text:
User talk:Babeuf~enwiki

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, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Babeuf~enwiki


text:
Sheffield Rules

The Sheffield Rules was a code of football devised and played in the English city of Sheffield between 1858 and 1877. The rules were initially created and revised by Sheffield Football Club, with responsibility for the laws passing to the Sheffield Football Association upon that body's creation in 1867. The rules spread beyond the city boundaries to other clubs and associations in the north and midlands of England, making them one of the most popular forms of football during the 1860s and 1870s.

In 1863, the newly formed London-based Football Association (FA) published its own laws of football. Between 1863 and 1877, the FA and Sheffield laws co-existed, with each code at times influencing the other. Several games were played between Sheffield and London teams, using both sets of rules. After several disputes, the two codes were unified in 1877 when the Sheffield FA voted to adopt the FA laws, following the adoption of a compromise throw-in law by the FA.

The Sheffield rules had a major influence on how the modern game of football developed. Among other things they introduced were the concepts of corners, and free kicks for fouls. Games played under the rules are also credited with the development of heading, following the abolition of the fair catch, and the origins of the goalkeeper and forward positions. In 1867, the world's first competitive football tournament was played under Sheffield Rules.

Background
The oldest recorded football match in Sheffield occurred in 1794 when a game of mob football was played between Sheffield and Norton (at the time a Derbyshire village) that took place at Bents Green. The game lasted three days, which was not unusual for matches at the time. It was noted that although there were some injuries no-one was killed during the match. The Clarkehouse Road Fencing Club had been playing football since 1852. The city was home to a number of sports clubs and the popularity of cricket had led to the chairman of Sheffield Cricket Club to suggest the construction of Bramall Lane.

By the 1850s there were several versions of football played in public schools and clubs throughout England. Their rules were generally inaccessible outside of the schools. There the football tended to be unorganised and fairly lawless games known as mob football. Although there were matches between small, equal numbered teams it remained a minority sport until the 1860s.

During the winter months in 1855 the players of Sheffield Cricket Club organised informal football matches in order to retain fitness until the start of the new season. Two of the players were Nathaniel Creswick (1826–1917) and William Prest (1832–1885), both of whom were born in Yorkshire. Creswick came from a Sheffield family of silver plate manufacturers that dated back several centuries. After being educated at the city's Collegiate School he became a solicitor. Prest's family had moved from York while he was a child. His father bought a wine merchants that William subsequently took over. Both men were keen sportsmen. Creswick enjoyed a number of sports including cricket and running. Prest played cricket for the All England XI and also captained Yorkshire on several occasions. The inaugural meeting of Sheffield F.C. took place on 24 October 1857 at Parkfield House in the suburb of Highfield. The original headquarters would become a greenhouse on East Bank Road. The adjacent field was used as their first playing ground.

Laws of Sheffield Football Club (1858)
The first laws of Sheffield Football Club were approved at a general meeting at the Adelphi Hotel on 28 October 1858. The club's minutes book is still available, and records changes made during the laws' development. Notable features of the rules included:

 * Handling was forbidden, with the exception of "pushing" or "hitting" the ball with the hands, and a fair catch (defined as a catch from another player without the ball touching the ground).
 * "Hacking" (kicking), tripping, and holding opponents were all forbidden, but pushing and charging were allowed.
 * A free kick was awarded for a fair catch, but a goal could not be scored from such a free kick.
 * A goal could be scored only by kicking (the 1858 laws do not specify the dimensions or type of the goal in further detail).
 * The throw-in was awarded to the first team to touch the ball after it went out of play. The ball had to be thrown in at right-angles to the touchline.
 * When the ball went out of play over the goal-line, there was a "kick-out" from 25 yards.
 * There was no offside law.
 * Like many rules of that era, the Sheffield rules did not dictate the numbers on each side.

The origin of the 1858 Sheffield rules has been the subject of some academic debate. Adrian Harvey denies any public school influence, arguing that the rules were derived from "ideas generally current in the wider society". In response, prominent football historian Tony Collins has demonstrated that there is a substantial similarity in wording between many of the Sheffield rules and the older Rugby School rules.

The club rules also dictated that any disputes on the field would be resolved by any committee members present — an early reference to the position now occupied by the referee.

At the club's next annual general meeting in October 1859, a committee was appointed to revise the laws and prepare them for publication. The laws were subsequently published later that year with only minor revisions.

Amendment of 1860
On 31 January 1860, a meeting was held where it was resolved that Law 8 should be expunged and replaced with "Holding the ball (except in the case of a free kick) or knocking or pushing it on is altogether disallowed". This left the fair catch as the only form of handling permitted by the laws.

Amendments of 1861
At the annual general meeting of Sheffield FC held in October 1861, the following amendments were made to the rules:

 * The kick-out [roughly equivalent to a goal-kick] had to be taken from within 10 yards of the goal (rather than the previous 25 yards). It was clarified that the kick-out should take place whenever the ball went behind the line of the goal-posts without going into goal.
 * Two flags were placed in line with the goal-posts, each flag being four yards to the side of one of the posts.
 * The throw-in had to touch the ground before coming into contact with a player. It was clarified that the throw-in had to be taken from the place where the ball went into touch.

Proposals to ban pushing and to introduce "rouges" were rejected.

Laws of Sheffield FC (1862)
On 31 January 1862, Sheffield FC held a meeting at which a new set of rules was considered. The rules were confirmed one week later, and published later the same year as Sheffield FC's second formal set of laws. The major changes made in the 1862 rules were:

 * A change of ends at half-time was introduced, but only if no goal was scored in the first half.
 * The dimensions of the goal were specified, with two "goal sticks" 12 feet (4 yards) apart, and a crossbar 9 feet from the ground.
 * The "rouge" was introduced as a tiebreaker.

The rouge
A contemporary newspaper report of the 1862 Sheffield FC meeting reported that the 'most important alteration is the adoption of "rouges," which will have the effect of preventing matches to result [sic] in "draws."'

The rouge originated in the Eton Field Game, where it was awarded when a player touched the ball down behind the opponents' goal-line in a somewhat similar manner to today's "try" in rugby.

Sheffield FC encountered the rouge in a match of 17 December 1860, when the club played against the 58th Regiment, winning by one goal and 10 rouges to one goal and 5 rouges. Reports of later Sheffield FC games during 1860 and 1861, however, do not mention rouges. At the club's annual meeting in October 1861, as mentioned above, Sheffield FC specifically rejected a proposal to add rouges to its own code.

Although the Sheffield laws defining the rouge bore a great deal of similarity to the equivalent rules of the Eton Field Game, there were also significant differences. Sheffield made use of "rouge flags" on the goal-line at a distance of 4 yd from each goal-post (as mentioned above, these flags had been added to the field of play in 1861). A rouge could be scored by touching the ball down only after it had been kicked between the two rouge flags, without going into the goal (Eton did not use rouge flags, permitting a rouge to be scored at any distance from the goal). Sheffield also removed Eton's requirement that the attacking player who kicked the ball behind the goal-line had to be "bullied" (tackled / mauled).

In the Sheffield 1862 rules, as at Eton, the rouge was immediately followed by a set-piece in front of goal ("one of the defending side must stand post two yards in front of the goal sticks"). In the Eton game, we know from detailed descriptions that this situation was somewhat similar to a rugby scrummage.

The new laws were adopted almost immediately, with Sheffield recorded as beating Norton on 22 February 1862 by "one goal and one rouge to nothing". A detailed description of a rouge being scored is found in a contemporary report from the Youdan Cup final of March 1867: "After half an hour's play the ball was kicked by Elliott, not through the goal, but just over it, and was touched down by Ash in splendid style, after running round two of his opponents before getting to the ball, thus securing a rouge."

Developments between 1862 and 1867
The 1862 laws, like those of 1858, made no provision for offside. In a letter to The Field in February 1867, Sheffield FC secretary Harry Chambers wrote that Sheffield FC had adopted a rule at the beginning of the 1863 season requiring one opponent to be level or closer to the opponent's goal. This claim is supported in a letter from secretary William Chesterman to the FA in 1863.

At Sheffield FC's 1865 annual general meeting, it was resolved that "[t]hat for the future we play the [strict] offside rule, but if the other Sheff[iel]d Clubs do not adopt the same rule, we play our Matches with them according to our present rules". Another resolution stated that "a letter [should] be written to Notts Secretary saying that we will adopt the offside rule if they will give up making the mark in case of a free kick, & also the free kick at goal".

This offside law was abandoned at the end of the 1865-66 season, with Sheffield FC reverting to the weaker one-player rule. A newspaper article of January 1867 reported that '[t]he [stricter, FA-style] off-side rule has been played in Sheffield, but was universally disapproved of. It was found to be the cause of much discontent, and produced a most unsatisfactory state of things, it being so difficult, in the excitement of a close match, to distinguish what players were "off," and what "on" side. ... It was, therefore, abandoned, and now, as formerly, the only restriction upon the position of any player in the field is, that he must not be nearer to his adversaries' goal than the nearest of the defending side.'

Surviving club records indicate that the rules could be varied for individual matches (e.g. 9 May 1863 v. Garrison "allowed striking & throwing the ball", 28 October 1865 v. Mackenzie "played the offside rules", 11 November 1865 vs. Norton "Played at East Bank to the old rules").

Sources for the exact laws played during this period are scarce. As noted above, our best source for the offside law during these years is a letter written to The Field newspaper some years later. A letter sent from club secretary William Chesterman to the Football Association in February 1866 strongly supported an FA proposal to abolish the fair catch, suggesting that there was already some appetite within the club for its removal from the Sheffield code (the fair catch had survived in the 1862 laws, but would later be abolished in the Sheffield Association laws of 1867, as described below). A copy of the newly founded (Sheffield) Mechanics' FC rulebook for 1865-66 is largely identical to the Sheffield FC 1862 laws, but with two variations, which may or may not be related to developments at Sheffield FC:

 * a free kick is awarded for illegal handling (as in the draft Sheffield FC laws of 1858 and the future Sheffield Association laws of 1867)
 * when the ball is kicked out "at the goal-sides", a throw-in is taken from the corner-flag (foreshadowing a similar Sheffield Association rule introduced in October 1867, as described below).

Laws of the Sheffield Football Association (1867)
In March 1867, the newly formed Sheffield Football Association issued its first set of laws. The text of the laws of the [London] Football Association, which had been amended the previous month, was used as a starting-point, with the Sheffield clubs making changes to reflect the distinctive features of their game.

Significant new features of the 1867 laws (relative to the 1862 Sheffield FC laws) were:

 * Handling was completely banned, and was punished with an indirect free-kick (from which neither a goal nor a rouge could be scored).
 * The rouge no longer required a touch-down: it was scored whenever the ball was kicked between the rouge flags and under the bar. The rouge was followed by a "kick out" for the defending side, rather than the previous "stand post" procedure.
 * Pushing was forbidden.
 * The throw-in was awarded against the side kicking the ball out of play (rather than to the first team to touch the ball).
 * The minimum distance of 6 yards for the throw-in was removed.
 * The weak off-side law (requiring one opponent to be level or closer to the opponent's goal) was added.
 * The "kick out" after the ball goes out of play behind the goal-line was from within 6 yards of the goal (rather than the previous 10 yards).
 * Ends were changed after each goal.

October 1867 amendment
In October 1867, an amendment was made to the laws whereby there was a "kick-out" only after the ball was kicked directly over the crossbar. In all other cases where the ball went out of play over the goal-line, the game was restarted by a throw, from the point where the ball crossed the goal-line, ten yards towards the opposite goal, awarded against the team who put the ball out of play.

Laws of the Sheffield Football Association (1868)
At its meeting in October 1868, the Sheffield Association made changes that altered many aspects of the game:

 * The rouge was abolished, with the rouge flags being removed.
 * The width of the goal was doubled to eight yards (thus making the Sheffield goal the same width as the FA goal, though the height of the Sheffield goal remained greater, at nine feet rather than eight feet).
 * The throw-in from touch was replaced with a kick-in, which could go in any direction.
 * The corner-kick was introduced. It applied whenever the ball went out of play over the goal-line to the side of the goal, and was awarded against the team who kicked the ball out of play. (When the ball went out of play directly over the bar, regardless of which team kicked it out, it was still a kick to the defending team from within six yards of the goal).
 * The free-kick, previously awarded only for handling, was extended to cases of tripping, hacking, and pushing.
 * The fair catch, abolished in 1867, was reintroduced. It was rewarded with a free-kick. All handling, other than a fair catch, remained forbidden.
 * For the first time, the law made reference to match officials. Each team was entitled to nominate an "umpire", who would officiate in the half of the field defended by his own team.

Laws of the Sheffield Football Association (1869)
Further changes were made at the Sheffield Association's meeting of October 1869:
 * Handling the ball was allowed in the case of an attempted catch, in addition to a successful fair catch.
 * Handling was permitted within three yards of a player's own goal.
 * The distance opponents had to retreat at a free kick was increased from three yards to six yards.
 * The fair catch, while still permitted, was no longer rewarded with a free kick.

Laws of the Sheffield Football Association (1871)

At an "adjourned general meeting", held in January 1871, the Association voted to prohibit catching or handling the ball (with the exception of defenders within three yards of their own goal). The change was initially made on a temporary basis, until the end of the season, "with a view to its future abolishment". During an "animated discussion" on the question, defenders of the fair catch "objected to the continual chopping and changing ... 'catching' having been abandoned on a previous occasion [from 1867 to 1868]".

At the annual general meeting, held in October of the same year, the Sheffield Association heard from a representative of the "South Derbyshire Football Association" whose members, having trialled both the FA and Sheffield rules, had "decided almost to a man in favour of Sheffield". The Derbyshire group was "determin[ed] to join the Sheffield Association, should that body decide to abolish catching". After this, a total ban on handling was proposed. Objectors countered that "the grounds in Sheffield and neighbourhood were unfit for the non-catching rule, on account of their hilly nature", but they were voted down, with the following changes being made:

 * The fair catch was once again abolished.
 * Handling was permitted only if the hand or arm was not "extended from the body".
 * Charging from behind was banned, and punished with an indirect free-kick.

It was noted that these changes left Sheffield laws very close to those of the FA, with offside being the biggest remaining difference. The meeting continued by criticising the FA's "ridiculous" offside law (which required three opponents to be closer to the opposing goal), and its arrogance in refusing to play any rules but its own.

Laws of the Sheffield Football Association (1875)
The following changes were made at the Sheffield Association's meeting of February 1875:

 * The height of the crossbar was lowered from nine feet to eight feet, thus making the dimensions of the Sheffield goal identical to those of the FA goal.
 * The FA law for changing ends was adopted: ends were always changed at half-time; they were no longer changed after each goal.
 * The goalkeeper (not a designated individual as in the FA laws, but the nearest defender to the goal) was permitted to handle the ball.
 * The umpires were supplied with flags.

Disputes between the Sheffield Association and the FA remained over the questions of throw-ins/kick-ins and offside. The FA had repeatedly rejected Sheffield's laxer offside rule at its own 1872, 1873 and 1874 meetings. Furthermore, the FA had that very same month rejected a proposal by the Sheffield Association to introduce kick-ins instead of throw-ins.

At the Sheffield Association's meeting, a proposal for Sheffield to adopt the FA's stricter offside law was rejected, with a contemporary report stating "[w]e do not doubt that if the Londoners [i.e. the FA] had shown a more conciliatory spirit [with respect to the throw-in rule], the off-side rule would have been accepted".

Laws of the Sheffield Football Association (1876)
Another proposal to introduce the FA's 3-player offside law was "negatived by a large majority", with opponents citing the rough nature of the grounds played on by the Sheffield teams, and claiming that "the strong defence it [the FA's offside rule] admits of would in many instances prevent any likelihood of a score being made". The FA's rejection of Sheffield's kick-in law at its own annual meeting (held one week earlier) was said to have influenced the feeling of the Sheffield meeting.

Only one change to the laws was made, with the FA's law on handling the ball being adopted.

Adoption of the FA laws (1877)
The dispute between the Sheffield Association and the FA came to a head in 1877. At the regular meeting of the FA, in February, the Sheffield Association again proposed its kick-in rule, while Clydesdale FC proposed a compromise rule which retained the throw-in but allowed it to go in any direction. The Sheffield Association agreed to withdraw its own proposal in favour of Clydesdale FC's compromise. However, even this compromise proposal was rejected, "to the intense regret of those who desired one common code of rules". This rejection prompted the publication of a pseudonymous letter in The Sportsman decrying the "hasty, ill-judged decision ... bringing the Football Association into disrepute", and denying that it represented "the general body of [Football] Association players -- even of those in London". A subsequent extraordinary general meeting of the FA was held on the 17th of April, at which the Clydesdale amendment was reconsidered and passed. As a result of this change in the FA laws, the Sheffield Association held a meeting one week later at which it agreed to abandon its own rules and accept the FA laws.

The principal changes made by the Sheffield Association in going from its own laws of 1876 to the FA laws of 1877 were the following:

 * Adoption of the stricter 3-player FA offside law
 * Replacement of the kick-in from touch with the throw-in (which could still be thrown in any direction)
 * A goal-kick (rather than a defensive corner-kick) was now awarded when an attacking player kicked the ball out of play over the goal-line, but not directly over the goal.
 * An attacking corner-kick (rather than a goal-kick) was now awarded when a defender kicked the ball out of play directly over the goal

Later developments
Despite its adoption of the FA laws in 1877, the Sheffield Association continued to consider proposed alterations to the rules independently. At its February 1879 meeting: "It was proposed by Mr. T. Banks, on behalf of the Norfolk Club, to add to law 8 — 'If any player of the defending side, except the goalkeeper, stop the ball with his hands within three yards of the goal, when it is going in goal, it shall count a goal to the opponents.'"After a "long and noisy discussion", the change was rejected.

The continued importance of the Sheffield Football Association was reflected in the selection of its treasurer, William Peirce Dix, as one of two delegates to represent England at the International Football Conference of December 1882. This meeting resulted in one unified set of rules for association football across Britain and Ireland. It prefigured the International Football Association Board, which would be the final authority on the laws of the game from 1886 onwards.

Early years
Initially the code was only played among Sheffield F.C. members. Games initially teamed players with surnames in the first half of the alphabet against players with surnames in the latter half of the alphabet. They, however, discovered that the most talented players all had surnames in the first half. Various other permutations were tried with professionals versus merchants and manufacturers becoming one of the favourites. In December 1858 they played their first outside opposition, a team from the local 58th Army Regiment.

An early inter-club match between Sheffield and the newly formed Hallam F.C. took place on 26 December 1860. The match took place at Hallam's ground, Sandygate Road. It was reported that "The Sheffielders turned in their usual Scarlet and White" which suggests that club colours were already in use. Despite playing with inferior numbers Sheffield F.C. beat Hallam 2–0. The game of the time could still be a violent one. A match on 29 December between Sheffield and Hallam became known as the Battle of Bramall Lane. An incident occurred when Nathaniel Creswick was being held by Shaw and Waterfall. Accounts differ over subsequent events. The original report stated that Creswick was accidentally punched by Waterfall. This was contested in a letter from the Hallam players that claimed that it was in retaliation for a blow thrown by Nathaniel Creswick. Whatever the cause the result was a general riot, which also involved a number of spectators, after which Waterfall was sent to guard the goal as punishment.

Sheffield and London
The Football Association (FA) was formed at a meeting in the Freemason's Tavern in Great Queen Street, London on 26 October 1863. Sheffield F.C. sent four representatives who acted as observers. The club joined the new organisation a month later in a letter sent by William Chesterman. In it he also enclosed a copy of the Sheffield Rules and expressed the club's opposition to hacking and running with the ball, describing them as "directly opposed to football". This letter was read out at an FA meeting on 1 December 1863. The rules allowing hacking and running with the ball were reversed at the same meeting. The new code became known as Association Football. The FA had remained largely dormant after the creation of its rules but in 1866 Sheffield F.C. suggested a match between it and a FA club. This was misunderstood and they ended up playing a combined FA team on 31 March 1866 under FA rules. The game was the first ever to limit the match to 90 minutes and Sheffield F.C. adopted it as its preferred length of match. The rule would make it to the FA rule book in 1877. A second match was suggested by the London FA in a letter sent in November or the same year but never took place, the reason being disputes of which rules should be used. The FA introduced an 8 ft cross bar used by Sheffield in the same year only for Sheffield to then decide to raise it to 9 ft. The fair catch was also dropped by Sheffield. This completed the transition to a purely kicking game.

By 1867 the Sheffield Rules was the dominant code in England. The FA had still not achieved the national dominance it enjoys today. Its membership had shrunk to just 10 clubs and at a meeting of the FA it was reported that only three clubs (No Names Club, Barnes and Crystal Palace) were playing by the FA code. At the same meeting the secretary of Sheffield Club suggested three rule changes at an FA meeting: the adoption of rouges, the one man offside and introduction of a free kick for handling the ball. None of the motions were successful. Later in the same year, they abolished handling and touchdowns. It was stated that this was to bring them closer to non-handling games.

Birth of competition
In 1867 the world's first football tournament, the Youdan Cup, was played under the rules. The tournament involved 12 local sides and was played during February and March. The tournament committee decided on the use of an off-field referee to award free kicks for infringements. The final took place on 5 March and was only the second football match to take place at Bramall Lane. A crowd of 3,000, a world record attendance, watched Hallam F.C. claim the cup by scoring two rouges in the last five minutes to win two rouges to one. The Sheffield Football Association was founded following the tournament. The 12 teams involved in the tournament were joined by Sheffield F.C. to become the founding members. The association adopted the Sheffield Rules without any changes. They were the first of several regional Football Associations that sprung up over the following decade.

A second tournament, the Cromwell Cup was played a year later. This time it was only open to teams under two years old. Out of the four teams that competed The Wednesday emerged victorious. The final was a goalless draw after 90 minutes so the teams played on until a goal was scored. This was the first instance where a match involved extra time. This would be the last tournament to be played in Sheffield for nine years until the formation of the Sheffield Football Association Challenge Cup in 1876.

Between 1871 and 1876 a total of 16 matches were played between the Sheffield and London associations. As well as playing under both Sheffield and London rules, additional matches were played at Bramall Lane using a mixture of both sets.

Demise
The FA Cup was inaugurated in 1871, but Sheffield clubs declined to enter the competition as it was being played under FA rules. The first team to enter was Sheffield F.C. in the 1873–74 season. This was after an attempt to enter a Sheffield FA team was refused by the organisers. They reached the quarter-finals before being knocked out by Clapham Rovers. The Sheffield FA instituted their own Challenge Cup in 1876. The cup was open to all the members of the SFA that now included many clubs outside the local area. The first final attracted a crowd of 8,000, twice as much as the FA Cup final in the same season. It was a record crowd for a cup match that would be held until the FA Cup of 1883. The match was between Heeley and Wednesday and resulted in a 2–0 win for the latter.

By 1877 it was clear that the situation had become impractical. After letters were published in The Field deriding the state of affairs it was decided to unite the kicking game under one set of laws. By this time the FA Cup had helped the FA gain a dominant position within the game.

By the 1880s the influence of the Sheffield FA started to wane. Internal troubles began to surface with disputes between the SFA and a new rival association, Hallamshire F.A. The former, led by Charles Clegg, also fought a losing battle against the onset of professionalism. By the middle of the decade several local clubs, including Sheffield and Hallam F.C., were in financial trouble.

Innovations
Heading, corner kicks and awarding free kicks for fouls were conceived in Sheffield games. One of the most enduring rules of the Sheffield game prevented a goal from being scored directly from a free kick or throw in/kick in. This was present in every version of the Sheffield Rules and was later adopted within the FA rules. It was later refined by the International Football Association Board into the modern-day indirect free kick.

The aerial game was also developed within the Sheffield game. While causing much amusement when the side visited London in 1866, the header would become an important feature of the national game. This was linked to the abolition of the fair catch in the same year that prevented all use of the hands by outfield players.

The 1862 rules also introduced a half-time at which the teams would swap ends. Initially this was only if the game was scoreless as the teams would also swap ends if a goal was scored. The rule was changed to a swap at half-time only in 1876.

Early games did not use any on-field officials but disputes between the players would be referred to a committee member. Umpires were introduced by the end of 1862. Two umpires were used; one from each club. The off-field referee was introduced for the Youdan Cup in 1867 and entered the rulebook by 1871. The umpires would then appeal to the referee on behalf of their team. The concept was later introduced to the FA game and persisted until 1891 when the referee moved onto the pitch and the umpires became linesmen. The umpire's flag was first suggested by Charles Clegg at a Sheffield FA meeting in 1874.

The innovative streak within Sheffield remained after the demise of their own rules. On 15 October 1878 a crowd of 20,000 watched the first floodlit match at Bramall Lane. The exhibition match was set up to test the use of the lights and was played between specially selected teams captained by the brothers William and Charles Clegg. William Clegg's team won 2–0. The experiment was repeated a month later at the Oval.

The concept of a penalty goal for fouls within 2 yd of the goal was suggested at a Sheffield FA meeting in 1879. The penalty would eventually make it into the rules by 1892. Sheffield players developed the 'screw shot' in the late 1870s. This gave players the ability to bend the shot into the net, a technique now common in the game.

Legacy
Many of the rules in the Sheffield game were adopted by and are still featured in today’s association game. Twelve changes were made to the FA code between 1863 and 1870, of which eight were taken from Sheffield Rules. During this period the Sheffield FA had significant influence over the FA and encouraged it to continue when it was close to collapse in 1867. The corner kick was adopted by the FA in 1872 and they restricted handling of the ball to the goalkeeper's own half in 1873. In the final negotiations between Sheffield and London the latter agreed to allow throw-ins in any direction in exchange.

During the 1860s Sheffield and London were the dominant football cultures in England. However, while London was fragmented by the different codes used, by 1862 the rules of Sheffield F.C. had become the dominant code in Sheffield. Nottingham Forest adopted the Sheffield code in 1867 and the Birmingham and Derbyshire FAs became affiliated with Sheffield, adopting its code, in 1876.

There is circumstantial evidence that the rules also influenced Australian rules football conceived a couple of years later. The two codes shared the unique feature of lacking the offside rule. There are also similarities in the laws for kicking off, kick outs, throw-ins and the fair catch, with the "behind" displaying some similarities to the rouge. Henry Creswick (possibly a relative of Nathaniel Creswick) was born in Sheffield but emigrated to Australia with his brother in 1840 (the town of Creswick is named after them). He moved to Melbourne in 1854 and became involved in the local cricket scene. He played first class cricket for Victoria during the 1857–1858 season alongside three of the founders of Melbourne Football Club including Tom Wills, the man credited with creating the original rules.

Despite the loss of their own rules, Sheffield remained a key part of the footballing world until the onset of professionalism. Sheffield-born Charles Clegg became chairman of the Football Association in 1890 leading it until his death in 1937. In the process he became the longest serving FA chairman and earned the nickname "The Napoleon of Football".

Formations, positioning and passing
Early games involved varying numbers of players. Games could also be played with uneven numbers on each side either because some failed to show or one side offered a handicap. The first match between Sheffield and Hallam involved 16 players versus 20. Games predominantly involved larger numbers than used in the modern games. In October 1863, Sheffield declared that it would only play 11 a side matches. Despite this it continued to do so on occasions. By 1867 the vast majority of matches in Sheffield involved teams of between 11 and 14.

One of the first positions to develop within the code was referred to as the "kick through". The position was unique to the Sheffield game and developed because of the lack of an offside rule. The job of the man playing in the kick through position was to remain near to the opposition's goal and wait for a through ball, a tactic today called cherry picking or goal hanging. By 1871 this position had become that of the modern-day striker. "Cover goals" developed in opposition to kick throughs. Despite their name their job was to man mark the kick through.

According to Charles W. Alcock, Sheffield provided the first evidence of the modern passing style known as the Combination Game. In October 1863, Sheffield declared that they would only play 11-a-side matches. As early as January 1865, Sheffield were said to have scored a goal through "scientific movements" against Nottingham. A contemporary match report of November 1865 notes: "We cannot help recording the really scientific play with which the Sheffield men backed each other up" Combination play by Sheffield players is also suggested in 1868: "a remarkably neat and quick piece of play on the part of K. Smith, Denton and J. Knowles resulted in a goal for Sheffield, the final kick being given by J. Knowles".

Contemporary proof of passing occurs from at least January 1872. In January 1872 the following account is given against Derby: "W. Orton, by a specimen of careful play, running the ball up in close proximity to the goal, from which it was returned to J. Marsh, who by a fine straight shot kicked it through" This play taking place "in close proximity to the goal" suggests a short pass and the "return" of the ball to Marsh suggests that this was the second of two passes. The account goes on to describe other interesting early tactics: "This goal was supplemented by one of T. Butler's most successful expositions of the art of corkscrew play and deceptive tactics which had the effect of exciting the risibility of the spectators" Similarly the following contemporary account of passing comes from January 1872: "the only goal scored in the match was obtained by Sheffield, owing to a good run up the field by Steel, who passed it judiciously to Matthews, and the latter, by a good straight kick, landed it through the goal out of reach of the custodian". That match (against Notts County) also provided contemporary evidence of "good dribbling and kicking" particularly by W. E. Clegg. The condition of the ground, however, "militated against a really scientific exhibition", suggesting that at other times their play was even more "scientific". Their play in March 1872 was described as "speed, pluck and science of no mean order".

Before the introduction of the crossbar, teams could play without a goalkeeper. The first reference to a goalkeeper appears in the report of the "Battle of Bramall Lane" in 1862. The position, however, was used as an alternative to sending off a player. Although a recognised position goalkeeper sometimes was also referred to in the rules as the player nearest their own goal (allowing him the luxury of handling the ball). Unlike its FA counterpart Sheffield Rules never restricted handling to one designated player. Despite this by the 1870s teams usually featured a single player in the position.

The match between the Sheffield FA and the FA that took place in December 1871 is notable for evidence of the development of several new positions. As well as the first mention of forwards, sides (now called wingers) were also mentioned. The rest of the team made up the midfield. The Half backs (referred to as centre backs in the modern game) were mentioned a year later. By the mid-1870s it was common to use one goalkeeper assisted by two cover goals and two half backs. The attack was made up of five midfielders and one forward. This produced the 2-2-5-1 formation.

Key figures
Nathaniel Creswick and William Prest are considered both founders of Sheffield F.C. and creators of the code they adhered to. They continued to have a strong presence at the club, both being members of the committee. It was Creswick, however, who exerted more influence over the rules in his position of Honorary Secretary and Treasurer.

John Shaw was originally a member of Sheffield Club. However another member, Thomas Vickers, also founded their main rivals, Hallam F.C. He also became the vice-president of the Sheffield FA upon its formation and president from 1869 to 1885. In this role he organised many of its first inter-association matches and was involved in the eventual merger of the Sheffield Rule into the national game.

Charles Clegg became a massive influence on the national as well as the local game. As a player, he was involved in the first inter-association match and became the first Sheffield-based player to be capped (gaining his only cap in the first international). He went on to become president of both the city's professional sides (playing a large part in the creation of Sheffield United) and held the same position at Sheffield and Hallamshire FA having overseen the merger of the two rival local FAs. He then moved on to national prominence when he became chairman of the FA in 1890 and president in 1923. He held both positions until his death in 1937.

Although not directly involved with Sheffield football, Charles W. Alcock had a major role in relations between the local and London associations. He acted as a go between encouraging the FA to accept rules from the Sheffield Rules. When the FA declined an inter-association match in Sheffield on the grounds that they could not play under Sheffield Rules it fell to Alcock to organise a team of London players to fulfil the fixture. The success of the match led to it becoming a regular event in the following years.

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

title: Sheffield Rules


text:
User talk:Matthew A. Lockhart

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, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Thank you for your kind assistance. I've been lurking for a while before creating my account. The links you posted will be handy. Again, my sincere thanks --Matthew A. Lockhart 14:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, kind sir. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Signature
Testing. – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk)) 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) :A second test. – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk)) 06:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Your 'error' in that test is just that you left a blank-space before the colon, btw, so it counts everything as preformatted text
 * Okie dokie, consider this the third. – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk)) 07:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

SWC
Ah, Hans von Luck ;) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Just a question on the SWC article, personally I think it would be better to have an active "gameplay" image as the first image in the article, but that's just me. But I do agree, having more images would make it a much nicer and more appealing article. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Malaysian license tag
Hey. I am sure it's valid since it informs readers of its license. But I'm not sure if it's not redundant. Typical license tag seems suffice for licensing purposes. You may want to give Multi-licensing a visit. And I'm sure somebody at Help_desk will help clear things out. __earth (Talk) 08:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * cool. __earth (Talk) 06:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

About Wikimedia Commons
Hi Matthew A.Lockhart, I m from Malay Wikipedia. Can you suggest to any person who contribute to Wikimedia Commons in English Wikipedia to unlock Commons main page and make a Malay version of Wikipedia? I hope that my question is accepted. Its okay if you're unable to suggest it. — Emrrans 09:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics
Hi,

We started a proposal Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that it needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Sarawak state election, 2006
sure. =) __earth (Talk) 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The percentage should be number of vote received over total of those that voted in Sarawak. Notice that the total is not the number of eligible voters. Only those that voted should be counted. __earth (Talk) 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Map of Kuching
Nice map. It's better than the previous one (clearer and free). However, I was thinking of changing map s of Malaysian cities, including Kuching into something like Johor Bahru. The reason is, the map would show the location of the corresponding city and eliminate other distraction. What do you think? __earth (Talk) 15:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yup. I like your suggestion better. __earth (Talk) 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
Nice to meet another Kuchingite on Wikipedia! Borisblue 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Kirby!
Just wanted to say hi. These feels like MySpace. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment?
There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.

Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Info on Islamophobic group
Hello,

What follows are the thoughts, expressed in their own words, and in the 'protest signs', of the obscure, very small, but very vocal 'activist group' known as "Protest Warrior".

"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that's the only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something."

Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton, founders of "Protest Warrior"

Their 'protest signs'...

Signs

I thought you might be interested in this group's sentiments. They are currently very actively editing their own article on Wiki and there is a lot of 'group think'. Perhaps you might want to become involved in the editing and discussion process on that page. If you do, please don't vandalize, and try to remain civil. Should you not want to involve youself, please forgive my intrusion.

Protest Warrior

Protest Warrior Discussion

NBGPWS 09:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Malaysian vs Malaysian Chinese
Which do you think describes the Chinese in Malaysia? And er, I'm sorry about the page on Kuching. I so far can't find the time to help you on that. __earth (Talk) 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

KIA
hi, can u help to expand Kuching International Airport Mike86 22.14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Jawi and Chinese: Necessary?
I'm in the opinion that both should go. The rationale is, if we place Jawi and Chinese there, why should we stop at just English, Jawi and Chinese? Why not so Indian, Iban, etc. too? To escape the ugly consequences, it's better to use only one and that one language should be the medium of en.wp. i.e. English, unless it is really necessary and justified (for instance, if the national language is Chinese, then Chinese could be added.) __earth (Talk) 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It is true in government officials only Malay Language in Roman script is being presented. But if you look at the malaysian government emblems etc, you will see jawi script as well. In order to standardize this, I believe name of places should have its Jawi script as well. What is wrong with having just Jawi script? It does not change the fact that they are still a part of Malay language.

(I think Chinese, Tamil, Arabic, etc should go as it has no official sanction in it).Just my two sen. --Zack2007 11:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I added Jawi for all the states and cities in Malaysia is for standardization. If you look at the peninsular cities, I have put most of the cities with Jawi scripts. Why double standard and not put it too in the East Malaysia? That is my reasoning. About Jawi script in Malaysia Airlines, I have no argument there. If i am not mistaken, in Kelantan (at least), Malaysia Airlines office have both jawi and malay script on their brochures etc. I may be wrong here. Anyway, you have every right to argue otherwise. Till then. --Zack2007 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am willing for a compromise.
 * According to WP:LEAD, the intro paragraph should be as simple and as clear as possible as to invite people to read more about the article. Hence, putting language scripts, and other possible languages in the lead section would clutter up the introduction paragraph. THis will cause the opening sentence to be too long and difficult to read. I follow the lengthy unresolved discussion about the lead section for Singapore Changi Airport, I am leaning towards putting the alternative names in Infobox as it is nonintrusive and doesn't clutter up a sentence.
 * I agree that we should not put every possible translated languages in the infobox section. Only the relevant one. I believe for places there should only be the standard Malay name for the place and its jawi script, together with any English translation. (i.e for Penang article - it would be Pulau Pinang, ڤولاو ڤين, and Penang in their infobox. Because this is Wikipedia English, the article should be named Penang and the lead section should only have Penang.
 * For articles other than names of cities and states in Malaysia, we use this at our own discretion and contributors' concensus. This include Kuala Lumpur International Airport, do you think the diff languages in the infobox is cluttering to you? Let me hear what you think. --Zack2007 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for removing the zh and jawi script from Malaysia Airlines article. I believe that is very appropriate. Cheers. -Zack2007 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * hello. if my understanding is correct most of u guys agree that other scripts should not be in certain places. so i shall follow suit and remove the jawi script used in the Kota Kinabalu infobox. any opinions welcome :) -- kawaputra 12:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * perhaps i should add my personal opinion: i think it shouldnt be used at all (to support standardization), OR perhaps only used in places where significant majority of the population in that place use and understand the script, eg kota bharu, kuala terengganu. i believe very few malaysians read, understand and use jawi script. even among muslims/malays i believe not many know jawi. saya punya dua sen -- kawaputra 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Taib Mahmud
I have restored the revisions of the article which were made before the addition of the copyvio material. Have a nice day. :) Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarising your interwiki link
I hope you don't mind. It looks so goood. If you do mind, I will remove it immediately from my userpage. :) Zack2007 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Sarawak
Well, it seems to me that the article doesn't explain anything about the Trisakti. Also, it says that the Flag of the Kingdom of Sarawak was used from 1870 to 1973, while there was also a flag of the British colony of Sarawak in use from 1946 to 1963. Did Sarawak have two flags during this period? Johnleemk | Talk 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah. I was about to make the same comment. Nonetheless, cool stuff. Never knew that Sarawak had a "trisakti" flag. __earth (Talk) 13:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for clarifying the article - it looks much better now. By the way, is it just me, or does the Trisakti look a bit like the Flag of the Philippines? Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * (from page 41 of my ref) By 1850, Sarawak had a flag (The Brooke flag - Purple, red, and yellow) the year the United States became the first country to officially recognized her as an independent monarchy (which the British were reluctant to do). I'd suggest this book for your reference on the Brooke dynasty period (they have lots of personal and government photos from the author's personal collections. Ref: The White Rajahs of Sarawak - A Borneo Dynasty by Bob Reece (2004) 144 pages [ISBN 981415511X]. Bob Reece is an Australian with 60 years (from 1946) of writing the history of the Brooke dynasty and Sarawak. Anyway, good work, bagus juak ada anak Sarawak rajin situk. :D -- Bukhrin 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I've asked Bob Reece about this purple/blue question and he was under the impression that Mrs. D was correct and he learnt from a source somewhere that it was purple. If you're interested I can forward you the e-mail reply I got from him --Bukhrin 18:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * E-mail kitak ? I tried the e-mail this user thingy on the side-bar but the response stated that it was not possible. Thanks --Bukhrin 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sultans at the first Malayan Durbar.jpg
Wow, thanks! It looks wonderful compared to my small and ugly scan. Sure, go ahead with the crop if you find it necessary. You can still upload the crop to Commons (under a different file name of course). Johnleemk | Talk 08:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Chinese script in an Malaysian city article
Thanks for the heads-up. I've reverted the edits adding the Chinese name, and explained the position on the talk page. I've also made similar edits to Penang and Ipoh. And no, I'm not sick of hearing from you. ;) Johnleemk | Talk 12:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please go to Talk:Kuching and state your comment on whether Jawi script is necessary or not. Just that Kawaputra insists on not having it. Thank you. --Zack2007 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Batu Lintang camp
Hi there Matthew. Thanks for your kind words, both on the article talk page and on my page. Glad you liked the article. I might give the Prof a try about the photo - I thought it odd that in the hundreds of photos in the AWM collection on the BL liberation there weren't any of the actual surrender ceremony with Eastick and Suga, or of the flag raising. Or maybe I've been looking in the wrong place ... I've still got a couple of pics to upload, of the camp dollars and of the postcards the prisoners were allowed to send home: I like a well-illustrated article and the AWM resource has been fantastic for this. Have you visited the teachers' training college at BL and seen the site? I try to picture it from all the 60-year old B&W photos, but it must be so very different now. One day I hope to visit ... Cheers Jasper33 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew, thank-you so much for taking the time to visit BL and to add the markers to the Google Earth image. It's interesting to see how some of the road layouts haven't changed, whilst apart from the Punjabi barracks the buildings are all so new. The ammunition dump was opposite the womens' camp, according to the map in Keat Gin Ooi's book. And hurrah! The map you scanned in is the one I found on the web - so now I know its proper source - thank-you.  The orientation of the barracks in the womens' camp more accurately reflects what is visible in the AWM photographs, but the boundary of the camp encloses a much smaller area than in the two other plans.  I wonder when the Pollard one was made and what it was based on.  Once again, many thanks for your input.  If you have any other information, please do add away.  I think the more editors involved in this article the better, and you're our invaluable 'Man on the Ground'.  Cheers, Jasper33 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matthew. As I see you're a bibliophile (me too) you're clearly the man to ask. I'm trying to track down any additional reading material with new information about BL, including in its teacher training college incarnation. I've already managed to get hold of a copy of Lim.

Could you tell me a little bit about Puteh, Abang Yusef (1999) Who Shall Separate Us? Does it have much info about BL in it? I'm wondering whether it's worth trying to get a copy as Googling it turns up pretty much diddly squat, suggesting it's a rare book.

And as for Pollard, Elizabeth (1st edition 1972), Kuching: 1839-1970 - is it worth me hunting it out (ie is it likely to have info in it that hasn't turned up elsewhere) do you think? If they do have extra info I'd like to get copies for myself and also add them to the references list in the article. Cheers Jasper33 11:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the Sarawak coat of arms from the "Sarawak" template?
Hi Matthew, I'm Matthew.

Can you please tell me why did you remove the Sarawak coat of arms from the "Sarawak" template? Can't you see that the "Sarawak" template is the only Malaysian state template that has no coat of arms? Come on, you've been living in Sarawak for almost your entire life, I'm sure you know how that feels... unless you hate living in Sarawak and you hate Sarawak.

Re: Why remove the Sarawak coat of arms from the "Sarawak" template?
No, I didn't imply that you hated Sarawak, it's just that you look insensitive about this & I guess I was wrong tho use the word "hate". If you're against this, then I owe you an apology, man. Sorry for my ignorance. Kamek chow dolok, bye.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Swc-login.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Swc-login.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Core desat 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hans von Luck.jpg
Hello, Matthew A. Lockhart. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Hans von Luck.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Matthew A. Lockhart/gallery. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a little something for all your contributions!

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Teddey 23:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Eden1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eden1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess!

 * A goddess descends to your talk page

Hi, I noticed your username appears on this category and would like to invite you to take part in a general improvement drive on all articles relevant to Oh My Goddess! including character articles, episode articles and others. -- Cat chi? 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A request to Our Man in Kuching
Hi Matthew - I wonder if I could ask you a favour? I have found an image of a gravestone to some ?Catholic nuns, which I think is somewhere in Kuching (as you might remember, I can't read Dutch!). Do you have any idea where it might be? I can't read the text on the headstone but it looks like a list of nun's names with their dates of death. I think these might be nuns who died in Batu Lintang camp but am not sure. Any ideas? Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

World War II userbox
This is an announcement to those interested in World War II that a new userbox have been created.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kuching's Mayors
Hi, I'm trying to create Kuching's mayors articles but it seems to meet the criteria of speedy deletion. Do you it is a good start to have such articles James Chan Khay Syn? Any valuable opinions are welcomed. Thank you. Mike86 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Matthew A. Lockhart! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Abang Muhammad Salahuddin -

Orphaned non-free image File:Ost1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ost1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Kuching North City Hall emblem.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kuching North City Hall emblem.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kuching South City Hall emblem.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Kuching South City Hall emblem.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 1
The 3rd Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup had now arrived on Selangor! Pack your bags and your laptop, and meet some fellow Malaysia Wikipedians in the meetup!
 * Date: Sunday, 11 December 2016
 * Time: 12:00 - 2:00 pm
 * Venue: Sudo Brew, 7 Jalan SS 22/11, Damansara Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3.13169°N, 101.62122°W)
 * Medium of communication:
 * English language - for the general overall meetup
 * Malay language - for a special session to discuss ms.wikipedia.org (subject to enough number of participants)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page or at the Facebook event page. (Delivered: 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 2
The 4th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time on Selangor, and you are invited!
 * Date: Saturday, 25 February 2017
 * Time: 11:00 am - 1:00 pm (Malaysia Standard Time, UTC+8:00)
 * Venue: Menara Sunway  (check page for venue/room update) , Bandar Sunway, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3.069°N, 101.61017°W)
 * Medium of communication:
 * English language - for the general overall meetup
 * Malay language - for Malay Wikipedia section (subject to request)

→ To collaborate between Wikipedia Malaysia User Group and Sunway Group, a large corporation in Malaysia. → To create Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects)'s articles and edit/improve articles on the spot.

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please add your name here. (Delivered: 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC))

Invitation to the Wikipedia Johor Meetup 2
The 5th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time in Johor. Since it is at holiday, check it out if you have time!
 * Date: Saturday, 18 March 2017
 * Time: 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Malaysia Standard Time, UTC+8:00)
 * Venue: Al-Haji Grand Restaurant, Jalan Austin Heights 8/2, Taman Mount Austin, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia (1.562°N, 103.77628°W)
 * Medium of communication:
 * English language - for the general overall meetup
 * Malay language - for Malay Wikipedia section (subject to request)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquirers, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please add your name here. (Delivered: 03:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC))

Invitation to the Wikipedia Kuala Lumpur Meetup 2
The 5th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time on Kuala Lumpur! → To talk about the past Wikimedia Conference 2017 in Germany, Creative Commons, Malay Wikipedia and the upcoming Wikipedia East, Southeast Asia & Pacific Conference 2018 in Indonesia. → Forming a Wikipedia Malaysia User Group, coordinating East Malaysia-related affairs and training newcomer Wikipedia editors. → And a lot more!
 * Date: Saturday, 22 April 2017
 * Time: 6:00 - 8:00pm (Malaysia Standard Time, UTC+8:00)
 * Venue: FEEKA Coffee Roasters, Jalan Mesui, Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur (3.1487°N, 101.7084°W)
 * Medium of communication:
 * English language - for the general overall meetup
 * Malay language - for Malay Wikipedia section (subject to request)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by QianCheng. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please remove your name here. (Delivered: 06:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC))

title: User talk:Matthew A. Lockhart


text:
The Cape Verdean Blues

The Cape Verdean Blues is a 1966 album by a jazz quintet led by pianist Horace Silver. The quintet is augmented on the last three tracks on the album by trombonist J. J. Johnson. The album was inspired by Silver's father, John Tavares Silva, who was born in Cape Verde.

Track listing
All tracks by Horace Silver, unless otherwise noted

 * 1) "The Cape Verdean Blues" - 4:59
 * 2) "The African Queen" - 9:36
 * 3) "Pretty Eyes" - 7:30
 * 4) "Nutville" - 7:15
 * 5) "Bonita" - 8:37
 * 6) "Mo' Joe" (Joe Henderson) - 5:46

Recorded on October 1 (#1-3) and 22 (#4-6), 1965.

Personnel

 * Horace Silver – piano
 * Woody Shaw – trumpet
 * Joe Henderson – tenor sax
 * J. J. Johnson – trombone (tracks 4–6)
 * Bob Cranshaw – bass
 * Roger Humphries – drums

Source:

title: The Cape Verdean Blues


text:
Wamba (king)

Wamba (Medieval Latin: VVamba, Vamba, Wamba; c. 630 – 687/688) was the king of the Visigoths from 672 to 680. During his reign, the Visigothic kingdom encompassed all of Hispania and part of southern Gaul known as Septimania.

According to Herwig Wolfram, Wamba means "big paunch" in Gothic (like German: "Wampe", cognate to English "womb") and may have been a nickname. Both Julian of Toledo in his Historia Wambae (History of Wamba) and the decisions of the eleventh Council of Toledo, held under Wamba's auspices, refer to the king only as Wamba.

Military events
After ascending the throne on 1 September 672, Wamba faced a revolt from Hilderic, governor of Nîmes, who had himself aspired to the kingship. Hilderic was supported by Gunhild, Bishop of Maguelonne. Wamba sent the dux (general) Paul to put down the rebels, but upon his arrival at Narbonne, he induced his officers to renounce their loyalty to Wamba and elect him king as Flavius Paulus. He was joined by Hilderic and his followers, as well as Duke Ranosind of Tarraconensis and the gardingatus (a palace official) Hildigis. Paul recruited "multitudes" of Franks and Basques to bolster his forces. Following this the Visigothic cities in Gaul and a large part of northeastern Hispania came over to Paul's side.

During these events, Wamba was in Cantabria campaigning against the Basques. In response, Wamba marched into the Tarraconensis region, and in a few days turned most of the cities back to his side. He then divided his forces into three groups, attacking over the Pyrenees by way of Llívia (then the capital of Cerdanya), Auch, and the coastal road, taking the fortresses of Collioure, Vulturaria, and Llívia, finding "much" gold and silver there.

As Wamba moved on Narbonne, Paul placed General Wittimer in charge of the city and retired to Nîmes. Wamba's forces quickly subdued Narbonne and then, after some difficulty, secured the surrender of Nîmes on September 3, 673. Paul and the other rebel leaders surrendered and, three days later, were brought to trial, scalped, and imprisoned for life.

A period of peace followed and, in 674, Wamba rebuilt the Roman walls around Toledo. He also fortified other sites about this time, possibly Hondarribia (Fuenterrabia), a small village in Spain facing the French border over the Txingurri bay, as a military thrust along the Bay of Biscay up to the Pyrenees is attested to in contemporary sources. Wamba brought the Astures and Ruccones (Luggones) under his control and incorporated them into a new province. They had been fighting for their independence since the Visigothic invasions of the 5th century but now finally relented.

After the rebellion, the kingdom faced a new threat in the form of Saracen raiders. In the Chronicle of Alfonso III (written 200 years later) it stated, "In Wamba's time, 270 Saracen ships attacked the coast of Hispania and there all of them were burned." A single attack of this size is doubtful, however, because no other source mentions it. The Chronicle of 754 declared Moors "had long been raiding" Andalusia, "and simultaneously devastating many cities"; however, the Chronicle of 754's most recent English translator, Kenneth Baxter Wolf, holds that this refers to the year before the defeat of King Roderic by the Moors, over three decades after the removal of Wamba.

The law books and decrees of the time reveal a substantial erosion of domestic tranquility and order within the kingdom. In the Visigothic law books, Wamba decrees that all the people, regardless of their religion, and even if they are clergy, are required to defend the kingdom if it is attacked by a foreign foe. This law was created to solve a problem of desertion: "For, whenever an enemy invades the provinces of our kingdom … [many of] those who inhabit the border … disappear so that, by this means, there is no mutual support in battle." This rationale may imply a frequency of raids. That the people were often unwilling to defend the kingdom is further shown by another of Wamba's edicts, in which slaves were freed in order to the fill the ranks of the army. This suggests not only a shortage of volunteers from among the Hispano-Romans who made up the bulk of the population ruled by the Visigothic lords, but also an army heavy in conscripts and the coerced.

Religious events
In 675, the Third Council of Braga was held in Braga (Bracara), Gallaecia. This Catholic conclave promulgated eight decrees affecting ritual, the handling of sacred vessels, who may or may not live with a priest, unacceptable forms of punishment of clergy, and unacceptable forms of payment of clergy and rectors. In the same year, the Eleventh Council of Toledo was convened in November.

Wamba was a reformist king who, according to Charles Julian Bishko, "tried to set up at Aquis (Chaves) in Gallaecia a monastic see of the same type as Dume–Braga, i. e., involving the sort of episcopus sub regula associated with early pactualism. This manoeuvre was successfully blocked by the metropolitan church of Emérita with the full support of the fathers of the XIIth Council of Toledo (681)."

Succession
In 680, Wamba fell ill or (according to the Chronicle of Alfonso III two hundred years later) was poisoned in Pampliega, near Burgos. He received the order of penance in anticipation of his death, and as a result was forced to step down as king upon his recovery. The Chronicle of Alfonso III blames Wamba's successor Erwig for this; some modern commentators have blamed Julian of Toledo, who was made primate of the Visigothic church by Erwig (in reward for his services?). But Julian perpetuated the memory of Wamba in his account of the revolt of Paul, Historia Wambae Regís.

Birthplace
According to one tradition, Wamba was born in Egitânia, a settlement surrounded by Roman walls that is today called Idanha-a-Velha in the Idanha-a-Nova municipality, and located to the northeast of Castelo Branco in Portugal. A Spanish tradition has him born in Galicia in the parish of Santa María de Dozón in an old house with a shield. Manuel de Sousa da Silva, a seventeenth-century Portuguese genealogist, in his work Nobiliário das Gerações de Entre-Douro-e-Minho, refers to this possibility, adding that he was of the lineage of the Gothic kings, but so poor that he was a farmer. Modern genealogists make him a son of Tulga, a possibility sustained by the fact of his being a humble man of royal descent, since his father was deposed at a young age, and when his own sons were still infants.

However, the most famous tradition says he held land and possessions in Pujerra (or Buxarra as it was once called) in Málaga Province, an Andalusian mountain village, nestled amid forests of chestnut trees near the Genil river in southern Spain. The ruins of Molino de Capilla (Mill of the Chapel) are nearby, and close to which lay the village of Cenay, which some consider to be Wamba's actual birthplace.

Kingship
There are at least two legends associated with how Wamba became king.

One legend begins with Wamba's father, king of the Visigoths, who in this story was also named Wamba. Two women of his court, a servant girl and a noble lady, became pregnant at the same time. To avoid a scandal that might implicate the king, both women fled the capital. They found their way to an Andalusian village that, because it was so well hidden in the forest, provided an ideal place for secret births. Both women brought forth boys, and they were placed in the care of a servant girl to be raised in the area.

When the time came to groom a successor for the king, there seemed to be no suitable heir. Soldiers were dispatched to the village to find the illegitimate children. After their arrival, they overheard a peasant woman call to her son named Wamba, who was tending cattle with a stick. The soldiers knew they had come upon the youth they sought and declared: "You are the rightful king and we must ask you to come with us to the palace." Wamba was unwilling, or at least pretended to be. He took his stick and thrust it into the ground, saying, "I will only accept the throne if this stick takes root." The stick he carried was of chopo or black poplar, which easily takes root in fertile soil. When it began to grow, Wamba agreed to go with the soldiers to become the new king of the Visigoths, being elected and crowned in what is today the tiny village of Wamba in the region around Madrid.

A second legend is related by Charles Morris in Historical Tales: Spanish ("The Good King Wamba"). In this version, instead of being a boy, Wamba was an old man in the village, and owned land and possessions there. According to Morris:

"In those days, when a king died and left no son, the Goths elected a new one, seeking their best and worthiest, and holding the election in the place where the old king had died. It was in the little village of Gerticos, some eight miles from the city of Valladolid, that King Recesuinto had sought health and found death. Hither came the electors—the great nobles, the bishops, and the generals—and here they debated who should be king, finally settling on a venerable Goth named Wamba, the one man of note in all the kingdom who throughout his life had declined to accept rank and station."

Saint Leo, declaring he had been given divine guidance, instructed the electors to seek out a husbandman named Wamba. So scouts were dispersed until Wamba was found tilling one of his fields. "Leave your plough in the furrow", they said to him; "nobler work awaits you. You have been elected king of Hispania." "There is no nobler work", answered Wamba. "Seek elsewhere your monarch. I prefer to rule over my fields."

The heralds did not know what to make of this. To them, the man who would not be king must be a saint—or an idiot. They reasoned, begged and implored until Wamba, who wanted to get rid of them, said: "I will accept the crown when the dry rod in my hand grows green again—and not till then."

After he thrust it into the ground, all were astonished to see it suddenly become a green plant with leaves growing out of the top. Everyone believed heaven had decided the matter. So Wamba "went with the heralds to the electoral congress". Once there, however, he again tried to refuse the throne. At this, one of the Visigothic chieftains drew his sword and threatened to behead Wamba if he did not accept the crown. Wamba relented and consented.

The legend of the stick thrust into the ground is also associated with the town of Guimarães, southwest of Braga in the Costa Verde of Portugal (the northwest corner of the country). There, because Wamba never withdrew the stick afterwards, it is said it grew into an olive tree. Though the tree is now gone, the site is marked either by the monastery of Nossa Senhora da Oliveira (Our Lady of the Olive) or the Largo da Oliveira town square, each named for the legendary tree.

Saint Giles
In a 10th-century Life of Saint Giles, written for the benefit of pilgrims, a legend is recorded about how, one day, when King Wamba (also known as Flavius) was out hunting in the forest between Arles and Nîmes in Provence, he began to pursue a hind (deer). The animal fled, seeking refuge in the cave where Giles the hermit was quietly praying. (In some versions of the story, the hind, provided by God, was Giles' sole companion and sustained him on its milk.) Wamba shot his arrow into the opening. But he missed the hind, striking Giles instead, wounding him in the leg and causing a permanent disability. The king's hunting dogs then rushed in for the kill. But when Wamba arrived he found his dogs miraculously rooted to the spot. Discovering what he had done, he begged forgiveness and tried to make amends. But Giles continued his prayers, refusing all help or recompense. The king nonetheless had doctors care for the wound. He also offered Giles the land upon which to build a monastery. But Giles refused.

Over time, however, because of the saint's fame as a sage and miracle worker, multitudes gathered at his cave. Around 674, Wamba built them a monastery. Giles became its first abbot. Soon a little town grew up there, known as Saint-Gilles-du-Gard.

Because of this tradition, Giles became the patron saint of cripples, lepers, and nursing mothers. His emblem is an arrow. The Catholic Encyclopedia noted that the king in this story must have originally been a Frank, "since the Franks had expelled the Visigoths from the neighbourhood of Nîmes almost a century and a half earlier".

Loss of the crown
Charles Morris writes that, during Wamba's reign:

"One ambitious noble named Paul, who thought it would be an easy thing to take the throne from an old man who had shown so plainly that he did not want it, rose in rebellion. He soon learned his mistake. Wamba met him in battle, routed his army, and took him prisoner. Paul expected nothing less than to have his head stricken off, but Wamba simply ordered that it should be shaved."

A shaved or tonsured head meant that Paul had assumed monastic orders, so he could not serve as king or chieftain.

Later an ambitious youth named Erwig, pursuing the overthrow of the king, administered a sleeping potion. While Wamba was under, Erwig shaved the crown of his head. Erwig said he did it at Wamba's request. As before, Gothic law was clear. Wamba could no longer be king. Erwig became king in his place. Wamba accepted this change and happily assumed monastic orders, abdicating the throne to live out the last seven years of his life as a monk.

According to Morris, Wamba acquitted himself well in all his stations—farmer, king, and monk—and his name has come down to us from the mists of time as one of those rare men of whom we know little, but all that we know is good.

Ironically, it was Wamba's nephew, son of his sister Ariberga, Ergica, who married Erwig's daughter and became the new king at his father in law's death.

title: Wamba (king)


text:
User talk:Jbowser

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, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Jbowser


text:
User talk:Qronky

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, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Qronky


text:
Talk:Nambudiri Brahmin

Comments
I just wrote this article. I don't know much about the N.B. people, but when I read about their (IMHO bizarre) traditional marriage customs, I figured this just had to be on Wikipedia. Obviously, there is much more to say, but I don't know what it would be. — Nowhither 14:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nambudiri Brahmin


text:
Erwig

Erwig (Flavius Ervigius; after 642 – 687) was a king of the Visigoths in Hispania (680–687).

Parentage
According to the 9th-century Chronicle of Alfonso III, Erwig was the son of Ardabast, who had journeyed from the Byzantine Empire to Hispania during the time of Chindasuinth, and married Chindasuinth's niece Goda. Ardabast (or Artavasdos), was probably an Armenian or Persian Christian exile in Constantinople or in Byzantine Africa. In Hispania he was made a count.

Seventeenth-century Spanish genealogist Luis Bartolomé de Salazar y Castro gave Ardabast's father as Athanagild, the son of Saint Hermenegild and Ingund, and his mother as Flavia Juliana, a daughter of Peter Augustus and niece of the Emperor Maurice. This imperial connection is disputed by Christian Settipani, who says that the only source for Athanagild's marriage to Flavia Julia is José Pellicer, who he claims to be a forger.

Succession
After his predecessor Wamba had taken the monastic habit while on the verge of death, he was forced to retire from the kingship on 14 October 680, even though he recovered, and enter a monastery. He appointed Erwig his successor and the latter was anointed in Toledo on 31 October 680. Later, 9th-century legends attributed to Erwig the poisoning of the king, who was made a penitent by his supporters while Erwig's supporters raised him to the throne. The bishops of the Twelfth Council of Toledo, which Erwig opened on 9 January 681, confirmed that the documents of abdication and confirmation of Erwig from Wamba were authentic and contained his own signature. Nonetheless, some historians have seen in the rapidity of Erwig's unction after the king had received the penitential sacrament evidence for a pre-planned palace coup.

Erwig began his reign in a climate of uneasiness concerning the way in which he reached the throne. Probably feeling insecure himself, the nobles and bishops took advantage. Erwig restored to favour those who had been out of it in the time of Wamba. After the Twelfth Council, the Thirteenth (683) and Fourteenth (684) followed in quick succession. The councils confirmed Erwig's legitimacy for a second time and wrote many laws to protect the life and rule of the king and his family, including that of his queen, Liuvigoto.

After falling seriously ill, Erwig proclaimed his son-in-law Egica, the husband of his daughter Cixilo, as his heir on 14 November 687 and retired to a monastery as a penitent the next day, after giving leave to his court to return to Toledo with Egica for the anointing and crowning.

Legislation
Erwig issued 28 laws condemning Jews with the support of the Twelfth Council. He himself stated to the council his desire to return to the legislation of the reign of Sisebut, though he was a little more lenient, dispensing with the death penalty. These laws were part of a revised and expanded version of the Liber Iudiciorum which is attached to Erwig's name. All of the laws, which dealt with Jews, have been attributed to the influence of Julian of Toledo, the fanatically anti-Jewish archbishop of Toledo. When the Ervigian code was promulgated in November 681, Erwig had added six more of his own new laws and three laws of Wamba, as well as revised eighty laws of Recceswinth. There is no evidence, however, that the Ervigian code "superseded" the Recceswinthian and manuscripts of both continued to be produced and sold.

Declaring them a plague on the kingdom, he called for the total removal of the Jews from the kingdom. Such a decree had been issued by Erwig's predecessor Wamba and much as that one Erwig's also failed. So in 681 he issued another decree, this time requiring that all Jews become Christians or leave the kingdom. Jews were officially discriminated against from henceforth as the monarchy attempted to restrict Jewish commercial activities.

title: Erwig


text:
Talk:Sarawak

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Abang Johari 2018.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Abang Johari 2018.jpg

title: Talk:Sarawak


text:
User talk:Hihromanov

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, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

styles
Wikipedia policy, as outlined in the Manual of Style, is not to use styles at the start of articles. Please do not insert them. They will be deleted on sight. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 17:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The Queens Jewels
Thanks for your wonderful additions! If there's anything you need, don't hesitate to ask. ;) --Cameron* 16:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the additions, but do you have a source for the valuation by MR Krashes? I can't find anything at the moment and it needs to be sourced...--Cameron* 13:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hihromanov


text:
Morgan Lewis

Morgan Lewis may refer to:

 * Morgan Lewis (basketball), American basketball player
 * Morgan Lewis (governor), Governor of New York State and US Army general
 * Morgan Lewis (songwriter)
 * Morganics, hip hop artist Morgan Lewis

title: Morgan Lewis