text:
Talk:List of Minnesota Wild head coaches

Merge proposal
Instead of merging it with the Wilds' page, why don't we expand this article to include General managers, owners, and assistant coaches? We can puts lost of things on this page. Almost all the teams have their own coach's article and I think it is a good idea to avoid clutter on the main page. Masterhatch 22 August 2005

We standardized it so all teams have a coaching article. A list of one is still a list, its just not a long one. Team pages as well have a standardized format to them and to avoid clutter we keep such things on their own article. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One coach will not clutter anything. There is no list of one item. A list means a set of two items or more.-- Crzycheetah 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is your opinion. A whole new section, will indeed clutter a page when we strive to have the various team pages have the same sections for uniformity. Merges such as this have been discussed and rejected in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondly you should discuss mergers before making them and blindly reverting. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't my opinion, it's a fact. Please read this definition.-- Crzycheetah 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I put a merge notice and no one discussed for one week,so I merged it. It's not my problem that no one discussed it with me.-- Crzycheetah 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is because you are supposed to put a merge notice on BOTH pages that you want to merge. Using the mergeto and the mergefrom templates. Nor did you notify the wikiproject involved with the page which would have been normal courtesy. If you want to get sticky about how many it takes to make it a list. Then we simply remove the word list from the title of this article and call it an article and not a list. Its an article about the fact the team has only had one coach since its inception. If you want to get rediculous about it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No one informed me of it. There was mergeto template here and no one minded it, so I was advised by WP:BOLD and merged it. do you still believe that one item is a list?-- Crzycheetah 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondly I would appreciate you not accusing me of vandalising. A content dispute is not vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are reverting a redirect page; that's vandalism!-- Crzycheetah 17:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No I am making a WP:Good faith edit because I feel this article should be its own article. That makes it a content dispute. Vandalism means there is an intent to hurt wikipedia.-Djsasso (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for removing your comments, it was due to an edit conflict, I believe.-- Crzycheetah 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Djasso on this: while it may seem like a small addition to this page, it disrupts the uniformity in relation to the 29 other NHL team articles. It looks like you've been around for a while: It would have been polite to give notice to watchers of both articles involved in a merger. The main team page is obviously the more visible of the two, I don't understand why you wouldn't have sought input there. ccwaters (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this article back. There's no consensus for making this a 're-direct' to Minnesota Wild. Also, the 29 other ...head coaches articles are not re-directs. So please 'cheetah' stop disrupting the NHL flow. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand the rationale, but like others, I would prefer the list remain as is. Wikipedia is not paper, and this list will obviously grow in the future.  Incidentally, Crzycheetah, it is most certainly not vandalism to revert a redirect created without discussion.  Rather, it is a normal second step per WP:BRD.  Resolute 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also in agreement that this should remain it's own article for consistency with the other 29 NHL team articles on coaches -Pparazorback (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A list is a set of two items or more. One item does not equal to a list. When we have just one item under a list, it hurts Wikipedia as a whole. I strongly disagree comparing this page with other 29 teams' pages because this team has just one head coach. For the sake of grammar, this page should be renamed at least to "Minnesota Wild head coach". I still believe that redirecting this page is a better option.-- Crzycheetah 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you can get a consensus to move all 30 to re-directs? I'm against making this article a re-direct. PS- this goes for List of Nashville Predators head coaches aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it either all 30 or none at all? Each page has its own deficiencies.-- Crzycheetah 18:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All 30 must be as consistant as possible; mainly to prevent me from having an anxiety attack, but also cause they all have a common theme - The NHL -. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Maybe its an WP:IAR thing. Because a redirect is less usefull than this page is, reguardless of technicalities. In situations for example where someone is the first person to put their name on a sign up sheet. You still say that the sheet is the list of people who signed up even if there is only one name on it so far. This probably actually falls under the use the most commonly used phrase criteria. And I would say this is easily the most common phrase that would deal with this page. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of Minnesota Wild head coaches. 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/20081216062050/http://www.xcelenergycenter.com:80/arena.jsp to http://www.xcelenergycenter.com/arena.jsp

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) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Direct Connect network

OK, WTF is it? This article dosen't say.

 * I guess a network would be a hub and all the clients connected to it. —Vadmium 05:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Direct Connect network


text:
Flex-Able Leftovers

Flex-Able Leftovers was a limited edition 10" vinyl EP by American composer and guitarist, Steve Vai. It was leftover material from the recordings done during the "Flex-Able" days (1982 to 1984) and originally released in 1984 (see 1984 in music). In this regard, it can be perceived as a supplement to the initial release of "Flex-Able". As in the case of the main album, "Flex-Able Leftovers" boast of a Zappa-based stylistic and musical influence.

Background
There were only two EP editions in 1984:

 * The first issue (limited to 1,000 copies) on Urantia Records.
 * The second issue, with a different cover artwork/design (limited to 1,000 copies) on Akashic Records.

Subsequently, the EP was re-released as a studio album with more tracks in November 1998.

Track listing
All songs written by Steve Vai, except where noted.

In Side Out Side
 * 1) "You Didn't Break It" (Bob Harris, Suzannah Harris) – 4:14
 * 2) "Bledsoe Bluvd" – 4:22
 * 3) "The Beast of Love" (Joe Kearney) – 3:29
 * 4) "Burnin' Down the Mountain" – 4:22
 * 1) "So Happy" (Vai, Laurel Fishman) – 2:43
 * 2) "Details at 10" – 5:57
 * 3) "Little Pieces of Seaweed" (Vai, Larry Kutcher) – 5:12
 * 4) "Chronic Insomnia" – 2:00

Personnel

 * Steve Vai – vocals, acoustic and electric guitars, coral sitar, keyboards, electric piano, bass guitar, background vocals
 * Scott Collard – Synthesizer (Prophet V)
 * Larry Crane – piccolo xylophone, bell lyre, vibraphone
 * Fammin – vocals (screaming)
 * Laurel Fishman – vocals
 * Chris Frazier – drums
 * Joe Kearney – vocals
 * Larry Kutcher – vocals (narration) and lyrics (for Little Pieces Of Seaweed)
 * Stu Hamm – vocals, bass guitar
 * Suzannah Harris – background vocals
 * Bob Harris – vocals programmed by drums
 * Tommy Mars – vocals, violin, keyboards
 * Lillian Vai – vocals (crying)
 * Chad Wackerman – drums
 * Pete Zeldman – percussion

Technical contributions

 * Steve Vai – producer, engineer, mixing, cover artwork/cover design
 * John Matousek – mastering
 * Mark Pinske – mastering (assistant)

title: Flex-Able Leftovers


text: User talk:68.158.44.105

title: User talk:68.158.44.105


text:
Agnese Allegrini

Agnese Allegrini (born 3 July 1982, in Rome ) is a badminton player from Italy.

Biography
Allegrini played at the 2005 World Badminton Championships and reached the second round, where she lost to Eriko Hirose of Japan.

She played at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, where she lost in the first round to the Ukrainian player Larisa Griga. She was the first ever Italian badminton player to compete in Olympic Games.

BWF International Challenge/Series
Women's singles

Women’s doubles

 * BWF International Challenge tournament
 * BWF International Series tournament
 * BWF Future Series tournament

title: Agnese Allegrini


text:
Universal nut sheller

The universal nut sheller (UNS; formerly called the Malian peanut sheller) is a hand-operated machine capable of shelling raw peanuts.

It is made of concrete poured into two fibreglass molds, metal parts, one wrench, and any piece of rock or wood that can serve as a hammer. It accepts a wide range of nut sizes without adjustment. Operators can make necessary adjustments. The life expectancy of the machine is around 25 years.

The Full Belly Project is working to establish businesses that manufacture and distribute appropriate technologies such as the Universal Nut Sheller.

History
In 2001, Jock Brandis traveled to Mali to fix a small village's water treatment system. While there he met a woman who informed him that it would be of great service to her village if he could find an affordable peanut sheller for them. Upon returning to the United States he contacted peanut authority Dr. Tim Williams of UGA, who told Brandis of a Bulgarian peanut shelling design. Jock adapted the design with help from a friend, Wes Perry. Jock went through several iterations of a redesign and one year later he completed the machine which is now called the Universal Nut Sheller.

In 2003, Brandis teamed up with a group of returned Peace Corps volunteers from Wilmington, North Carolina, to form the Full Belly Project, dedicated to designing and distributing unique appropriate technologies in developing countries.

Operation

The user loads the desired crop in the space at the top. The user turns the handle, which rotates the rotor. This movement facilitates the nuts falling down the gradually narrowing gap. The shell of each nut is broken at the point where the gap is sufficiently narrow and the rotor motion causes sufficient friction to crack open the shell. The adjustable minimum width of the gap allows a range of nut sizes to be shelled. The kernels and shell fragments fall into a basket and are later separated by winnowing.

The Full Belly Project has developed a pedal powered agricultural processor, which places the universal nut sheller onto a pedaling chassis. In addition to the shelling method described, the pedaling apparatus is connected to a fan. The fan automatically winnows the harvest (separates the shells from the nuts). The pedal powered versions are capable of shelling the same variety of crops as the hand crank powered versions. The processor also provides access for the winnowing section to be used independently from the sheller. This allows winnowing of crops that are not shelled, including rice, maize, and sorghum.

Problems
The Universal Nut Sheller proved incapable of shelling shea nuts in a manner useful for shea butter extraction for the shea nuts of Ghana. However, there are reports that it works for shea nuts from trees in Uganda.

Awards

 * 1st place - Popular Mechanics 2006 Breakthrough Awards.

title: Universal nut sheller


text:
Talk:Liquid and digits

LightShows
I feel that the difference between liquid and lightshows should be addressed. The two have diverged to the point that they are significantly different. By giving a light show you have one (possibly more) person very close to the area your hands will be. It is a very close up and somewhat personal event meant to fill that persons entire field of vision. There are entire websites and vendors dedicated to providing items for people who practice lightshows and the lights are no longer just "keychains" as mentioned in the article. I could go on but I'm sure someone else who knows of what I speak will eventually chime in :) Ciper (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent change
whoever made the major change to the article; you've added some invaluable information, but i have to ask that next time you please work your changes in with the existing material, rather than overwriting it, and b) that it is more desirable to write in a npov manner than it is in an op-ed style. i've given the article a refactor to merge in elements of the older version and to objectify the text --MilkMiruku 00:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Popping = liquiding?
Popping and Liquid are clearly related, the way I see it they are more or less the same, but popping includes mannequin and strobe, liquiding has got (better) names for the various moves. I actually think they should be merged into one more comprehensive article. This article would also be a great place to explain what separates the styles ;-) I am going to start by adding the obligatory references to each article, but I really think merging would be much better. Someone interested in popping would certainly want to learn about liquiding and vice versa. Arru 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've looked into this, liquid is closely tied to rave and popping to b-boying, right? So, it's basically the same thing (railing is called boxing in pop-ish, waves just the same, both have strong connections to mime etc.) They are different from a fundamentalist point of view because one is hiphop (though not really) the other is rave. Cultures are important and should be covered, but to pretend these two are altogether different (and historically separated) is just silly IMO. The obvious connection is mime, and perhaps the emergence of rave just when b-boying got out of fashion (hint) could be toned down a little. The important thing is, it is misleading for someone new to the subject to emphasize their differences. Both are part of electronic music culture, only liquid has trance and popping electro - and there are even crossovers of those! Arru 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * one can't really deny that liquiding came from popping and street dancing in general, but i'd argue that the styles (plus cultures surrounding the two) are different enough for them to warrent seperate articles. tbh, the liquid dancing article needs a whole lot more information regarding it's history (rave culture, spread, etc) --MilkMiruku 13:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Popping and liquid. Two different dance styles. Done to two different styles of music. Popping comes from funk. Liquid comes from electronic dance music, but was it's roots in the 1990's Rave Scene. The two both consist of illusionary movements but share no common foundations and as such are treated as separates. This has been established by many practioners including members of the Liquid Pop Collective. Liquid has been and will always be combined with Popping/Funk Style dancing. Substyles such as waving are closely related but were developed in different scenes at different times. The idea of waving may be common to liquid but it is itself a different style of dance. Members from the Electric Boogaloos have always supported the claim that Popping is a Funk Style and should stand on its Own. Mixing it with any other dance such as Bboying or Liquid or Locking will not embody the dance's true foundations, its true style, its true feeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.97.192 (talk • contribs)

The electronic/funk music argument is weak because these two genres have been cross-breeding since before most of today's dancers were born, of which the most obvious example is electro funk. What I'm interested in is how one sees a funny dancer and then decides to learn more about only, say, popping, but not liquid? (or the other way around of course). I'm much curious about what exactly it is that is done in liquid but never in popping or vice versa. I've heard this about different roots a million times, and I know they are different cultures. But, I also know people myself who are skilled at both, and it is evident that they have connections if you just look at the timeline for the development of liquid. And, you know, the dance itself. So sure, let's maintain different articles but not keep any similarities away from readers. Arru 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the most degrading things you can do to an art form is try to clump it all together into one defined term. If the idea of merging these two styles of dance is really something one is serious about- then you might as well consider merging popping into miming and breaking into kung-fu and capoeta.

The bottom line is that, no matter where its origin is, there is a unique difference in both form, technique, vocabulary and especially culture.

Those who lack the ability to recognize that art is nothing more than a manifestation of something else, and that all things influence others, should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.

No one has ever denied that popping influenced liquid. But that does not mean it is popping. Again I use the "call everything mime" analogy. Or better yet- it has been widely described that popping is like telling a story. Like acting. So if that is the case, we should all call dance acting.

My suggestion is to stop playing a hate game against an art you don’t understand. The only way to truly have any opinion on the matter is to engross yourself into both cultures, including all aspects involved, so that when you form an opinion such as that you are making a claim, you don’t sound like a kid upset that his lolli-pop was taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.73.245 (talk • contribs)
 * I can tell you that, to write an encyclopedia, one must accept that esoteric matters like arts be brought down to a level where someone not familiar to the subject can get useful information out of the text. I am not forming an opinion, I'm just trying to get some factual material for this article as opposed to opinions. Arru 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Liquid was rooted stronger in a different culture then hip hop. Liquid is to the Ravers as popping is to the B-boys. Plus the dance technique of popping in volves contraction of the mussles as liquid requires relaxation with movement much like tai chi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.42.225 (talk • contribs)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. Though, as an eclectic popper I would remark that a popping technique like fixation involves relaxation too. This is not a matter of hating, it is just a quest for knowledge and from the answers I've gotten thus far it appears as the cultural roots are much more important than the dance as for differences. But I'd like this not to be the case. Arru 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can toss up a few links to videos.

LPE arcade clip - One of the best known liquid clips around.

Poppin Pete and Skeeter Rabbit stageshow - Random popping clip off youtube.

It shouldn't be too hard to tell the styles apart. The poppers move in and out of stances/angles, popping for emphasis (gross simplification, i know). Liquid is an illusion through continuous movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.231.184 (talk • contribs)

Great clips! I was trying to leave the discussion behind but here we go: the most noticeable difference is the differing music and tempo of the two clips. This comparison actually strengthened my belief that the one big difference between liquid and popping is the music, culture and a few things that follow from those - not the dance itself. LPC Eric's dancing looks a little softer but he also goes in and out of stances. (he's a bad-ass dancer BTW!) Still, I am not saying they are all the same, I'm saying that the movements are some 70% the same, with different emphasis because of different music.

Citing The perfect article:

...begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail.

''...is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view.''

...is precise and explicit; free of vague generalities and half-truths that may stem from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

...is well-documented; all facts are cited with reputable sources, especially those sources most accessible and up-to-date.

I am not an expert in the subject liquiding, which is why I am asking the questions. But the answers I am looking for the article is facts, not opinions. Arru 20:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible for anyone with an abstract view to gain a sense of understanding of both dance styles without experiencing them first hand, without learning from their original influences and creators.

The reason why culture is used as a means of defining the differences between the styles is because it provides some explanations as to how the movements came about. The music associated with these cultures also has a huge part to play in how these styles developed.

With that aside. When i am practing liquid, i am doing just that. There are a set of specific concepts and motions unique to liquid which run through my head. (The concepts located on the wikipedia site for liquid will outline these motions with a high level of abstraction. These can be further broken down into specific poses, movements, routines and general body positioning and control).

The same goes with popping. There is a specific technique and movement to the style being portraied which is UNIQUE to itself. (An abstract view would be the substyles: waving, hitting, animation, toyman, botting, tutting... etc. These can be further broken down into specific poses, movenments, routines and general body positioning and control.)

My point is this. The movements are not the same. You must stop looking abstractedly. Look at the specific techniques, concepts and movements to gain a better idea of how they differ. These are the FACTS you are looking for. If the written interpretation of these ideas does not meet your factual criteria then find more videos, better yet, meet someone who performs the styles.

- Justin

I'd love to look at the specific moves, but, funny enough, the article contains - as you say - only the abstract outlines of the style. Can't any of you (or is there only Justin?) anonymous people taking part in this discussion contribute a little material to the actual article, and then I don't mean mantras like "popping is funk style, liquid is electronic dance (sic)" - which is already there - but the specifics of liquid techniques? I'm not sure it would prove these styles are fundamentally different but it would be a great addition to the article for sure.

As for the culture part, the explanation I'm still seeing is: in the late 80s: popping got out of fashion, rave is the new thing. But, clubbers still want to dance and as a complete coincidence this mimetic dance pops...eh I mean flows out of nowhere: liquid dancing.

Fast forward to the 2000s when there are cross-overs between almost all dance music styles ever conceived. B-boys take part in rave parties. While it was important to separate the styles c:a 1990, it's an historic artifact now. I am not saying that liquid is popping with some rave makeup on, I see them both as roughly equal parts of a bigger, more important picture. Just out of curiosity: Arru 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Where were all liquid dancers before c:a 1988, or what were they doing?
 * 2) Why is it called Liquid Pop Collective?
 * 3) What are the origins and culture of electrofunk, tech house, breaks (look it up!)?

Posting a detailed breakdown of the movement, substyles and concepts of liquid WOULD prove the differences between the styles liquid and popping. Unfortunately at this stage the style itself lies in human movement alone and is yet to be translated to a written document. This is also true for Popping, there are no complete & formal documentations in written media.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that the styles do not share some place in a "bigger picture". They are both fundementally done to dance music and thus existing in that broad context.

I can't directly comment much on the past of liquid, I was not apart of it. I stand for its future. All i know is from what has been passed onto me from others. The style emerged towards the late 80s early 90s, not specifically from one group of persons, but from a variety of people over different geographical locations. The fundemental movement of the style is handflow, all other concepts generally stem from this basic illusion. The creators of this dance were not poppers.

The Liquid 'Pop' Collective have acknowledeged that their name was actually decided in ignorance of the profound differences between the styles. As such they have stated on many occasions that the styles should be treated as separates. The reason why they called themselves this is because they combined aspects of both dance styles. Essentially performing liquid with elements of popping such as waving, tutting animation and glides. In one of their last video releases (Eikido .net) the only time you see them combining a funk style with liquid is when they combine liquid and waving. Perhaps this is a good indication of their maturity as dancers.

- Justin

I agree with your view that dances are hard to capture accurately in text. Still, Wikipedia is all text and anything that goes here must be an attempt to do that nonetheless, or there would be no point of having the article at all.

The bigger picture I'm talking about is the one that motivates dancers to combine liquid and popping more often than, say liquid and salsa, or liquid and karate... I'm sure an accurate description would show the many common elements, and as you say, make an accurate description of their differences. It is the result of such a description that we are debating, it seems. Arru 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think i jumped into this discussion without actually having a good look at the article posted here. The article should be deamed inaccurate. It should be re-written. There some facts especially in the first few paragraphs which need clarification. This is perhaps what started this debate, and confused the whole issue.

You have to forgive many of the people who posted here for taking such a hard-line on the subject. Liquid has come under attack numerous times over the last 5 or so years in regards to these issues. Hopefully a good Wiki article on it will help to change all this.

- Justin

 * Yes, I've figured from the heated responses of some liquid culture proponents here that they have been challenged before on whether liquid is "just an" extension of popping. My personal view is not like that, but only going on the hardcore-inside view that pop and liq are by no means connected stylistically, will present an inaccurate picture to new readers. After all, if you like dancing but haven't devoted your life to either rave or hip hop, you might just enjoy them both?
 * The only way of resolving this (other than just stating that some say this, some say that as the article currently does) would be to present a factual account of the dance that both sides agree on, and use that as a base for any explanations about the characteristics of liquid dancing. I'm very happy we agree on this with the possibility of improving the quality of this (and the popping) article. Arru 11:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Good discussion here! I actually think we should try to go further in presenting both views of the debate, rather than trying to compromise. Kind of how I would like the popping article to mention that the term is used both for the specific style of popping (or hitting), and as an umbrella term for a group of illusionary dance styles, without taking sides for either use. I think this is what the Wikipedia guidelines recommend to resolve NPOV issues. Wintran 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you Arru that we cannot pretend that the two dances are never mixed. The Liquid Pop Collective is a good example that mixing them has been done and works. I actually see liquid dancing kind of like tutting, that is, a style often mixed with popping but with enough unique movements that it can be danced as a separate style. The fact that it was born in the electronica scene rather than funk scene could simply be explained in the history/origins section.
 * Wintran 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wintran 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No one was pretending the dance style were not mixed. It happens all the time over a huge variety of dances. It's a good part of what make's a persons own style unique. That is their ability to take what they like from all styles and use that as a basis for their own dance.

I disagree when you say that it is kind of like tutting. Making these types of comparisons only confuses the debate once again. Tutting is it's own style (also a substyle under the umbrella term popping/funk-styles), consiting of right angle movements and often incorporates finger illusions and other elements of popping. Tutting has its own fluidity. But the style shouldnt be compared to liquid. It can however be mixed quite easily with liquid.

Also the suggestion that liquid has "enough unique movements that it can be danced as a separate style" tells me that there is still a belief that is a style of popping. It should be treated as a seperate style because it is one! Liquid was not founded from popping, it manifested on its own. It was only some time later when dancers started exploring both styles that they discovered that two could be mixed, with interesting results.

- Justin

 * Ah, I think you misunderstood me on this one. When I compared liquid to tutting I did not mean to compare its movements, but rather its relation to popping today, regardless of where it evolved from. I mean, there are other styles such as boogaloo that are never seen danced separated from popping, but both tutting and liquid have many enthusiasts that focus only on these styles, never mixing them with each other or popping. Maybe it wasn't such a good point, sorry about that. I agree with you that liquid is a separate style, and I also believe it originally evolved outside of the popping scene.
 * Something interesting I've noted regarding the relation between popping and liquid of today is that liquid has to some extent indirectly been incorporated into popping, but not openly accepted. Mentioning liquid dancing in some popping forums can get you banned, but some more experimental poppers of today, such as Salah, definitely mix the two. Using popping in liquid contexts, however, is much more accepted by the electronica scene. Nothing we need to mention, but I find it interesting.
 * Wintran 11:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wintran 11:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving on
From these discussions I've realized that, while I've seen no cleancut reasoning why these dances are fundamentally different (again: the dances, judged by themselves) I've understood that the origins part is an extremely touchy subject. As with other underground culture there is really few or no reputable sources, so it's all about the consensus (what?) of the editors. Staying away from opinions or POVs for just once, this is what I would like this article to include: Arru 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A comprehensive list of moves/techniques giving as good idea of what liquiding looks like as you could get from a text
 * A well-written section on the origins, including the controversy about being/not being an extension of popping
 * Stemming from above, the relevant characteristics of liquid dancing that separates it from popping (and, eventually, the same in the Popping article) Liquid/stiff is a good start but then we know they are both sides of popping, so, more is needed
 * Some good outboard links to video clips and guides for learning liquiding
 * Pictures!

First, if popping is mentioned in the article, we should be clear whether we specifically mean popping, or the umbrella term that includes various funk styles. This distiction is paramount to getting anything accomplished. The Popping article does a good job of this, so should the Liquid article. I do think that liquid has some concepts that are closely related with certain funk styles, but not funk styles as a whole, and not popping as in the specific dance style.

As for this part: "Liquid dancing has many moves in common with popping, born out of 80s b-boy and funk style dance movements" -- let us try to rethink liquid's relation to funk styles.

Point one, I favor the term "concepts" over the term "moves." Yes, this is semantics, but "moves" often gives the impression of patented moves one has invented, whereas "concepts" are universal and easily demonstrated.

Waving, tracing, and threading are the concepts that have the most bearing on the subject of liquid. To my knowledge (again, history is somewhat sketchy because these styles were born in the underground), waving and tracing originated with funk music in the 70s, whereas threading grew out of breakdancing in the 80s. It's not necessarily imperative that we explain the origins of these styles/concepts in this article, this is more to get our history as straight as we can. Beyond these three, liquid has very little in common with popping (the specific dance style) or funk styles in general. They are not physically or historically related. This topic is only a touchy subject because there are so many misconceptions out there. This article presents an oppurtunity to set the record straight.

I think we can do away with the word popping in the liquid article altogether, unless we make a section devoted to Myths about liquid. My argument is that using the term popping only contributes to the chief misconception that liquid is related to popping, a la "liquid popping".

One more thing about the first paragraph, specifically "It is primarily the dancer's arms and hands which are the focus". This is a good start. I've always described liquid as simply, "a fluid interplay between the hands and arms." Do you think this works a little better? The bit about "though more advanced dancers work in a full range of body movements" is great as it is.

OK, moving on. The origins section starts off well, up until this point: While rave later stagnated, liquid dancing has become a standing part of club- and street dancing." Raves did not stagnate, though the culture has certainly changed a lot since the beginning, and liquid seems to have originated in both the rave and club scenes.

The next paragraph discussing the relation of liquid to popping has been discussed above. Once again, I recommend doing away with the term popping. The contention that liquid originated from waving, however, is good to mention because this is commonly stated by OGs in the funk styles community. Whether it's accurate or not is not for me to say, but this is where it gets tricky without citing sources.

Now onto techniques. The concepts listed in the article (except waves, traces, and threads) were "coined" by the LPC, though they do not claim to have invented them. Perhaps we should seperate the list into the LPC-coined and non-LPC-coined?

Finally, one last little nitpick: regarding the Gear section, Photons are a specific brand of LED lights. This is akin to calling inline skates "roller blades." Bitsmart0 10:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonyms?
I dance alot at "raves" and clubs, and I can safely say that they are complete antonyms. Popping is a form that is more linear and less free-flowing. Liquid however, is the exact opposite. The object of liquid is to flow around and NEVER pop or lock. Combining Popping (dance) with Liquid...is absurd, and if the page "Liquid" takes up too much space on the server (what?) and MUST be combined, you might as well combine them all and put them under dance. It'd be like mixing country and rock. Drums and guitars. It's simply different, and would be taking a step back in knowledge (to the unaware) if combined.

Also, I would like to add that "Liquid" dancing has a single "move" called the "figure-8". Popping however has many moves that have names and learning curves. As I stated, I do dance at these parties, and I liquid. I know how to "b-boy" and pop locks, but it simply doesn't flow enough for the high bpms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightbitpotion (talk • contribs)
 * I do dance a lot with dancers who do liquid, popping or both. While I do take your concern seriously, calling liq and pop antonyms is close to ridiculous IMO. All dancers I have met agree that liquid and popping are basically variations of the same thing. Unfortunately like most discussions above, making these statements will get us nowhere without sources or other kinds of verifiable facts. Arru 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Also, I would like to add that "Liquid" dancing has a single "move" called the "figure-8"."

I disagree. Liquid is replete with many concepts, including the figure eight. In my experience, a "move" is something unique to a particular dancer, example: "That dude stole my move!" Bitsmart0 10:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree that combining liquid and poppin' is absurd and frankly this is the 1st time I see such an opinion, but you're entitled to it. I have been popping and liquiding for years now and they are not mutually exclusive although I see a lot of differences, you can still hit and mix in liquid moves, in fact imho, Liquid can be used with a lot of styles that may not seem like they will mix well, like tutting or melbourne shuffling for example, yet it gives a great result and looks natural.

And mixing popping and liquid is very natural for most liquid dancers I have seen (beside LPE and his crew that is). Of course you can go all liquid or all popping if you want, but they DO mix well.

shoshenq 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Shoshenq 2:45AM Eastern TZ

Techniques and styles
Do the various techniques and styles really need to be subheadings with their own section listing in the TOC? A subheading is generally used only when there's a narrative section that contain two or more paras (or maybe one lengthy para). These seem like a list. Thoughts? Bookgrrl 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought about this a lot when working on the popping article. I ended up using definition lists, which I think works best for this type of listing. Check out the popping article to see it in action. - Wintran (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Liquiding is not necessarily better suited for fast paced "Trance Music". This is an opinion!
This Line should be Deleted:

This difference in focus is what makes liquiding better suited for fast-paced trance music and popping for the more distinct rhythms of, for example, electrofunk.

This is an OPINION, not fact. I am a dancer who practices Liquid and I mostly dance to Electro. I DO NOT LIKE TRANCE. I have been liquid dancing for 13 years and I have NEVER thought trance was the best music for liquiding. It's always been a cross between acid techno, acid house, techno bass, and electro for me. A lot of new school electrofunk is GREAT for liquiding.

I know Tiny Love and I have seen many video clips of him Liquiding to electrofunk. I'll dig them up and post links if anyone has doubts about this.

Starriebird 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please post the links ? I would love to watch them, thx ahead.

Shoshenq 2:49 am Eastern TZ.

 * Actually, I think UK Bassline and Dubstep would be worth a mention, I've also witnessed by personal account a blend of tecktonik and liquiding.

Trance appears to be perfectly in time with popping, musically (as is techno, house, electro, garage, speed garage, bassline, dubstep, IDM/Glitch, drum n bass, and even hip/electro hop). In retrospective, people online have been asking if 'Liquid Funk' is something to do with L&D. I don't feel it is, I may be wrong, it's certainly danceable. But like you pointed out as a dancer, you dislike Trance as your own personal tastes. This can be a sticky issue on sites like Wikipedia, since urban vernacular dances (such as club, rave and street styles) all evolved outside of dance studios, therefore there is no 'governing authority' of decision in this. Which is probably why this should either be skipped from use in the article, unchanged, or left to reference of third-parties. Like you said, you provided opinion, not fact. I must also point out liquiding, railing and digits do not work as well with certain genres (due to their speed, not beat), respectively. However, such a fact needs a citation, of course. FireWolf Flux (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

decade apostrophe removal
removed decade name apostrophes per Basic_copyediting --RichardMills65 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liquid and digits


text:
Pahrali River

Pahrali River (also called Parazhiyar) flows through the Kanyakumari District in southern India. It originates in the Mahendragiri hills. The Mathur Hanging Trough, the highest and longest aqueduct in Asia, was built over it near the hamlet of Mathur. Perunchani dam is constructed across Pahrali river.

title: Pahrali River


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Wars

This is the first message
Just a test to see if the message mechanism works. --Dna-Dennis 00:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Imperialism
I think that the Imperialism is one of the causes of WW I and should be included as well. Regards, John N. 12:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Consistency in numbers and facts across articles
This is/could be a great and needed project. My interest within this project is mainly on WWII where I'd like us to (among other things) aim for consistancy in facts and numbers across the many WP articles. Where articles are disagreeing (and there are some), we should go for the facts in the article with the most limited scope, and adjust the other numbers acordingly. Having different numbers on, say, the main WW2 article and on World War II casualties is obviously wrong. If there are disagreements on what numbers to use, I sugest we limit discussions (and revert-wars) to the most specialised article instead of having them all over the place. So, as an example, if there is a debate on the number of casualties in a battle, the article on that battle should be the number we use in the main ww2 article (and other places) pr default. And if someone wants a change to that number in the WW2 article, we should point them to the battle article and ask for changes and discussions to take place there first before we change anything in the main WW2 article.

This way we scale better. People with interest and knowledge on a sub-topic of WW2 are much more likely to only be watching the article(s) on that topic and not even knowing about any discussion about numbers and whatnot going on in the main WW2 article. So the main WW2 article should just mirror facts and figures settled in the various sub-articles. Shanes 02:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent point. I agree completely - in fact I think this issue is so important it should in someway be included in the project's goals. I will add info on it immediately. Regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 05:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I have added a section here : WikiProject World Wars. Regards, --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 05:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge to WikiProject Military history?
Since this project doesn't appear to be active, would there be any objections to merging it to the Military history WikiProject (particularly since we now have a World War II task force that should be able to pick up some of this work)? —Kirill Lok s hin 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm happy with that, particularly since I'm more active over at WikiProject Military history, but you should probably ask John N. directly since he set this up. Leith p 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like it here. But it looks like its not working here anyway. So ok. -- John N. 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fred T. Korematsu Institute for Civil Rights and Education
Hello, WWII experts. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post about this old abandoned Afc submission. It will soon be deleted unless someone thinks it's worth keeping and improving. There is already Korematsu v. United States. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Wars


text:
Talk:Mound

Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

new section
This is an ok article (good for the links if nothing else) but can be improved and is worth keeping because these "mounds" represent very important ancient history of North America. Especially bad is this sentence: While the term "mound" may be applied to historic constructions, most mounds in the United States are pre-columbian earthworks, built by Native American peoples. The so-called native peoples of North America have so many of their own histories (most notably the Hopi People but many others as well including Meso-American sources from Central America) that clearly state these ancient "mounds" were already here in North America when they first migrated here (making then non-native peoples) and whoever built them were already gone. If they themselves know they migrated here from elsewhere and that the "mounds" (many of which can still clearly be seen to have been pyramids) were already here when they got here - why on earth is this not respected by white American scholars? The article "mound builder" discusses the possibilities of who may have built them. valkyree 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)
 * Archaeologists are very sure who built them. Some of them were pyramidal structures, built by peoples of the Troyville culture, Coles Creek culture, Plum Bayou culture, Plaquemine culture and the Mississippian culture, ancestors of modern day Native Americans, and all of them pretty firmly dated and placed within a cultural continuity. No need for ancient Aliens, Atlanteans, Trans-Pacific/Atlantic diffusion or any other such balderdash.  He  iro 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is true then the case would be settled - but it is not settled because the truth is still not being told - there is a lot of real but unacknowledged evidence and that is why the argument continues on. Ignoring the great body of American Indian legendary history as well as skeletal remains such as the 7 ft tall skeletons found at Fort Loudon by George Washington at the start of the French and Indian War and many other tall skeletons are a couple of reasons why this argument is still being debated. Another important aspect of this issue is the similarity of such structures to others found in many other parts of the globe, such as the kurgans of Russia. There is a much larger explanation that encompasses all of these structures having a common ancient source. Some American Indians may have been using such structures when they were discovered by Europeans but they repeatedly acknowledged themselves as not being the ones who initially built them. They have also explained how they were able to eventually kill off the remaining remnants of these larger people because these larger people were cannibals and hunted smaller men (similar to the Caza de Hombre of the Aztecs). The earliest Viking explorers around 1000AD also told of seeing such larger, vicious people when they came to the shores of Vinland. It is the reason they left! It is simply incorrect to ignore such evidence - calling it balderdash does not change the evidence - it just makes others wonder why you are so eager to throw away all of this evidence. valkyree 17:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Mound


text:
Maja Kersnik

 Maja Kersnik (born April 17, 1981) is a badminton player from Slovenia.

She played at the 2005 World Badminton Championships and reached the second round, which she lost to Mia Audina of the Netherlands.

In her home country she won five titles at the Slovenian National Badminton Championships.

title: Maja Kersnik


text:
Kothai river

Kothai is a river in the Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu state, India, which originates from the Kodayar Lake. Kothai is name of a female in Tamil. In Tamil it means " Beautiful girl of no mistakes "(Kuttram illadha Azhagiya pen)"

title: Kothai river


text:
Talk:Moral economy

Balance and POV
Well, I tried rewriting the "Utopian Moral Economies" section to make it a little less POV, though it still needs work. What does everyone think? -- User:Brodie, 21/08/05

I cannot understand why anyone has seriously disputed the balance of this piece as I find it extremely fair. Of course, one can hardly mention the word 'Israel' in any context without having 'crimes against Palestine' brought into the equation (though never the reverse of course). But certainly the term moral economy is related to intent and surely it is without dispute that kibbutzim were organised along ideological and utopian concepts in terms of its own community at least. If we're going to dispute this point, then we might as well dispute the claims to a moral economy of any society that slaughters animals for food which wipes out ALL of the above examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusta de grey (talk • contribs) 12:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph is complete nonsense. There is nothing moral about Capitlalism full stop. So to try and divert attention from that system's intrinsically imoral nature with the fals dawns of green energy, fair trade etc. is Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.237.125 (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

VfD
The article survived a Vote for Deletion in August 2005: see the archived VfD page. -- JimR 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Kibbutz as moral economy
Given what I've read about the relationship between Kibbutzes and surrounding Palestinian populations, even in their golden age, the suggestion that they were somehow a moral economy seems to be seriously lacking in...moral consistency.

I think kibbitz could be loosely defined under the heading 'moral economy' because of their intention to run their economies on a 'moral' basis (i.e. based around religious ethics rather than on neoclassical economics). That's not to saw they were 'moral' by our standards any more than Soviet collectivization. User: 15:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Brodie

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moral economy. 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/20081224012347/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Moral_Economy to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Moral_Economy

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) 23:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Moral economy


text:
Bagn Bygdesamling

Bagn Bydesamling is a small museum located in the hamlet of Dolven, south of Bagn at Sør-Aurdal in Innlandet county Norway. The museum is situated in the traditional district of Valdres and is run as a subsidiary of Valdres Folkemuseum.

History
The museum was founded in 1920 on the Islandsmoen farm. It includes the farm itself, a saw mill, a flour mill, and other furnished buildings. The museum consisting of 12 log buildings and a building for permanent displays. The collection was donated to the village in 1941 by Olaus Islandsmoen, a local politician and educator. Additionally, the museum has exhibition about composer Sigurd Islandsmoen and an exhibition about the author Mikkjel Fønhus.

The museum contains a preserved farm, a saw with water stream and a neighborhood school with an original interior. The museum has also displays at the small farms Sandviken and Bagnsbergatn. The last one is the site of a Norwegian World War II memorial location. All the items in the museum are original and have been collected from various farms and other locations in the area. The permanent display consists of artifacts from both the Stone Age and Iron Age, textiles and clothing, furniture and kitchen items, and artifacts from the occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany.

Collection

 * Telthuset — regimental arsenal for Ytre Valdreske Kompagni
 * Prestgardsboligen — priest farm house
 * Stabelbygningen — building for tenant farmer living in Perstgarden
 * Seterbu — mountain farmhouse
 * Oppgangssag — sawmill
 * Bekkekvern (mølle) — watermill
 * Stabbur— Storage houses
 * Smie — iron works with blast furnace
 * Koie (skogshusvære) — hut (forest shelter)
 * Båtnaust — boathouse
 * Badstue (korntørke) — sauna for corn drying

title: Bagn Bygdesamling


text:
Keys to Tulsa

Keys to Tulsa is a 1997 American crime film directed by Leslie Greif in his directorial debut, written by Harley Peyton, and starring Eric Stoltz and James Spader. It is based on the 1991 novel of the same name by Brian Fair Berkey. There is an unrated version that runs 3 minutes longer than the theatrical release.

Plot
The story revolves around a perpetual loser and slacker named Richter Boudreau. Richter is from a privileged background in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and works as a movie reviewer at a local newspaper only because his sour widowed mother Cynthia pulled strings for him to land the job. He is dissatisfied with the direction that his life has taken; he is about to be fired any day from his job because he can't meet deadlines, he lives in a dilapidated farmhouse, he uses and sells drugs behind the scenes for some extra cash, and he is so irresponsible with life and finances in which he has gotten so far behind on his bills that his electricity has just been cut off which ruins a blind date he has in the opening scene with a neurotic gold-digger named Trudy.

Richter also owes money to Ronnie Stover, an abusive drug dealer who he deals with. Ronnie is married to Vicky, a beautiful woman who was disowned by her socially prominent family for her involvement with Ronnie. Richter is still in love with Vicky despite having ended their relationship many years before. Vicky is the sister of Keith, a misogynistic alcoholic whose large inheritance fails to soothe his anger, loneliness, and depression. Cherry is an exotic dancer from Chicago who buys drugs from Ronnie and gets romantically involved with Richter.

Richter learns that Ronnie plans to blackmail Bedford Shaw, the son of a socially prominent businessman named Harmon Shaw, after Cherry tells Richter that Bedford Shaw murdered her friend, a stripper/prostitute, in a motel room and that she took photographs. Ronnie attempts to involve Richter by having him hold on to a mysterious black pouch and by exploiting Richter's newspaper connections. Richter wants no part of the blackmail scheme. But he gets in over his head when Keith discovers that Richter has been sleeping with Vicky.

Production and casting
Shooting occurred in both Dallas, Texas and Tulsa, Oklahoma, despite being set entirely in Tulsa. The scenes at the offices of Richter's newspaper were shot in the headquarters of the Dallas Observer.

For the role of Ronnie Stover, James Spader dyed his hair from light brown to black. Spader was friends with co-star Eric Stoltz, who also worked with him on The New Kids (1985) and 2 Days in the Valley (1996). Stoltz has said that Spader helped him get cast in 2 Days in the Valley, and that he in turn helped Spader get cast in Keys to Tulsa. Spader remembered that, "Eric just returned the favor with a movie we shot six months after 2 Days called Keys to Tulsa. He read the script and convinced the producer that I'd be great as a drug dealer." In an interview on the Dallas set of the film with Entertainment Tonight, Stoltz said he was excited to be working with Mary Tyler Moore, saying that "it's always a little shocking to look up and have a line like 'Oh Come on Mom', and you're looking at Mary Tyler Moore, and you think 'Oh, that's Mary Tyler Moore!'." In this same interview, Moore said she was moving away from television roles at the time because she believed that the medium didn't have the same impact that it was once did. Moore had not appeared in many theatrical films during the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s, saying in the interview that "it's not so much that I've been selective, as big screen has been selective. There aren't that many roles that are interesting, so I don't do this as often as I'd like to."

Music
The soundtrack prominently features the Australian didgeridoo instrument, performed by Graham Wiggins. The scene where Joanna Going's character Cherry performs a strip routine includes the 1994 song "Little Suicides" by singer Lori Carson and her band The Golden Palominos, even though the original novel was set in the late 1980s Reagan era.

Release and reception
Keys to Tulsa received a limited theatrical release in the United States during April 1997. It was reviewed on the April 12, 1997 episode of Siskel and Ebert, which coincidentally also featured a review of another Eric Stoltz film, Anaconda. It received a thumbs down from both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. The San Francisco Chronicle stated it had "far too many minor characters", as well as "[more] than enough for three or four mediocre movies." Marc Savlov of The Austin Chronicle remarked in 1997, "When a film with a cast this stellar falls flat on its face like this one does, well, it makes you wanna holler." Savlov also noted that, "After the romantic interlude of Joanna Going's performance in Still Breathing (which to date has only screened at film festivals -- such as SXSW), it's a shock, of sorts, to see her as an alcoholic topless dancer with a penchant for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not a bad shock, mind you, just, you know, a shock. She's miscast."

Deseret News movie critic Chris Hicks criticized the film in his April 1997 review. He wrote, "Writer-director Leslie Greif (Heaven's Prisoners, Meet Wally Sparks) has allowed some racist underpinnings to creep in as his characters refer with some frequency to black people by using a particularly unpleasant epithet. And there aren't any black characters to balance the film, save one — a hooker who is brutally violated and beaten to death." Hicks concluded his review by remarking, "There are some solid laughs early on, and if the humor had held up throughout it might have redeemed the picture. But instead, the film just meanders along until it runs completely out of steam."

A more positive review came from Variety's Todd McCarthy, who called it a "wonderfully written and performed comic crime meller." He states, "Keys to Tulsa might seem on paper to be one more unneeded, late-in-the-cycle Tarantino retread. But this distinctively tasty dish adroitly mixes its genre ingredients with fresh takes on class grudges, Great Plains lifestyles, generational and family strains and life stasis in a way that makes it a satisfying meal unto itself [...] Peyton’s beautifully constructed script nails the shifting motivations and subtext of every scene and provides spiky dialogue to boot. The colorfully eclectic cast also delivers in spades, with Stoltz holding his own as 'the black sheep son of a black sheep'."

It was given a UK theatrical release during August 1997. British critic Ryan Gilbey, writing for The Independent, remarked, "What on earth is going on in Keys to Tulsa? [...] this nonsensical picture appears to have been directed by a coma victim and edited by an axe maniac."

In his 1999 book Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film, Emanuel Levy wrote that, "The Tarantino effect seems to be in decline, judging by the failure of such offshoots as Keys to Tulsa (1997) and Very Bad Things (1998). Harley Peyton's script from Brian Fair Berkey's novel is deft and witty, but Leslie Grief's awkward direction in Keys to Tulsa lacks modulation and visual style." Keys to Tulsa was included in Magill's Cinema Annual 1998: A Survey of the Films of 1997, with the book characterizing it as being "long on bizarre, colorful characters, but short on any kind of cohesive, interesting plot."

Home video
The film was released to the American VHS market on September 2, 1997. It came in both rated and unrated versions, with the latter including several instances of nudity involving Joanna Going's character. That year, it was also released on LaserDisc in the United States and Japan (where the film was titled Blackmail). On December 17, 2002, it was released to DVD by Artisan. Liberation Hall later reissued the film on DVD in December 2020.

title: Keys to Tulsa


text:
Blue Jays (album)

Blue Jays is a 1975 album by Justin Hayward and John Lodge. It was recorded and released during the Moody Blues' five-year hiatus.

History
During work on the Moody Blues album that was to follow Seventh Sojourn, bandmates Lodge, Mike Pinder, Ray Thomas and Graeme Edge summoned Hayward and producer Tony Clarke out of a recording session to call off the project. The tension-fraught recording of Seventh Sojourn and subsequent world tour had left the band exhausted and relationships frayed. Pinder, who had emigrated to the United States, was not happy in England and was determined to return home to California. According to Hayward:

I was under a lot of pressure from Decca to come up with something to release. So I actually went to America to do something with Mike [Pinder], between the two of us. Then Tony Clarke and John [Lodge] turned up at Mike's house as well. Mike took me in the other room and said, "I don't want to work with anybody else. I'm out of this project." So then it became me and John and Tony Clarke, and we made an album called Blue Jays.

The album was recorded, between June and December 1974, at Threshold Westlake Audio Studios in West Hampstead, London.

On 10 March 1975 Blue Jays made its debut in the form of a staged playback of the album at Carnegie Hall. Hayward and Lodge wanted to pipe the music into the street, but New York police said they feared a traffic jam. A short tour of the UK followed in November and December 1975. A recording of the 12 December show at Lancaster University, featuring Trapeze members Mel Galley (guitar) and Dave Holland (drums), is included in the 2013 Timeless Flight box set.

Blue Guitar
The track "Blue Guitar," originally released as a non-album single credited to Hayward and Lodge in September 1975 but performed by Hayward with the band 10cc, with John Lodge on bass guitar, was added to the album upon its re-release on CD in 1987. Hayward said, "After a couple of years, John and I had made the Blue Jays album and we were looking for something to release to promote it and I remembered this track and I brought it out and played it to John and our producer Tony Clarke. They liked it but thought it needed something so we took it back to our studio and John added some bass onto it and Tony mixed it in a really nice way and anyone who’s interested will notice it's got dual production credits of 10cc and Tony Clarke."

The single stayed in the UK Singles Chart for seven weeks in 1975, peaking at No. 8 on 15 November.

In 2004 the album was remastered and released on CD with the same bonus track.

Side One

 * 1) "This Morning" (Justin Hayward) - 5:56
 * 2) "Remember Me (My Friend)" (Hayward, John Lodge) - 5:28
 * 3) "My Brother" (Hayward) - 3:28
 * 4) "You" (Lodge) - 4:35
 * 5) "Nights Winters Years" (Hayward) - 3:40

Side Two

 * 1) "Saved by the Music" (Lodge) - 6:09
 * 2) "I Dreamed Last Night" (Hayward) - 4:29
 * 3) "Who Are You Now" (Hayward) - 2:29
 * 4) "Maybe" (Lodge) - 5:38
 * 5) "When You Wake Up" (Hayward, Lodge) - 5:23

1987 Bonus track (also 2004 remastered release)
  "Blue Guitar" (Hayward) - 3:37

Personnel

 * Justin Hayward – guitar, vocals
 * John Lodge – bass, guitar, vocals, pipe organ on "Maybe"
 * Jim Cockey – violin, French horn
 * Tim Tompkins – cello
 * Tom Tompkins – viola
 * Kirk Duncan – piano
 * Graham Deakin – drums

"Blue Guitar"

 * Justin Hayward - guitar, lead vocals
 * Lol Creme - slide guitar, vocals
 * Kevin Godley - drums, vocals
 * Eric Stewart - guitar, vocals
 * John Lodge - bass

title: Blue Jays (album)


text:
Jagunço

A jagunço, from the Portuguese zarguncho (a weapon of African origin, similar to a short lance or chuzo), is an armed band or bodyguard, usually hired by plantation owners and "colonels" in the backlands of Brazil, especially in Northern Brazil. They were hired to protect their employer, big land owner, against invaders and feudal enemies, and also to control their slaves and indentured servants. Some farmers formed their own private militias with a number of heavily armed jagunços. There were also free-lancing or mercenary jagunços, who could be hired for temporary conflicts, as vigilantes, or for contract murders. Local folklore says that jagunços with yellow eyes were particularly fearsome and efficient.

The term was later extended to name any kind of rural bandit or outlaw, such as the "cangaceiros" (of which Lampião is the most notorious example). It was also applied as a pejorative term for the inhabitants of Canudos, a village founded by the religious mystic and messianic leader Antônio Conselheiro in the backlands of the state of Bahia. The village was destroyed in October 1897 during the War of Canudos.

title: Jagunço


text:
Rowley, East Riding of Yorkshire

Rowley is a small village and civil parish in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England. It is situated 1 mi south of Little Weighton and approximately 6 mi south-west of Beverley town centre. The civil parish is formed by the villages of Rowley and Little Weighton together with the hamlets of Bentley, High Hunsley, Risby and part of the hamlet of Riplingham.

According to the 2011 UK census, Rowley parish had a population of 1,015, a decrease on the 2001 UK census figure of 1,030. The village of Rowley is now mostly depopulated, leaving only a few houses, and most of the population is now in Little Weighton.

History
Rev. Ezekiel Rogers, who became Rector of Rowley in 1621, was suspended from the parish church in 1638 for his non-conformist beliefs. Following this, he led 20 families to emigrate to the American colonies, where he founded the town of Rowley, Massachusetts in 1639. The emigrants sailed from Hull in John of London, probably a merchant ship of around 200 tons, probably in June 1638, arriving in Salem, Massachusetts in August.

One of those 20 families was the Grants, who are direct forebears of the model Jodie Kidd, as revealed in a 2008 edition of the BBC genealogy programme Who Do You Think You Are?.

Also among the 1638 emigrants were two brothers, Richard and Thomas Wickham. Samuel, a son of Thomas, settled in Rhode Island and became a Freeman of the Colony and a Deputy. Another descendant, Captain John Clements Wickham served on the Royal Navy ship HMS Beagle during its voyage with Charles Darwin and was later the first Magistrate and administrator of Queensland.

Rev. Levett Edward Thoroton, son of Col. Thomas Blackborne Thoroton Hildyard of Flintham Hall, Flintham, Nottinghamshire, was rector of Rowley for 23 years. He is commemorated by a tablet on the south aisle of St Peter's Church in Rowley. The Hildyard family had a long association with Rowley and its church, where they were patrons of the living. The local church contains many memorials to the family. The church was designated a Grade II* listed building in 1968 and is now recorded in the National Heritage List for England, maintained by Historic England.

title: Rowley, East Riding of Yorkshire


text:
Lili Zhou

 Lili Zhou  (born December 2, 1989) is a female badminton player from the United States of America.

From 2004 to 2006 she won three times the women's singles at the Boston Badminton Open. She played at the 2005 World Badminton Championships but lost in the first round to Eriko Hirose of Japan.

Major Achievements

 * 1993 Eleventh Sports Meeting of Guangzhou Singles 1st place
 * 1993 Eleventh Sports Meeting of Guangzhou Doubles .2nd place
 * 1994 Guangxi Jr. Badminton Championships Singles 1st place
 * 1994 China National Contest of Excellent Players
 * 1997 China National Jr. Badminton Championships Doubles 4thplace
 * 1998 China National Badminton Winter Competition “Victory Cup” 1st place
 * 1999 China National Badminton Championships of University 1st
 * 2000 US Classic Doubles 1st place
 * 2001 US Classic Doubles 1st place
 * 2003 Bay Area Open 1st place
 * 2004 Boston Open singles/ Mixed doubles 1st
 * 2004 US Adult National Singles/ doubles 1st place
 * 2004 US Open Singles 2nd place
 * 2005 Honolulu Open Singles/ Doubles 1st place
 * 2005 Boston Open Singles/ Doubles 1st place
 * 2005 UBC Open Singles/Mixed 1st place
 * 2005 YONEX International Championship 2005 1st place
 * 2006 Boston open singles 1st place
 * 2006 GGBC Open Singles 1st place
 * 2007 Won the USA National Team Trials
 * 2007 GGBC Open Singles 1st place
 * 2008 USA Team Trial Singles 1st place
 * 2008 U.S. Open Singles 1st Place

title: Lili Zhou


text:
Talk:Seawise University

Let's merge this article
I'm not seeing why this stage in the life of the Queen Elizabeth is listed as a separate article. The existing RMS Queen Elizabeth article contains most of this information already. I propose merging this article with the last section of the RMS Queen Elizabeth article, and turning this page into a redirect to that page. After all, Seawise University was a very short period of the life of the ship originally called Queen Elizabeth. Thus it should be presented as a sub-section of RMS Queen Elizabeth vs. as Seawise University as it currently stands. Schuminweb 00:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would favor keeping it separate or merging it with CY Tung's article Mbisanz 02:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * It can't be properly categorised if it is merged. CalJW 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's better to keep it. — Instantnood 10:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seawise University


text:
World Roma Festival

The World Roma Festival (Mezinárodní romský festival) or Khamoro is an international Romani festival held annually in the city of Prague, Czech Republic. It belongs to the most prestigious Roma projects on an international level with top international Roma musicians performing. The five-day-long festival is held in May on the streets of Prague and in a number of the city's clubs. The festival is divided into three sections: the Expert Section, which includes seminars, Culture Section, which consists of music, dancing, and parades, and Media Section, which provides the information leading up to the festival.

title: World Roma Festival


text:
Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive What a Joke

What a Joke!
nixie has now locked the page on JamesMLane's last edit. JamesMLane, of course, is the editor who writes on his user page that he is "Hostile to the right wing" so we can be sure that his version is a neutral version. LOL. The locked version does not include any mention of the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the waitress sandwich incident, or the use of Romney's mormon religion during the 1994 campaign. The protection of JamesMLane's version speaks volumes about what is wrong with wikipedia. On the bright side, at least the NPOV tag appears on this version.--Agiantman 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See The Wrong Version. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't cite The Wrong Version, in a case when the admin edited twice after putting the protection on. The first edit was justified, because the protected version was obvious vandalism (the "hockey" stuff), but the second edit was not justified.  It was an attempt to get the "right" version.--Silverback 04:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to my first revert. Previous discussion on this page seemed to indicate that it was the last agreed upon version, since that's not the case I reverted.--nixie 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It was the version with the most support. But once you eliminated the vandalism, I don't think you should have continued looking for the "right" version, in a content dispute. I happen to agree with the JamesMLane version you just reverted, but I'd rather have neutral admins than the "right" version.  Thanx for doing the right thing!  That said, we need a better way to deal with sock puppet anons.--Silverback 04:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman, instead of complaining and being deliberatly provocative why don't you suggest a NPOV rewrite on the scandals on the talk page, I will gladly add it to the article if there is concensus to do so.--nixie 03:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * BS - You Democrat=NPOV types will just continue to delete anything that makes Kennedy look bad, delete or fix polls on what should be added, and when all else fails initiate your witch hunt "RFC" crap against any user to the right of Lenin. Hypocrites. Agiantman is being persecuted here.

 * How did this get edited after the protection? I thought protection stops editing?  If they don't like Ted Kennedy's past, perhaps they should not like Ted Kennedy.  The Rape happened, the Waitress Sandwich happened, Chappy happened.  Not to report the facts is censureship.  This is the USA, let's live like it.  Remember Bataan, men and woman died so that we can live with truth.  If the "editors" want to write good stuff about Ted, go to it, we're not reverting it.  Stop taking our work down.24.147.97.230 04:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "The Rape happened"? Only if you wish to claim that the verdict was wrong.  He was acquitted.  You may mean that the trial happened, which is true.  However, that misstatement is characteristic of why we have an edit war.  Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You can't exactly blaim them, they're born this way, and they should recive the same compassion as anyone else with a debilitating mental disorder--I-2-d2 04:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks. If you actually read my first comment on this page I said that I thought the information being disputed should be included but not in the form it was presented.--nixie 04:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys can make your points without personally attacking those who disagree with you. Really, it's not hard. --kizzle 04:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe it's your groups failure to negociate that upsets so many? I've offered to work with your team in the past many, many, times.  I was never taken up on my offer.  Our work is deleted, but not called by vandalism, though entire paragraphs are removed.  How about a real effort to work together?  So far it's been your way or no way.24.147.97.230 04:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No. The majority has been very willing to negotiate.  We have tried several methods of reaching consensus as to how to provide an encyclopedic summary.  "How about a real effort to work together?"  I agree.  That does not mean simply adding the same material over and over again, but trying to rework it to make it encyclopedic and neutral. Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive What a Joke


text:
Moovattumugam

Moovattumugam is a hamlet in India situated 2 km north-west to Thiruvattar, where the rivers Kothai and Pahrali unify to flow southwest towards the Arabian Sea. An ancient Sastha Temple is situated the bank of Moovattumugom. Every year 1000 of hindhus visiting here for Balidharpanam on karkidavaavu foe remembering their ancestors. Thottavaram Lady of assumption Church and CSI Church Thottavaram are adjacent to this hamlet. Zigma Sports and arts club is one of the youth sports and arts development club in Thottavaram (Moovattumugam). Village towns Attoor & Thiruvattar are 1.5 km away.

title: Moovattumugam


text:
Agnellus of Pisa

Agnellus of Pisa (c. 1195 – 1236), was an Italian Franciscan friar. As its first Minister Provincial in England (1224–1236), he is considered the founder of the Franciscans in England. His feast day is variously observed in the Catholic church on 7 May or 10 September.

Life
The only account of the life of Agnellus is a brief one recorded by Thomas of Eccleston, a Friar Minor. Agnellus was born in Pisa in 1195 of the prominent Agnelli family. In early youth he was received into the Seraphic Order by Francis himself, in 1212, during the latter's sojourn in Pisa.

Francis sent Agnellus, although but a deacon, to Paris, where he built a friary and became Custos. He then returned to Italy, was present at the "Chapter of Mats", and thence was sent to establish the Order in England.

On 10 September 1224 Agnellus and his party of eight friars, landed at Dover, courtesy of the Benedictine monks of Fécamp Abbey, who kindly paid their way. When they arrived at Canterbury, they were hospitably received by the Dominicans, a mendicant order that had already arrived in England in 1221 and established a friary in the town. On the way to Oxford, they found shelter in a barn belonging to the Benedictines of Abingdon Abbey, who at first mistook them for a band of ragged minstrels.

At Oxford, King Henry III gave them land on which to build a friary. Agnellus established a school for the friars at Oxford, and asked Robert Grosseteste to serve as lector in theology to the Franciscans, a position he held from about 1229 to 1235. The English Franciscan Order subsequently played a large role in the establishment of the University of Oxford.

Agnellus became known for his humble piety and prudence. In 1233 King Henry III asked him to help arbitrate a dispute with Richard Marshal, 3rd Earl of Pembroke that had broken out into civil war. The following year, he was part of a delegation representing the English bishops at the Roman Curia.

Throughout his life, Agnellus would never allow expansion to the friars quarters, beyond what was absolutely necessary. This practice was maintained for a little more than a decade, until Haymo of Faversham began the expansion of the English order's holdings so that they would be able to provide for themselves rather than depend on others' charity.

By the time of his death, there were forty-three friaries established in the English Province. Agnellus died after a brief illness, on 7 May 1236. His remains were buried at Oxford.

Veneration
His cultus was confirmed by Pope Leo XIII in 1882, and his feast day is kept on 7 May in Italy. The English Franciscan provinces celebrate his memory on 10 September. In honor of his great influence in the establishment of the university. Eccleston wrote that his incorrupt body was preserved with great veneration at Oxford up to the dissolution of the religious houses in the time of Henry VIII, when the friary and church were destroyed. In 2014, the Conventual Franciscans setup up a friary again in Oxford, formally calling it the Blessed Agnellus of Pisa Friary.

title: Agnellus of Pisa


text:
1983 NFL draft

The 1983 NFL draft was the procedure by which National Football League teams selected amateur college football players. It is officially known as the NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting. The draft was held April 26–27, 1983, at the New York Sheraton Hotel in New York City, New York. No teams elected to claim any players in the supplemental draft that year.

The draft is frequently referred to as the quarterback class of 1983, because six quarterbacks were taken in the first round — John Elway, Todd Blackledge, Jim Kelly, Tony Eason, Ken O'Brien, and Dan Marino — tied with the 2024 draft for the highest number taken. Of these quarterbacks, Elway, Kelly, Eason, and Marino played in the Super Bowl, Elway, Kelly, O'Brien, and Marino were selected to play in the Pro Bowl, and Elway, Kelly, and Marino have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. All six quarterbacks were drafted by American Football Conference (AFC) teams, with every member of the five-team AFC East (the Baltimore Colts, Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, New York Jets, and New England Patriots) selecting a quarterback. In eleven of the sixteen years following this draft, the AFC was represented in the Super Bowl by a team led by one of these quarterbacks: five with the Denver Broncos and Elway, four with the Bills and Kelly, one with the Dolphins and Marino, and one with the Patriots and Eason.

They met with little success in the Super Bowl, however, compiling a 2–9 record among them, with an 0–9 record for their first 14 years in the league. The only two wins were by Elway in XXXII and XXXIII during his final two seasons in 1997 and 1998. Three of the most lopsided Super Bowl losses in history also came at the hands of quarterbacks from the Class of '83: Elway, a 55–10 loss to the San Francisco 49ers in XXIV; Eason, a 46–10 loss to the Chicago Bears in XX; and Kelly, a 52–17 loss to the Dallas Cowboys in XXVII. Marino would only reach the Super Bowl once in a 38–16 loss to San Francisco in XIX following the end of his second season, when he won league MVP. Kelly and the Bills would appear in the Super Bowl for a record four consecutive years, from 1990 to 1993, but lost all four.

Of the six first round quarterbacks drafted, Hall of Famers Elway and Kelly did not sign with the teams that selected them for the 1983 season. Elway, who had made his antipathy towards the Colts known long before the draft, was also a promising baseball player in the New York Yankees organization. With Yankees owner George Steinbrenner aggressively pursuing a commitment from Elway to play baseball full-time, Elway and his agent, Marvin Demoff, successfully leveraged the threat of Elway abandoning football altogether to compel the Colts to trade Elway to the Broncos a few days after selecting him with the first overall pick of the draft.

Kelly, the other holdout, instead signed with the Houston Gamblers of the United States Football League (USFL), where he led the springtime circuit in passing in both 1984 and 1985. Kelly was set to play for the New Jersey Generals when the USFL planned to switch to a fall season in 1986, but when the USFL won only $1 (tripled to $3) from its antitrust lawsuit vs. the NFL on July 29, 1986, Kelly finally signed with the Bills three weeks later.

Including the aforementioned Elway, Kelly, and Marino, a total of seven players drafted in the first round have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and eight players overall have been inducted. Each round of this draft also contained at least one player who was later selected to play in the Pro Bowl. Several websites, including Bleacher Report and Athlon Sports, have called the class of 1983 the greatest of all time.

Hall of Fame inductees

 * Eric Dickerson, running back from Southern Methodist, taken 1st round 2nd overall by Los Angeles Rams
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 1999.

 * Jim Kelly, quarterback from Miami, taken 1st round 14th overall by Buffalo Bills
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 2002.

 * John Elway, quarterback from Stanford, taken 1st round 1st overall by Baltimore Colts
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 2004.

 * Dan Marino, quarterback from Pittsburgh, taken 1st round 27th overall by Miami Dolphins
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 2005.

 * Bruce Matthews, offensive lineman from Southern California, taken 1st round 9th overall by Houston Oilers
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 2007.

 * Darrell Green, cornerback from Texas A&I, taken 1st round 28th overall by Washington Redskins
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 2008.

 * Richard Dent, defensive end from Tennessee State, taken 8th round 203rd overall by Chicago Bears
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 2011.

 * Jim Covert, offensive lineman from Pittsburgh, taken 1st round 6th overall by Chicago Bears
 * Inducted: Professional Football Hall of Fame Class of 2020.

title: 1983 NFL draft


text:
List of New Jersey Devils head coaches

This is a list of New Jersey Devils head coaches. The Devils had 20 different head coaches since the team moved to New Jersey in the 1982–83, with Jacques Lemaire serving as coach three times and Tom McVie, Larry Robinson, and Lou Lamoriello each serving twice.

Three coaches have led the team to a victory in the Stanley Cup Finals: Lemaire in 1995, Robinson in 2000, and Pat Burns in 2003. Lemaire is the all-time leader in games coached and wins, while Burns leads in winning percentage (with at least one full season coached).

Several former players have worked for the Devils as assistant coaches, including John MacLean and Bobby Carpenter, the only men whose names are inscribed on the Stanley Cup as both a player and a coach with New Jersey. MacLean later served as head coach and is the only former Devils' player to serve in that capacity.

On December 26, 2014, after the firing of DeBoer, head coaching responsibilities were split between Adam Oates and Scott Stevens for the remainder of the 2014–15 season, with Lamoriello supervising the team from the bench.

Coaches
''Note: This list does not include data from the Kansas City Scouts and the Colorado Rockies. Statistics are correct through the 2023–24 season.''

title: List of New Jersey Devils head coaches


text:
A New Concordance of the Bible

A New Concordance of the Bible (full title A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible, Hebrew and Aramaic, Roots, Words, Proper Names Phrases and Synonyms) by Avraham Even-Shoshan is a concordance of the Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible, first published in 1977. The source text used is that of the Koren edition of 1958.

title: A New Concordance of the Bible