text:
Fadeaway

A fadeaway or fall-away in basketball is a jump shot taken while jumping backwards, away from the basket. The goal is to create space between the shooter and the defender, making the shot much harder to block. The shooter must have very good accuracy, much higher than when releasing a regular jump shot, and must use more strength to counteract the backwards momentum in a relatively short amount of time. Because the movement is away from the basket, the shooter also has less chance to grab their own rebound.

Because the shooting percentage is lower in fadeaway due to the difficulty of the shot and because it is harder for the shooter to get their own rebound, many coaches and players believe it is one of the worst shots in the game to take. Once mastered, however, it is one of the hardest methods of shooting for defenders to block. The threat of a fadeaway forces a defender to jump into the shooter, and with a pump fake, the shooter can easily get a foul on the defender.

Only a handful of great NBA players have been successful shooting fadeaways. Wilt Chamberlain was a famous pioneer of the fadeaway, and Kevin McHale helped popularize it in the 1980s. Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant are regarded as the most popular shooters of the fadeaway. Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, DeMar DeRozan, and others are also well known for using this move.

title: Fadeaway


text:
User talk:Eggplant985

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! – Mipadi 22:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

title: User talk:Eggplant985


text: User talk:82.43.78.55

title: User talk:82.43.78.55


text:
Talk:Bulls (rugby union)

For the article to be accurate, one must distinguish between the Blue Bulls and the Bulls. Just explaining my latest revert. Dale Arnett 22:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Vodacom Blue Bulls do NOT compete in Super 14. They are the representative team of the Blue Bulls Rugby Union, which governs the sport in Pretoria, two nearby Gauteng municipalities, and Limpopo Province. This team competes in South Africa's domestic competition, the Currie Cup. The "Blue Bulls" logo is that of the Currie Cup team.
 * The Bulls are the Super 14 side. While they draw most of their players from the Blue Bulls union, they also draw from the Falcons, the Currie Cup side representing the East Rand and other Gauteng municipalities to the south and east of Jo'burg.

Super 10 participation
Point taken, but didn't they also compete in the previous Super 10 competition? The competition started out as Super 6, then became Super 10 when SA came from isolation from 1993. As far as I know the (then) Blue Bulls participated in the Super 10 tournament as well, then as Transvaal, and in fact won the first Super 10. Then in 1994 the Sharks (then Natal) made it to the final, and in 1995 Transvaal again made it to the final. Am I incorrect in this? I don't want to add information again unless I understand the whole thing correctly? Are the teams that competed in the Super 10 the same as the teams that competed in the Super 12 and now Super 14? See this for example.

TMoose 10:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Replying to this (a mere 8 years later!) because it's creeping in again. The Super 10 was a competition that was played between then-amateur provincial teams. This article relates to the Bulls, a franchise created in 1997. If the Super 10 information must be added in, it should be on the Blue Bulls page. The Blue Bulls were formerly known as Northern Transvaal never and participated in the Super 10. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Article title
The Bulls and other South African Super 14 teams are franchises, not club. The article's title should be changed. Should it be changed to Bulls (Super rugby franchise) like the New Zealand Super 14 teams or Bulls (rugby union)  like Welsh side Ospreys?

Eastpaw 9.30, 10 July 2006 (UTC+8)

Fair use rationale for Image:BullsRugbyClubLogo.jpg
Image:BullsRugbyClubLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have added a fair use rationale. --Stormie (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crusaders (rugby) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That talk page refers to moving the page to Bulls (rugby franchise) which I would agree with. The current name, Bulls (rugby union) only creates more confusion about what a union is vs what a franchise is. This page is about the franchise, and should have that in the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.96.15.22 (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Talk:Crusaders (rugby), I think it would be better to move the page to "Bulls (Super Rugby franchise)" just in case some other competition starts up that also use franchises, which might have teams with the same name. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bulls (rugby union). 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/20091010040645/http://www.bluebullsrugby.com:80/ to http://www.bluebullsrugby.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806042453/http://www.super14.com:80/bulls/default.asp to http://www.super14.com/bulls/default.asp

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) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bulls (rugby union). 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/20071004213515/http://www.bluebull.co.za/default.asp?cId=6119&des=content to http://www.bluebull.co.za/default.asp?cId=6119&des=content
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bluebullsrugby.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.super14.com/bulls/default.asp

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) 12:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Split article?
Would it make sense to split basically everything below "Statistics" into a new article with a title like List of Bulls (rugby union) records and statistics similar to List of Leicester Tigers records and statistics to keep the main page cleaner?Skeene88 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bulls (rugby union)


text:
Talk:Peter Adkison

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉  18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Reassessed (per request) at C with no change. The article is very short, but better sourced than others I have seen. KimChee (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Pretty much all of the information I wrote up is public knowledge and should be easy to verify; with one exception: my claim that he's a long time fan of role-playing and D&D. For that, I can only claim my own personal meeting with the man several years ago. At the time I was working for a small software company that was contracted by Wizards of the Coast to write support software for AD&D. (The product would ship as the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Core Rules CD-ROM Volume 2"). In short, he showed a deep knowledge of D&D and a desire to create a product that would satisfy fans. (Anyone curious for the details and is willing to suffer a rambling story, I wrote it up here.) Alan De Smet | Talk 22:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

More possible information sources
More possible sources of information: — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * - Interview is pretty much about Gen Con SoCal's first year.
 * - Interview primarily about Clout Fantasy. May be useful for these quotes which say something about Adkison himself: "The game industry of late has become deluged with clones, and I told myself that I wasn't going to get back into publishing unless a game came along that really caught my attention. Clout was it." "My focus is primarily going to be on Clout Fantasy unless something comes along that just blows my socks off." "I'm not much of a computer gamer. I prefer role-playing games or Magic, and I love small press RPGs. I play the occasional board game, but I think Magic is my favorite, simply because you can complete a game in about 20 minutes. I play quite a bit of Monopoly, actually." "Delta Green is my favorite non-D&D campaign."
 * - Mostly about Clout
 * - Mostly about Wizards of the Coast

 * Any idea if Peter's bio from GenCon 2007 is archived anywhere? BOZ (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Peter's marriage
Leadwind removed the bit about Peter's marriage, noting that it is "outdated information, no longer true" and "Peter Adkison asked me personally to delete this sentence.". I propose to re-add it. While Adkison may no longer be married, he once was, and chose to make it a public statement. The sentence could be tweaked to limit itself to what we can glean from the source, but I think it appropriate in an encyclopedic article. To err on the side of extreme caution, "While working at Inner City Games, his public biography from 2005 claimed that he was married to Melissa Reis Adkison." (Assuming they are now divorced, it would be ideal to find a citation to that effect and note it here.)  — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * You could be less cautious and say "As of 2005, he was married to Melissa Reis Adkison." Leadwind (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit by an anonymous user changed the claim described above to the cryptic, "Peter Adkison's bio is available at the Hidden City Games website." It was done without an edit summary. Ignoring that it's slightly wrong (it's available courtesy of archive.org), I'm not sure what the purpose was. Wikipedia should extract factual claims from other sources, then report them ourselves, not just link "Hey, here's where you can get information that we won't bother to list." Anonymous, if you're still around, why do you feel it best for Wikipedia to do this? — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor adding something to the extent, "Peter and Melissa divorced in 2008." I've removed it. While it is entirely plausible, claiming that someone divorced is A Big Deal, and per the Biographies of living persons policy, we need to be certain. The current claim is carefully phrased to limit itself to know facts: that in 2005 a web page that appears to be official for him claimed he was married. It makes no claim about his current marital status. If we're going to claim that he is divorced, we'll need something at least as credible. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Adkison's divorces
Noting is divorce(s?) may be appropriate, since on at least one occasion (his Hidden City bio) he chose to list his marriage. I can't find anything quickly, but I note this: http://www.city-data.com/king-county/S/S-42nd-Avenue-59.html. That suggests that as of 03/28/2007, Peter and Melissa were married (they took joint ownership of a house as community property), and that by 09/16/2008 they were divorced (ownership was transfered as part of a divorce settlement). — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peter Adkison


text:
RBST

RBST or rBST may refer to:

 * Randomized binary search tree, a computer data structure
 * Rare Breeds Survival Trust, a UK charity
 * Recombinant bovine somatotropin (usually "rBST"), a synthetic growth hormone controversially used in dairy farming

title: RBST


text:
Two envelopes problem

The two envelopes problem, also known as the exchange paradox, is a paradox in probability theory. It is of special interest in decision theory and for the Bayesian interpretation of probability theory. It is a variant of an older problem known as the necktie paradox. The problem is typically introduced by formulating a hypothetical challenge like the following example: Imagine you are given two identical envelopes, each containing money. One contains twice as much as the other. You may pick one envelope and keep the money it contains. Having chosen an envelope at will, but before inspecting it, you are given the chance to switch envelopes. Should you switch? Since the situation is symmetric, it seems obvious that there is no point in switching envelopes. On the other hand, a simple calculation using expected values suggests the opposite conclusion, that it is always beneficial to swap envelopes, since the person stands to gain twice as much money if they switch, while the only risk is halving what they currently have.

Problem
A person is given two indistinguishable envelopes, each of which contains a sum of money. One envelope contains twice as much as the other. The person may pick one envelope and keep whatever amount it contains. They pick one envelope at random but before they open it they are given the chance to take the other envelope instead.

The switching argument
Now suppose the person reasons as follows: 1. Denote by A the amount in the player's selected envelope.

2. The probability that A is the smaller amount is 1/2, and that it is the larger amount is also 1/2.

3. The other envelope may contain either 2A or A/2.

4. If A is the smaller amount, then the other envelope contains 2A.

5. If A is the larger amount, then the other envelope contains A/2.

6. Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2.

7. So the expected value of the money in the other envelope is

${1 \over 2} (2A) + {1 \over 2} \left({A \over 2}\right) = {5 \over 4}A$

8. This is greater than A so, on average, the person reasons that they stand to gain by swapping.

9. After the switch, denote that content by B and reason in exactly the same manner as above.

10. The person concludes that the most rational thing to do is to swap back again.

11. The person will thus end up swapping envelopes indefinitely.

12. As it is more rational to just open an envelope than to swap indefinitely, the player arrives at a contradiction.

The puzzle
The puzzle is to find the flaw in the line of reasoning in the switching argument. This includes determining exactly why and under what conditions that step is not correct, to be sure not to make this mistake in a situation where the misstep may not be so obvious. In short, the problem is to solve the paradox. The puzzle is not solved by finding another way to calculate the probabilities that does not lead to a contradiction.

Multiplicity of proposed solutions
There have been many solutions proposed, and commonly one writer proposes a solution to the problem as stated, after which another writer shows that altering the problem slightly revives the paradox. Such sequences of discussions have produced a family of closely related formulations of the problem, resulting in voluminous literature on the subject.

No proposed solution is widely accepted as definitive. Despite this, it is common for authors to claim that the solution to the problem is easy, even elementary. Upon investigating these elementary solutions, however, they often differ from one author to the next.

Example resolution
Suppose that the total amount in both envelopes is a constant $$c = 3x$$, with $$x$$ in one envelope and $$2x$$ in the other. If you select the envelope with $$x$$ first you gain the amount $$x$$ by swapping. If you select the envelope with $$2x$$ first you lose the amount $$x$$ by swapping. So you gain on average $$G = {1 \over 2} (x) + {1 \over 2} (-x) = {1 \over 2}(x - x) = 0$$ by swapping.

So on this supposition that the total amount is fixed, swapping is not better than keeping. The expected value $$\operatorname{E} = \frac 1 2 2x + \frac 1 2 x = \frac 3 2 x$$ is the same for both the envelopes. Thus no contradiction exists.

The famous mystification is evoked by confusing the situation where the total amount in the two envelopes is fixed with the situation where the amount in one envelope is fixed and the other can be either double or half that amount. The so-called paradox presents two already appointed and already locked envelopes, where one envelope is already locked with twice the amount of the other already locked envelope. Whereas step 6 boldly claims "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2", in the given situation, that claim can never apply to any A nor to any average A.

This claim is never correct for the situation presented; this claim applies to the Nalebuff asymmetric variant only (see below). In the situation presented, the other envelope cannot generally contain 2A, but can contain 2A only in the very specific instance where envelope A, by chance contains the smaller amount of $$\frac{\text{Total}}{3}$$, but nowhere else. The other envelope cannot generally contain A/2 but can contain A/2 only in the very specific instance where envelope A, by chance, actually contains $$2\frac{\text{Total}}{3}$$, but nowhere else. The difference between the two already appointed and locked envelopes is always $$\frac{\text{Total}}{3}$$. No "average amount A" can ever form any initial basis for any expected value, as this does not get to the heart of the problem.

Other simple resolutions
A widely-discussed way to resolve the paradox, both in popular literature and part of the academic literature, especially in philosophy, is to assume that the 'A' in step 7 is intended to be the expected value in envelope A and that we intended to write down a formula for the expected value in envelope B.

Step 7 states that the expected value in B = 1/2(2A + A/2).

It is pointed out that the 'A' in the first part of the formula is the expected value, given that envelope A contains less than envelope B, but the 'A', in the second part of the formula is the expected value in A, given that envelope A contains more than envelope B. The flaw in the argument is that the same symbol is used with two different meanings in both parts of the same calculation but is assumed to have the same value in both cases. This line of argument is introduced by McGrew, Shier and Silverstein (1997).

A correct calculation would be:

Expected value in B = 1/2 ((Expected value in B, given A is larger than B) + (Expected value in B, given A is smaller than B))

If we then take the sum in one envelope to be x and the sum in the other to be 2x the expected value calculations become:

Expected value in B = 1/2 (x + 2x)

which is equal to the expected sum in A.

In non-technical language, what goes wrong (see Necktie paradox) is that, in the scenario provided, the mathematics use relative values of A and B (that is, it assumes that one would gain more money if A is less than B than one would lose if the opposite were true). However, the two values of money are fixed (one envelope contains, say, $20 and the other $40). If the values of the envelopes are restated as x and 2x, it's much easier to see that, if A were greater, one would lose x by switching and, if B were greater, one would gain x by switching. One does not gain a greater amount of money by switching because the total T of A and B (3x) remains the same, and the difference x is fixed to T/3.

Line 7 should have been worked out more carefully as follows:

$$\begin{align} \operatorname{E}(B) &= \operatorname{E}(B\mid A < B) P(A < B) + \operatorname{E}(B\mid A > B) P(A > B) \\ &= \operatorname{E}(2A\mid A < B) \frac 1 2 + \operatorname{E}\left(\frac 1 2 A \mid A > B\right) \frac 1 2 \\ &= \operatorname{E}(A \mid A < B) + \frac 1 4 \operatorname{E}(A \mid A >B) \end{align}$$

A will be larger when A is larger than B, than when it is smaller than B. So its average values (expectation values) in those two cases are different. And the average value of A is not the same as A itself, anyway. Two mistakes are being made: the writer forgot he was taking expectation values, and he forgot he was taking expectation values under two different conditions.

It would have been easier to compute E(B) directly. Denoting the lower of the two amounts by x, and taking it to be fixed (even if unknown) we find that

$$\operatorname{E}(B) = \frac 1 2 2x + \frac 1 2 x = \frac 3 2 x$$

We learn that 1.5x is the expected value of the amount in Envelope B. By the same calculation it is also the expected value of the amount in Envelope A. They are the same hence there is no reason to prefer one envelope to the other. This conclusion was, of course, obvious in advance; the point is that we identified the false step in the argument for switching by explaining exactly where the calculation being made there went off the rails.

We could also continue from the correct but difficult to interpret result of the development in line 7:

$$\operatorname{E}(B) = \operatorname{E}(A\mid A < B) + \frac 1 4 \operatorname{E}(A \mid A >B) = x + \frac 1 4 2x = \frac 3 2 x$$ so (of course) different routes to calculate the same thing all give the same answer.

Tsikogiannopoulos presented a different way to do these calculations. It is by definition correct to assign equal probabilities to the events that the other envelope contains double or half that amount in envelope A. So the "switching argument" is correct up to step 6. Given that the player's envelope contains the amount A, he differentiates the actual situation in two different games: The first game would be played with the amounts (A, 2A) and the second game with the amounts (A/2, A). Only one of them is actually played but we don't know which one. These two games need to be treated differently. If the player wants to compute his/her expected return (profit or loss) in case of exchange, he/she should weigh the return derived from each game by the average amount in the two envelopes in that particular game. In the first case the profit would be A with an average amount of 3A/2, whereas in the second case the loss would be A/2 with an average amount of 3A/4. So the formula of the expected return in case of exchange, seen as a proportion of the total amount in the two envelopes, is:

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{+A}{3A/2}+\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{-A/2}{3A/4}=0$$

This result means yet again that the player has to expect neither profit nor loss by exchanging his/her envelope.

We could actually open our envelope before deciding on switching or not and the above formula would still give us the correct expected return. For example, if we opened our envelope and saw that it contained 100 euros then we would set A=100 in the above formula and the expected return in case of switching would be:

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{+100}{150}+\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{-50}{75}=0$$

Nalebuff asymmetric variant
The mechanism by which the amounts of the two envelopes are determined is crucial for the decision of the player to switch their envelope. Suppose that the amounts in the two envelopes A and B were not determined by first fixing the contents of two envelopes E1 and E2, and then naming them A and B at random (for instance, by the toss of a fair coin ). Instead, we start right at the beginning by putting some amount in envelope A and then fill B in a way which depends both on chance (the toss of a coin) and on what we put in A. Suppose that first of all the amount a in envelope A is fixed in some way or other, and then the amount in Envelope B is fixed, dependent on what is already in A, according to the outcome of a fair coin. If the coin fell Heads then 2a is put in Envelope B, if the coin fell Tails then a/2 is put in Envelope B. If the player was aware of this mechanism, and knows that they hold Envelope A, but do not know the outcome of the coin toss, and do not know a, then the switching argument is correct and they are recommended to switch envelopes. This version of the problem was introduced by Nalebuff (1988) and is often called the Ali-Baba problem. Notice that there is no need to look in envelope A in order to decide whether or not to switch.

Many more variants of the problem have been introduced. Nickerson and Falk systematically survey a total of 8.

Bayesian resolutions
The simple resolution above assumed that the person who invented the argument for switching was trying to calculate the expectation value of the amount in Envelope A, thinking of the two amounts in the envelopes as fixed (x and 2x). The only uncertainty is which envelope has the smaller amount x. However, many mathematicians and statisticians interpret the argument as an attempt to calculate the expected amount in Envelope B, given a real or hypothetical amount "A" in Envelope A. One does not need to look in the envelope to see how much is in there, in order to do the calculation. If the result of the calculation is an advice to switch envelopes, whatever amount might be in there, then it would appear that one should switch anyway, without looking. In this case, at Steps 6, 7 and 8 of the reasoning, "A" is any fixed possible value of the amount of money in the first envelope.

This interpretation of the two envelopes problem appears in the first publications in which the paradox was introduced in its present-day form, Gardner (1989) and Nalebuff (1988). ) It is common in the more mathematical literature on the problem. It also applies to the modification of the problem (which seems to have started with Nalebuff) in which the owner of envelope A does actually look in his envelope before deciding whether or not to switch; though Nalebuff does also emphasize that there is no need to have the owner of envelope A look in his envelope. If he imagines looking in it, and if for any amount which he can imagine being in there, he has an argument to switch, then he will decide to switch anyway. Finally, this interpretation was also the core of earlier versions of the two envelopes problem (Littlewood's, Schrödinger's, and Kraitchik's switching paradoxes); see the concluding section, on history of TEP.

This kind of interpretation is often called "Bayesian" because it assumes the writer is also incorporating a prior probability distribution of possible amounts of money in the two envelopes in the switching argument.

Simple form of Bayesian resolution
The simple resolution depended on a particular interpretation of what the writer of the argument is trying to calculate: namely, it assumed he was after the (unconditional) expectation value of what's in Envelope B. In the mathematical literature on Two Envelopes Problem, a different interpretation is more common, involving the conditional expectation value (conditional on what might be in Envelope A). To solve this and related interpretations or versions of the problem, most authors use the Bayesian interpretation of probability, which means that probability reasoning is not only applied to truly random events like the random pick of an envelope, but also to our knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about things which are fixed but unknown, like the two amounts originally placed in the two envelopes, before one is picked at random and called "Envelope A". Moreover, according to a long tradition going back at least to Laplace and his principle of insufficient reason one is supposed to assign equal probabilities when one has no knowledge at all concerning the possible values of some quantity. Thus the fact that we are not told anything about how the envelopes are filled can already be converted into probability statements about these amounts. No information means that probabilities are equal.

In steps 6 and 7 of the switching argument, the writer imagines that envelope A contains a certain amount a, and then seems to believe that given that information, the other envelope would be equally likely to contain twice or half that amount. That assumption can only be correct, if prior to knowing what was in Envelope A, the writer would have considered the following two pairs of values for both envelopes equally likely: the amounts a/2 and a; and the amounts a and 2a. (This follows from Bayes' rule in odds form: posterior odds equal prior odds times likelihood ratio). But now we can apply the same reasoning, imagining not a but a/2 in Envelope A. And similarly, for 2a. And similarly, ad infinitum, repeatedly halving or repeatedly doubling as many times as you like.

Suppose for the sake of argument, we start by imagining an amount of 32 in Envelope A. In order that the reasoning in steps 6 and 7 is correct whatever amount happened to be in Envelope A, we apparently believe in advance that all the following ten amounts are all equally likely to be the smaller of the two amounts in the two envelopes: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512 (equally likely powers of 2 ). But going to even larger or even smaller amounts, the "equally likely" assumption starts to appear a bit unreasonable. Suppose we stop, just with these ten equally likely possibilities for the smaller amount in the two envelopes. In that case, the reasoning in steps 6 and 7 was entirely correct if envelope A happened to contain any of the amounts 2, 4, ... 512: switching envelopes would give an expected (average) gain of 25%. If envelope A happened to contain the amount 1, then the expected gain is actually 100%. But if it happened to contain the amount 1024, a massive loss of 50% (of a rather large amount) would have been incurred. That only happens once in twenty times, but it is exactly enough to balance the expected gains in the other 19 out of 20 times.

Alternatively, we do go on ad infinitum but now we are working with a quite ludicrous assumption, implying for instance, that it is infinitely more likely for the amount in envelope A to be smaller than 1, and infinitely more likely to be larger than 1024, than between those two values. This is a so-called improper prior distribution: probability calculus breaks down; expectation values are not even defined.

Many authors have also pointed out that if a maximum sum that can be put in the envelope with the smaller amount exists, then it is very easy to see that Step 6 breaks down, since if the player holds more than the maximum sum that can be put into the "smaller" envelope they must hold the envelope containing the larger sum, and are thus certain to lose by switching. This may not occur often, but when it does, the heavy loss the player incurs means that, on average, there is no advantage in switching. Some writers consider that this resolves all practical cases of the problem.

But the problem can also be resolved mathematically without assuming a maximum amount. Nalebuff, Christensen and Utts, Falk and Konold, Blachman, Christensen and Utts, Nickerson and Falk, pointed out that if the amounts of money in the two envelopes have any proper probability distribution representing the player's prior beliefs about the amounts of money in the two envelopes, then it is impossible that whatever the amount A=a in the first envelope might be, it would be equally likely, according to these prior beliefs, that the second contains a/2 or 2a. Thus step 6 of the argument, which leads to always switching, is a non-sequitur, also when there is no maximum to the amounts in the envelopes.

Introduction to further developments in connection with Bayesian probability theory
The first two resolutions discussed above (the "simple resolution" and the "Bayesian resolution") correspond to two possible interpretations of what is going on in step 6 of the argument. They both assume that step 6 indeed is "the bad step". But the description in step 6 is ambiguous. Is the author after the unconditional (overall) expectation value of what is in envelope B (perhaps - conditional on the smaller amount, x), or is he after the conditional expectation of what is in envelope B, given any possible amount a which might be in envelope A? Thus, there are two main interpretations of the intention of the composer of the paradoxical argument for switching, and two main resolutions.

A large literature has developed concerning variants of the problem. The standard assumption about the way the envelopes are set up is that a sum of money is in one envelope, and twice that sum is in another envelope. One of the two envelopes is randomly given to the player (envelope A). The originally proposed problem does not make clear exactly how the smaller of the two sums is determined, what values it could possibly take and, in particular, whether there is a minimum or a maximum sum it might contain. However, if we are using the Bayesian interpretation of probability, then we start by expressing our prior beliefs as to the smaller amount in the two envelopes through a probability distribution. Lack of knowledge can also be expressed in terms of probability.

A first variant within the Bayesian version is to come up with a proper prior probability distribution of the smaller amount of money in the two envelopes, such that when Step 6 is performed properly, the advice is still to prefer Envelope B, whatever might be in Envelope A. So though the specific calculation performed in step 6 was incorrect (there is no proper prior distribution such that, given what is in the first envelope A, the other envelope is always equally likely to be larger or smaller) a correct calculation, depending on what prior we are using, does lead to the result $$E(B | A = a) > a$$ for all possible values of a.

In these cases, it can be shown that the expected sum in both envelopes is infinite. There is no gain, on average, in swapping.

Second mathematical variant
Though Bayesian probability theory can resolve the first mathematical interpretation of the paradox above, it turns out that examples can be found of proper probability distributions, such that the expected value of the amount in the second envelope, conditioned on the amount in the first, does exceed the amount in the first, whatever it might be. The first such example was already given by Nalebuff. See also Christensen and Utts (1992).

Denote again the amount of money in the first envelope by A and that in the second by B. We think of these as random. Let X be the smaller of the two amounts and Y=2X be the larger. Notice that once we have fixed a probability distribution for X then the joint probability distribution of A, B is fixed, since A, B = X, Y or Y, X each with probability 1/2, independently of X, Y.

The bad step 6 in the "always switching" argument led us to the finding E(B|A=a)>a for all a, and hence to the recommendation to switch, whether or not we know a. Now, it turns out that one can quite easily invent proper probability distributions for X, the smaller of the two amounts of money, such that this bad conclusion is still true. One example is analyzed in more detail, in a moment.

As mentioned before, it cannot be true that whatever a, given A=a, B is equally likely to be a/2 or 2a, but it can be true that whatever a, given A=a, B is larger in expected value than a.

Suppose for example that the envelope with the smaller amount actually contains 2n dollars with probability 2n/3n+1 where n = 0, 1, 2, ... These probabilities sum to 1, hence the distribution is a proper prior (for subjectivists) and a completely decent probability law also for frequentists.

Imagine what might be in the first envelope. A sensible strategy would certainly be to swap when the first envelope contains 1, as the other must then contain 2. Suppose on the other hand the first envelope contains 2. In that case, there are two possibilities: the envelope pair in front of us is either {1, 2} or {2, 4}. All other pairs are impossible. The conditional probability that we are dealing with the {1, 2} pair, given that the first envelope contains 2, is

$$\begin{align} P(\{1,2\} \mid 2) &= \frac{P(\{1,2\})/2}{P(\{1,2\})/2+P(\{2,4\})/2} \\ &= \frac{P(\{1,2\})}{P(\{1,2\})+P(\{2,4\})} \\ &= \frac{1/3}{1/3 + 2/9} = 3/5, \end{align}$$

and consequently the probability it's the {2, 4} pair is 2/5, since these are the only two possibilities. In this derivation, $$P(\{1,2\})/2$$ is the probability that the envelope pair is the pair 1 and 2, and envelope A happens to contain 2; $$P(\{2,4\})/2$$ is the probability that the envelope pair is the pair 2 and 4, and (again) envelope A happens to contain 2. Those are the only two ways that envelope A can end up containing the amount 2.

It turns out that these proportions hold in general unless the first envelope contains 1. Denote by a the amount we imagine finding in Envelope A, if we were to open that envelope, and suppose that a = 2n for some n ≥ 1. In that case the other envelope contains a/2 with probability 3/5 and 2a with probability 2/5.

So either the first envelope contains 1, in which case the conditional expected amount in the other envelope is 2, or the first envelope contains a > 1, and though the second envelope is more likely to be smaller than larger, its conditionally expected amount is larger: the conditionally expected amount in Envelope B is

$$\frac{3}{5} \frac{a}{2} + \frac{2}{5} 2a = \frac{11}{10}a$$

which is more than a. This means that the player who looks in envelope A would decide to switch whatever he saw there. Hence there is no need to look in envelope A to make that decision.

This conclusion is just as clearly wrong as it was in the preceding interpretations of the Two Envelopes Problem. But now the flaws noted above do not apply; the a in the expected value calculation is a constant and the conditional probabilities in the formula are obtained from a specified and proper prior distribution.

Proposed resolutions through mathematical economics
Most writers think that the new paradox can be defused, although the resolution requires concepts from mathematical economics. Suppose $$E(B|A=a)>a$$ for all $$a$$. It can be shown that this is possible for some probability distributions of X (the smaller amount of money in the two envelopes) only if $$E(X)=\infty$$. That is, only if the mean of all possible values of money in the envelopes is infinite. To see why, compare the series described above in which the probability of each X is 2/3 as likely as the previous X with one in which the probability of each X is only 1/3 as likely as the previous X. When the probability of each subsequent term is greater than one-half of the probability of the term before it (and each X is twice that of the X before it) the mean is infinite, but when the probability factor is less than one-half, the mean converges. In the cases where the probability factor is less than one-half, $$E(B|A=a)<a$$ for all a other than the first, smallest a, and the total expected value of switching converges to 0. In addition, if an ongoing distribution with a probability factor greater than one-half is made finite by, after any number of terms, establishing a final term with "all the remaining probability," that is, 1 minus the probability of all previous terms, the expected value of switching with respect to the probability that A is equal to the last, largest a will exactly negate the sum of the positive expected values that came before, and again the total expected value of switching drops to 0 (this is the general case of setting out an equal probability of a finite set of values in the envelopes described above). Thus, the only distributions that seem to point to a positive expected value for switching are those in which $$E(X)=\infty$$. Averaging over a, it follows that $$E(B)=E(A)=\infty$$ (because A and B have identical probability distributions, by symmetry, and both A and B are greater than or equal to X).

If we do not look into the first envelope, then clearly there is no reason to switch, since we would be exchanging one unknown amount of money (A), whose expected value is infinite, for another unknown amount of money (B), with the same probability distribution and infinite expected value. However, if we do look into the first envelope, then for all values observed ($$A=a$$) we would want to switch because $$E(B|A=a)>a$$ for all a. As noted by David Chalmers, this problem can be described as a failure of dominance reasoning.

Under dominance reasoning, the fact that we strictly prefer A to B for all possible observed values a should imply that we strictly prefer A to B without observing a; however, as already shown, that is not true because $$E(B)=E(A)=\infty$$. To salvage dominance reasoning while allowing $$E(B)=E(A)=\infty$$, one would have to replace expected value as the decision criterion, thereby employing a more sophisticated argument from mathematical economics.

For example, we could assume the decision maker is an expected utility maximizer with initial wealth W whose utility function, $$u(w)$$, is chosen to satisfy $$E(u(W+B)|A=a)<u(W+a)$$ for at least some values of a (that is, holding onto $$A=a$$ is strictly preferred to switching to B for some a). Although this is not true for all utility functions, it would be true if $$u(w)$$ had an upper bound, $$\beta<\infty$$, as w increased toward infinity (a common assumption in mathematical economics and decision theory). Michael R. Powers provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the utility function to resolve the paradox, and notes that neither $$u(w)<\beta$$ nor $$E(u(W+A))=E(u(W+B))<\infty$$ is required.

Some writers would prefer to argue that in a real-life situation, $$u(W+A)$$ and $$u(W+B)$$ are bounded simply because the amount of money in an envelope is bounded by the total amount of money in the world (M), implying $$u(W+A) \leq u(W+M)$$ and $$u(W+B) \leq u(W+M)$$. From this perspective, the second paradox is resolved because the postulated probability distribution for X (with $$E(X)=\infty$$) cannot arise in a real-life situation. Similar arguments are often used to resolve the St. Petersburg paradox.

Controversy among philosophers
As mentioned above, any distribution producing this variant of the paradox must have an infinite mean. So before the player opens an envelope the expected gain from switching is "∞ − ∞", which is not defined. In the words of David Chalmers, this is "just another example of a familiar phenomenon, the strange behavior of infinity". Chalmers suggests that decision theory generally breaks down when confronted with games having a diverging expectation, and compares it with the situation generated by the classical St. Petersburg paradox.

However, Clark and Shackel argue that this blaming it all on "the strange behavior of infinity" does not resolve the paradox at all; neither in the single case nor the averaged case. They provide a simple example of a pair of random variables both having infinite mean but where it is clearly sensible to prefer one to the other, both conditionally and on average. They argue that decision theory should be extended so as to allow infinite expectation values in some situations.

Smullyan's non-probabilistic variant
The logician Raymond Smullyan questioned if the paradox has anything to do with probabilities at all. He did this by expressing the problem in a way that does not involve probabilities. The following plainly logical arguments lead to conflicting conclusions:

 * 1) Let the amount in the envelope chosen by the player be A. By swapping, the player may gain A or lose A/2. So the potential gain is strictly greater than the potential loss.
 * 2) Let the amounts in the envelopes be X and 2X. Now by swapping, the player may gain X or lose X. So the potential gain is equal to the potential loss.

Proposed resolutions
A number of solutions have been put forward. Careful analyses have been made by some logicians. Though solutions differ, they all pinpoint semantic issues concerned with counterfactual reasoning. We want to compare the amount that we would gain by switching if we would gain by switching, with the amount we would lose by switching if we would indeed lose by switching. However, we cannot both gain and lose by switching at the same time. We are asked to compare two incompatible situations. Only one of them can factually occur, the other is a counterfactual situation—somehow imaginary. To compare them at all, we must somehow "align" the two situations, providing some definite points in common.

James Chase argues that the second argument is correct because it does correspond to the way to align two situations (one in which we gain, the other in which we lose), which is preferably indicated by the problem description. Also, Bernard Katz and Doris Olin argue this point of view. In the second argument, we consider the amounts of money in the two envelopes as being fixed; what varies is which one is first given to the player. Because that was an arbitrary and physical choice, the counterfactual world in which the player, counterfactually, got the other envelope to the one he was actually (factually) given is a highly meaningful counterfactual world and hence the comparison between gains and losses in the two worlds is meaningful. This comparison is uniquely indicated by the problem description, in which two amounts of money are put in the two envelopes first, and only after that is one chosen arbitrarily and given to the player. In the first argument, however, we consider the amount of money in the envelope first given to the player as fixed and consider the situations where the second envelope contains either half or twice that amount. This would only be a reasonable counterfactual world if in reality the envelopes had been filled as follows: first, some amount of money is placed in the specific envelope that will be given to the player; and secondly, by some arbitrary process, the other envelope is filled (arbitrarily or randomly) either with double or with half of that amount of money.

Byeong-Uk Yi, on the other hand, argues that comparing the amount you would gain if you would gain by switching with the amount you would lose if you would lose by switching is a meaningless exercise from the outset. According to his analysis, all three implications (switch, indifferent, do not switch) are incorrect. He analyses Smullyan's arguments in detail, showing that intermediate steps are being taken, and pinpointing exactly where an incorrect inference is made according to his formalization of counterfactual inference. An important difference with Chase's analysis is that he does not take account of the part of the story where we are told that the envelope called envelope A is decided completely at random. Thus, Chase puts probability back into the problem description in order to conclude that arguments 1 and 3 are incorrect, argument 2 is correct, while Yi keeps "two envelope problem without probability" completely free of probability and comes to the conclusion that there are no reasons to prefer any action. This corresponds to the view of Albers et al., that without a probability ingredient, there is no way to argue that one action is better than another, anyway.

Bliss argues that the source of the paradox is that when one mistakenly believes in the possibility of a larger payoff that does not, in actuality, exist, one is mistaken by a larger margin than when one believes in the possibility of a smaller payoff that does not actually exist. If, for example, the envelopes contained $5.00 and $10.00 respectively, a player who opened the $10.00 envelope would expect the possibility of a $20.00 payout that simply does not exist. Were that player to open the $5.00 envelope instead, he would believe in the possibility of a $2.50 payout, which constitutes a smaller deviation from the true value; this results in the paradoxical discrepancy.

Albers, Kooi, and Schaafsma consider that without adding probability (or other) ingredients to the problem, Smullyan's arguments do not give any reason to swap or not to swap, in any case. Thus, there is no paradox. This dismissive attitude is common among writers from probability and economics: Smullyan's paradox arises precisely because he takes no account whatever of probability or utility.

Conditional switching
As an extension to the problem, consider the case where the player is allowed to look in envelope A before deciding whether to switch. In this "conditional switching" problem, it is often possible to generate a gain over the "never switching" strategy", depending on the probability distribution of the envelopes.

History of the paradox
The envelope paradox dates back at least to 1953, when Belgian mathematician Maurice Kraitchik proposed a puzzle in his book Recreational Mathematics concerning two equally rich men who meet and compare their beautiful neckties, presents from their wives, wondering which tie actually cost more money. He also introduces a variant in which the two men compare the contents of their purses. He assumes that each purse is equally likely to contain 1 up to some large number x of pennies, the total number of pennies minted to date. The men do not look in their purses but each reason that they should switch. He does not explain what is the error in their reasoning. It is not clear whether the puzzle already appeared in an earlier 1942 edition of his book. It is also mentioned in a 1953 book on elementary mathematics and mathematical puzzles by the mathematician John Edensor Littlewood, who credited it to the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, where it concerns a pack of cards, each card has two numbers written on it, the player gets to see a random side of a random card, and the question is whether one should turn over the card. Littlewood's pack of cards is infinitely large and his paradox is a paradox of improper prior distributions.

Martin Gardner popularized Kraitchik's puzzle in his 1982 book ''Aha! Gotcha'', in the form of a wallet game:

"Two people, equally rich, meet to compare the contents of their wallets. Each is ignorant of the contents of the two wallets. The game is as follows: whoever has the least money receives the contents of the wallet of the other (in the case where the amounts are equal, nothing happens). One of the two men can reason: 'I have the amount A in my wallet. That's the maximum that I could lose. If I win (probability 0.5), the amount that I'll have in my possession at the end of the game will be more than 2A. Therefore the game is favourable to me.' The other man can reason in exactly the same way. In fact, by symmetry, the game is fair. Where is the mistake in the reasoning of each man?"

Gardner confessed that though, like Kraitchik, he could give a sound analysis leading to the right answer (there is no point in switching), he could not clearly put his finger on what was wrong with the reasoning for switching, and Kraitchik did not give any help in this direction, either.

In 1988 and 1989, Barry Nalebuff presented two different two-envelope problems, each with one envelope containing twice what is in the other, and each with computation of the expectation value 5A/4. The first paper just presents the two problems. The second discusses many solutions to both of them. The second of his two problems is nowadays the more common, and is presented in this article. According to this version, the two envelopes are filled first, then one is chosen at random and called Envelope A. Martin Gardner independently mentioned this same version in his 1989 book Penrose Tiles to Trapdoor Ciphers and the Return of Dr Matrix. Barry Nalebuff's asymmetric variant, often known as the Ali Baba problem, has one envelope filled first, called Envelope A, and given to Ali. Then a fair coin is tossed to decide whether Envelope B should contain half or twice that amount, and only then given to Baba.

Broome in 1995 called a probability distribution 'paradoxical' if for any given first-envelope amount x, the expectation of the other envelope conditional on x is greater than x. The literature contains dozens of commentaries on the problem, much of which observes that a distribution of finite values can have an infinite expected value.

title: Two envelopes problem


text:
QBE Shootout

The QBE Shootout was a team golf tournament that took place on the PGA Tour as an unofficial money event. It was originally played during the off-season.

The event began in 1989, as the RMCC Invitational. It was hosted by golfer Greg Norman. The tournament was soon renamed the Shark Shootout after Norman's nickname, and has had several names since (see Winners below). The first eleven editions of the tournament were played at Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks, California (1989–99). It was then played for one year at Doral Resort & Spa, on the Norman designed Great White Course, before moving to Tiburón Golf Club in Naples, Florida in 2001, where it was played over the Norman designed Gold Course.

In 2023, the PGA Tour replaced the QBE Shootout with the Grant Thornton Invitational, a 16-team event which features one male and one female pro golfer on each team.

Format
The Shootout was a 3-day, 54-hole stroke play event in which teams of two compete. The format since 2014 has been:
 * First round: scramble, also known as ambrose or best-shot. Both players tee off on each hole; having decided which result is better, both play their next stroke from within a club-length of that position, but no closer to the hole. This procedure is repeated until the hole is finished.
 * Second round: greensomes, also known as modified alternate shot or Scotch foursomes. Both players tee off on each hole and the ball finishing in the better position is chosen; alternate strokes are then played to complete the hole, with the player who did not play the chosen ball from the tee taking the next stroke.
 * Final round: better ball, also known as best ball. Each golfer plays their own ball throughout, with the lower score being counted on each hole.

Broadcasting history
The event was originally broadcast in the United States by the USA Network and CBS, with USA broadcasting the first round on a tape-delayed basis, and CBS handling the second round live – it was then a two-round tournament. Not all the country saw the final round live, as CBS's commitment to the NFL only allowed part of the country to see the round as it took place, with the rest of the U.S. seeing the event beginning at 4 p.m. Eastern Time.

In 2007, the event was moved to December, and was broadcast live by both Golf Channel and NBC. It remained on these networks through 2013. In 2014, weekend coverage moved to Fox, where Norman had become an analyst. The telecast served as a prelude to Fox's coverage of the 2015 U.S. Open. In 2017, weekend coverage returned to NBC.

title: QBE Shootout


text:
East Setauket, New York

East Setauket is a hamlet and census-designated place (CDP) on Long Island, in the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, United States. It was first listed as a CDP prior to the 2020 census. Before that it was part of the Setauket-East Setauket CDP.

The community is in northwestern Suffolk County, in the northwest part of the town of Brookhaven. The East Setauket is bordered by Setauket to the northwest, Poquott to the north, Port Jefferson to the northeast, Port Jefferson Station to the east, Terryville to the southeast, South Setauket to the south, Stony Brook to the southwest, and Stony Brook University to the west.

Notable residents

 * Dee Snider, singer-songwriter, screenwriter, radio personality, and actor; most famous for his role as the front man of the heavy metal band Twisted Sister.

title: East Setauket, New York


text:
Talk:Snatch (film)

Question
Was Snatch the first movie to feature that stylized character intro in the trailer? Music plays while the film's characters are introed. The image freezes on each one and it usually blends into a black and white photo or artwork based on a photo of the character. It was parodied for the trailers of films like Herbie Fully Loaded, Disney's Chicken Little, Lucky Number Slevin, and probably others. I'm just guessing Snatch was the first film to feature that syle, but it easily could have been mimicking another earlier film.

 * Sam Peckinpah did that numerous times before in his films, most notably The Wild Bunch. Count Ringworm 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Size
Possible spoiler Yes, I know it's 86 carats the entire movie, but in Turkish's final narration, he says the vet found an 84 carat diamond in the dog's stomach. No clue what happened to the other two carats. --Milton 06:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe the dog ate it. -Kid.

Title
Shouldn't this page be "Snatch." seeing as "Snatch" is the alternate spelling?
 * Alternate spelling of what? Are you saying that the title is supposed to be "Snatch." (with a period)?  I'm not sure I follow you.  Wavy G 15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the actual title of the film is "Snatch." - the alternate spelling in the US is "Snatch" however the official title is "Snatch." (the word and the period.): ehmjay 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I was going to say, my DVD cover just says "Snatch" but obviously I have the US version.  So, if that is the correct title, I say move the article to "Snatch."  Wavy G 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the imdb.com page has the period. I say move the page. I'll do it. --Milton 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My DVD cover just says "Snatch" too, and I've got the EU (IRL) version. I've never before seen it spelt as "Snatch." I'd actually like to see something official that says "Snatch." (the imdb page doesn't count) +Falcon9x5 07:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC
 * Had a quick look at official Sony sites, two UK and one US  site, and they all call it "Snatch". All DVD covers call it "Snatch". I wasn't able to find a single "Snatch." apart from wikipedia and imdb. It should be changed back. +Falcon9x5 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another look through the first eleven pages of google results for '"Snatch." film' still only gives the wiki page and imdb as spelling it "Snatch.". I'm moving it back. +Falcon9x5 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the Opening Titles do contain the period so I don't know what's the official way. You can see the opening here.
 * You're right. I don't know what is correct.  IMDB seems the most reliable source, but apparently it's the only one that has it listed as "Snatch."  Don't know what to make of this one, although it is bit of a trivial point.  Wavy G 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then again, Turkish is actually "*Turkish*" in the titles, so the logic mightn't apply to "Snatch.". Leave it as it is, I think, most people know of it without the full stop, and like I said, there is only one pages on the internet (imdb - as far as I can tell) that keeps the full stop. +Falcon9x5

Fair enough. Let's leave it as is. : ehmjay 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Running Time?
Hello. Whilst looking this article I noticed that it has the running times down as different for the USA release and the UK release (UK:104 min / USA:102 min is the exact text). I was wondering, is this due to certain scenes being cut? If so, which scenes were cut, and should it be mentioned in the article? Or at least there should be a minor mention to the reasons why the running times are different. --Dreaded Walrus 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Because the US version has had some dialogue re-recorded to remove some of the British slang and to annunciate words that would be hard to understand due to the thick accents, presumably this is what causes the time difference. Also credit length for different regions could cause the runtime to change (remember the runtime is really just approximated, as some films that say are 104 minutes are only like 98). Anyways, there isn't any real changes mentioned on the IMDB Alt. Versions page and apart from the US. TV edit, I've never noticed many differences. : ehmjay 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Title in infobox
The film's title in the infobox was "scarface snatch ak47" , I have no idea what the hell this was but I changed it to "Snatch." 84.1.193.2 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The painting under wich lies Turkish's safe.
That painting under wich lies Turkish's safe is, in fact, on Orthodox Christian icon of Saint George. The confusing part is that the English are Protestants.

"No non-nude women"?
"No non-nude woman appears in the film with the exception of Doug's daughters."

That's not true, what about the female model's at the jewelry party. They are seen while Avi is talking to Doug over the phone from New York. I'm pretty sure they were clothed. --Dark_Wolf101 10:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is completely false, what about Brad Pitts mom. She is a pretty major character and thankfully she is fully clothed. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the "All bets are off" woman. I'd have to watch it again, but I'll bet you could find more. superlusertc 2007 July 29, 03:49 (UTC)

Trivia
The trivia section states that "A painting hanging over Turkish's safe looks very much like Coat of arms of Moscow". It looks like the painting is an icon (or a copy of an icon) depicting Saint George. See this for an example. --JohnRubin 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any link between Boris, the "invincible" russian hacker from Golden Eye and Boris the Blade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.12.62 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The only links between the two would be that they are both named Boris and are both killed despite claims within the movies that they are "impossible to kill" and "invincible" respectively. WesUGAdawg (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Avi "Gets the diamond"
Do we have any evidence that this is true? Last I saw, Avi was flying to England, but whether he actually gets the diamond is anyone's guess. After all, last time he flew to England, it did not result in him getting the diamond. superlusertc 2007 July 29, 03:56 (UTC)

Well if the last scene we see is to be believed, Turkish is offering to sell the diamond to Doug the Head. Doug the Head was working with Avi in getting the diamond from Frankie in the first place, so unless Doug plans to sell the diamond behind Avi's back [which is certainly possible], it can be assumed he called Avi after the meeting with Turkish.ROG 19 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Eventual fate of each character inclusion
For what reason does this movie in particular have such a section? It is interesting and all, but... --Frenkmelk talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You think it's interesting, and I just wanted to know if anyone was embarrassed; I don't think Michel Foucault's wiki historical background is charted as well the characters of Snatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.62.63 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Variousartistssnatch-stealin'stonesandbreakin'bones.jpg
Image:Variousartistssnatch-stealin'stonesandbreakin'bones.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Reid RIP
It is now 8th December and Mike Reid died 29th July 2007. It's about time this wiki page was updated. Is it not possible for wiki entries to link to other pages to update automatically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Reid_%28entertainer%29

Mike Reid RIP
It is now 8th December and Mike Reid died 29th July 2007. It's about time this wiki page was updated. Is it not possible for wiki entries to link to other pages to update automatically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Reid_%28entertainer%29

79.65.196.46 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi - I assume you're talking about the table in this article that lists whether people are dead or alive under the heading "Fate of each character"? The table refers to the characters in the film (Guy Ritchie's films are sometimes notorious for their high body count), so although Mike Reid is deceased, the character he plays, Doug the Head, is alive at the end of the film, which is why it says "Alive" beside his name.-- Kateshort forbob  01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Bubbe"

"Bubbe" is the Yiddish word for grandmother so it might be worth noting that although the word is used several times in the film, (i.e. Avi calls Frankie "Bubbe", Frankie calls Doug "Bubbe") it is never used correctly. Remedy96 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Snatch Movie Poster.jpg
Image:Snatch Movie Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lock and Stock
The section comparing this film to 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' seems entirely original research. Also, the 'fate of each' character seems entirely irrelevant. Lots42 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hava Negila?
Other sources state that a cut of "Hava Negila" by John Murphy appears in this film. Is this true?68.111.71.197 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Track 8: "Hava Negila" vs. "Kosha Nostra Theme".
Are there different versions at Track 8 (of the 23 tracks edition)?

Track 8 is credited sometimes as "Hava Negila", e.g. MusicBrainz (with a length of ca. 1:52) and sometimes with "Kosha Nostra Theme", e.g. [https://coverartarchive.org/release/184ad287-2b9b-342b-b262-49af18bbc51d/19858752564.jpg Cover for this MBID!). This seems to be an error for this MusicBrainz entry.

However, there are also covers with "Hava Negila" (e.g. ). Please note the same barcode.

IMHO the "Kosha Nostra Theme" is also longer, ca. 2:19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.174.139 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight in Reaction section
The section devotes a relatively small amount of words to mentioning the movie's success (mostly in the box office; the only mention it has of critical success is "the film received mostly positive reviews") but then goes through a (relatively) detailed list of the negative criticisms that have been raised against the film. If the film really did get "mostly positive" reviews," shouldn't there be mention of them as well? If the article is going to describe what people didn't like about the film, it should also describe what people liked about it—especially if more reviewers liked things than didn't like things.  Giving it nothing but two unsourced and vague positive statements ("has developed a devoted cult following" and "received mostly positive reviews") but then citing at least four negative reviews  is pretty unbalanced.  Once I have some time I will look for some other reviews to cite to even things out, but in the meantime anyone else is welcome to add things, too. —Politizer talk / contribs 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * After a visit to rottentomatoes I found out, that half the reviewers, which gave this flick a bad rap, where unable to follow the plot. Seems to me, articles on wiki should confine to the box office results, dvd sales, etc. and forget about the so called "critics" … —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.93.205 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alan Ford deceased?
Well his wikipedia page and IMDB page do not show this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ford_(actor) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0285495/

Where did the information come from that he is apparently dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.234 (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Wow, you're dim, the character is deceased, not the actors. That's why it says 'Eventual Fate of Characters' idiot! 84.64.250.111 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
is edit-warring over the spelling of "jeweler", insisting that the British spelling is "jeweller" (double l). While the article should certainly use British English throughout, since this is a British film, this is the first I've ever heard of the word "jeweler" being spelled differently between British and American English (I'm American, btw). Merriam-Webster spells it "jeweler" (a search for "jeweller" redirects to "jeweler"). I'm not opposed to changing it if someone can give evidence of a British variation to the spelling, but I'm inclined to dismiss the IP outright due to his insulting edit summaries. Anyone with a better attitude care to comment? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I looked it up in a print edition of Merriam-Webster (10th ed.), which does give "jeweller" as a British variation. Nonetheless, I feel perfectly justified in having reverted the IP due to those uncivil edit summaries (being correct doesn't give you license to be insulting). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative titles
I vaguely remember hearing that this movie was given a different title in some markets because of possible sexual double-entendre in the title "Snatch," just to avoid offending part of the moviegoing public, but when I look for reference to that online I can't find any. Does anyone know anything about this? Guyovski (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-sequel
Why does the article take pains to tell us twice that this film isn't a sequel to Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels? Are there other film articles that go out of their way to tell us that their subjects aren't sequels of other films to which they aren't sequels? Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Six weeks later, with no response, I've removed the unhelpful observations from the article. If the title of the film were "Lock, Stock, and Three Smoking Barrels", then I'd see a reason to clarify that it isn't a sequel to the previous film, if indeed it weren't, but that isn't the situation here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see your original post. I agree with your removal. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Snatch (film)


text:
Neopolitan (album)

Neopolitan is the 1991 debut album by the Canadian band Odds. It is named for the flavour of ice cream; although intentionally a misspelling (the ice cream flavour is actually spelled neapolitan), "neopolitan" is the spelling that appears on the album cover. Members of the band have stated that the album title was intentionally misspelled in order to see if anyone would pick up on their cunning. "Neo"-new, "politan"- people. New People.

The first two hits were "Love is the Subject" and "King of the Heap". Third single "Wendy Under the Stars" featured the controversial refrain ''"I was fucking Wendy under the stars/The night that Elvis died". A true story." An edited version of the song, with the lyric changed to "I made love to Wendy"'', was released to radio.

Critical reception
The Vancouver Sun deemed Neopolitan "an album of strategically constructed guitar-pop reminiscent of Badfinger or a giddy-sounding Velvet Underground."

Track listing
All songs written by Craig Northey, Steven Drake, Paul Brennan and Doug Elliott.

 * 1) "King of the Heap" (4:58)
 * 2) "No Warning" (3:31)
 * 3) "Are You Listening?" (1:44)
 * 4) "Evolution Time" (4:35)
 * 5) "Eternal Ecstasy" (3:53)
 * 6) "Family Tree" (3:56)
 * 7) "Wendy Under the Stars" (4:14)
 * 8) "Truth or Dare" (3:41)
 * 9) "Love Is the Subject" (4:45)
 * 10) "Trees" (2:51)
 * 11) "Domesticated Blind" (3:25)
 * 12) "Big White Wall" (4:15)
 * 13) "Horsehead Nebula" (2:08)

title: Neopolitan (album)


text:
Talk:United States national cricket team

Question

 * Currently, pupils not selected for baseball teams have no ball game to play

This looks a bit odd: aren't American football, basketball and soccer ball games? Loganberry (Talk) 22:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * They're not summer sports though. It could be clarified. I presume in summer American kids either play baseball or nothing, but I'm not sure about that. -dmmaus 23:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * In America, anyone can play baseball. You could literaly be the worst player in history and play in a youth league.  Other sports in summer include football, soccer (football if you will), tennis, street basketball, golf, casual badminton and volleyball(like basketball played as a team sport in winter).  That's all the ball sports I can think of right now.  Hardly anyone (never met anyone until college, and even then it was only through a cricket phys ed course) outside of recent transplants into American culture plays cricket. User:anonymous 23:52, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

cricket playing nation?
"Yet the USA did not develop into a cricket playing nation" - it was evidently one of the first cricket playing nations.

Removed reference to American Civil War as on the face of it is not connected to rise in popularity of baseball(?).

Removed 2 links ('Decline & fall of Cricket in the USA' & 'ICC expels USA....' both not very up to date, also both oddly misleading)

Added headings and expanded section on decline in popularity.

 * it was evidently one of the first cricket playing nations.

 * Yes, but I believe that the sentence referred to the nations development to the present day. I mean, even though it clearly has an impressive history in terms of cricket, comparing America to nations like India, England, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand there's no way you can call it a cricketing nation.

 * Removed 2 links ('Decline & fall of Cricket in the USA' & 'ICC expels USA....' both not very up to date, also both oddly misleading)

 * Well, that's as maybe but couldn't the reason for the USA's expulsion from the ICC be on the page? I'm not familiar with the subject so I was curious as to why it would have happened in the first place...
 * Reasonable J 00:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First class matches
The articles infobox notes that the USA has played in 4 first class matches. Looking at this page, there are 5 matches listed for the United States and the "Players of United States of America." Are these not included in the totals for the national side?-- Eva  b  d  04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK...perusing the CricketArchive, I see more than four first-class matches in just the Philadelphian grounds. This page shows one at Young American while this page shows three at Germantown, Nicetown. In addition, we've got two at Belmont and two at Germantown, Manheim. By my reckoning, that makes 8 in Philadelphia's golden age. Add to that the USA v Canada and USA v Bermuda in the 2004 ICC Intercontinental Cup, and it brings us to ten. Looking at CricketArchive's scorecard oracle shows some other matches by sides that are made up of American's but nothing of a full American team. Based on this, my logic would tell me that the US national side has played ten first class matches. Any other people want to make calculations.-- Eva  b  d  15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I wasn't counting the Players of the USA side, as that was just the USA professional cricketers, and thus not representative of the country as a whole. Andrew nixon 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I may be different from others, but I'd say that these should still be included in the total. If a national side plays a match and their top players are injured or taking a rest, it is still a game of the nation's team. Likewise, just because eleven men happened to be playing for the Philadelphians or some other team, the US side was still a US side. I'd be inclined to include those matches in the US first-class total.-- Eva  b  d  22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree. The Players of England (see Gentlemen v Players) played hundreds of first-class matches, yet they would never be included in England's total of first-class matches. The Players of the USA simply can't be considered as the USA national team in any way. It's essentially a Philadelphia v Rest of USA match. Andrew nixon 07:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * OK...you've convinced me. I think I just have a desire to "pad" the stats of the US national team. Thanks for your reasoning.-- Eva  b  d  14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

History of United States cricket
I'm trying to bring some order to United States cricket team ( you can see my working draft here ) and History of United States cricket ( my working draft will be here ). Any help that can be offered is most welcome.-- Eva  b  d  04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I've uploaded my draft here with several requests. If people could look through and replace this notice  with an appropriate citation, that would be great. I've still got a lot of work to do on History of United States cricket. Thanks.-- Eva   b  d  03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I've added several references in the Status from 1965 section. Andrew nixon 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the continued help, Andrew.-- Eva  b  d  13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First International Match
Several online sources note that the first international match between the US and Canada took place at the St George's Cricket Club in New York. this page from CricketArchive says that it took place in Montreal. Who's right?-- Eva  b  d  12:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Cricket Archive is the only place that says it was in Montreal. The second did take place in Montreal, but the first took place at the venue you say, as this page from the Canadian Cricket Association says. Andrew nixon 13:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks.-- Eva  b  d  14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricket in Puerto Rico
Does anyone know anything substantial about cricket in Puerto Rico? So far on the internet the only facts I've found are that there is one cricket club in San Juan (called the Puerto Rico Cricket Club) and that there is no Puerto Rico Cricket Association (due to the lack of at least 2 other clubs on the island). It also seems that Puerto Rico's sole cricket club also participates in South American tournaments (alongside Guyana, Argentina, Brazil and Peru). I was wondering if Puerto Rico's cricket club was autonomous or not, but I can find no hard information to support this. I have come across mention of Puerto Rico as falling in the Southeast cricketing region on the USACA's website (along with Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas), but in the list of cricket associations for the Southeast region the only ones are from Florida (plenty of them too) and Georgia - no mention of the Puerto Rico cricket club. Does anyone have any more info about cricket in Puerto Rico?72.27.29.124 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Review
I would have liked to recommend this for A-class review but I'm afraid the incomplete 2008 ICC World Cricket League Division Five section lets it down. It is nevertheless a definite B-class. BlackJack | talk page 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline
Wondering what the reasons were for getting shut out by the ICC, I imagine it must be recorded somewhere. And apart from the resistance to professionalism, the other problem in the US I've come across was the colour bar (as with baseball), presumably that would have made it hard to integrate the American game with say cricket in the Caribbean (regional tournaments, tours). Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are WCL matches considered List A?
I was wondering, were the matches that the United States played in the 2010 World Cricket League Divisions 5 and 4 considered "List A" cricket? If so, aren't the United States List A statistics in bad need of an update? Keel Nar  03:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 * No they're not. Only Division 1 (which is an ODI tournament) and Division 2 are classed as being List A cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Record low inflation, or creative conversion???
"Wagers of around $120,000 were placed on the outcome of the match [in 1844!]. This is equivalent to around $1.5 million in 2007."

Surely there is a zero missing or inserted somewhere? I doubt that even the Swiss Franc has inflated by a factor as small as 12 in that period! JonRichfield (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on United States national cricket team. 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/20061006194244/http://cricketclub.org/can_usa.html to http://cricketclub.org/can_usa.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929211254/http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Records/UnitedStatesofAmerica/Odis/Odi_List.html to http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Records/UnitedStatesofAmerica/Odis/Odi_List.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929111013/http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/development/wcl_div1-5_2007-2009.pdf to http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/development/wcl_div1-5_2007-2009.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) 15:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Two players named Elmore Hutchinson, both pointing to the same Wikipedia page
The roster of players includes two players named Elmore Hutchinson. One is listed as a 22-yo right-handed batsman/left-arm fast-medium bowler, and the other is listed as a 27-yo right-handed batsman/right-arm off-break bowler.

Both of these entries link to the page Elmore Hutchinson, who is listed at 39, and as a left-arm fast-medium bowler.

The USA Cricket page does have two different entries for Elmore Hutchinson playing for Team USA...

Left-arm fast bowler

Right-arm medium bowler

It's possible that the USA Cricket entry is in error; the first link seems to line up with the better-known Elmore Hutchinson. The second entry may be another player who happens to share the same name, or it may be a data entry error on USA Cricket's behalf.

If it's the former (sharing same name), our second link should point to a new page for the "other" Elmore Hutchinson. If it's the latter (data entry error), we should probably remove the incorrect entry, or at least note it.

Gilhova (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


text: User talk:71.0.132.4

title: User talk:71.0.132.4


text: User talk:65.117.52.169

title: User talk:65.117.52.169


text:
XML Information Set

XML Information Set (XML Infoset) is a W3C specification describing an abstract data model of an XML document in terms of a set of information items. The definitions in the XML Information Set specification are meant to be used in other specifications that need to refer to the information in a well-formed XML document.

An XML document has an information set if it is well-formed and satisfies the namespace constraints. There is no requirement for an XML document to be valid in order to have an information set.

An information set can contain up to eleven different types of information items:
 * 1) The Document Information Item (always present)
 * 2) Element Information Items
 * 3) Attribute Information Items
 * 4) Processing Instruction Information Items
 * 5) Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items
 * 6) Character Information Items
 * 7) Comment Information Items
 * 8) The Document Type Declaration Information Item
 * 9) Unparsed Entity Information Items
 * 10) Notation Information Items
 * 11) Namespace Information Items

XML was initially developed without a formal definition of its infoset. This was only formalised by later work beginning in 1999, first published as a separate W3C Working Draft at the end of December that year. Infoset recommendation Second Edition was adopted on 4 February, 2004. If a 2.0 version of the XML standard is ever published, it is likely that this would absorb the Infoset recommendation as an integral part of that standard.

Infoset augmentation
Infoset augmentation or infoset modification refers to the process of modifying the infoset during schema validation, for example by adding default attributes. The augmented infoset is called the post-schema-validation infoset, or PSVI.

Infoset augmentation is somewhat controversial, with claims that it is a violation of modularity and tends to cause interoperability problems, since applications get different information depending on whether or not validation has been performed.

Infoset augmentation is supported by XML Schema but not RELAX NG.

Serialization
Typically, XML Information Set is serialized as XML. There are also serialization formats for Binary XML, CSV, and JSON.

title: XML Information Set


text:
User talk:Alessialdo

Don't know what it is

Image tagging for Image:Alessioguarino.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alessioguarino.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alessio Guarino
Alessio Guarino has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this person might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Notability (people) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" template, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but if an editor is still not satisfied that it meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion
НУРшЯGIO (beware of the moose) 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alessialdo


text:
User:Granite Learner

Granite Learner

Just a passerby for now...

I am a Wikipedian primarily to learn, though I do edit as well.

title: User:Granite Learner


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yggdrasil festival

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yggdrasil festival
Pure advertisement for an upcoming local music festival full of non-notable local acts. User has also linked this page on many other music-related pages. Even if this is made NPOV and advertising content removed, I posit that this festival does not meet notability criteria (Unsigned by Jgm)

 * Delete non-notable POV advert for a non-notable event Soltak | Talk 00:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn local event spam. -- Etacar11   03:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Denni ☯ 18:11, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable - Tεx  τ  urε  21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.