets fixed (don't hold your breath, I'm not) or support for it is withdrawn, then I will have no need to switch  to.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The documentation for type says "Additional information about the media type of the source; "; "Announcement Letters" is not a media type.
 * The documentation of website reads "work (required by cite journal and cite magazine): Name of the work containing the source"; "IBM does not satisfy that definition and belongs on publisher. Also, as I noted, some of the announcement letters were printed on paper. In fact, many of those I cited predate the WWW entirely.
 * I believe that it may be time to ask for a 3rd party opinion.
 * I have mixed feelings about ; I used to use it myself until I saw threads deprecating it, but it's not my monkey and not my circus. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not use type (see your OP) so why are you complaining about that?
 * Indeed, IBM is the publisher of an eponymously named website: IBM.com (the publisher's work). IBM is the [name] of the work containing the source where the source is an announcement letter.
 * some of the announcement letters were printed on paper. No doubt.   But, you appear to be citing electronic versions of those announcement letters else you would not have included url.  If you only consulted the paper versions of these documents, those are what you should be citing, not the electronic versions.  And, if that is the case, the upcoming  should be sufficient for you:
 * In the above Document is the default. It can be overridden with Announcement Letter or suppressed entirely with none.   will not support url; that's what  is for. Or, you could link all or part of id with the url.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was Guy Harris who inappropriatel changed department (originally work to type.
 * http://ibm.com is, indeed, a web site maintained by IBM, but it is one of thousands that have nothing to do with announcement letters. Nor, as I previously noted, does the documentation of website/work restrict it to domains, and, in fact, it or an alias is required in, e.g., cite journal, even if there is no relevant web site. in the case of, the parameter www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss might have been appropriate, but certainly not ibm.com, and [IBM] should have been retained.
 * I originally read the electronic versions, but in the knowledge that they had originally printed on paper, hence my indecision on which template to use. If cite document will no longer support url then I would stick to, in the absence of a more appropriate template supporting url, rather than wikilinking the title or id. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The full description of the type parameter is:
 * "Provides additional information about the media type of the source. May alternatively be used to identify the type of manuscript linked to in the title, if this is not the final version of a manuscript (e.g. if a preprint of a manuscript is freely available, but the version of record is behind a paywall). Format in sentence case. Displays in parentheses following the title. The reserved keyword  can be used to disable the display of a type.  Alias: medium."
 * This 1) does not indicate what "media type" means and 2) does not clearly indicate to me that "Announcement letter" is no an appropriate value. It gives "Press release" as an example of a valid value; what would the difference between "Press release" and "Announcement letter" be here? Guy Harris (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * http://ibm.com is, indeed, a web site maintained by IBM, but it is one of thousands that have nothing to do with announcement letters. and earlier you wrote: IBM is inappropriate; IBM has many web sites. You seem to suggest that there are many, possibly thousands of, IBM websites.  That may be true, I don't know, but inarguably, there is only  http://ibm.com and that  is the website you linked that holds the various announcement letter documents which calls into question the validity of the claim http://ibm.com is ... one ... that [has] nothing to do with announcement letters.
 * Nor ... does the documentation of website/work restrict it to domains Umm, what?  The documentation for website at  (link) reads:
 * website: Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work
 * I read that to mean that use of the website's domain name in website is discouraged. supports that.  Use of the domain name in website is correct only when the source is commonly known by its domain name.  You suggested that www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss might have been appropriate.  Per the documentation, it is not.  The only value that should be assigned to website is.
 * It occurs to me that if you can convince yourself that the announcement letters are, in a sense, a form of periodical (nothing says that a periodical must be issued on a schedule) then you might write:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * nothing says that a periodical must be issued on a schedule Perhaps not on a strict schedule, but, for what it's worth, the entry for "periodical" in the Cambridge Dictionary says
 * "a magazine or newspaper, especially on a serious subject, that is published regularly"
 * and the entry for "periodical" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary says:
 * periodical 1 of 2 adjective
 * 1 : PERIODIC TABLE sense 1
 * 2 a: published with a fixed interval between the issues or numbers
 * b: published in, characteristic of, or connected with a periodical
 * periodical 2 of 2 noun
 * : a periodical publication
 * I'm not sure what "regularly" means, but if they're only published when there's something to announce, there could be times when several Announcement Letters are sent out and other times where nothing is heard from IBM in a while. Guy Harris (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice that I wrote that with a caveat: if you can convince yourself that the announcement letters are, in a sense, a form of periodical...? My experience with periodicals here at en.wiki, is that the periodical publishers do (usually) follow a schedule, but not always.  If you don't like  as a solution, don't use it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And I added some dictionary definitions to indicate that convincing oneself that the annoucnement letters are, in a sense, a form of periodical may be a mistake. What periodicals are published every time somebody has something to announce, and not published if they don't have something to announce?  What are some examples of "not always" that you have experienced? Guy Harris (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know why you added the definitions. Makes perfect sense to me to be silent when there is nothing to be said... To answer your not always question: usually its a case of combining multiple 'numbers' into a single issue.  Here are some search results looking for articles with multiple-numbers-in-a-single-issue (cirrus search so your results may be different):
 * – ~22,000 articles (timed out)
 * – ~5,300 articles (timed out)
 * – <100 articles
 * Not really uncommon. But, as I said before: If you don't like as a solution, don't use it.  I'm not arguing for or against the  solution; I'm happy with the  solution I demonstrated above.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "a magazine or newspaper, especially on a serious subject, that is published regularly"
 * and the entry for "periodical" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary says:
 * periodical 1 of 2 adjective
 * 1 : PERIODIC TABLE sense 1
 * 2 a: published with a fixed interval between the issues or numbers
 * b: published in, characteristic of, or connected with a periodical
 * periodical 2 of 2 noun
 * : a periodical publication
 * I'm not sure what "regularly" means, but if they're only published when there's something to announce, there could be times when several Announcement Letters are sent out and other times where nothing is heard from IBM in a while. Guy Harris (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice that I wrote that with a caveat: if you can convince yourself that the announcement letters are, in a sense, a form of periodical...? My experience with periodicals here at en.wiki, is that the periodical publishers do (usually) follow a schedule, but not always.  If you don't like  as a solution, don't use it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And I added some dictionary definitions to indicate that convincing oneself that the annoucnement letters are, in a sense, a form of periodical may be a mistake. What periodicals are published every time somebody has something to announce, and not published if they don't have something to announce?  What are some examples of "not always" that you have experienced? Guy Harris (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know why you added the definitions. Makes perfect sense to me to be silent when there is nothing to be said... To answer your not always question: usually its a case of combining multiple 'numbers' into a single issue.  Here are some search results looking for articles with multiple-numbers-in-a-single-issue (cirrus search so your results may be different):
 * – ~22,000 articles (timed out)
 * – ~5,300 articles (timed out)
 * – <100 articles
 * Not really uncommon. But, as I said before: If you don't like as a solution, don't use it.  I'm not arguing for or against the  solution; I'm happy with the  solution I demonstrated above.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really uncommon. But, as I said before: If you don't like as a solution, don't use it.  I'm not arguing for or against the  solution; I'm happy with the  solution I demonstrated above.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

cite periodical is a redirect to cite magazine, which "is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters".

The 1985 announcement letters were issued in batches, with varying numbers of letters in each batch, but there's not a completely clear schedule - one on Monday, 1985-12-30, several on Tuesday, 1985-12-17, one on Saturday, 1985-12-07, two on Thursday, 1985-12-05, a bunch on Tuesday, 1985-12-03, etc.. The recent announcement letters may be a bit more periodical in the schedule (weekly); the old search engine, if you search for all 2023 announcement letters, appears to cough up documents that aren't announcement letters, and the new search engine doesn't have an obvious way of searching by date, so I don't have better data.

So I am arguing against it, to the extent that I don't see any reason why anybody - not just me - should use it in this case. That comes across as an attempt to jam a square peg (an announcement letter) into a round hole (the category of "periodical").

I'm also not sure that the collection of all announcement letters constitutes a "work". The documentation for work in the cite web documentation says "Name of the work containing the source", which appears to say precisely nothing about what a "work" is. It lists "journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website", none of which appear to fit the collection of all announcement letters. If IBM issued a (somewhat-)periodical publication called "Announcement letters", with each issue containing a set of contemporaneous announcement letters, that might work, but if they just sent/send out each letter individually, it looks like another square peg/round hole pairing to me.

However, an announcement letter seems to fit in the same broad category as, for example, a press release, so type seems appropriate to me.

As for the template to use, if, as, and when cite document/new goes live, that seems the best choice, as it can handle announcement letters regardless of whether they're available online or not. Guy Harris (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Third opinion and I am commenting in response to that request. I have never edited this article before nor have I (to the best of my knowledge) interacted with either editor in any extended way, and am coming to the discussion as a neutral third-party. Reading over the discussion, the dispute seems to be twofold. It seems to be about the use of line breaks vs  and also about the correct parameter to be used when switching the soon-to-be inapplicable cite document (itself a current redirect to cite journal) with cite web. I'm not quite sure that this needs a third-opinion at this stage, but I've read too much of the discussion and ancillary pages, talk pages, and version histories to not comment now.

Regarding the line break code, there's no reason anyone would expect someone to know where to find this, but H:BR in the past advised that be preferred for technical reasons involving syntax highlighters and because browsers would just read all (valid) variations as  anyways (or possibly  but that level of technical granularity isn't really relevant now). That guidance was removed following this discussion in March 2023. Essentially, as long as it's not an invalid or similar and is just a difference between  and, its ultimately a matter of preference (though some editors have a strong preference). Until there's a consensus on guidance for one version over the other, I think it's fine to change it as part of a more substantial edit but it would be best to apply MOS:VAR and retain the original version if the change is disputed, unless there's a consensus for change.

As far as parameter usage, I think the discussion doesn't necessarily need additional input at this point since the template documentation is the guiding principal here and I think User:Trappist the monk's last comment about the usage of those parameters is a valid summation. Hopefully this outside opinion helps, and if additional comments are requested or I overlooked something critical please ping me in the comment so that I don't overlook it. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Recovery
There are several issues in the description of recovery in #Evolution of MVS:

There is no mention of Associated Recovery Routines (ARRs), although that might be TMI.

Similarly, there is no mention of the STAI and ESTAI options of ATTACH.

A huge amount of privileged code in MVS runs in TCB mode and is allowed to use STAE and ESTAE.

Some program checks can be intercepted with SPIE and ESPIE, in which case no is no ABEND to recover from -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:MVS


text:
Assault (tort)

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.'

In criminal law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury.

Comparison to battery
As distinguished from battery, assault does not need to involve the 'unwanted physical contact; but is the anticipation of such contact'. It only needs intent to make or threaten contact and the resulting apprehension. At one point, the common law understanding of assault required more than words alone, it also required an overt act. This understanding has changed, while words alone cannot be construed as assault, words coinciding with actions or circumstances that would put a person in reasonable apprehension that a harm or offensive contact was likely to occur would. For example, an actor shouting "I'm going to kill you" while not moving but in complete shadow and with a knife in their hand could be interpreted as assault.

Additionally, fear is not required for an assault to occur, only anticipation of subsequent battery. A battery can occur without a preceding assault, such as if a person is struck in the back of the head. An assault can be an attempted battery.

I.e. 'If Henry points a gun at Thomas he has committed an assault. It makes no difference whether the gun is loaded,' But 'Henry will only commit a battery if he shoots the gun and hits Thomas'.

Elements
Defined by Collins v Wilcock as 'an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on his person', 'assault protects the claimant who fears or apprehends a battery.' Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault: first, there must be a positive act by the defendant; second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) of immediate physical contact, and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension).

An actionable assault requires that:

 * 'the defendant intends that the claimant apprehends the application of unlawful force;
 * the claimant reasonably apprehends the immediate and direct application of unlawful force;
 * for which the defendant has no lawful justification or excuse.'

But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

 * While the law varies by jurisdiction, contact is often defined as harmful if it objectively intends to injure, disfigure, impair, or cause pain.
 * The act is deemed offensive if it would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity.
 * While imminence is judged objectively and varies widely on the facts, it generally suggests there is little to no opportunity for intervening acts.
 * Lastly, the state of apprehension should be differentiated from the general state of fear, as apprehension requires only that the person be aware of the imminence of the harmful or offensive act.

It is clear that 'all forms of trespass require an intentional act. An act of negligence will not suffice.' There must be capacity and immediacy - simply threatening someone will not suffice.

Whilst it has been speculated that words alone do not constitute assault, there must be an act (I.e. in R v Meade ), this was questioned in R v Ireland it was held that repeated silent telephone calls being made can constitute an assault:

 'The proposition that a gesture may amount to an assault, but that words can never suffice, is unrealistic and indefensible.' - Lord Steyn

Moreover, In Australia, the test for proving tortious assault is formulated as requiring  'proof of an intention to create in another person an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact' .

Conditional assault
This is whereby someone puts a condition on their assault. In the case of Read v Coker, where the claimant was threatened by a group of people who said: 'if you don't leave we will break your neck.' The court held the defendants were liable and this constituted an assault. Moreover, Jervis CJ stated: 'If anything short of actual striking will in law constitute an assault, the facts here clearly showed that D was guilty of an assault.'

Words negating an assault to a certain extent
Whilst it was held in Tuberville v Savage, where the defendant said 'If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you,' whilst showing his sword, that words negating an assault is not an assault. This was because 'the intention as well as the act makes an assault' and 'the court agreed it was not; for the declaration of the plaintiff was, that he would not assault him,'.

However, words negating an assault to a certain extent is an assault. "If one, intending to assault: so if he held up his hand against another in a threatening manner and say nothing, it is an assault.-'. For example, If person A held a knife to right up to person B's throat and said: "because there are people around I won't cut you", this would be enough to warrant an assault. This was clarified in R v Light where the defendant held a spade over his wife's head and said 'if that police officer wasn't outside, I would hurt you'. This was held to warrant an assault, words can only negate an assault to a certain extent. If there is a weapon in hand then the words you say are unlikely to negate your assault. 'There is an obvious proximity in time and place.' and a viable threat of real, imminent harm.

Defences
Assault can be justified in situations where there is 'lawful justification or excuse' for their actions such as: self-defense or defense of a third party where the act was deemed reasonable and necessary. It can also be justified in the context of a sport where consent may be given or implied. An act of assault may also be privileged, meaning that the person who commits the assault had the legal right to do so and cannot be sued, as might occur if a police officer draws a firearm on a criminal suspect. Lastly, automatism (e.g., sleep walking) acts to negate the intent element as someone acting while asleep is not acting voluntarily.

Damages
The claimant could be awarded nominal damage, if no harm came to them because this tort is actionable per se. Additionally, they could be entitled to: compensatory damages whereby you try and put the claimant in the position they would have been in before the assault occurred, or the claimant could be entitled to an injunction whereby you try and stop repeated behaviour occurring by setting conditions and finally, aggravated damages may be awarded which are awarded if the tort is found to be an affront to someone's dignity.

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

title: Assault (tort)


text:
Saint-Amant

Saint-Amant may refer to:

People

 * Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant (1800–1872), French chess player
 * Antoine Girard de Saint-Amant (1594–1661), French poet

Places

 * St. Amant, Louisiana, United States
 * communes in France:
 * Saint-Amant, Charente, in the Charente département
 * Saint-Amant-de-Boixe, in the Charente département
 * Saint-Amant-de-Bonnieure, in the Charente département
 * Saint-Amant-de-Montmoreau, in the Charente département
 * Saint-Amant-de-Nouère, in the Charente département
 * Saint-Amant-Roche-Savine, in the Puy-de-Dôme département
 * Saint-Amant-Tallende, in the Puy-de-Dôme département

Other

 * St. Amant (horse), winner of the 1904 Epsom Derby.

title: Saint-Amant


text:
Colonization of the Congo Basin

Colonization of the Congo Basin refers to the European colonization of the Congo Basin of tropical Africa. It was the last part of the continent to be colonized. By the end of the 19th century, the Basin had been carved up by European colonial powers, into the Congo Free State, the French Congo and the Portuguese Congo (modern Cabinda Province of Angola).

Early European exploration
One by one the other great mysteries had been explored:
 * The coasts by Prince Henry the Navigator's Portuguese sailors in the 15th century.
 * The Blue Nile by James Bruce in 1773.
 * The remote upper Niger by Mungo Park in 1796.
 * The vast Sahara by competitors Laing, Caillié, and Clapperton in the 1820s.
 * The fever-ridden mangroves of the lower Niger by the brothers Richard and John Lander in 1830.
 * Southern Africa and the Zambezi by Livingstone and John Clafton in the 1850s.
 * The upper Nile by Burton, Speke, and Baker in a succession of expeditions between 1857 and 1868.

Though the Congo had been one of the first to be attempted, it remained a mystery.

Since the 15th century, European explorers had sailed into the broad Congo estuary, planning to fight their way up the falls and rapids that begin only 100 mi inland, and then travel up the river to its unknown source. All failed. The rapids and falls, had they known it, extended for 220 mi inland, and the terrain close by the river was impassable, and remains so to this day.

Repeated attempts to travel overland were repulsed with heavy casualties, accidents, conflicts with natives, and, above all, disease saw large and well-equipped expeditions got no further than 40 mi or so past the westernmost rapid, the legendary Cauldron of Hell.

Stanley's exploration
It was not until 1877 that the Congo was explored by Europeans, and even then it was not from the sea, but from the other side of the African continent. Setting out from Zanzibar, Henry Morton Stanley, a British-born American journalist and explorer aimed to find the famous Dr. Livingstone. Livingstone had not been heard from in several years and was, in fact, exploring the upper reaches of a great navigable inland river called the Lualaba, which Livingstone hoped was connected to the Nile, but which turned out to be the upper Congo.

After leaving Livingstone, Stanley sailed for 1,000 miles (1,600 km) down the Lualaba (Upper Congo) to the large lake he named Stanley Pool (now called Pool Malebo). Then, rather than perish in the impenetrable country of the cascades, Stanley took a wide detour overland to come within striking distance of the European trading station at Boma on the Congo estuary.

Henry Morton Stanley
When Stanley returned to Europe in 1878, he had not only found Dr. Livingstone (an event remembered to this day), resolved the last great mystery of African exploration, and ruined his health: he had also opened the heart of tropical Africa up to the outside world. This was to be his most enduring legacy.

Stanley was lionised across Europe. He wrote articles, appeared at public meetings, lobbied the rich and powerful tirelessly; and always his theme was the boundless opportunity for commercial exploitation of the lands he had discovered or, in his own words, to "pour the civilisation of Europe into the barbarism of Africa".

"There are 40,000,000 naked people" on the other side of the rapids, Stanley wrote, "and the cotton-spinners of Manchester are waiting to clothe them... Birmingham's factories are glowing with the red metal that shall presently be made into ironwork in every fashion and shape for them... and the ministers of Christ are zealous to bring them, the poor benighted heathen, into the Christian fold."

Europe was less than keen on the idea: the great European scramble for Africa had not yet begun. Outside of the Cape of Good Hope and the Mediterranean coast, Europe had no African colonies of any significance. The focus of the great powers was still firmly on the lands that had made Europe's fortune: the Americas, the East Indies, India, China, and Australasia. There seemed no economic sense to investing energy in Africa when the returns from other colonies were likely to be both richer and more immediate. Nor was there a strong humanitarian interest in the continent now that the American slave trade had been extinguished. Stanley was applauded, admired, decorated—and ignored.

King Leopold II of Belgium
It is at this point that Leopold II of Belgium took a part. In Peter Forbath's words, Leopold was:"A tall, imposing man ... enjoying a reputation for hedonistic sensuality, cunning intelligence (his father once described him as subtle and sly as a fox), overweening ambition, and personal ruthlessness. He was, nevertheless, an extremely minor monarch in the realpolitik of the times, ruling a totally insignificant nation, a nation in fact that had come into existence barely four decades before and lived under the constant threat of losing its precarious independence to the great European powers around it. He was a figure who, one might have had every reason to expect, would devote himself to maintaining his country's strict neutrality, avoiding giving offence to any of his powerful neighbours, and indulging his keenly developed tastes for the pleasures of the flesh, rather than one who would make a profound impact on history. Yet, in the most astonishing and improbable way imaginable, he managed virtually single-handedly to upset the balance of power in Africa and usher in the terrible age of European colonialism on the black continent."As a constitutional monarch, Leopold was charged with the usual constitutional duties of opening parliaments, greeting diplomats, and attending state funerals. He had no power to decide policy. But for over 20 years he had been agitating for Belgium to take its place among the great colonial powers of Europe. Leopold noted, "Our frontiers can never be extended into Europe." However, he added, "since history teaches that colonies are useful, that they play a great part in that which makes up the power and prosperity of states, let us strive to get one in our turn."

At various times, he launched unsuccessful schemes to buy an Argentine province, to buy Borneo from the Dutch, rent the Philippines from Spain, or establish colonies in China, Vietnam, Japan, or the Pacific islands. When the 1860s explorers focused attention on Africa, Leopold schemed to colonise Mozambique on the east coast, Senegal on the west coast, and the Congo in the centre. None of these schemes came anywhere near fruition: the government of Belgium resolutely resisted all Leopold's suggestions, seeing the acquisition of a colony as a good way to spend large amounts of money for little or no return.

Leopold's eventual response was extraordinary in its hubris and simplicity. If the government of Belgium would not take a colony, then he would simply do it himself, acting in his private capacity as an ordinary citizen.

Brussels Geographic Conference
In 1876, Leopold II sponsored an international geographical conference in Brussels, inviting delegates from scientific societies all over Europe to discuss philanthropic and scientific matters such as the best way to coordinate map making, to prevent the re-emergence of the west coast slave trade, and to investigate ways of sending medical aid to Africa. The conference was a sham: at its close, Leopold proposed that they set up an international benevolent committee to carry on, and modestly agreed to accept the chairman's role. He created a baffling series of subsidiary shell organisations, culminating in the cunningly named International African Association (Association internationale africaine), which had a single shareholder: Leopold himself. For the look of things, he held one more meeting the following year, but from that time on, the International African Association was simply a front for Leopold's ambition.

Stanley as Leopold's agent
Soon after Stanley returned from the Congo, Leopold tried to recruit him. Stanley, still hopeful for British backing, brushed him off. However, Leopold persisted and eventually Stanley gave in. Leopold II, it seemed, was the only European willing to finance Stanley's dream: the building of a railway over the Crystal Mountains from the sea to Stanley Pool, from which river steamers could reach 1,000 miles (1,600 km) into the heart of Africa.

Stanley, much more familiar with the rigours of the African climate and the complexities of local politics than Leopold — Leopold II never set foot in the Congo — persuaded his patron that the first step should be the construction of a wagon trail and a series of forts. Leopold agreed and in deepest secrecy, Stanley signed a five-year contract at a salary of £1,000 a year, and set off to Zanzibar under an assumed name. To avoid discovery, materials and workers were shipped in by various roundabout routes, and communications between Stanley and Leopold were entrusted to Colonel Maximilien Strauch.

It was only at this point that Stanley was informed of the magnitude of Leopold's ambition: Stanley was not merely to construct a series of trading stations, he was to secretly carve out an entire nation. The instructions were direct and to the point: "It is a question of creating a new State, as big as possible, and of running it. It is clearly understood that in this project there is no question of granting the slightest political power to the negros. That would be absurd."

Apparently finding nothing reprehensible about Leopold's ambitions, Stanley set about his task with a will. For all his social shortcomings in European society, he was undoubtedly the right man for the job. Within three years, his capacity for hard work, his skill at playing one social group off against another, his ruthless use of modern weaponry to kill opponents, and above all his relentless determination opened the route to the Upper Congo.

In later years, Stanley would write that the most vexing part of his duties was not the work itself, nor negotiating with the natives, but keeping order amongst the ill-assorted collection of white men he had brought with him as overseers, who squabbled constantly over small matters of rank or status. "Almost all of them", he wrote, "clamoured for expenses of all kinds, which included ... wine, tobacco, cigars, clothes, shoes, board and lodging, and certain nameless extravagances" (by which he meant attractive slaves to warm their beds).

Exhausted, Stanley returned to Europe, only to be sent straight back by Leopold, who promised him an outstanding assistant: Charles 'Chinese' Gordon (who did not in fact take up Leopold's offer but chose instead to go to meet his fate at Khartoum). "It is indispensable", instructed Leopold, "that you should purchase for the  (i.e., Leopold himself) as much land as you can obtain".

Having established a beachhead on the lower Congo, in 1883 Stanley set out upriver to extend Leopold's domain, employing his usual methods: negotiations with local chiefs buying sovereignty in exchange for bolts of cloth and trinkets; playing one tribe off another; and if need be, simply shooting an obstructive chief and negotiating with his cowed successor instead. However, as he approached Stanley Falls at the junction between the Congo proper and the Lualaba (close to the general vicinity of Central Africa where he had found Livingstone six years before), it soon became clear that Stanley's men were not the only intruders.

Dealings with Zanzibari slave traders
Tippu Tip, the most powerful of the Zanzibari slave traders of the 19th century, was well known to Stanley, as was the social chaos and devastation that slave-hunting brought. It had only been through Tippu Tip's help that Stanley had found Livingstone (who himself had survived years on the Lualaba by virtue of Tippu Tip's friendship). Now, Stanley discovered, Tippu Tip's men had reached still further west in search of fresh populations to enslave.

Four years before, the Zanzibaris had thought the Congo deadly and impassable, and warned Stanley not to attempt to go there, but when Tippu Tip learned in Zanzibar that Stanley had survived, he was quick to act. Villages throughout the region had been burned and depopulated. Tippu Tip had raided 118 villages, killed 4,000 Africans, and, when Stanley reached his camp, had 2,300 slaves, mostly young women and children, in chains ready to transport halfway across the continent to the markets of Zanzibar.

Having found the new ruler of the upper Congo, Stanley negotiated an agreement with Tippu Tip to allow him to build his final river station just below Stanley Falls (which prevented vessels sailing further upstream). At the end of his physical resources, Stanley returned home, to be replaced by Lieutenant Colonel Francis de Winton, formerly a British Army officer.

title: Colonization of the Congo Basin


text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive1

''Some of the material on this pages was shifted here from Ta bu shi da yu's talk page shortly after this page was set up. Look at the date stamps to try and figure out what was what.''

[...or apparently so, tho Jerzy(t), in temporary reorganization, may be mistaken about where the super-section should have ended.]
 * Please note that for historical reasons I'm adding some history that was lost, including my first message to this place. Ah, the memories! Actually, I don't recall any of this, as it was so many years ago. :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

=The start= This is a messageboard for all administrators. Please feel free to leave a message!

Letting other admins know about this board
What's the best way of doing this? I can't send another message to all admins, because that will be seen as spam. So how do we let older admins know about this board? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Post about it on other pages in the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, and you can let some of your admin friends know on their talk pages, because if they're your friends they probably won't get mad. Feel free to tell me about it on my talk page! even though I already know, since I'm here.... Andre ( talk )A| *** 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I've done this... :P I've posted about this board on a few notices. We might want to let all new admins know about it. Sorry to all older admins who discover this later that you didn't get messaged by me as I'm not allowed to do this. Clearly. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You've advertised on the Village Pump. Anyone who might be interested has seen it.-gadfium (talk) 07:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily true. Had I not known about it already, I wouldn't know about it from the Village Pump because I don't check the Village Pump. I assume at least some others are the same. Andre ( talk )A| *** 07:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I rarely also check the VP because the page is just too large. I think other admins will feel the same way. Anyway, I've added to a few other places and told a few people who I don't think would mind if I messaged them. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Having this board is a good idea. -- Infrogmation 08:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

=Shifted messages from Ta bu shi da yu's talk page=

I've shifted the following comments from my user talk page to this page as its more appropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC that were listed on VfD
IMO it was totally inappropriate to list these on VfD. I have removed them and placed them on /Old. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Has no one pointed out the language from the RfC page, about admin behavior (which i think is the case here)
 * If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

Since the preceding 'graph with the same indentation says a subpage will be created in response to the listing, "it will be deleted" refers to the entry (listing) on the RfC page, not to the subpage. There is no policy for deleting the subpages. --Jerzy(t) 03:08, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Re RFC pages on VfD
I'd leave the listings until the 14th, and then delete the listings and probably keep the pages, since that's how it looks like the voting's going. - Hephaestos|§ 05:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I voted (keep, of course), & in the same edits voiced my opposition to cutting the VfD processes short (until a policy for short-circuiting such VfDs is formulated as general rather than ad hoc matter). Tnx for the heads-up (tho i'm curious how i got on your "mailing list" re this). --Jerzy(t) 06:08, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal in principle. RFCs should be deleted only when the RFC policy says they should be deleted, so my first impulse was to agree that you should remove them. However, I have noticed that you are involved in much controversy lately, so I agree with Luke in the above section that you should take a short break. I think that you removing the requests would only cause these problems to escalate. Anyway, it seems that people are voting to keep them, as the policy says they should, and Cheese Dreams should be warned not to do this sort of thing again. Academic Challenger 06:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The scale i'm willing to use in commenting doesn't include a "take a short break" choice, but only 3 choices:
 * "OK to dial it up",
 * "best to dial it back", and
 * "you could dial it either up or down a tad without my thinking the change is likely to be a mistake."
 * IMO you are somewhere in that very wide range of "best to dial it back". --Jerzy(t) 07:20, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

VfD
I don't use VfD enough to really have strong views about the comment pages. jimfbleak 06:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD
--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think VfD should be used for anything other than main namespace.
 * 2) Even if I'm wrong about (1), I think that RfC entries should be dealt with by policy, not individually. Either they should stay there forever, or there should be explicit policy regarding their deletion (for example, perhaps RfCs that are not properly endorsed should be deleted immediately.)
 * 3) I would not recommend removing those entries from VfD.
 * 4) I would not complain for a moment if someone did it.

I think that the process should be the same as for a main-space page; clearly, in all of these cases the emerging consensus is to keep, but I could imagine a good reason to delete an RFC page. After all, if we decide RFC pages can never be deleted, then they become magnets for inappropriate material and someone will start one for that purpose. -- Jmabel | Talk *** 07:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey there, Ta bu! Thank you for inviting me into this forum.

Anyways, about the pages you referred me to, they were created by the same user, right? I dont know how legal it is at wiki to have more than one or two user pages for the same user, but the one page I did see seemed good to me.

All I can say is lets see what others think and we shall go on from there.

"Antonio The Zebra Martin", 01:27 DEC 11, 2004 (MST)

My view is that these are not appropriate to be listed on VfD and should be removed. I also feel the RFCs should be kept as a record. Filiocht *** 08:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for my input. Unfortunately though, I have no strong opinion either way. The case can be made for deleting them, but on the other hand I doubt they'll do much damage if they stay. Fredrik | talk 08:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * To be clear, by "them" I meant the VfD listings, not the RfC pages. Fredrik | talk 11:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: VFDing RFC
No, don't vfd them. CheeseDreams hasn't been the most well behaved, she might trust me to mediate with her though. Crucially, it is important that these sort of records are kept, even if they simply record, Qwzzy throwing their rattle out of their pram and accusing everyone else of doing something; (as long as there is no problem with libel!), the community here works by consensus not censorship. Dunc|☺ 10:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFCs on VFD
As a rule, there should be no reason to delete proper requests for comments. Each of them is a valid piece of RFC process history. --Joy [shallot]   10:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree. We shouldn't delete such pages as they are valid history of the process. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] *** 11:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I said on VfD that I thought it was very out of order to delete such pages, but someone pointed out that there is a notice on the RfC page explicitly saying that such pages will be deleted if they don't make certification in forty-eight hours: "If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."
 * It seems unfair to keep failed RfC that have been submitted under this understanding. In other words, I think the evil done by losing evidence of abuse of process is outweighed by the evil done by capriciously breaking our own policy retrospectively, and if that means some people get away with past abuses, so be it.  However I think it should be policy in future that these procedural pages should never be deleted, and that people writing them should all be made aware that what they write on those pages is a matter of public record.
 * As for past pages that may be deleted because they precede the new policy, there is nothing to stop a user keeping a private record of an old RfC that he considers to be material evidence. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * the point here is that they are not 'proper' requests. As such, and having failed approval, however, they are not a stain on their subjects at all. For this reason I do not see a point in deleting them either, as they do represent historical examples of the functioning process of rejecting bogus RFC submissions. Add to that, the submitter is the subject of an RFC of his own, to which these bogus submissions may or may not be relevant. So, no, I don't see a reason for deleting them. I would just archive them someplace under "rejected RFCs" or something. But fair enough, if this means breaking policy, delete them. I see that "private copies" may be kept, but these will be without edit history, and therefore not verifiable. dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems to be that all RfC's have historical value, so why are they currently deleted? It seems to me that the 48-hour delete rule doesn't account for this value. Fortunately, WikiPolicy isn't dogma, nor is it carved in stone. I would happily back a proposal that the policy be ammended to say RfC's be archived for reference after 48-hours, and not simply deleted. -- ClockworkSoul 22:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of RFCs
Hi. I've just taken a look at the RFCs you want to delete. I'm sure someone will complain if they're scratched without going through VfD, but the header clearly says that they will be deleted if there's no support for them within 48 hours of creation, and that time limit's long gone now. I'd be minded to delete them, but this is one part of Wikipedia administration I've not got involved in before! -- Arwel 03:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC on VFD
I've not heard of pages outside the main template being listed on vfd before, and I don't think it would be a healthy practice to allow for even the possibility of RFC discussions being deleted, outside of the normal 48-hour practice. The vfd page is intended for articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards of acceptability or relevance, not for pages which document discussions among different contributors.

I suppose some exceptions to this general rule could appear in the future, but I would recommend that RFC pages *not* be eligible for vfd. CJCurrie 03:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an RFC has not been doubly certified within 48 hours, it is considered an. Now please stop spamming this before you make someone even more annoyed than a few of us are now. :/ -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:44, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I've never seen these kinds of pages listed of VfD. It think it is a typical abuse of process and waste of time. In my view you should feel free to de-list them. Jayjg 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace pages have been listed (and even deleted) before. I certainly think we should let this run its course; to do otherwise might confirm CheeseDream's cabalist dillusions. For reference, CheeseDreams also has RfCs for Requests for comment/Theresa knott and Requests for comment/Eequor, both uncertified and deleted. I would like to see those undeleted too because I think they're even more odd than these three. Also, I agree with Angela. Cool Hand Luke  03:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I guess the preceding settles it.CSTAR 03:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I'm the late one, but for what it's worth: I don't think they should be listed on VfD; I thought they were usually deleted unceremoniously after expiry. Someone did feel the need to affix this notice, however: "This RfC failed to meet the requirement for certification within the 48 hour deadline, but was not deleted in order that it may be used for reference in resolving certain disputes with the submitter." So it seems the pages are still of use. I don't see any harm in de-listing, but neither any harm in leaving them; though I suppose VfD is cluttered enough as it is. -- Hadal 03:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with listing them on VfD. First, the RfC page already has administrative oversight. If the Beaurocrats and admins who update that section of the Wiki aren't doing their jobs, then an RfC can be opened on them. In my opinion, they are doing their jobs, or at least always have. VfD is an attempted way around that process. I didn't vote on the VfD listings because I thought that their listing was much the same as the User Talk pages that had been listed in vengeance in the past: the point was not to achieve the deletion, but rather to complain loudly and provoke a paroxysm of discussion on the subject. Cheese Dreams is attempting to redress a grievance he has. Fair enough, but I hate VfD being used for it. To comment at all is to achieve the goal of the listing, IMO (not saying that anyone is a troll, but it's the "feeding the trolls" bit). Neither namespace nor administrative pages should be listed on VfD. VfD is for discovering the encyclopedic worthiness of a page, and an old RfC page simply doesn't fit any of the criteria. Personally, I think CheeseDreams should go to arbitration, if he feels persecuted by the persistence of the pages, but they're being preserved for pretty clear reasons. Geogre 04:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think the RFC pages should be listed on VfD. Especially if they are involved in a current RFC w/ CheeseDreams. --Flockmeal *** 04:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at this from a policy point of view, I think there's no question about it, RfC listings should be kept, whether they make certification or not. However, the RfC page says different. At Requests_for_comment: "Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted." (emphasis mine).

Acordingly, I think we should discuss a policy change on the proposal that RfC pages and the like should never be deleted, and then and only then the text on RfC should be changed to align with the new policy. The evil done by losing pages is small, because anybody can download the entire history of an RfC prior to deletion. The evil that would be done by making policy on the hoof, however, is appreciable. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC VFDs
While I'd advise against LISTING RFCs on VFD, I don't particularly see a need to remove them from VFD, even if they are trivially keepable. Strictly speaking it's probably against procedure. On the other hand, no one will complain about you removing them unless they have an axe to grind. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, RfCs do not belong on VfD. I can never recall them being there. People don't pay too much attention to RfCs once they expire. I would say it's alright to simply delete an RfC that was never certified, but one that has been certified should be kept for historical reasons. BTW, just for the record, I think you did the right thing by asking other admins their opinion on this matter. No one is forced to respond. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Discussion pages, like RfC's should be archived, not deleted IMO. There's no need to delete them, but they may be needed as evidence at a later date. ed g2s  •  talk  04:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi TBSDY. I don't think RFCs should ever be deleted, though that doesn't seem to be in danger of happening for the ones currently listed on VfD. I don't really think RFCs should be listed on VfD to begin with; in fact, I can't imagine why pages outside of the main namespace should be there at all. However, I don't think you should remove the VfDs in this instance - an important precedent is being set here regarding the keepability of all RFCs. Andre ( talk )A| *** 04:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu shi da yu,

RfCs shouldn't be VfD'd, IMO. I had a look at the three pages you sent to me as links, and I don't think any of them merited the VfD. That's my two pennies. --DF08 05:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that RFC pages should not be on VfD. VfD is mostly (or should be, IMNSHO) for judging whether an article is enycyclopaedic or not. RFC pages should simply be handled by policy. My preference would be to archive both failed and approved ones, not discard them, but I don't care that much one way or the other about the failed ones. The approved ones we definitely shouuld keep. Noel (talk) 12:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I also feel that RFC pages should not be deleted in a hurry, but it's not an opinion I feel strongly about, just a gut feeling. Deb 15:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think RFCs should be deleted, just unlisted; I was under the impression that that is what is supposed to happen. I'm quite neutral here as policy is clear on that the page should be deleted, but numerous RFCs have been left alone, which makes me wonder what's supposed to happen. I'm quite in favour of keeping RFC pages, though, since they can be retained as evidence, as is occurring with these pages. As for the subject at hand, I'd say let the VfD finish its course. Johnleemk | Talk 17:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I can't understand what this discussion is doing here. The RfC page is crystal clear. Failed RfC will be deleted. For some users to deliberately flaunt this in order to try to claim CheeseDreams was abusing process is ridiculous. Those who are flaunting this policy are abusing process and trying to disrupt Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to boot. Also, a lot of this discussion should be on the RfC talk page - not here. Wikipedia policy is made by all. It should just be made and then flaunted by admins as and when they see fit. jguk 19:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. WP policy is made by those who are interested enough at the time, and most of us prioritize, not because we don't care but because there's no point in being here if we all spend all our time debating policy.  That is a sufficient to guarantee that any policy that doesn't leave room for exigencies is simply a mistake (or a temporary victory of control freaks).  In fact, think about a really rigid policy structure: military regulations.  Contrary to most people's fantasies, what the regs mean is that you won't get in trouble for following them -- i.e., not that when you follow them, you end up in the slammer, but that you need a good explanation of the exigent circumstances that, predictably, sometims make ignoring them necessary. --Jerzy(t) 19:59, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably look at the VfD discussion. Although there is a consensus to keep, I'm not the only person who has expressed strong unease at the selective application of policy.  If we're going to keep all RfCs (and I think we should) we should not do so by making an exception of our pre-existing policy, which would be an vindictive action that would be unfair to one (admittedly unpopular) person.  We should discuss it and change policy on the basis of consensus, and then and only then should we begin to archive failed RfCs (which I think we should have been doing all along).  Hope this makes sense.  In my mind it's a matter of being seen to archive RfCs because in principle it's the right thing to do, not just because on this situation it suits us to ignore policy because we want to "get" someone.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD vs RfC
I know little about the process on RfC. Why would a page which needs comment be deleted? Hyacinth 22:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheesedreams/RFC/VfD
I'm not a policy maven. This is just my opinion.

a) The RFC pages shouldn't be removed. Generally speaking, anything that's a record of past controversies is important. I sympathize with Cheesedreams, but I'm afraid that if one is working in controversial areas, getting flamed goes with the territory. In reality, the likelihood is that nobody other than the people involved in the controversy know or care about the existence of these pages will ever read them.

b) The VfD listings shouldn't be removed, either. I am very much opposed to removing items from VfD on the grounds that they "shouldn't have been listed." Once they've been listed, let the discussion proceed openly and let the string of "keeps" tell the story. A strong remark that the discussion does not need to continue would be fine. Also, personal attention to moving the article to /Old immediately when the five days are up would be fine, too. If a custom of removing items from VfD becomes prevalent, we will soon need to develop all sorts of metapolicy, pages for voting on whether items should be relisted on VfD, etc. etc.

Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Putting them back again? Naaaah... that would be silly. if you've already moved them to /old just chalk it up as a fait accompli. They were there for, what, three-four days anyway? Particularly if they're there on /old, since voting is allowed to continue while they're on /old. If I were nitpicking I'd say that I'd avoid final action on them until five days have elapsed from initial listing. But that's bound to happen anyway. The articles should be kept, there's obvious consensus on that point, so there's no point in fussing over it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ta bu shi da yu, I'm generally of the opinion that RFC, VFD and any other "meta" pages should never be removed (licensing and legal issues aside). They should stick around as a kind of Wikipedia public record.  That being said, if CheeseDreams is worried because people continue to edit these pages, I belive that they should be protected.  In fact, I kind of think all rfc and vfd pages should be protected once the vote is over.  Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) *** 15:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I generally agree with DropDeadGorgias that most meta pages should be held around for the sake of historical record and for establishing/referring to precedents. I tend to think they shouldn't be protected either, unless they're particularly prone to vandalism (mainly because page protection might imply a lack of trust when I think we should assume good faith). Best, David Iberri | Talk *** 18:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think RfC pages should have wound up on VfD in the first place. Aren't they supposed to be archived indefinitely?  Anyway, I'd say remove them from VfD for sure, they don't belong there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) *** 19:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with (most of) the above comments: pages dealing with the workings of wikipedia should never be deleted. Take them off VfD - DavidWBrooks 19:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * VfD should really be for articles; it's busy enough just doing that.  The articles should never have been listed, but now that they have been, I have no strong opinion on whether they should be removed early. I wouldn't object to some RfCs being deleted; historical record is important, but so is letting bygones be bygones.  However, I don't think that VfD should be the place to make such a decision. Isomorphic 20:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello, not knowing at all the bottom line of the dispute, I will only say this : generally, I do not support deletion of pages. It may result in loss of historical important comment. If a page is not very relevant, or slightly hurting, best is just to blank it. Generally, do what you feel can not hurt someone badly. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Yes, I agree these shouldn't have been listed, Ta bu shi da yu, but you shouldn't remove them either. Let them die like other frivolous VfDs. One perception CheeseDreams has is that adimns are ganging up on her. Let's give this one its time. I'm adding them back. (Incidentally, it's only been 48 hours). Cool Hand Luke  22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD
I think that if the consensus is that the case was solved, then the pages can just be deleted (or archived) by an admin. Otherwise, they should be kept there. In any case, I feel that they should not be on VfD. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  22:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that VfD should be used for anything other than article pages. They are our product, and deserve a method optimised for keeping the article namespace tidy. Andrewa 01:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD
I don't use VfD enough to have strong feelings about the comment pages. dino 23:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleting RFCs
I noticed that several RFCs were listed in CAT:CSD, namely Requests for comment/jguk and Requests for comment/Theresa knott. While I understand that the RFC did not receive the required number of certifications within the time period, I cannot find the policy that states that these become speedy deletion candidates. In fact, I had a recent discussion with User:Ta bu shi da yu when several other users had a consensus that RFCs should almost never be deleted. I thought I'd bring this to the AN to see what everyone else thought. If there is a formal policy in place, let me know. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) *** 18:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * There was a recent extensive discussion, at Administrator's_noticeboard/RfC-VfD. Noel (talk) 19:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not too difficult to find the policy - it's the first thing on each RfC page on a sysop/user (and also noted clearly on the main RfC page):) . It says:

 * "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop/user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~ . If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: XXX (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: XXX (UTC)." jguk 20:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems like this topic is currently in dispute at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. However, because this is a delicate issue and I understand that the current policy is to delete these pages, I will go ahead and delete your RFC page; I will ask Theresa on her page if she wishes her RFC page to be deleted (she may not as it is currently part of the RFC/RFA discussion involving User:CheeseDreams).  Obviously, any changes made to wikipedia policy would only affect RFCs in the future, and not the ones on CSD right now.  Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) *** 22:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text: Category:695 deaths

title: Category:695 deaths


text:
Saint-Amans

Saint-Amans may refer to the following communes in France:

 * Saint-Amans, Ariège, a former commune in the Ariège département
 * Saint-Amans, Aude, in the Aude département
 * Saint-Amans, Lozère, in the Lozère département
 * Saint-Amans-de-Pellagal, in the Tarn-et-Garonne département
 * Saint-Amans-des-Cots, in the Aveyron département
 * Saint-Amans-du-Pech, in the Tarn-et-Garonne département
 * Saint-Amans-Soult, in the Tarn département
 * Saint-Amans-Valtoret, in the Tarn département

title: Saint-Amans