text: User talk:213.176.161.200

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

title: User talk:213.176.161.200


text: Category:Universities in Iran

title: Category:Universities in Iran


text:
Geumho station

Geumho Station is a station on the Seoul Subway Line 3 in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, South Korea. The name of the station literally means "golden lake", although there is no lake to be found today in the neighborhood of this station. The short piece of road under which this station is built is situated between two consecutive road tunnels nearby.

Vicinity

 * Exit 1 : Dusan APT, Geumho Park
 * Exit 2 : Geumho samgeori (3-way intersection)
 * Exit 3 : Geumok Elementary School
 * Exit 4 : Oksu Tunnel
 * Exit 5 : Geumho Tunnel

title: Geumho station


text:
Internet transit

Internet transit is the service of allowing network traffic to cross or "transit" a computer network, usually used to connect a smaller Internet service provider (ISP) to the larger Internet. Technically, it consists of two bundled services:
 * The advertisement of customer routes to other ISPs, thereby soliciting inbound traffic toward the customer from them
 * The advertisement of other ISPs' routes (usually but not necessarily in the form of a default route or a full set of routes to all of the destinations on the Internet) to the ISP's customer, thereby soliciting outbound traffic from the customer towards these networks.

In the 1970s and early 1980s-era Internet, the assumption was made that all networks would provide full transit for one another. In the modern private-sector Internet, two forms of interconnect agreements exist between Internet networks: transit, and peering. Transit is distinct from peering, in which only traffic between the two ISPs and their downstream customers is exchanged and neither ISP can see upstream routes over the peering connection. A transit free network uses only peering; a network that uses only unpaid peering and connects to the whole Internet is considered a Tier 1 network. In the 1990s, the network access point concept provided one form of transit.

Pricing for the internet transit varies at different times and geographical locations. The transit service is typically priced per megabit per second per month, and customers are often required to commit to a minimum volume of bandwidth, and usually to a minimum term of service as well, usually using a 95e percentile burstable billing scheme. Some transit agreements provide "service-level agreements" which purport to offer money-back guarantees of performance between the customer's Internet connection and specific points on the Internet, typically major Internet exchange points within a continental geography such as North America. These service level agreements still provide only best-effort delivery since they do not guarantee service the other half of the way, from the Internet exchange point to the final destination.

title: Internet transit


text: Category:Languedoc-Roussillon

title: Category:Languedoc-Roussillon


text:
Daechi station

Daechi Station is a station on the Seoul Subway Line 3. It is located in Daechi-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. It was named after a former village in the area, Hanti (한티), as Daechi is the Chinese reading of the hanja. The name of the station is Chinese characters, meaning "big hill."

Vicinity

 * Exit 1 : Cheongsil APT
 * Exit 2 : Kukje APT
 * Exit 3 :
 * Exit 4 : Eunma APT
 * Exit 5 : Daegok Elementary School, Mido APT
 * Exit 6 :
 * Exit 7 : Daechi Elementary School
 * Exit 8 :

title: Daechi station


text:
Fitzroy Harbour

Fitzroy Harbour is a small village within the city of Ottawa in eastern Ontario, Canada. It is located on the Ottawa River at the mouth of the Carp River. A branch of the Mississippi River, known as the Snye, also empties into the Ottawa to the west of the village.

Fitzroy Provincial Park is located nearby. The village has one school located within it, St. Michael's Catholic school. Fitzroy Harbour Public School was closed in 2006. There are also two churches: St Michael's (Roman Catholic) and St. Andrew's (United). St. George's (Anglican) was closed in 2022.

History
The town was founded by Charles Shirreff in 1831. There was a waterfall known as Chats Falls on the river Ottawa River, later replaced by a hydroelectric power station and dam, currently operated by Ontario Power Generation.

By 1866, Fitzroy Harbour was a post village with a population of 200, within Fitzroy Township, on the Ottawa river, at the head of the Duchesne lake navigation, on a small bay, dotted with islands. The Chats Falls, which form eleven falls, and plunge thirty-three feet is nearby. On the south side of the river, directly opposite the village, was the Government timber slide. The community had hydroelectric power, manufacturing, three churches, built of stone: the Church of England, the Canada Presbyterian church, and the Roman Catholic church. The Fourth Division Court was held here and at Riddle's Corners, alternately. The Loyal Orange Lodge, No. 541, met at thc Orange Hall, on the first Friday in each month.

In 1974, Fitzroy Township was amalgamated with Huntley and Torbolton to form West Carleton.

In 1977, the Fitzroy Harbour Community Centre was constructed. This facility currently features a main hall and meeting rooms, two softball diamonds, soccer pitches, a playground and an outdoor rink.

In 2001, West Carleton Township became part of the new City of Ottawa.

The estimated population of the village in 2021 was 580.

title: Fitzroy Harbour


text: User talk:81.193.90.189

title: User talk:81.193.90.189


text:
Talk:ISWIM

Hello world
Hello world in ISWIM is Print `Hello world'

I don't understand how this is meant to work in a purely-functional language before Haskell and the IO monad. If someone finds a reference, it is very interesting. --TuukkaH 11:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The J operator
I read the 700 next Programming Languages and I did not find any reference to the J operator as well as to assignments. --PIerre.Lescanne (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On page 159, look for the **pp** operator, which introduces a program-point definition. That's what the Wiki page is describing as the J operator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.7 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:ISWIM


text:
User:Sinslave

hello! my names jesse lindsay and im an artist currently in seattle wa i do a wide range of work from film and photography to drawing and scultping so if you get the chance drop by my home page and after look at my work let me know what you think! i respond to all my emails (as long as i get them) so feel free to ask anything,make suggestions,commissions or just to chat! thanks a lot for your time

jesse lindsay

www.theworldless.com

all art copyright jesse lindsay 2005

title: User:Sinslave


text:
Talk:Forlorn hope

Etymology
Are you guys sure 'verloren hoop' means lost troop? As far as I know it means 'lost hope'. I don't speak Dutch, but I do understand it pretty well. Bertus 11:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

While not knowing any better, I doubt the last part on Shtraf battalions as Strafe and Strafbattalion are German words. Thus, it seems unlikely that Germans copied the "Russian Shtraf" tactics. Moreover, I agree on the last discussion entry that states that "hoop" means "hope" not "troop".

I found this term in C.H. Firth's "Cromwell's Army". Looking over the information readily available, this discussion offers the best contextual, if not etymologically interesting interpretation: http://49.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FO/FORLORN_HOPE.htm

As to penal battalions in WWII, the Wehrmacht was much more desperate for manpower than the Soviets, and I recall books by Sven Hassel about the German use of these. I doubt the Germans had to borrow the idea.

To shed a bit of light on the hoop/hope discussion: The link posted above says "Dutch: verloren hoop, from Ger. verlorene Haufe= lost troop ; Haufe, heap, being equivalent in the 17th century to body of troops". The quote above is a bit wrong as the grammatically correct German words wouldn't be "verlorene Haufe", but "verlorener Haufen". "Ein Haufen Leute" means literally "a bunch (of) people" and is still used in colloquial German today. I don't speak Dutch, but German and Dutch are so close related that people who speak one language can read most of the other, so I am quite positive that my interpretation of the Dutch meaning of "hoop" is correct. The similarities to the english homonym "hope" are just coincidentally, but it adds a sense of desperation to an already grim term and is bound to be misunderstood by a native english speaker who overhears the words.

 * Actually hoop can mean both "hope" and "a lot", "pile" or "bunch". I changed the translation to hope, but this may not be correct. Unfortunately there is not yet a link to a source.--MarSch 14:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * googling I could only find cooroboration for the translation of hoop as troop, band. --MarSch 14:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I speak dutch, and I agree with was written here. "Hoop" can mean both "hope" and "troop" (or "heap") . Personally I thought the main meaning here was "hope" but of course I had already read the English title of the article. It could just as well mean lost troop.
 * One for British readers: I too can only find hoop as meaning troop but, searching Dutch Wikipedia for enlightenment, a page high in the list of results was Tim Henman, the folorn hope of British tennis. Perhaps the Dutch have taken the phrase back, with its new sense, and the meaning hope does now exist in the language. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter what you guys find on Google; as a Dutch speaker, I can assure you that "hoop" is the only Dutch word for the English "hope", and I'm sure any translating dictionary will confirm this. The verbs "hoffen" in German, "hopen" in Dutch and "hoping" in English have common West Germanic roots. The noun "hoop" in Dutch has two meanings. In its primary use, it's a derivative from the abovementioned verb, and means "hope". In its secondary use, it shares its meaning and origins with the English noun "heap". In the present context, both meanings are appropriate, and it's likely that this ambiguity was deliberate when the term was coined. I am willing to accept that a majority of English sources claim that "verloren hoop" should be literally translated to "lost heap", but the claim on the main page (the Dutch word "hoop" is not cognate with English hope.) is plain incorrect. I reworded the sentence. 71.166.119.170 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding some examples:
 * Een hoop appels - a bunch of apples / a mountain of apples.
 * This word is not specific when used this way, it is general bigness, as is heap when used in English. For example: heaps of people use the word bigness!
 * Ik heb alle hoop verloren - I have lost all hope.
 * Een hoop kerels - a bunch of guys / a lot of guys.
 * Er is geen hoop - there is no hope.
 * Het is hopeloos - it is hopeless.
 * English may have taken the phrase and not known which meaning it was, simply assuming it meant "hope". Then perhaps it went back to Dutch with this new interpretation. To Infinity and suchlike (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * English may have taken the phrase and not known which meaning it was, simply assuming it meant "hope". Then perhaps it went back to Dutch with this new interpretation. To Infinity and suchlike (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Outdent] Thanks,71.166.119.170, for taking the trouble to explain your edits: it's an important principle on Wikipedia. Equally important, however, is the one of no original research. You have removed a sourced piece of information (indeed, from the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster) in favor of "as a Dutch speaker I can assure you". This input is helpful, as few of the other editors seem to speak the language, but it cannot justify deleting cited material with which you disagree. I'm removing it for now. By all means bring it back, with a published, verifiable source, but let the existing material stand: e.g. other sources, however, assert... or similar. Again, thanks for trying to help out here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker, I'd never thought that Hoop in Verloren Hoop (literally Lost Hope) could mean heap or band. It's too bad the etymology is missing entirely, or at least I couldn't find it in the linked dictionary articles. To say that the English hope is not cognate with the Dutch hoop is a leap too far though. As noted above, German Hoffen, Dutch hoop, English hope. If this is indeed not cognate, please provide sources. For now, I'll just put in a call for citation. Hoop can be both heap/band/troop or hope. Remmelt (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just added another citation in place of User:Remmelt's request, then read the discussion here. This is the wrong order, and I apologise. The issue is still in doubt, and the fact that three very notable sources state otherwise shouldn't mean that there isn't room for further discussion. I'm even considering a self revert! My big problem, however, is the need to prove the negative: to provide an etymological source to say that something obviously not considered in the world of etymology is untrue. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The confusion stems from the fact that "hoop" in Dutch means both "band/pile" and "hope" but it is obvious from the German words "Haufen" (pile) and "hoffen" (to hope for) that these are in fact two homonym words and not cognates. 82.93.186.160 (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Missing etymology" Here, verbatim, is the etymology from the OED: "ad. Du. verloren hoop (in Kilian 1598), lit. ‘lost troop’ (hoop = HEAP, Ger. haufen). Cf. Fr. enfants perdus. (Among sailors mispronounced flowing hope.)

HEAP: [OE. héap = OFris. hâp, OS. hôp (MDu., MLG., LG. hôp, Du. hoop), OHG. houf (MHG. houf), ON. hópr (Sw. hop, Da. hob) adopted from LG.; wanting in Gothic; :—OTeut. *haupo-z. In ablaut relation to OHG. hûfo, MHG. hûfe, Ger. haufe:—*hûpon-; from stem *hup-, pre-Teut. *kub-: cf. L. cumbĕre, cubāre. "

I hope there's something in it to move the discussion along. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC) --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At last, and thanks only to relentless prodding from rightly critical contributors, I have found some scholars who specifically state that "hope" as "hoop" is folk etymology. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My previous edit was not in discussion with the above verloren hoop = lost heap. That indeed is folk etymology. My point is that there is no sense in saying hoop (Dutch) is somehow not cognate with hope (En) or Hoffen (De). Hoop in Dutch has two meanings (at least), one being heap, the other being hope. Either the Dutch hoop is cognate with heap or it's cognate with hope, or both, but there's no folk etymology in that alone. Clearer still: the folk etymology is in the fact that most Dutch people think that verloren hoop means lost hope, where in fact it meant lost heap. No dispute there. My edit was just to make clear that the word hoop is indeed cognate with hope (or heap). Remmelt (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 * There is no cognation because the word hope in the English term "forlorn hope" has a different root from the Dutch hoop as heap. That's the point of cognation: they have to have the same ancestor to be cognate. It does, of course, have the same root as Dutch hoop as hope, so I have now written into the article which one is meant.  --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To provide more information on this (unfortunately from a Dutch source), I looked up all meanings for hoop in a prominent Dutch dictionary (online version). They are, with translation to English: Unfortunately none of these meanings to hoop has any relation to 'troop', or to what's said on the sourced pages. My guess would be it's an informal use of the word hoop, where it could also mean 'bunch' (of people/things/whatever). I hope this is insightful for the Dutch people reading this. I am one myself, and it took me a while to convince myself too, but there's just no other reasoning than the one in the article that explains why a group of frontline soldiers is referred to as verloren hoop. --MooNFisH (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * opeenhoping van stof of voorwerpen - piling of fabric or objects
 * grote hoeveelheid - large quantity
 * hoeveelheid menselijke of dierlijke uitwerpselen - quantity of human or animal excretions
 * verwachting, wens dat iets aangenaams werkelijkheid zal worden - expectation, wish that something pleasant will become reality
 * toeverlaat - (place of) refuge, somewhere/someone you could turn to.
 * Are these modern dictionaries? Perhaps we need to look in a Dutch dictionary relating to the time when the word "came over". For example, it's in Etymologicum Teutonicæ Linguæ compiled by Cornelius Kilian and published in Antwerp in 1598 (but there were many editions). Perhaps I need to cite this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. Few of the editors who essay improvements to the article have knowledge of Dutch, so thanks to User:MooNFisH. Now, do you have access to "Kilian"...? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys sure the Dutch word hoop should be used as heap ? , I read your discussion and asked some german friends who are quite certain it should be used as hoffnung, considering they come from Bayern they are still used to a lot of old german. In my opinion it could be both, verloren hoop could be Lost heap of soldiers but since they didnt have any hope of coming out of it alive I presume it should be the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.93.78 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * According to this site, the correct interpretation of 'hoop' in 'verloren hoop' is as in 'heap'. They site 'Onze Taal'. However, to state that 'hoop' is not a cognate of 'hope' is not correct, as in Dutch 'hoop' in the sense of 'hope' is the same word as 'hoop' in the sense of 'heap'. The explanation on false cognates does not cover the case where two roots were merged into one word. Dutch readers will continue to be puzzled by that statement until it is rephrased (or removed--it adds nothing to the article)... --Evertw —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

 * The short answer to "adds nothing" is: without as much detail in the explanation as possible the correct, strongly referenced etymology was deleted with wearying regularity, but this has now eased off. Thus, it's  a useful addition. More specifically, the point of User:Evertw's proposition has confused me: How can two, separate roots be merged into one word? Here two different words, in two different languages, with two different meanings, have two different roots.  The homophone is a tricky coincidence, but no more than that. Can anyone help by taking this a little further, to clarify?--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Forlorn hope translated as "lost heap" just doesn't make any sense. "Hoop" in Dutch can mean "hope" as well as "heap". Just like "ball" in English can mean a round object as well as a dance. If someone translated from their language "the goalkeeper kicked the ball upfield" into English as "the goalkeeper kicked the dance upfield" it would instantly be recognized it as a mistranslation. The only well-known phrase known in Dutch is "verloren hoop" which means "lost hope". Books can be untrue as well as any source so I'd want to see a good cited reference from a reliable source not only just an ISBN number before I believe it. SpeakFree (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See http://translate.google.com/#nl|en|verloren%20hoop SpeakFree (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It's way too disputable that 'forlorn hope' stems from Dutch. If it where, why can't we find it in use in Dutch language literature predating the first use in the etymology dictionary by Kilian? The first mentioning (supposedly) is from 1598 by Kilian. Can't tell, since I have no access to the book. Cornelis Kilian was a learned man for sure, but not a Dutch linguist, since there was no such study at the time. And at universities at that time students where taught in the Latin language. The elite spoke either German, French or Latin. The Dutch language was mostly for the common man. As far as I can tell, all authors since who mention forlorn hope, have copied the expression without seriously challenging it's origins by finding evidence. Since militairy history was well documented in Dutch history, why is there no mentioning of it? Or in documents like letters? The prominent Meertens Institute of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences mentions it as 'uncertain'. There should at the least be a mention in Wiktionary and Wikipedia that the phrase is of 'uncertain' origins. By the way I am natively Dutch speaking. -- oSeveno (User talk) 09:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

American Civil War
Apparently the British Army issued a laurel wreath patch to survivors of forlorn hopes.

Editors might consider adding a segment on the American Civil War, especially the action of the "volunteer storming party" in the Union attack on Vicksburg in 1863. It sounds much like a forlorn hope type of action.

B Tillman April 2007

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah... has no one looked into the Saxon shield walls of early England? The forlorn hope were one of the three more effective ways of smashing a shield wall. They were the troops that formed into the Boar's Snout, right at the front who'd surely die, but who would create a gap large enough for the rest of the wedge to push though.

Dictionaries give different derivations but so far I have not seen original documentary evidence. 'Forlorn Hope' is often said to come from the Dutch in the C16 as a military expression from the mistranslation already discussed here but at same time the word forlorn by itself is often said to be older and to come from Old English forloren (lost); related to Saxon farliosan.

Would it not be logical if the word 'foloren' or forlorn existed in English by C16 that it was not a mistranslation at all?

I realise the talk of punishment was in some way relevant where a misdeed might cause you to find yourself in the equivalent of the forlorn hope but why is decimation mentioned?

Uocg 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The mention of decimation of Roman ranks for desertion seems incredibly out of place with the article; it seems to be more focusing on the Soviet penal battalions rather than the folorn hope troops. While still on the subject of Rome, I remember there being a corona muralis or some type of crown-award given to the first soldier to make it into the enemy's walls. I can't exactly verify this, but I'm sure there's more on it out there. 70.230.154.248 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Forlorn hope in anime
Forlorn hope is the second of three demon items stolen from Koenma Sr.'s palace in the Spirit World in the anime/manga YuYu Hakusho along with The Orb of Beast, stolen by the characters Yoko Kurama, Goki, and Hiei. The Forlorn hope has the ability to sacrifice one life in exchange for saving another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.141.158 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

cn -- see talk
I am very skeptical of this entire paragraph. I am skeptical that only Gulag prisoners who had been soldiers were empressed into the penal battalions. And I am skeptical that those who were heroic were rewarded:

I welcome references to these claims.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey GEO SWAN!

I did not write that section of the article, but Merridale's IVAN'S WAR, a critically acclaimed history of Eastern Front, World War II, made explicit descriptions about the Penal Battalions in USSR that mostly conformed to the text. Except that Penal Battalions that was researched were composed of political prisoners. I imagine cowards would be put into the Penal Battalions that cleared the mines. The Germans extensively used Penal Battalions for combat too; Gerd Ledig, author of STALIN ORGAN, was among them. German Sturmpioneers in some way were also used in the same capacity, but as highly skilled and well armed specialists in shock combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.64.31 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Donner Party
A subset of the Donner Party tried to cross the mountains on snowshoes. They called themselves "The Forlorn Hope". I added a link in the "See Also" section. I'll see if I can research enough for a section in this article, if appropriate. Here is the section in the Donner Party article. Authalic (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary
Thanks to User:Invmog, who has drawn attention to hoop in Dutch: "Etymology 2 cognate with heap". The source of the confusion is, as always, the separate Etymology 1: "cognate with hope".--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

French phrase
Does "Les Enfants Perdus" always have to be capitalized? Because, if not, then it should be uncapitalized just like the other phrases.--71.189.159.51 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * L'Académie française uses lower case. The phrase was used for name of a Union battalion in the American Civil War who affected French-style zouave uniforms, so there it would take caps, but this isn't the usage here. You are probably right so go for it! --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-contradictory tag
The first paragraph says there weren't enough volunteers, but the last couple of paragraphs says there was serious competition to lead such an assault. Although it's not strictly contradictory (maybe there are sufficient volunteers to lead the attack, but not otherwise) but it's close enough that I'm skeptical. Tagging. Banedon (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction or Complication?
Don't shoot the messenger (pun intended) but isn't there room for all of the (mis)understandings and apparant contradictions detailed in previous posts?

For instance the answer to the 'Were they volunteers or pressed men?' question is surely 'They were probably both' and be neither a fudge nor an over simplification:

Sampling bias doesn't just affect who gets to write about their personal experiences, it also affects what works survive. If someone (forget who would be so entirely daft for a moment) decided to run a consumer questionaire on the Eastern Front in WW2 and got results like 'Every ambitious junior officer who led a penal battalion responded "It was an honour for the men - who all volunteered - to die bravely for the Motherland/Fatherland" would anyone be surprised? I doubt it, just as I'd doubt the veracity of expressions of enthusiasm by men obliged to go into battle in pairs so the one wihtout a rifle could pick it up when the one with the rifle was killed. (Unless the entire thing was expletives.)

Call me cynical but I strongly suspect 'I just wished they didn't catch me doing what got me into the mess' would have been the general answer to any such question from since armies were invented. For the same reason I suspect if the guys in charge - nobles, officers, revolutionary leaders, whoever - thought a frontal assault against overwhelming odds was worth a punt so long as no one very important led it really has been a factor since recorded history began, I strongly suspect the Dutch/German version was confined to the officers' club while the linguistically sloppy versions were commonplace even where people did know about the polite/correct Dutch root... because troops who understand their chances of personal survival are at best slender tend to be cynical and irreverent (and IMHO have a taste for truly appalling puns).

Until someone produces a definitive work (or more likely compiles a wealth of evidence culled from a mega-study of first-hand accounts (in themselves probably not entirely representative, what with the whole literacy, leisure to write and getting published versus being used as cannon-fodder issue) giving a complete but messy version then allowing the reader to decide gets my vote.

PS

The article covers some five centuries of warfare so until someone finds a way to chart trends that concisely and coherently reflect changes over that period: in the ways wars have been fought for that many centuriesl; prevailing social and economic canges; and latterly, politics... I think we're stuck with messy but interesting.

Ebookomane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction: it first says that there routinely weren't enough volunteers in German mercenary units, but at the end there's a general statement meaning that in many armies throughout Western history, there have been enough volunteers. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Forlorn hope. 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.bartleby.com/61/33/F0263300.html

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 02:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forlorn hope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011105401/http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forlorn_hope to http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forlorn_hope

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) 13:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Crazy Helmets"
I also saw a mention of this brigade in a documentary. If anyone can find a reliable source, it would be a good addition. Spicemix (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Kill zone
I find the following phrase horribly anachronistic: "such as a suicidal assault through the kill zone of a defended position" I can live with "suicidal assault" but I believe "kill zone" is a modern military term which seems out of place with forlorn hope. I don't have any sources except Shakespeare: "once more unto the breach" (Henry V). He certainly didn't write "once more unto the kill zone". But does anyone agree with me? Humpster (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly jarringly anachronistic and the WP:TONE seems a bit questionable.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Forlorn hope


text:
Apgujeong station

Apgujeong is a rapid transit station on Seoul Subway Line 3. It is located in Apgujeong-dong in the Gangnam-gu administrative district of Seoul. It has a pair of underground side platforms. The station has connections to 15 buses through 6 exits. It services Sinsa-dong and Apgujeong-dong. The area is named after a pavilion frequented by Han Myung-hoi, whose pen-name was Apgujeong, and its sub-name comes from the nearby flagship Apgujeong Main store of Hyundai Department Store.

title: Apgujeong station


text:
User:Hagggis

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

title: User:Hagggis


text:
Sinsa station

Sinsa station is a station on the Seoul Subway Line 3 and the Shinbundang Line. It is located in Sinsa-dong, Gangnam-gu and Jamwon-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul. It will serve as the northern terminus of the Wirye–Sinsa Line when it is opened in 2025.

Surrounding
There are national pension management corporations such as Gangnam branch office, Sinsa-dong resident center, Apgujeong district, Yeongdong market, Hadong park, Korea Basketball Federation, and Hannam Grand Bridge.

title: Sinsa station


text: User talk:210.241.238.189

title: User talk:210.241.238.189


text:
User:Filiocht/Usertemp1

Away indefinitely. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User:Filiocht/Usertemp1


text:
Maebong station

Maebong Station is a station on the Seoul Subway Line 3. It is located in Dogok-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul and was named after the nearby Maebongsan mountain.

Vicinity

 * Exit 1 : Dogok Park
 * Exit 2 : Maebong Tunnel, SK Leaders View APT
 * Exit 3 : AsungDaiso, Hanshin APT, Yangjaecheon Stream
 * Exit 4 : Daechi Middle School, Gaepo Lucky APT

title: Maebong station


text: User talk:Chris F.

title: User talk:Chris F.


text:
User talk:DustWolf

May 2016
Hello, I'm Gladamas. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Electric supercharger with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. –Gladamastalk 16:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I explained everything in the talk page. --DustWolf (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on Probiotic. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Irony, buddy.--DustWolf (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:DustWolf


text: Template:17th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party


text:
Walter Keane

Walter Stanley Keane (October 7, 1915 – December 27, 2000) was an American plagiarist who became famous in the 1960s as the claimed painter of a series of widely reproduced paintings depicting vulnerable subjects with enormous eyes. The paintings are now accepted as having been painted by his wife, Margaret Keane. When she told her side of the story, Walter Keane retaliated with a USA Today article that again claimed he had done the work.

In 1986, Margaret Keane sued Walter and USA Today. In the subsequent slander suit, the judge demanded that the litigants paint a painting in the courtroom, but Walter declined, citing a sore shoulder. Margaret then produced a painting for the jurors in 53 minutes. The jury awarded her damages of $4 million.

Biography
Keane was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, on October 7, 1915, one of 10 children from his father's second marriage. His mother, Alma Christina (Johnson) Keane, was from Denmark, and his father, William Robert Keane, was of Irish descent. Keane grew up near the center of Lincoln and made money by selling shoes. In the early 1930s, he moved to Los Angeles, California, where he attended Los Angeles City College. He moved to Berkeley, California, in the 1940s with his wife, Barbara (née Ingham), and went into real estate; both were real estate brokers.

Their first child, a son, died shortly after birth in the hospital. In 1947, they had a healthy baby girl, Susan Hale Keane.

In July 1948, Walter and Barbara bought the stately John J. Cairns House at 2729 Elmwood Avenue, designed by Berkeley architect Walter H. Ratcliff Jr. In 1948, the Keanes traveled to Europe, living in Heidelberg and later Paris. When they returned to their home in Berkeley, they began an educational toy business, "Susie Keane's Puppeteens", teaching children French through the use of handmade puppets, phonograph records and a book. The "ballroom" of their large home became an assembly line of hand-painted wooden puppets, with various intricately made costumes. The puppets were sold in high-end stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue.

Barbara Keane later became head of her own department in dress design at the University of California, Berkeley. Walter Keane subsequently closed both his real estate firm and the toy company in order to work full-time on his painting. Their marriage ended in divorce in 1952.

At a fairground in 1953, Walter met an artist making charcoal sketches, Margaret (Doris Hawkins) Ulbrich. They married in 1955 and separated on November 1, 1964. During their marriage, and for a time afterward, Walter sold his wife's highly stylized "big eyes" paintings as his own (taking credit for her work). In doing so, he made millions of dollars over the years. The film Big Eyes depicts the story in detail.

Walter married his third wife, Joan Mervin, after divorcing Margaret in 1965. They had two children in the early 1970s, while living in London. This marriage also ended in divorce.

Keane was 85 when he died on December 27, 2000, in Encinitas, California.

Art
Keane first displayed Margaret's paintings as his own work in 1957, at an outdoor art show in Washington Square in Manhattan. A principal venue for his sales was the Hungry i, a comedy club in San Francisco. The paintings swiftly gained a following. In 1961, The Prescolite Manufacturing Corporation bought "Our Children" and presented it to the United Nations Children's Fund; it is in the United Nations permanent collection of art. In 1965, Keane was named "one of the most controversial and most successful painters at work today". Artworks credited to him were owned by many celebrities and hanging in a number of permanent collections.

LIFE magazine interviewed Keane in 1965. He claimed his inspiration for the big-eyed children came when he was in Europe as an art student: "My psyche was scarred in my art student days in Europe, just after World War II, by an ineradicable memory of war-wracked innocents. In their eyes lurk all of mankind's questions and answers. If mankind would look deep into the soul of the very young, he wouldn't need a road map. I wanted other people to know about those eyes, too. I want my paintings to clobber you in the heart and make you yell, 'DO SOMETHING!'". In the same interview, he said, "Nobody could paint eyes like El Greco, and nobody can paint eyes like Walter Keane".

In 1970, Margaret Keane announced on a radio broadcast that she was the real creator of the paintings. The Keanes continued to dispute the paintings' origin, and after Walter suggested that Margaret claimed she was the painter only because she believed he was dead, she sued him in federal court for slander. At the hearing, the judge ordered both Margaret and Walter to create a big-eyed child painting in the courtroom. Walter declined to paint before the court, citing a sore shoulder, whereas Margaret completed her painting in 53 minutes. After three weeks of trial, a jury awarded Margaret $4 million in damages. A federal appeals court upheld the verdict of defamation in 1990 but overturned the $4 million damage award.

Film depiction
Tim Burton directed and produced the 2014 film Big Eyes based on Margaret Keane's life. It was released in theaters in December 2014, with Amy Adams playing Margaret and Christoph Waltz playing Walter Keane. Adams won a Golden Globe Award for her performance.

title: Walter Keane


text:
User talk:Emesphere

My welcome
Hello Emesphere: I wanted to add my welcome to you. Nice work with the Aish HaTorah article. Feel free to call on me if you need help. By the way, please fill in your user page at User:Emesphere with something, anything, that may tell others a little about your interests. Best wishes. IZAK 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Billysheehan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Billysheehan.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 10:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Cedeno.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cedeno.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. No Guru 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Randy.smith.sm.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Randy.smith.sm.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Cedeno.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cedeno.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 12:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Randy.smith.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Randy.smith.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Image source problem with Image:Noah.weinberg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Noah.weinberg.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Image source problem with Image:Jerusalem.fellowships.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jerusalem.fellowships.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aishcom.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aishcom.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emesphere


text:
User talk:Sungminkwon

AfD Nomination: Singil Station
I've nominated the article Singil Station for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Singil Station satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Singil Station. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Singil Station during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.

AfD nomination of Taepyeong Station
Taepyeong Station, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Taepyeong Station satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Taepyeong Station and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Taepyeong Station during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * First and foremost I want to say that in no way am I attacking you or your work. I have no bias towards American, British, or any other subway.  My problems with the articles are outlined in my comments, that they lack notability.  To answer your question, I did read every article, as I did have to tag every one with a notification for deletion.  I have to say that a vast majority (what I would guess would be around 85%) consist of no more than three sentences.  My problem stems from the fact that excluding a few (some of the ones you mentioned) these train stations alone are not notable.  Thats why I think all this information should be in one article about the whole transit system, something that can list all the lines and stations, while also expanding on certain stations that are more notable.  You have to think, first, how many people are going to search Wikipedia for an exact station?  And second, wouldn't it be easier to have all this information on one page so that whoever may search for this will get a complete understanding of the subject, instead of having to search through 251 stubs.  One thing I states was if you wanted information about stations, would you really go and look in an encyclopedia first?  Wouldn't you go look in a travel guide or an atlas?  And just to let you know, I would very much be open to the deletion of subway stations in any country.  Also, I would like to ask you to assume good faith and try not to attack me.  I am just a regular editor voicing my concerns about some articles.  You know, I go and look and I see accusations and just plain rudeness.  And lastly, you have to remember, what may be notable to you, isn't notable to everyone else.   I know that there are other editors, we are a community, that is why we have WP:AFD, to see what the community thinks.  Just because I tagged articles for AFD doesn't mean anything more than I want the communities opinion about my concerns.  I hope you also understand that "importance" is very different from "notability."  My truck is important to me, but there isn't an article on it.  I also hope you understand that in the future, if you want to avoid this sorta stuff, follow the WP:Manual of style and site your articles.  Provide sources for why they are important and don't just put one or two sentences, because if that is all you can say about a subject then it doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia.  Well that is my thought, again I hope you understand that I am not the bad guy here and that I dont hold any grudge against you or anything like that.  AFD is just a platofrm to discuss what the community thinks about whether an article should be deleted or not.  It isnt some death sentence.  Well have a good day/night, feel free to elaborate or against me questions before you go accusing and assuming about me.  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 07:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I fixed some cases of wrong spellings. However I didn't recognize its serious degree. I am quite sorry for these mistakes and paying attention to these. But would you let me know how to use the program you told ? In fact, I am qreally bad at understanding such programs...

And I would like to discuss this text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inseong_Cho I added several data on this page. However, it seems that I didn't know different person with the same name. I tried to arrange Jo In Sung who has been wide popularity in Korean cinema with his distinctive apppearance or something. I didn't know the person covered in that page mentioned. So I would like to ask you how it is possible to separate two pages( I guess it was made because Wikipedia Korea did not have page dealing with his work. ) Pju0353 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Korean assistance
I notice you're fluent korean, any chance you can help with this issue: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents?--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

minor edits
Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits. Per Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The rule of thumb is that only vandalism/test reversions or edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modifying content should be flagged as "minor". --Crossmr (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't add sections of numbers to an article like bus routes when all those bus routes are already covered in the info box. I've started putting the bus connections into the info box like on other subway articles for other countries. Please consider doing the same to any new articles you want to add them to. You can see Apgujeong station or Konkuk university station as examples.--Crossmr (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again...please stop marking edits as minor which are not minor. Doing so is seen as disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gangbyeon Station
A tag has been placed on Gangbyeon Station, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

no indication of importance

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. BE——Critical __Talk 03:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gyeongchun Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cheongnyangni Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Korean Film
I saw your ID on WikiProject and so I thought you might be interested in a debate at Template Talk on the topic of merging Infobox Korean Film into the generic Infobox Film category, deleting the Hangul/hanja/RR/MR information, or keeping it separate (as it currently is). I would appreciate it if you to contribute your thoughts or at least glance over it. The more people looking/thinking about it will give us better ideas as to what should be decided. Thank you. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 09:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andoni Iraola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vice-captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta - Updates tip
Hi there from Portugal,

this player started playing as a senior in the year 2011, yes the season was 2010/11 but it's the year that matters OK?

Happy editing - --AL (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Now, something about squad templates: please don't add B-TEAM players to the main squad template just because they have appeared with it, in many many cases players like Aymeric Laporte will be connected with reserves for a long time still, you only insert them in the squad template when they have been promoted DEFINITELY to the first team.

About the names in template: it's irrelevant what the shirt in the player's back says, in WP it's always SURNAME only, unless player is known by first name or nickname OK (example it's HERRERA not ANDER HERRERA, even if it's what he has on his shirt)? I have a feeling you will not answer me don't know why, but the message has been delivered.

Happy week from Portugal - --AL (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andoni (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox SMS station
Template:Infobox SMS station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Station. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nima Farid (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/SMS left/Suin Line
Template:S-line/SMS left/Suin Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/SMS right/Suin Line
Template:S-line/SMS right/Suin Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sungminkwon


text:
User talk:Smerk

Rugby league
Hi, you're doing anice job with all the French clubs, I'll keep looking out for your stuff. Grinner

RL AFD
Vote to keep our pages smerk, if you did not see my post at kangarooarmy.com Click on links with title AFD at following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GeorgeWilliams POds 12:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Biting a newcomer!!!
I know older users shouuldn't bite newcomers, but, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING STUFFING UP THE Dinosaur PICTURES LIKE THAT? We spend hours shifting them so their just right & you go & stuff them up by lining them like that! Please, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!!

I'm sorry if I sound angry, well I am, but this article is a pet project of mine & I have spent a lot of time on it.... I'm actually quite nice & if you need help, don't hesitate to ask... Spawn Man 08:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to revert them, but you already did, I'm not a newcomer, and I don't see the need for a private message, you just had to revert them, as you did. Anyway, the article looks great, keep up the good work.

 * Apologies accepted.... Drop by my talk page sometime friend.... Spawn Man 08:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright
The issue as far as I was concerned arose from a literal reading of the copyright notice, as noted in the edit summary : "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents", not "on the film or its contents". I could be wrong in my interpretation, or the notice wording could be inaccurate, but good luck trying to get around a combination of Australian and U.S. law on this with confidence. OTOH some people seem to think optimism suffices. -- Zigger «º» 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
Ah! Sorry! I was actually just fixing the "Writer" part. I hadn't realized that half the article died when I made the edit. I might have crtl+a'ed before pasting from IMDB. Much thanks for reverting the error. --Sycron 05:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby league
How about signing up for the WikiProject Rugby league? It doesn't really require you to do anything you dont do atm, its more a formality then anything. However, there will be an effort to creat consistent feeling pages and work with other projects that should be followed when editing pages. This is simple, its just structure, such as headings, templates to be used etc. Give it a think. POds 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Smerk


text: User talk:Alsoknownas

title: User talk:Alsoknownas


text: Category:Universities and colleges in Japan


text:
Talk:Free Exercise Clause

This shouldn't be merged
The free exercise clause and the establishment clause are two entirely different clauses in the First Amendment. Maybe they could both be merged together into an article on the First Amendment, but free exercise certainly doesn't belong under the establishment clause. --Cyde 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply, each clause of the Constitution should have its own section; Separation of church and state in the United States, while related, is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Assawyer 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm confused, Cyde. If two separate articles are needed, why do both articles begin, the top of their ledes, with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”? Personally, I see no reason to split the sentence into two articles. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This should be merged
While the two clauses are different they cannot be understood separately from one another. I contend they compliment and to discuss oopeans coming to North America were escaping religious wars. Yes, some did establish religious communities, colonies and states. But others did not, South Carolina for one.

The horror of religious wars on the continent of Europe during and following the Reformation begged the question, "How do we avoid these Princes killing us in the name of the Christian Faith?" The answer lay in creating a tension between "free Excercise" (the power of the State cannot dictate religion to its citizens) and non-establishment (the State will not establish any of the religions).

Strict "separation of Church and State" folks may disagree but the answer to keeping our current "culture war" from becoming a religious war is to recognize that religion (all religions!) must be honored by the State, not avoided as if it were a fatal disease. Religion should be for the State like medicine - none of it and you are sick; too much and you die.

Do we really need that?
The part about "Student Research": it seems a little... out of place with both topic and wording. 68.39.174.238 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sherbert Test: Another merger proposal...
...but I think this one's more reasonable. The test seems to be essentially a strict scrutiny (compelling interest) test applied to the Free Exercise clause. I talked this over with Cyde months ago when he and I were the only one's who'd edited Sherbert Test, but I never got around to merging them. --Chaser (T) 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Sherbert Test should be in the article, however I believe having in the article about the case - Sherbert v. Verner - would be the more prudant thing to do. Such as how the Lemon Test redirects to and is found in the Lemon v. Kurtzman article.  --Assawyer 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Sherbert Test now redirects. The old page is here. Reviewing of the new Sherbert article is welcome.--Chaser (T) 02:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Compelling Interest
Why does compelling interest redirect here? Doesn't the doctrine apply in situations other than the free exercise clause? Commander Nemet 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I understand it compelling interest is part of strict scrutiny, a level of protection under the Equal Protection Clause. I changed it to strict scrutiny. If someone knows more, please redirect it elsewhere. --Chaser T 07:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's compelling STATE interest, I have created a page on compelling state interest. It includes a list of other things to which it applies. Jdblick 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mormon polygamy

 * Congress banned polygamy when the practice was a central tenet of the Mormon religion. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the criminal prohibition in Reynolds v. United States (1878). The defendant proved that he was a member of the Mormon Church; that he was a believer in its doctrines; that it was an accepted precept of the Church, fortified by books thought to be of divine origin, that male members were saddled with a duty to practice polygamy; and, that a failure or refusal to do so would be punished by damnation in the life to come. Chief Justice Morrison Waite denied that the Free Exercise Clause was transgressed by the defendant's conviction.
 * The chief justice reasoned that, "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach activities in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." He added: "To permit [a religious motivation to justify non-compliance] would be to make professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Associate Justice Antonin Scalia endorsed Reynolds in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) in denying the religious use of peyote a Free Exercise Clause exemption from Oregon's anti-drug laws.

Is this information already in Wikipedia somewhere? If not, should it go here? --Uncle Ed 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jehova's Witnesses Cases in the Introductory paragraphs?
I don't want to make an edit that might look POV without discussing it first. However, I take issue with the fact that the article goes onto the "Jehova's Witnesses cases" (as though it were some functional or doctrinal category) before the main subject of the clause has even fully been introduced. Yes, many FE clause cases have involved that particular group, however, I think that putting such focus on it distorts the article. The clause was not made to protect one religious group; it was made to protect a fundamental freedom for all of the people. I cannot cite at this time, any study that attributes FE clause litigation by sect, but I sincerely doubt, based upon my extensive experience, that the majority of FE clause cases, or even a significant plurality, are brought by that group.

The FE clause cases brought by the Jehovas Witnesses are significant for their doctrinal impact but they are treated in an entire section of the article already. And I am really not sure why that is. The cases are doctrinally different. Also, by drawing particular focus on one particular religion, it could send several messages: (i) Jehova's Witnesses are pioneering legal libertarians (ii) Jehova's Witnesses are whiny, plaintive or litigious (iii) Jehova's Witnesses bring the majority of free exercise clause cases

I am quite sure none of these are "true" to any extent. Moreover, they are generalizations about a religious group, and therefore, inherently discriminatory, whether positive or negative in their impact. I don't think that's an appropriate position for the article to take.

Because it distorts the article and potentially spreads undue messages, the article should be changed. I recommend the following: (i) promptly remove reference to "jehovas witness" cases in the introduction. (ii) keep a seperate section on "jehovas witness" cases in the body article. (iii) eventually add more information to the introduction on the legislative history, or link to appropriate sources thereupon, and organize the article along doctrinlly clearer lines, while retaining appropriate reference to the role of Jehovas Witnesses cases What does the wikimmunity think? Please weigh in. If no one weighs in for a while (say, 2 months of silence) I may make the edits I recommended myself. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two Clauses
The First Amendment expresses two protections referred to as the Establishment Clause (the set of words immediately preceding the comma) and the Free Exercise Clause (the set of words which follows the comma.) The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a official religion and the Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of any religion. These two concepts are distinct and separate, not synonyms for one another. Recent good faith edits suggest a misunderstanding of that distinction. Celestra (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible bias
A revision made by an IP user back in mid-March seems to add a lot of rather thinly-veiled, anti-separation language to the overview section making the article take on a pretty unbalanced tone. Should it be removed or edited to be more neutral? MasterNetHead (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this concern. The quotes that begin the "Overview" section are selective. Noah Webster, for example, had a tangential relationship (at most) to the drafting of the Constitution; his quote has little relevance to a discussion of the Free Exercise Clause. Furthermore, the section entirely ignores several individuals more directly involved with the Constitution (such as James Madison, who wrote it). Seems indicative of an agenda. -- NamibiaCoastGuard (talk) 24 April 2011

Supported quotes in and removed content from the lead
I happened to look at this article today and was surprised not to see citations supporting the direct quotes in the lead. WP:V says, "Attribute all quotations [...] to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I've supplied cites supporting the quotes. I've removed "(Page 162)" and instead specified pin=162 in the ussc template I've used in the cite, as I'm guessing that is what it referred to. That didn't work with either the template's default source (Justia) or with Findlaw, but I ended up specifying Findlaw as a source since that results in a link to the text of the opinion which can be searched for the quoted text. Some digging led me to this January 10, 2009 edit. Since the lead has been like this for so long, I thought that I ought to comment here on the talk page, not just in an edit summary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Prefer the last version.
I know that this is a small change, but the insertion of the "it's" is just less elegant. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Exercise_Clause&diff=next&oldid=694862650#Jehovah.27s_Witnesses_cases Thank you, 69.116.56.228 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Oooops! that's me. Wordreader (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Free Exercise Clause


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Iraqi insurgency

Iraqi insurgency

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Copied from its talk page: ''This article is such an abominable mess that I'm summarily removing its featured article status. The writing is some of the worst I've seen on a Wikipedia article, it's in a state of flux, and it's full of unreferenced statements and opinion represented as fact. --Tony Sidaway Talk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)''. Rather than summarily removing it let's discuss its merits and then decide. It was also nominated here three months ago: old nomination. Worldtraveller 12:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The original FAC is here. JDR 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Remove. Contains multiple images without any license and those that claim fair use have no rationale, and some aren't needed to illustrate the article. Like the blurry one of a person loading a missile. - 131.211.51.34 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That was my comment. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Two points: 1) there is no process for summary removal, so well done for bringing it here, and 2) and I now change my vote to remove. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. While the article does have a lot of interesting info and decent references, it lacks the overall cohesiveness of a well-put-together article and instead reads as a list of items related to the Iraq insurgency. There are also a number of inaccuracies, such as this statement in the lead: "Much of the insurgents' violence is directed at the police and defence forces of the Iraqi government." In the last few months, the insurgency has focused on causing civilian casualties. I also don't see any info on the fighting that has occured between the different insurgent groups.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment—Starts quite well, then the rot sets in. Appallingly written towards the end. Lacks cohesiveness. Someone had better repair it quick smart. Tony 13:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove-Normally I'd suggest just reverting to the revision for which it was made featured, but this is an topic that demands a continually updated and improved article. Those updates and improvements simply haven't been made. However, remember we're not voting to delete; I can see this possibly earning featured again in the future. Superm401 | Talk 16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep From the various positons on it's becoming a FAC. The article covers the necessary view that "the resistance" as it isn't a singular entity, unlike most journalists on the topic. It has "heaps of info" (aka., list of items related to the Iraq insurgency) and "Covers pretty much everything" .... and, as to being in a "state of flux", something that goes along with being a "current event" . Sincerely, JDR 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. This article is an embarrassment and has been for some time.  There is some good stuff in here no doubt, and the article does try to deal with the complexity of the situation, but it has been the victim of so many edit wars and POV-related edits that it will take a while to separate the signal from the noise here.  It also probably will not be improved any time soon until people both pro- and anti-war stop trying to use this article as their political soapbox.  Obviously there are important political issues here, but the language should be encyclopedic, not politically charged, and debates over the political meaning of terms (such as "insurgency" and "resistance") should not be elided or wished away.--csloat 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Many thanks to Worldtraveller for doing what I did not.  I removed the article summarily because I assessed that there would be overwhelming support for this action in the interests of Wikipedia (WP:IAR) but this turned out to be wrong so when the article was restored I did not pursue the matter further. --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove regarding JDR's comment, the fact that something being in a state of flux goes along with being a current event is why we don't normally nom current events to be FAs. Re:stability criteria. Borisblue 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. I support Tony's rather rash decision to remove it even it may appear somewhat high-handed. He is absolutely right that this is a no-brainer since it's about a current event that might take years to stabilize, something which should've been recognized in the original FAC. Demanding a proper vote when it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't live up to the FA criteria strikes me as overly bureaucratic. / Peter Isotalo 15:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove From reading the FAC archive, the article was a good one at the time. But lately it seems to have been taken over by a group of pro-Bush POV pushers, whose standards of writing are not the highest. JMaxwell 03:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Nokbeon station

Nokbeon Station is a station on Seoul Subway Line 3 in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul.

title: Nokbeon station


text:
McDonald criteria

The McDonald criteria are diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS). These criteria are named after neurologist W. Ian McDonald who directed an international panel in association with the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) of America and recommended revised diagnostic criteria for MS in April 2001. These new criteria intended to replace the Poser criteria and the older Schumacher criteria. They have undergone revisions in 2005, 2010 and 2017.

They maintain the Poser requirement to demonstrate "dissemination of lesions in space and time" (DIS and DIT) but they discourage the previously used Poser terms such as "clinically definite" and "probable MS", and propose as diagnostic either "MS", "possible MS", or "not MS".

The McDonald criteria maintained a scheme for diagnosing MS based solely on clinical grounds but also proposed for the first time that when clinical evidence is lacking, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings can serve as surrogates for dissemination in space (DIS) and/or time (DIT) to diagnose MS. The criteria try to prove the existence of demyelinating lesions, by image or by their effects, showing that they occur in different areas of the nervous system (DIS) and that they accumulate over time (DIT). The McDonald criteria facilitate the diagnosis of MS in patients who present with their first demyelinating attack and significantly increase the sensitivity for diagnosing MS without compromising the specificity.

The McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis were revised first in 2005 to clarify exactly what is meant by an "attack", "dissemination" and a "positive MRI", etc. Later they were revised again in 2017.

McDonald criteria are the standard clinical case definition for MS and the 2010 version is regarded as the gold standard test for MS diagnosis.

Diagnostic Criteria
They discourage the previously used terms such as "clinically definite" and "probable MS", and propose as diagnostic variants like "MS", "possible MS", or "not MS", though these terms change between revisions. As of 2017 revision The term ‘possible MS’  was  added  for  people  with  a  typical  clinically  isolated  syndrome  who  did  not meet the criteria.

Criticism
Pathology is generally regarded as the gold standard in defining different forms of inflammatory demyelinating diseases.

Specificity of the McDonald criteria is low due to the fact that the nature of the lesions is not considered, but only their dissemination. None of the criteria are MS-specific. In order to reduce false positives, McDonald et al. propose that their criteria should be applied only after any other disease has been ruled out. In 2008 a consensus was developed for differential diagnosis.

Another criticism of the McDonald criteria is that the definition of "lesions typical of MS" is unclear; a 2013 review identified the following characteristics: specific cell morphology shown by hematoxylin, demyelination shown by Luxol fast blue, macrophage appearance by KiM1P or CD68, damage to the axons shown by Bielschowsky stain, astrocytopathy shown by glial fibrillary acidic protein, and different lymphocyte subtypes, reacting to CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20 and CD138.

The sensitivity of McDonald criteria is low with regard to pathologically defined MS because around 25% of MS cases are silent MS cases.

McDonald criteria have been shown to have a low sensitivity and specificity (with respect to the pathological presence of lesions) in Asiatic populations. They have good predictive quality (with respect to CIS [clinically isolated syndrome] to CDMS [Clinically Definite Multiple Sclerosis] conversion) when evaluated in non-selected populations.

Comparison of McDonald versions
Currently there is not too much information comparing the sensibility and specificity of different McDonald versions against autopsy. Some reports have used Poser "CDMS" delayed diagnosis (during a two-year follow-up) as milestone to evaluate these parameters.

It seems that 2017 revision has higher sensitivity (85 vs. 30% and 85 vs. 41%) and lower specificity (33 vs. 63% and 63 vs. 85%) compared to the 2010 revisions and Poser CDMS, at two years follow-up.

2010 Revisions
In 2010, the International Panel on Diagnosis of MS met in Dublin, Ireland for a third time to discuss and revise the McDonald diagnostic criteria. Reasons for revisions to the criteria included the simplification of demonstration of CNS lesions in space and time via imaging, and to address criticisms that the previous criteria did not appropriately apply to Asian populations.

One study has suggested that the new criteria allow a faster diagnosis, but with slight sacrifice in accuracy.

2017 revision
The last revision (as of 2018) is the 2017 revision. It has been reported to improve sensibility up to an 82% (respect around 8 years CIS to MS conversion, retrospectively evaluated). The 2017 revision predicted 86.8% of positives in the follow-up using as reference the 2010 criteria after a follow-up of 3.8 ± 2.9 years. No reduction in specificity was reported.

The 2017 revision tries to accelerate the diagnosis without risking specificity. The new recommendations include:

 * First of all, probably the most polemical change, a patient with CIS (only one demyelinating lesion) can now be diagnosed as MS if an MRI shows dissemination in space (DIS). In these cases dissemination in time (DIT) can be substituted by a laboratory testing of oligoclonal bands.
 * Second, both symptomatic and asymptomatic lesions can be considered for showing DIS and DIT
 * Third, also cortical lesions can be used to show DIS.
 * Fourth, also for PPMS cortical and asymptomatic lesions can be used in diagnosis.

Improvements in imaging technology
MRI results do not pick up all MS lesions. The European group MAGNIMS periodically publishes guidelines for using MRI in the diagnosis of MS that are updated as MRI technology evolves. Moreover, new MRI techniques, such as double inversion recovery imaging or phase sensitive inversion recovery, can be used to identify more lesions in MS which, if further validated, could be included in future criteria. Another promising MRI technique is magnetic transfer imaging, which will allow the detection of damage in normal-appearing brain tissue away from focal lesions. Finally, high resolution spectral domain optical coherence tomography could prove to be a very promising and sensitive way of identifying optic neuritis in the future.

Improvements in biomarkers
Four biomarkers were identified for further study by the 2010 revisions of McDonald Criteria: The CSF, the serum anti-GAGA4 and protein signatures and finally the circulating microRNA Some blood tests have been proposed based in circulating neurofilament light chain (NFL), in RNA profiling or in the MRZ reaction.

Addressing subclinical disease
Another issue of great clinical significance that is not addressed by 2010 McDonald criteria is subclinical disease. There are some patients who were incidentally found to have brain lesions with appearance and location consistent with MS who are now classified as having a radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS). Some of these people will develop MS even after several years. Because early initiation of MS disease-modifying therapy is associated with better clinical outcomes, it is important to identify individuals in the subclinical stage of disease and determine if initiation of treatment at this stage is beneficial. More research is currently being conducted to clarify this issue and address which RIS patients will progress to definite MS. Depending on the findings of this research, future criteria might address this controversial but highly important issue of MS care.

title: McDonald criteria