text:
User:Humanbot~enwiki/oops

B
31 done r3m0t talk 19:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]
 * 27) [ check]
 * 28) [ check]
 * 29) [ check]
 * 30) [ check]
 * 31) [ check]
 * 32) [ check]
 * 33) [ check]
 * 34) [ check]
 * 35) [ check]
 * 36) [ check]
 * 37) [ check]
 * 38) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]
 * 27) [ check]
 * 28) [ check]
 * 29) [ check]
 * 30) [ check]
 * 31) [ check]
 * 32) [ check]
 * 33) [ check]
 * 34) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]

B
17 done r3m0t talk 19:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

B
14 done r3m0t talk 19:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]
 * 27) [ check]
 * 28) [ check]
 * 29) [ check]
 * 30) [ check]
 * 31) [ check]
 * 32) [ check]
 * 33) [ check]
 * 34) [ check]
 * 35) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]
 * 27) [ check]
 * 28) [ check]
 * 29) [ check]
 * 30) [ check]
 * 31) [ check]
 * 32) [ check]
 * 33) [ check]
 * 34) [ check]
 * 35) [ check]
 * 36) [ check]
 * 37) [ check]
 * 38) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]
 * 27) [ check]
 * 28) [ check]
 * 29) [ check]
 * 30) [ check]
 * 31) [ check]
 * 32) [ check]
 * 33) [ check]
 * 34) [ check]
 * 35) [ check]
 * 36) [ check]
 * 37) [ check]
 * 38) [ check]
 * 39) [ check]
 * 40) [ check]
 * 41) [ check]
 * 42) [ check]
 * 43) [ check]
 * 44) [ check]
 * 45) [ check]
 * 46) [ check]
 * 47) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]
 * 8) [ check]
 * 9) [ check]
 * 10) [ check]
 * 11) [ check]
 * 12) [ check]
 * 13) [ check]
 * 14) [ check]
 * 15) [ check]
 * 16) [ check]
 * 17) [ check]
 * 18) [ check]
 * 19) [ check]
 * 20) [ check]
 * 21) [ check]
 * 22) [ check]
 * 23) [ check]
 * 24) [ check]
 * 25) [ check]
 * 26) [ check]
 * 27) [ check]
 * 28) [ check]
 * 29) [ check]
 * 30) [ check]
 * 31) [ check]
 * 32) [ check]
 * 33) [ check]
 * 34) [ check]
 * 35) [ check]
 * 36) [ check]
 * 37) [ check]
 * 38) [ check]

B

 * 1) [ check]
 * 2) [ check]
 * 3) [ check]
 * 4) [ check]
 * 5) [ check]
 * 6) [ check]
 * 7) [ check]

V
Done. Econrad 23:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W
Done. Econrad 23:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

X-Z
Econrad 18:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Humanbot~enwiki/oops


text:
User:Pippo2001

Hi everybody.

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

title: User:Pippo2001


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Editing limited
1) Pending final resolution of this matter User:Zivinbudas is limited in editing to his user pages and this arbitration. Any other edits which are obviously Zivinbudas (which exhibit immature Lithuanian nationalism) may be removed.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 04:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Lithuanian nationalism
1) edits from an immature Lithuanian nationalist perspective, , , , , , , [

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is the best way to word this, but yeah. Ambi 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:09 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC) What Ambi said
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Anonymous ips
2) When User:Zivinbudas is blocked he uses a wide range of ips to log in. Blocking the range might affect access of Lithuanian users to Wikipedia. Anonymous ips used by Zivinbudas include, , and.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:09 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Outlawed
1) User:Zivinbudas is banned for one year. Any edit by Zivinbudas using an anonymous ip (exhibiting his trademark immature Lithuanian nationalism) may be removed by any user.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:09 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

1) Bans of User:Zivinbudas shall run for one year. At the end of each year they shall expire, but may be imposed for an additional year by any administrator if the usual pattern of immature Lithuanian nationalism persists. An appeal may be considered should the ban be imposed without adequate cause. Any appeal should be made at Requests_for_arbitration.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 13:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 July 1, 2005 04:09 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

General
There is no problem with being proud of your Lithuanian heritage; there is a big problem with acting silly in a public forum. Fred Bauder 15:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

 * This seems a pretty straghtforward one. I think we are all done here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Close ➥the Epopt 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed sannse (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 23:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:69.231.126.78

title: User talk:69.231.126.78


text:
Channel 10

Channel 10 or TV10 may refer to:

Television

 * Canal 10 (Nicaragua), a television channel from Nicaragua
 * Canal 10 (Uruguay), a television channel from Uruguay
 * Channel 10 (Indian TV channel), a television channel from Bengali-language news
 * Channel 10 (Israel), a television channel from licensed in Israel
 * Channel 10 - Tucumán, a free-to-air channel in the province of Tucumán, Argentina
 * Network 10, an Australian commercial television network
 * TEN (TV station), an Australian television station, part of Network 10
 * TV10 (Dutch TV channel), a proposed Dutch commercial television channel in 1989
 * TV10 (Sweden), a television channel in Sweden specializing in sports and documentaries
 * TVES (El Salvador), a Salvadoran public television network
 * TV10 Gold, a former Dutch television that aired between 1995 and 1998, now called Veronica

Other uses

 * Channel 10 (album), a 2009 album by rap duo Capone-N-Noreaga

title: Channel 10


text:
Shelbourne Road

Shelbourne Road is a road in Ballsbridge, in the southeast part of Dublin, Ireland.

History
In John Rocque's map of 1756, today's Shelbourne Road and Upper Grand Canal Street, from which it extends, appear together as Beggars' Bush Road. Wilson's Plan of 1793 shows that Beggars' Bush Road has become known as Artichoke Road. Some sources attribute this change of name to John Villiboise, a French Huguenot, who had obtained a 99-year lease on 1 rood of land from Richard 5th Viscount Fitzwilliam in 1736 and who planted artichokes on the land adjoining his house. This house, located in the vicinity of today's Holles Street, became known as Artichoke House and eventually the road became known as Artichoke Road. In William Duncan's map of 1821, the district known as Beggars' Bush is a rather ill-defined area that seems to coincide more or less with the area of land now occupied by Lansdowne Road's rugby stadium and the houses to its west. Later ordnance survey maps give the precise size and boundaries for Beggars Bush: it is an area of 116 acres, 2 roods and 21 perches bounded on the east by the Dodder from the bridge at Ballsbridge to the bridge at Ringsend; on the north by Ringsend Road from Ringsend bridge to South Lotts Road; on the south-west by South Lotts Road to Beggars Bush Road (Shelbourne Road); from Shelbourne Road to Lansdowne Road; the boundary then runs south-west on Lansdowne Road alongside Trinity College's botanical gardens and turns south on Pembroke Road to join the bridge at Ballsbridge. By 1827 the road was then commonly known by the names of both 'the Artichoke' and 'the Beggars Bush road'. Old street directories show that the name Artichoke Road was still in use in the 1860s, but that the numbering of houses ran in the opposite direction from that currently employed - for example, No. 2 Artichoke Road corresponds to No. 68 Shelbourne Road; No. 3 Artichoke Road corresponds to No. 66 Shelbourne Road, and so on.

The 1876 Ordnance Survey map refers to the road as Shelburne Road, a spelling that conforms to that of one of the titles of William Petty-Fitzmaurice, Marquess of Lansdowne, second Earl of Shelburne (family name Petty-FitzMaurice). Petty-Fitzmaurice, born in Dublin, was Prime Minister from 1782 to 1783. It is unclear how the spelling of today's Shelbourne Road acquired an o; Shelburne Falls in Massachusetts, also named in commemoration of William Petty-Fitzmaurice, has conserved the original spelling.

Location
Shelbourne Road runs south-east from Haddington Road and skirts the site of the former Beggars Bush Barracks. It crosses Lansdowne Road just west of the famous international rugby union and football grounds. From there, it runs southwest to Merrion Road which it meets at the River Dodder bridge.

Early maps seem to indicate that the route of today's Shelbourne Road was determined by the borders of the marshy Dodder estuary which, also fed by the Swan River (now culverted), and subject to tidal flooding, extended almost as far west as the site of the Beggars' Bush Barracks. Although reclamation of the area can be said to have started with the construction of Sir John Rogerson's Quay in 1713, it wasn't until William Vavasour took a 150-year lease at £80 per annum on an area of sixty acres of marshland between Beggars' Bush and Ringsend in 1792 that the area began to take on the appearance we recognise today. According to The Dublin Chronicle, ...This tract, which is every tide inundated by the tide and Dodder, the taker, it is said, intends immediately to reclaim by a complete double embankment of the Dodder, which, thus confined to a determined channel, will then form a handsome canal through it; a circumstance that will not only ornament an unsightly spot, but materially improve the salubrity of the air at Irishtown, Ring-send, &c”.. Although further drainage works were undertaken in the 1830s to facilitate the construction of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway line, oyster and mussel shells frequently unearthed today during building and renovation works in houses along the road continue to provide reminders of the sea's recent presence.

James Joyce
In 1904, James Joyce rented the front upstairs room of No. 60 Shelbourne Road from a family called McKernan for a short period. It was from this house that, on 16 June 1904, he set out for a rendezvous with Nora Barnacle, later to be his wife. He commemorated this date by choosing it as the day on which the action of his novel, Ulysses, takes place. The 16 June is now frequently referred to as 'Bloomsday'.

Farrington, the protagonist of Joyce's short story, Counterparts, alighted from a tram at Shelbourne Road and he steered his great body along in the shadows of the wall of the barracks as he made his way home, possibly to No. 60 Shelbourne Road.

Botanic Gardens
On the site now occupied by the Berkeley Court and Jurys hotels stood Trinity College's Botanic Gardens. In 2005, this seven-acre plot of land was purchased for €379 million, making this corner of Shelbourne Road perhaps the most expensive real estate in Europe. Plans to re-develop it have faltered.

Richard Turner
Richard Turner, best known for the Curvilinear Range in the Irish National Botanic Gardens, built his foundry, Hammersmith Ironworks, in 1834 on a six-acre site at the southern end of Shelbourne Road, immediately adjacent to Trinity College's Botanic Gardens. Many sections of the railings of Trinity College were cast in this foundry.

Turner built houses, known as Turner's Cottages, at the side of his ironworks for his employees. These two-storey buildings, which were opposite today's Ballsbridge Motors, comprised an outer terrace on Shelbourne Road with an arc of terraced houses directly behind that. At the time of the 1901 census, there were 24 buildings. By the time of the 1911 census, two more cottages had, apparently, been added. Collectively, they were nicknamed The Gut, for reasons that are not exactly clear but probably because the inner part of the estate was built in an arc, resembling a human gut. They survived until the early 1970s.

Swastika Laundry
The Swastika Laundry was a laundry founded in 1912, located on Shelbourne Road. They used electric vans, that were painted in red with a black swastika on a white background, to collect and deliver laundry to customers.

The use of Shelbourne Road and Lansdowne Road copies the name street crossings in Kenmare, County Kerry, the origin perhaps being that the Cromwellian army physician Sir William Petty also "moonlighted" as a part-time ordinance surveyor/cartographer.

Shelbourne Football Club
Shelbourne Football Club, founded in 1895, was named as a result of the founders (who included James Rowan and 2 Wall brothers) tossed a coin under the Bath Avenue railway bridge to decide whether the name would be Bath FC or Shelbourne FC. The club originally played at St Marys Field close by, then at Shelbourne Park, and later moved to Ringsend("Pnuemonia Park") still terraced in the middle of a housing estate, followed by a short stay at Harolds Cross. Shelbourne FC now play on the northside of the city at Tolka Park.

title: Shelbourne Road


text:
Talk:Battle of Fornovo

Untitled
I changed "8 miles from Parma" to "some 30km southeast of Parma" because there isn't any Fornovo nearer than that. But I may be wrong in that the former Fornovo may have been integrated into the Parma community since then, so please correct me... dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Southwest
Fornovo (di Taro) is here ℍenry, encyclophile (speak slowly, please)  05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Outcome
I do not see how Fornovo can be regarded as a victory of the League. The French broke through, as they intended to do. Piero Pieri, in his "Il Rinascimento e la crisi militare italiana" acknowledges, as Guicciardini did centuries before him, that the battle should be regarded as a French victory. I suggest "Narrow, strategic French victory" as more accurate. Stammer 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, as the article says, the Venetians admitted to their own Senate that " the result of the battle was uncertain". Stammer 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Strength
I am a bit uncertain about the given Strength in the battle. Particularly those of the League. Even the source quoted per un totale di quasi 26000 uomini, that is, if my Italian is good enough, 26,000 men for the League and not the 10,800 written. And furthermore I agree with the previously mentionned point about the final victory. The French obviously assume they won, but the Italian are unsure about the final result. Bilbo pingouin 14:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The French didn't break the "italian" line and there wasn't an italian retreat; when the venetian infantry started to march against them they asked a truce to rescue and bury the casualties, and in the night they escaped from the battlefield...This isn't a victorius behaviour. The final result isn't an Italian victory, sure, but isn't a French Victory too!--Dedofreg (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Well if it isn't a victory from any of the side it should written such in the article. That was the main point of the discussion here. Bilbo pingouin (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"but isn't a french victory" ? Well as far as I know, the principal objective of the Venetian League was to stop the french retreat of the italian peninsula and they failed. They failed at this battle where they were not able to stop the french retreat, so how do you call that ? Tactically and stratigically, I call it a defeat for the League of Venice and a victory for France. Plus was it not at this battle that the Italian nicknamed the French warfare ability "furia francese" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.152.140 (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be better for someone to read the Italian sources too, not only the French ones. Gonzaga didn't win the battle but also Charles didn't. The Ligue's army didn't crush the outnumebered French army, but Charles escaped in the night and his army was virtually destroyed. After the battle the French retreated for more than 200 kms from Fornovo to Asti, in less than a week; for a Reinassance army 200 kms in less than a week it means that you are running and very fast! Charles avoided the big enemy towns of Parma and Piacenza, full of food and money but with walls and militias and guns, and passed the Po near Castel San Giovanni a little town, and he was so in hurry that he didn't assault the fortifyed borough, like he did at Pontremoli, a small town too, just before the battle. Pontremoli was burned. Pontremoli inhabitants, after Fornovo, slaughtered the french soldiers of the rearguard: <>. An amazing thing, the victorious king, in front of Castel San Giovanni, begged for bread from the citizens for his hungry men. << Artillery protected the first line from the front and the second toward the Taro>>; it was a rainy day, so the French artillery was out of order, and the French didn't use the guns!ah, by the way, this is another legend, Italian armies, in the Reinassance, also had artillery and was able to use the guns, expecially in the sieges! <>: the expression come from the fact that French soldiers, usually, killed the surrendering knights. The Italian way to fight in the Reinassance, had rules: the first one was that the knight who surrendered was safe for ransom. In fact at Fornovo the Italians taken more prisoners than French, but after the battle the Italians, quite angry for the "furia francese", killed all the French woundeds still in the ground. By the way the woundeds, mainly infantrymen, was forgotten back by the "victorious" escaping monarch. << Furia francese>> is not an expression of fear or admiration but of disgust and contempt! It wasn't referred to < >, and it wasn't created at Fornovo, where the French army had begged for truce and then escaped (strange kind, this, of < >!). The king lost all the treasure, all the carriages, two royal flags, and his library... and escaped from the battlefield in the night during a truce. He didn't return to France, there was the "defeated" army still in the ground, between him and home, and so he run to Asti (that actually was French but isn't in France!). When he arrived in the town, he closed the doors and waited for the Ligue of Venice Army, but this army started to siege Novara, where there was a dangerous French garrison. The French commander (the Duke of Orleans) in Novara claimed for help from the king, but Charles didn't move from Asti and so the Orleans surrendered. You should remember Charles had lost all the money, because the "defeated" army, in Fornovo, had stormed his carriages, so the poor, victorious, king couldn't pay his mercenary troops. No money no swiss. Only in October, after a truce with Lodovico il Moro, he was able to return in France. After the Fornovo "victory", in a few months all the French garrisons in Italy, North and South, surrendered or was destroyed. (You can read better: DAVID NICOLLE, Fornovo 1495, the France's Bloody Fighting Retreat, Osprey Campaign, 1996,ISBN 1855325225, the book is in the references of the article too! or see: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/fornovo.htm, where the battle is depicted by an eye witness, a venetian military surgeon). Does someone think the Battle of Berezina was a Napoleon's victory? --Dedofreg (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that not what is written here in this article, an italian source? Make a search on internet of some sentences of the Battle section and Dedofreg would see that this section is only a copy and paste of another internet page presenting the lonely point of view of the venetian surgeon, Alessandro Beneditti. Well, this is just the link Dedofreg gave... I didn't know that copy and paste was the current rule of wikipedia... But I'm sure voluble Dedofreg could enlight me on this point. Maybe it would be better for someone to read italian sources but Dedofreg should read french sources. By the way, I agree on one point with Dedofreg, according to italian sources nobody won. 90.9.158.226 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the French sources, obviously. They wrote, for example, that French army had only 400 casualties, and the italians 3300 (Dupuy, an amazing and quite unrealistic reconstruction); and never described the aftermath of the battle (the escape!). I think the aftermath is important as the battle itself. Beneditti's work, actually, isn't cited in the footnotes of the articles - as you can see -. I think because it was used only to depicted the battle, but not the result! This is intersting: the best source of the battle, a "lonely" eyewitness, isn't used for establishing the battle result! So reading all Beneditti, not only a part, reading Nicole - who used Beneditti -, please can you answer me? Did the French win? Why? Did the Italians win? Why? By the way, I think nobody won the battle, what do you think and why (using sources, please, French too)? we have got almost one result, nobody talks about Furia Francese. One last thing, do you think we shouldn't use Beneditti as a source? Why? --Dedofreg (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this was not obvious you read French sources. You should have a eye on the work of Commynes, who collected some French eyewitnesses version of the battle. And this is true that reading Beneditti then Commynes, this is hard to believe they are talking about the same battle. "Beneditti's work, actually, isn't cited in the footnotes of the articles - as you can see -." Yes, i saw it with a big surprise bacause i saw the Battle section is a copy and paste of another internet page talking solely of Beneditti's work and this is the link you gave earlier. How somebody describe a battle can obviously angle somebody else of the result he would like. And i say that concerning Beneditti and Commynes. What I wanted to say is whatever this version is from a direct eyewitness or this one is from somebody who talked with eyewitnesses, nobody is impartial, even us. And this is why this is necessary to use sources comming from the both sides not only from one. You should have a look to some other battles' articles on Wikipedia, some great things were done by using sources of the both sides. I recommand the article of Waterloo, which is today outstanding. In opposite of my fellow-citizen who let a message the 11th of november, my point is the both won their battle. Italian by putting off the French of the Peninsula and the French by sucessfully escaping of the Peninsula. So basically I agree with you for the result, but not for the sources' method and the article's method of writting. 86.206.58.12 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, i'm surprised you talk of Dupuy as a french source, when he was an american soldier and military historian!!! You should look at his wikipedia page. 86.206.58.180 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would not be meaningless to take a look at other Wikipedia pages about the battle or the Italian Wars at large. The Spanish Wikipedia article, at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Fornovo gives the outcome as "Victoria de la Liga Veneciana", ie victory of the Venitian League. In the article "Guerras italianas", however, there is this sentence: "La Batalla de Fornovo (6 de julio de 1495) concluyó sin un vencedor militar claro, pero tras ella Carlos VIII tuvo que evacuar sus tropas del norte de Italia." That is: no clear victor, but Charles VIII had to evacuate northern Italy.

The French version stops just short of admitting French defeat, by writing "L'armée vénitienne ne parvient pas à arrêter la retraite française vers Asti". The French historians' version of the battle is especially biased, and the Wikipedia article does not source any single sentence it includes.

The Polish Wiki article indicates "taktyczne zwycięstwo francuskie; strategiczne zwycięstwo włoskie", that is, a tactical French victory and a strategic Italian victory - while the Italian article speaks about a strategic French victory and a tactical Italian one, which seems to be closer to the truth. The article in Russian agrees with the Polish, indicating a Тактическая победа Франции - Стратегическая победа итальянцев; the one in Turkish speaks of a Fransız stratejik zaferi - Venedik taktik zaferi, ie it sides with the Italian article. The Dutch article says "Het gevolg van de slag was dat de Fransen tijdelijk uit Italië verdreven werden." -- Translation: "The consequence of the battle was that the French were temporarily expulsed from Italy", which would be a peculiar consequence indeed of a victory. To borrow from Mark Aurelius's speech in Shakespeare's play, victory should be made of sterner stuff.

The German Wikipedia also states (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italienische_Kriege): "Karl wollte sich nicht in Neapel abschneiden lassen und zog mit seinem Heer in die Lombardei, wo es am 6. Juli 1495 etwa 30 km südöstlich von Parma zur Schlacht bei Fornovo kam. Seine Verluste waren so schwer, dass er die Beute seines Italienzuges zurückließ und nach Frankreich zurückkehrte. Durch die hohe Schuldenlast war ihm eine Weiterführung des Krieges nicht möglich, er starb 27-jährig am 7. April 1498 an einem Unfall auf Schloss Amboise."

The bold part says: "His losses were so heavy that he left behind the booty of his Italian campaign and went back to France". A bizarre victory.

The Spanish article about the Italian Wars quotes a Website (http://web.archive.org/web/20110730071410/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/fornovo.htm) where one can read an account of the battle by a Venitian official; the final paragraph is:

"60. Meanwhile the Frenchman (ie the King of France) called his leaders into conference and said, "Behold, nobles, after great slaughter and much bloodshed in this very cruel battle we have at length left the enemy behind us, yet we have been very unfortunate, for we have lost most of our baggage. Yet it was sufficient to have escaped so great peril with a small band. It would indeed have been the height of felicity if all had turned out well, but we must endure it if fortune has heaped on this one day all the evils of a whole year, a fortune which had been predicted to us as black, so that now, driven by hunger amid great danger, with glory and a kingdom and a triumph lost, with soldiers left behind in Puglia and Calabria, I must return home with a few forces. But in this one fact I rejoice, that our men fought with the utmost courage and true military discipline, and only a few of our nobles, and of the other soldiers not many, are missing, and even fewer are wounded. There is indeed nothing lasting under the heavens, and we must yield sometimes to fortune. The war with King Alfonso and his son we fought without bloodshed. But the Venetians have changed everything for us. This kingdom was not acquired for me, but for all of you; I enjoy a very extensive kingdom in a long succession. It remains to establish the whole army in safety with the greatest possible speed. But you, Trivulzio, proclaimed that the commander of the camp was a young man, or a boy, without military training. An evil boy he seemed to me on that day, but if the fight had taken place in the open he would have been far worse."

Again these are not exactly the words of a victor.

But— Francesco Guicciardini (http://www.filosofico.net/guicci1ardinistoriadital1iaia1.htm, accessed 20th March 2014) also describes the battle of Fornovo. Guicciardini is a historian and political thinker whose reputation is not second to Machiavelli's. He testifies about both parties trying to adjudicate themselves the victory at Fornovo, but he also writes "E nondimeno, il consentimento universale aggiudicò la palma a' franzesi: per il numero de' morti tanto differente, e perché scacciorono gl'inimici di là dal fiume, e perché restò loro libero il passare innanzi, che era la contenzione per la quale proceduto si era al combattere." Meaning the eventual consensus was for a French victory, because the French repelled their enemies across the river, and succeeded in moving forward, which was their reason for fighting in the first place. Guicciardini, however, does not speak of an unconditional French victory, citing the following reasons: the French losing their carriages and even part of the King's arms, and their fleeing the battlefield.

I think we all might settle for the same formula as so many international Wiki articles (Italian tactical victory, French strategic victory), and possibly a reference to Guicciardini. Pan Brerus (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Perhaps it would not be meaningless to take a look at other Wikipedia pages about the battle or the Italian Wars at large." Something quite astonishing is the difference of casualties between all the articles. There is only the Italian's one claiming that the French army did suffer more casualties at Fornovo. I love the quotation of the King of France coming from a Venitian official. Yes this is not the speech of a victor, but knowing that comes from a Venitian official, so his ennemy in this case, one should be cautious to use it and even question his objectivity. "my point is the both won their battle. Italian by putting off the French of the Peninsula and the French by sucessfully escaping of the Peninsula." That's the consensus to achieve here. 90.42.47.183 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
This article was listed at Copyright problems/2009 January 29 because the "Battle" section utilized text taken directly from an English translation of Alessandro Beneditti's diary and also utilized text directly from. Although Beneditti's account is public domain due to age, the English translation utilized was produced in 1967. Translation is a derivative work and bears its own copyright. Since the original text is public domain, that copyright belongs to the translator. A new translation may be provided to the original text, but we cannot utilize direct language of a copyrighted translation without following the provisions of our non-free content guidelines or obtaining permission from the copyright holder to release it under GFDL. The section has been revised to remove duplication of language and also set off to indicate single source, which obviously may not neutrally present facts of the battle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo
I reinstated a paragraph that Dougweller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Twelve_Visions_Party) had reverted. He gave the following reason for erasing it: "(Google translation of Guicciardini doesn't seem to say that, so please explain on talk page, quoting Benedetti would be fine but I don't seem him as an RS for a statement of act like this)".

I'm a professional translator, my native language is Italian, and while my English prose is not necessarily flawless, I believe I was accurate in translating Guicciardini's text (cited in the Talk in Italian). Guicciardini does say that the consensus was for a French victory. Machine translation is not a reliable source, as one may infer from the following Bing translation of the copy: "Nevertheless, the universal consent won the palma to ' French cannot: for the number of dead much different, and why scacciorono gl ' hostile across the River, and because it was their free over first, which was the restraint for which proceeded had to fight."

I can't make head or tail of that translation, but I see it doesn't translate the Italian word "palma", meaning "palm tree" or "branch from a palm tree". "Dare la palma", in Italian, means "to adjudicate victory"; it's a well-known idiom.

On the other hand Barzini Jr (also cited in the paragraph as a source) says contemporary conventions would have assigned victory to the Italians (the Holy League) because the French left the battlefield and lost their provisions. Beneditti's being a RS or not is not very important and I shall not discuss it here; for the other two sources abundantly confirm the imbalance. In fact, no source denies the Italians suffered much heavier casualties than the French. HTH. Pan Brerus (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Outcome
How can it be a French victory if they retreated? Dunkerque battle was,by chance, a victory? They lost many soldiers,and lots were taken as prisoners! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.196.196 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Easy to understand, first of all the French were retreating from Naples and Fornovo took place between Naples and France, at that place the Italian wanted to prevent the French army to go back to France, they failed to do so. More than that in the process the Italian even lost more soldiers than the French, so once back at home the French army continued to be a threatening fighting force keen to invade the Italian peninsula again as they did later. 2A01:CB15:806A:1E00:71CA:CFA5:93F9:6971 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Victory
I am cancelling all about the French "victory",how can someone be victorius while losing all possesing and retreating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.226.30 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I have reverted your edits, namely the changing of referenced figures, deletion of references,, and changing sourced information from French victory to Italian victory.
 * These edits of yours constitute disruptive editing. Continued disruptive editing can lead to a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Block me,ban me,I don't care,this page is biased:it don't take in account the french prisoners took by Italian,consider it a French victory when French retired all based on what? You take in account only what you want,then it's my duty to change it for the better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.226.30 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I would remind you that Wikipedia is written using reliable published sources, not your opinion.

 * "You take in account only what you want.."
 * No. The article reflects what reliable sources state concerning the battle, not my opinion or your opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Tactical and strategic
I think that the potted outcomes of the battle (in the infobox) are at present both confusing and incorrect. The French won a tactical victory, they managed to proceed in their march and leave Italy. The Italians won a strategic victory, the French left Italy with a somewhat dented reputation, which before Fornovo was very high due to their previous success. The French army suffered a considerable loss in manpower (proportionally similar to the Italian loss as their army was smaller) but especially they lost all their plunder. Charles was unable to intervene in Italy in the years before his death; had he been able to leave Italy with his martial renown intact, and with all his army's plunder, he would have certainly been able to return to Italy the next year. In short, tactical = small scale (in this case the French could continue their march), strategic = large scale (in this case the French left Italy and, more importantly, were unable to return for a number of years). Urselius (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 * As long as there are reliable source(s) supporting what you have stated, I see no problem. Without sources, however, this is just OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a French victory. I know you English like to think Dunkirk was a great victory but that's your distorted view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.71.189 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I noticed you bring zero sources to support your "distorted view". The Patron's Payoff: Conspicuous Commissions in Italian Renaissance Art, by Jonathan K. Nelson, Richard J. Zeckhauser, page 169. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020
Albanian mercenaries must changed to Albanian and Greek mercenaries, in order to be more accurate. 139.91.183.59 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source for this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Will consider his source? I brought mine Mallet pg 77 quote (about why,by the rules of 1400 Italians were considered victorious) Pezzana A. Storia di Parma V 332 (Emperor Massimiliano considered Fornovo a French defeat) but you ignored them

Result of battle

 * per Dupuy page 438, "played an important part of the significant French victory of Fornovo", page 462, "Total French losses were 200 killed and possibly an equal number wounded".
 * per Mallett page 31, " Guicciardini’s verdict  was  that 'general  consent awarded the palm to the French'."
 * per Setton page 494-495, "The French might have converted the Italian defeat into a disaster if they had pursued them across the river. But they were tired and the way to Asti lay open. Although neither side had succeeded in destroying the other, the French had won." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 * per Modern France: A Companion to French Studies, Arthur Augustus Tilley, page 195,"From Fornovo ( 1495 ) to Rocroy ( 1643 ) victory was won by the cavalry charging the enemy's flank or counter - attacking him in front.''"
 * per The Patron's Payoff: Conspicuous Commissions in Italian Renaissance Art,Jonathan K. Nelson, Richard J. Zeckhauser, page 169,"Most sources, both the rewriting of Italian and  French, state clearly that the French won at Fornovo, a triumph celebrated in a rare engraving of the battle made shortly after the event by an anonymous French artist. The conclusion of French victory is based on two factors: the Italians did not stop the northward march of the French, and the French sustained far fewer losses." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 * per The French Monarchy (1483-1789), Arthur James Grant, page 25, "The victory of Fornovo gave them little else than a safe return into France.
 * per The Memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, Volume 2, Philippe de Commynes, Sam Kinser, page 367, "The French army wins an ambiguous victory over the army of the Holy League at the battle of Fornovo. Badly outnumbered, the French hasten their retreat toward France." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

hosts that were ahead of us withdrew to their camp and we to the other side. We we went to place the housings a quarter of a league from where the battle .... everyone seemed to have escaped it beautifully and we were no longer so full of pride when we saw our enemies near ... that night the Alemannic mounted the guard and the king gave them three hundred scudi, they kept good guard and played loud i their drums… Commyes memoires pg. 23 D’Italia,1981, p. 28 wrote that the French king was not the winner and always Ghiraldini mention that the king wrote after the battle to have resisted to the Italian army e avec l’aide de dieu et de notre dame. Furthermore I cited Pezzana A. Storia di Parma p 332, at that time the army who stood on the field at the end of the battle was considered victorious
 * Commynes write in his memories after the battle: “… night fell and those
 * The king left leaving death and injuried on the battlefield, Massa E., La battaglia di Fornovo, 6 luglio 1495,
 * Again historians like Gucciardini,Leani Malipiero, David Nicolle, the latter in his Fornovo 1495: France's bloody fighting retreat" 15 settembre 1996 agreed French casualties at 1000 death and 200 injured
 * Mallet himself in his "Military organization of Venice in '400" at p 77 said that destroying the opponent army was not an target for Italians who aimed to chase French out and Ghiraldini in  Fornovo 1495 una battaglia da ricordare o da dimenticare, Parma, ed. stor.
 * French fleet was captured at Rapallo, so all the claims of French comfortably retiring are biased and not based on History facts

In the light of these FACTS Fornovo cannot be considered only a french victory, so either incocnlusive or the Tactical French victory/Startegic Italian victory it's the right result

 * I see no need to respond to an IP that continues to issue personal attacks and lies about the Dupuy source.

 * per Dupuy page 438, "played an important part of the significant French victory of Fornovo", per Dupuy page 462, "Total French losses were 200 killed and possibly an equal number wounded". Done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the Mallett source;

 * "Fornovo was clearly a French victory in the  sense that  Charles achieved his aim of breaking through into Lombardy." -- M.E. Mallett and J.R. Hale, The Military Organisation of a Renaissance State Venice c. 1400 to 1617, page 56. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's typical of bullies to abuse one position:
 * -Again, Mallet, p. 77 admit that in the mentality of the time the destruction of the French army wouldn't have been a target
 * -Again, Nicholle, Gucciardini,Leani Malipiero calculate 1000 death among French's army and 200 prisoners
 * In the light of these FACTS Fornovo cannot be considered only a french victory, so either incocnlusive or the Tactical French victory/Startegic Italian victory it's the right result 79.31.229.208 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * -And again, Gucciardini doesn't consider French king victorious seeing hoiw he ran in the night leaving injured and the booty of the campaign, plus Pezzana A. Storia di Parma p 332, mention that, by mentality of the time, the army who stood on the battlefield at the end was considered victorious 79.31.229.208 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Casualties
The casualties presented in the box don't seem to be accurate. The french certainly did not lose only 200 men. According to Massimo Predonzani and Vincenzo Alberici, the French lost between 1,000 and 1,500 men

 * I have found nothing that indicates this is a reliable source. Neither author is an historian(one is a model builder!), so I see no reason to add this to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course you didn't, you will never accept a source not of your likening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.200.77 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of referenced information, original research
User:Jannizzero1 has decided to removed referenced information(quotes), add unreliable, outdated sources(Sarah Bradford, Bernardo Corio).

 * Deletion of:

 * "The French army of 10,000-11,000 men came down the valley of the Taro towards Parma. Gonzaga had about 20,000 troops..." -- referenced quote by Mallett and Shaw.
 * "Casualties:100 killed" -- referenced by Nolan
 * "Casualties:200 wounded" -- referenced by Dupuy and Tucker
 * "''Of the 100 French and 3,500 Italian dead" --cited by Nolan

 * Original research:

 * "casualties1  = *1,000 killed, 1,000 captured"  --not cited by Dupuy, p438, Tucker, or Dupuy, p462.
 * "casualties2      = *2,000-3,500 killed and wounded"  -- not cited by Tucker, or Nolan, or Dupuy, p462.
 * "South of Milan, the path of his army of some 10,000 to 12,000 French and Swiss was blocked by Venetian and Mantuan troops under Gonzaga, whose strength is estimated between 14,000 and 20,000." -- not cited by Nolan

 * Non-consensus change to the Lead(ie. no discussion or consensus).
 * Storia di Milano is a primary source and should not be used since secondary sources do not support its view, per WP:PRIMARY.
 * Sarah Bradford is not an historian, simply a writer.

 * The Dupuy source, touted by previous IPs, does not state 1,000 French killed and 1,000 French wounded.

 * Per Dupuy, page 462, "1495, July 6. Battle of Fornovo. Gonzaga, who had approximately 4,000 men-at-arms, 2,500 light cavalry, and 15,000 infantry (mostly crossbowmen) and some artillery, blocked the northern side of the Pass of Pontremoli, where there was adequate room for his condottiere cavalry to maneuver. The French army consisted of approximately 950 French and 100 Italian lances, plus 200 archers of the Royal Guard(4,200), with 4,300 French and 3,000 Swiss infantry, plus the highly efficient field artillery corps. The French, realizing that the Italians would attempt to interfere with their passage, marched through the pass prepared for battles."
 * "When the Italians attempted a flank attack in the defile, they were hampered by the river Taro's steep banks and its high waters, swollen by a heavy thunderstorm the day before, which had also muddied the ground. The alert French unlimbered their artillery and counterattacked vigorously. The Italians, used to a highly formalized and relatively apathetic form of combat (see p.466), were dismayed by the violence of the French onslaught and were quickly routed. Total French losses were 200 killed and possibly an equal number wounded. The Italians lost 3,350 men killed, most of their wounded being cut down by the vigorously attacking French. Charles marched on into northern Italy and back to France."
 * No mention of 1,000 killed French or 1,000 wounded French. Thus, original research. So instead of discussion, Jannizzero1 had decided to to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Nolan source pages 303-304 states;

 * "Early in the Italian Wars (1494–1559), Charles VIII was forced to retreat from Naples. South of Milan the path of hisarmy of just 10,000 French and Swiss was blocked by 20,000 Venetians and Mantuans led by the condottieri captain Giovanni Gonzaga. Instead of the usual feckless and nearly bloodless affair then common in Italian condottieri warfare, the French opened with an artillery bombardment, intending to kill as many of their enemy as possible. Then they charged with heavy cavalry, destroying and scattering the disordered Italian ranks in just minutes. The fight was perhaps most memorable for the ineffectiveness of artillery on either side, other than the psychological effect achieved by the French guns: of the 100 French and 3,500 Italian dead, one eyewitness estimated that fewer than 10 men were killed by cannon fire." --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 * As expected, you game the rules, carry out personal attacks, make up false and unreferenced claims about who is a historian and who is not and what is a primary source and what is not, and delete sources that contradict you wild claims at your own whim. All sources with the exception of the one that you cherry-picked, some of which I have referenced, estimate no less than 1,000 French casualties and mention the battle as lasting far more than a few minutes of your charge, with Charles quietly slipping away on the night following the truce. As I said, there is no point in discussing with a disruptive editor like you. --Jannizzero1 (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC) globally-locked sock --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Tidy up
CE, rv dupe wikilinks, auto ed, citations scan and alphasort. I gather there are differences of opinion between editors over the meaning of the battle. According to what I read in the article, there is confusion between the tactical, strategic, economic and diplomatic consequences. I see no point in editors trying to adjudicate on this, it is OR. I suggest that editors try to reach consensus, limit conclusions of the OR to the aftermath and leave it to the reader to decide. Template:Infobox military conflict has,

 * "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

Trying to defeat a retreating French army and failing obviously makes the battle a French victory but at the end of a campaign which was a strategic French failure. This is too complicated for result, the subtlety of this distinction ought to be kept to the Aftermath section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

result
Hi everyone I want to point out that in the Italian version of the battle, the result was the Italian victory, I would like to ask that the voice in the information could be a little more faithful to the Italian one, because to say that it was an entirely French victory, and a big mistake, which makes me suspect that a Frenchman rewrote it. E questo da italiano mi irrita moltissimo, per cortesia rimediare subito--2.36.103.189 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My dear friend, you will obtain nothing by asking nicely to a manipulative, disruptive individual as the kansas bear. You will also obtain nothing by using normal discussion procedures, as this individual is extremely well versed in WP:Gaming the system. The only thing you can do if you want to help is to get an autoconfirmed account and then intervene here yourself. --Jannizzero1 (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC) globally-locked sock --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguing here is what the talk page is for but putting edits in the article that can be predicted to be disputable undermines your point of view. It doesn't matter how biased the sources are if you lay out the differences in the descriptive parts of the article using caveats in the text [mainstream consensus if there is one (exception: Smith wrote...blah).] and Notes for more discursive points. I suggest that everyone keep explanation for the aftermath where it belongs, rather than foreshadowing or putting conclusions into the Background, Prelude and Battle sections. Have a look at the Analysis section of First day on the Somme, it was easy, a chronological list of conclusions from RS that laid out the differences; no-one's seriously disputed it. Instead of calling Kansas Bear names, let his edits speak for themselves. If other editors doubt his sincerity or his sources, they can write it here. By taking such obivious sides, you risk being ostracised by other editors of the article and edit blocked by the admins. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox is full of citations, which ought to be in a casualties section, below the Analysis section, in the Aftermath. Where sources differ, ranges of numbers should be given in the infobox, along with a RS on how precision in the mediaeal and early renaissaince periods is rarely achieveable in the casualties section. The citation style is sfn so anyone can look at the references. Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
Why was the whole article rewritten in the first place? Especially when the new article contradicts itself and is (strangely) largely inspired by the Italian page of the battle, which can't even get the casualties right according to the source they use (and which pretends that the battle was an Italian victory). I mean, the new article is literally a translation word for word of the Italian page. This is vandalism. Trying to revert to the original article is not. I'm not even talking of all the "citation needed" or the way it's sourced. You don't put five sources at the end of a paragraph. It's ridiculous. Even the analysis, which is the only good part of the article, totally contradicts the battle section. Do you realize that according to the latter, the Italians won the battle since the French supposedly withdrew to a hill (which never happened) and that the Italians could have pursued them (which also never happened)? And that in the analysis, it is written that the French cavalry scattered the Italian ranks (which is what happened), winning a definite victory? The article is a nonsense written by an Italian guy using dubious sources, putting aside all the accepted sources that tell a completely different account of the battle. And not only you're letting it been done but you're encouraging it, calling the act of reverting to the true article vandalism? LaHire07 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you aren't a sock of Jannizzero1 but your prose in the edit note is a good approximation of that former editor, hence me reverting your revert under a mistaken impression of who did it. The article is a bit of a battleground and a mess. I don't claim any knowledge of the battle but I do know something about sloppy prose, repetition, confusing description and explanation and how to parse a sentence. I was asked to have a look by someone and did so in good faith, even as I began to doubt that editor's intentions and methods. Since intervening, I've fallen foul of two other editors who exhibit some of the traits of Jannizzero1 so I will bow out. Best of luck with the article. Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot, putting citations in the middle of sentences is a bad idea, it disrupts the flow. If you are using sfns and don't like more than one at the end of the sentence or paragraph, you can consolidate citations by using the sfnm formula. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All I'm trying to do is going back to the original article of a couple days ago before Jannizzero decided to mess it up. Sorry if I was too vehement in the edit note, I just don't like if when some people hijack a wikipedia page like that, especially when the original page didn't need at all to be modified in such a way. Regarding citations, in my opinion, it's not very appropriate for the reader to give him a large paragraph with a bunch of citations at the end, basically saying "here are the sources, now just figure out by yourself who said what". If you want to improve the form of the article, could you do it on the original one? Thanks a lot for the answer. LaHire07 (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the wikimilhist rule of thumb is that a minium of one citation per paragraph is necessary, unless several sources are described in it. Where there are lots of disputes it might help to cite each sentence but this is unusual (not here I fear). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

LOL, maybe because the sources should be considered by their entirety instead that fragmenting them into pieces? Many sources don't consider it a French victory, in fact only French and English think that, ignoring sources as Nicholle. Do you realize French DID, by all sources, retreat on the hill? That they could have continue the battle as well but instead fled with the night? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.206.114 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Fornovo


text:
Stanley Reservoir

Stanley Reservoir (formed behind Mettur Dam) located in Salem District of Tamil Nadu is one of largest fishing reservoirs in South India. It was completed in 1934 and was named after Lieutenant Colonel Sir George Frederick Stanley GCSI GCIE CMG, who served as the Governor of Madras from 1929 to 1934. Its main source of water is the River Kaveri (Cauvery). Three minor tributaries – Palar, Chennar and Thoppar – enter the Kaveri on its course above Stanley Reservoir. The water is retained by the Mettur Dam, Tamil Nadu.

The Stanley Reservoir is one of the largest of its kind in India with a total capacity of (93.47 Tmcft).(2,146,071 acre ft). The creation of the reservoir caused the submersion of two villages, all of whose inhabitants were relocated to Mettur.

The total length of the dam is 1700 meters. The Mettur Hydro Electric power project is also quite large. The dam, the park, the major hydroelectric power stations and hills on all sides make Mettur a tourist attraction.

title: Stanley Reservoir


text: User talk:82.94.69.210

title: User talk:82.94.69.210


text:
User talk:Muska

Hi. God Save The Queen is a national anthem of New Zealand. Please see New Zealand's National Anthems. Also with Māori being an official language of New Zealand, we include Aotearoa in the country infobox. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sugababes
I've removed your additions from Sugababes as they are unsupported message board posts, and a direct copy and paste of them. --Djbrianuk 3 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Sugababes1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sugababes1.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Secretlondon 17:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Berightback.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Berightback.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex  20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Muska


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie York

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Willie York
Non-notable homeless person. — Xezbeth 10:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete — colorful but not notable. — RJH 16:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I know wikipedia is not paper, but I really don't see any merit in an article about homeless people, unless they've done something noteworthy. I'd speedy it as extremely short, but since it's on VFD. A simple Delete will do. Mgm|(talk) 20:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User:Teneyesone

ten(十) + eyes(目) + one(一) => U-76F4 直

title: User:Teneyesone


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherry Sylvester

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 00:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sherry Sylvester
Not Notable. Only 594 Google Hits. See Texas Media Watch for background discussion. Xoloz 10:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to call this one. She appears to be somewhat locally notable in Texas, and has an extensive background in the news trade. Is there a criteria for reporters that is comparable to professors? Pass — RJH 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks notable enough, and just because someone doesn't win the Google lottery doesn't mean they aren't notable. Might be worth checking to make sure this isn't the CNN correspondent of the same name. If it's a different person (which I assume to be the case) suggest doing some sort of DAB with the article title. 23skidoo 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO - permits print & screen personalities w/ more than 5,000 circulations. San Antonio Express News exceeded this by far. Rangerdude 08:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Anqing

Anqing (, also Nganking, formerly Hwaining, now the name of Huaining County) is a prefecture-level city in the southwest of Anhui province, People's Republic of China. Its population was 4,165,284 as of the 2020 census, with 804,493 living in the built-up (or metro) area made up of three urban districts. Anqing is famous as the birthplace of Chen Duxiu, one of the founding fathers of the Chinese Communist Party, who served as the first General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party from 1921 to 1928. Huangmei opera, a renowned Chinese opera style, originated in the city of Anqing. This captivating art form gained immense popularity since the 1950s, largely attributed to the exceptional talents of local actors and actresses from Anqing. Huangmei opera is a significant cultural treasure that defines the rich heritage of the city of Anqing.

History
Anqing was built during the Southern Song dynasty in 1217. Anqing was held by the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom for almost nine years, from June 1853 to December 1861. It served as the capital of the Taiping's Anhui province during this period. The final Battle of Anqing, in which the Qing forces laid siege to the city, began in 1860, and the Xiang Army and other Qing forces were able to retake Anqing by December 1861. The constant battles around Anqing devastated the city, and it took long to fully recover. In 1938, the Japanese occupied Anqing, which again caused major damage to the city. Following the Japanese defeat, the capital of Anhui was moved to Hefei, which eventually lead to Anqing's gradual loss of status as one of the "Five Tigers of the Yangtze".

Culture
The people of Anqing have a unique dialect that mixed with the Gan Chinese, Wu Chinese and Lower Yangtze Mandarin. It is therefore quite different from the rest of the province, which is predominantly Huizhou-speaking. Huangmei Opera performed in the local dialect of Anqing.

The early presence of actors from Anqing in the world of Peking opera (Beijing Opera) has significantly impacted the development of this renowned Chinese theatrical art form. This influence is evident in various aspects, including language accents and cultural nuances within Peking Opera.

Administration
The prefecture-level city of Anqing administers 10 county-level divisions, including 3 districts, 2 county-level cities and 5 counties.
 * District
 * Yingjiang District (迎江区)
 * Daguan District (大观区)
 * Yixiu District (宜秀区)
 * County-level city
 * Tongcheng (桐城市)
 * Qianshan (潜山市)
 * County
 * Huaining County (怀宁县)
 * Taihu County (太湖县)
 * Susong County (宿松县)
 * Wangjiang County (望江县)
 * Yuexi County (岳西县)

Geography
Anqing is located in the southwestern part of Anhui province, and on the northern shore of the lower Yangtze. To the north are the Dabie Mountains. Neighbouring prefectures are:

 * Tongling (E)
 * Chizhou (SE)
 * Jiujiang, Jiangxi (S)
 * Huanggang, Hubei (W)
 * Lu'an (N)
 * Hefei (NE)

The total area of the prefecture is 16300 km2, with an urban area of 550 km2, which is only 3.4% of the total.

Climate
Anqing has a four-season, monsoon-influenced humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa), with chilly, damp winters and very hot, humid summers. Cold northwesterly winds from Siberia can occasionally cause nightly temperatures to drop below freezing (although snow is uncommon), while summer can see extended periods of 35 °C+ days. The monthly 24-hour average temperature ranges from 4.3 °C in January to 29.2 °C in July, while the annual mean is 17.20 °C. Precipitation tends to reach a maximum in tandem with the meiyu (plum rains) while wintertime rainfall is generally light. With monthly percent possible sunshine ranging from 30% in March to 54% in August, the city receives 1,831 hours of bright sunshine annually.

Transport
Anqing has one Yangtze River crossing, the Anqing Yangtze River Bridge.

Anqing Tianzhushan Airport serves the city.

The Nanjing–Anqing Intercity Railway opened in December 2015, allowing a 90-minute journey time to Nanjing, and 3 hours to Shanghai. Wuhan-Hangzhou High-Speed Railway is also under construction.

One of the bus operators in Anqing, the Anqing Zhongbei Bus Company, is owned by a joint venture between Nanjing Public Utilities Development (formerly Nanjing Zhongbei) and RATP Dev Transdev Asia (RDTA). RDTA itself is a joint venture between Transdev and RATP Dev.

Tourism

 * Zhenfeng Pagoda, built in 1570 during the Ming Dynasty, is located in Anqing on the banks of the Yangtze River.
 * Little Orphan, a rock hill in the middle of Yangtze River in Susong.

Sister cities

 * 🇺🇸 Calabasas, California, United States

title: Anqing


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Keith Wood

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Keith Wood
Vanity. About some random 18 year old who decided he wanted an article about himself. MyNameIsNotBob 10:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Curious NPOV if the attribution is correct. Probably delete as vanity, but query whether the subject should be blamed. --Simon Cursitor 11:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of passing WP:BIO. Kappa 11:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears not to be a notable individual John Cross 14:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The top two google results suggest this person is self-publishing on the web, though I can't verify this, because my computer is denied access to them. Unless he's been published by a traditional publisher, I'd say delete. "Little/nothing is know" is always a bad phrase in an article. Write what you know, not what you don't know. Mgm|(talk) 20:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. And writing something is unknown about yourself is just silly. --Etacar11 00:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Homosexual nn buttsex. And writing spoeonasn is Ublowen buttsex yourself is just silly. --
 * Keep Joe Wood used to have a website at www.joewood.knows.it before being ordered by a Canadian court to remove it for controversial views. He has surely been seen by more than 5K people and thus passes the WP:Bio test for notability. 00:59, 12 Jun 2005
 * Delete. Most of the material (and the above comment) are by a known vandal who is inserting his fiction into Wikipedia articles. Shantavira 17:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Boy Meets Girl (band)

Boy Meets Girl is an American pop-music duo consisting of keyboardist and vocalist George Merrill and singer Shannon Rubicam. They are perhaps best known for their hit song "Waiting for a Star to Fall" from 1988 and for writing two of Whitney Houston's number one hits: "How Will I Know" and "I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me)".

Career
The members of Boy Meets Girl, George Merrill and Shannon Rubicam, wrote and composed a number of songs for other artists. Most famous are their two number one hits written for Whitney Houston, "How Will I Know" and "I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me)". They also wrote the songs "Don't Tell Me We Have Nothing" and "Haunting Me" for Deniece Williams and the song "I Know You By Heart", which was recorded by Dolly Parton and Smokey Robinson for Parton's 1987 Rainbow album, and later covered by Bette Midler for the Beaches soundtrack. The duo also performed backing vocals on Deniece Williams's number one hit, "Let's Hear It for the Boy". Merrill also sang backing vocals on Bette Midler's Some People's Lives album.

Boy Meets Girl usually produced a demo version, or, in some cases such as "Don't Tell Me We Have Nothing", a studio version, before Merrill and Rubicam handed the songs to the intended artists.

The duo's first album as a recording act was self titled, and its lead-off song, "Oh Girl", a bitter tale of a failed relationship was released as a single by A&M Records. The song reached number 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart in May 1985. The Boy Meets Girl album peaked at number 76 on the album chart.

Three years later, the group released its follow-up album, Reel Life, which featured the single "Waiting for a Star to Fall". With this selection, after years of writing and composing songs for other artists, the duo earned mainstream success in their own right. In the United States, "Waiting for a Star to Fall" peaked at number 5 on the Billboard Hot 100 and at number 1 on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart. The song reached number 9 in the UK Singles Chart and was also a top 40 Australian hit in April 1989. It was featured in the 1990 movie Three Men and a Little Lady. Reportedly, the song was inspired by an actual falling star that Merrill and Rubicam had seen at one of Whitney Houston's concerts at the Greek Theatre. The duo submitted the song to Houston for consideration on her next album, but her producer at the time, Clive Davis, rejected it.

Boy Meets Girl's follow-up single "Bring Down the Moon" peaked at No. 49 on the Billboard Hot 100 (and No. 28 Adult Contemporary). Reel Life contained both singles and spent several weeks at No. 50 in the United States and peaked at No. 74 in the United Kingdom.

Boy Meets Girl's third album, New Dream, was released in the UK & Europe in 1990, but RCA Records chose not release it in the US during their label reorganization. It was finally remastered and released in 2005.

In the early 2000s, the couple, who had married during the 1980s, divorced, but continued their musical collaboration. In 2003, they released their fourth album, The Wonderground, on their own label, and arranged for RCA Records to re-release their two RCA albums. Their debut album recorded for A&M Records was also re-released. The various artists album Number One With a Bullet also contains their original demo tape for "I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me)".

In 2005, "Waiting for a Star to Fall" was involved in a "sample battle". Two electronic music groups, Cabin Crew and Sunset Strippers, wanted to sample the song and remix it. Sunset Strippers, from the UK, won the right for the samples from the band's record label, releasing "Falling Stars". However, Cabin Crew, from Australia, and vocalist George Merrill re-recorded the vocals for the remixed song, entitled "Star to Fall" or "Star2Fall". A year earlier, Scottish electronic musician Mylo had also used samples of the song, mixing it with Kim Carnes's cover of "Bette Davis Eyes", for his song entitled "In My Arms".

In January 2021, the duo released "More Deeply (In Love with You)", the first single from their EP 5.

title: Boy Meets Girl (band)


text:
Talk:Umask

Null Heading
Serious attempt to clean up and correct some of the confusion which in fact lead me to previously present a table of ALLOWED permissions which someone rewrote, correctly, since they are actually removed permissions. Hope no one is offended by my removing that really nasty binary calculation. DG12 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a bitwise AND to me; more like a subtraction. 777 & 177 makes 177, not 600, wherease 777-177 does make 600. The unix man pages for umask(1) also refer to subtraction rather than ANDing.

 * That sounds right to me. With my umask set to 002, if I create a new file or directory it has its permissions set to 0775, which of course is 777-002. On the other hand, the man page for the C function (umask(2)) that I have says "umask sets the umask to mask & 0777." I don't know enough on this subject to make an edit, though. Does anyone have an idea of how that bit should be written? It's somewhat confusing as it is. --Dirk Gently 03:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Doesn't the current notation (^ ~) indicate the XOR of the complement of the argument? I think that's incorrect, and at least, could be simplified greatly to say simply the complement, (~) of the argument (although it should probably be explicitly stated as such for clarity). It comes out like the following:
 * ~1778 = 6008
 * --Max Magee

 * This is correct. ^ = XOR. I'm the editor who did those major changes back in 17 August 2005. Note it was a simple AND before, and totally wrong. The XOR with the argument itself (not with the complement!) also works. Prove me wrong. A ^ B in this case will give the same result as in A AND ( ~ B). -andy 80.129.114.15 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * 666 AND NOT 174 = 602 = eh?

It is correct that 666 AND NOT 174 = 602. It is also NOT true in general that A ^ B = A AND ~B. In fact, an XOR can be reduced to (A AND NOT B) OR (B AND NOT A). Using the standard notation for boolean algebra ( + for OR and . for AND) we can define the XOR by the following: A^B = (A+B)(~(AB)) and reduction gives: = A(~AB) + B(~AB) = A(~A + ~B) + B(~A + ~B) = ~AA + ~BA + ~AB + ~BB = ~BA + ~AB Using ~ instead of a bar necesitates that it has a higher precedent than '.' or '+'. John Pearcey 83.147.135.251 10:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, yes. All correct. BUT in the umask case, the XOR 7778 variant does work, so I see no reason in removing it. (It has been removed again, though.) -andy 92.227.16.69 (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have several issues to present here:
 * 1) It seems that Octal masks are NOT calculated, rather the resultant permissions are calculated.
 * 2) Presenting the octal values, with the heading "allows (if specified)" may clear up the continued confusion regarding inverse, bitwise, and, unary, complement...
 * 3) In these days of more evil individuals is it a better idea to recommend using 027 or 007 instead of the traditional 022 or 002 ?

Is this correct?
 * "Octal umasks are calculated via the bitwise AND of the unary complement of the argument (using bitwise NOT) and the permissions specified by the program:"

or does the following resolve the first 2 issues I presented?

Octal umasks (the usual leading 0 to indicate octal is not used ):

Resultant permissions are calculated as the AND of the bit mask and the permissions requested by the program.

The most common default case is a program creating a file requests permissions 666 ( read and write for user, group and other) and a umask of 022 allowing only read and execute. The resultant file permissions are RW-R--R--. This may not be the best in an environment of malicious users. Perhaps a better value for umask would be 027 not allowing and access to others. Another common value is 002, which leaves the write permission for the file's group enabled. This can be used for files in shared workspaces, where several users work with the same files.
 * 1) The first digit of the umask ALLOWS setting read, write and execute of the user permissions which results in read and write (6) as requested.
 * 2) The second digit of the umask ALLOWS ONLY setting read and execute of the group permissions which results in read (4) as write is not allowed.
 * 3) the third digit of the umask ALLOWS ONLY setting read and execute of the other permissions which results in read (4) as write is not allowed.

DG12 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarity
This article seems to be a little hazy and unclear to me. What exactly is umask? From what I can understand, it's 'default permissions'. In other words, a way of automatically setting chmod permissions, so if umask is 777 for my application, all files created from my application will have 777 as the default chmod values. Is this right? The article doesn't exactly make that clear Grayda 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Not quite. You've got the idea right but the calculations wrong. Putting aside the binary logic and focusing just on numerical permissions, you have an octal number to which you add your permissions, effectively making a bitfield. For permissions, 4 means read, 2 means write, and 1 means execute. Add these together to get one permission value. For example, having read and write access would give you 6, or having just read and execute access would give you 5. Place three of these values together to get the numerical permissions, and prefix it with a 0 to explicitly specify that you're using an octal number. The permission set giving the owner r/w/x, the group r/w, and others x, would be 0761.

 * Now to actually answer your question. The umask is really what rights not to grant. If your umask is set to 0100, the permissions on created files will be 0677. Similarly, using a umask of 0133 will make the permissions on created files 0644. Hope this helps! Dandaman32 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This comment helped me finally understand umask. 16:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafcat (talk • contribs)

 * OK, so now can we get the article to have some examples that are clearer to our target audience? I.e. more task-oriented and less mathematical? --Treekids (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that the file mode creation mask is set by the umask. The second says the file mode creation mask is the umask. Which is it--one or the other, or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.192.146 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Umask is a system call, a shell builtin command that calls it, and the colloquial term for the file creation mask. Sorry for the confusion, and in retrospect it would likely have been easier to understand if expressed as mode AND umask, rather than mode AND NOT umask. I don't recall why we did it that way. JohnMashey (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The definitions are clear but not obvious to the layman. The examples should remind the reader that the UMASK cmd 'sets the mask' which is opposite to the 'mode'. e.g 022 is 'taken away' from 777 resulting in 755. Preroll (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 * security was not an issue* <-- This is patently untrue.

masking logic and truth table
Is this the proper place to really confuse people whit the n as material nonimplication or abjunction — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman (talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes to that section, moving the more esoteric stuff toward the end.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples removed, why
Why were the demonstrative examples removed? DGerman (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I refer to ( see version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umask&oldid=466169604
 * The article has more than a dozen examples. I don't see that any have been removed since the article was rewritten. Which edit or example are you referring to?  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  01:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally the demonstrative Calculating resultant permissions example

This article now suffers, as is so often the case, in that it defines what the command does and gives examples of the command with the utmost attention to the finest details, but does not suggest "what good is this stuff?"

PS I'm not sure that after all the explanation regarding the mask bit creation/manipulation that the logic section clarifies anything.

I look forward to your follow up and defer some changes until then. DGerman (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mask effect
The sentence beginning 'If the mask has a bit set to "1", that means the corresponding file permission ...' can be simplified. The words "set to" are distracting. "Always" and "subsequently" are unnecessary. There is no reason to anticipate a mask applying selectively or retroactively. Also, the singular case suffices; no need for the plural. This sentence has the same meaning and is more easily understood. 'A "1" bit means the corresponding permission will be disabled when a file is created.' If no objection surfaces in a few weeks, I'll edit. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

umask and Pluggable Authentication Modules
PAM also has a bearing on the umask. Discussed in http://www.tldp.org/LDP/www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch4.en.html for example. If someone can write a paragraph or two, that will help. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

rewrite coordinating with chmod command and File_permissions
Most of this article is duplicated in the chmod and the File_permissions articles. To prevent errors and increase the reader understanding of the inter-relationships of umask and chmod most of the umask article should be omitted. Additionally I don't think it is clear from the current umask article that umask does not actually change files or directories, rather it effects the modes assigned to files when they are created or when changes are attempted to file or directory permissions.

Awaiting feedback here.

DGerman (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I'd like to collaborate in a rewrite of these articles. Besides what you mentioned, there could be improvements to the writing style, and either should the Modes_(Unix) article redirect to chmod, or there should be only limited info about modes in the chmod and it should link to Modes_(Unix) for further reading. Seeing as umask also introduces modes, probably the latter is best, and the same concise description of modes could be given in both places.
 * See also my Talk entry in chmod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chmod#Splitting_up_.27modes.27_table where I talk about some ideas to describe modes more clearly, especially the effect they have on files and directories.

 * Mwoc87 (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Command Line Examples
The current version of the Article shows

but:

please correct me if I am wrong (I did not want to edit the article without confirmation because this made me unsure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.159.155 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

rework symbolic notation section
I have reworked the symbolic notation section. Sticking to the syntax and operations of the umask command. There was way too much explanation as to what the resulting file attributes meant. This is felt with extensively in BOTH the chmod article and file permissions.

Please don't include poor examples like setting file permissions so all users can write to the file. DGerman (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Function call
It seems that including the function call information unnecessarily complicates this article. Very few people will be interested in this. I will remove it in the future unless someone STRONGLY objects. DGerman (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "umask" really a concept in "computing"?
I quibble at the introductory "In computing, umask is". I think "umask" is a notion in UNIX, et al., operating systems, not a notion in computer science in general. Jmichael ll (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Me too! Have rewritten it now, is it better or do you still have some suggestions?Mwoc87 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The purpose of using "In " at the beginning of an article is to orient the reader. If some reader is looking for a type of halloween mask and comes upon this article, this will set them straight.  Sparkie82  ( t • c )  15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. But I believe that the prior comments indicate that it is not ubiquitous: computing - UNIX is not the empty set, so some qualification seems warranted.  "In UNIX computing, ..." perhaps? 198.182.56.5 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

History - some more information to clarify
umask was implemented in Version 7 UNIX, released in 1979. see umask(2).

The motivation came specifically from our PWB/UNIX work at Bell Labs Piscataway, whose efforts included creating the (likely) first real "UNIX computing center" where multiple systems provided support for large numbers of people from different departments and for years the largest such site. We were often early to encounter some kinds of security problems. Bell Labs Computing Research liked to run their systems in a fairly open fashion, with maximal permissions, with file creation 0666 wired in many programs. (That can be a problem, for example if one created a temp file writable by everyone, and somebody had a program that scanned for such things and opened for writing.) We wanted to run systems where defaults would be minimal permissions, set on system, group, or individual basis, but explicitly overridden as desired, and without changing code in numerous programs. Ken&Dennis were always minimalists, so I suggested this (some time in 1977/1978 when I was at Murray Hill) as a really simple way to cover the various ways people wanted to run systems. Most sysadmins could just add a umask call to system startup scripts.JohnMashey (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

truth table
Although purists use p and q with truth tables this seems unnecessary as the table explaining the actions is clearer. Strong objectors are welcome to undo my removal of that small section. DGerman (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"umask -S" does not print the value of the umask
it prints the inverted value of the umask applied to 777, or, more formally, 777 AND NOT Umask. "umask --help" also gets that wrong. Heronils (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

For people having issues grasping the article
https://askubuntu.com/questions/44542/what-is-umask-and-how-does-it-work Heronils (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Umask


text:
Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics/to do

Things you can do


text:
Cabin Crew

Cabin Crew, also known as Aviators, are an Australian electronic dance music duo, which consists of DJs and record producers, Ben Garden and Rob Kittler (p.k.a. RobKAY). In 2005 their remix, "Star2Fall", of Boy Meets Girl's 1988 single, "Waiting for a Star to Fall", reached the top 5 of the mainstream charts in Finland and United Kingdom.

History
Cabin Crew were formed in 2000 as Aviators, a club music duo, in Sydney by Ben Garden, a producer-engineer, and Rob Kittler (p.k.a. RobKAY), a DJ-producer. The pair had met in a Canberra secondary school but attended different tertiary institutions. Garden had worked in Sydney on production and composition for TV shows since 1999. Kittler had performed in Sydney and Canberra clubs, alongside other DJs. One of their first singles was "Poison to My Mind (I Keep Movin')" (2002) by Aviators featuring Lady K, which was co-written by Garden and Kittler with Kachina Lewis (p.k.a. Lady K).

In 2003 Gardner started working on sampling, "Waiting for a Star to Fall", a 1988 single by Boy Meets Girl. Kittler remembered, "He just thought of the sample and started to play with it. We did the final mix of it in September '03, and that's pretty much the result of what people are hearing now." Despite difficulties in obtaining clearances for the sample, they heard that United Kingdom group, Sunset Strippers had also sampled the same song. Kittler continued, "we'd been trying to get our version cleared since May '04, then Sunset's version popped up. We had the green light given to us by the publishing company but we never heard back from Sony, who happened to own the master."

In November 2004 Cabin Crew issued a single, "Star to Fall" (later known as "Star2Fall"), which debuted at No. 34 on the ARIA Club Tracks chart. SonyBMG did not clear the sample for international release by the Australian duo. Instead, the label used Sunset Strippers' version. However, when Boy Meets Girl's vocalist and song writer, George Merrill, heard Cabin Crew's remix of the track, he re-recorded the vocals for them, allowing their version to be released, as "Star2Fall", in late February 2005 via Vicious Vinyl. inthemix reporter observed, "The first mix on the single is a full-on vocal assault; it's the 'Radio Mix'. It opens with a huge uplifting male echoed vocal, and a big bassline. The level of cheese here is 11/10; it's definitely cheesier than your average funky house number."

In Australia, Sunset Strippers' and Cabin Crew's singles almost simultaneously entered the ARIA Singles charts in March. "Star2Fall" peaked at No. 4 on the ARIA Club Tracks and reached the top 30 on its mainstream singles chart. Tara Thomas of Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), explained how, "both [groups] sampled the same original song at the same time, despite being on opposite sides of the world. Sony granted the Sunset Strippers the rights to the original and denied Cabin Crew. Then, totally out of the blue Boy Meets Girl re-recorded the vocal for Cabin Crew making it possible for our local boys to release the tune as 'Star2Fall'." In March 2005 the group were signed to Ministry of Sound for international releases. Christie Eliezer of Music & Media described how Vicious Vinyl had released, "a press statement to counteract rumours about the track. It has no issues with uncleared samples, and has the blessing of the song's writers."

On 28 February 2008, Cabin Crew released "Can't Stop It" on CD-Maxi (CDS/CDM), 12" Vinyl (EP), and digital formats under the Vicious Vinyl label. The Mind Electric mix appeared on the various artists album, Vicious Cuts Summer 2008.

Singles
Notes

title: Cabin Crew


text:
Sunset Strippers

Sunset Strippers were an electronic music group from the UK. They are best-known for their 2005 song "Falling Stars", which samples the 1988 hit song "Waiting for a Star to Fall" by Boy Meets Girl and was involved in a sampling battle with Cabin Crew. "Falling Stars" reached number 3 on the UK Singles Chart in March 2005.

History
Members Sergei Forster-Hall and Kieron McTernan met in Northbrook College.

In 2004, Sunset Strippers remixed the top 25 hit "Cry Little Sister", originally written by Gerard McMahon (under the pseudonym "Gerard McMann") as the theme tune for the film The Lost Boys. In 2005, they remixed Planet Funk's song "The Switch", which featured in Mitsubishi television advertisements, and in 2007 they remixed Irish pop band Westlife's "Total Eclipse of the Heart" for The Love Album. The group's last release under the Sunset Strippers name was "Step Right Up" in 2008, which appears on the downloadable version of Clubbers Guide '08 by Ministry of Sound.

Forster-Hall and McTernan began releasing remixes under the name My Digital Enemy in 2006, which continued until they renamed themselves MDE in 2017. They release mostly tech house and deep house music.

"Falling Stars" music video
The music video for "Falling Stars" features choreographer Benji Weeratunge listening to the song in his headphones whilst washing his clothes in a launderette. Three attractive young women enter the launderette and begin to dance all at once whilst washing their clothes as well. As they wait for their clothes, the women strike poses that they coordinate with the music while Harry tries to attract their attention. The women also dance around the launderette, until they are seen wearing white shirts and red shorts. They begin dancing with Benji while he sings into a microphone. An old woman and her dog arriving at the launderette see Benji singing (in lip-sync form) inside with a mop as a microphone. It turns out that the women are only a vision from his imagination. Unimpressed, the old woman and the dog leave the launderette. Benji still continues to sing the song (in lip-sync form), even though he pretends nothing has happened.

title: Sunset Strippers