text:
Memphis Mafia

The Memphis Mafia was the nickname given by the media to a group of Elvis Presley's friends, associates, employees and cousins whose main functions were to accompany, protect, and serve Presley from the beginning of his career in 1954 until his death in 1977. Several members filled practical roles; for instance, they were employed to work for Presley as bodyguards or on tour logistics and scheduling. In these cases Presley paid salaries, but most lived off fringe benefits such as gifts, cars, houses and bonuses. Over the years, the number of members grew and changed, but for the most part there was a core group who spent much time with Presley.

Early members
Elvis preferred men around him who were loyal, trustworthy and deferential. Thus family members and friends of his youth were very important to him. "For the first time in his life, he had a group of male friends to pal around with, and he relished being the leader of the pack." The group began with Elvis' first cousins Junior and Gene Smith, who accompanied Elvis everywhere, along with Elvis' high school friend Red West, and rockabilly singer Cliff Gleaves. At that time Judy Spreckels seems to have been the only woman. She describes herself as having been like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the exciting days of his early career. "Elvis was surrounded by the first wave of what would become known as the Memphis Mafia." She says that she "was with him and the guys all the time." They drove bumper cars in Las Vegas Valley, rode horses in California and hung out at Graceland. "There wasn't a crowd then, just a few guys," and she emphasizes that she "had nothing to do with being a yes man for him and obviously he trusted me."

Among "the first to live, travel and play with Elvis" were cousins Red West and Sonny West, as well as Billy Smith (who was with Elvis from the start to the end and the only original member still with Elvis after 1976), Charlie Hodge, Mevlana Hezri, and Joe Esposito. Over the years they were joined on the payroll by Alan Fortas, Richard Davis, Marty Lacker, Jimmy Kingsley, "Chief" Ray Sitton, Jerry Schilling, Mike Keeton, Dave Hebler, Sam Thompson and numerous others.

Origin of the nickname
Around 1960, the media dubbed these people the "Memphis Mafia". This first referred to their image, as they usually cruised the city in black mohair suits and dark sunglasses. According to one account, a crowd of people in front of the Riviera Hotel watched as two big black limousines arrived. Elvis and his friends got out of the two cars and someone in the crowd yelled, "Who are they, the Mafia?" and a newspaper reporter picked up the story. The Memphis Mafia members themselves say on their website that Elvis liked the name and it stuck. These original Memphis Mafia members at the time the phrase was coined were cousins Sonny West, and Red West, as well as Billy Smith, and Charlie Hodge, among others.

The initials TCB
Presley and his friends and employees also adopted the acronym TCB which meant "Taking Care of Business". Elvis came up with the phrase after hearing the 1973 hit song “Taking Care of Business” by the Canadian rock band, Bachman–Turner Overdrive, also known as BTO. Presley had the tail of his private jet painted with the initials "TCB" and a lightning bolt and gave away gold and diamond chain necklaces with TCB (and TLC) logos as gifts. Elvis' wife Priscilla helped with the creation of this logo on a flight through stormy conditions. A lightning bolt flashed across the sky in front of them, and Elvis took inspiration from it. Priscilla sketched out the design on note paper, positioning the letters and lightning bolt in various ways before they found what they liked.

Opinions by different people
Rolling Stone journalist William Otterburn-Hall describes the men as close around the star "like a football scrum after a loose ball". He relates that they were a "friendly bunch" who, when Elvis began to sing just for fun during his interview, followed "suit, singing, clowning, all on their feet". According to Patrick Humphries, they "acted as Elvis' bodyguards, babysitters, drug procurers, girl-getters, mates and car buyers." The author also mentions other functions of the guys: "various members of the Memphis Mafia had ... played vital roles in keeping Elvis' numerous dirty secrets out of the public eye. A couple of them had been arrested with false prescriptions attempting to collect drugs for Elvis, quite a few had taken physical hits in the service of protecting Elvis and none were paid more than $500 a week. For that they were often shouted at, abused and belittled by the King when he felt like it." noted Buzz Cason. Marty Lacker states, "Everyone had assigned responsibilities and they were far from leeches, hangers on or whatever else they were called." "They all had jobs to do so that Elvis could do his and as far as being there for the money, that's laughable because there really wasn't much in that area to be there for." Marty went on to say, "Most of us were not there for the money, we were there because we all cared about Elvis and each other like brothers."

The Memphis Mafia had specific jobs. Joe Esposito handled money and cross referenced the extensive travel arrangements. Charlie Hodge harmonized with Elvis, played background acoustic guitar, and gave him scarves and beverages during concerts, as well as being responsible for inspecting each stage layout before the concert. Lamar Fike handled Elvis' stage lighting. Red and Sonny West were Elvis' bodyguards (although Red West also had a talent for writing songs, including some recorded by Elvis such as "If Everyday Was Like Christmas" and then "Separate Ways"). Marty Lacker was a brutally honest "sounding board" advisor, Jerry Schilling gave advice about what other groups were using for audio equipment etc., and Billy Smith was a "Jack of All Trades".

Party life
Peter Guralnick writes that Elvis spent all day and night with the members from the Memphis Mafia: "For Elvis and the guys ... Hollywood was just an open invitation to party all night long. Sometimes they would hang out with Sammy Davis, Jr., or check out Bobby Darin at the Cloister. Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum". Guralnick adds "The Colonel joked that they looked like a bunch of old men, but the Memphis Mafia had become almost as well known around town as Frank Sinatra's Rat Pack" and that Elvis and his guys were all "living on speed and tranqs". For Joe Esposito, "it was a party like you wouldn't believe. Go to a different show every night, then pick up a bunch of women afterwards, go party the next night. Go to the lounges, see Fats Domino, Della Reese, Jackie Wilson, the Four Aces, the Dominoes – all the old acts. We'd stay there and never sleep, we were all taking pills just so we could keep up with each other."

Bodyguards, road managers and other employees
When Presley emerged as a major celebrity in 1956, he was constantly besieged by adoring fans and the press, making a normal lifestyle impossible. However, Presley's enormous wealth allowed him an ability to separate himself from the general public, especially in his home city of Memphis. For example, he would rent an entire movie theater to watch a film. Among Memphis natives, he was most known for renting out the entire Memphis amusement park Libertyland in order to ride his favorite roller coaster, the Zippin Pippin. Professional handlers and celebrity security experts had not yet evolved. Presley faced repeated threats of physical violence from outraged moral extremists and death threats from fanatics, as would later happen when he performed in Las Vegas. These threats were kept out of the press for fear of triggering even more.

For both his security needs and touring support, Presley hired people chosen from among those he could trust and depend on to manage his public appearances. This entourage included first cousins and several of Presley's friends from his boyhood in a poor Memphis housing project plus junior and senior high school friends and early employees from Memphis such as Alan Fortas, nephew of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. Many people were employed with the group through the years but some of the more prominent members were Joe Esposito, Lamar Fike, Alan Fortas, George Klein, Marty Lacker, Billy Smith, Richard Davis, Red West, Sonny West, Dave Hebler, Al Strada, Dr. Nick, Larry Geller, Charlie Hodge, Jerry Schilling, Sam Thompson and Gene Smith.

Each man had specific duties. Joe Esposito served as Presley's chief road manager and personal aide for 17 years. Marty Lacker, another aide, also served as Presley's chief personal aide for several years. Esposito and Lacker were Presley's best men at his wedding. Sonny West was responsible for security at Presley concerts. Red West was one of Presley's earliest friends from their school days, his first bodyguard which he would remain until the last year of Presley's life, and in 1954 had acted as a driver for Presley, Scotty Moore, and Bill Black when they first toured the American South performing as the "Blue Moon Boys." Priscilla Presley said these employees were paid an average of $250 per week during the 1960s, which rose to $425 per week in the 1970s, however one pay stub does exist that showed a weekly pay of only $35 for the '63-65 era. Each Christmas all Presley employees received bonus checks. Some members of this inner circle became close friends who served as replacements for the normal everyday friendships Presley's fame would not allow. Marty Lacker and Elvis' cousin, Billy Smith, were probably the closest true friends of Elvis according to some in the group. Known for his generosity (attributed by Presley himself to an impoverished childhood), he bought some of these employees homes as wedding gifts and frequently bought new Cadillac automobiles for employees, relatives and friends.

"Presence of the Entourage"
Elvis' father Vernon increasingly distrusted and disliked many members of the Memphis Mafia as Elvis' financial condition deteriorated in 1972. Presley's rapid financial deterioration was partly a result of his divorce from Priscilla, which was finalized on October 9, 1973, as well as Colonel Tom Parker's exorbitant percentage of Presley's earnings.

The most publicized fallout came when Vernon Presley fired Elvis' longtime friends Red West and Sonny West on July 13, 1976.

Elvis' expenses were increasing at an alarming rate, and there were complaints and threats of lawsuits about the manner in which the Wests interacted with fans. After being in Elvis' employment for two decades, both Red and Sonny were only paid a few weeks' severance pay. Their requests to speak directly to Elvis about their employment termination and the nominal severance pay were not granted. Red West, Sonny West, and Elvis himself felt betrayed, and all parties were reportedly upset over the firings.

When Parker informed Elvis that the  Wests were writing a "tell-all book" about Elvis, which included the disclosure of Elvis' addiction to prescribed pain medications, he was furious as well as "hurt". Elvis and Parker discussed offering the Wests a monetary settlement in return for a written agreement the book would not be published, and their experiences with Elvis, on stage and off would remain confidential.

An agreement was not reached, and when Elvis received a copy of the book entitled Elvis: What Happened? (which was first published on July 12, 1977), he worried that his reputation would be adversely affected. Most of all, Elvis was concerned his daughter Lisa Marie, would be adversely affected by the contents of the book. The publication of the book bothered Elvis on a personal and professional level during the last two weeks of his life.

In numerous press conferences concerning Elvis: What Happened?, both of the West cousins stated they wrote the book in part to make Elvis realize that his dependence on prescription medications was (literally) killing him. They stated they hoped their book would "shock" Elvis into seeking medical care away from the physicians who were complicit in prescribing Elvis large amounts of prescription medications and fully resting and becoming "clean" off of these prescribed drugs.

Substitute parents
Elvis Presley reportedly spent days and nights with his friends and employees from the Memphis Mafia. They were a big family and Elvis lived in a "milieu of a protective brotherhood." Gerald Marzorati says that Elvis "couldn't go anywhere else without a phalanx of boyhood friends." Even the girls he dated lamented, "Whenever you were with Elvis for the most part you were with his entourage. Those guys were always around". According to Presley's cousin Billy Smith, Elvis got into bed with Smith and his wife Jo "many times at Graceland when we would spend the night there in Lisa's room, or on tour in the hotel, and at the trailer on the property at Graceland. ... we were all three there talking for hours about everything in the world! Sometimes he would have a bad dream and come looking for me to talk to, and he would actually fall asleep in our bed with us. That happened a lot of times, and we thought nothing of it."

Playing dangerous games
When they rented the Rainbow Rollerdrome in Memphis, Elvis and the "Memphis Mafia" usually played "a game called 'War', of which Elvis was the proud inventor. There were two teams, and the object of the game was to knock over as many members of the opposing team as possible by any means." Another game was called the 'Whip' game. "Elvis's idea of an exciting game was that it should be as dangerous as possible", such as the game that involved fireworks. "Some of the Memphis Mafia would buy up to $15,000 worth of fireworks in today's money, including skyrockets, baby giants, firecrackers, and chasers, which moved rapidly and unpredictably until they exploded. Since the emphasis was on large and potentially lethal fireworks, everyone had to wear air force jump-suits plus gloves, helmets, and goggles. When they were all dressed up, they divided themselves into Blue and Red teams, and started hurling fireworks at the other team; Elvis was left with a big scar on his neck from one firework, and one of his friends nearly lost an eye."

Books by former "Memphis Mafia" members
Since the late 1970s, some former members of the Memphis Mafia have written books on Elvis. The first exposé book, Elvis: What Happened?, appeared in 1977 shortly before Elvis's death. This so-called Bodyguard book came from the West cousins and Dave Hebler, fired by Presley's father. They wrote about Presley's years of prescription drug abuse which eventually led to his death. Elvis had "even offered the publishers money not to go ahead with it. For Vernon the book was proof of his long-held distrust and dislike not just of those three but of the whole of the Memphis Mafia ..." Even George Klein, who chastised and shunned other members of the group for writing books about Elvis, ended up writing a book as well. In 2007, Sonny West released Elvis: Still Takin' Care of Business, which was a softer look at his relationship with Presley.

List of books

 * Elvis: What Happened by Red West, Sonny West, and Dave Hebler as told to Steve Dunleavy (1977) Bantam Books (ISBN 0345272153)
 * Elvis: Portrait of a Friend by Marty Lacker, Patsy Lacker and Leslie S. Smith  (1980) (ISBN 0553138243)
 * Me' n Elvis by Charlie Hodge (1988) Castle Books, (ISBN 0-91669300-7)
 * Elvis, From Memphis To Hollywood by Alan Fortas (1992) Popular Culture, Ink., (ISBN 1-56075-026-X)
 * Good Rockin' Tonight : Twenty Years On The Road And On The Town With Elvis by Diamond Joe Esposito,(1994) Simon & Schuster (ISBN 0-671-79507-4)
 * Elvis' Man Friday by Gene Smith (1994) (ISBN 0-9642566-0-6)
 * Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia by Alanna Nash, Billy Smith (Contributor), Marty Lacker (Contributor), Lamar Fike (Contributor) – HarperCollins (1995) (ISBN 0060176199)
 * Elvis: Still Taking Care of Business by Sonny West with Marshall Terrill Triumph Books (ISBN 978-1-57243-939-9)
 * Me and a Guy Named Elvis: My Lifelong Friendship with Elvis Presley by Jerry Schilling, Chuck Crisafulli (August 17, 2006) Gotham Books (ISBN 1-59240-231-3)
 * Remember Elvis Produced by Diamond Joe Esposito and Daniel Lombardy, (2006) TCBJOE Publishing (ISBN 0977894525)

title: Memphis Mafia


text:
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883

The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 51) or the Corrupt Practices Act 1883 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was a continuation of policy to make voters free from the intimidation of landowners and politicians. It criminalised attempts to bribe voters and standardised the amount that could be spent on election expenses.

Background
Despite the Ballot Act 1872, William Ewart Gladstone's Second Ministry (1880–85) knew that to make voting less corrupt, certain measures were required to eradicate intimidation and bribery. The act meant that the expenses of candidates were published and could be measured against a limit as to how much could be spent on "political campaigns". It laid down rules for the conduct of parliamentary candidates, including a strict limit on expenses. The limit was set at £710 for the first 2,000 voters in the candidate's constituency, and then £40 for every additional 1,000 voters. Each candidate was limited to just one party agent (though in exceptional circumstances the candidate did have the right to petition Parliament for more). Strict record keeping was required as proof that expenses were not being exceeded. Poorer men could also become parliamentary candidates and under the act stiff penalties were imposed on those breaking it such as heavy fines and imprisonment.

Although it did not entirely remove corruption from the voting system, it strengthened the Corrupt Practices Act 1854 and was aided by a number of disenfranchised, small boroughs.

The Parliamentary Elections Corrupt Practices Act 1885 clarified that an employer was legally permitted to give paid time off from work to allow employees to vote, so long as this was given equally to all voters and not along party lines.

The act, except section 42, was repealed by the Representation of the People Act 1949 (c. 68), ss.175 & 176(2)&(3) & schedule 9; and the Election Commissioners Act 1949 (c. 90), s.21 & schedule.

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


text:
Rotuma Day

Rotuma Day is an annual celebration on the island of Rotuma, a Fijian dependency. It falls on May 13, the anniversary of the island's cession to the United Kingdom in 1881.

As there are more people of Rotuman descent outside Rotuma than on the island, celebrations are held in other centres besides Rotuma, with big events in Suva and Lautoka.

Celebrations
The 2005 events marked the 124th anniversary of the annexation of the island to the United Kingdom.

Speaking at the Suva celebration, Fiji's High Commissioner to Australia, Major Jioje Konrote, himself a Rotuman Islander, commended Rotumans living outside Rotuma for maintaining their links to their homelands. There are some two thousand people on Rotuma, with a further ten thousand Rotumans in metropolitan Fiji.

Joji Kotobalavu, Chief Executive of the Prime Minister's office, told Rotumans that their island would always be a special part of Fiji, recognized alongside the fourteen provinces. He commended them for their disproportionate achievements and contributions towards the development of Fiji as a country, while Labour Minister Kenneth Zinck paid tribute to the many Rotumans to have distinguished themselves in the fields of education, medicine, business, and society.

title: Rotuma Day


text:
Talk:FYI (American TV channel)

Requested move
Biography Channel → The Biography Channel – {"The Biography Channel" (with the definite article) is the trademarked name of the television channel} — Literaryfairy 02:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be moved, why not just move it? As the other name does not exist the move is not blocked. Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the user's account isn't old enough to enable the move function. violet/riga (t) 22:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Celebrity Ghost Stories
What about the series, Celebrity Ghost Stories? 69.115.39.30 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The FYI brand
It's still very early for the FYI article, but I saw where they have greenlit six series and two pilots so far: Source. Keeping an eye out for more info. —  Wylie pedia  19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Series
 * The Epic Meal Show (working title) – 16 half-hour episodes
 * The Feed (working title) – 6 one-hour episodes
 * World Food Championships – 6 one-hour episodes
 * Tiny House Nation (working title) – 10 one-hour episodes
 * Renovation Row (working title) – 10 one-hour episodes
 * B.O.R.N. to Style – 10 one-hour episodes
 * Pilots
 * Jennifer’s Way (working title) – half-hour pilot
 * Red Hot Design (working title) – half-hour pilot

Merge discussion
I don't think that the original but the moved Bio Channel article (now Fyi (TV channel)) and the independently started FYI (TV channel) should be merger as there still other Bio channels (Australian, Canada -which will have a competing FYI, etc.) out there (which should mostly likely could/mostly be condensed down to that one article). Chris1294 claims because there is no change in ownership, the Bio Channel article is short and some channels that have rebranded were just moved. As I pointed out there isn't much of a standard here as there are just as many that have separate articles after rebranding. There may be more information out there about the Bio channel, for example, how did it get to just new crime themed programming. Yes, there may be alot duplication in the Fyi article with the Bio article as it is being rebranded from Bio. Spshu (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also regarding additional information on Bio being out there, the channel was branded that for 15 years so there almost has to be more. Spshu (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. Total WP:REDUNDANTFORK. 23W 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, redundant fork, what? FYI was first set up for the new channel then Chris rename the Bio Channel to Fyi to create the name redundancy. So, how to resolve the issue, merge or return Fyi back to its original Bio Channel name? O, and there still Bio Channels international speaking. Spshu (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, actually, FYI was initially a redirect. Then Spshu got the bright idea to create an article there. Typically, re-brandings of this nature do not get separate articles unless there is a major ownership change with a complete change in scope that is significant and detailed enough for its own article (i.e. Al Jazeera America), or the new network is technically and legally distinct from the previous one (Fox Sports 1). ViperSnake151   Talk  23:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, FYI was initial only a redirect, but was still the first to be made into an FYI/Fyi article after launch. That is some thing that Chris indicated but as I indicated at my talk page, as many changes in formats with out ownership changes have seperate articles: But Bio will still/may exist over in other countries not all Bio Channels will be re-branded. Easier just to have one Bio Channel article. For other similar rebranding with no change in ownership there are two different articles:
 * Jetix → Disney XD, Disney Channels
 * Jetix Play → Playhouse Disney, Disney XD +1
 * Playhouse Disney, Soapnet → Disney Junior
 * Toon Disney → Disney XD, Disney Cinemagic
 * Fox Sports 1's source do not indicate that it legally or technically distinct from Speed. The timing of Fox Sports 1 could have come at the expiration date of Speed's carriage contracts and Fox could have planned it that way, so they would get the Soapnet/Disney Junior "lag" and a bump in carriage fees. Don't see that they are legally separate with FXX & Fox Soccer and they have separate articles. Spshu (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not equivalent scenarios; what you have brought up were much larger changes. In FXX's case, you have the closedown of a sports channel and its replacement with a completely different genre. In SoapNet's case, Disney Junior co-existed with the channel it had allegedly "replaced" on several providers (as our article says), meaning that they are treated as separate channels. Fyi is just a re-branding that can easily be covered as an evolution of Bio. I must say, its easier to keep tabs on things like this in Canada because cable networks have to be licensed too, and our Fyi is a re-brand of something that used to be our Discovery Health Channel).  ViperSnake151   Talk  00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They are equivalent scenarios. Bio Channel is a documentary channel while FYI is a live style channel. Thus completely different genres. Gee, who is now lowering the standard from a separate "legal entity" to just a genre change. There are still Bio Channels still out there co-existing with the FYI just in other countries that could most like just covered in a stand alone Bio Channel article as a opposed to a FYI that includes Bio history. FXX was a re-branding of Fox Soccer and so was Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 of Speed and Fuel, which still have versions in other countries and are in the same general category of sports that Speed and Fuel where/are in, although they were more specialized. Spshu (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No they are not. Both Bio and Fyi are oriented towards entertainment programming, it is a mere reformatting, and these things happen all the time. Only in truly exceptional cases have such reformatings been treated as so indifferent that they are considered to be separate channels for the purposes of Wikipedia. Fox Soccer and Speed to FXX and Fox Sports 1 were significant because they were part of a major re-alignment of Fox's cable division. Disney XD and Disney Junior were significant because Disney was not only re-branding the network, but creating a completely new international brand. Fuel to Fox Sports 2 is not significant because it was just a simple evolution in programming. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep on moving the "goal post". Sports can be considered entertainment programming too. Also, A+E did re-alignment instead of keeping the A+E Networks channels separate from the Lifetime channels: A&E channel & Lifetime channel and Bio & LMN were aligned under a single executive. Spshu (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment: There is a quite direct precedent for this with The Biography Channel (UK and Ireland) and Lifetime (UK and Ireland). Unless those pages are also merged, these pages should also remain separate. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. Hi. I've been invited using a Please see template and I have absolutely no idea what the subjects of these articles are. In other words, I am ideal of audience for which these articles are written! Now, as I see it, Fyi (TV network) and FYI (TV network) has almost the same name and almost the same lead section with slightly contradictory infoboxes. Yes, definitely a case of WP:CFORK.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Codename Lisa, please look at the history of the pages! This does not qualify as a WP:CFORK - the article corresponding to this particular talk page was actually about The Biography Channel, not FYI, until very recently. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You say it yourself: History. In other words, it wasn't a CFORK. (Past tense, not present.) Now, it is. Maybe you want to split the article history. (You can, if notability criteria is fulfilled; and that does not contradict the consensus formed here.) But I certainly don't support putting up a sign on the top of the article that says "Sorry, clueless readers who are here exactly because you don't have a clue, but we Wikipedia editors chose to confuse you because of some technicality in the CFORK policy". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Codename Lisa: Perhaps it should be clearly stated then: this discussion is about splitting the article history, not splitting the article (the outcome of the latter is indeed quite obvious). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... yes. The title ("Merge discussion" [sic]) suggests quite the opposite. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind letting us know what your opinion regarding splitting the article history is, User:Codename Lisa? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO, there is no policy against it. But visiting revision ID 616017671 of 8 July 2014, the prose size is 3080 bytes, which is lamentably small. Basically, there is a lot of room until the 64 kilobytes mark. I think I remember a case: There was initially a lot of reluctance about even mentioning any connection between Hotmail and Outlook.com as related products (August 2012) but eventually, the community merged both, (April 2013) having realized that they have much in common.

 * Think about it like this: Is there something markedly significant about Bio that is absent in Fyi, so much so that it warrants an entire article? One that a person not knowing the subject would feel it is worth reading? If not, merge them with throwing anything away. You have as much as 62 kilobytes space for that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 * There's no debate. Bio and FYI are two different brands, so they get two different articles. I think we shouldn't make a separate article for FYI. Just add info to the Bio. article. Besides, now we have two articles named FYI/Fyi, and keeping track of them is a pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoPolo250 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We would not have the pain in tracking the difference between FYI/fyi, if Bio and FYI are kept separate then Fyi would be move back to Bio and be stripped of FYI programming and info past hand off. Spshu (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We would not have the pain in tracking the difference between FYI/fyi if you had at least talked about the idea of splitting it rather than just being bold and doing it anyway. Unfortunately, there is now a growing consensus against your decision. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

←First off, look at the facts, I was the first mover (23:25, 7 July 2014 before Chris1294 rename the Bio Channel 04:57, 8 July 2014. Which was already edited to show the FYI channel article as the successor to Bio 22:08, 7 July 2014. Secondly, I restore the Fyi article to what it should show with the edit summary of "restore the bio channel so it can be seen" so it would be easier for those discussing the issue to tell the difference. To which you reversed it with the edit summary of "Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". So a non-disrupting edit to show editors what the Bio Channel should look like is "disrupting to make a point". So do not lay the blame at my feet at keeping track of FYI versus Fyi/Bio article differences, as you reversed the picture of what it would look like for discussion sake. ←2 for merger, ViperSnake151 and MarcoPolo. Chris1294 has not come to vote. Unclear: W23. Indifferent: Codename Lisa. 2 for separate Bio/FYI articles, Dogmaticeclectic and Spshu. So, what "growing consensus" are you talking about? Spshu (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I must reiterate, only in special cases have we actually split an article for a cable network because of a dramatic change in format; in both of these cases, the number of changes were so severe that they could not be covered in the previous article without a dramatic rewrite (which would in turn, make information about its previous format difficult to incorporate without it being in a second article.

 * Now, before you twist my words and say that Bio > FYI was so severe that it requires a second article, let's contrast. Fox Sports 1 was a radical shift (pun not intended) because it was the forefront of a major re-alignment of an entire division, had many differences in its operation that set it apart from Speed, plus there was just so many details that it could not fit in the Speed article at all without making a mess. Plus I consider FS1 to be a separate network that "replaced" Speed because Fox had to essentially treat it as such due to the need to redo carriage contracts. Disney Junior also got a new article because it was not only designed to replace two channels (Playhouse Disney and SoapNet), but also designed to be a brand new international brand. By contrast, Biography Channel was just a run of the mill entertainment channel; these things go through shifts and refocusing all the time.

 * All they needed to do for Bio to FYI was add new shows (which is something done all the time of services like this) that fit a different niche, and change the branding to reflect this. Similarly, even though it had basically turned from TV Land to Travel Channel overnight, DTour did not get a separate article from TVTropolis because it is legally the same channel (unlike in the U.S., cable channels in Canada must be licensed by the telecommunications regulator, making these judgements more definitive. Even though Dusk was replaced by ABC Spark by most providers, they get separate articles because they actually are two different licenses). ViperSnake151   Talk  15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are repeating stuff that isn't sourced. Speed was still in the Sports division as Speed was a specialized sports channel switch to a general sports format. So no such "major re-alignment of an entire division". As I pointed out, A+E Network realigned too crossing the old A+E and Lifetime network divisions lines (For example, A&E with Lifetime TV, Bio was paired with LMN under a relaunch specialist). There is no indication that "the need to redo carriage contracts" exist in changing from Speed to FSports 1. The "redo" could have been done understanding that Fox paid more for programming that would draw a larger audience or FSports align the relaunch with then end of the previous carriage contract. Secondly like Speed, Bio was not shut down worldwide. FSports 1 still seems to be carrying some Speed programming still.
 * There is no legal difference between ABC Family and its predecessors [[Television networks preceding ABC Family as the channel is required to keep Family in its name and to air the The 700 Club and it has two articles. Spshu (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When I talk about Fox Sports 1 being part of a re-alignment, I bring up the replacement of Fox Soccer with FXX as well. And also "There is no indication that "the need to redo carriage contracts" exist in changing from Speed to FSports 1'"; did you even read the article?! ViperSnake151   Talk  05:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the article. While the article states that, it is not supported by the sources. Spshu (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so? Did you even read this? Which says "Because Fox was changing the channel’s content from a motorsports channel to an all-sports channel -- thereby changing [the providers'] contracts -- the distributors had the right to drop it." ViperSnake151   Talk  23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But that same source states: "Fox told the distributors that it would convert Speed into FS1 and allow distributors with existing Speed deals to carry it at Speed’s rate, or at least close to it, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the talks." "Rather than having these carriage fights with multiple distributors at launch, Fox execs, led by Fox Networks Distribution President Mike Hopkins, decided to establish the channel on cable and satellite systems first. Then, as Speed’s affiliate deals expire, Fox will try to negotiate increases. While those negotiations will occur in an environment where distributors have become more emboldened in their disputes with sports networks, Fox is banking that systems find that it is more disruptive to drop existing channels that have a built-in audience." The article is clear that Fox moved from starting up separately from Speed (as one point they were: "... it told distributors that they would be provided with a watered-down version of Speed if they did not agree to a new FS1 deal.") So, they moved from an all new channel that replaced Speed to Speed rebranding to FS1 to get the carriage thus just needing to get change of programming approval. Spshu (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151, would you mind finally addressing the point I brought up regarding The Biography Channel (UK and Ireland) and Lifetime (UK and Ireland)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles use different terminology, suggesting that it was shut down and replaced with no continuity between them at all. It's another fringe case, but it's poorly sourced too. Seriously, can we just end this war and keep the article acknowledging its full history alone? The other article is just a mere POV fork by an editor who does not consider these two networks to have the same continuity. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on FYI (U.S. TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150512053408/http://redcarpetcrash.com:80/fyis-say-it-to-my-face-premieres-saturday-may-9/ to http://redcarpetcrash.com/fyis-say-it-to-my-face-premieres-saturday-may-9/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on FYI (U.S. TV channel). 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/20080919051856/http://www.barb.co.uk:80/viewingsummary/monthreports.cfm?report=monthgmulti to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/monthreports.cfm?report=monthgmulti

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) 22:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:FYI (American TV channel)


text:
User:Alma Pater

Alma Pater from Bezdonys

title: User:Alma Pater


text:
UEFA Women's Euro 2005

The 2005 UEFA Women's Championship, also referred to as UEFA Women's Euro 2005, was a football tournament for women held from 5 June to 19 June 2005 in Lancashire, England and Cheshire, England. The UEFA Women's Championship is a regular tournament involving European national teams from countries affiliated to UEFA, the European governing body, who have qualified for the competition. The competition aims to determine which national women's team is the best in Europe.

Germany won the competition for the fourth consecutive tournament, and the sixth time overall (including one win in the predecessor tournament, the European Competition for Representative Women's Teams). Their championship win was the last for coach Tina Theune-Meyer, who months earlier had announced her retirement effective at the end of the tournament. In her nine years in charge of Germany, they won three European titles, two bronze medals in the Olympics, and the 2003 World Cup.

Finland made its debut in the competition.

Teams and structure
Eight national teams participated – seven of which qualified from earlier stages, plus England, which received an automatic berth as the host nation. They were split into two groups of four: Group A and Group B. Each team in a group played each other once, with the top two teams in each group progressing to the semi-finals. The winner faced the runner-up of the other group in a play-off, with the winner of each semi-final advancing to the final to determine the champion.

Qualification
A qualifying round ran from 22 March to 3 October 2004. The teams which were entered played in a group stage, with the winners advancing to the final, and the runners-up being given the chance of qualification through a play-off. England, as the host nation, qualified automatically for the tournament. This was the first time in which the hosts qualified automatically for the final tournament.

The following teams were eliminated at this stage:

 * Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Kazakhstan, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Scotland, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine

Three teams were also eliminated in play-offs for the tournament:

 * Czech Republic, Iceland, Russia

More information on the qualification format at UEFA.com

Squads
For a list of all squads that played in the final tournament, see 2005 UEFA Women's Championship squads

Match officials

 * Croatia
 * Blazenka Logarusic

 * 🇨🇿 Czech Republic
 * Dagmar Damková
 * Hana Spackova

 * 🏴 England
 * Amy Rayner
 * Wendy Toms

 * 🇭🇺 Hungary
 * Gyöngyi Gaál

 * Northern Ireland
 * Andi Regan

 * 🇵🇱 Poland
 * Katarzyna Nadolska

 * 🇷🇴 Romania
 * Floarea Cristina Ionescu
 * Irina Mirt

 * 🇸🇰 Slovakia
 * Alexandra Ihringova
 * Miroslava Migalova

 * 🇪🇸 Spain
 * Yolanda Parga Rodriguez

 * Switzerland
 * Elke Lüthi
 * Nicole Petignat

 * 🇺🇸 United States of America
 * Kari Seitz

First round
Top two teams in each group advanced to the semi-finals

Group A
Note:
 * Finland and Denmark finished level on points. Finland advanced to the semi-finals due to their head-to-head win.

Goalscorers

 * 4 goals
 * 🇩🇪 Inka Grings

 * 3 goals

 * 🇩🇪 Conny Pohlers
 * 🇩🇪 Birgit Prinz
 * 🇳🇴 Solveig Gulbrandsen
 * 🇸🇪 Hanna Ljungberg

 * 2 goals

 * Cathrine Paaske-Sørensen
 * 🇫🇮 Laura Österberg Kalmari
 * 🇫🇷 Marinette Pichon
 * 🇩🇪 Renate Lingor
 * 🇮🇹 Melania Gabbiadini
 * 🇳🇴 Isabell Herlovsen
 * 🇳🇴 Lise Klaveness
 * 🇳🇴 Dagny Mellgren

 * 1 goal

 * Merete Pedersen
 * Johanna Rasmussen
 * 🏴 Amanda Barr
 * 🏴 Karen Carney
 * 🏴 Fara Williams
 * 🇫🇮 Heidi Kackur
 * 🇫🇮 Minna Mustonen
 * 🇫🇮 Anna-Kaisa Rantanen
 * 🇫🇷 Stéphanie Mugneret-Béghé
 * 🇫🇷 Hoda Lattaf
 * 🇩🇪 Steffi Jones
 * 🇩🇪 Sandra Minnert
 * 🇩🇪 Anja Mittag
 * 🇮🇹 Elisa Camporese
 * 🇮🇹 Sara Di Filippo
 * 🇳🇴 Marit Christensen
 * 🇸🇪 Anna Sjöström

 * Own goal
 * 🇫🇮 Sanna Valkonen (playing against England)

Legacy
The tournament was viewed as a successful one by The Football Association. The tournament is credited with popularising women's football in England.

title: UEFA Women's Euro 2005


text:
User talk:B3virq3b

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:B3virq3b


text:
Talk:Joust (video game)

Comment

 * Hi people. I just added a bunch of stuff to this page. If you have any feedback, please give it. I'm still learning some of the rules to wikipedia, but I want to be as useful as I can. Elliotharmon 11:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I converted the table over to an infobox designed for arcade games. I didn't fill in the Ports row, feel free to include it. --Pagrashtak 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I just came back to Wikipedia after several months away. Just a note about this article. "Unbeatable? Pterodactyl" is not a mistake. That's what the game calls it, in both onscreen and written instructions. I'm not changing it right now, because the entire "gameplay" section needs to be rewritten. Elliotharmon 18:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

cheats, also 2600
I added a word "a" that was clearly an unintentional ommition in the 1st sentence of the cheats section. Someone might wish to mention that the 2600 joust was pretty faithful for a 2600 game. I think it wa probably considered one of the most successful 2600 ports ever. I think they stretched it as far as it could go to port it so well. --Thaddeus Slamp 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) I should clarify. If all instantiations of the class 2600 games have lousy sound and graphics, then such does not warrent mentioning. Such becomes a liability (that is to say the error is compounded)@ the point when 1, or a few games stand out as better than usual to whatever degree, yet one still mentions the game in terms of all members of a class. @ that point, one is pretty much as close to outright lying as is possible, without lying. The Important thing about the Joust Port, I beleive is that it was better than most 2600 games, not the tautological statement that the graphics and sound were poor (what; you mean to tell me it's a member of the class 2600 games, the knowledgable and logical reader is liable to tend to ask).Thaddeus Slamp 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW a ref:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060217082644/www.atariage.com/system_reviews.html?SystemID=2600&orderBy=Name&orderByValue=Ascending&recordsPerPage=100&currentPage=3

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elliotharmon" (who seems to me to be the responsible party.

Species Of Mounts
Alexis Ohanian of Reddit fame has publicly wondered about the player riding a roc instead of an ostrich. I remember seeing the cabinet, as well as reading the operator documentation clearly stating that player 1 is a ostrich, while player 2 rides a stork. Actually, I just double checked KLOV's copy of the docs and confirmed it; I will be making the change since the roc mention isn't cited while KLOV is. --DLWormwood 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

working game play links
I'm no fan of AOL, nor wish to advertise for GameTap, but as it is only the AOL link provides a fully-functional Joust game. It's hard to say one is an ad and the others (like Midway itself, duh?) are not ads. --User:75.185.127.48 08:57, 6 August 2007

 * Very simple, the GameTap version is an advertisement. Its presented as such, sold as such, and meant to be as such.  The Midway and AOL ones are not.  Likewise, all external links have to follow policy which is they are meant to illustrate the current entry by providing material not available here.  Whether or not they are "full versions" are not the issue, this is not a place to provide game links.  In fact, we technically don't need any of the links except for Midway's (which would be the only official one since they own the property). --Marty Goldberg 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent citation attempts
Please understand, the citations you keep trying to add are not valid by WP:Cite or WP:Verify. These include the standards on references coming from established (verifiable) and *published* sources. Personal statements set in a reference tag are *not* valid references, as you've been told before. Likewise, the pterodactyl reference is grey line as Wikipedia also has a policy against referencing itself. I let it stay for now, but it really needs consensus as does the entire section since its bordering on strategy - something also not allowed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Distribution
Who distributed Joust in Japan? Was it Taito?--66.177.73.91 (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?
Wholesale reverting amounting to massive deletion of material is Not Good. I'm tempted to start reverting the reverts. Explain, please. - Denimadept (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

---> Previous version was completely ok. Valuable comments removed without consent from community. Avoid doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Power2084 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted this, Power2084, please explain why you made those changes. It appears that you've removed a lot of sourced information from the article. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the previous version was ok. Lack of available development information and excess game guide details unbalance the topic in my opinion. However, I'm not so naive to believe that the current version is perfect, especially when the "Reception and legacy" is unfinished. What about the previous version do you think adds the most value to the topic? Perhaps content can be carried over. Once I have more free time to dedicate to Wikipedia, I plan to take this article to WP:GAN and hope this is settled before that. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

GA discussion
If we need the docs, let me know. I've got them. - Denimadept (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "non-encyclopedic" ? And who better than Diderot can define that?
'''Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[11] — Diderot'''

I am 40 and started videogames when videogames started. There is a whole new generation of gamers that has not had this pleasure. Why should not be considered encyclopedic to tell this new generation that a work like Joust has inspired other works? And a clever "clin-d'oeil" such as the Mt. Hyjal quest line in WOW deserves that, for both Joust lovers as I am and WOW lovers.

Yes, of course, you can dance on US3 without having a clue about Herbie Hancock and have fun all the same. But there is another way of appreciating the present, and that is the whole concept of history. Where do I come from? Where do I go? And how the heck did I get here?

Yet you could answer that inspiration in a work of art is not factual and therefore keep deleting references to World of Warcraft since they are non encyclopedic. But when they come from different users, from all ages, from all over the world, the censor should ask himself "why am I preventing those people to share the knowledge?

And if other editors of Wiki let Proust's fan write a section about "References in popular culture" for La Recherche du Temps Perdu (sorry, In Search of Lost Time for you English speakers), who is the censor who can decree that Joust does not deserve a section for Joust references in pop culture as well? To which degree we consider those kind of references unuseful and non encyclopedic for Joust when they are useful and encyclopedic for Proust? Just because the form of art is different? Imagery and game techniques of course are not as direct as a Monty Python's parody or a Cate Blanchett's line. And yet the reference, the homage is right there.

Knowledge is knowledge, and if you are not familiar with World of Warcraft and the Mount Hyjal chain, you just cannot recognise the homage. Which exists and is blatant to a discerning videogamer's eye.

--85.5.223.154 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for coming to the talk page to discuss the addition. The World Of Warcraft homage is already linked in the article, under the reception section. There's no need for an entire section describing the homage. Dayewalker (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "who is the censor who can decree....", the answer is the guidelines for the video game project, which were created by consensus of the project members (currently about 360 active Wikipedia editors are members).  We have guidelines for popculture sections and content, as well as other areas.  That's besides the general guidelines of Wikipedia itself.  The long  soapbox rant aside, I would strongly suggest becoming familiar with the guidelines for content and contributor governance here if you plan to continue to edit content. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of Wikipedia's prime content directives is that we don't care and cannot include your (or any editor's) 40 years of personal experience. If you wish to share that, the proper venue would be to start a personal blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Oh, and if the OP is only 40, he's deluding himself if he thinks he's been in this since the beginning. The first known video game can not be younger than 1961, with Spacewar (video game).  Even if he requires coin-op video games, PONG dates from 1972, which he would have been a bit too young to remember, being born in 1974.  And I seem to remember something about a game from 1958 or 1959 as well. - Denimadept (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 * One more thing. Regarding "encyclopaedic", "knowledge" and "anecdote" are not the same.  We require published sources.  See WP:OR for details. - Denimadept (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Joust (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101213192055/http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com:80/blog/article/19534/world-of-warcraft-cataclysmreview.html to http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/19534/world-of-warcraft-cataclysmreview.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090520015550/http://archive.gamespy.com:80/articles/july03/famicom/index17.shtml to http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/july03/famicom/index17.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Joust (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827023427/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/2565653.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/2565653.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070607140115/http://www.gamespot.com:80/gameboy/action/defenderjoust/index.html to http://www.gamespot.com/gameboy/action/defenderjoust/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110104083945/http://www.gamedaily.com:80/articles/features/new-hollywood-company-bringing-joust-to-the-big-screen/70844/?biz=1 to http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/new-hollywood-company-bringing-joust-to-the-big-screen/70844/?biz=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Clone section?
Was this gutted? Didn't it used to list DragonHawk and Glypha? --69.249.178.106 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Joust (video game). 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/20090821104444/http://classicgaming.gamespy.com:80/View.php?view=GameMuseum.Detail&id=117 to http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/View.php?view=GameMuseum.Detail&id=117
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/254169/A_former_mentor_recalls_the_early_career_of_Satoru_Iwata.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309151306/http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=122168 to http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=122168

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joust (video game). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/View.php?view=GameMuseum.Detail&id=117
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/254169/A_former_mentor_recalls_the_early_career_of_Satoru_Iwata.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701003623/http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=2356 to http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=2356

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) 10:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Joust (video game" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joust_(video_game&redirect=no Joust (video game] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joust (video game)


text:
User talk:Kurt Leyman

Take a look at Image:Tirpitz.jpg, Image:Bismarck.jpg and Image:Bastico.jpg, and please provide the license for those pics. Also, if you add a new pic to an article, there's no need to delete the previous ones (just take a note on how the article on German battleship Tirpitz looks now and how it did after your edits. Finally, why did you delete the description for the Image:Schlezwig after skirmish with Hel.jpg and deleted the interwiki link from the respective article?

Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. Halibutt 11:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Loss of HMS Hood
Kurt,

You seem to have very strong views about what caused the loss of HMS Hood. I recently corrected a false rendering of the 2nd Board of Enquiry's conclusion on the loss, replacing it with a verbatim quotation from the transcript at. You then changed it back to a reading just as spurious as the one I changed. Why are you doing this?? If you don't agree with the Board's conclusion - and many people don't - then by all means add a paragraph explaining why it's wrong; but please, please. please do not misrepresent a primary source.

I would be very grateful if you would put a message, either on the Hood talk page or on mine, explaining the reason for your changes.

Regards,

John Moore London, UK John Moore 309 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia
I see you are new here so you might not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. In general, Wikipedia is very strict about images, and allows the inclusion only of those images which have precise license information that releases them into public use.

For example, this page appears to be copyrighted (look at the bottom), so you cannot just use the images without permission.

Personally, I find this policy a bit silly when applied to images over 60 years old, but it is what it is. Balcer 17:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser
I have moved the debate about class to a central page which did not exist when the debate started. Perhapse you would like to comment further. Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW on talk pages you can sign you comments with ~. Wikipedia will automagically put in your user name and a time stamp when you save it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

German battlecruiser Scharnhorst
Please can you add a source for the quote you added. Philip Baird Shearer 30 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait
You deleted some small parts of this article as "irrelevant". I don't agree. The reasons for the PoW not being pursued, if true, seem relevant. The other bits about the fate of the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen are more debatable, but a thumbnail of the aftermath puts the rest into perspective, IMHO. Your comments? Folks at 137 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tirpitz
Please explain your deletion of info from this article. Do you regard it as untrue or as irrelevant? An answer to my query, above, about your deletions from Battle of the Denmark Strait would be courteous. Folks at 137 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi! Thanks for your response. I assume we’re talking only about Operation Catechism on 12th November 1944. I’ve been chasing and comparing sources on the net. The following is based upon them. There are some differences (always will be) but what is not disputed is that no RAF bomber was attacked by any Luftwaffe fighter. That sounds correct as the Lancasters were significantly dis-armed (one turret and some armour removed) and, against FW190s, casualties should have been far greater than one, with damage to surviving aircraft. Sources then disagree: some say all aircraft returned safely, some say one was brought down by flak. I would tend to accept the latter as there are also details of a bomber crashing in Sweden. The failure of JG5 at Bardufoss to protect Tirpitz is indisputable: Tirpitz sank. But, why? It appears that the fighter wing had only just been transferred to Bardufoss, as a response to the previous attack on 29th October and crews were still training for their new FW190 aircraft. They were restricted to local defence and emergencies. Again sources differ. Some say that JG5 was not informed in time. Others say that Bardufoss claimed that it was under attack, which would support your source’s claim of a planned diversion. (No sources that I’ve seen say that this was an planned diversion – just misinterpretation.) What then confuses is the statement I’ve seen of Bardufoss' report that there were planes overhead. Another site points to weaknesses in the German air defence system in the area, so this probably contributed. I’ve also seen, but cannot reference, a statement that Luftwaffe commander(s) were court-martialled.

 * In summary, I still hold to the view that the Luftwaffe failed to protect the Tirpitz – it sank! Given that the sources for no fighter “kills” come from RAF and veteran sources, I would accept them – after all they would know who did and didn’t return. This can only be due to the Luftwaffe not being ready, probably due to their recent arrival in the area and their new aircraft, coupled with the wish to defend their own base (but why not airborne?). One source states that the fighters were scambled, but too late.

 * Here are the main on-line sources I've used:

 * http://groups.msn.com/BritishNavy/sinkingofthetirpitz.msnw
 * http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/history/tiropercatechism.html
 * http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/tirpitz.html
 * http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/tirpitz.html
 * http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/overlander/attack.htm

 * Last point: it would have helped if you had left a reason for your deletion at the time. I think that there will be enough common ground to reinstate a version of the deleted text. I’ll continue looking for info. Regards, Folks at 137 11:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tin-Foil Hat Brigade
Saw your comment about conspiracy theories -- lurk around those pages for awhile, you won't believe how many people actually believe that crud. Morton devonshire 10:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Italian involvement in Battle of France
Hi, Kurt! You have of course been correct in adding the Italian involvement in the battle; however mentioning the entire theoretical strength of Army Group West is very deceptive as most of these divisions weren't fully mobilised, let alone deployed. Besides Gruppo d'Armate Ovest had only 22 divisions, six of them with a reserve status: so am I correct in assuming you added the entire strategic reserve, the ten divisions of 6th Army? Also the number of 500,000 you gave, matches the theoretical strength of the 22 divisions (including supply and support forces), not the 32; on the other hand less then 100,000 Italian troops were really at the frontline. So we might even enlarge the number of troops to be consistent; or we could be more realistic and give the numbers of 16 divisions and 300,000 troops. What do you think? Greetings, --MWAK 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Peru v Kriegsmarine
If you look at the article on Peru, the history section states that the Peruvians destroyed a German submarine and a German "battleship": ''In 1943 the Peruvian navy destroyed a German submarine that had arrived to the port of Callao to get supplies. Peru also sunk another German battleship in 1944.'' I've found NO evidence for anything like this, even allowing that "battleship" might mean "warship". Have you any evidence? Folks at 137 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)
You are invited to vote at Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans in Finland
It would be great if you can provide a source for this. Without that, it is much more likely that you will be reverted. Some users at that page seem way to willing to erase any mentions of misconduct on the part of Soviet partisants, however they can be stopped with the use of proper, academic references - see Soviet partisans in Poland. I'd strongly recommend that using references is the best way to ensure your information stays in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Oletko suomalainen? Meillä näyttää olevan samoja mielenkiinnon kohteita, ja eräät täällä näyttävät muokkaavan asioita aina Neuvostoliiton hyödyksi. Soviet partisans lisäsin niitä lähteitä, ja nyt se näyttää olevan jo niskan päällä. Laitoin sen hautakiven kuvan Commonsiin ja lisäsin artikkeliin. --Pudeo 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Deng
I blocked him for a week. Not only was he stalking you, he committed a 3RR vio on Second Battle of the Atlantic. Your edits on that article are not vandalism. In fact, I think they are just as good as what Deng is reverting to. Now, please don't take this to mean that you can do what you want. I'll be monitoring the situation. But I just wanted to let you know. And thanks for the heads up on it. I usually don't watch user's edits, so I wouldn't have known that he was back to what he was doing with you. So. Be good. Please. For me. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, please don't "discuss" via edit summaries. That's what talk pages are for. --Woohookitty(meow) 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gneisenau
You asked: ''The only sources that I have seen to say anything about the claim of the ships being built to carry 15 inch guns from the beginning are internet sources. Can you provide books?''

The stuff I have at home is lightweight but supports the belief that this class were designed for up-gunning. My copy of the Collins Warships of World War II which is an extract from Jane's says they were quite capable of up-gunning to 15-in mountings. Why the down on web sources? Some are just as reliable as some books. Hard copy doesn't guarantee hard fact. Folks at 137 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe I can help here. They do appear to have been designed for upgunning. But I hear you asking why go to all the additional hassle and expense of under-gunning when first built. I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems likely that it was related to treaty committments prior to 1936. Then in 1936 Germany agreed to the Anglo-German Naval Treaty which loosened those committments somewhat, although Germany was still bound by restrictions on tonnage of individual ships, and that limited armament to some degree. It is impractical to mount a 15-inch gun on a lightly built ship of limited tonnage without sacrificing other items, usually armour. The former German Navy intel officer Cajus Becker wrote in  The German Navy 1939-45  (ISBN 1 85152 591 2 published 1974 in English by Hamlyn) that the German Navy were planning for a war with Great Britain that was unlikely to begin before 1944 (page 34). He also writes (page 38) that "the latter [Scharnhorst] and [Gneisenau] to be rearmed in 1941-42 with 15-inch guns." That seems to fit well with Germany's repudiation in April 1939 of the 1936 Anglo-German Naval Treaty, giving the German Navy the freedom to advance plans for an upgunning, and probably an increase in tonnage. However, WW2 began earlier than the German Navy's plans envisaged, and the rest is history. George.Hutchinson 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kurt
I am very interested in these ships like you. I was just wondering why you removed the images of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? Do you think there are to many, or you just didn't like them. I think personally that the more pictures the better. Wallie 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * These accusitions are very sceptic. Kurt.

Advice
Hello Kurt. Just some advice. I think you would be much better off by using talk pages to discuss controversial changes you want to make instead of using edit summaries. Talk pages are to discuss changes such as the ones you made to Battle of Königsberg and Kronstadt. The changes themselves I have no problem with. The problem I have is that it's your usual pattern. You make the change, it's reverted...instead of then opening up a discussion on the talk page, you make the change again. That kind of behavior leads to edit wars. Do others have the same obligation you do? Sure. But what's bothersome with you is that you never do it. Instead you get into revert or edit wars with people with very little discussion about it. It doesn't hurt anything to say "hey, why do you object to this change?" --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you *please* start using talk pages? --Woohookitty(meow) 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex and the Poles
If he reverts again, just let him. I am up to 2 reverts. I'll change it back later. I do get the feeling that some people think that Poland and Canada were the only participants in WW2. Very strange. Wallie 22:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad
Well I took a look. Honestly, my first thought was the troublesome editor you were talking about (whose indefinite block was endorsed by the Arbcom a month ago). But honestly, this Potaaatos doesn't have any of Deng's earmarks. But. I did WL the page. If you see anything more Deng like (bad spelling, reversions using words like "liar", etc), let me know. I know that he's lurking somewhere because Deng doesn't just go away. Wish he would but it doesn't work that way with him. So. Keep me posted. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Deng. This edit was the dead giveaway for me. I don't get it. "Chummy with Kurt". We've heard that before. I've blocked you several times. In fact, I recommended that you be blocked in the post right above his. I sometimes don't like how you operate. But it doesn't excuse Deng's behavior. It never will. Anyway. He has been blocked. Again. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaksure
Yeah it's Deng. I brought it up as a possibility to DMorpheus a week or so ago but he wasn't sure. Well. If you look at his talk page, he's sure now. I'll block him. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

corpo aereo italiano
I'm fine with amending the phrase to 'some' historians. Perhaps a reference at that point to the Wiki Battle of Britain page would allow users to see the difference between the British and German historians' views. --Christopher Bryan 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

109 Picture
This image was added for the reasons I stated on the discussion board, I suggest you look there. As for the 'is that even real' have you never heard of the 'Black 6' its the most famous 109 survivor. In fact it last flew I believe in 2004.

Dapi89 00:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Neverlose1
I'm not 100% convinced it's Deng. But I'm watching his edits closely. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait - German casualties
Hello, Kurt.

You ask, in the edit summary of your latest edit to Battle of the Denmark Strait, "didn't the Germans suffer one dead?". The answer is "not during the battle itself". The first German fatality occured later in the same day, during the attack by torpedo bombers from HMS Victorious; the shock of a torpedo hit on Bismarck threw a petty officer against a bulkhead, causing fatal head injuries. This is confirmed in sources such as Kennedy's Pursuit and Mullenheim-Rechsberg's Battleship Bismarck. I have taken the liberty of reversing the change. Please advise me if you have any problem with this (I have added this page to my watchlist). Regards, John Moore 309 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nordost
Vaihdoin tuon Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS tuolle nimelle siitä Nordostista, ja nyt vasta huomasin, että se oli ollut melkein samanlaisella nimellä aikaisemmin. Ilmeisesti sinä olit vaihtanut sen. Että olikos tämä nyt huono siirto, vaikka eikös se nimi juuri vaihdettu pois tuosta pohjoisidästä tuohon Suomalainen Waffen-SS-vapaaehtoispataljoona? Kieltämättä tuo uudempi on hieman huono joissain yhteyksissä, kuten "German Finnish Volunteer battalion" jne.. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuation war
Hi Kurt, a user (Elrith) is doing some major changes and deletions on Continuation war please review these changes since you are familiar with the subject. Recesende 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Citylaugh
I blocked him. Almost certainly Deng. Thanks for the heads up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Slovak invasion of Poland
I would say that the original name, Polish Campaign of Slovak Army, was fitting more. The word "invasion" suggests a large scale operation, not the sub-secondary role played by the Slovak State. It also does not provide context and could be mistaken for any of historical incursions of Poland from Slovakia. It also fits with the commonly used term Polish Campaign and typically used Czech and Slovak terms ("invasion" would sound absurd in these because of possibly shifted semantics of the word in these two languages).

If you get convinced by this you may request the move back on WP:RM (it needs an admin). I won't - I am low on time and try not engage with bureaucracy and single-side actions. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

LWP on eastern front.
First, I'm not pro PRL it was rubbish from the very beginning until it's deserved end. Second how do I mark the LWP that fought along the Red Army on the eastern front in many battles between 1943 and 1945 (including Battle for Berlin)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 19:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Omaha Beach
Hi there. I've re-edited the German casualty figure back into the infobox in the Omaha Beach article. Whilst not cited there, the number is cited in the main article ('End of day' section). It does look a bit odd that the number of Germans at Omaha is given as 'Unknown', but as far as I can tell, whilst the units defending the beach were known, they were spread across a sector that only partially included Omaha, so it's not so easy simply to state unit strength as the defensive strength (and of course be able to cite it). Cheers. --FactotEm 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War's result
Thanks for your note. Your comments reflect the same thinking I had behind the change; the simple addition of the clause "to the Allies" puts everything in context, bringing everything together, and I believe sums up the result much better. There might be other, better solutions, but it's hard to be much more brief and still get the detail in there.

I agree that Mibovosky's assessment is too simplistic, making it sound like an isolated war between the two parties of Japan and China resulting in Japan's unconditional surrender. The talk page seems to reflect others sharing the same concern. Surely most people these days still have a peripheral knowledge of the second world war, but the summary box taken on its own without the clause could certainly be confusing. I will keep an eye on the article in case Mibovosky or others take issue with it. — LactoseTI T 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Hey, I'm not arguing with you. This was the edit summary to which I was referring. It's wrong to label edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. Parsecboy 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fiat M11/39stä
Uskoisin (tai ainakin pidän täysin mahdollisena), että viittaus M11/39-miehistöjen innostukseen uudesta panssarivaunustaan on lainattu Nicola Pignaton italiankielisestä kirjasta, joten sen vuoksi kyseisen kohdan poistaminen artikkelista on mielestäni täysin turhaa, ellet varmuudella voi esim. mainitun kirjan perusteella todistaa, että kyse todellakin on pelkästä arvailusta tai mielipiteestä. Läyhä (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Laitoin aiheesta kysymyksen tuon WikiProjekti Sotahistorian (jonka piiriin väittelyn kohteena oleva artikkeli kuuluu) pääkoordinaattorin Kirill Lokshinin keskustelusivulle. Käy katsomassa jos huvittaa, ja lisää tarvittaessa omia kommenttejasi. Joka tapauksessa en enää itse aio puuttua artikkeliin ennen kuin tuolta taholta tulee vastaus siitä, minkälainen sisältö Wikipedian artikkeleissa on suotavaa. Hyvät joulut. Läyhä (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau
I have opened an RfC on whether to refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Since you have participated in this debate previously, please have a look, read the debate, and make your views known: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser Regards, The Land (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Crete
You seem to be caught in an revert war with User:R. A. Hicks over the Battle of Crete article. Please try to discuss the issues on talk. I'm close to protecting the article, and it will certainly be on The Wrong Version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Finnish reserve strength
Hello!

We seem to have rather differing opinions about the Finnish Defence Forces reserve strength. Could you please provide a source for the number you give, 485,000? From 2008 on, the full mobilized strength of the FDF is 350,000, as evindenced by the Finnish government decisions on the matter and several FDF publications. If you have info to the contrary, please give it. The full reserve strength, on the other hand, is much higher. If you count all the persons who have passed their conscription, and have not fulfilled their 50th or 60th year, you arrive at a number that is somewhere between 830,000 and 950,000. --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

East African Campaign (World War II)
I put the casualty figures into the East African Campaign (World War II) article. I am writing to say that I will probably leave them out even though I can provide a source. The numbers I found were for the British and Commonwealth forces only and, on second look, they do look exceedingly low. In addition, it seems that this is a delicate topic for many and there may never be a totally reliable source for acurrate numbers.

In other words, I agree with your removal. Best wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Halbe
User:KapHorn is raising some valid points about the positioning of the Battle of Halbe, and as you had access to the other major source that we used to write the article (Tony Le Tissier, Slaughter at Halbe), perhaps you would like to contribute to the conversation on Talk:Battle of Halbe --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Constantine XI
Seeing "actions" in Constantine XI article I am writing my comments on users talk pages.
 * Constantine XI is last emperor of Constantinople
 * Maybe I am mistaking but there is only 1 historical source that he has been crowned in Mistra and it is ease to put this source under question.
 * Byzantine/Roman Empire has not died with Constantine XI. Many users are forgeting that Byzantine Empire has existed next 7 or 8 years (Byzantine province Morea).
 * Last direct piece of unbroken line of Roman Empire has died only in 1476 .This fact has been public knowledge for very long time (around 300 years).
 * Similar problems are created by historians in last years of Western Roman Empire but we can't do anything.

During his time Napoleon has been speaking that it is not important what he is doing, because history writes will say what they want and this will become history.

I am not weird historian or something similar because if you look history you need to look state laws and documents without POV thinking. Example for Western Roman Empire. Evidence against Romulus Augustus:
 * Person will become emperor (of west or east) only if after taking power he is accepted by other emperor (west or east). If he is not accepted he is usurper. Because of that rule Romulus Augustus has been failed usurper during Julius Nepos reign.
 * Romulus Augustus has not even been recognized in Dalmatia and northern Gaul which has been last 2 Roman provinces (without Italy).
 * After Odoacer has taken power he has accepted fact that Julius Nepos is Western Roman Emperor and has even issued coins in Nepos' name.

Because of this 3 simple reasons Julius Nepos has been last Western Roman Emperor and Romulus Augustus nothing more but last Roman ruler of Italy.

My point is that about end of Roman Empire we can't trust historians :)--Rjecina (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Empie
Very well, but next time make sure you write a better worded summary. I see that the issue is that a link to its own article is pointless. Tourskin (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain
Could you kindly look at this article as it needs attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Saving Private Ryan
Kurt,

Putting a note on your talk page as I'm not looking to start an edit war. While I think the information on the shaven head issue is interesting from a mil-historical standpoint, I don't think it has great bearing on the movie article. What I'm really worried about is it opening the door to all of the rest of the 'inaccuracy' additions like the folded sights on the MG42 ad nauseum. We just got that stuff cleared out of the article. If a couple of the regular editors of the article agree with you and disagree with me then I'll go along with consensus.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've made some (what I consider) minor changes to your addition in an attempt to tie it in to the rest of the section. I hope you're OK with them.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I think I finally see what you are trying to say. I found a wording to make everyone happy and is better overall since he is now a member of an entourage and not just someone who is loved or beloved by Hadrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriech (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

image on infobox
Hi, there is a consultation at Talk:Alexander_the_Great. Can you pass by that and explain your rationale for using the bust image on the infobox instead of the mosaic image? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Alexander's picture
Well, I opened a RfC on the matter of the picture. Please see my comment above, there are four editors (including me) that think that the mosaic looks better, I don't need to define "looks better". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Maximinus Thrax
Kurt, your recent addition about his height would be more useful if it was supported by a citation to a reliable reference. Anyway, I think I have seen it somewhere, perhaps you would be able to find one in Google books. Otherwise, I think we should revert it (please also check the relevant discussion page). Dipa1965 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC) And I just noticed that you based your edit on some user views in the discussion page. Unless these views are backed by a scholarly reference, it's nothing but original research therefore they cannot be used in articles Dipa1965 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kurt! At the heart of my reservation is that we should not add material that is akin to WP:Original Research (e.g. when adding what we think it makes sense), at any rate. Anyway, I 'll try myself to find a reference. Don't forget that I am the one who has found the correct medical reference on his assumed acromegaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipa1965 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Kurt, I tried hard to find a scholarly reference for your edit and failed. Instead of it I found two very good references who dismiss the information of HA as popular stereotypes for barbarian bandits or soldiers. So I reverted your edit and put this one. If you could find a reference supporting your edit, I would be glad to embed it in the article Dipa1965 (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image at Justinian
Hello. I'm sorry, but your explanation doesn't seem to explain anything. How and why has the picture been "superseded" by the other one? To me, the coloration of the bright picture looks more varied and more akin to that of the photographs I have seen in print. (I have not seen the original mosaic.) The current one looks rather as if it was underexposed. Iblardi (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could respond to my question in the form of a talk page comment. What is "better colour adjusting" supposed to mean? Is there any underlying policy on account of which that statement should be considered authoritative? Iblardi (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. So it's a matter of colour adjustment and of increasing/decreasing brightness. The other picture, which had been there since August 21, 2003, was replaced by a bot on July 10, 2007, and I never quite understood why. If colours are the issue, I can instead argue that the new picture makes Justinian's face look a pale ash grey instead of a healthy pink, the robe looks anthracite instead of imperial purple and the golden background has lost its splendour and looks like some earth colour, while it is exactly the splendour that is such a recurring theme in descriptions of Byzantine art. Hence I would say that the older picture is more fitting than the new one. Iblardi (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I right to understand that this is all older material of which the copyright has expired, Self correction: probably not, but the colours look strangely undifferentiated, as in pre-1970s art reproductions. This is exemplified by an image such as this, and indeed in the Justinian image. The range of colours seems quite poor, and I would rather trust the other photograph regarding accuracy of coloration. Therefore I have restored it. Iblardi (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I opened a RfC about which image to use. Please don't revert each other, and accept the outcome of the RfC. This is supposed to be a community work, so sometimes it's necessary to swallow one's personal preferences, accept that things won't always go one's way, and go to work at some other article. (by the way,personally, I have no preference for any of those two images) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, edit warring can get an article dropped from GA/FA status per point 5 of Good article criteria, so please [removed after posting] err, I mean, stop reverting each other and let the RfC run for 30 days and then abide for what the RfC says even if you don't like it. The stability of the article is more important than getting the "right" image on it. (this is directed to both Kurt and Iblardi) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) P.D.: I removed unnecessary harsh wording from my post, sorry for my uncivility, it's just a common wording used in very informal message boards but I shouldn't have used it here --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't know that. I certainly don't think it's all that important, and I admit that it would be childish having an edit war over a picture. I will stop reverting. It's just that I was a little annoyed, I think, by the lack of a clear explanation for that change. I do tend to be a little uncooperative lately. It might be time to take a Wikibreak. Thanks for the comment. Iblardi (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Empire: Total War units
Do you have a usable reference for those retail units? I know they exist, but I'm turning up a blank on reliable sources to reference it to. It really needs a reference, or else its probably going to need removing. -- Sabre (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * They'll have to do. -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Maximinus Thrax again
Hello Kurt! Primary sources (Herodian) are not suitable for supporting debated claims (Maximinus' height). Please read carefully this one from WP:OR:Primary,secondary and tertiary sources : "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Therefore, it is clearly wrong tactic to use a primary source in order to refute a secondary scholarly view. Therefore, I moved Herodian's claims before the secondary references,in order to emphasize the latter. I also performed a general cleanup of the section.--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles XI of Sweden
Hi Kurt! It's nice to see you improving articles such as Charles XI of Sweden. As you seem to have a disagreement with another user, I suggest that you present your views on the discussion page before you revert him.

Note that I don't have any opinion either way -- I only noticed that you were making an argument in the page history when you reverted, which is a difficult place for discussions.

Fred-J 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

basileus
hi Kurt. Could you pls explain the issue regarding the title of alexander as basileus of macedon? we use all the original forms for his titles and not the translations ie hegemon of the hellenic league ( instead of the translation sovereign of the hellenic league, shahashah of persia instead of great king of persia pharaoh of egypt instead of king of egypt etc). By convension we should use the same as we did thus far. I will revert it back to my own update and pls fell free to adress to me any concerns. All the bestMelathron (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

History of the Eastern Roman Empire
I'm sorry for bothering you, but since I noticed in the past your interest regarding the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, I thought you might want to know that there is a request for renaming the article "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" to "History of the Byzantine Empire". However, there's no problem if you're too busy.

Possibly unfree File:Soviet child soldier.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soviet child soldier.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Page move discussion
There is a Page move discussion going on for Rajneesh. Would you be interested in participating? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversial Page moves
Hi There, thanks for your contributions. Please remember to start a discussion thread before making controversial moves like you made on Death of Jamal Khashoggi. Please see the page at WP:RM to know more on how to do this. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kurt Leyman