text:
Frederick William Lehmann

Frederick William Lehmann (February 28, 1853 – September 12, 1931) was an American lawyer, politician, United States Solicitor General, and rare book collector.

Biography
He was born February 28, 1853, in Prussia. His father, Friedrich Wilhelm Lehmann, emigrated to Cincinnati, Ohio, when Frederick was two, where he ruled the family with an iron hand. His mother Sophia died young.

At age 10, Frederick ran away from home forever. As a vagabond, selling newspapers, working on farms, and herding sheep, he wandered across the Midwest, rarely going to school. In his teens, at the urging of his fellow sheep men, he took the stump for presidential candidate Horace Greeley and gave his first political speech.

At 17, he worked as a farm-hand for Judge Epenetus Sears of Tabor, Iowa. Sears was impressed with the boy's ability and sent him to Tabor College, where he graduated in 1873. After reading law in his benefactor's office, Lehmann practiced in Tabor, Sidney, Nebraska City, and Des Moines, Iowa. He married Nora Stark of Indianola on December 23, 1879, and he represented the Wabash Railroad.

A noted orator, he was active in Iowa politics, including the election of Governor Horace Boies. In 1890, he moved with his family to St. Louis, Missouri, and continued to represent the Wabash while building a general law practice. In 1908, he was elected president of the American Bar Association and served twice.

President William Howard Taft named Lehmann as United States Solicitor General in 1910. In the Supreme Court of the United States Lehmann established the right to tax corporation incomes. He considered national bank affiliates to be illegal. About Lehmann's oral arguments, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. told Felix Frankfurter that Lehmann was so persuasive "I don't dare decide against Lehmann. You feel as though you're ruling against God."

In 1912, he returned to practice law in St. Louis with his sons.

In 1914, however, he and Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar represented the United States at the ABC Powers Conference in which Argentina, Brazil, and Chile mediated between the United States and Mexico on the Veracruz Incident.

Cases in his private practice established the right of the Associated Press to news as intellectual property, he secured the Telephone Company's right to valuation on reproduction cost less depreciation, and he preserved the Coca-Cola Company's right to use "Coca" against a claim that it was fraudulent since actual cocaine had been removed from the drink formula.

In 1918, he became counsel for the Railway Wage Commission. He supported the forced separation of investment banks, commercial banks and brokerages (a policy later implemented in the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933) quoting: "No man can serve two masters." (Matthew 6:2), alluding to an inherent conflict of interest: investment banks promote the sale of investments, even risky ones, but commercial banks have a duty to avoid risky investments. Lehmann also vigorously opposed Prohibition.

Representing the U. S. government in the Supreme Court, he would "confess error", a practice in which the Solicitor General admits that the government has been wrong all along and just drops the case even when supported by a lower court's prior decision. Inscribed in the office rotunda of the Attorney General is Lehmann's famous saying, when a judge had remarked that he seemed to be supporting the opposing side: "The United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts."

Frederick Lehmann always refused to run for public office, especially at a party convention of the breakaway Gold Democrats (opposed to the Free Silver candidate William Jennings Bryan) in St. Louis which he chaired (being foreign-born, he could not run for President anyway), and he declined judgeships. In politics he was generally a Democrat, if sometimes a Gold Democrat. In 1909 he drafted the charter by which the City of St. Louis is still run today.

He was a founder of the St. Louis Art Museum and the State Historical Society of Missouri, president of the St. Louis Public Library, and a director of the St. Louis World's Fair (Louisiana Purchase Exposition) of 1904, in which he was host of the Universal Congress of Jurists and Lawyers. He was a bibliophile and he collected rare first editions of Charles Dickens, Robert Burns and others, and artworks of Aubrey Beardsley, George Cruikshank and Thomas Rowlandson. He and industrialist William K. Bixby started the Burns Society; he was twice president of the University Club of St. Louis. Furthermore, he had a remarkable (possibly eidetic) memory—when writer Henry James visited his house, Lehmann could recite whole works that James himself had written but forgotten. For most his life Lehmann was in demand as a public speaker, which he thoroughly enjoyed. His published works included: John Marshall (1901); The Lawyer in American History (1906); Abraham Lincoln (1908); Conservatism in Legal Procedure (1909); Prohibition (1910); and The Law and the Newspaper (1917).

In old age he auctioned off his rare book collections. He died September 12, 1931, aged 78, survived by his wife and three sons, lawyers Sears Lehmann, Frederick W. Lehmann Jr., and John Stark Lehmann. He was buried in Bellefontaine Cemetery in St. Louis.

Legacy
Three special collections at Olin Library, Washington University in St. Louis, include a selection of Lehmann's legal papers (including his time as Solicitor General), a collection of historic manuscript letters of notable people, and rare editions of works of Robert Burns and others. There is also a Frederick Lehmann Autograph Collection at the Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis.

Frederick W. Lehmann's house at No. 10 Benton Place in St. Louis is now preserved as the "Lehmann House" Bed and Breakfast.

title: Frederick William Lehmann


text:
Talk:Knock Shrine

Untitled
Ta dah! I will work on it further, never fear!--File Éireann 09:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates?
Knock Shrine and Our Lady of Knock are imo duplicates --ClemMcGann 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

They are two different things. 75.3.4.54 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not fear, my poet friend, and I fully intend to assist you. Fr. Pius O Shaughnessy 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cavanagh and not Kavanagh
Cavanagh is the correct spelling. The wrong spelling originated in a newspaper article of the time and has been widely copied. In the two references I have given, which are quite authoritative being printed by P J Kennedy, who were publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, Cavanagh is used. The first reference also reproduces a signed letter from Cavanagh, and he should know the proper spelling of his own name :) BrianistPunk 16:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Some helpful fella has deleted your refs. 212.71.37.83 (talk)

Skepticism
Not a single word about the considerable skeptic views of the "miracle", both at the time and ever since? Talk about POV!!! 212.71.37.83 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The reservations of Dr. Lennon, Professor of Science at the Pontifical University of Maynooth should be mentioned. He was of the opinion that the apparition was an image projected from the recently invented "magic Lantern".  That protestant pranksters might be seeking to discredit catholicism.  His concerns limited the initial bishops' inquiry to just say that "the testimony of all the witnesses taken as a whole is trustworthy and satisfactory".  they didn't go so far as to endorse the apparition.  Fr Lennon attempted to reproduce the effect but failed as there was no way to conceal the lantern.  It has since been suggested in a Channel 4 television report that the lantern could have been in the apex of the roof of the church, deflected down with a mirror. The program implicates the parish priest in the deception.  It failed to consider that the roof at the time was thatch, which could have burnt down from the oil lamp of the early magic lantern ClemMcGann (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited POV tag
I've removed this today as nobody has argued for or against it since Dec 2007. Put it back and argue your point if you like.Red Hurley (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of the Apparition
This section may not be NPOV and seems to be in breach of WP:SPECULATION.Autarch (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Not to mention MOS:OPED.Autarch (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Said section has now been excised.Autarch (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"some Catholics" ?
I've changed this to "Catholics". Surely, a basic requirement of being a Catholic is that you accept the authority of the Church in these matters once it has looked into the facts and certified the miracle/apparition. To refuse to accept the teaching of the Church because you think you know better than the bishops would surely make you a Protestant.Haldraper (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * But the Church has *not* "certified the miracle/apparition.". It is *not* a requirement to believe that the "miracle/apparition" took place. The Commission's final verdict was that the "testimony of all the witnesses taken as a whole is trustworthy and satisfactory", that falls short of the Commission declaring that the "miracle/apparition" took place.  Dr. Lennon, Professor of Science at Maynooth College, reckoned it was a magic lantern and warned the commission that it could be a protestant plot! ClemMcGann (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that quote can be taken to say that the Commission thought the witnesses were honest and that there were no contradictions that the Commission could find. That still leaves the possibility that there was a non-supernatural explanation that the Commission couldn't think of or couldn't refute.Autarch (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expressing it better than mo pinign amhain ClemMcGann (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed template
I removed this template, as it does not meet the requirements of: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:POV-check&oldid=319657811:

 * "Use this template to request that an article be checked for POV ("Point of View"). The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies."--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Magic Lantern
While I am inclined to favor this theory, it raises a problem: where was the lantern located? If it was outside, it would cast shadows. If it was in the roof space, deflected by a mirror, then the image would be distorted and the heat from these early lanterns would have set the thatch roof on fire. ClemMcGann (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC) See? that means that the magic lantern story is fake

personal opinion of Knock
its a nice place to stop and have a picnic on a long car journey =) 86.150.39.100 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Croatian article on the subject
I don`t understand why Croatian article on this subject is not shown among other languages. See: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti%C5%A1te_Knock Ante Vranković (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The 'magic lantern' and the skeptical theories
Skeptical theories are warranted. I did not touch the analysis on skeptical analysis, but it is wrong and inappropriate to litter the article with half-baked sociological analysis that doesn't explain anything and merely confuses the issue.

Writing about the 'change' that the region was going through at the time of the apparitions is useless - there literally would be no period in the last 500 years where Western Europe wasn't undergoing significant change. That explanation could be used as a blanket statement for any apparition. It is lazy and not helpful at all. It was not cited to any real sociological analysis by any reputable person - it was written in without citations as background commentary.

The magic lantern theory was in the article twice and the second instance was removed. The Church investigation of the apparition - over 650 pages long, completed in 1896 - specifically took into the account the 'magic lantern' theory and the other theories on how the images could have been generated and demonstrated how they are not reasonable. The user who inserted the magic lantern theory failed to cite a map of the area, a picture of the buildings, or any other reasonable way to demonstrate what they propose - because any reasonable familiarity with the area shows how silly the theory is.

Unsourced skeptical sociological analysis is not appropriate for an event with sworn statements that has been investigated to the extent that it has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD143726 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to remove unsourced/uncited information from the articl. You removed sourced material as well, and I will add it back into the article until a consensus is reached here deciding whether or not it should be removed. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You did not respond to the substance of the complaints above. Please do so or leave the article as it is. Banal sociological analysis that could apply to any situation in Europe for the last 500 years should not dominate a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD143726 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Upgrade to a class 2 rel^Wshrine?
Lots of news stories that Knock is now an "International Sanctuary of Special Eucharistic and Marian Devotion". Some of the stories go on to say that gives it the same status as Fátima and Lourdes, but I don't see them anywhere described in those terms. So is this a formal category of shrines? Or just a fancy ad hoc title? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

minor vandalism
The latter sentences of the section "Apparition" contain the repeated phrase "and Margaret Beirne", including an entire sentence. Sounds like a Father Ted script! A1jrj (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Marion Carroll
Feel like there should be some mention of Marion Carroll and her spontaneous healing from severe Multiple Sclerosis during a Mass on a pilgrimage to Knock. This is not a "claimed healing" as much as something that happened with countless witnesses. She got up from a stretcher and supine position she had been confined to for years and walked as if nothing had happened. Testimony such as this would provide a nice counter balance to the standard skeptical analysis section featured prominently on Marian apparition articles. This could go here or on the Basilica article, I think. 2601:500:8785:8750:30F2:102:75E5:806B (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Knock Shrine


text: Template:WikiProject Theatre

title: Template:WikiProject Theatre


text:
South Attleboro station

South Attleboro station is an MBTA Commuter Rail Providence/Stoughton Line station in Attleboro, Massachusetts. It is located under Newport Avenue (Route 1A) in the South Attleboro neighborhood, just north of the Rhode Island border. The station has two side platforms serving the two tracks of the Northeast Corridor, formerly connected by a footbridge to a park-and-ride lot; only the north platform is in use.

Construction of the station was approved in 1987 and completed the next year. Opening was delayed by a dispute between the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) because the station was not accessible. After the MBTA and MAAB reached an agreement on the length of accessible platforms, the station opened in July 1990. The footbridge was in poor condition by the 2010s, with two sets of stairs closed off. The MBTA issued a contract for design of station improvements, including a new footbridge with elevators, in 2020. The station was temporarily closed on February 26, 2021, due to structural deterioration. Demolition of the footbridge took place in 2023. The MBTA resumed limited service at the station on May 20, 2024.

Station design
South Attleboro station is located under the Newport Avenue (Route 1A) overpass at the far southern edge of Attleboro, just 500 feet from the Rhode Island line. The station has two 780 ft-long side platforms bracketing the two tracks of the Northeast Corridor; only the north platform is in use. At the west end of the low platforms are 60 ft high-level "mini-high" platforms that provide accessible boarding. A footbridge with ramps and stairs formerly connected the south (northbound) platform to the southbound platform and the parking lot on the north side of the tracks. Pre-COVID, the 579-space parking lot filled before the end of the morning peak.

Former stations
The Boston and Providence Railroad (B&P) opened a new route from East Junction (near Hebronville in Attleboro) to Providence via Pawtucket in October 1847 to serve a new downtown Providence station. There was no station at the modern site, which was not in a populated area during the 19th century; the nearest stations were at Hebronville to the east and Pawtucket–Central Falls to the west. The B&P was acquired in 1888 by the Old Colony Railroad, which was in turn acquired by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad in 1893. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) was formed in 1964 to subsidize suburban commuter rail operations; the line became the Providence/Stoughton Line. Hebronville closed before the MBTA era, while Pawtucket–Central Falls closed on February 20, 1981 when Rhode Island stopped its subsidies and service was cut back to Attleboro.

Planning and construction
In August 1987, the MBTA approved plans to build a new station at South Attleboro to relieve crowding at Attleboro station. Commuter service returned to Providence on February 1, 1988, but the Pawtucket/Central Falls station remained closed. The $3 million station was completed in September 1988; however, the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) refused to let the station open. The station did not meet state requirements for accessibility: the footbridge had only stairs and no ramps, and no high-level platforms had been built.

The MBTA built ramps and "mini-high" platforms (short sections of high-level platforms) at an additional cost of $1 million in mid-1989. However, the station remained closed because the MAAB insisted on full-length high-level platforms, while the MBTA wished to only build the cheaper mini-high platforms. The MBTA's appeal of the MAAB ruling (which came two years before the Americans with Disabilities Act mandated accessibility nationwide) had system-wide implications, particularly for the then-inaccessible Green Line.

After a judge ruled in favor of the MBTA, the two agencies reached an agreement in March 1990 under which existing mini-high platforms would be extended to 45 feet long, and accessible platforms would be installed at all commuter rail stations by 1997 (which did not occur). South Attleboro station ultimately opened on July 30, 1990.

The MBTA began operating Providence–Foxboro service for events at Gillette Stadium in 1997, with South Attleboro as one of the intermediate stops. South Attleboro station was the southern terminus of regular weekend service on the line until June 29, 2006, when Rhode Island began funding weekend service to Providence.

Reconstruction
In the 2010 Northeast Corridor Master Plan, Amtrak indicated long-term plans to add two outer station sidings and high-level platforms to South Attleboro, allowing Amtrak trains to pass stopped MBTA trains. More immediately, portions of the station were in poor condition, with a 2012 report indicating that two sets of stairs were closed due to rust damage. Although the station had mini-high platforms for level boarding, certain accessible-required elements such as tactile platform edges were missing.

MBTA plans for a $4.9 million renovation, which would not have fixed the footbridge, were criticized by local officials in 2019. That November, $4 million for design of a more extensive renovation was approved by the MBTA Fiscal Management Board. The project will include full-length high-level platforms, a new footbridge with elevators, an improved bus stop, and changes to the parking lot. Design work began in April 2020 and was expected to last 18 months. Some repairs were considered to be made in the interim.

On February 26, 2021, the station was closed due to deterioration of the overpass. By March 2021, the reconstruction was expected to cost $48 million, of which only $7 million had been funded; the existing station was expected to reopen in April. However, in May 2021 the MBTA indicated that the station would remain closed until the reconstruction project was complete. Design reached 75% completion in September 2021 and 100% in April 2022. By January 2023, funding for the station had not yet been approved.

In July 2022, the MBTA indicated that the old footbridge would be removed that fall. Early construction was expected to last through February 2023. However, demolition work did not actually begin until April 17, 2023. Only a small portion was removed before work was paused "due to procedural issues". Demolition work resumed in late September and was completed on October 14.

The MBTA reopened the station with "limited peak-hour service" – three daily round trips using only the north platform – on May 20, 2024.

Bus connections
South Attleboro station is served by three local bus routes, which stop at the Bristol Place shopping center just to the east: Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (GATRA) routes, and Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) routes.

By federal law, bus systems like RIPTA that receive federal funds usually cannot cross state lines; thus, despite demand, RIPTA previously could not run directly to the station. In 2009, the agency considered building a $300,000 bus turnaround for the 77 (now 1) route just over the Rhode Island border. In 2013, RIPTA began a two-year-long systemwide reorganization; one specific objective of the project was to secure federal permission to run directly to South Attleboro. RIPTA extended routes 1 and 35 to Bristol Place in June 2014. GATRA service to Bristol Place was discontinued prior to 2012 due to low ridership, but resumed in 2015.

title: South Attleboro station


text:
Protocol II

Protocol II is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. It defines certain international laws that strive to provide better protection for victims of internal armed conflicts that take place within the borders of a single country. The scope of these laws is more limited than those of the rest of the Geneva Conventions out of respect for sovereign rights and duties of national governments.

As of July 2020, the Protocol had been ratified by 169 countries, with the United States, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Israel being notable exceptions. However, the United States, Iran, and Pakistan signed it on 12 December 1977, which signifies an intention to work towards ratifying it. The Iranian signature was given prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Overview
Historically, international law of armed conflict addressed traditional declarations of war between nations. When the Geneva Conventions were updated in 1949 after the Second World War, delegates sought to define certain minimum humanitarian standards to situations that had all the characteristics of war, without being an international war.

These negotiations resulted in Article 3, common to all four of the basic treaties of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Common Article 3 applies to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. It provides limited protection to victims, including: By the 1970s, diplomats were attempting to negotiate clarifications to the brief language of Article 3, and to extend the scope of international law to cover additional humanitarian rights in the context of internal conflicts. These efforts resulted in Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. The debate over this protocol centered on two conflicting ideas. First, that the distinction between internal and international armed conflict is artificial from the point of view of a victim. Humanitarian principles should apply regardless of the identity of the combatants. Second, that international law does not apply to non-international situations. A nation has sovereignty within its borders, and must not accept judgments by and orders from other countries. And Article 6, section 2, also prohibits collective punishment.
 * Persons taking no active part in hostilities should be treated humanely (including military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or detention).
 * The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

title: Protocol II


text:
Talk:Link aggregation

Redirects to this page
The following redirects have been created that link to this article:
 * 802.3ad
 * ethernet trunk
 * ethernet trunking
 * link aggregate group
 * NIC teaming
 * port trunking
 * port teaming

OSI layer
What OSI layer does link aggregation occur at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk • contribs)

 * I guess it would conceptually fit between layers one and two. The data link layer (OSI layer 2) would be deciding which trunk to pass the data to. Then you'd have the aggregation layer splitting it between the ports and then the physical layer (OSI layer 1) for each port. Plugwash 21:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would generally agree with the answer above, with the expansion that link aggregations need not be on trunks. (That view may be due to confusion caused by a vendor who uses the term trunk for a connection that uses 802.1q tags and access for other ports. More generally a trunk connects switching systems and often, but not universally, uses 802.1q tags to carry separate vlans or services.  Similarly, a "access port" may use 802.1q tags to provide access to separate vlans or services.)  Link aggregation may be optionally used for either trunks between network elements or for edge connections; it is not limited to trunks.

The confusion may have been caused by a problem in the article -- the third paragraph discusses ISO layers, and intermixes the idea of aggregations at different layers with the issue of using data from different layers of the data to determine the spreading of the data across the multiple members of a link aggregation group (LAG). That paragraph needs to be reworked to separate these concepts. Alan Larson (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted this

 * Some low-cost switches will typically have 24 or 48 10/100-mbit ports, and two additional gigabit ports for the backbone. The expected usage is that there is a 1-gigabit backbone, and the second gigabit port passes the backbone data along to the next switch in the network closet.
 * While the two 1-gigabit ports may support operating as a single 2-gigabit trunk, there is no way for the switch to pass this 2-gigabit trunk along to additional switches. For a network with an expected maximum backbone speed of 2-gigabits, this is acceptable in a remote closet that can be fully served by the single switch with only 24 or 48 10/100-mbit ports. It is also acceptable if there a lot of switches in a closet and a single expensive switch can be used to manage all their uplinks.

We probably all know which switch he is describing and it should be patently obvious that if you are using this switch and decide to use BOTH of the gig ports for a downlink, then you won't have any ports left over to uplink. This has nothing to do with Link Aggregation and clearly not a limitation of it.

LACP
LACP is part of the 802.3ad specification, yet is not mentioned in this article. Anyone care to add it in the appropriate place? fonetikli 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Another redirect
Redirecting 'ethernet bonding' here would be good. 83.27.231.169 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Kosma

 * Redirect was created 23:54, 13 February 2008. -—Kvng 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Path Polarization Definition?
Can someone explain or give a link to a definition for path polarization? I cannot find anything specific in a Google search.

Bezenek (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect you are referring to the following passage:

The actual benefits vary based on the load-balancing method used on each device (administrators can configure different balancing algorithms at each end and this is actually encouraged to avoid path polarization).

I don't know who added this and what the thoughts behind the formulation were. However, many simple devices deploy the XOR algorithm described in the article. SA XOR DA is the same as DA XOR SA (SA=Source Address, DA=Destination Address). Since many network admins are tidy when patching, they will often end up connecting the lowest port on one switch to the lowest port on the other etc, ending up with e.g. port 20<=>port 20, 21<=>21, 22<=>22, 23<=>23; for a 4 link aggregate.

In that situation the same conversation between two end stations would flow back and forth on the same link instead of two different ones. I don't see what would be wrong with that, a large (20-30 in most cases) number of conversations will still provide a relatively even distribution. Crossing between ports can help in this case; 20<=>22, 21<=>23, 22<=>21, 23<=>20 for example.

Traffic flowing in one direction will normally not limit traffic flowing in the opposite direction on the same link, unless the link is half duplex. However, IEEE 802.1AX prohibits the use of half duplex links, so that will not be an issue.

EDIT: It occurred to me that when using layer 2 and layer 3 load distribution at the same time there can be a bigger issue. For example with ECMP on layer 3 and LACP on layer 2, having 2 ECMP routes being balanced towards 2 LACP aggregates with each 2 links. If for example using XOR for load sharing, this would send all the conversations to the first route into the first link of that aggregate, and the conversations to the second route into the second link of that aggregate. Some people appear to use the term polarization for this effect. One way around it would indeed be to use different "hashing" algorithms (one based on IP, the other on MAC addresses for example). Another would be to use 3 links in each LACP aggregate when using 2 routes in ECMP.

As I said, I do not know which thoughts the author had in mind at the time of writing, perhaps something I have overlooked. But I thought I'd contribute a possible explanation.

Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.199.198 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I have trimmed this section to remove unsupported and confusing information. -—Kvng 15:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Network Availability
I'm not a networking guru, but shouldn't there be some more reference to aggregation being used for network availability & redundancy rather than just bandwidth? I've seen it used a few times, and always for this purpose.

Also, how does 'static' and 'dynamic' link agregation fit in? zorruno 23:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a mention of it, but it only protects against link failures not equipment failures. Plugwash 22:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The LACPDU mechanism actually is a quite good protection against equipment failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.67.0 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Linux Support and IP Based Load Balancing / Failover
As far as i know, after testing a current Linux Kernel. It can bond different branded Ethernet Adapters, but they are required to atleast use the same driver base e.g. e100/e1000 [Intel], 3c59x [3Com].

This means mixing of different branded Ethernet Chipsets may not be possible in some cases.

Linux, BSD & Windows Based operating systems do allow for IP Host Based Load Balancing / Failover. this method does not require the use of a high end switch with Layer 2 Management or 802.1ad Support

Hard__warE: 165.228.140.189 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Limitations
Someone should add a limitations section or at least mention it. Remember, that Port Aggregation will only solve bandwidth issues if it is several devices hitting one device. There are at a lot of misconceptions that this solves all bandwidth issues. Hqduong 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Added a paragraph of limitations 210.131.130.125 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cisco have Nexus hardware (7xxx switch series, NX-OS soft) with vPC, 2 different switches could be made as a single switch for LA. Virtual PortChannels: Building Networks without Spanning Tree Protocol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.33.123.14 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Packet Reordering
The page states "originally, link aggregation was developed to provide redundancy, and not bandwidth benefits". I don't find that in any of the cited material. Moreover, I don't believe that it's strictly true. Is this an inference based on the load-balancing behavior? Did somebody assume that since a single flow tops out at the speed of a single aggregated device that this was "developed to provide redundancy" rather than "bandwidth"?

The Linux bonding.txt documentation (linked from this article) hints at the real reason starting at line 1784. Basically, TCP (and most reordering protocols) don't handle packet reordering well. TCP detects the out-of-order packets as lost packets (typically signifying drops due to congestion) and can generate spurious, unnecessary retransmits. IP fragment-handling gets even more pathological (worst case, it becomes O(N) where N is the number of fragments).

I think that aggregation was originally not designed to provide redundancy but just aggregate bandwidth. The common defaults for interval time of LACP are pretty low for timely failover. Most aggregation systems can be configured statically without LACP as well. Rather, it seems that they were just designed to aggregate and the port-selection algorithms grew this way because they had to (i.e. straight round-robin hurt performance so much that it was required). All of this seems to indicate the opposite of what the article suggests, although without any original material to cite, I don't know if we should even take a position on this.

So, should we reword this bit to be a bit more neutral?--Jayson Vantuyl (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What about uplink?
I wish there could be a little bit more info and how to calculate statistics on link and client aggregation for uplink backbones.

For example, how to calculate how much bandwidth do I need if there are 200 possible clients, within reach of my wireless signal, to provide them with 1 Mbps speeds, in a home environment?

I feel the need to learn this but there's nowhere to be found. Maybe it belongs to his article? Yubal (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused
But in the past I've worked with port trunking and it's different from link aggregation. Port trunking assigns the same IP to all the ports on the trunk, and you need a special switch to connect to (or to go port to port between two systems) for port trunking to work as you cannot have multiple ports on a network with the same IP.

With (Linux) port aggregation the ports have different IPs and you do not need a trunking switch or any special equipment.

Now in my Linux bandwidth testing I found that aggregating two e1000 ports resulted in no increase of bandwidth, which I found surprising, but from the article text it seems that all traffic from a single session will flow down one wire. With muliple sessions the bandwidth should be more fully usable, but I did not test in that configuration. The trunking tests I did were with Solaris Sparc and I was CPU limited and unable to determine if there was a net bandwidth gain as I barely had the CPU to saturate one port.

I guess I need to look up the specification and see what it says. But from what I know, port trunking is something different (and I don't think it really caught on). Then again, maybe I'm just confused about how things are named.

76.254.74.81 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Rich

Linux part, out of context?
There is no introduction to this part at all. What is it about really and why such long part about one type of LACP implementation? Why is the Linux LACP so important to note in a general article about LACP, when not for example LACP config modes on Cisco or HP Procurve switches is mentioned? There is also words used ("slaves") which is not defined at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.30.50 (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

very much agree, neutral info would be a lot better. noone would want a section about Tru64 LAGG either. I was looking for some LACP info and quickly skipped over the article to the IEEE doc as the relevant info (lacpdu rates for fast and slow) was missing in favor of OS-specific stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.67.0 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

SMLT and other stacking/multichassis technologies
SMLT is proprietary to Nortel. Kudos to them for being the first, and for a while, only, vendor with a solution but they no longer stand alone here. Cisco has at least three technologies (MEC - 6500 series, CrossStack EtherChannel (3750) and VPC (Nexus)as mentioned above), and even 3Com (DLA - 5500/5500G) and D-Link have (or had) offerings.

Point is, if we're going to include SMLT, we should include others. (I vote for listing others as well.) Titaniumlegs (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of acronym LAG not clear
This article uses the acronym LAG multiple times but never spells it out. If you search for "Link Aggregate Group" using Wikipedia search, it sends you to this page, but searching for "Link Aggregation Group" returns a list of possibilities that include this page. The phrase "link aggregation group" is used on this page. According to www.acronymfinder.com the IEEE standard reference is "Link Aggregation Group." This article would be clearer if it showed what the acronym stood for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.128.210 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Earth to Experts that wrote this - COME IN PLEASE!!!
I have years of sysadmin experience and even I am put off by the way this article plunges right into the subject matter without a simple explanation of the topic. Please start in the beginning and try to imagine what someone who does not know the subject might wonder. For instance, I do not know if IP Bonding can be done between hosts? In short, despite the high quality of some of the writing, an executive summary must precede the article that tells people with varying degrees of understanding whether this is the article they need to read. RJMS (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 * The first paragraph is a little dense but not buzzword bloated and seems to describes what's happening and the motivation for it. I've seen much worse. Constructive suggestions for improvement are welcomed. -—Kvng 21:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Advantages over static configuration - confusing?
The short section headed "Advantages over static configuration" is most confusing, since the word 'static' is used to differentiate types of aggregation (alternative types on HP switches being 'dynamic' and 'manual'). It seems to me that this isn't the meaning intended here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestNab (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of this is that the comparison is being made between using LACP and setting up the active ports manually (statically). When using LACP, the two switches talk to each other and negotiate which ports are active in the link aggregation group. This means one of the group of cables could be unplugged, and there would be no disruption of service, as the LACP would tell both switches to disable the port in the group. Does that answer your confusion? —fudoreaper (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Link Aggregation References
Coped from User_talk:Kvng

Hi, I think you added some comments to sources used in Link aggregation and by that setting them as "missing ureliable resources". I might agree with the statement "Specific statistics must come from a specific source" and thus have no problems with that.

And the statement if most switches use the L2 or L3 hash is open for discussion; with the amount of multi-layer switches I woulnd't be able to say if they use the L2 hash or L3 hash as implementations tend to use as "hash": based on source/destination MAC or IP address" - which can be both L2 or L3 (including link aggregation implementations on teaming and virtual switches in virtualized environments (ESX, Hyper-V, Nexus 1000v etc))

The only 'comment' on a reference I don't understand is:

What is wrong with this resource?

Thanks, Tonkie (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 * It is a WP:PRIMARY source because it is a presentation by one of the members of the IEEE 802.3 working group that designed link aggregation. Primary sources are OK in some contexts and this is probably one of them. But it is also self published in that the way these presentations get onto the internet is that the authors upload them to the IEEE website. -—Kvng 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sun cluster
Should the corresponding feature of Solaris/Sun cluster be referred to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towopedia (talk • contribs) 09:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mac OS X Link Aggregation
I was surprised that there was no mention of link aggregation on OS X. As a POSIX compliant system, you can aggregate in any POSIX compliant way, but Apple also provides a neat way to aggregate. While I have not tried the following method (copied from this page.) myself, it makes the process sound very easy:
 * Go to System Preferences -> Network -> then select the small cog in the bottom left side (next to the + and -) and choose Manage Virtual Interfaces -> select the + in the bottom left and choose New link aggregate. Then you select the two wired interfaces and call it whatever you like. After that it will appear in the network list as one network interface.

Should I blast ahead and add something like this to the existing web page? StandardPerson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Do these belong in "See Also?"
Social network aggregation and Media aggregation platform are in "See Also." These don't seem to have anything to do with computer networking. Should they be removed? Daivox (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -- intgr [talk] 12:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Link aggregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019131903/http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/networkoverview to https://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/networkoverview

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusing addition in lead
For the record, I agree with 's reversion of your recent changes. I read the added paragraph multiple times and it's so incomprehensible, I still don't understand what it's trying to say. Perhaps it's missing some context. -- intgr [talk] 12:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 * I've noticed these spurious additions in various articles. After the first unsourced reverts, Pillzyx started to use various journal sources which, as far as I could verify, are almost entirely unrelated and apparently serve as alibi. His/her edits are designed to make some incomprehensible claims that nobody is supposed to understand. This is subversive, disruptive editing that might be aiming at the heart of WP. --Zac67 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Channel Bonding
Why is channel bonding linked back to same article? Circular logic? - --KitchM (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Removed. ~Kvng (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is "Proprietary link aggregation" really a good heading?
Hi! Sure, some vendors probably have extensions to the standard link aggregation, but is it really fair to say that Cisco's EtherChannel, Juniper's "Aggregate Ethernet", Avaya/Extreme's MLT and some others are "Proprietary link aggregation"? They work together with each other and as far as I know, Juniper has no special add-ons to the standard. Isn't it more of a terminology thing? At least I think it should be pointed out that most of these work together but some may have additional features beyond the standard and that they fall back to the standard if the partner doesn't understand the extra features. Perhaps changing the heading to "Proprietary additions to link aggregation" would be a better heading? Fb35523 (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Your examples are no extensions to IEEE LACP but proprietary methods/protocols, so yes, the heading is good. When links are simply aggregated, without any protocol, those may very well interact with each other nicely, some even with a non-aggregating partner, but their inner workings are proprietary = not defined by an open standard nonetheless. --Zac67 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Link aggregation


text: Template:Providence/Stoughton Line

title: Template:Providence/Stoughton Line


text:
United States temperature extremes

For the United States, the extremes are 134 F in Death Valley, California in 1913 and -79.8 F recorded in Prospect Creek, Alaska in 1971.

The largest recorded temperature change in one place over a 24-hour period occurred on January 15, 1972 in Loma, Montana, when the temperature rose from -54 to 49 F.

The most dramatic temperature changes occur in North American climates susceptible to Chinook winds. For example, the largest 2-minute temperature change of 49 F-change occurred in Spearfish, South Dakota, a rise from -4 to 45 F.

Lack of extremes
Among the U.S. states, Hawaii has both the lowest state maximum of 98 F and the highest state minimum of 12.0 F. Tropical ocean island locations such as Hawaii often have the lowest recorded temperature ranges, sometimes with a difference of as little as 62 F-change.

title: United States temperature extremes


text:
Royal Cotillion

Royal Cotillion is a solitaire card game which uses two decks of 52 playing cards each. The name probably derives from the fact that since the two kings and two queens of the same suit, the king and queen of each suit dance the cotillion. It has been given the alternate (but little-known) name of Lords and Ladies because if the game is won, the final layout will show the king and queen of each suit together.

Royal Cotillion is closely related to Cotillion (Contradance) and the single-deck game Quadrille (Captured Queens), both of which have no reserve and are entirely luck-based.

Rules
First, the ace and the deuce (two card) of each suit is removed and are laid down on the tableau. The Aces take up the left column, the deuces at the right column. These cards make up the foundations.

Then twelves cards are laid to the left of the aces in four columns of three cards, either overlapping or laid out in a grid. Their side (the left wing) is called "the ladies' side." After that, sixteen cards are laid out to the left of the deuces in a 4x4 grid. Their side (the right wing) is called "the lords' side."

All cards on the lords' side are available for play and if any of them is moved to the foundations, it is replaced from the top card of the waste pile. In case a waste pile is not yet available, replacement cards are laid from the stock. On the other hand, the top cards of each column on the ladies' side (if overlapping; the card and the lowest tier of each column if laid out) are the only ones available and once any of them is moved, it is not replaced. Each of the cards cannot be transferred from one side to the other or to any pile on the same side; they can be only transferred to the foundations.

Building on both the Ace and Deuce foundations is up by suit in twos. Therefore: A: 3-5-7-9-J-K-2-4-6-8-10-Q 2: 4-6-8-10-Q-A-3-5-7-9-J-K

If the player has made all possible moves, or all moves the player wanted to make, the player then deals the cards from the stock one at a time to the wastepile, the top card of which is available for play. The stock can only be dealt once.

The game is won when all cards end up in the foundations, each having thirteen cards, with the Kings at the right column and the Queens at the left.

Gavotte
Gavotte or Odds and Evens (also known as Palace ) is a rare solitaire game that is a variant of Royal Cotillion. It has two differences to the parent game:
 * Two groups of sixteen cards are dealt, both arranged in four rows of four cards. The player then chooses which group of cards would be completely available for play (as the lords' side); the other group become the ladies' side and would either:
 * Have each column of cards overlap with its top card available for play, or...
 * Leave the cards as they are as a grid and have the bottom card of each column available.
 * The player can choose which ranks start the two groups of foundations. It can be of different ranks (such as 6s and 7s) or of the same rank (such as all 9s).

Odd and Even
Odd and Even (distinct from the previously mentioned "Odds and Evens" game) is a game much like Royal Cotillion but has a reserve of nine cards instead of sixteen.

title: Royal Cotillion


text: User talk:204.147.187.240

title: User talk:204.147.187.240


text:
User:Sjakkalle/Eyesopen

Personal Attacks on Votes for deletion/Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses2
These diffs come from the deletion debate over a recreation of Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses.

At first the debate proceeds as normal with an overwhelming delete vote. Then comes,
 * User:Sjakkalle makes a fairly routine nomination for deletion of Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses as a bunch of links and references, no encyclopedic content and biased title. The fact that it has been nominated before and speedy deleted requires a "2" appendix to be added to the VfD entry..

 * User:Eyesopen makes a vicious assault on User:Sjakkalle.

 * User:RickK (correctly) declares that the article meets a criterion for speedy deletion and speedies it.

 * User:Scimitar replies to Eyesopen, informing him that Eyesopen is the only one to vote keep and that making attacks against the nominator won't further his cause.

 * User:FCYTravis observes that the article has been recreated. it is quickly redeleted.

 * User:84.65.28.207 makes a personal attack on User:Scimitar accusing him of hypocrisy and that his argument "stinks of Zionist supremacist propaganda".

Recreations of Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses

 * Fourth recreation by user:84.66.75.246.

title: User:Sjakkalle/Eyesopen


text: File:BobMarley-Legend.jpg

title: File:BobMarley-Legend.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rubber Band

 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 22:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Rubber Band
This page is pure vanity. Recnilgiarc 09:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Alphax τεχ 10:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: The kids are probably too young to know that their name was taken long, long, long ago. Vanity article. Geogre 14:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There's an early 20th century cartoon (I forget which.) that has a sight gag involving this pun.  Gary Busey might have a few words to say, also. Uncle G 21:34, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. The kids might be too young to even come close to one of the WP:MUSIC requirements. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, and not encyclopedic. Damicatz 23:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) redirect Bootsy's Rubber Band
 * Unsigned comment by 63.209.14.211 (talk · contributions)
 * Delete, redirect to rubber band. Radiant_* 10:44, May 29, 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:
Legend (Bob Marley and the Wailers album)

Legend is a compilation album by Bob Marley and the Wailers. It was released on 7 May 1984 by Island Records. It is a greatest hits collection of singles in its original vinyl format and is the best-selling reggae album of all-time, with more than 12 million copies sold in the US, more than 3.3 million in the UK (where it is the 17th best-selling album ) and an estimated 25 million copies sold globally. In 2003, the album was ranked number 46 in Rolling Stone magazine's list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time", maintaining the ranking in a 2012 revised list, but dropping to number 48 in the 2020 revised list.

As of July 2024, Legend has spent a total of 843 nonconsecutive weeks on the US Billboard 200 albums chart—the second longest run in the chart's history. Also, as of July 2024, it has spent 1,142 weeks in the top 100 of the UK Albums Chart—the third longest run in that chart's history.

Content
The album contains all ten of Bob Marley's Top 40 hit singles in the UK up to the time, plus three songs from the original Wailers with Peter Tosh and Bunny Livingston in "Stir It Up," "I Shot the Sheriff," and "Get Up, Stand Up," along with the closing song from the album Uprising, "Redemption Song." Of the original tracks, only four date from prior to the Exodus album.

The cassette tape release of the album featured two extra songs, "Punky Reggae Party," the B-side to the "Jamming" single, and "Easy Skanking" from the Kaya album. A second generation compact disc remastered by Barry Diament appeared in 1990 on the Tuff Gong label. Although the disc includes the same 14 songs, the tracks are in their original album lengths rather than the edited versions for single release.

On 12 February 2002, the expanded 14-track edition with songs at album lengths were remastered for compact disc with a bonus disc consisting of 1984-vintage remixes for extended dance club singles and dub versions. In 2004, the Legend double-disc deluxe edition was reissued with the music DVD of the same name in the sound + vision deluxe edition. In 2010, Legend was made available as downloadable content for Rock Band. However, it was released without "Get Up, Stand Up", which was later included on Rock Band 3. In June 2012, a high fidelity audiophile version of the album was released on HDtracks in 96 kHz/24bit and 192 kHz/24bit resolutions. Bruno Tilley was the Art Director & Creative Consultant for the sleeve design work.

Reception
Legend has peaked at number 5 on the Billboard 200, making it Marley's highest-charting album in the US. It also holds the distinction of being the second longest-charting album in the history of Billboard magazine. Combining its chart life on the Billboard 200 and the Billboard Catalog Albums charts, Legend has had a chart run of 2165 nonconsecutive weeks, surpassed only by Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon at 2166 nonconsecutive weeks. As of the Billboard issue dated 20 July 2024, the album has charted on the Billboard 200 for 843 nonconsecutive weeks. As of December 2017, Legend has sold 12.3 million copies in the US since 1991 when SoundScan started tracking album sales, making it the ninth best-selling album of the Nielsen SoundScan era. The RIAA has certified Legend for selling 15 million copies, a total that includes purchases before 1991.

In the United Kingdom, Legend has been certified 13× Platinum, and is the 16th best-selling album in that country of all time, with sales of over 3,380,000 as of July 2016. As of 17 July 2024, the album has spent 1,142 weeks in the top 100 of the official UK Albums Chart, placing it third on the all-time longevity list.

As of April 2012, the album has sold more than 25 million copies worldwide.

Despite its generally positive reception, Legend has been criticized for being a deliberately inoffensive selection of Marley's less political music, shorn of any radicalism that might damage sales. In 2014 in the Phoenix New Times, David Accomazzo wrote "Dave Robinson, who constructed the tracklist for Legend, [said that] the tracklist for Legend deliberately was designed to appeal to white audiences. Island Records had viewed Marley as a political revolutionary, and Robinson saw this perspective as damaging to Marley's bottom line. So he constructed a greatest-hits album that showed just one face of the Marley prism, the side he deemed most sellable to the suburbs. [...] If you're looking for mass-market appeal to secular-progressive America, you don't include songs that invoke collective guilt over the slave trade, nor do you address the inconvenient truth that the bucolic Jamaican lifestyle of reggae, sandy beaches, and marijuana embraced by millions of college freshmen, exists only because of the brutal slave trade. [...] the songs on Legend offer just a brief glimpse into his music. The definitive album of the most important reggae singer of all time is a hodgepodge collection of love songs, feel-good sentiment, and mere hints of the fiery activist whose politics drew bullets in the '70s." Vivien Goldman wrote in 2015, "when he does get played on the radio now, it's the mellow songs, not the angry songs, that get heard – the ones that have been compiled on albums such as Legend."

Track listings
When first released in the US in 1984, pressings contained remixes of "No Woman, No Cry," "Buffalo Soldier," "Waiting In Vain," "Exodus" and "Jammin'," done in 1984 by Eric Thorngren. (International pressings substituted the remixes for either album versions or 7" edits.) Two versions of the CD were released in Europe in 1984; one used the same mastering as the US pressing, the other (mastered by Barry Diament) used original full length versions for all the tracks. Pressings from 1986 on used the international version of the release until 2002, when a two-disc deluxe version released by Universal replaced all tracks with their respective album versions (except for "No Woman, No Cry," which is the full length version from the "Live!" album) and included the two extra tracks from the cassette release as bonus tracks. That version was released individually as part of "The Definitive Remasters" series. When track No. 13 [Exodus, released on the album "Exodus" by Bob Marley & The Wailers in 1977 by Tuff Gong/Island] begins, the noise at the ending of Bob Marley's "Satisfy My Soul" [released on the album "Kaya" by Bob Marley & The Wailers in 1978 by Tuff Gong/Island] plays at the start.

30th anniversary edition (2014)
In celebration of the 30th anniversary, the compilation was re-released (as its "The Definitive Remasters" form) in two formats:
 * A tri-color (red, yellow, green) double 180g vinyl set
 * A CD/Blu-ray 5.1 audio set; the Blu-ray disc contains the studio version of "No Woman, No Cry" and previously unheard alternate takes of "Easy Skanking" and "Punky Reggae Party."


text:
Ilkka Remes

Petri Pykälä (born 13 December 1962), commonly known by his pseudonym Ilkka Remes, is a Finnish author of thrillers for adults and for young adults. Remes was born in Luumäki. He has stated he uses a pseudonym because he does not want to be considered only a thriller writer, and wants to be able to write other genres of books in the future.

Remes lives in Belgium with his wife and two children. He received the Kalevi Jäntti Literature Award in 1997, the Clue of the Year Award from the Finnish Detective Novel Society in 1999 and the Olvi Foundation Literature Award in 1999.

The Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja commented on Remes' book Ruttokellot on his homepage in January 2001. His review on the book was rather negative and he found it troubling that so many of the antagonists in Remes' books were of Russian origin. (see Russophobia).

Adult literature
Remes has written 25 thrillers which have enjoyed significant domestic popularity. The names in parentheses are direct translations.

 * Pääkallokehrääjä (1997) ("Death's-head Moth")
 * Karjalan lunnaat (1998) ("Ransom of Karelia")
 * Pedon syleily (1999) ("The Beast's Embrace")
 * Ruttokellot (2000) ("The Plague Bells")
 * Uhrilento (2001) ("The Sacrificial Flight")
 * Itäveri (2002) ("Eastern Blood")
 * Ikiyö (2003) ("The Perpetual Night")
 * Hiroshiman portti (2004) ("The Gate of Hiroshima")
 * Nimessä ja veressä (2005) ("In the Name and Blood")
 * 6/12 (2006) (referring to 6 December, the Independence Day of Finland)
 * Pahan perimä ("The Genes of Evil") (2007)
 * Pyörre ("Vortex") (2008)
 * Isku Ytimeen ("A Strike to the Core") (2009)
 * Shokkiaalto ("Shockwave") (2010)
 * Teräsleijona ("Steel Lion") (2011)
 * Ylösnousemus ("Resurrection") (2012)
 * Omertan liitto ("The Omerta Union") (2013)
 * Horna ("Inferno") (2014)
 * Jäätyvä Helvetti ("Freezing Hell")(2015)
 * Kiirastuli ("Purgatory")(2016)
 * Vapauden risti ("The Cross of Freedom")(2017)
 * Perikato ("Destruction")(2018)
 * Kremlin Nyrkki ("The Fist of Kremlin")(2019)
 * Kotkanpesä ("The Eagle's Nest")(2020)
 * Lohikäärmeen isku ("The Strike of a Dragon")(2021)

Of the above, Ruttokellot ("Blutglocke"), Ikiyö ("Ewige Nacht"), Hiroshiman portti ("Das Hiroshima-Tor"), Nimessä ja veressä ("Höllensturz"), 6/12 ("Die Geiseln") and Pahan perimä, ("Das Erbe des Bösen") have been translated into German.

Young adult literature
Remes has written eight thrillers for young adults, some of which has been translated to English.
 * Piraatit (2003) ("Pirates", released as "Operation Ocean Emerald")
 * Musta Kobra (2004) ("Black Cobra", released as "Operation Black Cobra")
 * Pimeän pyöveli (2005) ("Executioner of Darkness")
 * Kirottu koodi (2006) ("Cursed Code", released as "Operation Code Breaker")
 * Hermes (2007)
 * Draculan Ratsu (2008) ("Dracula's Steed")
 * Operaatio Solaris (2009) ("Operation Solaris")
 * Riskiraja (2010) ("Risk Limit")

title: Ilkka Remes


text:
Vaidotas

Vaidotas (fl. 1362) was a son of Kęstutis, Grand Duke of Lithuania. In reliable historical sources he is mentioned only twice: as defender of Kaunas Castle in 1362 and as ruler of Navahrudak. Due to very limited information, his life is subject to wide-ranging theories by historians.

Historical mentions
According to the chronicles of Wigand of Marburg, he was the commander of the garrison of the newly built Kaunas Castle during the three-week siege in April 1362. After strong resistance the castle was taken over and then destroyed. Vaidotas with 36 men tried to break through, but was taken prisoner. The defeat was one of the largest and important military victories of the Teutonic Knights in the 14th century against Lithuania.

In a 1401 document his brother Grand Duke Vytautas wrote that some years before Vaidotas and his brother Tautvilas Kęstutaitis were given to rule Navahrudak equally, but it is unclear when that occurred. Historians proposed 1365 as the most likely date.

Interpretations
Because of very limited historical sources, Vaidotas is sometimes confused with Vaidutis (Waydutte), son of Butautas and grandson of Kęstutis. Further confusion is introduced by the Bychowiec Chronicle, an unreliable chronicle from the 16th century, which claims that Vaidotas died in his youth in Lithuania. C. S. Rowell argued that Butautas and Vaidotas were the same person and their names were recorded differently because of different dialects.

In his 1999 monograph on the early Gediminids, Polish historian provided the following biography of Vaidotas: he was the eldest son of Kęstutis and Birutė; was captured at Kaunas in 1362, but returned before 1365 and received Navahrudak; converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and was baptized as Ivan; had two sons Jerzy and Konrad; in 1384, during the Lithuanian Civil War (1381–84), accompanied Vytautas to the Teutonic Order; in 1389, visited the Order as Vytautas' envoy; died after 1390. Many of these conclusions are based on many conjectures and the assumptions that Ivan accompanying Vytautas is not Ivan Olshansky, that son Jerzy is not, and that son Konrad is not Tautvilas Kęstutaitis.

title: Vaidotas


text:
User talk:Meem~enwiki

You've uploaded some bear images but it is unclear as to what licence the image comes under. Please licence your three images. = Nichalp ( Talk )= 10:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Meem. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Meem~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Meem~enwiki


text:
Student Christian Movement

Student Christian Movement may refer to one of the following national organizations:
 * Australian Student Christian Movement
 * Student Christian Movement of Canada
 * Student Christian Movement of Great Britain
 * Indonesian Student Christian Movement
 * Student Christian Movement of the Philippines

It may also refer to the international umbrella organization:

 * World Student Christian Federation

title: Student Christian Movement