text:
Talk:Digital watermarking

So comment
What the heck is water marking and why do people do it? It is so confusing and most people do not know how to do it... and blah blah blah

This page in the form of a couple of days ago is totally inadequate. It lacked (1) a proper definition of the main topic of this page, (2) a generally accepted classification, and (3) a statement of the most relevant results (e.g. Costa). Moreover, its references were mostly obscure articles. A major re-edit is needed (started). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkbts (talk • contribs) 05:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

hi, I added a lot of content but I need some help to make the look nicer (formating support). f Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas.lang (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your contribution. A lot of content has been added.  It is highly mathematical in nature, as opposed to encyclopedic.     I did not see any references added, so the recent additions have the appearance of  original research.  Many of the additions are definitions, encyclopedic content should have some meaningful results.    In my opinion, a good addition would be a description of major embedding algorithms (spread spectrum, QIM, etc.), comments are performance of different schemes, etc.      Comfortably Paranoid (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

hi again, yes, I added a lot of definitions, because I figured out, that many definitions exists, which are not really useable. the added references (ecrypt, for example) provides more and detailed information. regarding your other comment: what is the goal of this page: digital watermarking in general or specific algorithms? I added the fundamental definitions and we could enhance this article with exemplary selected digital watermarking schemes. which have a specific for e.g. robustness, transparency etc. what do you mean should or could be our next step? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas.lang (talk • contribs) 11:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Watermarking vs Steganography
Watermarking is not a form of steganography. mahendra kumar dewangan

Watermarking has the objective to embed data in a document in a way, so that it: In general it is not necessary that the watermark can not be detected. In contrary the goal of steganography is to hide data undetectable in a document.
 * is hard to remove
 * cannot be forged by someone else

When the watermark is hard to detect and the retrieval method is kept secret, then it qualifies as stegnanography. Embedding a watermark in copies of a movie so that the source of illegal copies can be determined is often stegnanographic. --76.247.183.128 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * It is also used for the purposes of Digital Rights Managment. Uniquely identifiable data is put into a file to implement DRM. Wageslave 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

-- LicklStefan 09:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many ways to make the spatial watermarking robust to cropping or translation. In fact, there are really no differences between adding something in the frequency domain over adding something in the space domain.

 * Digital watermarking is a form of steganography, because it should be undetectable. If it is detectable without keys, then it is removable by a malicious attacker, and is therefore useless cojoco (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I think it depends upon the intended use. If the watermark is intended to carry descriptive information that can be retrieved by an end user, then it may be acceptable for it to be vulnerable to attack. Watermarks can be useful even if they are easily attacked. I have tried to reword the intro to cover the comments above. --76.247.183.128 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

remove line about picture above
There is no picture referance should be removed or picture added. 'DDA.Bold text'' == Headline text == ''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.140.70 (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Are images with digital watermarking generally not allowed on Wikipedia? Shawnc 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean those visible notices, generally they're against Wikipedia style, though maybe they occur in some fair-use images where they mustn't be removed. Phr (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See commons:commons:exif. Arlo James Barnes 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Additions to history section
All but the first paragraph of the history section seems either misplaced or completely irrelevant--128.154.44.44 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The coneption in the article seems somewhat narrow
According to Cox, Miller, Bloom in "Digital Watermarking" applications include broadcast monitoring, owner identification, proof of ownership, transaction tracking, content authentication, copy control and device control. The article only seems to focus on authentication. MatthewKarlsen 17:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Page issues
Alright, so.. this page suffers heavily from a number of issues, including direct quotation and single sourcing.

"A simple example of a digital watermark would be a visible "seal" placed over an image to identify the copyright. However the watermark might contain additional information including the identity of the purchaser of a particular copy of the material. According to the human perception, the digital watermarks can be divided into two different types as follows: visible and invisible. Visible watermark is a secondary translucent overlaid into the primary image as shown in the figure." is taken from, page 4. The spacing here (you may need to edit this page) is identical to what would happen if you copied it directly from the PDF.

"There are various spatial and frequency domain techniques used for adding watermarks to and removing them from signals. Purely spatial techniques are not robust to some attacks to the signal like cropping and zooming, whereas most frequency domain techniques and mixed-domain techniques are quite robust to such attacks." - This was stolen directly from, page 17. Kiranmayi Penumarthi is not quoted on this page.

"Another application is to protect digital media by fingerprinting each copy with the purchaser's information. If the purchaser makes illegitimate copies, these will contain his name.  Fingerprints are an extension to watermarking principle and can be both visible and invisible." is from, page 7.

I'm going to ask around for some help in how to solve this problem, as I don't quite have the time or effort to put into this. —  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since they copyvios have been integrated into the text, it's nearly impossible to remove them so I've reduced it to what seems to be non-copyvio material. If someone can find a good version in the history to revert back to, that would work also. John Reaves 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the telltale signs of this copyvio are so hard to remove, perhaps we could argue that it is fair use to keep them in as the perfect example of digital watermarking! Certes (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On a less frivolous note, this page has become a magnet for linkspam. I've just removed three specimens but I doubt they'll be the last. Certes (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Undefined terms
"Cover object" is not defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.109.41 (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there zero information about anything practical in this article?
There doesn't appear to be any knowledge in this article that relates to the real world in any way.

Why is it not written in normal English?

Why no mention of Digimarc, the largest corporation selling watermark software?

Why no mention of any practical or genuine watermarking methods whatsoever?

Why no mention of unique issues associate with Audio, Still image and Video signals?

Why is everything written in Academic double-speak: for example, why does a scoring scheme have to exist on a unit interval [0,1], for goodness sakes? How about a score between 0 and 1 instead?

Why no mention of practical perception issues, such as chromatic resolution, frequency perceptions, perceptual masking?

cojoco (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Why not contribute some improvements, instead of just whining? You seem to know what should be here ... why not add it yourself?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.56.5 (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Watermark (data file)
Someone has suggested merging this article into Watermark (data file). I think that this is a bad idea, and have started a discussion on Talk: Watermark (data file). cojoco (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lost cause?
Digital watermarking seems to be dead, I mean Bittorrent is king, Rapidshare is king and no one cares a damn about tracking thieves. It looks like watermarks are impossible to preserve accross major codec transformations and the total anarchy of a plethora of present-day video and audio codecs (AC3, AAC, MP3, xvid, h263, h264, flv, mkv, avi, mov, rm*) makes it impossible to invisibly watermark a DVD movie, because you just can't know what compressed format will be made of it and uploaded to P2P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.135.138 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 * While frivolous sounding, the above comment actually raises an important point. What have been the actual effects of digital watermarking on society? Is digital watermarking "dead"?

 * Not dead. It's reasonably trivial to make changes that will survive codec transfer, resolution, and even cam-recording, by encoding stuff in the frame timings, etc. Simplistically, if Alice's copy of the movie has the first fade-cut extended by five frames, Bob's has it shortened by five frames, then you can identify the leaked copy so long as you are using a codec which doesn't randomly drop or gain a sixth of a second during fade-cuts. An attacker could break this by gaining access to, and comparing, both copies, but that requires two leaks. Less trivial systems require more copies of the video to break.97.105.71.154 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Difficult to remove?
Since when does a digital watermark have to be "difficult to remove"? Consider Amazon MP3's "watermarking" which is implemented as a digitally signed header:

"The record company that supplies this song or album requires all companies that sell its downloadable music to include identifiers with the downloads. Embedded in the metadata of each purchased MP3 from this record company are a random number Amazon assigns to your order, the Amazon store name, the purchase date and time, codes that identify the album and song (the UPC and ISRC), Amazon's digital signature, and an identifier that can be used to determine whether the audio has been modified. In addition, Amazon inserts the first part of the email address associated with your Amazon.com account, so that you know these files are unique to you. Songs that include these identifiers are marked on their product detail page on Amazon.com.  These identifiers do not affect the playback experience in any way."

-- samj in out 13:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Not every embedded identifier is a watermark. For example, metadata, cookies, tags, checksums, and filenames are simply ways to convey information without any expectation of robustly surviving an attack. This differentiation should probably be clarified in the article. Is it a common misperception that "watermarks" and "tags" are synonymous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.238.89 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is digital in digital watermarking?
What exactly is the digital part in digital watermarking? At this point I encounter a problem: It is said that half-transparent/semi-opaque overlays also are digital watermarks (visible ones, though, but don't get confused by that ;-) ), for example in the Wikipedia article I'm currently discussing. That these overlays are a problem for the very definition of digital watermarks, can be derived by the following TV-related example: Neither are logo-superimposed carriers always digital (think of TV images from pre-digital eras), nor are the logos itself digital. Even the embedding process cannot be that digital, since it existed in those pre-digital days. The detection/reading part is not digital at all, since YOU would have done it with your analog eyes. Now: What about these so-called visible digital watermarks is digital? Could it be that all the scientists that work in that field and think that a digital watermark is by definition imperceptible (i.e. invisible for pictures and video), are right? What do you think? Let's discuss. -- Gut informiert (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The carrier? I don't think so. It's right: Most digital watermarks are applied to digital media like pictures, videos or audio data, but that's not the whole story. For example: In every Euro banknote (a very analog thing) is a digital watermark by Digimarc embedded (cf. EURion constellation), which survives even a DA-AD conversion. Further: On every sheet a color printer or photocopier prints, a digital watermark is applied that enables certain people to determine the exact machine by which the printing was done. Paper sheets - a very analog thing, to me at least.
 * The watermark itself? Here, the same reasoning can be applied: Since a digital watermark can exist outside of the digital domain, it cannot be that digital, can it?
 * The last remaining thing is the process, the procedure of applying and detecting/reading of a digital watermark. This step is done with aid of a computer. I think, this could be the core part of the labeling with the tag "digital".

 * you say that "all the scientists that work in that field [...] think that a digital watermark is by definition imperceptible". is that really the case?
 * "Digital watermarkig is defined as a process of embedding data (watermark) into a multimedia object to help to protect the owner's right to that object. The embedded data (watermark) may be either visible or invisible." (R. Anisha, S. Panimalar and M. Gomathi: An Efficient Visible Watermarking for Copyright Protection Using Discrete Wavelet Transform )
 * "Digital watermarking has been researched extensively due to its potential use for data security and copyright protection. Much of the literature has focused on developing invisible watermarking algorithms. However, not much has been done on visible watermarking." (Yongjian Hu, Jiwu Huang, Sam Kwong and Y. K. Chan: Image Fusion Based Visible Watermarking Using Dual-Tree Complex Wavelet Transform )
 * "Digital watermarking techniques have been developed to protect the intellectual property. A digital watermarking system is basically judged based on two characteristics: security robustness and image quality. In order to obtain a robust visible watermarking in practice, [...]" (Min-Jen Tsai and Jung Liu: A game-theoretic architecture for visible watermarking system of ACOCOA (adaptive content and contrast aware) technique ) --MarioS (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Digital watermarking. 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/20160304110319/http://www.cse.unt.edu/~smohanty/Publications_Conferences/2004/MohantyVLSID2004Chip.pdf to http://www.cse.unt.edu/~smohanty/Publications_Conferences/2004/MohantyVLSID2004Chip.pdf

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) 03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital watermarking. 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/20081221074607/http://wwwiti.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~alang/paper/dittmann_magias_lang_joan-eval_audio_WM_triangle-journal.pdf to http://wwwiti.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~alang/paper/dittmann_magias_lang_joan-eval_audio_WM_triangle-journal.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional application for reversible data hiding section
Hey all, currently, there is only 1 application (military purpose) for reversible data hiding written in the current version. But, there are actually other useful applications that can be used to reduce the file storage requirement of automatic image enhancement:

In addition to authentication purposes, reversible data hiding has been adopted for automatic image enhancement applications. The image is automatically enhanced in a way that the original image can be recovered from the enhanced image without any side information. Since the original image is recoverable, only the enhanced image needs to be stored, which results in a reduction in file storage requirement.

Unfortunately, since I am working closely on the topic, I shouldn't publish it. But, feel free to add this information if you think it is helpful.

"Example" images
Do the example images currently used in this article actually use digital watermarks, in the same sense as this article? The captions call attention to visible watermarks, which isn't what the article is talking about. If they actually are related to the article in some way, it's not very clear. Leangle30 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Digital watermarking


text:
Mark Walsh (darts player)

Mark Walsh (born 2 February 1965) is a former English professional darts player who competed in Professional Darts Corporation (PDC) tournaments. He reached No. 6 in the PDC Order of Merit.

Walsh reached his first major televised final in 2005, when he was beaten by Phil Taylor in the UK Open.

Early career
Walsh made his televised debut at the 2002 World Matchplay but suffered a 10-0 whitewash at the hands of John Part.

His World Championship debut came in 2004, but he lost 0-3 to Erik Clarys in his first match. He went out to Wayne Mardle 2-4 in 2005. He won his first match at the World Championship at his third attempt in 2006. He was seeded 12th for the event, and beat Warren Parry before losing 0-4 to Dennis Smith in the next round.

2007-2010
He had slipped to 16th in the world rankings for the 2007 World Championship, when he was surprisingly beaten by 19-year-old Dutch player Rico Vonck, thus continuing his poor run at the tournament. He started the year ranked 15th in the world, but had fallen to 32 by November, which put him in danger of failing to qualify for the 2008 World Championship. However, he reached the semi-final of the Ireland Open Classic in September, and won the non-ranked Gleneagle Irish Masters in early November, thus hinting at an upturn in form. He also reached the semi-finals of the PDC German Darts Championship. In the 2008 PDC World Darts Championship, Walsh defeated Adrian Gray in the first round, setting up a second-round match with Taylor. Walsh led Taylor 1-0, 2-1 and 3-2 before Taylor won six consecutive legs to beat him 4-3. Despite losing, Walsh stated that from suffering dartitis to pushing the greatest player in the world to the final set at the World Championship was a great victory in its own right.

Walsh continued his good form, reaching three quarter finals including the Open Holland Masters and then reached the last 32 stage of the US Open and the UK Open. He followed up with a semi final showing in the PDPA Players Championship Las Vegas and then qualified for the 2008 Las Vegas Desert Classic the next day. He beat Bill Davis in the first round before losing to James Wade. He then reached the second round of the 2008 World Matchplay, defeating Colin Lloyd in the opening match of the tournament but lost to Kevin McDine. He reached the second round of the World Grand Prix, beating Steve Beaton in the first round before losing to Terry Jenkins. Walsh missed out on qualifying for the 2008 Grand Slam of Darts but bounced back to reach the semi-finals of the inaugural Championship League Darts, winning group eight and then placing second in the winners group, eventually losing to Mervyn King. He then reached the quarter-finals of the 2008 European Darts Championship and reached the final of the PDPA Players Championship Holland 2, losing to Wade. Walsh defeated Jamie Caven 3-2 in the first round of the 2009 PDC World Championship, narrowly missing out on a nine dart finish on the way. In the second round he lost 4-2 to King. On 17 January, Walsh hit a nine-dart finish in the Eddie Cox Memorial Players Championship in Gibraltar against Caven to win the deciding leg of their first round match. Having rolled over for four Players Championships, Walsh won £1,600 for the nine-darter.

Walsh won his first PDC title in two years, when he won the Coventry Players Championship on 28 March 2009 beating Taylor 6-4 in the final. He added another title with his second career UK Open Regional in Derby, by winning the East Midlands region 6-5 over Raymond van Barneveld.

2010 – present
Walsh was 12th seed for the 2010 World Championship, however he didn't get past the first round after losing 3-2 to former World Champion Mark Webster. Walsh qualified for the 2011 Grand Slam of Darts as the highest ranked player from the PDC Order of Merit not already invited. He progressed through Group A with victories over Tony O'Shea and Michael van Gerwen but finished second after losing to Scott Waites. He then defeated Group B winner Dean Winstanley 10-9 and former World Champion Ted Hankey 16-14 before losing out 11-16 to Gary Anderson. At the 2012 World Championship he came from a set down to defeat Warren French, 3–1 in the first round. Walsh played Kevin Painter in the Last 32 and came back from 1–3 to level the match at 3–3. He couldn't keep his momentum going, however, as he lost the deciding set by 3 legs to 0 to exit the tournament 3–4. At the World Matchplay, Walsh beat Colin Osborne 10–8 in the first round, before being comprehensively beaten 4–13 by James Wade in the last 16. Despite winning the first set in his first round match against Robert Thornton at the World Grand Prix, he only took one more leg and lost 1–2. Walsh qualified from Group 8 of the Championship League with a 6–5 victory against Steve Beaton. However, he finished bottom of the eight man Winners Group, winning just one of his seven matches. Walsh was whitewashed 0–5 in his opening Group H game of the Grand Slam of Darts, but came back to defeat both Wayne Jones and Christian Kist 5–4. However, his heavy defeat and narrow wins meant that he failed to qualify for the knockout stage on leg difference. After all 33 ProTour events of 2012 had been played, Walsh was 23rd on the Order of Merit, inside the top 32 who qualified for the Players Championship Finals. He was beaten 1–6 by Thornton in the first round. Walsh reached the last 16 of the 2013 World Championship with wins over Darren Webster and Justin Pipe, but then lost to Wes Newton 1–4, having missed three darts to only trail 2–3. He lost 4–5 to Lee Palfreyman in the second round of the UK Open. He failed to qualify for the World Matchplay for the first time in his career and the World Grand Prix for the first time since 2007 due to falling out of the top 16 on the Order of Merit and not winning enough games through the PDC Pro Tour. In October, Walsh reached the quarter-finals of a Pro Tour event for the first time in a year at the 11th Players Championship as he beat the likes of Andy Hamilton and Newton, before his run was ended with a 6–4 defeat against Robert Thornton. He lost 5–0 to Robert Thornton and 5–1 to Andy Hamilton at the Grand Slam of Darts, before a consolation 5–2 victory over Justin Pipe but Walsh was already resigned to finishing bottom of the group.

At the 2014 World Championship Walsh missed five darts to extend his first round match against Jarkko Komula into a final set as he lost 3–1. He dropped to world number 31 after the event concluded and was defeated 9–5 by Mark Webster in the third round of the UK Open. Walsh failed to advance beyond the last 32 of any event after this. He fell to world number 41 ahead of the 2015 World Championship, outside of the top 32 who automatically qualify and could not claim a place via any other route to break a streak of 11 consecutive appearances in the event. 2015 also marked the first UK Open not to feature Walsh (he had played in each one since its inception in 2003) after he failed to win enough matches to qualify. He did qualify for four European Tour events with two first round and two second round exits adding a total of £5,000 to his ranking.

Walsh was 65th on the Order of Merit after the 2016 World Championship, just outside the top 64 who remain on tour and so entered Q School. Despite losing in the final round to Vincent Kamphuis on the last day, Walsh had done more than enough to win his place back right away as he topped the Q School Order of Merit. At the 10th Players Championship in July, Walsh reached his first quarter-final in over two years, but lost 6–1 to Andrew Gilding. This helped him qualify for the Finals and, in what was his PDC major event since February 2014, he was edged out 6–5 by Josh Payne in the opening round.

Successes
He has won six non-televised PDC titles: the Welsh Regional final of the UK Open in September 2005, the Gleneagle Irish Masters in November 2007, the Coventry Players Championship and the UK Open East Midlands Regional plus two more Players Championships in Barnsley beating Jamie Caven and in Germany beating Andy Hamilton 6–5.

2020
As of the 18th January he has not participated in any darts event.

PDC

 * 2004: Second round (lost to Erik Clarys 0–3) (sets)
 * 2005: Third round (lost to Wayne Mardle 2–4)
 * 2006: Second round (lost to Dennis Smith 0–4)
 * 2007: First round (lost to Rico Vonck 0–3)
 * 2008: Second round (lost to Phil Taylor 3–4)
 * 2009: Second round (lost to Mervyn King 2–4)
 * 2010: First round (lost to Mark Webster 2–3)
 * 2011: Third round (lost to Terry Jenkins 0–4)
 * 2012: Second round (lost to Kevin Painter 3–4)
 * 2013: Third round (lost to Wes Newton 1–4)
 * 2014: First round (lost to Jarkko Komula 1–3)

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

title: Mark Walsh (darts player)


text:
LMS Fowler 2-6-4T

The London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) Fowler 2-6-4T was a class of steam locomotive passenger tank engine designed by Henry Fowler.

Construction
125 examples of the class were built. The last 30 numbered 2395 to 2424 were fitted with side-windows and doors to their cabs. The LMS classified them 4P, BR 4MT. They were the basis for a family of subsequent LMS/BR Class 4 2-6-4T locomotives. The Irish Northern Counties Committee (NCC) Class W 2-6-0 moguls were also strongly influenced by this class, albeit the driving wheel diameter was three inches greater to match the NCC practice.

The cylinder and piston valve design and the setting of the Walschaerts valve gear, allowing a maximum travel of 6+3/8 in in full gear, was believed by O. S. Nock to subsequently lead to the "outstanding success" of the class.

Operational use
Most of the class were used on longer-distance commuter trains from stations in London, Manchester and other large towns. A number were allocated to Tebay Motive Power Depot and were used to bank heavy passenger and goods trains up the steep incline to Shap on the LMS West Coast Main Line. Some operated on the long trip from Shrewsbury to Swansea (Victoria). The last two surviving locos were withdrawn from service in 1966. 42389 was hauling the Tring to Euston commuter train that was hit in the rear at Harrow and Wealdstone on 8 October 1952 by a Perth to Euston express. 112 people died in the accident. 42389 was undamaged.

Despite coupled wheels of only 5 ft diameter the class was sometimes noted as achieving over 80 mph on outer suburban services to and from Euston.

Numbering
The LMS numbered the class 2300–2424, BR adding 40000 to their numbers to make them 42300–424.

Preservation and revival
No locos were preserved, but the January 2013 edition of The Railway Magazine reported that a new-build project to recreate a Fowler 2-6-4T was at an initial research stage.

In May 2015, the LMS-Patriot Project announced that after the completion of Patriot Class No. 45551 The Unknown Warrior, it would begin construction on a new-build Fowler 2-6-4T. Similar to the Patriot, it will carry the number of the last member of the class, No. 42424, and be built to main line running standards, though it will only primarily be used on heritage lines.

One of the NCC Class WT locos (No. 4), which drew heavily from the Fowler design and were the last steam locomotives withdrawn in Northern Ireland, is preserved by the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. No. 4 returned from overhaul in June 2015 and is currently based in Dublin.

title: LMS Fowler 2-6-4T


text:
User:BlankVerse/Did you know

...that the grunion is a sardine-sized fish only found off the coast of California and Baja California that comes up on sandy beaches at very high tides (during the new and full moons) to lay its eggs?

title: User:BlankVerse/Did you know


text:
Home District

The Home District was one of four districts of the Province of Quebec created in 1788 in the western reaches of the Montreal District and detached in 1791 to create the new colony of Upper Canada. It was abolished with the adoption of the county system in 1849.

Territorial evolution
Originally established as Nassau District in 1788, it was renamed as the "Home District" in 1792, The district was originally bounded to the east by a line running north–south from the mouth of the Trent River and to the west by a line running north–south "intersecting the extreme projection of Long Point into the lake Erie." The northern boundaries were vague and overlapping Indian land. The district town was originally Newark, later Niagara-on-the-Lake.

In 1798, the Niagara District was created from Lincoln County and Haldimand County, and the London District was formed from the counties of Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford, both of which were detached from the Home District. The remainder was organized as follows:

Reductions and abolition
The District was reduced in size in several steps over the coming years.

The 1798 Act had provided that counties of Durham and Northumberland, upon a request by a majority of their townships, could be detached to form the Newcastle District. This occurred in 1802.

In 1816, the following parts of the District were detached to form Halton County in the newly created Gore District:

"...the townships of Trafalgar, Nelson, Flamborough ..., Beverly, and blocks number one, two, three and four, on the Grand river, with the reserved lands in the rear of the townships of Blandford and Blenheim..."

In 1837, Simcoe District was detached, consisting of Simcoe County.

In 1849, the Home District was dissolved and replaced for municipal purposes by York County, which was reorganized later that year to form the United Counties of York, Ontario and Peel.

title: Home District


text:
User talk:212.219.57.126

Semi-automated template substitution

 * This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IP Belongs to Weston College
http://www.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=212.219.57.126&do_search=Search - Jrgnet  Talk 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Weston is a good college and does not vandalise wikipedia in any shape and form. Please stop your slanderous accusations.

March 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Administration (business), have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Chris Bradshaw 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nardman1 11:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Buck  ets  ofg 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Nivix 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise the userpages of other users, you will be blocked.  > K a mo p e <  10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

April 2007
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 202.54.176.51 11:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Geniac 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Bristol Rovers F.C.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors. Gasheadsteve 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Geniac 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to List of Have I Got News For You episodes
RE:Your edit – I think we'll be needing some sources and citations, especially for Tony Blair as a guest presenter! DBD 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 10:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Portishead, Somerset:
Your recent edit to Portishead, Somerset (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 10:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Cheesy Mike 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Ziusudra 13:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was changed by 212.219.57.126 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-12-11T13:45:54+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Biometrics has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Biometrics constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Timmy Mallett has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to EastEnders has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Matt  (  Talk  )   09:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 09:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Coronation Street.  Matt  (  Talk  )   09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

September 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 13:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

To edit, please create an account and log in Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library or institution's IP address  disabled. You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address may also be disabled. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org unblock-en-l] from an email address listed on your school's website. Alternatively, if you have no Internet access at home, you may [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org email us] using your school-issued email address, telling us your preferred username. An account will be created for you. Please check on [ this list] that the username you choose has not already been taken. Thank you.

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Forming, storming, norming and performing has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Tank has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Jivee Blau (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Doctor Who. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Doctor Who was changed by 212.219.57.126 (u) (t) deleting 13905 characters on 2010-03-26T09:58:55+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Pinethicket (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Customer service, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Customer service was changed by 212.219.57.126 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-03-30T13:32:39+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Customer service. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Kingpin13 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare was changed by 212.219.57.126 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-03-30T13:39:28+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tahiti. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ranulph Fiennes with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Monty 845  14:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ellen MacArthur. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Vrenator (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Duke of Edinburgh's Award with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Monty 845  15:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at Ellen MacArthur with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Calabe1992 (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, I'm Nasnema. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Snowboarding, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Nasnema   Chat  11:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Snowboarding with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nasnema  Chat  11:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Time, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to John Wayne Gacy because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2020
Hello, I'm 1subAtomic. An edit that you recently made to 1960 Valdivia earthquake seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   ❯❯ 1sub Atomic   (💬Talk)  11:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

title: User talk:212.219.57.126


text:
Symphony No. 1 (Brahms)

The Symphony No. 1 in C minor, Op. 68, is a symphony written by Johannes Brahms. Brahms spent at least fourteen years completing this work, whose sketches date from 1854. Brahms himself declared that the symphony, from sketches to finishing touches, took 21 years, from 1855 to 1876. The premiere of this symphony, conducted by the composer's friend Felix Otto Dessoff, occurred on 4 November 1876, in Karlsruhe, then in the Grand Duchy of Baden. A typical performance lasts between 45 and 50 minutes.

History
Brahms began composing a D minor symphony in 1854, but this work underwent radical change before much of it was finally recast as his first Piano Concerto, also in D minor. The long gestation of the C minor Symphony which would eventually be his first, may be attributed to two factors. First, Brahms's self-critical fastidiousness led him to destroy many of his early works. Second, there was an expectation from Brahms's friends and the public that he would continue "Beethoven's inheritance" and produce a symphony of commensurate dignity and intellectual scope – an expectation that Brahms felt he could not fulfill easily in view of the monumental reputation of Beethoven.

It was probably 1868 when Brahms finally realized what would become the final structure of his First Symphony. In September of that year, he sent a card to his lifelong friend Clara Schumann sketching the Alphorn tune which would emerge in the symphony's Finale, along with the famous message "Thus blew the shepherd's horn today!" Despite the evidence of the work's development, the symphony would not premiere for eight more years, in 1876.

Fritz Simrock, Brahms's friend and publisher, did not receive the score until after the work had been performed in three cities – and Brahms still wished trial performances in at least three more.

The manuscript to the first movement apparently did not survive, yet the remainder has been reproduced in miniature facsimile by Dover Publications. The autograph manuscript of the second, third, and fourth movements is held by the Morgan Library & Museum in New York City.

Instrumentation
The symphony is scored for two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, contrabassoon, four horns, two trumpets, three trombones (fourth movement only), timpani and the string section.

Although Brahms commonly specified "natural" (valveless) horn tunings in his compositions (e.g., Horn in F), performances are typically delivered on modern valved French horns.

Form
The symphony is in four movements, marked as follows: 1. Un poco sostenuto — Allegro – Meno allegro (C minor, ending in C major)

2. Andante sostenuto (E major)

3. Un poco allegretto e grazioso (A♭ major)

4. Adagio — Più andante — Allegro non troppo, ma con brio – Più allegro (C minor – C major)

I. Un poco sostenuto — Allegro
The first movement is in sonata form with an extended introduction, featuring a drawn-out and highly elaborated variation of the movement's theme.

Introduction

Unique among Brahms symphonies, the First Symphony is ushered in via a formal introduction (an 1862 score of the symphony originally started with the second, Allegro, section). After a processional "poco sostenuto" opening section featuring chaotic syncopated rhythms underpinned by pulsating timpani, the woodwinds and pizzicato strings play with thematic phrases to be fully explored in the following exposition. A short and stormy return to the original development, this time in the dominant of G and supported by rolling timpani, is finally followed by further melodic introductions played by oboe, flute and cellos before resolving in a drawn-out transitional passage ending with a plucked G note in the cellos.

Exposition

The exposition begins abruptly, echoing the introduction's plucked final note with an orchestral exclamation, followed by a short motto which leads to the main theme, which is initially played, stridently, by the violins. The overall mood is "savagely energetic" and "scherzo-like" in time. As the responsibility for the main theme shifts from the violins to the woodwinds, the strings and timpani begin to sound out a da-da-da-DUM rhythm which is strongly reminiscent of the "fate" rhythm of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

An extended transition leads to the arrival of the key of E♭ major which in turn introduces the flowing and heart-easing second theme. This theme, which is related to the motto used to open the movement, is carried out in the wind section, led by oboe and clarinet with support from the bassoon and eventually the French horns. Strong intervention from the violas ends this peaceful passage with a descending minor key sequence which opens to a new closing theme leading up to a final bombastic passage wrapping up the exposition. The score then calls for a full repeat, which requires an abrupt return to C minor.

Development
The action in the development section begins with a full step descent into B major, and instability ensues as interplay between the "eroica" motif and phrases from the original theme are played off each other. A series of modulations, each seeming to lead further away from the tonic, eventually leads the path back to the recapitulation. Starting with a murky rumble in the basses, the music gathers strength with a thrilling set of arpeggios in the violins with support from the brass, which repeat the "eroica" motif with great alacrity. Finally, a "shocking digression" in the bass line leads to a modulation to F♯, setting the stage for the recapitulation.

Recapitulation and coda
A somewhat nebulous start to the recapitulation is followed by a foreshortened restatement of the first theme, allowing the music to proceed in the tonic, rather than taking up the tonal progressions originally followed in the exposition. The coda begins with pizzicato strings which quickly decrescendo, leading to a set of modulations played out in the strings with their bows leading to the closing cadence. The movement ends peacefully in C major.

II. Andante sostenuto
The E major second movement is in modified ternary form (A–B–A'). Written in time, it possesses a "profound, but essentially lyrical" character.

A Section
A rising, flowing theme is introduced by the strings, initially doubled by bassoon. The initial phrase is finished by a darker, falling dotted rhythm passage underpinned by low horns. A swelling second phrase follows, featuring syncopated interplay of the higher strings set against the low strings and woodwinds.

After a short transitional passage, the oboe introduces a rising, song-like theme which is initially accompanied only by the violas and the other winds. As the theme moves through a sweeping crescendo, the rest of the strings provide lush harmonic support. As before, this theme is ushered out with a somewhat darker, falling passage, which is resolved with a closing statement led by the strings.

B Section
Part I. A "lilting, leaping dotted rhythm" is introduced by the strings. As the theme rises, the violins and violas develop it further, before it turns downwards to be joined with the low strings. Eventually, the mood darkens into C-sharp minor leading to the section's second part.

Part II. The oboe again emerges with a long, gentle solo in C-sharp minor. It is again initially paired with delicate support from the strings. This time, however, the clarinet picks up the main theme as the mood brightens briefly. After a short while, supporting action from the woodwinds is joined by string accompaniment, but the woodwinds eventually drop out, leaving the strings to move to darker harmonic territory. Finally, the music moves into a softer, mysterious transitional session, leading to the final section.

A' Section
In a quasi-recapitulation, the winds enter brightly on a theme which is closely related to the movement's opening. After a series of passages which parallel—but do not echo—the opening A section, the principal violin enters with a rendition of the first oboe theme, this time with soft accompaniment from the horns.

Coda
Solo horn quotes the beginning of the movement's second "oboe" theme, which is subsequently elaborated by the principal violin in solo.

III. Un poco allegretto e grazioso
Like the second movement, the third movement is in ternary form. It is composed of the Allegretto and contrasting  trio section, followed by a reprise of the Allegretto material and coda. A notable aspect of this movement is Brahms's careful attention to symmetry.

The form could be described as:
 * A B A1 B1 C D C1 D1 A2 – trio – A3 B2 A4 – coda

Allegretto
The Allegretto is in the key of A♭ major and begins with a calm, stepwise melody in the clarinet. The four-bar figure is extended to an irregular five bars through a small bridge between the phrases by the strings. The clarinet rounds off the A theme in the Allegretto with an inversion of the first five bars heard.

The B theme enters in measure 11 and features a descending dotted-eighth-note pattern in the flute, clarinet, and bassoon with the strings echoing the rhythm in rising and falling figures. After eight measures, A1 appears with the violins iterating the first theme and a longer, chromatic bridge section that extends the phrase structure to seven bars. B1 is presented with an extension into C.

The C and D themes differ from the first two in that they are shorter and more angular rhythmically. The A and B themes feature an almost constant eighth-note pizzicato in the strings, whereas C and D are more complex with an interlocking sixteenth-note pattern accompanying the winds. Movement from the major mode to F minor also marks these sections as apart from preceding material. This obvious contrast in character and mood can lend one to think of the C and D sections as a sort of trio within the first Allegretto section in the larger ternary form displayed by the movement as a whole. The symmetry within one section reflects the symmetry of the whole.

A2 closes off the first major section with the clarinet stating the first theme, much as it did in the beginning, finishing with a transition to the trio.

Trio
The Trio offers a change of key, as well as a change of time. The key moves to B major, an enharmonic minor third away from A♭. This key movement balances with the C and D sections in F minor, also a minor third away from the home key but in the opposite direction. The time signature changes from a stately to a more pastoral and dancelike. The flute, oboe, and bassoon introduce a joyful melody in stepwise motion as in the A theme. The strings add a downward three-note arpeggio. These two motives make up the bulk of the trio material. Restatement and development of those themes ensue until the brass and winds join for a final repeat of the melody. The second ending brings the orchestra back into time and to A3.

Return of the Allegretto
A major difference between A3 and the earlier iterations of A is the lingering effect of the trio upon the movement. The monotone call from the opening of the trio melody appears over the clarinet melody in the flute, oboe, and bassoon. The rhythmic effect of triplets also invades the pure eighth-note world of the A theme, producing polyrhythms. Instead of the inversion of the theme we expect in the second phrase of A, the strings take over and offer an entirely different melody, but with essentially the same contour as the inversion. B2 occupies a significantly larger space of the reprise than it does in the previous Allegretto. It leads through an extended transition to the last, quiet statement of A in unison by the strings. Strings of dotted eighth notes end the movement proper with ideas from the B theme.

Coda
The entry to the coda is marked poco a poco più tranquillo and the movement ends with the gentle throbbing of triplets quoted from the trio section. The final few bars end somewhat abruptly with the downward arpeggio of the strings in the trio finishing on the downbeat of a new bar.

IV. Adagio — Più andante — Allegro non troppo, ma con brio — Più allegro
As with the first movement, Brahms begins the final movement with a formal introduction in C minor. The finale, noted for its "vast scope" resolves all the tensions that the first movement had raised but was (magnificently) unable to dissipate. Except for the cut-time Più allegro coda, the movement is in common  meter.

Introduction (Adagio — Più andante)

Part I (Adagio – C minor). The extended introduction begins with a murky and ominous descending four-note sequence in the strings, which is followed by a tragically-rendered "anticipation" of the movement's joyous 'Alphorn' theme. This is followed by a passage of pizzicato string notes, plucked in two-note groups passed between the high- and low-pitched instrument sections, which rises in tempo and volume until the prior tragic theme re-emerges in a short reprise. This is followed by a second passage of pizzicato strings, which is resolved in a sudden shift to a rising set of modulations in the woodwinds followed by a set of rapid arpeggios in the strings leading to the grand entrance of the Alphorn theme in C major.

Part II (Più andante – C major). The horns, including the first entry of the trombones, introduce the Alphorn theme with a "noble and grand presentation" over a "shimmering cloudscape" of strings, in "one of the classic orchestral moments of the nineteenth century". As the horns conclude the performance of the Alphorn tune, it is given to the flutes to recite. This leads to a mellow chorale in the brass, to be concluded with the transition to the exposition. The first three notes of the Alphorn theme create are presented in a swelling crescendo which resolves in a drawn out conclusion over pounding timpani followed by a quiet chord dying in the brass.

Exposition

The main theme commences immediately in C major, a "famous, grandly striding tune" which was likened by many to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony "Freude" theme; mainly because it was the "solitary one among hundreds...great enough to suggest the resemblance". This was an assertion which irritated Brahms, but which he nevertheless acknowledged—"any ass can see that". The theme is introduced in the violins and violas in alto register accompanied softly by horns and underpinned by pizzicato bass. After a few bars, the strings undulate through the second phrase with support from the bassoons. The woodwinds then pick up the song, with the strings in pizzicato accompaniment with gently trilling timpani. Finally, the full orchestra is unleashed in an energetic rendition which quickly fragments into transitional struggle. A passage led by arpeggio strings accompanied by bassoon and contrabassoon follows, including a brief variation of the Alphorn tune leading directly to the second theme.

The second theme arrives as a falling four note figure related to the opening sequence and related to the Alphorn tune. The theme is introduced softly in the low strings, and elaborated upon by the violins. The second statement of the theme is joined first by the bassoons, followed by the flutes and oboes. After an energetic transitional passage in the strings, the oboe continues with an inverted variation of the theme in G major but eventually modulates to E minor, leading to the conclusion of the exposition.

Development, recapitulation, and coda
The brief development section begins with a full restatement of the movement's main theme; the last time it will be heard in its entirety.

This return of the main theme is 'richly scored', with full strings carrying the tune supported by 'punctuating chords' in the winds and gently rolling timpani. The oboe leads a transition to E-flat and a development-heavy section marked by key instability and fragmented restatements and elaborations of phrases in the melody. These are parried between the winds, led by flutes, and (softly) by the horns and bassoons with pizzicato strings providing additional momentum. An energetic restatement of the theme by the orchestra follows, but this quickly digresses into a section marked by string arpeggios and the arrival of a new thematic element for further development.

A distinctive 'turning' motif, derived from the main theme, appears in the winds, traded between flute and oboe with lush string harmony accompaniment. This is followed by an energetic passage, mainly in the strings, featuring falling arpeggio figures and elements of the main theme recited in C minor/F minor.

The turning motif returns in a thrilling rendition led by the horns, followed by a nearly unrecognizable recapitulation of the first theme, with powerful syncopated descending figures which are traded between the strings and the wind instruments, over a bassline that is based on the "famous, grandly striding tune". This finally leads back to a rendition of the Alphorn theme, which begins tragically in the strings, but is recovered by a soothing harmonic motion initiated in the winds and followed by a major key restatement in the horns, this time without the shimmering strings of the introduction. The music begins to lose momentum as the strings play a descending procession that sounds as if it may lead to closing material for the section.

Instead, the second theme immediately follows in a full recapitulation in C major, which is restated with little change from its original appearance in the exposition. However, after the theme's restatement is complete, a subtle change in the final passage avoids the key modulation taken in the exposition section, which allows the recapitulation to end in C minor. A lengthy coda follows without pause, which returns to C major, restates the chorale from the introduction, and ends with a triumphant pair of plagal cadences.

Reception
The value and importance of Brahms's achievements were recognized by Vienna's most powerful critic, the staunchly conservative Eduard Hanslick. The conductor Hans von Bülow was moved in 1877 to call the symphony "Beethoven's Tenth", due to perceived similarities between the work and various compositions of Beethoven. It is often remarked that there is a strong resemblance between the main theme of the finale of Brahms's First Symphony and the main theme of the finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Also, Brahms uses the rhythm of the "Eroica" motto from the opening of Beethoven's Third Symphony. Such a comparison rather annoyed Brahms; he felt that this amounted to accusations of plagiarism, whereas he saw his use of Beethoven's idiom in this symphony as an act of conscious homage. Brahms himself said, when comment was made on the similarity with Beethoven, "any ass can see that". Nevertheless, this work is still sometimes (though rarely) referred to as "Beethoven's Tenth".

Musical elements
The symphony begins with a broad introduction wherein three key elements are heard simultaneously: the low drumming, the rising figure in the strings, and the falling figure in the winds. This introduction was constructed after the remainder of the piece had been scored. The Allegro section of the movement is a large orchestral sonata, wherein musical ideas are stated, developed, and restated with altered relationships among them.

The second and third movements are lighter in tone and tension than the first and last movements. The slow movement, Andante sostenuto, exhibits gentle lyricism through three sections, the third of which is a new treatment of the themes from the first. The long violin solo is reminiscent of some of Beethoven's later works: the late quartets and Missa Solemnis. The third, scherzo-like movement, has an easy spirit yet is full of complex rhythms and interwoven textures.

The fourth movement begins with a slow introduction, where a new melody competes with "gloomy dramatic rhetoric". In the Più andante section, the horns and timpani introduce a tune that Brahms heard from an Alpine shepherd with the words, "High on the hill, deep in the dale, I send you a thousand greetings!" This movement contains melodies reminiscent of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. The last section—Allegro non troppo, ma con brio—contains a grand melody in a major key, as the novel, Beethoven-like main subject of the grand finale.

title: Symphony No. 1 (Brahms)


text:
Western District, Upper Canada

Western District was one of four districts of the Province of Quebec created in 1788 in the western reaches of the Montreal District which were later detached in 1791 to create the new colony of Upper Canada. Known as Hesse District (named after Hesse in Germany) until 1792, it was abolished in 1849.

Historical evolution
The District originally consisted of that part of the Province of Quebec west of "a north and south line, intersecting the extreme projection of Long Point into the lake Erie," being the territory described as:

"... comprehend[ing] all the residue of our said province in the western and inland parts thereof, of the entire breadth thereof, from the southerly to the northerly border of the same..."

As Detroit was still occupied British territory in 1792, it formed part of the District at the time. In the first election to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada, three former or current residents of Detroit were elected. This anomaly, together with other occupied places at Fort Mackinac and Fort Miami, were finally vacated upon the ratification of the Jay Treaty in 1795; they were withdrawn from the District in June 1796.

The District, after detaching territory that would be part of the new London District, was reconstituted as the Western District by an Act of the Parliament of Upper Canada in 1798. It was described as consisting of "...the Counties of Essex and Kent together with so much of this Province as is not included within any other district thereof..." The counties were described as consisting of the following:

In 1847, legislation was initiated to create a new Kent District; however, facilities at the designated district town of Chatham needed to be built. The creation of the new district was not completed.

At the beginning of 1850, the District was abolished, being replaced by the United Counties of Essex and Kent for municipal purposes. In 1851, the southern part of Kent was detached to for a separate county, with the northern part becoming Lambton County, which was united with Essex to become the United Counties of Essex and Lambton. However, Kent and Lambton were united for the purpose of electing a member to the Parliament of the Province of Canada. The former District's townships were accordingly distributed as follows:

Legacy
Western District Grammar School, founded 1807, is now occupied by General Brock Public School in Windsor, Ontario.

title: Western District, Upper Canada