text:
Next-bit test

In cryptography and the theory of computation, the next-bit test is a test against pseudo-random number generators. We say that a sequence of bits passes the next bit test for at any position $$i$$ in the sequence, if any attacker who knows the $$i$$ first bits (but not the seed) cannot predict the $$(i+1)$$st with reasonable computational power.

Precise statement(s)
Let $$P$$ be a polynomial, and $$S=\{S_k\}$$ be a collection of sets such that $$S_k$$ contains $$P(k)$$-bit long sequences. Moreover, let $$\mu_k$$ be the probability distribution of the strings in $$S_k$$.

We now define the next-bit test in two different ways.

Boolean circuit formulation
A predicting collection $$C=\{C_k^i\}$$ is a collection of boolean circuits, such that each circuit $$C_k^i$$ has less than $$P_C(k)$$ gates and exactly $$i$$ inputs. Let $$p_{k,i}^C$$ be the probability that, on input the $$i$$ first bits of $$s$$, a string randomly selected in $$S_k$$ with probability $$\mu_k(s)$$, the circuit correctly predicts $$s_{i+1}$$, i.e. : $$ p_{k,i}^C={\mathcal P} \left[ C_k(s_1\ldots s_i)=s_{i+1} \right | s\in S_k\text{ with probability }\mu_k(s)] $$ Now, we say that $$\{S_k\}_k$$ passes the next-bit test if for any predicting collection $$C$$, any polynomial $$Q$$ : $$p_{k,i}^C<\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{Q(k)}$$

Probabilistic Turing machines
We can also define the next-bit test in terms of probabilistic Turing machines, although this definition is somewhat stronger (see Adleman's theorem). Let $$\mathcal M$$ be a probabilistic Turing machine, working in polynomial time. Let $$p_{k,i}^{\mathcal M}$$ be the probability that $$\mathcal M$$ predicts the $$(i+1)$$st bit correctly, i.e. $$p_{k,i}^{\mathcal M}={\mathcal P}[M(s_1\ldots s_i)=s_{i+1} | s\in S_k\text{ with probability }\mu_k(s)]$$ We say that collection $$S=\{S_k\}$$ passes the next-bit test if for all polynomial $$Q$$, for all but finitely many $$k$$, for all $$0<i<k$$: $$ p_{k,i}^{\mathcal M}<\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{Q(k)} $$

Completeness for Yao's test
The next-bit test is a particular case of Yao's test for random sequences, and passing it is therefore a necessary condition for passing Yao's test. However, it has also been shown a sufficient condition by Yao.

We prove it now in the case of the probabilistic Turing machine, since Adleman has already done the work of replacing randomization with non-uniformity in his theorem. The case of Boolean circuits cannot be derived from this case (since it involves deciding potentially undecidable problems), but the proof of Adleman's theorem can be easily adapted to the case of non-uniform Boolean circuit families.

Let $$\mathcal M$$ be a distinguisher for the probabilistic version of Yao's test, i.e. a probabilistic Turing machine, running in polynomial time, such that there is a polynomial $$Q$$ such that for infinitely many $$k$$ $$|p_{k,S}^{\mathcal M}-p_{k,U}^{\mathcal M}|\geq\frac{1}{Q(k)}$$

Let $$R_{k,i}=\{s_1\ldots s_iu_{i+1}\ldots u_{P(k)}| s\in S_k, u\in\{0,1\}^{P(k)}\}$$. We have: $$R_{k,0}=\{0,1\}^{P(k)}$$ and $$R_{k,P(k)}=S_k$$. Then, we notice that $$\sum_{i=0}^{P(k)}|p_{k,R_{k,i+1}}^{\mathcal M}-p_{k,R_{k,i}}^{\mathcal M}|\geq |p^{\mathcal M}_{k,R_{k,P(k)}}-p^{\mathcal M}_{k,R_{k,0}}|=|p_{k,S}^{\mathcal M}-p_{k,U}^{\mathcal M}|\geq\frac{1}{Q(k)}$$. Therefore, at least one of the $$|p_{k,R_{k,i+1}}^{\mathcal M}-p_{k,R_{k,i}}^{\mathcal M}|$$ should be no smaller than $$\frac{1}{Q(k)P(k)}$$.

Next, we consider probability distributions $$\mu_{k,i}$$ and $$\overline{\mu_{k,i}}$$ on $$R_{k,i}$$. Distribution $$\mu_{k,i}$$ is the probability distribution of choosing the $$i$$ first bits in $$S_k$$ with probability given by $$\mu_k$$, and the $$P(k)-i$$ remaining bits uniformly at random. We have thus: $$\mu_{k,i}(w_1\ldots w_{P(k)})=\left(\sum_{s\in S_k, s_1\ldots s_i=w_1\ldots w_i}\mu_k(s)\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{P(k)-i}$$ $$\overline{\mu_{k,i}}(w_1\ldots w_{P(k)})=\left(\sum_{s\in S_k, s_1\ldots s_{i-1}(1-s_i)=w_1\ldots w_i}\mu_k(s)\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{P(k)-i}$$

We thus have $$\mu_{k,i}=\frac{1}{2}(\mu_{k,i+1}+\overline{\mu_{k,i+1}})$$ (a simple calculus trick shows this), thus distributions $$\mu_{k,i+1}$$ and $$\overline{\mu_{k,i+1}}$$ can be distinguished by $$\mathcal M$$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $$p^{\mathcal M}_{\mu_{k,i+1}}-p^{\mathcal M}_{\overline{\mu_{k,i+1}}}\geq\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{R(k)}$$, with $$R$$ a polynomial.

This gives us a possible construction of a Turing machine solving the next-bit test: upon receiving the $$i$$ first bits of a sequence, $$\mathcal N$$ pads this input with a guess of bit $$l$$ and then $$P(k)-i-1$$ random bits, chosen with uniform probability. Then it runs $$\mathcal M$$, and outputs $$l$$ if the result is $$1$$, and $$1-l$$ else.

title: Next-bit test


text:
Rugby League Conference

The Rugby League Conference (RLC) (also known as the Co-operative Rugby League Conference as a result of sponsorship from The Co-operative Group), was a series of regionally based divisions of amateur rugby league teams spread throughout England, Scotland, and Wales.

The RLC was founded as the 10-team Southern Conference League in 1997, with teams from the southern midlands and the south east, but subsequently, rebranded and expanded both geographically and numerically to include around 90 teams stretched across almost the whole of Great Britain from Aberdeen in northern Scotland down to Plymouth on the south coast of England.

The aim of the RLC was initially to provide regular fixtures for new clubs based outside the traditional 'heartland' of rugby league in the UK, although as the playing standards increased, it also accepted teams from the 'heartlands'. The hope was that some clubs would eventually progress to become semi-professional.

To date, London Skolars and Coventry Bears both play in the professional structure as have Hemel Stags and Oxford although Hemel reverted to being a solely amateur club after selling its professional license to Cornwall and Oxford folded.

With the top heartlands amateur league, the National Conference League voting to move to a summer season, the 2012 season saw a re-alignment of the amateur game and the Rugby League Conference was replaced with a series of regional leagues.

History
The Southern Conference League was founded as a 10-team competition in 1997. The following season it was rebranded as the Rugby League Conference due to its intentions to include teams from outside the traditional heartlands of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.

The league steadily expanded over the first few seasons right up to the fringes of the heartlands, before expanding into Wales for the first time in 2001 with the addition of Cardiff Demons. The league expanded into the North East that same season.

In 2003 National League Three was founded including some of the stronger Rugby League Conference clubs and some BARLA clubs. This same season saw massive expansion of the Rugby League Conference including an entire Welsh division. The league also pushed its borders further including more teams from the less rugby league playing areas of the counties considered the heartlands and went as far south west as Somerset.

The league expanded further in 2004 by allowing entry to heartland clubs. For the 2005 season the competition was split into two tiers, with Premier divisions being created for above the existing regional divisions. The next major changes were in 2007 when National League Three (as the National Division) and the Scottish League became integral parts of the Rugby League Conference structure.

The Rugby League Conference celebrated passing the 100 club barrier in 2010.

2011 was the last season before the league was restructured.

Representative fixtures
The Rugby League Amateur Four Nations was competition for national amateur sides from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.

Former divisions within the RLC
As of 2010

 * National Division (Tier 4)
 * The premier divisions (Tier 5):
 * RLC Yorkshire Premier (now Yorkshire Men's League)
 * RLC Midlands Premier (now Midlands Rugby League)
 * RLC North West Premier (now North West Men's League)
 * RLC Welsh Premier (now South Wales Men's League)
 * RLC Southern Premier (now London and South East Rugby League)
 * The regional divisions (Tier 6):
 * RLC Yorkshire Regional (defunct)
 * RLC Midlands Regional (now Midlands Rugby League)
 * RLC North West Regional (defunct)
 * RLC Wales Regional (defunct)
 * RLC South West Regional (now South West Rugby League)
 * RLC South East Regional (defunct)
 * RLC East Regional (now East Rugby League)
 * RLC North East Regional (now North East Rugby League)
 * RLC Scotland Regional (now Scottish National League)

RLC National

 * 2003 Warrington Woolston Rovers (now Warrington Wizards) (as National League three)
 * 2004 Coventry Bears (as National League three)
 * 2005 Bradford Dudley Hill (as National League three)
 * 2006 Bramley Buffaloes (as National League three)
 * 2007 Featherstone Lions
 * 2008 Crusaders Colts
 * 2009 Bramley Buffaloes
 * 2010 Warrington Wizards
 * 2011 Huddersfield Underbank Rangers

RLC Premier
Competed for by winners of each premier division.

 * 1997 North London Skolars (as Southern Conference)
 * 1998 Crawley Jets
 * 1999 Chester Wolves
 * 2000 Crawley Jets
 * 2001 Teesside Steelers
 * 2002 Coventry Bears
 * 2003 Bridgend Blue Bulls
 * 2004 Widnes Saints
 * 2005 Bridgend Blue Bulls
 * 2006 South London Storm
 * 2007 St Albans Centurions
 * 2008 Nottingham Outlaws
 * 2009 West London Sharks
 * 2010 St Albans Centurions
 * 2011 Parkside Hawks

RLC Regional
Competed for by winners of each regional division.
 * 2005 Wetherby Bulldogs
 * 2006 Liverpool Buccaneers
 * 2007 Widnes Saints
 * 2008 Moorends-Thorne Marauders
 * 2009 Northampton Casuals (now Northampton Demons)
 * 2010 Northampton Demons
 * 2011 Elmbridge Eagles

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

title: Rugby League Conference


text:
User talk:Jakew/resolve

''I've created this page for the purpose of resolving the dispute between Robert the Bruce and Theresa Knott. I anticipate that this will be a first step towards the resolution of the dispute which can be found here.''

''There is no point to this unless everyone agrees that we want to find a solution, so that everyone can work together. Some compromises may be required, but it's also important to try to understand each others' views.''

''I will try to provide a framework for the discussions, and will try to guide it in a way that I believe will lead to consensus rather than conflict. I'll also try to summarise from time to time, and make suggestions. I'm working this out as I go. I'm not perfect, so if I screw up, tell me!''

''I'm sure we're all familiar with arguments in which participants keep saying "and another thing..." It can easily spiral out of control if we let it. With that in mind, let's restrict ourselves to two issues at a time - one raised by each party.''

(I will use italics throughout, to reduce the number of signatures.)

''Please introduce an issue that you would like to discuss. State it in a matter-of-fact manner, without making accusations or personal attacks.''

''When making the first response to an issue, try to restrict yourself to discussing the merits of the issue. Try to think from the other person's viewpoint. This is not impossible! It's always possible to find something that you agree with, even if only a little. Let's postpone debating the issue at first, so that we can find some common ground.''

Robert's 1st issue
I really don't have issues with people once I understand where they are coming from. Theresa clearly has many problems with many people (of which I am her current target). Now that I have realised just how vindictive she is I have taken a little time to read up on her history in such matters around here. There is a distinct pattern which sadly includes an approach which escalates a relatively simple matter to something which only an AC ruling will sate. A confrontational, agressive and vindictive person who demands standards from other people that she is unable to maintain herself. - Robert the Bruce 13:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Robert please give an example of your complaint against me, you are constantly saying things like this but you never give a concrete example. What have i escaletes up? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Folks, let's try to focus on what we can achieve. Robert, if Theresa could do one thing differently, what would it be?''
 * I would say that the most shocking thing about Theresa is her blatant bias. If we take the current run around over my "technical" 3RR violation and compare it to her indifference towards the clear examples 3RR breaches from DanP and Revasser one is able to observe the disgraceful pattern of her bias. So for starters I would suggest that Theresa concentrate more on content editing and contributing in such a manner to Wikipedia and refrain altogether from her current confrontational, agressive and vindictive manner in which she deals with people. - Robert the Bruce 05:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Tony Sidaway has been kind enough to provide examples of these breaches in the 3rd party comments section. I'm trying to look for a way of improving the situation, even a little. If Theresa were to be more consistent in dealing with 3RR breaches, would that be an improvement?''

All I did, was point out to Robert that he had broken the 3RR. I did not block him for doing so. When I've taken Robert's adversaries to task over bad behaviour Robert accuses me of trying to cover up for them. Whatever I do Robert accuses me of bias. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is DanP's reaction to be told he broke the 3RR

I only inserted a paragraph that Jakew previously deleted without explanation. If Jakew says I repeatedly reverted the article, my apologies as it should not have been so and was terribly inadvertent. ...

Notice how he accepts that he did break the rule. Now let's look at your response to my pointing out to you that you had broken it.

(italics changed to bold to avoid ambiguity -- JW)

"I expect he removed the comment because you did break the three revert rule.     Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 19:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)" Would you like to review this statement of yours and either confirm your allegation or witdraw it with a suitable apology? - Robert the Bruce

So DanP broke the rule and was warned by Tony and you broke the rule and was warned by me - in what way is that unfair? The only reason the episode went on after that is becasue you refused to accept that you broke the rule. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Theresa, please accept my apologies for implying that you are inconsistent. That was not my intention; I cannot take sides if this is to work. Let me rephrase: Robert, if you were to feel that Theresa was more consistent, would that be an improvement? If so, how could she make you feel that she was? How might you be able to help?''
 * Jakew you did no such thing, and you have nothing to apologise for. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Theresa alledges is the first of a number of reverts made. I ask for evidence that this was a revert and not an edit. - Robert the Bruce 03:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can clear this misunderstanding up right now. I do not alledge that that edit was a revert, and i apologise if it appeared that I did. I put that edit in to show that the later edits were a revert to it. What I am alledging is that you reverted the heading 4 times after the above edit. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 19:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I am waiting to be shown where I breached the 3RR on Foreskin restoration. Would you be so kind as to show me where, Tony? - Robert the Bruce 17:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert the links are in my reply above. Please Robert, this is supposed to be mediation between you and me. Can you answer my points above? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked Tony to comment. I assume your stepping in here is to warn Tony off from responding? - Robert the Bruce 03:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course I wasn't warning off Tony. Can you please post an instance where I abused my admin powers though? I didn't actually use my admin powers in this instance. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''It's hard to see how productive this debate is, but let's try to settle the issue once and for all. Theresa, the links you gave are to comparisons of Robert's edits and the previous version. It would be easier to identify whether they are or aren't reverts if you would provide links to comparisons of Robert's version and the version that you believe he reverted to. (Sorry for the convoluted language there.) Let's not involve Tony in this please - this is between RtB and TK, with yours truly getting in the way of course.''

Jake, all will be revealed in due course. I have asked Tony to comment as to whether as an edit or a revert. Theresa claims it was a revert. It is obviously not. I believe this is germane to the issue of Theresa's misconduct. Theresa clearly does not want Tony to comment so I guess we need your judgement as to whether the post in question was an edit or a revert. Thanks Jake. - Robert the Bruce 17:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Tony is welcome to give his opinion in the 3rd party comments, if he so wishes. I'll give my opinion as a last resort, since I'm trying to mediate rather than judge. I think providing links as I described above would help a lot, since it makes a revert obvious. Theresa, for an example of the kinds of links I mean, please see the list of DanP's reverts below.''

OK let's sort this out:
 * On this edit Robert changed the heading to include the word psychiatric and removed a reference to an article by Boyle (Note that I am not saying this is a revert, although the heading has been taken back to how it was before)
 * this was a straight revert.
 * this is also a straight revert. Note that summary of Will you breach the 3 revert rule, I wonder? shows that Robert is clearly aware of the rules.
 * this is still a revert. Robert has again changed the heading, but this time left the Boyle reference alone. This was not an attempt at compromise as can be seen from the next revert.
 * this is another revert - note that Boyle goes and the heading is changed.

I count 4 removals of Boyle and 5 changes of the heading all on the 8th. Now you can call this 3.5 reverts, or a "technical" violation. I don't really care. What it was though IMO was a violation. Note that admins are expected to interpret behaviour and act accordingly. Note also that this was no accident. Robert was perfectly aware of the rule. Oh and note also that I did not use my admin powers. I did not block Robert for 24 hours, and neither did anyone else. I merely pointed out that he did break the rule. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting closer to the truth. You say as an "admin" you were interpreting behaviour and acting accordingly and in this case you have decided it was a 3RR violation. Good. Now we have established that your behaviour in this matter was by you - the administrator. You as the administrator "interpreted" certain behaviour as a 3RR violation and issued a warning accordingly. Now I am contesting your interpretation. I have Tony (see below) who sees 2 reverts and not the five you list. But as you say you "don't really care". So what if you the administrator involve yourself in stitching someone up on false allegations so as to rubbish his name. So what if you get involved in an orgy of tag-team reverting so as to help your buddy push his POV. So what if you get up to your armpits in a feeding frenzy to have someone censured at any cost. Sadly there is a cost to this Theresa and it is a cost you have to pay. You have sacrificed your integrity and the honour of being a Wikipedia sysop on the altar of vindictive retribution. - Robert the Bruce 03:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes I interpreted your edits above as reverts. I am not involved in "stitching you up however" and the allegations are not "false". I was not trying to "rubbish your name" I was trying to warn you that you had violated a rule. I was not involved in an "orgy of tag team reverting" and Exploding boy is not my "buddy". I ertanily haven't "sacrificed my integrity". You tried to get around the 3RR by doing a partial revert. I saw through that and warned you that such behaviour could lead to a block. I did not block you. I did not use my admin powers. in fact i have never used my admin powers against you. The fact that I disagree with you does not make me abusive. Oh and I'm not vindictive, I would love for you to see the errors of your ways, start working with people instead of against them, stop being arrogent and dismissive and rude to people. That's whty I agreed to this mediation. If I wasn't soo nice I would have taken you to arbitration ages ago, but I'd rather avoid that for now and see if this mediation works. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 03:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK Tony, so there we have it then. You make it two out of the five Theresa listed as being "reverts". Now any guesses as to why Theresa would have added the other three and then claimed a 3RR violation? - Robert the Bruce 03:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's clear you haven't read my reply above. What's the point in this if you don't read what I write? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 03:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Ok, so there are two undisputed reverts. Theresa says she isn't saying that this edit was a revert, so let's forget about it. The issue, it seems, is whether the last two constitute reverts, and this seems controversial. Is anyone aware of any guidance (or indeed agreement) on "partial" reverts?''

''Secondly, what can we achieve here? Let's imagine that we've discussed the issue, and either agree that Robert did break the 3RR, or that he didn't. What next?''

As far as I am concerned if the community agrees that Robert did break the 3RR then that's the end of the matter. He can consider himself warned. If the community agrees that he did not break the 3RR then I will strike my comments of the rfc talk page and apologise. Is that reasonable? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''It sounds reasonable to me, but how do we assess what the community feels? Only 5 people have contributed to this page, in total (including myself). That's enough for a vote, but barely. Ok, I'll be constructive: if it is acceptable to both participants, I will create a vote section on this page to determine the community's opinion. Anyone will be able to vote, including all participants, and I will set a time limit. Please indicate whether this is ok.''
 * Jake, why do we need a vote? Either it was a breach of the 3RR or it wasn't. I say it wasn't, Tony says he sees only two reverts, Theresa now says that she "interpreted" my edits as reverts. I believe the reality of the situation is becoming clear. So it is not the "community" that needs to decide anything, but rather Theresa who has to be honest with herself in this regard. - Robert the Bruce 03:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert's reply doesn't surprise me. I note how he completely ignores EB's comment. Of course he wont accept a vote on this matter. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 05:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Please could each of you email me. I'm at jake@waskett.org.''

Theresa's 1st issue
My issue with Robert is not so much with his beliefs or POV but with his behaviour. Robert is very hostile to anyone who disagrees with him, and makes frequent personal attacks. For example, recently he has taken to accusing me of abusing my admin powers. I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence of that abuse, be he has never done so. Without any evidence I have no way of defending myself, so this is the worst possible kind of personal attack.

Robert I would like you to either:
 * Post evidence of my abuse here so we can discuss it and hopefully resolve it.
 * Withdraw your accusations.

I dont thank that is an unreasonable request. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Ok, it looks like Theresa doesn't feel that she's abused her powers, and she's offended and angry at the accusation. Robert, in contrast, feels that Theresa has acted inappropriately, and he's indignant. Robert, instead of all the evidence, how about discussing a single example?'' It would really help if we could see an example, Robert.
 * I see no likelihood of Theresa ever accepting that she has abused her position as sysop or abused other people. I call this the "Abu Ghraib" syndrome. She is on record of having told people to "fuck-off", call someone a "nutcase" and others a "troll" or a "vandal". She is able to justify her abusive actions on the basis that what she is doing is supposedly for the "good" of Wikipedia. This somehow (in her own mind) appears to excuse her worst excesses. Were getting dangerously close to a person who believes the end justifies the means and as such is losing the ability to tell right from wrong. Now one could possibly live with this if she hated everyone equally and not just a select few who are deserving of her personal attention. There is always a test case for these people (and one that is failed 99% of the time) and that is to watch their reaction to a situation where their "friends" breach the rules and see if it is even-handed. Theresa fails this every time. People like Theresa can only be helped if the accept that they need help. Does she accept that she needs help? - Robert the Bruce 07:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I can't aknowledge abuse if you don't post evidence of it. Help with what exactly?Jakew has asked for a single example. Please provide one so that we can discuss it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Robert, please understand that I'm not asking for all the evidence you have against Theresa. One example would be fine, and it doesn't even have to be the best. Please, let's have something concrete to talk about. Please say something!''

OK, lets start here. Theresa is it true that you are on record "having told people to "fuck-off", call someone a "nutcase" and others a "troll" or a "vandal"."? - Robert the Bruce 17:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In order - possibly can you provide the link please, (I'm certain that I have never told you to fuck off though), I did once say that irismiester was a nutcase -I apologised for it afterwards - note that irismeister has been repeatedly censured by the AC, is currently on a one year ban, and has made repeated legal threats against me, Jimbo, David Gerard, all the members of the arbitration committee, and  all the members of the board. As for troll and vandal, I'm not sure, I do frequently say things like "you are trolling" or "please dont vandalise wikipedia" but I try to avoid saying "you are a troll" or "you are a vandal". Again can you provide the links please. Also none of the things you have said above are admin abuse. Admin abuse means something very specific here on Wikipedia. It means abusing admin powers. I.e. blocking, deleteing, protecting a page (and undoing those). Accusing someone of admin abuse, is very serious. That's why I keep demanding that you retract or provide evidence. Since you haven't provided evidence, please retract your allegation. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) From tknott at * Thu Sep  9 16:04:21 2004 From: tknott at *(KNOTT, T) Date: Mon Dec 6 19:23:10 2004 Subject: [WikiEN-l] Robert Brookes Would people check out this pricks edits please and state on his rfc if he is a simple vandal that can be blocked by any admin or a more usual POV pusher that needs to go to the AC. It's a bit of an in-between case IMO. I think he's a vandal who is here to get his kicks from insulting people, but maybe I am biased because he's called me part of a "lunatic fringe". What do other people think? Theresa
 * A memory lapse Theresa? Here a little jog then: - Robert the Bruce 04:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But that was about Robert Brookes! I'm glad to see you confirm the use of sockpuppets. Yes I did call you a prick on the mailing list. I apologise for that. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 04:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * All I am confirming is a history you have for abusing people. Your memory appears to be a short one and I am helping you to jog it a bit. I sincerely believe we need to help you address this "Abu Ghraib" syndrome of yours. You even admit to it by stating that Irismeister deserved your abuse (and thereby attempting to justify your abuse as being normal and acceptable behaviour). You really need to work through this problem of yours with someone suitable qualified, Theresa. This email of yours exposes another attempt of yours to deceive where you state that you "try to avoid saying "you are a troll" or "you are a vandal"" but clearly the email proves that you really don't try hard enough. Remember for a moment if you will the comment I once made about your ilk demanding standards from other people that you are not able to maintain yourselves? So I say again then Theresa, you really need some help. - Robert the Bruce 04:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And I say again - please remove your accusations of admin abuse. You have clearly been going through my edit history and have not found any evidence of admin abuse. Mediation is about give and take, you are in my section here. I have apologised for calling you a prick, please return the favour and retract your unfounded accusation (you don't need to apologise - just retract it). Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 04:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Ok, it seems like there are actually two issues here. Firstly, Robert alleges that Theresa abused admin powers, and secondly, he alleges that Theresa has been abusive. The issue that Theresa raised in this section was the former, so could Robert please answer that?''

Third party comments (use sparingly)

 * Three revert rule
 * User:DanP 1 2 3 4
 * User:revasser 1 2 3 4

User:Tony_Sidaway (signature added) Thanks Tony, for concrete examples.
 * It's been stated that I warned User:DanP. Well it's true that I warned him about the blocking sanction (I'm not an admin, by the way; it wasn't a threat) but only after User:jakew had already politely warned him that he had broken the 3RR in the first place. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think Theresa's request that Robert demonstrate an instance in which Theresa has abused her sysop powers was reasonable. It's a very serious allegation.  I appreciate that Robert may feel aggrieved about being warned (days after the event) that he had abused the 3RR when the evidence presented appears to be rather equivocal.  However this does not go any way towards explaining why Robert accuses Theresa of abusing her sysop powers.  Theresa did not use her sysop powers in this instance.  Theresa has asked Robert to give an example of this.  I think Robert should comply with that reasonable request, as Theresa has presented the evidence she used to support her accusation against Robert. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Robert, anybody can tell someone to fuck off. That is not an abuse of power.
 * Out of the list that Theresa gave, I discovered two unequivocal reverts, and one edit that was substantially a revert. It took a long time because I was not familiar with what was being debated and there were a lot of small edits and one or two quite long reverts by other editors. There could be more.
 * 21:01, 8 Dec 2004 reverts edit by Exploding BoyTalk made at 20:43.
 * 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 reverts edit made by Exploding BoyTalk made at 21:02.
 * The edit you specifically ask about does not look like a revert at all. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and frankly I hesitate to even add this comment given that Robert thinks that Theresa and I are in cahoots (and frequently accuses us of the same), I think Robert's "edits" (discussed above) are reverts as well. I would have blocked him myself for violating the 3RR but the rules clearly state that when an admin is involved in a dispute or is a freqent editor of a particular article s/he should ask another admin to step in when blocks or page protection are needed. I did in fact request another admin to step in, but s/he declined to do so (which is also in accordance with the rules). Approaching a second admin became unnecessary when I started the RfC.

I should also like to lay to rest once and for all the idea that Theresa and I are in any way involved. We are aware of each other from editing some of the same articles, but that's the extent of it. We have never communicated off-site, we do not "tag team" edit, and we certainly do not work together against any user. I happen to agree with her in this particular case, but I've disagreed with her in other cases. Robert's continued accusations (for example, claiming that we are a "tag team") are nothing but unfounded, misinformed (or, perhaps, intentional) mudslinging, and it's becoming tiresome. I'd ask him to lay off, for his own good--since it really does nothing to further his image as a cooperative editor--and for ours. Exploding Boy 16:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Theresa's explanation of the revert count
OK let's sort this out:
 * On this edit Robert changed the heading to include the word psychiatric and removed a reference to an article by Boyle (Note that I am not saying this is a revert, although the heading has been taken back to how it was before)
 * this was a straight revert.
 * this is also a straight revert. Note that summary of Will you breach the 3 revert rule, I wonder? shows that Robert is clearly aware of the rules.
 * this is still a revert. Robert has again changed the heading, but this time left the Boyle reference alone. This was not an attempt at compromise as can be seen from the next revert.
 * this is another revert - note that Boyle goes and the heading is changed.

(From Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))

 * Yes, I see your point. Robert's clear intent here is to revert edits, and he does this piecemeal but the eventual effect is the same.  I think cases like this should be clarified in the 3RR policy--not to the extent of giving would-be evaders a clear recipe for evading the effect of the 3RR, but enough to make it clear that changes that have the same effect as simple reverts may be treated as de facto reverts.   This seems a reasonable application of present policy, but it's best to spell out that "revert" does not refer only to simple reverts.   --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Theresa has issues with Robert. She clearly thinks he's the same guy she called a prick and suggested was a vandal. I don't have a problem with that. We all have people we think are pricks. At least a couple of mine are here on this page.

However, Theresa's interaction with Robert has been spiky, to say the least. She's a fairly spiky sort of person, on the whole. She does throw warnings and policies around when it suits, and she is not, that I've seen, particularly evenhanded (don't ask me to give examples because a/ I'm not going to be watching this page and b/ I don't actually have to spend my life proving what I say -- you can just take it or leave it as you please; nothing pisses me off more than this whiny insistence that people must prove this and prove that when the person doing the whining knows that it's true but hopes that their interlocutor won't bother to dig up the proof or can't find it). I don't think an admin should threaten someone they personally have an editing problem with, because this kind of dispute is bound to arise.

Now Robert's a POV pusher, sure enough, but so are the people he's reverting. He also doesn't mind trolling (look, sue me, why don't you, for saying it, but "trolling" is the coin of the realm in Wikipedia, and pretending that it's a civil place won't actually make it one -- I laugh my head off when some idiot leaves a message on somebody else's page politely "warning" them to do this or that because the rules say they must. Presumably those people simply don't ever think what effect their messages actually have! I'd prefer to be called a prick, to be honest). But the thing is, Theresa bites. If she didn't want conflict, she didn't have to bite. She could leave Robert tangoing on his own. I doubt she has a particular interest in foreskins, or any particular knowledge that she wants to share, so I suppose I'm thinking that her purpose for being there is somehow to "defend" the page or to "defend" Wikipedia, or whatever. It would be altogether more constructive for her and for Wikipedia if she left Robert to his own devices, fighting with other POV pushers over whatever articles they want to fight over, and did good work in other places without worrying about him so much. That's my 2c worth.

All my comments are about Theresa because, frankly, I think Robert isn't in the slightest bit interested in mediation. FWIW, Robert, I think its being mostly right or at least feasibly right that makes you so effective. It upsets those who have power because they are afraid that they will too blatantly do the wrong thing to someone who is substantially right.

Best wishes for the season to you all.Dr Zen 02:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jakew/resolve


text:
James Lillywhite

James Lillywhite (23 February 1842 – 25 October 1929) was an English Test cricketer and an umpire. He was the first ever captain of the English cricket team in a Test match, captaining two Tests against Australia in 1876–77, losing the first, but winning the second.

Lillywhite was born in Westhampnett in Sussex, the son of a brickmaker, John Lillywhite. In the 1861 census the 19 year old James' profession is given as Tile Maker. He was the nephew of William Lillywhite, and so cousin to William's sons, James Lillywhite senior, John, Fred and Harry. Lillywhite is termed "junior" in sources to differentiate between him and his cousin James senior. He became a professional cricketer, and played first-class cricket for Sussex from 1862 and 1883. He played one final first-class match in 1885. Before the pre-Ashes Test-playing tour to Australia in 1876–77, Lillywhite also joined tours to North America in 1868 in a team led by Edgar Willsher, to Australia in 1873–74 in a team led by W.G. Grace. He also joined three further tours to Australia in teams led by Alfred Shaw, in 1881–82, 1884–85 and 1886–87.

Test cricket
James Lillywhite and Dave Gregory were the 1st ever Test Captains. Neither were great with the bat. Of the 2 James top scored in the 1st Test scoring 10 in the 1st Innings on 17-Mar and scored 4 in the 2nd Innings on 19 March. James, having lost the toss, had his side put into bat which meant that James was the 1st ever Test player as he led out his England side. He was 35 years 20 days old. As his team followed him out he was passed by England No: 1 Harry Jupp and England No: 8 Tom Emmett who were both 35 years old but older than James Lillywhite.

He stood as a first-class umpire between 1883 and 1901, including six Test matches. He umpired all four Test matches between Australia and England in the 1881–82 season (being partnered by John Swift in three matches and George Coulthard in the other). He was one of the organisers of Arthur Shrewsbury's team to Australia in 1884–85 but, in spite of his experience, the Australian captain Billy Murdoch refused to allow him to umpire the first ever Test match at Adelaide. However, along with Ted Elliott, he umpired in the second Test of that series, when the entire Australian team refused to play unless they received fifty per cent of gate takings. Nine new faces appeared for Australia, and were soundly beaten. Lillywhite's other match as umpire was the drawn fourth Test between England and Australia at Old Trafford in 1899.

He died in Chichester, the last English survivor of the first Test match.

title: James Lillywhite


text:
User:Charles Matthews/New - academics

1-50
J. D. Bernal - C. H. Herford - Alexander Francis Chamberlain - Jean Wahl - Mary Douglas - Ernst Troeltsch - Max Reischle - Wilhelm Windelband - Heinrich Rickert - Otto von Gierke

Ernest Robert Curtius - G. Wilson Knight - Linda Colley - David Cannadine - Norman Cohn - Irving Babbitt - John Neville Figgis - Michael Schudson - J. H. Plumb - Rudolph Goclenius

J. H. Hexter - John Pocock - Phillip Vellacott - Walter Lacquer - John Charvet - Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger - Albert Mathiez - Georg Mehlis - Richard Kroner - Rudolf Haym

H. B. Acton - David Gress - Harold Temperley - Julius Ebbinghaus - Paul de Lagarde - Christoph Cellarius - Richard Baerwald - Ernst Bernheim - Johannes Clauberg - Robert Flint

Friedrich Harms - Rudolf Hildebrand - Rudolf Hirzel - Thomas Hyde - Godefroid Kurth - Robert Adamson - Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg - Johannes Nikolaus Tetens - Johannes Sleidanus - Gottschalk Eduard Guhrauer

51-100
Wilhelm Traugott Krug - Karl Leonhard Reinhold - Siegbert Salomon Prawer - Christopher Ricks - Ernest de Sélincourt - Bernard Bergonzi - Leslie Fiedler - Frank Kermode - Denis Donoghue - M. H. Abrams

Friedrich Gundolf - John Elof Boodin - Frank Lentricchia - William Ritchie Sorley - Theodor Gaster - Maud Bodkin - Francis Fergusson - Arthur Bernard Cook - Marcel Granet - Walter Wilson Greg

Friedrich Brunstäd - Theodore Ziolkowski - Jonathan Bate - Brian Attebery - William Paton Ker - Richard Wolin - Sheldon Wolin - Nevill Coghill - Lisa Jardine - Gustav Shpet

Hans-Robert Jauss - E. D. Hirsch Jr. - Murray Krieger - Carl L. Becker - Cushing Strout - Susanne Langer - Thomas Bottomore - E. O. James - Paul Natorp - Samuel Henry Hooke

R. W. B. Lewis - Walter Jackson Bate - Karl Miller - Jonathan Sumption - Robert Skidelsky - Robert Scholes - Helen Vendler - Zeno Vendler - Eduard Sievers - Levin Ludwig Schücking

101-150
Charles Leslie Wrenn - Walter Horace Bruford - Roger Sherman Loomis - Robert Darnton - Michael Riffaterre - Paul Zumthor - William Newton-Smith - Jay Parini - Francis Glisson - Andrew Seth

Thomas Rice Henn - Herbert John Clifford Grierson - Lionel Charles Knights - F. M. Powicke - Regius Professor of Modern History (Oxford) - Marjorie Grene - E. M. W. Tillyard - Geoffrey Hartman - Frederick S. Boas - J. P. Stern

Emily Vermeule - Simon Critchley - Peter Dews - Gillian Rose - M. C. Bradbrook - David Daiches - Harry Levin - Henry Habberley Price - Wilhelm Worringer - Harald Weinrich

H. W. Garrod - Lancelot Hogben - Barry Buzan - Emilio Betti - Darko Suvin - Alfred Vierkandt - Kenneth G. T. Webster - Lionel Kochan - Hector Munro Chadwick - Lodewijk Caspar Valckenaer

Gustav Bickell - Henry Melvill Gwatkin - Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare - Ian Theodor Beelen - Thomas Joseph Lamy - Gottlieb Nathaniel Bonwetsch - Owen Lattimore - Thomas Middleton Raysor - John Dewar Denniston - Richard Altick

151-200
Susan Stebbing - Louis Massebieau - Thomas Christian Tychsen - Oluf Gerhard Tychsen - Robert Seymour Conway - Michael Richard Daniell Foot - Leopold Cohn (author) - Jan Mukařovský - Emil Baehrens - Rudolf Hercher

F. W. Bateson - Geoffrey Barraclough - Johann Andreas Schmeller - Ernst Windisch - Christoph Meiners - C. H. Dodd - George Augustus Simcox - Fritz Hommel - Daniel Bonifacius von Haneberg - Ferdinand Wüstenfeld

Salomon Munk - John of Jandun - César-Egasse du Boulay - Henry of Langenstein - Nicholas of Clemanges - Carl Bezold - Geoffrey Kirk - James Pounder Whitney - Isidor Hilberg - Péter Szondi

Harold Segel - Charles Raymond Beazley - Enid Starkie - William Abbott Oldfather - Willibald Kirfel - Gustave Glotz - Pierre Macquer - Michel Pêcheux - Albert Lautman - John Cook Wilson

John Saville - Eileen Power - Michael Postan - Antoine-Elisée Cherbuliez - Richard Cobb - Edwin Cannan - Felix Kaufmann - Hezekiah Burton - David Wilkins (orientalist) - Edward Ullendorff

201-250
Joseph Haroutunian - John Plamenatz - James Wycliffe Headlam - Sidney Edward Mezes - W. K. C. Guthrie - Colin Murray Turbayne - Nicolas Bonet - Willard Fiske - Ludwig Edelstein - Walter Ullmann

Rowland Berthoff - Jay Blumler - Elizabeth Grosz - Nicholas Garnham - Basil Bernstein - Richard Poirier - Francis Crawford Burkitt - Francesco Vimercato - Placentinus - Bernard of Botone

Augustin Renaudet - Ernest Barker - Mikhail Grigoryevich Pavlov - Barthélémy Aneau - Guido de Baysio - Guido da Suzzara - Oldradus de Ponte - John of Legnano - Alberico de Rosate - Karl Vossler

Franz Boll - George Stuart Gordon - James Garbett - Valentin Schindler - Richard Laurence - Edward Nares - Philip Wheelwright - Leo Spitzer - Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld - Daniel Sennert

Robert Eisler - S. G. F. Brandon - Eric Santner - Remo Bodei - Julius Ruska - Andrea Argoli - Daniel Chwolson - Paolo da Pergola - Johannes Hoornbeek - Johann Christoph Wagenseil

251-300
Salomon Lefmann - Hermann Usener - Petrus Mosellanus - Felix Liebrecht - Adam de Wodeham - Jakob Thomasius - Casimir Lewy - Wilhelm Meyer (philologist) - Christoph Helvig - Joseph Fontenrose

Erycius Puteanus - David Knowles - Henry Richards Luard - Solomon Marcus Schiller-Szinessy - Henry Malter - Benjamin Bickley Rogers - Robert Lubbock Bensly - Henry Barclay Swete

Cuthbert Hamilton Turner - Karen Leigh King - Richard August Reitzenstein - George Jardine - Marc Angenot - Frederick Field (scholar) - Richard Holdsworth - Ernest Langlois - Willem Jozef Andreas Jonckbloet - Antoine Thomas (linguist)

Alfred Jeanroy - Edmond Faral - Abraham Wheelocke - Eugen Kölbing - Ignazio Guidi - Archibald MacMechan - Hugo Buchtal - Wilhelm Geiger - Aubrey Gwynn - George Kitson Clark

William Herbert Dray - Bernard Berelson - Jack Meiland - Leonard Krieger - Émile Gebhart - Marius Nizolius - Heinrich Gelzer - Gustav Adolf Deissmann - Leonard Linsky - Brian Vickers (academic)

301-
Ivan Mortimer Linforth - Harold James Dyos - Francis Michael Longstreth Thompson - Pierre Goubert - Austin Herbert Woolrych - Peter Mathias - Stephen Gaukroger - Johann Joachim Bellermann - Johannes Jakob Buxtorf - Barbara Kiefer Lewalski

Eugenio Garin - Edward Miller (historian) (split out) - Patrick Collinson - Alexander Ferrier Mitchell - Arthur West Haddan - Frederick John Teggart - Wallace Notestein - E. M. Butler - Keith Middlemas

title: User:Charles Matthews/New - academics


text:
File:John Bull operating in 1981.jpg

Photograph of the John Bull in operation in 1981.

Image from the collection of the Smithsonian Institution. Used here under Fair Use for educational purposes as permitted on Smithsonian: Copyright (retrieved December 17, 2004).

Fair use in John Bull (locomotive)
It is believed that this image qualifies under fair use because:
 * The image depicts an unreproducible historic event that is discussed in the article.
 * Use of a low-resolution copy of the image does not hamper or dilute the copyright holder's use of the original image.
 * No free alternatives are available.

title: File:John Bull operating in 1981.jpg


text:
Lethwei

Lethwei (လက်ဝှေ့; IPA : ) or Burmese boxing is a full contact combat sport from Myanmar that uses stand-up striking including headbutts. Lethwei is considered to be one of the most aggressive and brutal martial arts in the world, as the sport is practiced bareknuckle with only tape and gauze while fighters are allowed to strike with their fists, elbows, knees, and feet, and the use of headbutts is also permitted. Disallowed in most combat sports, headbutts are important weapons in a Lethwei fighter's arsenal, giving Lethwei its name of the "Art of nine limbs". This, combined with its bareknuckle nature, gave Lethwei a reputation for being one of the bloodiest and most violent martial arts. Although popular throughout modern Myanmar, Lethwei has been primarily and historically associated with the Karen people of the Kayin State; vast majority of competitive Lethwei fighters are ethnolinguistically of Karen descent.

History
The traditional martial arts of Myanmar are regrouped under a term called "thaing", which includes bando, banshay, naban, shan gyi and Lethwei. According to researchers, thaing can be traced in its earliest form to the 12th century of the Pagan Kingdom dynasty.

In Bagan, it exists some carvings on temples and pagodas in the central Myanmar plains, which appear to show pairs of men locked in combat, suggesting the sport is over a 1,000 years old.

In ancient times, matches were held for entertainment and were popular with every stratum of society. Participation was opened to any male, whether noble or commoner. At that time, matches took place in sand pits instead of rings. Boxers fought without protective equipment, only wrapping their hands in hemp or gauze. There were no draws; the fight went on until one of the participants was knocked out or could no longer continue. Back then, Burmese boxing champions would enter the ring and call for open challenges.

Lethwei went through many years of suppression during the British colonial rule of Burma. The sport was revived under General Ne Win's nationalistic government. Unlike Muay Thai, in Lethwei, punches are generally favoured over kicks because of their ability to draw blood more easily. Traditional matches include the Flagship Tournament, which are still fought throughout Myanmar, especially during holidays or celebration festivals like Thingyan. In rural areas, having a skilled child fighter has been a way of escaping poverty.

The New Era
In modern times, the sport is kept alive in Lower Burma in Mon State and Karen State where matches are held for events such as New Year's celebrations.

Kyar Ba Nyein, who participated in boxing at the 1952 Summer Olympics, pioneered modern Lethwei by setting in place modern rules and regulations. He travelled around Myanmar, especially the Mon and Karen states, where Lethwei is more actively practiced. After training with some of the fighters, Kyar Ba Nyein brought some to Mandalay and Yangon to compete in matches.

In 1996, the Myanmar Traditional Lethwei Federation (MTLF), a branch of the Myanmar's Ministry of Health and Sports, added the modern Lethwei rules for the occasion of the Golden Belt Championship in Yangon. The bouts, along with the undercard fights, were organized by the Ministry of Sport, Myanmar Traditional Lethwei Federation and KSM group. This marked a big addition to the art of Lethwei and potentially would make Burmese boxing more marketable internationally.

On 18 July 2015, ONE Championship held the first Lethwei fight its history inside a cage at the occasion of ONE Championship: Kingdom of Warriors in Yangon, Myanmar. The fight showcased Burmese fighters Phyan Thway and Soe Htet Oo in a dark match and the result was a draw according to the traditional Lethwei rules.

In 2017, ONE Championship and World Lethwei Championship officially entered into a partnership to share athletes to fight in each other's organization. On June 30, 2017, ONE Championship held a Lethwei match at ONE Championship: Light of a Nation between Thway Thit Win Hlaing and Soe Htet Oo. Thway Thit Win Hlaing would end up winning a decision according to WLC point system.

In 2016, Myanmar's first international Lethwei promotion called World Lethwei Championship (WLC) launched its events using the tournament Lethwei rules.

In 2019, the WLC marked history by broadcasting WLC 7: Mighty Warriors, the first Lethwei event, internationally live on UFC Fight Pass.

Opening to the world
From 7 to 12 July 2001, twelve years after Burma changed its name to Myanmar, the first international event took place in Yangon with professional fighters from the United States facing Burmese fighters under full traditional Lethwei rules. The delegation of three American fighters brought by the IKF were Shannon Ritch, Albert Ramirez and Doug Evans. Ritch faced Ei Htee Kaw, Ramirez faced Saw Thei Myo, and Evans faced openweight Lethwei champion Wan Chai. All three Americans lost to the Burmese. A revenge match with American and European fighters was cancelled the last minute by Lethwei promoters and the military in 2002.

From 10 to 11 July 2004, the second event headlining foreigners took place with four Japanese fighters fighting against Burmese fighters. They were mixed martial arts fighters Akitoshi Tamura, Yoshitaro Niimi, Takeharu Yamamoto and Naruji Wakasugi. Tamura knocked out Aya Bo Sein in the second round and became the first foreigner to beat a Myanmar Lethwei practitioner in an official match. International matches continued with the exciting Cyrus Washington vs. Tun Tun Min trilogy.

In 2016, after having previously fought to an explosive draw, Dave Leduc and Tun Tun Min rematched at the Air KBZ Aung Lan Championship in Yangon, Myanmar. The rematch was sweetened by an added bonus: ownership of the Lethwei Openweight World Championship Belt. Leduc became the first non-Burmese fighter to win the Lethwei Golden Belt and become Lethwei world champion after defeating Tun Tun Min in the third round.

Following his title defence, Leduc said in an interview, "I have so much vision for this sport. I see Lethwei doing the same for Myanmar as what Muay Thai has done for Thailand."

On 18 April 2017, for his second title defense under traditional rules, Dave Leduc faced Turkish Australian challenger Adem Yilmaz at Lethwei in Japan 3: Grit in Tokyo, Japan. This marked the first Lethwei World title fight headlining two non-Burmese in the sport's history and for the occasion, the Ambassador of Myanmar to Japan was present at the event held in the Korakuen Hall.

Sanctioning worldwide
Due to the violent ruleset, Lethwei is difficult to sanction and is illegal in most countries outside of Myanmar. Even though headbutts are allowed in Lethwei, they are banned from most other combat sports including mixed martial arts, kickboxing, and Muay Thai. As of 2022, Myanmar Lethwei is only legal in the following countries: Myanmar, Japan, Singapore, Slovakia, Austria, Thailand, Taiwan, England, United States (only the state of Wyoming), New Zealand and Poland. The World Lethwei Federation has the responsibility to sanction and support the growth of Lethwei worldwide outside of Myanmar.

In popular culture
Lethwei has been featured in variety of popular culture and mass media, including written works, live-action film and television and animation in Myanmar and occasionally abroad. In 2016, the sport gained worldwide attention after Dave Leduc, a Canadian challenger defeated Tun Tun Min, a Burmese Golden Belt champion. The same year, Born Warriors released a series of documentaries shot throughout Myanmar. In 2018, Frank Grillo travelled to Myanmar and featured Lethwei in the Netflix documentary FightWorld. In 2019, Lethwei was featured in The Joe Rogan Experience podcast by Joe Rogan with Leduc as guest. The sport has also been featured in the popular Japanese manga series Kengan Ashura. In the series, the Burmese Lethwei master named Saw Paing, is so indestructible that an opponent shatters every bone in their hand trying to punch him.

Lekkha moun
The lekkha moun is the traditional gesture performed by Lethwei fighters to challenge their opponents with courage and respect. The lekkha moun is done by clapping 3 times with right palm to the triangle shaped hole formed while bending the left arm. The clapping hand must be in form of a cup, while the left hand must be placed under the right armpit. The lekkha moun is done at the beginning of the Lethwei yay and can also be done while fighting.

This invitation to fight is inspired from the birds of prey, like the eagle, as they flap their wings when flying and hunting.

Lethwei yay
The Lethwei yay could be described as a fight dance. It is performed before the fight as a way to showcase the fighter's skills and as a victory dance after the fight. The lekkha moun is usually confused with the lethwei yay, but the lekkha moun is done along with the Lethwei yay.

Before modernisation, especially in colonial times, the pre-fight dance was more commonly referred to as han yay (ဟန်ရေး). Performed in accordance with the tempo of the traditional orchestra (ဆိုင်း), it incorporated a much more elaborate dance and show of skills. Boastful poetry was sometimes recited along with the dance.

Rules

Permitted techniques

 * Headbutts
 * All punches
 * All elbow strikes
 * All knee strikes
 * All kicks
 * Extensive clinching
 * Sweeps, throws and takedowns

The use of the feet, hands, knees, elbows and head is permitted.

Rounds

Each bout can be booked as a 3, 4 or 5 round fight with 3 minutes per round and a 2-minute break in between rounds. Championship bouts are 5 round fights with 3 minutes per round and a 2-minute break between rounds.

Fighting attire

The Burmese bareknuckle boxing rules prohibits the use of gloves.

 * The fighters must only wear tape, gauze and electrical tape on their hands and feet.
 * The fighters shall wear only shorts, without a shirt or shoes.
 * The fighters must wear a groin protector.
 * The fighters must wear a gum shield.

The fighters are required to apply the wrapping in front of the fight officials, who will endorse the wraps.

Referee

One referee oversees the fight. The referee has the power to:
 * End the fight if he considers one fighter to be significantly outclassed by his opponent.
 * Stop the fight and refer to the doctor if a fighter is heavily wounded.
 * Warn the fighters. He makes sure the fight proceeds fairly and in compliance with the rules.

Traditional rules
The traditional rules, also known as yoe yar rules, which comes from the Burmese Myanma yoe yar Latway, which means Myanmar traditional boxing. Traditional matches are still fought throughout Myanmar, especially during festivals or celebrations like Thingyan. Traditional Lethwei is notorious for not having a scoring system and for its controversial rule of knock-out only to win.

At the end of the match, in the eventuality that there is no knockout or stoppage, if the two fighters are still standing, even if one fighter dominated the fight, the match is declared a draw. Fighters can win by incapacitating their rivals in a few different ways.

 * A knock-out (KO) is when a fighter falls to the ground, leans unconscious or if a fighter is unable to stand up or defend themself for 20 seconds (10 counts with 1 count every 2 seconds).
 * When 3 counts are performed in a single round, the fight is terminated and scored as knock-out (count limit) (KO).
 * When 4 counts are performed during the entire duration of the fight, the match is terminated and scored as knock-out (count limit) (KO).
 * A technical knock-out (TKO) is when a fighter forfeits, has an injury or is in a position that can damage or severely harm them if the fight continues. The ring doctor is consulted and makes the decision.

Promotions that use traditional rules
 * Most Lethwei promotions in Myanmar
 * Annual Myanmar Lethwei World Championship
 * Air KBZ Aung Lan Championship
 * International Lethwei Federation Japan
 * Challenge fights
 * Flagship Tournaments
 * Festivals & celebrations

Special time-out

 * If a knockout or injury occurs, the fighter can take a special 2 minute time-out to recover. After the time-out the fighter can choose whether he wishes to continue the bout or not. Each fighter may only do so once during the fight.
 * The time-out cannot be used in the fifth round.
 * The use of the time-out is considered as 1 count.

Golden Belt
Not to be confused with the annual Golden Belt Championship, composed mostly of younger rising talent and using the tournament rules point system, the traditional Lethwei Golden Belt is regarded as the highest and most prestigious award for Lethwei fighters. There is only one Golden Belt champion for each weight categories, with the openweight class champion being considered the strongest fighter in Myanmar. The openweight Golden Belt champion is the equivalent of being pound-for-pound champion in the world of Lethwei.

Win Zin Oo, Lethwei coach and gym owner explains: If you win the golden belt you are the national champion, there is only one champion in each division, but there is also an openweight champion who is considered to be the best fighter in Myanmar.

Tournament rules
In 1996, the Myanmar Traditional Lethwei Federation created the tournament ruleset for the inaugural Golden Belt Championship tournament. The two-minute injury timeout was removed and judges were added ringside to determine a winner in the event there was no knockout. This modified ruleset prevents the outcome of a draw and helped choose a winner to advance in the tournament. Myanmar's first international promotion, the World Lethwei Championship, opted for this ruleset in order to follow international safety regulations and have clear winners.

Judging criteria

The knockout is still highly desired under this ruleset, but in the event that a bout goes the distance, judges will present a decision. The 3 judges should score the bout based on:

 * aggression
 * damage
 * amount of blood drawn
 * number of significant strikes per round

Fighters have a maximum of 3 knockdowns per round and 4 knockdowns in the entire fight before the fight is ruled a knockout.

Techniques
Aside from punches, kicks, elbows and knee attacks, Burmese fighters also make use of head-butts, raking knuckle strikes and take downs.

Elbow (Tel Daung)
The elbow can be used in several ways as a striking weapon: horizontal, diagonal-upwards, diagonal-downwards, uppercut, downward, backward-spinning and flying. They can be used as either a finishing move or as a way to cut the opponent's eyebrow to draw blood.

Elbows can be used to great effect as blocks or defenses against, for example, spring knees, side body knees, body kicks or punches. When well connected, an elbow strike can cause serious damage to the opponent, including cuts or even a knockout.

Foot-thrust
The foot-thrust is one of the techniques in Lethwei. It is used as a defensive technique to control distance or block attacks and as a way to set up attack. Foot-thrusts should be thrown quickly but with enough force to knock an opponent off balance.

Note - The Myanglish spelling and phonetics based spelling are two different things. The words used are phonetics based words which are more friendly and easy to pronounce for non-Myanmar speaking people. The phonetics wording is provided by Liger Paing from United Myanmar Bando Nation.

Notable practitioners

 * Kyar Ba Nyein
 * Pyi Taw Pyan
 * Bala Sein
 * Phyu Gyi
 * Kyaung Thar
 * Moe Kyoe
 * Tway Ma Shaung
 * Dave Leduc
 * Tun Tun Min
 * Too Too
 * Saw Nga Man
 * Lone Chaw
 * Shwe Sai
 * Soe Lin Oo
 * Cyrus Washington
 * Wan Chai
 * Mite Yine
 * Tun Lwin Moe

title: Lethwei


text: File:MG Cars (logo).png

title: File:MG Cars (logo).png


text:
Talk:Hideo Kojima

Phantom family?
Is there any actual source for Kojima having a wife and child past a throwaway line in a tiny article about MGS3 written by a notoriously unserious writer? I can't seem to find anything. PostGhants (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hideo Kojima