text:
Talk:Umphrey's McGee

Improv descriptions
Umm...as colorful as some of the improv. descriptions are, do we think that someone could make these more accurate... for instance the "bounceback" form is just ABA if you listen to it. Anyway, just a thought

Just another thought: you also don't want to downplay what they're doing, since it's more like XYX because it's not (usually) a rehearsed or even premeditated piece Kevglynn

Origin
If they formed at Notre Dame, how can they be from Chicago? If they did originate in the South Bend/Mishawaka area, the claim that they are from Chicago is inaccurate.--Eric 22:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to Eric's question about the band's "home", in truth, there's been much debate about where that actually is. In sum, the band formed in South Bend and resided there from 1998 through mid-2000. In the summer of 2000, after graduating from UND, the band relocated to Chicago (and quickly added guitarist Jake Cinninger). Though the band's seeds were originally planted in South Bend, a new lineup and a totally new sound gave them right circumstance to call Chicago their (albeit adopted) home; after all, Chicago is where the current axoim of the band was tethered, and is also the city-of-residence for all six band members. -The Other Tim

FOR THE RECORD....Umphrey's Rocks harder than anyone out there right now

"Originally, the band was billed as "Hubert Humphrey's Traveling Band featuring Flappy McGee"; however, when the band was introduced at one of their very first concerts, the emcee for the evening (who coincidentally was none other than Rodney Dangerfield, a frequent patron of the bar that the band was playing that evening) slurred his words a bit (although to be fair, Dangerfield claimed it was a faulty microphone that kept cutting in and out) and all the audience could heard was "Umphrey's McGee". For better or for worse, the name stuck." - This sounds pretty bizarre and contrary to what I've heard. My understanding was that the band was named after Brendan Bayliss' cousin from Mississippi. Several interviews with the band on the web confirm this.

confirmation
Can anybody confirm that this sentence is notable: "Andy Gadiel, an early fan who founded the wildly popular JamBase.com website (as well as the most popular Phish website ever, Andy Gadiel's Phish Page) and has enormous influence within the jamband community, gave glowing reviews of the band and helped spread curiosity about the Umphrey's McGee concert experience."?

It's been there since an 70.144.87.111 wrote the majority of the article back in January 2005. There was a lot of good stuff in that edit, I just wonder if that sentence is giving a little more credit than what's due. --Tedwardo2 23:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

improvisational method
I am deleting from the article: "This was a completely new approach to group improvisation, and was much more detailed and in depth than that of their predecessors or their contemporaries."

This sentence really needs to be backed up in order to stay in the article. At least explain what their approach is. Then explain why it's different from anyone else's. Dunhamrc 04:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

jimmy stewart writeup and reorganization
i just finished reorganizing things a bit and adding a couple of links, fairly noncontroversial. i added McL jimmy stewart writeup. on second thought perhaps this was innapropriate and i think i will delete it and put it in as an external resource. i would like to use some of his text to add a subsection on the jimmy stewart. ill send him a message on the bort

Where can I find the information on these comments?
In particular, I am interested it what the sources are for the following sections of the entry: Can be confirmed in the NYE 2007 playbill. Or by asking Jeremy, he's a nice guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.167.167 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Around 2001, the band began practicing intense improvisational exercises. One of their first productive jam sessions took place in a hotel in the "Jimmy Stewart Ballroom" during the wedding of fan/website designer Jeremy Welsh. Therefore, the band began to call their onstage improvisational excursions "Jimmy Stewart." This form of improvisation differs in approach from the methods utilized by many of their jam band peers and has been extensively outlined by "McL" in the "Jimmy Stewart writeup" on the fan message board known as "The Bort" at www.umphreaks.com.

 * Umphrey's played to their largest audience to date. Surprisingly, the band sold more CDs than any other artist on the bill which included Widespread Panic, Trey Anastasio, and Norah Jones.
 * The band released the critically acclaimed Anchor Drops .... The album received rave reviews from several high-profile magazines.--Moeron 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Discography/Songography
The song catalogue of Umphrey's is unbelievably extensive for a touring rock band, and I'd like to see this represented. It might be worthwhile to have a page dedicated to their song catalogue the way some bands have a page dedicated to their discography. The data for this sort of pursuit could come from phantasytour.com since they pretty much already have the information. Then again, maybe just a link to phantasytour.com or a reference to it might do. what do peopel think?Kevglynn

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Umphrey's McGee. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.umphreaks.com/bort/index.php?topic=23093.0

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Umphrey's McGee


text:
User:Some guy

I use the "Wikipedia Forever" banner ironically, because it was a f***ing terrible idea.

I object to Wikipedia's inline reference format on moral grounds and do not format my refs properly. Support legibility! Make editing fun again! Don't format your refs!

If you're actually taking the time to read my user page, I highly suggest you put some thought into how much effort you're putting into Wikipedia and how much value you're getting out of it. I used to be a frequent editor, but eventually I realized I was wasting my time building sand castles while other people were walking through them or drawing phalluses (phalli?) on them. If you see a problem in an article and want to fix it, that's one thing, but don't let the site dominate your life.

Articles I've proudly started:
 * Earthsiege
 * Earthsiege 2
 * Starsiege
 * Learn to Program BASIC (which was deleted years later because it is impossible to find sources on the subject)
 * Age of Empires: The Age of Kings
 * Hardpoint
 * Old Towne Preservation Association
 * Call of Duty DS  Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Nintendo DS)
 * POD (amp modeler)
 * Dead Trigger
 * Microtransaction
 * Petit Computer - fuck to the yes

Articles I've completely revamped:
 * Worms Armageddon
 * Delta Force 2
 * Amplifier modeling

I am also largely responsible for the existence of subsections in the "design details" section of most firearms articles, a policy battle that rivaled any war in which those firearms served.

Articles I've started at the Simple English Wikipedia:

 * Computer icon
 * ''Star Wars: Dark Forces
 * Video game content rating system
 * Projectile
 * Star Wars: Jedi Knight (series)
 * Heckler & Koch MP5
 * Suppressor
 * Star Wars: TIE Fighter
 * Cutscene
 * Starfighter
 * Magazine (firearms)
 * Shotgun shell
 * Spaceport

Epic sentences witnessed in the History of Wikipedia
 * The font used in the "PlayStation" is the same of Walkman mean Sony intentions to turn the console wideling popular.
 * Rakitin assumes that the photo is work of the expert-criminalist, who pressed a camera lock to learn, whether it is cocked before to take a film (models of cameras "Zorkii" of the 1950s years had no labels by which it was possible to determine the provision of a lock, without pressing it.)

Wikipedia is a beauracratic nightmare.

The most useful templates, here for my own reference:

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

title: User:Some guy


text:
Rosebery, New South Wales

Rosebery is an inner southern suburb of Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, Australia. It is 6 kilometres south of the Sydney central business district and is part of the local government areas of the City of Sydney and the Bayside Council.

History
Rosebery was named after Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1894–95. The suburb was named in his honour after his visit to Australia for two months in 1883–84.

Rosebery was once the site of Rosebery Racecourse, which first opened as a pony track in 1906. Race meetings held by the Associated Racing Clubs became as popular as those at Randwick, especially in the 1920s. The track became an army camp during World War II. After the war, it became a training track used by the Sydney Turf Club.

In 1961, much of the land was purchased by the Rosebery Town Planning Company and developed as an industrial area. The housing commission purchased the remaining acres for high density public housing. The area north of Gardeners Road was developed by Richard Stanton (1862–1943) and the same company that developed Haberfield, with the result that Rosebery is known as a 'garden suburb'. Garden competitions were held in the suburb prior to the 1990s. Houses are predominantly single-storey California bungalows, Federation Bungalows or "standard" suburban detached homes.

Trams
The Rosebery tram line opened in 1902 and initially ran via Chalmers and Redfern Streets and south along Elizabeth Street to Zetland. In 1924, the line was extended to Epsom Road in Rosebery. In 1948, to facilitate construction of the Eastern Suburbs Railway, a new line was constructed down Elizabeth Street between Devonshire Street and Redfern Street and the route was deviated to run down this new section. The line was electrified double track throughout. The line was closed in 1957.

Demographics
At the 2021 census, the population of Rosebery was 13,533.

In the, there were 10,117 people in Rosebery. The most common ancestries in Rosebery (NSW) (State Suburbs) were Chinese 15.8%, English 12.8%, Australian 11.7%, Greek 8.3% and Irish 6.7%. 44.0% of people were born in Australia. The next most common countries of birth were China 11.0%, Greece 3.7%, Indonesia 3.0%, England 2.5% and New Zealand 2.1%. 44.0% of people spoke English only at home. Other languages spoken at home included Mandarin 11.1%, Greek 8.8%, Cantonese 3.4%, Indonesian 3.1% and Russian 2.3%. The most common responses for religion were No Religion 30.0%, Catholic 23.8% and Eastern Orthodox 12.0%.

Commercial area
A small shopping centre is located on Gardeners Road. Commercial and industrial developments are also located on and around Botany Road.

Schools
Gardeners Road Primary School is the public school for the area and is located at the junction of Gardeners Road and Botany Road. On Rosebery Avenue is the Sydney International Film School. St Joseph's Catholic primary school is on Rosebery Ave.

Parks
There is a large park in the middle of Rosebery called Turruwul Park, which is bounded by Harcourt Parade and Hayes Road. A smaller park is Crete Reserve, situated at the southern end of Rosebery Avenue. Other small parks are located at Lever Street, where there is a scout hall, and at the corner of Harris and Coward Streets. There is also a park in Kimberley Grove. However, the nighttime lighting of Turruwul Park results in a more active night sport scene. Turruwul Park is the home of the Redfern Raiders Soccer Club.

title: Rosebery, New South Wales


text:
User talk:WINTA

Israel
This kind of edit isn't helpful: "Syria used the Golan to shoot at innocent Jewish farmers in the Hula Valley below." If you're going to carry on editing, you might want to read our content policies: No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:WINTA


text:
User talk:Siroxo/Archive 2

This is an archive of User talk:Siroxo of edits made from October 2004 through August 2005.

Re: Margin of error
Hello, Siroxo, I wanted to let you know that I made the changes you suggested regarding the conversational tone of the article. In general, I prefer a light tone when writing about Statistics to a general audience, and I am less enthusiastic than you are about keeping an encyclopedic tone across all disciplines. As you probably know, it is common in Mathematics and Statistics to use "We have..." and "Let us..." in both proofs and pedagogy, and I don't think that this diminishes from the austerity of Wikipedia in these cases. Math and Stats are daunting enough as it is... I guess I just feel that we might want to allow for a lighter touch. On a feature article candidate? Sure, maybe not, but generally speaking...

You noted that there is a distinction between textbooks and encyclopedias, but I would make the case that this is less true in fields like Statistics. Statistics and their use are complicated business, and certainly Wikipedia would be doing a disservice to its users if it didn't present a comprehensive picture of the statistic. In practice, the best test of understanding is whether the user can use the statistic responsibly on their own. I would advocate strongly for tutorials in the body of articles about Statistics, though I understand that this would also be a good opportunity to link to Wikibooks.

Respectfully, Andrew (Fadethree) 08:38 Oct 04, 2004

Re: Margin of error 2
Thanks for the reply. I think I see what you mean about the do-it-yourself section. It really doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the piece, and it is a tangent off the Margin of error topic as it is. I was happy to move it to Wikibooks, and I'm happy to leave it there. In the future, I don't think I'll be using "Do-It-Yourself" in a section heading... that certainly doesn't sound professional. Best, Andrew

Margin of error Picture Idea
I know I could probably look this up somewhere, and I've checked Copyright_FAQ, but if you have the time, can you let me know if a screenshot of a graph that I've created with Microsoft Excel would be acceptable vis a vis copyright issues? I already have some ideas, and I'll probably post them soon. Thanks, Siroxo.

Speedy delete comments
Good evening. Thank you for explaining your reasoning for pulling the clause about prior deletions from the speedy delete case list. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion that it is a tautology in all the scenarios we need to worry about. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though. When you have a minute, would you mind looking at my reply? Thanks. Rossami 01:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

tenacious-d
why did you forget about them they made their own rock and theur famous. (hum wassup wit dat) (:
 * I've made one edit to Tenacious D if you're worried. — siro  χ  o  23:32, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Meals
Wow, the "meals" image (Image:Meals title.png) is terrific! Did you make it? I'm putting image copyright tags on images that don't have them, so I was wondering. . . Do you release this image into the public domain, or do you want to use the GFDL, or what? Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   00:49, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the update! Public Domain means that the image is not copyrighted at all, and anyone can do anything they want with it (except claim copyright on it). It's the freest an image can be. As a different option, you could keep the copyright, but state that you allow anyone to use the image for any purpose. (The difference is, you could hypothetically change your mind later, and the image would still be © you.) The GNU FDL is a license that allows anyone to use or modify your image for any purpose, so long as they release their product (the one that uses your image) under the GFDL as well. So if I cropped your picture, I couldn't forbid anyone from using my cropped version. And if I used your picture in a videogame, I would have to make the sourcecode to the videogame available. Hope this helps!   – Quadell (talk) (help)   21:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

A question
Dear Siroxo, I have a question for you, with I redirected to the Category talk:Science, because I would like a open debate about the power of efficiency, and the use of redundancy to make a classification more effective... These may seem abstract words, but there is more to it... Mdd 8:39, Oct 6, 2004

Salute, I've responded on Category talk:Science... Mdd 18:57, Oct 7, 2004

SCOTUS case article project
I took your advice and looked at WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases; however, it seems that this project was a passing thought by the creator who has not made a contribution since July, 2004. I wasn't aware that there was a place to list WikiProjects. My current page seems to cover everything the current WikiProject page covers and more, so I don't see much need to merge.

My main goal is to gain more contributors. Personally, I would like to get rid of the current WikiProject page and add mine to the list instead, but I'm not sure on the etiquette of that move. If you have any advice on this or the running of the project, in general, I would be appreciate you sharing them with me.

Unlike the previous WikiProject creator, I have put a lot of work into cases already and am willing to go it alone (now with User:Jacob1207 who recently joined on), but collaboration is what makes articles great on Wikipedia. And I think the same is true for projects. The more collaboration, the better the project will be.

Thanks in advance for any advice you have.

Skyler 16:36, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Just curious: That is a chi, right? So is it pronounced like a chi (kh) or as an x? [ alerante | “” 23:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ]

Something Awful
What irks me tremendously (though I assure you it has nothing to do with why I nominated SA forums) is that the exact same controversy erupted over the GameFAQs articles, and some of the users currently wanting to keep SA voted against keeping GameFAQs (this is a vague vague recollection, no formal accusation). GameFAQs was split; its board histories were then put up on VfD, upon which they remerged it with GameFAQs, and it was later completely chopped out of the article. The primary reason no one protested was that there was a dearth of GameFAQs users on Wiki at the time. But SA forums has a large base of SA goons on Wikipedia that will inevitably support its own article.

The SA Forums article is unencyclopedic for the same reasons a vanity page on myself is unencyclopedic: no one really cares about FYAD 2.0, a forum that lasted all of one day. This is obscurity painted as something that actually matters to Wikipedia. I have no vendetta against SA; rather, the SA goons have a vendetta against anyone remotely anti-SA.

Back to Golbez's point. SA was split, but that doesn't mean the material in the child articles was good. The material in SA forums is *inherently* unneeded and should have never led to the split of the original SA article in the first place. Golbez presumes that the material that ballooned the original SA article was needed, when in fact it should have led to it being removed rather than splitting the article in two.

SA then argues that the main reason it belongs on Wiki rather than GameFAQs is because they are more "intellectual", they somehow are "better" than a bunch of "12-year-olds". I claim that using that argument in and of itself disproves their theory, but the real point is that you should only measure importance by objective factors. Objectively, SA is less important than GameFAQs due to its much lower Alexa rating.

In short, either all of these forum articles ARE encyclopedic, upon which any remotely popular internet forum deserves a Wikipedia article devoted to its history and traditions and fads, or all of these forum articles are NOT encyclopedic, upon which the SA forums deserve no more than a mention and some objective material about when it was created, etc.

cc: VfD -- Etaonish 21:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Baseball field image
Could you modify Baseball field overview thumbnail.png a bit more? My ideas is that the max distance to the outfield wall need not be specified; e.g. both Fenway Park and Comerica Park have a 420-foot wall; Polo Grounds had a 550-foot wall; and my alma mater highschool had a center field in play more than 700 feet out. Perhaps just say, "at least 290 feet" or something of that nature

Also, you could also draw a dotted grass line to show where the grass is inside the 1-2 and 2-3 baselines, a cutout around the bases, and a dirt path along the home-1st and 3rd-Home foul lines. I would do it, just don't have the right image editing programs (MS Paint, anyone?). If you do this, the "baselines" between 1-2 and 2-3 can be removed, as they don't exist anyway.

Also, you might have room in the bottom left and right corder to draw the backstop fence on your diagram and show the minimum distance there (60 feet).

Anything you choose to do (or not to do) with my requests is okay with me, thanks for all your contributions! --Locarno 15:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

question/ comment
Hi, thank you for your input. Since you took the time to give me some input, and upon review of your files I feel satisfied that I can get an unbiased response, I am going to put some feedback in your mailbox and see what, if anything, it stirs up. The problem is that I'm not publishing "original research," although I did just write a manuscript on the topic that contained quite a bit--it was not my direct intention for the Wikipedia articles I authored. You would think that I would be able to write one article to help people understand theoretical physics a little better, but I continue to fail...What I have is a solid understanding of how modern theory attempts to describe the universe (additionally, I also know of a cutting edge theory that is, shall we say, beyond "String Theory," but it is "original research" and not all of it is mine…Basically, all I am trying to say is tha tI know what I am talking about when it comes to theoretical physics and universal philosophy)--instead of pounding theory into peoples heads using VERY complex mathematics, I can do it simply and concisely using VERY simple mathematics and philosophy. Is that not a worthy subject to write on for a free encyclopedia? Should an encyclopedia have an article that simplifies the universe without losing substance and fact?

That is all that I am trying to do, but people keep rejecting my articles even though they are fact (granted, I completely understand why my first few articles were not of encyclopedia quality, namely because each was written in about 20 min). The ideas I have published thus far (on Wiki) are not even mine (really they ought to be everyone’s), they are just my way of describing them, which from experience, I have found that people do quite well with if they simply take the time to actually read each sentence and each word in each sentence. Alas, sigh(*^%. I think, and I hope that you will agree (assuming that my ideas are as valid as I claim them to be), that if I take my time, remove all "original research," and fix syntax problems, I should not have trouble making permanent articles. Did you not understand exactly what was being conveyed in the article entitled "Simplify Universal Physics?" That is really about as simple as theoretical physics gets, you could let a 12 year old read that page and he/she might raise their eyes a wiser person for it--does that make an article worthy of publication in an online encyclopedia (a collection of articles that focuses specifically on various topics)? If it does not then I am very confused.

I guess I just fail to see how articles of this nature could and would be viewed as anything less than good additions to a book that is intended to know everything it can about everything there is.

With My Best Regards, JeD

Notice to Template:Sep11 revert warriors
Your thoughts on Template talk:Sep11 are eagerly awaited. —No-One Jones (m) 02:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Food articles
Thanks for your message on my talk page. It was the right thing to do, leaving a message for me. I work on the night shift (United Kingdom time) so I'd already gone out to work when you messaged, but I came in this morning after work and found that a deletion debate had sprung up around a few short articles on food. I'm amazed that people can have debates about such trivial matters. Your message was appropriate to such a small required change. Thanks. --wayland 10:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joan of Arc (cross-dressing)
I'm confused. The votes were for delete or 'merge and redirect'. Nobody had bothered to do the merge, so I'm doing it at this moment. The VfD decision wasn't implemented correctly, therefore it's a speedy, n'est pas? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You're right. I'll put the redirect in place.  [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Turns out the material was already in the main article. Sigh.  I did some more wikifying, anyway.  [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yet more research (after a nice lunch) and it seems I was right in the first place. Even the author wants it deleted.  [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 15:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll
I have created a preliminary version of VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Your comments would be much appreciated. - SimonP 17:12, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

RfA nomination
Hi Siroxo,

Just wanted to say thanks for the vote of support at RfA. It looks like I've been promoted, and I look forward to helping you out with admin tasks. –spencer195 17:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian Capitalism on VfD

 * I'm wondering if I might convince you to vote to swap the pages, as per my proposal, on VfD --Improv 17:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Schools/ notability
(comment moved from User talk:Jmabel:) Jmabel, I want to apologize for jumping on your comment about notability. I took it too far and replied with a blanket statement, which was unfair of me. I want to let you know that I am not plotting to make School articles needing evaluation into some inclusionists' collection of nonverfiable substubs. My prime reasons for creating this page were to divert the hostility of VfD away from these school articles, and to give us a better way of evaluating them. I am against school (or any) substubs in principle, and would not advocate keeping them as such. In fact, I think that merging schools into their related city articles is probably the best idea for most school articles. I do, however, think that there are some very well written articles about schools, (ex. Moanalua High School, Saint Louis School). and I don't want vfd to make it impossible to achieve that. Lastly, I do not support inclusion of articles about all people who have met thousands of other people. A person who has not had a profound effect on all of those people, an effect that has a verifiable paper-trail and possiblility for an encyclopedic article, rarely deserves an article, if ever. I don't support including unverifiable advertisments about businesses, products and websites either. I merely want to be able to give better evaluation to school articles than VfD currently does. Hope that helps to clear stuff up. — siro χ  o  01:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you may not have meant what you said. I was responding mainly to older ≠ wiser's statement that began by asserting that notability has nothing to do with it, which seems to me to be a statement of the extreme inclusionist position. You said you "agree entirely" with that, which I took at face value. Looking at your two examples, the article on Moanalua High School clearly makes the case for notability. Saint Louis School seems iffier to me: I'm not sure anything I see there really establishes it as something that belongs in an encyclopedia, but I can certainly imagine more research leading to clearer notability.
 * My main concern with adding schools (and the case gets stronger as we move down in size and age -- I assume you would agree that very few one-classroom preschools deserve any sort of mention in Wikipedia, let alone an article on each one) is that, as with fancruft, the inclusion damages the credibility of Wikipedia. I also suspect that multitudinous articles on schools will be magnets for subtle misinformation and outright vandalism. What worries me most is what these articles will be like in their stubby phases.
 * And, yes, unlike some people, I think that sometimes an article on a marginal topic is fine to keep if it's a good enough article. If we come up with a mechanism by which these articles, once started, will rapidly advance to something like the quality of the two you've shown me, then I think this would not damage our credibility. Perhaps the solution may lie in an "incubator" namespace for articles like this to be built up to a certain level before becoming part of Wikipedia proper? I'm not completely sure.
 * Anyway, I'll put the page back on my watchlist. My fear (and I don't think I was unreasonable on the basis of what had been said) was that the two apparent prime movers of this were trying to say this was an area in which an extreme inclusionist approach would apply.
 * Would you mind if we copy your remark an my response to Wikipedia_talk:School_articles_needing_evaluation and continue any further exchange there? Jmabel | Talk 02:42, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your vote on Votes for deletion/Rune Mysteries
You cast a vote on this VfD, recommending "Keep, cleanup, merge when appropriate." However, you should be aware that your vote came after the author of the original articles under discussion altered the subject of the VfD, adding 24 articles that were not his -- the message being "If you don't want these to be deleted, you have to keep mine too." This may change your vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Knaggs - WfD - How does it work?
Hi there! A little while ago you kindly posted a "Keep" on the WfD Votes page for my little opus. Well, more than 5 days have passed since it being WfDed and nothing seems to have happened. I am a newbie and can't figure out who actually makes the decision, and what happens when they do. Would it just silently disappear, or would the WfD part of the page be removed? I keep going round in circles in the Help pages. Cheers Jeff Knaggs 08:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question on creating subcategories
Hello again. I edited a page Knebworth and then added it to subcategory Villages in Hertfordshire. This subcategory did not exist, so I created it using the existing Villages in Somerset as an example. However, in the Knebworth page this subcategory is still red-linked, and when you click on the red-link the subcategory opens in edit mode to show the proper contents. I'm confused. Jeff
 * Fixed it! (not sure how)

Your user page
Hey Siroxo. I was fooling around with your user page (basically because I want to use something like it for my own :p), and noticed that I could get rid of the automatic white background in the table which shows up in monobook (and maybe other styles, I'm not sure).

{|style="background-color:transparent;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%"

That's basically it. The first (and only? I didn't check) table in your code just gets an extra style="background-color:transparent;" tag, and you're done. I didn't want to go in and do it myself in case in had side effects for other style systems, but uh, yeah. - Vague Rant 11:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The cleanup you reverted
You reverted a revision of which I had done resently saying that the message I altered was too Arkward and redundant and so reverted it. In my opinion the alterations I did was neither of those things since it was phrased properly and didn't repeat itself any number of times.

Infact the edit actually gave out some kind of instruction on what a user could do to improve an article. I don't mind being flamed or getting into trouble for this but I'm reverting your revert. Someone else on the talk page kinda agrees with me on the fact that the current cleanup page is too bold and vague in its current state and doesn't give any type of clue on how you would be able to fix the article.

No hard feelings or anything but my decision is final.  Louisisthebest 007 (unsigned)

vfd format
The reason for the format is to more clearly count the votes and describe what is going on. On VfD, the result is either Delete the article and it's edit history, or Keep it and make the suggested changes (merge, redir, move, etc.). -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

re: your vote - I am the last person to want to "give up" on the article, but I really think there is a danger in leaving the page histories visible. What's your take on it? -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running
Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later. You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles. If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 01:59, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Get out and vote!
In case you missed it, User:Taxman has proposed User:CSTAR for WP:adminship. You can vote on Requests for adminship/CSTAR. Charles Stewart 09:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requesting Your Expertise
I just want to direct your attention to the talk page behind Chess piece point value where Camembert and I have an important theoretical question about chess. --BadSanta

Tips page
Very Belatedly moved from User talk:Siroxo/Tips and moved here to centralize my talk page discussion

 * Thanks for the bookmark tips.

 * As for Firefox, I'm a huge fan (see my page of extensions), but I don't see why tabbed browsing is any better than windowed browsing at wikipedia. It's just a matter of taste. ··gracefool |☺ 12:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vergennes Union High School
Thanks for notifying me about the change inthe Vfd page. Take care of You and Yours - Skysmith 13:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Franklin Income Fund
Great work on the FIF article. Hopefully it will survive the VfD. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transroentgic elements
Thanks for nuking the VfDs on the transroentgic (oooh, a neologism...) elements; I suspect I wasn't the only one getting a bit irritably worked up there... Shimgray 22:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do not abuse vfd process
There is a process of community voting, your lone-rangerism is not appreciated. If you want an article kept, then vote for it, don't abuse the process. Thank you. Trollminator 22:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am also opposed to deletion trolling
but please, this is very damaging. Mark Richards 22:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi - we have a deletion process. I do not like it, lots of stuff gets listed on it that I think is trolling and should not be deleted. But, it is a community mandated process, and I accept the results of it. If that agreement by all of us to follow the rules breaks down, then we loose something very important. Yes, these listings annoy me. Many others do too. Do I removed them because I don't like them? No. It does not look like these are going to be deleted. Let the process run its course or propose that people be allowed to remove any vfd nomination they don't like. Mark Richards 22:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the process needs to be changed, but right now, much of what is listed on vfd does not comply with deletion policy. Things like 'non-notable' are frequently listed as reason for deletion. Do you want to help work on a way to help get vfd back on track? I'd be interested in doing that systematically, not on an individual case basis, Yours, Mark Richards 22:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I actually don't think these are any more inapropriate than many, I agree that we need to educate people and enforce the vfd regulations, perhaps this is something to bring up on Talk:vfd? I think the problem is that what is 'obviously inapropriate' is quite different for different people, that is why we end up voting, and why premature removal is such a bad idea. Mark Richards 23:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good luck with the airport if you are in the US! Let's chat about this, because it's something that pains me too. Mark Richards 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD
I appreciate your comments on the VfD page, however wouldn't it be wiser to put in a policy ammedment rather than just remove listings? I, for one, would appreciate clarification of procedure for Votes for Deletion. Modifying the VfD policy could only be a good thing and would help a) decide on what the vast majority of those who care about VfD would like done, and b) help stop confusion on a highly controversial page like VfD.

Would you be willing to do this?

Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Soda fountains
Are hot beverages, iced beverages, baked good, snacks, and light meals served at soda fountains. If so answer me at my talk page. Heegoop

SoIaF
I see you have some ideas about fancruft and overseparation and related manners. I have been a bit concerned about the explosion of stubs for Song of Ice and Fire. Could you check Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire? Your input would be much appreciated. Thore 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

expos/nationals debate
There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt
Salve! I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

administrator?
Hi - I'm going through WP:LA moving inactive and "semi-active" administrators out of the "active administrators" section. Based on the comments on your user page, I don't quite know whether to move you or not (the point of what I'm doing is to have the "active" list actually be active administrators). How about if you look at the list and move yourself wherever you feel is appropriate? If you don't want to be an administrator at all anymore (I'm not suggesting you should or shouldn't), I'm sure any bureaucrat could help. -- Rick Block (talk) July 4, 2005 18:12 (UTC)
 * Done, moved myself to semi-active, since I tend to take long breaks without notice these days. I use admin tools quite often when I do rc patrol though, so I'll continue being an admin. Anyone, of course, can still contact me for something they need done, but I may take a while to respond.  — siro  χ  o

WikiProject Baseball players
Howdy! I'm contacting you because your name is listed as a participant in WikiProject Baseball players. The project seems to be dormant, but I'm interested in starting it up again. I've worked on a new infobox template (see it in action here) and have many ideas for increasing Wikipedia's coverage of MLB players. If you're interested, please leave a note at the project's talk page. Thanks! A и D я 01D TALK  EMAIL  22:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vandal tags
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia! Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as,  ,  ,  ). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the  tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. Wikipedianinthehouse 04:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I forgot the subst'.  It helps that you are admin; I didn't notice before I put the tag here.  I've had admins refuse to block someone just because they don't have each of the test tags on their page (evne if they've vandaled a lot. Wikipedianinthehouse 05:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi! I saw that you've reverted at one point the Jodie Foster article. Unfortunately it was all in vain. You are not the only one who's done it. There is a very persistent anonymous person who is inserting many personal views (mainly negative ones) in the article, especially some regarding Foster's commercials in Japan. Because of this situation, on the talk page of Jodie Foster's article there is a Final vote about including/not including the advertising info. If you have the time, please state your opinion there. Best regards! Tavilis 18:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

back
Nice to see ya back. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  03:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Malcolm X
Thanks for jumping in there; I was treating it like vandalism, but suddenly realized it could also be construed as a content disagreement, and perhaps I was in violation of 3RR. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Siroxo/Archive 2


text:
Rookwood, New South Wales

Rookwood is a suburb in western Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, Australia located 14 km west of the Sydney central business district, in the local government area of the Cumberland Council. It is the easternmost suburb in greater western Sydney.

Rookwood Cemetery, comprising the entirety of the suburb, is the largest cemetery in the Southern Hemisphere.

History
Rookwood was named from a title of an 1834 novel by William Harrison Ainsworth (1805–1882). A railway station called Haslam's Creek was opened in this area in 1859, on the railway line from Sydney to Parramatta. Samuel Haslam owned various grants beside the creek from 1804. Haslam's Creek was the site of the first railway disaster in New South Wales in July 1858, which resulted in two deaths.

When the necropolis opened in 1867, it was known as Haslam's Creek Cemetery. Residents disliked the association with the burial ground and in 1876 the suburb was renamed Rookwood. The name of the railway station was changed to Rookwood in 1878; and, by the 1880s, shops were established in the area.

Population
Rookwood is part of a contiguous area with no or very low population between the Inner West area to the east and the Greater Western Sydney area to the west, alongside neighbouring suburb like Chullora. In the 2021 Australian census, Rookwood was reported as having "no people or a very low population".

Transport
Rookwood railway station was on Sydney's Main Suburban railway line until its closure in 1967. The Rookwood Cemetery Line serviced Rookwood Cemetery and originally ran from Mortuary railway station, on Regent Street near Central railway station but has since closed.

The Cemetery railway line opened on 22 October 1864. At the time of its opening the line went as far as Cemetery Station No. 1. On 26 May 1897 an extension of the line to Cemetery Station No. 3 was opened. The extension required the removal of a waiting room on the rear wall of the Cemetery Station No. 1, so the line could pass right through the building. A final extension, to Cemetery Station No. 4 opened on 19 June 1908. The line closed in 1948.

Transit Systems operates one bus route through Rookwood:

 * 408: Rookwood Cemetery to Burwood via Flemington, Homebush and Strathfield

title: Rookwood, New South Wales


text:
List of nerves of the human body

The following is a list of nerves in the human body:

Location

 * Structure of the nervous system
 * Development of the nervous system
 * The spinal cord or medulla spinalis
 * The brain or encephalon
 * The hindbrain or rhombencephalon
 * The midbrain or mesencephalon
 * The forebrain or prosencephalon
 * Composition and central connections of the spinal nerves
 * Pathways from the brain to the spinal cord
 * The meninges of the brain and medulla spinalis
 * The cerebrospinal fluid
 * The cranial nerves
 * The olfactory nerves
 * The optic nerve
 * The oculomotor nerve
 * The trochlear nerve
 * The trigeminal nerve
 * The abducens nerve
 * The facial nerve
 * The vestibulocochlear nerve
 * The glossopharyngeal nerve
 * The vagus nerve
 * The accessory nerve
 * The hypoglossal nerve
 * The spinal nerves
 * The posterior divisions
 * The anterior divisions
 * The thoracic nerves
 * The lumbosacral plexus
 * The sacral and coccygeal nerves
 * The sympathetic nerves
 * The cephalic portion of the sympathetic system
 * The cervical portion of the sympathetic system
 * The thoracic portion of the sympathetic system
 * The abdominal portion of the sympathetic system
 * The pelvic portion of the sympathetic system
 * The great plexuses of the sympathetic system

Alphabetical list

 * Abdominal aortic plexus
 * Abducens nerve
 * Accessory nerve
 * Accessory obturator nerve
 * Alderman's nerve
 * Anococcygeal nerve
 * Ansa cervicalis
 * Anterior interosseous nerve
 * Anterior superior alveolar nerve
 * Auerbach's plexus
 * Auriculotemporal nerve
 * Axillary nerve
 * Brachial plexus
 * Buccal branch of the facial nerve
 * Buccal nerve
 * Cardiac plexus
 * Cavernous nerves
 * Cavernous plexus
 * Celiac ganglia
 * Cervical branch of the facial nerve
 * Cervical plexus
 * Chorda tympani
 * Ciliary ganglion
 * Coccygeal nerve
 * Cochlear nerve
 * Common fibular nerve
 * Common palmar digital nerves of median nerve
 * Deep branch of the radial nerve
 * Deep fibular nerve
 * Deep petrosal nerve
 * Deep temporal nerves
 * Diagonal band of Broca
 * Digastric branch of facial nerve
 * Dorsal branch of ulnar nerve
 * Dorsal nerve of clitoris
 * Dorsal nerve of the penis
 * Dorsal scapular nerve
 * Esophageal plexus
 * Ethmoidal nerves
 * External laryngeal nerve
 * External nasal nerve
 * Facial nerve
 * Femoral nerve
 * Frontal nerve
 * Gastric plexuses
 * Geniculate ganglion
 * Genital branch of genitofemoral nerve
 * Genitofemoral nerve
 * Glossopharyngeal nerve
 * Greater auricular nerve
 * Greater occipital nerve
 * Greater petrosal nerve
 * Hepatic plexus
 * Hypoglossal nerve
 * Iliohypogastric nerve
 * Ilioinguinal nerve
 * Inferior alveolar nerve
 * Inferior anal nerves
 * Inferior cardiac nerve
 * Inferior cervical ganglion
 * Inferior gluteal nerve
 * Inferior hypogastric plexus
 * Inferior mesenteric plexus
 * Inferior palpebral nerve
 * Infraorbital nerve
 * Infraorbital plexus
 * Infratrochlear nerve
 * Intercostal nerves
 * Intercostobrachial nerve
 * Intermediate cutaneous nerve
 * Internal carotid plexus
 * Internal laryngeal nerve
 * Interneuron
 * Jugular ganglion
 * Lacrimal nerve
 * Lateral cord
 * Lateral cutaneous nerve of forearm
 * Lateral cutaneous nerve of thigh
 * Lateral pectoral nerve
 * Lateral plantar nerve
 * Lateral pterygoid nerve
 * Lesser occipital nerve
 * Lingual nerve
 * Long ciliary nerves
 * Long root of the ciliary ganglion
 * Long thoracic nerve
 * Lower subscapular nerve
 * Lumbar nerves
 * Lumbar plexus
 * Lumbar splanchnic nerves
 * Lumboinguinal nerve
 * Lumbosacral plexus
 * Lumbosacral trunk
 * Mandibular nerve
 * Marginal mandibular branch of facial nerve
 * Masseteric nerve
 * Maxillary nerve
 * Medial cord
 * Medial cutaneous nerve of arm
 * Medial cutaneous nerve of forearm
 * Medial cutaneous nerve
 * Medial pectoral nerve
 * Medial plantar nerve
 * Medial pterygoid nerve
 * Median nerve
 * Meissner's plexus
 * Mental nerve
 * Middle cardiac nerve
 * Middle cervical ganglion
 * Middle meningeal nerve
 * Motor nerve
 * Muscular branches of the radial nerve
 * Musculocutaneous nerve
 * Mylohyoid nerve
 * Nasociliary nerve
 * Nasopalatine nerve
 * Nerve of pterygoid canal
 * Nerve to obturator internus
 * Nerve to quadratus femoris
 * Nerve to the Piriformis
 * Nerve to the stapedius
 * Nerve to the subclavius
 * Nervus intermedius
 * Nervus spinosus
 * Nodose ganglion
 * Obturator nerve
 * Oculomotor nerve
 * Olfactory nerve
 * Ophthalmic nerve
 * Optic nerve
 * Otic ganglion
 * Ovarian plexus
 * Palatine nerves
 * Palmar branch of the median nerve
 * Palmar branch of ulnar nerve
 * Pancreatic plexus
 * Patellar plexus
 * Pelvic splanchnic nerves
 * Perforating cutaneous nerve
 * Perineal branches of posterior femoral cutaneous nerve
 * Perineal nerve
 * Petrous ganglion
 * Pharyngeal branch of vagus nerve
 * Pharyngeal branches of glossopharyngeal nerve
 * Pharyngeal nerve
 * Pharyngeal plexus
 * Phrenic nerve
 * Phrenic plexus
 * Posterior auricular nerve
 * Posterior branch of spinal nerve
 * Posterior cord
 * Posterior cutaneous nerve of arm
 * Posterior cutaneous nerve of forearm
 * Posterior cutaneous nerve of thigh
 * Posterior scrotal nerves
 * Posterior superior alveolar nerve
 * Proper palmar digital nerves of median nerve
 * Prostatic plexus (nervous)
 * Pterygopalatine ganglion
 * Pudendal nerve
 * Pudendal plexus
 * Pulmonary branches of vagus nerve
 * Radial nerve
 * Recurrent laryngeal nerve
 * Renal plexus
 * Sacral plexus
 * Sacral splanchnic nerves
 * Saphenous nerve
 * Sciatic nerve
 * Semilunar ganglion
 * Sensory nerve
 * Short ciliary nerves
 * Sphenopalatine nerves
 * Splenic plexus
 * Stylohyoid branch of facial nerve
 * Subcostal nerve
 * Submandibular ganglion
 * Suboccipital nerve
 * Superficial branch of the radial nerve
 * Superficial fibular nerve
 * Superior cardiac nerve
 * Superior cervical ganglion
 * Superior ganglion of glossopharyngeal nerve
 * Superior ganglion of vagus nerve
 * Superior gluteal nerve
 * Superior hypogastric plexus
 * Superior labial nerve
 * Superior laryngeal nerve
 * Superior lateral cutaneous nerve of arm
 * Superior mesenteric plexus
 * Superior rectal plexus
 * Supraclavicular nerves
 * Supraorbital nerve
 * Suprarenal plexus
 * Suprascapular nerve
 * Supratrochlear nerve
 * Sural nerve
 * Sympathetic trunk
 * Temporal branches of the facial nerve
 * Third occipital nerve
 * Thoracic aortic plexus
 * Thoracic splanchnic nerves
 * Thoraco-abdominal nerves
 * Thoracodorsal nerve
 * Tibial nerve
 * Transverse cervical nerve
 * Trigeminal nerve
 * Trochlear nerve
 * Tympanic nerve
 * Ulnar nerve
 * Upper subscapular nerve
 * Uterovaginal plexus
 * Vagus nerve
 * Ventral ramus
 * Vesical nervous plexus
 * Vestibular nerve
 * Vestibulocochlear nerve
 * Zygomatic branches of facial nerve
 * Zygomatic nerve
 * Zygomaticofacial nerve
 * Zygomaticotemporal nerve

Related topic

 * Human brain
 * Spinal cord
 * Outline of the human nervous system
 * List of skeletal muscles of the human body
 * List of bones of the human skeleton
 * Circulatory system
 * Blood vessel

title: List of nerves of the human body


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1900 Summer Olympics mixed team

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

The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 11:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

1900 Summer Olympics mixed team
A single paragraph article that has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} for more than six months. I don't expect it to expand much more, and I can find no reference to Michael Ramus in the capacity in which he is described in the article. Ingoolemo  talk  02:49, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've done a bit of research and rewritten the article to reflect information from the official IOC website. Pburka 03:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Good job on the re-write.  I just stubbed it.  Wikibofh 03:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment As I read this article, I am curious as to when these mixed teams were eliminated from the Olympics, and how the 1900 Summer games compare to other Olympics in this regard. (Were there mixed teams in 1896?) But I can't learn that from this article. Is there an article on the general phenomenon of mixed teams? If so, could it be linked here? If not, it should be written. Perhaps this article should be moved there and expanded to include mixed teams from other years. --DavidConrad 04:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Is historical and worth maintaining-Machtzu 05:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This site shows that the mixed team came fourth after France, the US and UK in the medal count. Well done, PBurka for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Still stubby, but contains the baer essentials for expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's OK DV8 2XL 11:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep CalJW 13:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * either Expand or Delete - which nations did the individuals in this mixed team hail from? The article leaves many questions unanswered and is unencyclopaedic Rhyddfrydol 20:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep on improving Wikipedia.  —RaD Man (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:KrisKicksAss

Please find another user name, as your previous user name is not appropriate. Also, the article on Zachary Kinsn is not about a notable person. Academic Challenger 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:KrisKicksAss


text:
Fumblerooski

In American football, the fumblerooski is a trick play in which the football is intentionally and stealthily placed on the ground (fumbled) by an offensive player, usually the quarterback. The offensive team then attempts to distract and confuse the defense by pretending that a ball carrier is running in one direction while another offensive player retrieves the ball from the turf and runs in a different direction, hoping to gain significant yardage before the defense realizes which player is actually carrying the football.

The fumblerooski traces its roots back to deceptive plays from the early days of football, and the infrequent usage of the play and its variations in the modern game often draws much fan and media attention. The NCAA banned the original version of the play following the 1992 season. In the NFL, the play has been considered an "intentional forward fumble" for many years, which would make the play an incomplete pass, but a version in which the quarterback places the ball behind him is still legal.

Description
The fumblerooski typically begins with the quarterback deliberately placing (or in some cases bouncing) the ball on the turf immediately upon receiving the snap from the center, technically fumbling it. The quarterback then either runs as if he still has the ball or pretends to hand it to another player in an attempt to trick the defense into thinking that the offense is executing a conventional running play, often towards the sideline. Once the flow of the defense is moving away from the ball, a predetermined offensive player (often an offensive lineman) secretly picks it up and runs in a different direction, trying to gain as many yards as possible before the defense realizes that they are not pursuing the actual ball carrier.

There are several variations on the play, but they all rely on the element of surprise and misdirection, as the play is easily stopped and a turnover could result if a defender notices the ball being placed on the turf.

Origin and notable uses
The origin of the fumblerooski goes back to the early days of football, when similar trick plays were relatively common, and has been attributed to pioneering coach John Heisman. An early documented use of the fumblerooski came in 1930, when University of Tennessee quarterback Bobby Dodd called the fumble play in a game against Florida. The play, which Dodd later said he had also run with his high school team, went for a long gain on the Volunteers' only offensive scoring drive during their win. It was also used by Greenville High School during the 1933 Texas High School Football Championship.

In the 1984 Orange Bowl game, #1 ranked Nebraska trailed Miami 17–0 after the first quarter. Early in the second quarter, Nebraska coach Tom Osborne called for the play, whereby Nebraska quarterback Turner Gill effectively "fumbled" the snap from center Mark Traynowicz, by setting it on the turf. The ball was picked up by offensive guard Dean Steinkuhler, who ran the ball 19 yards for a touchdown. Nebraska had run the play before, having first tried it twice in a 17–14 loss to Oklahoma in 1979. Reflecting on the game (which Miami eventually won) years later, Miami coach Howard Schnellenberger denounced the use of the play: ""We had to come up with some good plays at the end there to win it, but we did force them to resort to the fucking fumblerooski. I told them before the game if those bastards have to run the fumblerooski, come to the sidelines and party because they have given up their right of manhood.""

The play was used by the Oklahoma Sooners four years later in the 1988 Orange Bowl game, also against the Miami Hurricanes, who fell prey to the fumblerooski in a national championship game for a second time. Sooner quarterback Charles Thompson left the ball for offensive guard Mark Hutson, who proceeded to run for a touchdown. Oklahoma, like Nebraska four years earlier, would suffer the same fate in that they would eventually lose to Miami 20–14, costing them their undefeated season and their national championship.

On October 20, 1990 Florida State tried to run the play against Auburn in the 4th quarter while holding a 7-point lead. However, an Auburn defender saw the football on the field and fell on the intentional fumble before FSU's guard could get to it. Auburn would score the tying touchdown on the ensuing drive and eventually win on a last-second field goal by Jim Von Wyl, marking one of the very rare occasions that the play failed.

Tulane appeared to execute the play for a 21-yard touchdown run against Alabama in a game on October 10, 1992; however, guard Andy Abramowicz's knee was on the ground as he picked up the ball, resulting in him being down at the spot.

Nebraska used the play again on October 31, 1992 in a 52–7 victory over Colorado. The ball was carried by offensive guard Will Shields, who gained a first down but did not score.

In November of 1992, the play was run by the Maryland Terrapins against the Clemson Tigers. Senior guard, Ron Staffileno, scored a touchdown from 11 yards out. He is the last person to score on the fumblerooski in a regular season game.

Like the NFL in the 1960s, the NCAA banned the use of the fumblerooski after the 1992 season, making intentional fumbles illegal. In April 2006, the NFHS followed suit, banning intentional fumbles, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, longtime former NFL referee Jerry Markbreit says the play is still legal, provided the quarterback places the ball on the ground behind himself, rather than in front (the forward fumble was banned as the result of another play, the Holy Roller). Direct handoffs to offensive linemen are still thoroughly legal, meaning that the play can still be executed as originally devised, except the ball must be handed off instead of left on the ground to be picked up. Furthermore, since 2008, the center himself can execute the fumble (which in NFL rules is a backward pass, distinct from a fumble) and the ball will be live once the ball hits the ground.

On November 23, 2013, the Fresno State Bulldogs successfully executed a fumblerooski on their home field against the New Mexico Lobos, scoring on a 26-yard touchdown run by senior wide receiver Isaiah Burse with 10:27 remaining in the second quarter. The Bulldogs would go on to defeat the Lobos 69–28 and clinch the 2013 Western division of the Mountain West Conference.

The Washington Football Team used the Bumerooski on Thanksgiving Day November 26, 2020 in a regular season game against the Dallas Cowboys which resulted in a 10+ yard gain and a 1st down. Quarterback Alex Smith took the snap and handed off the ball very discreetly through Running Back J. D. McKissic's legs who was positioned way down low and just to the right of Smith. Smith faked a run to the right, while McKissic aptly outmaneuvered defenders for a 10 yard gain and a first down. TV Broadcast color commentator and Hall of Fame Quarterback Troy Aikman made extensive commentary on the broadcast about this play, comparing it to a Fumblerooski.

Bumerooski
A variation of the play is known as the Bumerooski. The Bumerooski is named after former NFL head coach Bum Phillips. In this variation a handoff is made to a player between his legs. This play is still legal in the NFL and NCAA as the ball never touches the ground.

On December 10, 2006, the San Diego Chargers ran a successful bumerooski, against the Denver Broncos that resulted in a 4-yard touchdown run for fullback Lorenzo Neal's first touchdown of the season. Wide receiver Vincent Jackson was lined up in the backfield with running back LaDainian Tomlinson. The ball was snapped to quarterback Philip Rivers, who handed the ball to Neal between his legs. After the handoff, Rivers and Tomlinson both sprinted right, with Rivers faking a handoff to Jackson faking an end-around right. At the same time, Neal faked a block, and, with the defense still unaware that he had the ball, sprinted left for the touchdown. Bum Phillips' son Wade was the defensive coordinator for the Chargers.

In the 2009 Pro Bowl, Le'Ron McClain scored a touchdown on a modified fumblerooski, closely resembling the Bumerooski.

The Carolina Panthers used a variation of the bumerooski on December 18, 2011 in a regular season game against the Houston Texans which resulted in a touchdown by fullback Richie Brockel. Newton handed off the ball to Brockel through his legs and faked the run to the right, while Brockel went left.

Bounce rooski
Another variation is the "bounce rooski", in which the quarterback throws a pass behind him that bounces along the ground and to a wide receiver, attempting to fool the defense into thinking it was an incomplete pass. Once the defense is relaxed, the wide receiver (or even an ineligible receiver such as an offensive tackle) can then simply throw it to a player downfield, since a backwards incomplete pass counts as a fumble, and not an incomplete pass.

Texas A&M used this play, calling it the "Texas Special", in a 1965 game against the University of Texas, taking a 17–0 lead in what was nearly a big upset before eventually falling 21–17. Colorado State used this to upset #10 Wyoming in 1966. Nebraska completed this against Oklahoma in the 1982 NCAA season, with Turner Gill throwing a one-bounce backwards pass to Irving Fryar, who then threw a forward pass to Mitch Krenk.

Wisconsin successfully executed this play against Illinois in 1982.

During their first game of the 2010 NCAA season, Wake Forest fell for the bounce rooski run by Presbyterian College. Immediately after the snap, Presbyterian quarterback Brandon Miley threw what appeared to be an incomplete short pass to the side, to WR Derrick Overholt. The ball bounced off the ground but into the hands of Overholt, who then feigned disappointment. The Wake Forest defenders fell for Overholt's incomplete-pass theatrics, not realizing the pass was backwards, making it a live ball. Overholt then threw the ball downfield to waiting WR Michael Ruff who was wide open and subsequently ran the ball into the end zone for a 68-yard touchdown. Wake Forest would, however, go on to win the game by a score of 53–13.

In other popular culture
The fumblerooski is featured as a play setting up the climax of the 1994 film Little Giants, in which the Little Giants score on the game's final play. In the film, the play was called "The Annexation of Puerto Rico", though the opposing coach played by Ed O'Neill correctly identifies the play, shouting "Fumblerooski! Fumblerooski!" This scene later served as the inspiration for the aforementioned December 2011 play by the Carolina Panthers.

The fumblerooski was used in the 2005 remake of The Longest Yard to bring the prisoners within one point of the officers on the last play of regulation (pending the two-point conversion).

It was also featured in the 2008 film The Longshots, starring Ice Cube.

title: Fumblerooski


text:
Rodd Point

Rodd Point is a suburb in the Inner West of Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, Australia. It is 9 kilometres west of the Sydney central business district in the local government area of the City of Canada Bay.

Rodd Point sits on Iron Cove, on the Parramatta River. Rodd Point is adjacent to the suburbs of Five Dock and Russell Lea. Rodd Island is a small island in Iron Cove, just off Rodd Point. The Rodd Point memorial sits in Rodd Park, beside the Dobroyd Aquatic Club. Rodd Park is also colloquially known as "Point". The Bay Run passes beside Rodd Park and is popular with joggers, walkers and cyclists.

History
Rodd Point is named after the Rodd family who contributed to the area for almost a century, and includes land bought by Brent Clements Rodd (1809–1898) from the Five Dock Farm estate in 1836. Rodd had a large family of 12 children and many of the local streets are named after members of the Rodd family: Brent, Brisbane, Burnell, Clements, Janet, Lenore, Rodd, Trevanion and Undine. Barnstaple Road takes its name from Barnstaple Manor, Rodd's family home which in turn took its name from his birthplace in Britain. The Rodd Point memorial in Rodd Park was originally the Rodd family mausoleum. The bodies were moved to Rookwood Cemetery in 1903.

Rodd Island, which is close to Rodd Point, is also named after Brent Clements Rodd. During the nineteenth century Rodd Island was used by scientists sent by Louis Pasteur to investigate ways of eradicating rabbits. Since then it has been used as a recreation reserve and is now part of the Sydney Harbour National Park. Rodd Park is also locally known as "Point".

Sport and recreation
The Dobroyd Aquatic Club was founded in 1937 and commenced sailing activities from a site at Haberfield, near the Haberfield Rowing club. All classes of boats were allowed to compete. The site was resumed by the Department of Main Roads in 1962 and a new clubhouse opened on 8 October 1964. The building, containing all the member's boats, burnt down in 2005. The club was insured and rebuilt, but the boats were not covered by insurance. Funds were raised for the club members who could not purchase boats without financial support.

title: Rodd Point


text:
Category:Czech novelists

 * This category contains articles on Czech novelists.

title: Category:Czech novelists


text:
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)

Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages (alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically) to adhere to the Wikipedia guideline on article size.

Basic naming
A common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___ (for example List of Xs). If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in layout table form, the name or title List of Xs is still preferable to Table of Xs or Comparison of Xs (though the latter may be appropriate for articles that are actual tables of data comparing numerous features, e.g. Comparison of Linux distributions).

A list of lists of X could be at either Lists of X or at List of X: e.g., Lists of books, List of sovereign states; the plural form is more prevalent.

The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs.

 * People: People by nationality are either List of Finns or Lists of French people, preferring List of ___ people. United States folk are a special case:  List of United States people redirects to Lists of Americans which contains, amongst other things, lists by US state. (Special treatment is necessary because American is ambiguous.) Note, however, that lists of people organized by individual city should be at List of people from [city], rather than List of [city] people.  In all relevant lists, people is far preferred to alternatives such as persons or individuals.
 * Language: Poets and authors listed by language are at, for example List of German-language poets.
 * Fiction and real life: List of fictional dogs is a list of fictional creatures, whereas List of individual dogs is a list with real-life examples. Note that the lead section of each list explains what criterion or criteria that list's entries meet.

Set index articles do not need to be titled with list of unless there is also another article or a disambiguation page using that title. For example, Dodge Charger is a list of cars named Dodge Charger, but does not need to be titled List of cars named Dodge Charger. However, since Signal Mountain is a disambiguation page, the related set index article is at List of peaks named Signal Mountain.

Three other special lists types have their own naming patterns. Glossaries are usually titled Glossary of X or Glossary of X terms, though if they contain substantial non-list prose about the nature or history of terminology relating to the topic, as well as a glossary list, a title such as X terminology may be more appropriate. Timelines are named in the form Timeline of X or Graphical timeline of X. Outlines are named Outline of X or Outline of Xs.

Long (split) list naming recommendations
Several styles have been used. As indicated below, the preferred style is "List of foos : A" (for numeric divisions "List of foos : 1") and for ranges "List of foos : S–Z" (numeric: "List of foos : 1–20"). Complicated formats like "List of foos : X, Y, Z" or "List of foos : U–W, Y–Z" for short ranges are discouraged, and are certainly too unwieldy for long ranges. It will be difficult for readers to guess at such names (while "List of foos : A–M" and "List of foos : 1–20" strongly imply "List of foos : N–Z" and "List of foos : 21–40", respectively).

If the preferred style is not used, redirects should be created from the preferred-style article names to the actual article names, as readers will come to expect an article to be at the preferred name rather than a variant.

When ranges are expressed, do so with the en-dash (–) character, not a hyphen (-), em-dash (—), minus (−) or other similar character, nor the  HTML character entity, in the article titles. Redirects should be created from the hyphenated versions of the article names to the real locations, as not all readers are aware of, or have the keen eyesight to see, the difference and may not be able to easily enter the en-dash character.

The most common methods of splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles are by ranges of letters of the alphabet (or by individual letters for very long lists), by numerical ranges (or individual numbers for very long lists), or by some kind of topical division, such as geography, field, language, etc.

 * Models (see examples below):

Preferred: Avoid splitting into separate articles per letter or numeral, unless using larger groupings would still produce overly large articles.
 * List of foos : A–K
 * List of foos : 1–9
 * List of foos : A
 * List of foos : 1
 * List of foos : Africa
 * List of foos : Physics
 * List of foos : Africa and the Middle-east
 * List of foos : Physics and chemistry

Common and acceptable (variants not shown):
 * List of foos, A–K
 * List of foos (A–K)
 * List of foos – A–K
 * Note: That is an en-dash, not a hyphen; a version of the name with a hyphen should exist as a redirect to the real page.

Deprecated as ambiguous, hard to read, or longwinded (variants not shown):
 * List of A foos
 * List of foos A–K
 * List of foos :A–K
 * List of foos starting with A–K
 * List of foos /A–K
 * Note that the subpage feature is disabled in main namespace.

 * Examples:
 * List of Members of the Canadian Senate (A)
 * List of New Hampshire historical markers (1–25)
 * List of record labels: A–H
 * List of United States Navy ships: A–B
 * WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (A) (an internal maintenance list, rather than an article)

Special cases
In some situations, the subject matter does not lend itself to such simple nomenclature, and other schemes may be devised on a case-by-case basis. Some examples might even be considered "problematic" (though a supposed "ideal solution" might not be immediately apparent, either).

 * Examples:
 * The sub-articles of List of symphonies by number have been merged with disambiguation pages, as Symphony No. 1, etc. Overly-rigid interpretation of this guideline and Stand-alone lists might have resulted in names like List of numbered symphonies: 1, but this obviously would not have been helpful for readers.
 * List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach contains a large number of Bach's works, while others of various classes are listed in separate sub-articles, and it even includes several works not composed by Bach in both the main list and its sub-lists. Most of the problems experienced with this list primarily result from its being a hybrid "by genre" and "by number" list. Possible improvements include consistent inter-page navigation, such as a multi-page table of contents (see examples below) or navboxes; using identical links connecting the pages on each page; making related partial lists (Bach compositions printed during the composer's lifetime, etc.) readily available from the general lists.
 * Fiction and franchises: A large number of TV show articles have sub-articles in the form of multi-page season summary lists, and there are also list articles that are lists of works by a particular author or which form part of a media franchise. Various other guidelines assert scope over such articles, including Manual of Style (lists of works), Naming conventions (television), etc.  These guidelines do not always seem to be in perfect agreement, but overall de facto-standard patterns have emerged. For example, TV show season lists are named in the form " Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred " Show title : season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance).  If in doubt, seek input on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (long lists) and/or at the talk pages of relevant wikiprojects.

Generic templates

 * Template:Compact ToC : Navigational template: See template documentation for syntax. Compact ToC can be used in several different ways for creating custom tables of contents for split list articles, including ranges and one-page-per-letter setups. The template supports many additional features, including sections for numeric and symbol entries, configurability of layout, and links for standard (References, etc.) or custom sections.

 * Example showing every letter, with links directly to sub-article sections:

 * Example showing each letter for this sub-article, and a range for the next one, with a link to that next article's top:

 * Examples of list subpages: List of foos: A, List of foos: N–Z, List of foos: North America, or whatever is desired

 * Template:A-Z multipage list : Navigational template: :
 * Example with :

 * Example of list subpage: List of foos: A
 * Note: this template has built-in categorization; in the actual rendered example here, the categorization features were omitted to prevent this guideline page from being improperly categorized.

Migration strategy
There is no obligatory migration strategy to convert all multi-page lists to the preferred style. However:
 * When starting a new multi-page list (or splitting an existing list into several pages), consider if adoption of the preferred style is possible; if not, try to keep as close to it as possible, and create redirects from the names expected by this guideline to the actual page names.
 * For existing multi-page lists: if there's no apparent reason against it – such as established consensus at the article's talk page, recommendations of other, topic-specific guidelines like Naming conventions (pieces of music), etc. – the list should be migrated. Please note that this often entails a great deal more than simply moving the pages, as the table of contents/navigation templates will have to be updated, many links may refer to the original names of pages, and utility templates (e.g. Cuegloss) may depend upon the original names.

title: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)


text:
User talk:Amarnathraja

Vasco da Gama
An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Kerala Livestock Development Board
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kerala Livestock Development Board, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://pages.rediff.com/kerala-co-operative-milk-marketing-federation/1555462.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kerala Livestock Development Board

A tag has been placed on Kerala Livestock Development Board requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.scribd.com/doc/138431174/Industry-Profile-of-Milma. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Amarnathraja


text: User talk:24.15.64.6

title: User talk:24.15.64.6


text: Category:Auburn, Washington

title: Category:Auburn, Washington


text:
Yves Séguin

Yves Séguin (born March 30, 1951) is a former Canadian politician in Quebec.

He was first elected as the Quebec Liberal Party (QLP) member for Montmorency in 1985. He was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue from 1985 to 1987. He was then made the Minister of Revenue himself in 1987. He was also made the Minister of Labour in 1988. He resigned from both positions in 1990.

After serving in various private capacities, he re-entered public life, winning a seat in Outremont in 2003. He was appointed Minister of Finance by Jean Charest. He served in this position until his resignation in 2005. He resigned as a Member of National Assembly soon after.

In 2005, he presided the Commission on the Fiscal Imbalance for the Québec government, which held public hearings on the matter.

title: Yves Séguin


text:
User:SHIMONSHA

Vasco da Gama
An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User:SHIMONSHA


text:
Talk:Ed (software)

= Topics from 2005-2008 =

Use of word Ed
Is this really the most common usage for the word Ed? Among the general population the nickname, television show, and movie, would all be better known than the text editor. Perhaps the disambig page should be moved here. - SimonP 02:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, but everyone else is Ed Something. And nobody will search for Ed when looking for Ed McMahon. Ed the editor is the only thing that is JUST ed. --Xanthar 09:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, except for "the nickname, television show, and movie". Those numbers again are "the nickname, television show, and movie". - 210.49.214.102 06:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

shell prompts
perhaps show the fuller $ ed [file?] at the begining of the session at least, so we know we don't start out of thin air.

"The ed commands are often imitated in other line-based editors. For example, EDLIN in early MS-DOS versions had a somewhat similar syntax, and text editors in many MUDs (LPMud and descendants, for example) use ed-like syntax. These editors, however, are typically more limited in function."

I was tempted to add "as hard as that may be to believe", but since ed does have regexen, I let it slide. 82.92.119.11 23:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Short Shrift by Poor Example
I'm no great fan of ed and I'm no expert on it, either. However, I do know that a real master at ed can be amazingly adept at using it. The little example session is adequate for giving the flavor of how a novice might use it; but I'm sorely tempted to add a section on advanced editing techniques that show how someone with a modicum of proficiency might use it.

For example:

$ed /etc/passwd ,n 1      root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/sh 2      daemon:x:1:1:daemon:/usr/sbin:/bin/sh 3      bin:x:2:2:bin:/bin:/bin/sh 4      sys:x:3:3:sys:/dev:/bin/sh 5      sync:x:4:65534:sync:/bin:/bin/sync 6      games:x:5:60:games:/usr/games:/bin/sh 7      man:x:6:12:man:/var/cache/man:/bin/sh ... 20      lp:x:7:7:lp:/var/spool/lpd:/bin/sh 21     mail:x:8:8:mail:/var/mail:/bin/sh 22     news;x:9:9:news:/var/spool/news:/bin/sh 23     uucp:x:10:10:uucp:/var/spool/uucp:/bin/sh Press  to continue... /^bin/,/^lp/d 1t10 s/root/foo/ s/0:0:root/123:123:Fred O. Oppenheimer/ s:/root:/home/foo: 10p foo:x:123:123:Fred O. Oppenheimer:/home/foo:/bin/sh w q $

... etc.

Note that using ,n was a quick way to browse the whole file with the lines numbered. Patterns like /foo/,/^bar/ could be used with l, p, or n to view ranges of lines between two patterns ... as well as deleted or copied with commands like d and t (transfer). So this example edits a Unix passwd file, removes all the accounts between (and including) bin through lp, then transfers a copy of line 1 to the line following line 10; and finally substitues new username, UID/GID and GECOS "full name" fields into that line and changes the home directory for this new account and finally prints the resulting line, and writes then quits. This just a trite example, and I'm certainly no master at ed (I mostly bumble through on a dim memories of ex which mostly works the same. However, sometimes I still find occasional to use more advanced ex commands when I'm using vi --- like the time recently when I needed to clean up a long list where the lines at been wrapped in an e-mail cut and paste, and I need them back in their canonical form.  I would have taken forever by hand, but using :%g/^[^0-9]/j did it in a blink).

BTW it seems oddly worth noting that, in the rare case where you need to add a line consisting only of a single "dot" then you can accomplish it in ed by adding a line containing an x (any arbitrary character or string) and following that with a command like: s/x/./ - JimD, 09:34, 24 April 2007

Gratitude
Great article! Thanks all. - Tyler Oderkirk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

= Topics from 2009-2010 =

ed is the standard text editor on the Unix operating system?
How exactly is this true? As far as I know at least vi is part of both SUSv2 and POSIX, and many other editors could be considered "standard unix editors". If it turns out to be true that ed is in some relevant sense more standard than the other standard editors, then I think at least a citation is needed. Otherwise I think it should really say "[...] is a standard [...]" or similar. (I won't change this now, since I see that this sentence was already changed back and forth several times.)  —128.32.153.89 (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "ed is the standard text editor" is a quote from the original UNIX (non-GNU) ed man page, and that phrase is a very famous one, famous enough to serve as the name of the humor piece linked at the end of the article.

 * The original man page should be cited out of thoroughness, of course, but the phrase is not in doubt.

 * On the other hand, people sometimes argue that some other editor (emacs, nvi, vim, pico, etc) has become more widely used than ed, so the phrase should be changed to "was the standard", but I disagree. "Standard" is not the same thing as "most commonly used", and I don't think anyone can prove which editor is most commonly used anyway.

 * One could also claim that ed is and was the standard by proclamation by the creaters of UNIX, and if there has never been a similarly authoritative update proclamation, then the original claim remains true. Dougmerritt (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's one copy of the original ed man page (they're a bit hard to find amidst the zillions of copies of the ed humor pages): http://roguelife.org/~fujita/COOKIES/HISTORY/V6/ed.1.html Dougmerritt (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * 1. When was that man page written? How do you know it is still applicable? The article does not say ed "was" the standard editor, or say it was so "from 1969 to 1984" or suchlike.
 * 2. If ed is currently called the standard text editor on, say, Solaris, what about other Unix operating systems? In HP-UX, for example, ed is called simply "a line-oriented text editor" (http://docs.hp.com/en/B2355-90689/ed.1.html).
 * 3. If "the Unix operating system" is supposed only to mean AT&T Unix before 1988, ed is nevertheless available on many other systems where it is not "the standard text editor". If Debian or even Cygwin come installed with ed, an accurate encyclopedia article will begin with the general statement that "ed is a text editor" of some kind, not with the specific statement that "ed is the standard text editor" on a specific system, even if that system is the original system. Likewise, the article on spacecraft does not begin with the sentence "a spacecraft is a fictional vessel for traveling the stars" and the article on computer monitors does not begin with the sentence "a computer monitor is a device that uses a cathode-ray tube to display images from a computer". —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. That man page is from version 6 Unix, so that's around 1975, and dates from before UNIX split up into many different versions, so it is an authoritative source at least for its time.
 * 2. Anyone who wants to argue that, although it has been established that it once was "the standard", it no longer is, must avoid original research by giving strong citations demonstrating that it ceased to be "the standard", and yes, that job certainly would be complicated by the splintering of Unix and Posix and Unix-like systems.
 * 3. Attempting to prove that it definitely ceased to be "the standard" smacks of hair-splitting in my book, since it's extremely unlikely that it can be proven, but arguments attempting but failing to make the case could consume an indefinite amount of energy on both sides of the argument, with no clear payoff in the end:
 * 4. What difference does it really make? It's to the point that other editors are more popular and/or more commonly used for day to day work or whatever, and that can be clarified further in the article, if need be, without getting into the less clear side-issue of what "standard editor" even means today.
 * 5. Again, the quote "ed is the standard text editor" is a famous quote; it's just asking for controversy when a famous quote gets re-worded. Dougmerritt (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the thoughtful answer, but I still have to disagree. On your points:
 * 1. Strike the "at least". Otherwise, yes, I tend to agree here. But the question at hand is not whether it was the standard in 1975, so I don't see how this is relevant.
 * 2. Your stated requirement that a citation to non-original research is needed to remove the claim that "ed is the standard" strikes me as backwards and disingenuous. A 1975 man page is obviously not enough to claim that something is the standard still today. Yet the "is the standard" claim unambiguously includes the latter. Citations to research are needed if a claim is made, not if a claim is not made.
 * 3. See 2. Also, if the statement was not falsifiable as you suggest, that in itself would be grounds for removing it.
 * 4. What difference it makes? It makes it appear that Unix has really low standards, and suggests that this is what people actually use, i.e., it is misinformation.
 * 5. So you think that the article on Stalin should start out with "Stalin is the greatest leader of our times" or the article on Titanic that "Titanic is the safest ship of the 20th century."? There are certainly famous quotes along those lines. Just because a quote is famous does not make it an appropriate description; even less so if the quote is nowadays mainly famous because it appears in a joke. Also, quotes should be put in quotation marks.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.199.218 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrofit talk-page year headers
16-April-2009: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2005" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved entries (including "Gratitude") into date order for 2008. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation and clarification?
This line could use citation:

"If something goes wrong, ed is sometimes the only editor available. This is often the only time when it is used interactively."

I'm genuinely curious about this and would love to know where that comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmoe (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Release year
Same problem that we had here: 1971 can hardly be considered the year of "first release" of ed, since Unix wasn't "released" in that year except to Bell Labs's patent department, by Bell Labs's computer research group. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The first version of ed was done for the PDP-7, the UNIX team had already received their PDP-11/20 in 1970. Thus, it is very likely that 1971 had the second or even third "release" (not: "public release" - UNIX itself was not "public" back then) of ed. --Tuxman (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ed (text editor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/qedman.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040825015310/http://snap.nlc.dcccd.edu/learn/nlc/ed.html to http://snap.nlc.dcccd.edu/learn/nlc/ed.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Website link in summary/infobox
This links to GNU's reimplementation, not the standard ed(1). I believe this should be clarified. 91.141.1.75 (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ed (software)