text:
Bluecoat Chambers

Built in 1716–17 as a charity school, Bluecoat Chambers in School Lane is the oldest surviving building in central Liverpool, England. Following the Liverpool Blue Coat School's move to another site in 1906, the building was rented from 1907 onwards by the Sandon Studios Society. Based on the presence of this art society and the subsequent formation of the Bluecoat Society of Arts in 1927, the successor organisation laid claim to being the oldest arts centre in Great Britain, now called the Bluecoat.

History
The school was founded in 1708 by the Reverend Robert Styth (died 1713 ), rector of Liverpool, and Bryan Blundell, a sea captain and later twice Mayor of Liverpool (1721–22 and 1728–29). Originally constructed in 1716–17, the building was extended until 1718 to function as a boarding school. By the following year, it had 50 children, with room for 100 more, and construction was finally completed in 1725.

After the school moved to a new site in Wavertree in 1906, the building was threatened with demolition. It was rented out from 1907 to the Sandon Studios Society, an independent art school and art society. The building's future still unsecured, it took the intervention of the architect Charles Herbert Reilly, head of the Liverpool School of Architecture. He convinced the industrialist William Lever to rent Bluecoat Chambers in 1909 and subsequently buy it, renaming it Liberty Buildings. Sharing the space with the Sandon Society, Reilly moved in with his School of Architecture from 1909 until shortly after World War I. In 1913–14, Lever entertained the thought of a larger building scheme to transform Liberty Buildings into an art centre but, by 1918, got tired with the idea. Lever's death in 1925 again led to proposals for demolition. A successful campaign to raise money for the purchase of Bluecoat Chambers resulted in the establishment of the Bluecoat Society of Arts in 1927 as a charitable trust to run the building.

On 3 May 1941, during the Liverpool Blitz, the concert hall and adjoining rooms were severely damaged by an incendiary bomb and during the following night the rear wing was destroyed by a bomb blast. Restoration took place after the war, being completed by 1951. It is recorded in the National Heritage List for England as a designated Grade I listed building, having been designated on 28 June 1952.

The Bluecoat Display Centre, a contemporary craft gallery, opened in the rear courtyard in 1959. Being known as the Bluecoat Arts Centre from the 1980s, it is now simply called the Bluecoat. From 2005, the building was further restored and a new wing added. It was reopened in March 2008 to coincide with Liverpool's year as European Capital of Culture.

Architecture
The Bluecoat is built in brick with painted stone dressings and a slate roof. H-shaped in plan, originally the rear of the school resembled the front but in 1821 it was remodeled giving it a convex-shaped elevation. The front encloses three sides of a quadrangle and is separated from School Lane by a low wall with railings and gatepiers. The central block of five bays has two storeys with round-arched windows; the central three bays project forwards under a pediment containing a clock which has only an hour hand. On the roof is an octagonal cupola with round-arched openings, attached Ionic columns and a copper cap with a finial. The wings have three storeys; they are eleven bays long and one bay wide. On the ground and first floor the windows are square-headed while those on the top floor are oval. The end elevations have arched windows which match the central block. All the large windows have keystones with cherubs' heads. The main door in the centre of the central block has Ionic columns with a broken pediment containing a cartouche of the arms of Liverpool. Each wing has three square-headed doors approached by steps. The wall, railings and gate piers on School Lane are also listed at Grade I.

The 2005-2008 renovation at a cost of £14 million also included a new 2250 square metre extension, the architects being BIQ Architecten. The architects found that there were 32 different floor levels in the old building. They carried out much structural change to produce exhibition areas with better accessibility. The new extension is built mainly in brick to link with the old building, although it has a copper roof and more modern materials internally. The new wing houses a flexible performance area and four art galleries. In addition, the complex provides studios for artists and craftspeople, a restaurant and a café and a number of retail outlets. On 13 May 2008, a fire broke out in a kitchen on the first floor of the west wing causing significant damage, although 80% of the building was unaffected.

Arts Centre
Over the years the Bluecoat hosted a range of cultural and arts-associated events. These included art exhibitions, debates, discussions, public meetings and campaigns, poetry readings, musical concerts and recitals, and cultural lectures. It held book, record, and antiques fairs and became a centre for working artists and craftspeople.

Some of the events have continued to hold a place in history. The 1908 exhibition of works mostly by members of the Sandon Society also included the first showing in Liverpool of Claude Monet who received a special invite. In 1911, the Sandon Society took on parts of Roger Fry's London Post-Impressionist exhibition, showing works by Picasso, Matisse, Cézanne, and Van Gogh for the first time in the UK outside the capital. In 1967 Yoko Ono appeared at the Bluecoat, at a time before she met John Lennon. The Bluecoat was also visited by performing artists as Stravinsky, Michael Nyman, Doris Lessing and the Last Poets.

Bluecoat today
The Bluecoat was reopened on 15 March 2008, during Liverpool's year as a European Capital of Culture, by Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The opening exhibition, entitled Now Then, showed work by five artists, including Yoko Ono. During the early summer a display entitled Mr Roscoe's Garden, comprising part of Liverpool's Botanic Collection, was held.

The Bluecoat organises exhibitions, events, education programmes and concerts. It also contains 22 artists studios. Coffee and light meals are available in the Espresso Bar and Upstairs Bistro.

Since the reopening, the galleries have held major exhibitions by John Akomfrah, Mark Leckey, Sonia Boyce, Jonathan Baldock, Bruce Asbestos Keith Piper, Siobhan Davies Dance & Niamh O'Malley, amongst others.

title: Bluecoat Chambers


text:
Talk:Benny Hill

Notable works
Re the recent edit summary ("notable work" is a POV description [these listings where probably cherry-picked based on someone's personal taste], and it's better to discuss works in article prose anyway instead of overstuffing the infobox) by User:SNUGGUMS: I don't object to your edit, but a work is indubitably notable if it has an article on Wikipedia. I note all involved works have just that, blue links. Ergo characterizing them as "notable works" would be uncontroversially true. Merry Christmas, y'all. CapnZapp (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether they have articles wasn't the point of my edit; whoever inserted them was problematically implying only certain works mattered. I strongly suspect they simply added their personal favorites into the field. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't object to your edit. I will comment on your edit summary. "notable work" is not a "POV description". Each work with a Wikipedia article is notable, and we have many articles where editors curate a selection of works by the article subject without having to base that selection on a source. Please do boldly edit such a selection, just as you did, and the previous editor did too. But please do not cast aspersions on that previous work: with a phrase like "[was] probably cherry-picked" you were insinuating that selection was somehow inferior because it was based on personal taste, which reveals a lack of understanding of our job as fellow editors. You should exercise your personal taste when you improve Wikipedia! And if I should later "mercilessly edit" your contributions, you don't want me to justify my edits by "SNUGGUM used his personal taste (and his taste is poor and unrefined)", do you? Have a nice day, CapnZapp (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Add a mention of the video game
See Benny Hill's Madcap Chase. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:91E9:78E9:DDF4:AE21 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Celebrity fans
I am removing the Chaplin reference, and that is for two reasons: First, because I had e-mail contact with the estate and they did not recognise this story at all. They went as far as to say that Chaplin PROBABLY knew Hill existed. Second, while the story (more or less) IS indeed mentioned in an episode of "living famously", like the footnote says, that doesn't mean that it's true. A friend and admirer of Hill gives some anecdotal evidence - quite possibly he's more interested in idolising his hero than strict regard for objective truth. Just because someone says something somewhere, doesn't mean it had to be accepted as fact. (In fact "celebrity fans" is in general very prone to unreliability; for example they say Elvis loved Monty Python and the holy grail but things should be proven first, not disproven.) Spiny Norman (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * PS Also, when Eugene Chaplin (a first hand source) is seen speaking to and about Hill in "Clown Imperial", the 1991 documentary, the alleged fandom of Charlie Chaplin is not mentioned. Spiny Norman (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hill was gay rumor, unreliable source
The citation in the small section mentioning rumors of Mr. Hill’s sexuality is questionable, in part bc it doesn’t it’s any primary sources for this information, and additionally states bizarrely biased claims such as the reasons behind his Thames programme’s declining ratings:

“By the 1990s, the hugely popular Benny Hill Show was being politely censored by influence from a new, highly influential nemesis: the feminists. The "femi-nazis" and the newest fad of the time, "political correctness" had raised its horrible, intimidating head. Benny found his once-popular show being canceled in several countries. The hard-hearted feminists couldn't stand seeing Benny running around with beautiful, young girls in their meager attire.”

This is nothing but an (pointed) opinion citing no sources for numerous things, and thusly should not be considered as a source for any information in this Wikipedia entry. 2603:7080:A507:A9EF:95E2:ECAC:B6CB:46CC (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I think the key to this is his frugality. In my youth I was often told "don't get married son, you'll never have any money". So, he was heterosexual but would not get married beacuse he was too mean with his money. 2A02:C7C:59DD:E900:B40B:A45:F481:7527 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

First movie hacker?
I believe that Hill's role as the computer hacker "The Professor" in "The Italian Job" 1969 makes him the first actor to play a hacker in a movie. Any reliable sources for this, please? There were earlier computing plots in movies (e.g. "The Billion Dollar Brain" 1967) but not, AFAIK, actors specifically cast as technicians who deliberately subverted computers to their will. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Benny Hill


text:
Talk:Supervenience

Intro rewrite and (temporary?) chart removal
I rewrote the intro since, though it was good, it did not seem to capture the core ideas in the supervenience literature, which I have been wading through for some time now. Also, I removed the chart, for reasons similar to those cited below. In fact, realization itself has developed into something of a literature, and its relation to supervenience is hotly debated. However, I do like the chart and think it should be re-introduced in a subsection, perhaps on mental causation. At any rate, I hope my changes will be improved upon, and apologize for any mistakes or abuses of wiki convention (I still consider myself a wiki neophyte). Jyoshimi 05:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chart
That chart doesn't show supervenience, it shows one physical property that realizes a mental property causing another physical property that realizes a mental property. Sure, realization is one way of getting supervenience, but it's certainly not the only way. And there's nothing in supervenience that has low-level properties causing each other. Just think of supervenience in meta-ethics. --GodRousingDogPipes 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The caption of the current chart says the chart shows a relationship between "A" and "B", but "A" and "B" do not appear in the chart. 206.53.197.12 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mental Properties
the examples of mental supervenience given are: * If two people, X and Y, are identical with regards to their physical properties, they must also be identical in their mental properties.

* If two people, X and Y, are identical with regards to their mental properties, they must also be identical in their physical properties.

However, only the first example is consistent with the definition of supervenience given: when X supervenes on Y, identical Y necessitates identical X. It does NOT follow that identical X necessitates identical Y (e.g. a chessboard made of wood is identical to one made of marble for the purposes of someone only interested in the rules of chess, but a wooden chessboard and a wooden non-chessboard MUST be different at the level of woodwork in addition to being different at the chess rule level). The second example needs to be removed, or an explanation for this inconsistent usage needs to be given. (snaxalotl)

Replications
"An atom-by-atom replication of a person will have the same mental characteristics as the original."

An atom-by-atom replication of a person couldn't ever be exact. They would necessarily occupy different positions in space and time, and have variant perspectives (however slight).

That's not the point. Even though it's physically impossible to have exact replication, /in principle/ an exact replication would, by supervenience, result in exact mental replication. Also, it might be true that slight differece will produce a different mental instance, but this doesn't follow from the definition of supervenience and is irrelevant here. (snaxalotl)

About value
I don't understand what is meant by organism in the sentence:

"The value of a physical object to an organism is sometimes held to be supervenient upon the physical properties of the object."

Should it be replaced by agent? Is that any better?

 * That's sounds like better wording to me. I've changed it. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip
Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches, along with the status of the special sciences and their supervenience on physics, or their reduction to physics. Progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing bracket in FOL statement
Under "Definitions", the second formal FOL statement has three opening parentheses, and only two closing ones. Is this is a mistake? Jameshfisher 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. Fixed it.  Thanks.  Jyoshimi (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

FOL definition not well-formed
In the first formal definition the first two universal quantifiers are limited in scope to the antecedent only, while the variables that are bound to them appear in the consequent. This doesn't seem to me to be well-formed.

There should only be one parenthesis after the iff in the antecedent and there should be no parenthesis that start off the consequent.

are my assessments accurate?

I went ahead and made the modification.

Kmddmk (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for section on Supervenience in Philosophy of Physics.
I was going to test the waters if people thought a part in the article on arguments about Supervenience and implications for reductive accounts of physical world with specific examples of quantum theory was a good idea. I am new to wikipedia but feel this is an important part of understanding how supervenience is important beyond simple considerations in the philosophy of mind.

Leave me a comment if you think it will be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel jones (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree it's a good idea; supervenience is used in many areas of philosophy. If it's done I think it should make reference to some existing source or discussion.  A quick google turned this up, for example: http://iopscience.iop.org/1751-8121/40/12/S16  Jyoshimi (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. How about rewriting the intro at least in language that is accessible to a lay reader?
I'm not dumb by any means, but your use of language is so specialized, I have no idea what this means. You might as well be writing in Russian. I just wanted to get a sense of the word before going back to reading something else that used the word. This is a general encyclopedia. I agree. The writing throughout is horrid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.215.30 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Translate, please Grumpily. Eperotao (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole entry suffers from being indecipherable by any non-expert. 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildspell (talk • contribs)

 * I am partly to blame for the intro paragraph.   Previously the entry was inaccurate in some ways, so I tried to fix the problems.  However I myself am steeped in the literature, so ended up writing something too technical perhaps, though others helped make it better.  Anyway I agree it should begin with something more accessible.   Perhaps something like "Supervenience is a technical concept that philosophers use to describe dependencies between various kinds of thing.  For example, the properties of the mind are widely thought to depend on the properties of the brain.   So we have a supervenience relation. "  Or something, maybe making reference to that diagram with the hierarchy from social levels down to elementary particles.   Then the next paragraph could read "Supervenience is a complex topic, and is described using a whole constellation of philosophical concepts..."  Or something like that.   I'm not sure.   I won't have time to make the changes but certainly hope someone tries to do so.    Similarly for the rest of the article.  Jyoshimi (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * It seems a bad idea to put an example into the first paragraph of the lede, the language needs to be simplified instead for that. If there is a referenced example it can go the lede as a separate second/third paragraph. This would make it far more readable. It is preferably to have a referenced example rather than WP:OR. Cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

<24.23.165.236 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Mike>-> I agree; I have a PHD and I cant follow this without grinding my neck. "To give a somewhat simplified example, if psychological properties supervene on physical properties... (complex axample ensues)"

Define: "simplified".

How about this: All dogs bark, but not all that barks is a dog. Dogs supervene on barking, but barking does not supervent on dogs. (If I have this upside down, its because the idea wasnt explained). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.236 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Jyoshimi, I agree you've captured the literary style well :) That's not really a bad thing if it's further along in the article, where I doubt it could be avoided. The topic does get complicated quickly and those subtle details are considered important, if not light reading. The approach you suggest sounds like the way to go… a lede introducing the topic and touching lightly on what's covered in the rest of article. The reader can click the links (e.g., multiple realizability) or skip ahead. An adequate stand-alone summary that's nonetheless accessible, is probably too much to hope for. Wrong way around or no, I'm not quite sure if 24's example captures how the notion is applied, though people do bark from time to time. Believe it or not, “C-fibers” are actually a very common example.—Machine Elf 1735  17:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving this to the top since it's been active since I last checked (does anyone know how to make wikipedia email me when comments appear here?) Anyway, I'm going to try  a new lead paragraph. Others please edit etc. One quick note on C-fibers, is that they are a classic example in the mind-brain identity literature (it was Smart's example I think). Since multiple-realization and supervenience were supposed to counter the identity theory, it makes the example a bit misleading. Then again, strictly speaking,  supervenience does still apply in that case. Jyoshimi (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Actually, don't move it to the top. New messages always appear at the bottom of WP talk pages.—Machine Elf 1735  23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Got it, thanks. Jyoshimi (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I found the intro to be exceptionally well-written and comprehensible. Granted, I have a doctorate in psychology, but I should hasten to add, I've taken only one philosophy course in my entire education.  Mark D Worthen PsyD  15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree, and my background is self-taught engineering. I Am going to go ahead and delete the tag at the top of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitions
we definetly need sources for the two definitions. the stanford encyclopedia article seems to rely solely on the indiscernible-definition. plus i have to admit that i do not quite get the other definition (which should be horrible with respect to the lay reader, i do have a B.A. in philosophy)--178.5.77.243 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Here are some references.  Probably closest is my own paper, not surprisingly, but I'm not sure about citing myself here .   Horgan uses the definition you didn't like (and I agree it's hard to follow) .  Kim focuses more on the first indiscernibility def.  Also he's kind of canonical   It's hard to find a direct reference to the definitions given here.  The literature mostly focuses on the stuff discussed in the varieties section.  There aren't many efforts to pull out the generic  definitions, that abstract away from all the details of strong vs. weak, local vs. global.  Also I made the indiscernibility relation explicit with higher order quantifiers.  So I don't think this formulation exists anywhere exactly as stated.   At any rate, suggestions on how to fold this in welcome.   Jyoshimi (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

“Levels of existence” diagram on first page
This diagram as displayed was more of an obstacle to understanding for me than an aide, even though I had already read some of the main literature on this subject. Probably the issue is that the arrow’s ‘prior’ meaning to me is something like “determines” or “causes”, which would be upward pointing. So to properly interpret this diagram, I had to contextually redefine the arrow, but within an unclear context due to not already understanding “supervenience’. Assuming my reaction is not idiosyncratic and a change in the diagram is needed, it is not clear to me what the improvements would be. One possibility: (1) slightly enlarge the distances between the boxes in order to enlarge the arrow images; (2) use two arrows pointing in opposite directions, perhaps one solid and one white with black outline, perhaps with them at the 1/3 and 2/3 distance points across the grayed boxes; and (3) instead of the present language at the bottom of the diagram, create a key with the downward arrow symbol explained as “supervenes on”, and the upward arrow symbol being explained as “determines”, although “disputed” or some other term may be better here, not sure. Since the topic of the article is "supervenience", that downward arrow probably should be solid and first in the sense of being on the left side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillup23 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Supervene - υπερέρχομαι
Grecophone translational analysis of the Latin etyma: μέσος 17ος αιώνας: supervene < λατινικά: supervenire < super- «υπερ-, επιπροσθέτως» + venire «έρχομαι» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:411a:2b00:fcf5:4272:3f6e:4ea4 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * supervenience = (η) υπερέλευσις (feminine), (η) υπερέλευση (feminine) < υπέρ + έλευσις

Molecule example is wrong or misleading
The example, "Properties of individual molecules supervene on the properties of individual atoms," seems either wrong or misleading. Compare it to the other example, "Whether there is a table in the living room supervenes on the positions of molecules in the living room." (emphasis added) Certainly there are many molecules whose properties completely change with only a change in the position of its constituent atoms. Proteins are a paradigmatic example of this. A protein in a denatured configuration has all the same amino acids as it had in its native state, but the protein's properties are completely different. So the example is not true of proteins: "Properties of individual [protein] molecules supervene on the properties of individual atoms," is not true since it is not the case that "some difference in Y ['the properties of individual atoms'] is necessary for any difference in X [the properties of the protein] to be possible." I think much of the misplaced reductionism associated with the concept of supervenience is due to this confusion between supervenience on patterns or structure versus supervenience on the constituents of the pattern. Nick (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Philosophical vs medical topic and recent edits
By my understanding, the philosophical topic of this page is not the same topic as that of the paragraph about the medical definition of the verb “supervene” that has been inserted at the top of the page. I initially reverted this edit myself, but this was undone with a “do not revert without discussion” note. I don't want to create an edit war, but in light of WP:MULTIPLESUBJECTS I find this pretty confusing, and I would like to see others weigh in on the matter if possible. --76.253.75.34 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree. The first sentence of the article should be about the article's topic. A redirect hatnote would be preferable, but to what article? HyRotor (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (Taking ownership of the above IP-signed post now that I've registered this account.) I am about to redo my earlier reversion for now in the absence of a response from the previous unreverting editor, because I think having this initial sentence here is actively harmful, especially via the inter-article preview system.
 * I don't see an article about the medical definition, and I'm not sure it's notable enough to have an article to itself. The term is also only rarely used this way elsewhere on Wikipedia, judging from a full-text search. It could usefully be added to Wiktionary, and a Wiktionary link added to the side, perhaps? I am not opposed to someone creating a full article if there's enough sourceable, useful information for one, though. I do see that the page on hatnotes considers use for dictionary definitions without a target article inappropriate. Rana Dexsin (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Supervenience


text:
Talk:Custodial rape

Source
The original source for this article,, is owned by User:Mrindianajonesprm, the user who placed it here, so it is under the GFDL. --Slowking Man 22:58, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC) ''Note: This refers to content that was deleted by VfD, which has no relation to the current content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)''

In the News?
At the bottom of the page there's a link referencing a boy born of prison rape and held there for forty years. I don't believe this is true - the site linked isn't really very helpful, with abysmal english and no real information (and I can't find confirmation of the story anywhere.) Recommend removal of link.

Police force's "virginity tests"
What is your source?

 * Amnesty International. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=merg with prison rape= I think they could be merged quite easily and should be Delighted eyes 09:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I googled "Custodial rape" and found dictionary entries that explain this means that the victim is in "custody" and therefore prevented from leaving. This does not necessarily mean in prison. Therefore, would it not be better to do this the other way around and move the "prison rape" article here and make it a sub-section, as prison rape is a specific type of custodial rape. — SkyLined (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Custodial rape


text:
Reserved occupation

A reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt or forbidden from military service. In a total war, such as the Second World War, where most fit men of military age were conscripted into the armed forces, exceptions were given to those who performed jobs vital to the country and the war effort which could not be abandoned or performed by others. Not only were such people exempt from being conscripted, they were often prohibited from enlisting on their own initiative, and were required to remain in their posts. Examples of reserved occupations include medical practitioners and police officers, but what is or is not a reserved occupation will depend on war needs and a country's particular circumstances.

Reserved occupations in the UK in World War I
Some of the reserved occupations included clergymen, farmers, doctors, teachers and certain industrial workers such as coal miners, dock workers and train drivers and iron and steel workers. Workers were not immediately exempt, for example a blacksmith would not be conscripted after the age of 25, not 18. Likewise, an unmarried mining or textiles worker would become exempt at the age of 30. Married men had a lower age before they became exempt. By 1915, 1.5 million men were in reserved occupations and by November 1918 this reached 2.5 million men.

Reserved occupations in the UK in World War II
In 1938, a Schedule of Reserved Occupations was created with the goal of exempting skilled workers from being conscripted into service. This idea was drawn up because of lessons learned during World War I when many skilled labourers were drawn into service, which created problems where positions needed filling. Examples of reserved occupations in the Second World War included coal mining, ship building, railway and dockworkers, farmers, teachers, doctors and lighthouse keepers. Not all of these fields were immediately exempt from duty. For example, a lighthouse keeper was exempt from being conscripted from the age of 18, whilst a trade union official was not exempt until he reached 30. Married men in these occupations also had lower exemption ages. The engineering sector had the most reserved occupations.

The idea was constantly reviewed throughout the war, as women, again, began to work more in industries such as munitions. This meant that men were free to join other organisations such as the Special Constabulary, the Home Guard or the ARP. It also allowed for men to join up and give them responsibilities towards the war effort, as well as allowing for them to be less stressed about not being able to directly be involved in the action. Also, many pacifists and conscientious objectors worked in reserved occupations as a compromise or to avoid call-up. Harper Adams Agricultural College saw a huge demand for places during the Second World War, as both agricultural students and farmers were exempt from conscription.

In the UK, coal mining was not a reserved occupation at the start of the war, and there was a great shortage of coal miners. Consequently, starting in December 1943, one in ten men conscripted was chosen at random to work in the mines. These men became known as "Bevin Boys" after the creator of the scheme, Ernest Bevin, the Minister of Labour and National Service.

A schedule of Reserved Occupations also existed in Canada during World War II.

title: Reserved occupation


text:
Wild Strawberries (band)

Wild Strawberries is a Canadian pop rock band consisting of married couple Roberta Carter-Harrison (vocals) and Ken Harrison. They have released a number of albums, their latest being dear post haste (2020).

History
Wild Strawberries was established during the couple's time at university, during which they would hold jam sessions with friends. In 1988, the band submitted the song "Crying Shame" to Toronto radio station CFNY for its new music search contest; it won the contest, and received airplay from the station.

Harrison established a studio, enabling the band to produce its early releases independently, and led to the founding of the Strawberry Records label. The album Grace drew the attention of record label A&M Records of Canada, which would distribute the band's next release, the album Bet You Think I'm Lonely.

The success of Bet You Think I'm Lonely resulted in a national concert tour and a contract with Nettwerk, a Vancouver-based independent record label, for the production of their albums. Two albums were released under that label; a third album, Twist, was initially sponsored by Nettwerk, but creative differences resulted in the dissolution of the partnership.

The band has since eliminated all dependence on record labels, preferring instead independent production and promotion; the band adopted a strategy to promote themselves directly to fans. With the release of Deformative Years, the band simultaneously released an extended web film utilizing music from the album. The costs of producing this video were substantially lower than a music video production for television music stations, such as MTV or MuchMusic.

The success of Bet You Think I'm Lonely also earned the band a 1995 Juno Award nomination for Best New Group. Other early hits for the duo included "Life-Sized Marilyn Monroe" and "Crying Shame".

The song "I Don't Want To Think About It" is part of the soundtrack of the 1996 film Foxfire. Other songs by the band have been included in the soundtrack for the films At Sachem Farm, The Highwayman (2000), Stir of Echoes (1999), Suspicious River (2000), and Universal Soldier II: Brothers in Arms (1998).

Collaborations
One of the band's most-heard songs, "Wrong to Let You Go", was preceded and followed by collaborations with other musicians. The concept for the track was defined by Alan Fletcher, executive producer at Warner Music Canada, after Roberta Carter-Harrison sang at his wedding alongside flamenco guitarist Robert Michaels. It was then recorded with Michaels for volume 3 of the Women & Songs compilation album series and later appeared as an unnumbered track on the Twist album.

Subsequently, Alan Fletcher from Warner put the band in contact with German electronic dance producer and DJ André Tanneberger (ATB). Tanneberger produced a remix of the song, released as an ATB single re-titled "Let U Go". This popularized the song on both continents, as the single reached number 18 on the U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play charts and number 7 on the German Singles Chart. The song also marked the point in ATB's musical output when he began to produce songs with full vocal tracks, as opposed to sampled and looped vocals.

The Wild Strawberries and ATB went on to collaborate on further songs, including the subsequent ATB single "Hold You" and album tracks from the 2002 ATB album Dedicated, and multiple subsequent singles ("I Don't Wanna Stop", "Long Way Home") and album tracks from the 2003 ATB album Addicted to Music. All songs were co-written between Ken and Tanneberger, with vocals by Roberta.

Tanneberger later produced a new recording of "Let U Go" for the 2005 greatest hits compilation Seven Years: 1998–2005, with new male vocalist Jan Löchel.

Sarah McLachlan played guitar on and appeared in the video for "I Don't Want to Think About It". The band participated in all three years of the Lilith Fair music festival, which McLachlan founded.

Discography

 * Carving Wood Spectacles (independent release, 1989)
 * Grace (1991)
 * Life Sized Marilyn Monroe (EP, 1993)
 * Bet You Think I'm Lonely (Strawberry Records, 1994)
 * Heroine (Nettwerk, 1995)
 * Quiver (Nettwerk, 1998)
 * Twist (independent release, 2000)
 * Deformative Years (independent release, 2005)
 * Go Project (independent release, 2013)
 * Vesper 50 (independent release, 2017)
 * dear post haste (independent release, 2020)

Singles

 * "Crying Shame" (1994) [#23 CAN]
 * "Bet You Think I'm Lonely" (1994) [#24 CAN]
 * "I Don't Want to Think About It" (1996) [#9 CAN]

title: Wild Strawberries (band)


text: User talk:68.158.49.55

title: User talk:68.158.49.55


text: User talk:64.109.146.246

title: User talk:64.109.146.246


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

 * The voting on this matter is closed. The result is that Sam Spade was not promoted.  Please do not add further votes to this page.

Sam Spade
(As a request, please keep your votes to one or two sentences at most, for ease of counting. Feel free to expand on your reasons in the Comments section.)

Vote here
 * (38/38/6) ends 23:02, 10 Oct 2004

Sam Spade, whose name is not actually original, has been a member of the community for nearly a year (since November 4, 2003) and has made over 12,000 edits, making him a likely candidate for the adminship. He has earned himself a barnstar, and from what I heard is a good compromiser. I would support him for administrator. Marcus2 23:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have to say; I am quite thrilled w the show of support, my sincere thanks and appreciation to each and every one of my supporters. Win or lose, the nature of this "election" is such that I am considering becoming much more open with the wiki community, perhaps disclosing my whereabouts, name, photo, and other such personal details which I have been withholding as of late. Regardless of how things go at this point, I consider this a sure sign that I will eventually gain a position of respect and dignity in reward for my having volunteered here, a mighty progress from my early days of slander and scorn, my only reward in those times having been the title of "troll" (and of course the satisfaction of a job well done). Of course there have been some friendly faces thruout, but due to the transient nature of the wiki, I am saddened to see far too many of them have left us now. I suppose I can take some small measure of comfort in outliving some of my ugliest critics as well, but there are a many others I sincerely hope choose to grace us with their presence again. Seeing as how I have a majority currently, I will show you all the respect of formally accepting Marcus2's kind nomination, and will begin campaigning accordingly in short order (for the moment, I'm off to the market for tea and sundries :) God bless you all, Sam [Spade] 16:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Sam Spade is a jaded and grizzeled wikipedia veteran, and based on his behaviour up 'till now, he wouldn't abuse admin privileges. (see also comments) Kim Bruning 10:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with Kim. Sam Spade is contraversial at times, but I've never seen him do anything that would make me suspect he would abuse admin powers. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 14:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Marcus2 15:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) While we maybe don't share many common views, Sam has always been a gentleman and a class act to me, and as far as I have seen, everyone. He does have his twirks and quirks, but who doesn't? If somebody has his unique view on things, I’m fine as long as he doesn't push it down other peoples throats, and Sam doesn’t, he accepts compromise. GeneralPatton 15:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, Please. --Spiko-carpediem 15:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet. Gzornenplatz 17:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. Spiko-carpediem 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * User has four edits. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * And that should keep my voice from being heard? Spiko-carpediem 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. {Ανάριον} 15:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Netoholic @ 15:42, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC) -- Sam may have controversial ideas, but there is no evidence he would abuse the added sysop abilities.  Considering he is a member of the Association of Members' Advocates and routinely welcomes new users, he may be approached for special assistance. He obviously knows his way around the Wiki, and should be granted this.
 * 2) Joined just 4 days before me! -- ℛ yan! |  Talk  15:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3)  — Kate Turner | Talk 16:54, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC) Although a "vast amount of edits" is not a good indication of suitability for adminship.
 * 4) Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:14, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC). Anyone with as much tenure as Mr. Spade should be an admin. With the amount of tenure he has, certainly Mr. Spade should be an admin. The only difference between him and many current admins is he became controversial before becoming an admin.  I believe he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and would use his administrative powers responsibly.
 * 5) sam spade has always been a very kind guy and i support his adminship. --NightDragon 17:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) func(talk) 18:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I had to think carefully about this.  Sam and I have amicably disagreed on a great many things.  However, upon consideration and a brief exchange with Sam, I do feel that Sam would follow policy as an admin, and I have every confidence that he knows the exact boundaries of those policies.  I know he has been in conflicts in the past, but I believe that those days are largely behind Sam, and frankly I think that a great deal of the animosity towards Sam has been an animosity towards his frequently unpopular political and social opinions.  Again, after very careful consideration, support. Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) We should give him a chance. I agree with Jwrosenzweig. Support. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Whether or not people agree with his views (I do not always) he is thoughtful and responsible. He would be a credit to the role. I see no evidence that he would abuse the authority involved. Mark Richards 22:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Seems to me that his controversial past has to do with being on the wrong side of some very bad people. Anyone who can pull that off should have a shot at being a sysop, as they've got at least some of the right ideas. Also strikes me as generally being quite friendly. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:32, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * As usual, my record speaks for itself. Thanks for your kind words, Grunt! Sam [Spade] 23:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I have had many conversations with this user on MSN Messenger, and while he may be controversial to some people at some instances, overall, I think he is a very civil character, and as good (better, in fact) an administrative candidate as I was, way back when :-). Additionally, his statements regarding his prospective use of the admin powers strikes me as honest and well stated, and I seriously doubt that Sam Spade will misuse his admin powers, if this vote receives a bit more consensus, that is... ugen64 23:50, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) A. D. Hair 23:56, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ffirehorse 05:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) V V 13:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Has made some questionable edits and judgement calls in the past, but overall is civil and responsible and I do not believe he would misuse admin privileges. V V  22:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Sam has indeed helped me with a few issues in the past and I've always had well-mannered contributions from him in discussions. Fire Star 23:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Remahl 02:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) zoney ♣ talk 10:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Herschelkrustofsky 14:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) He is committed to upholding Wikipedia policies.
 * 11) Guanaco 00:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) A couple of months ago, I would never have believed myself voting this way. However, my compromise needs more work. I would like to see it discussed as a general policy. I would also like to demystify sysophood as much as possible. I also think Sam will act responsibly. I therefore give a vote in support. Danny 01:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Mike H 06:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) A prodigal son comes home. --Uncle Ed 13:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sam seems like to err on the wiki philosophy side of things rather the abuse of administration powers side, unless we want the blandness of Worldbook that is the way to lean.--Silverback 23:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Tuf-Kat 03:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) +sj +  08:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure, Sam's okay. Adminship is supposed to be not a big deal, anyway. - Nat Krause 08:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Jiang 08:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) This should be no big deal. This is not a popularity contest. My experiences with Sam Spade have been very positive and I feel, although there is some controversy surrounding, that he would make a very good admin. J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 10:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I detest Sam's opinions on a lot of things, but I don't honestly think he would make a bad sysop. - Mark 10:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I find Sam to be a good person an A+ contibutor, he would make a wonderful Sysop--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 11:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) *Support - I wasn't going to vote here because from the time I first saw the vote it has been clear that consensus isn't going to be reached this time round (and I very rarely vote here anyway). But with the recent posts to various talk pages - something I can only describe as a smear campaign - I have decided to belatedly add my support for Sam.  I disagree with his views on many subjects but do not doubt his good intent and believe he would be fully capable of separating his views from any admin duties.  -- sannse (talk) 14:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC) (added well after voting ended)

Oppose
 * 1) No. —No-One Jones (m) 23:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) And after seeing his threats to abuse admin powers—to "block . . . based on violations of civility" and to "block well liked and respected people who consistently violate policy" (neither of which is a responsibility delegated to administrators)—below, double no. —No-One Jones (m) 15:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've seen so much controversy surrounding you that I cannot endorse this nomination. I do not believe that you would be able to make use of the administrative responsibilities in a relatively uncontroversial - and safe - manner. If you wish to defend yourself, please do, but for now... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:15, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
 * 1) CryptoDerk 23:17, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC) As per Sam's talk page, my vote is no primarily because of the statements "I wouldn't really have any use for the added abilities" and "[winning adminship] would be of no more than symbolic benefit if I did".
 * 2) Sorry, No. Jayjg 01:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe you are a valuable contributor with regards to providing new lines of thought for Wikipedia, I am afraid that such opinions would not be a favourable quality in an Administrator. Too much controversy is only good in certain circumstances.  Sorry, Sam.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  04:28, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t make sense, we are not judging some of his views, we are judging if he's capable of being a good administrator, that has nothing to do with his personal views, but has everything to do with his maturity and integrity (or lack of it). GeneralPatton 15:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Right. But the point I‘m trying to make is that his views are too strong to the point that they will cloud his 'maturity and integrity', however strong they might by otherwise.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * While I am not yet inclined necessarily to vote for Sam Spade, I have come to the conclusion that he does not deserve my vote against him. Yes, he has flaws.  But they are not as critical as I previously felt.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  02:42, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry. I'm inclined to agree with Ingoolemo and Grunt. Ambi 04:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for various reasons, including the following remarks: (1) "the problems on the wiki will be best solved by eliminating the status of admin, not by the appointment of more people to the position"; (2) "the only benefit I can think of in adminship would be the "prestige" of community support"; (3) "I wouldn't really have any use for the added abilities"; (4) "its highly unlikely I'd win, and would be of no more than symbolic benefit if I did." Exploding Boy 15:39, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I must oppose because of Sam's continuing patterns of behavior. I have found him to be extremely argumentative (IMHO often for the sake of arguing), and while he hasn't broken any rules in a long time, he often is skirting the edge of those rules as closely as possible, and manages to stay just barely shy breaking them. Here is a good example: User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200407. Also see the comment I made here for more information and links to examples. BCorr | Брайен 16:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Troll. Gzornenplatz 17:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I oppose him too, but I have to disagree with the conclusion that he is a troll. Also, the label troll is just that: a label.  Branding a user a 'troll' will not help any problems Wikipedia has.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 1) Wile E. Heresiarch 17:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Oppose.
 * 2) Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call him an outright troll, but sometimes he does seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, even if he has no real idea about the subject. I haven't had a dispute with him myself for months, but from what I know about his attitudes and opinions I don't think adminship is a good idea. Besides, he can continue to be friendly and greet users without being an admin. Adam Bishop 20:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, a THOUSAND times no. Sam Spade is a troll with a hair trigger.  RickK 21:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) * Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this vote? -- Netoholic @ 22:02, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * 2) **I do. RickK should be de-sysopped for this. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 22:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) ***I should be de-sysopped for voting No on an admin nomination? RickK 23:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ****How about for being consistantly rude and regularly biting newbies? Sam [Spade] 23:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) *****Pot. Kettle.  Black.  RickK 23:32, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ******Amen, but 'consistantly' is too strong in both cases. Regardless, rudeness is a problem, but not so great as to warrant de-sysopping.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 7) ***** Chuckle. Funny Rick! Mark Richards 23:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) **Netholic: the point is the opinion expressed by the vote, not its hypocrisy. We treat it all opinions as representing truth, even if the person making it doesn't believe it.  Calling it hypocrisy is a personal attack.  If you have issue with RickK's hypocrisy, fine.  But don't take it up on the Adminship page.  This whole discussion of de-sysopping is completely irrelevant here.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * 9) *Rick, I oppose his adminship too, but I have to disagree with the conclusion that he is a troll. Also, the label troll is just that: a label.  Branding a user a 'troll' will not help any problems Wikipedia has.  Rick, I respect you a lot, but there is a tendency towards making personal attacks that isn't constructive.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  05:14, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
 * No, at least not yet - a POV editor, reticent to admit making a mistake or to be self-critical. Seems addicted to conflict. Does not abide by standards he expects of others (ie violates the same rules of "harmonious editing" he promotes). Tendency to be vindictive and petty. Not irredeemable but needs to show a track record of improved behaviour before he can be given anything like an adminship.AndyL 22:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems too volatile and too prone to seeing only one side of an issue. I would rather not give Sam the extra rope to hang himself that adminship would provide.  He has in more recent times shown more ability to stick within the letter of the Wikipedia "law", but I'm not sure we need an admin who constantly pushes almost to the edge of abuse of powers, which I fear he would. —Morven 08:34, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) 172 12:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) JFW | T@lk  20:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) RK 23:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) At this time, I do not see granting Sam Spade this position to be a proper decision. RK 23:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Charles Matthews 06:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Unfortunetaly, in my experience, he has certainly not been a good compromiser. Sorry Sam. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm sorry, I am. I like Sam, personally, and I've had many a good chat with him.  But I'm not at all sure that Sam could use administrator powers fairly... he's just involved in disputes too much.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  20:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Opposed absolutely! IZAK 21:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Sam has failed to respect others and has not sought compromise. LegCircus 23:30, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. On some topics, Sam can be stridently POV and unbending.  Not a good idea to give him more powers. Sunray 00:38, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, reasons similar to User:CryptoDerk and User:Exploding Boy above (I'd like to point out that I have no reason to doubt that this user is a valuable and trustworthy contributor). — Matt 01:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, as above. Useful contributor, not an admin imo. Sjc 05:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, I've been here only a very short period of time but I find Mr.Spade's lack of NPOV to be a slight problem. I read about adminship, and I don't really think Mr. Spade is up to it yet, but nevertheless I think it's still possible that he could become an administer for wikipedia, but not today ^_^--Gustuv 23:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) No. →Raul654 02:12, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Strongly oppose. Never have I met such a persistently eristic user. -- Hadal 05:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Stewart Adcock 21:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) (unsigned comment added by User:132.239.16.160   — Kate Turner | Talk)
 * 17) I've seen him quick to reference policy and threaten to block/ban, and seen him in one too many heated point of view arguments to feel comfortable with him as an admin  —siro χ o  22:54, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose at this time.   ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. silsor 09:23, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Can't support a troll for adminship.  →User:Doug Danner Oct 10 09:20:39 UTC 2004
 * 21) *Troll you say, show me some evidence of it. If not, you obviously don't know enough about this user. Marcus2 13:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) **I think the holocaust denial attempts in Jew are enough for me. - Doug
 * 23) Xtra 09:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) * This user has about 70 edits. See contribs. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Too disputed to be appointed as admin. MathKnight 09:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose absolutely, for most of the reasons listed by others above. Tannin 10:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. I like Sam Spade as a person but I think he has superficial knowledge or biased opinions (I am not sure which of the two) about e.g. Nazism, but he still has made substantial edits to the article. As an example Sam Spade wanted to add a relationship to Chinese communism to the article to which I opposed. Andries 10:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. Worried about enforcing POV disputes. Mpolo 10:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, same reasons listed by Grunt, Ingoolemo, et al. Looking back at his history, a good, regular contributor though. His own comments about admin'ing make me worry about POV enforcement.  Since that's the thing I've always been most concerned about on Wikipedia (potential POV enforcement), I'm automatically against.  Nothing personal.  And please, everyone, quit trying to label him a troll.  He's really not. Shem 10:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) * This user has about 25 edits. See contribs. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * 2) ** This user also seldom logs in. Spare me the Floridian tactics, Netoholic.  Go harass the users screaming "troll"; trying to belittle legit editors like me won't help your presentation here. Shem 03:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *** Sock puppet voting is major problem. If you are a legitimate user, I apologize, but you have to realize that until you have significant number of edits, your votes will not be counted.  This isn't personal, just some basic suspicion which is alleviated over time.  Take a look at Sock puppet. -- Netoholic @ 03:51, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
 * 4) **** I'm aware that mule accounts and socks can be a problem, in any online community, Netoholic. I'm not one, and a sysop can verify that through my IP.  I don't know of any "significant edit" rule on here, not that it matters.  Sam and I can speak fine on my talk page, there's no need to carry things on here.
 * 5) Oppose. --French Tourist 17:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) *It looks like you don't have too much experience with Wikipedia. Please give your reason for making this decision. Marcus2 18:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) ** I acknowledge your query, but think I am totally entitled to vote without explaining my motives. Anyway, it would be repetition since they are a (strict) subset of the motivations given by the 37 previous voters. And I do not intend to write more. --French Tourist 21:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) From what I have seen, Sam has generally acted in a perfectly correct way and really strives to do so (but see  ). I agree with Kim's PITA comment though. I would support Sam if there was a simple, realistic way to take admins to account when they give in to the temptation to stray from the best admin conduct. pir 15:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to neutral pending a more complete personal investigation of his contributions. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:56, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * 1) David Cannon 02:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC).  I've seen Sam about a few times.  I have not personally seen anything in his behaviour to disqualify him from sysophood.  Having said that, I've read a huge number of comments on user pages from other users, both positive and negative.  That makes me think it best to reserve judgement for the time being.  My answer, therefore, is not "NO" but "Probably yes, but not just now."
 * 2) I've seen him a few times and liked what I saw, but just reading this RfA and his responses to it instills doubt in my mind. Not enough to vote oppose, but just enough to be unsure.   – Andre ( talk )  14:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I've been avoiding voting here. I haven't had a lot of direct interaction with Sam--my initial encounters some time ago left me with a not entirely flattering impression of him. His comments at the time seemed deliberately obscurantist (a sort of ersatz obi-wanna-be). First impressions are hard to shake, and I've seen a few instances that have reinforced my skepticism. However, I have also seen Sam make some really admirable contributions--both to individual articles and to the community as a whole. So even though I just don't feel right about supporting Sam for adminship at this time, I have come to have considerable respect for him and I don't want to oppose either.  older ≠ wiser 21:32, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC
 * 4) MMMMMMmmmaybe. He's a fine old Wikipedian, but he's hot on the trigger. Hmmm. Rickyrab 03:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) From his record, I can't decide either way for Sam. From his contribution level however, he would be a good admin, but his precedent suggests he might enforce his POV. Evolver of Borg 19:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Comments
 * (all discussions not replying to votes have been moved to the Talk page)


text:
Duracell Bunny

The Duracell Bunny is an anthropomorphic pink rabbit powered by Duracell batteries and trademarked for use in all parts of the world except Turkey, The United States and Canada. Advertisements, which may feature one Duracell Bunny, or several, usually feature the bunnies competing in some way; for example, in a game of football, a drumming competition or a race. In advertisements, the Duracell Bunny is either a standard battery-powered toy, a stop-motion puppet, or a CGI-animated character.

History
Mallory Duracell launched the Duracell Bunny campaign in 1973, with the "Drumming Bunny" television advertisement, created by the Dancer Fitzgerald Sample advertising agency. The ad depicted several pink toy bunnies drumming. By the end of the spot, only one was still running – that being the one powered by a Duracell alkaline battery. The advertisement claimed that Duracell batteries ran several times longer than other batteries, adding as a small footnote that it was being compared to older technology zinc-carbon batteries.

When the Duracell Bunny debuted in North America in 1973, it was slated to be just a one-shot character in the "Drumming Bunny" advertisement. Duracell purportedly trademarked their bunny, but by 1988, that trademark had lapsed. Sensing an opportunity, Duracell's North American rival Energizer created a parody of the "Drumming Bunny" in 1988. Energizer's parody ad began much as Duracell's original 1973 ad did, except that midway through the discussion of which drumming rabbit would last longest, it was interrupted by the Energizer Bunny, a different pink rabbit wearing sunglasses, flip-flops, and beating a bass drum. Energizer created a multi-year campaign around the Energizer Bunny. There are significant differences in appearance between the two companies' mascots — the Energizer Bunny wears sunglasses, has larger ears, is a different shade of pink, and has a different body shape. Also, while the Energizer Bunny is a single rabbit, the Duracell Bunnies are a species. The Duracell Bunny advertising campaign has evolved, and Duracell Bunnies are usually depicted as doing something other than beating a drum as they did in the original 1973 advertisement. In 2019, the bunny spoke for the first time, with its voice being provided by American voice actor and writer Miles Luna.

1990 trademark dispute
When Energizer's 1988 parody became an advertising success and Energizer trademarked its bunny, Duracell decided to revive the Duracell Bunny campaign and filed for a new United States trademark of its own, referencing the original use of the character more than a decade earlier. The resulting dispute resulted in a confidential out-of-court settlement on January 10, 1992, whereby Energizer took exclusive trademark rights in the United States and Canada, and Duracell took exclusive rights in all other places in the world.

2016 distribution lawsuit
In February 2016, Energizer filed a trademark infringement and contract violation lawsuit against Duracell. Energizer alleged that Duracell was using a pink bunny in its advertising in the United States, did not have any trademark rights in the United States for a pink bunny, and had violated an agreement between Energizer and Duracell governing the use of a pink bunny trademark in the U.S. Duracell replied that the cases Energizer cited came from overseas distributors importing packages from abroad, and that Duracell did not have the specific power to stop those distributors from doing so. In November 2017, a United States District court judge threw out most of Energizer's claims in a summary judgement, but leaving the breach of the 1992 territorial contract dispute active with respect to the two companies' bunny trademarks.

title: Duracell Bunny


text:
User talk:Mrindianajonesprm

Welcome
--Slowking Man 23:10, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Articles on custody disputes
As I stated in my comment on Votes for deletion/Custodial Rape (non-sexual), I think that the various forms of misconduct often engaged in by parents with custody is a quite legitimate subject to be addressed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you've created three duplicative articles, none of them under a title that the average reader would think of entering to find information on the subject. This kind of thing isn't helpful. It makes people think you're a disruptive user; rightly or wrongly, it makes other users less likely to examine the substance of what you've written. Please don't try to evade the VfD process by creating any more articles. The way to accomplish your objective is to write a suitably NPOV description and to figure out where it should go (e.g. in child custody or somewhere else). JamesMLane 07:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Paul, I'd just like to say that I do hope your conflict is settled peacefully, and that you are able to once again be with Kameron and Micah. That said, I completely agree with James M. Lane: your attempts to make your point via Wikipedia are being done completely wrongly. DS 21:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Paul Marshall PhD Mrindianajones
Paul, I am not sure it is appropriate to use the title Ph.D. here.

Your website says, "My PhD is in Religion and Biblical Studies from a private religious institution and accredited by the International Accrediting Association. I am not a Dr. or Clinical Psychologists. (sic) However I do have an extensive knowledge of neurology and Tourette Syndrome from many hours of self study and experience."

However, the DOE lists the International Accrediting Association under "Accrediting Bodies NOT Recognized by the United States Department of Education."

Degree.net lists it under "Accrediting Agencies Not Recognized Under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accrediting Practices)". They state that the address in Modesto, California for this association is the same as that of the Universal Life Church, an organization that awards Doctorates to anyone making a "donation" of less than $100. The list of courses and degrees offered by Universal Life Church shows they offer several doctorate degrees which are "accredited" (apostrophes theirs) by the International Accrediting Association, all for fees of less than $100 and involving self-study.

Your website confirms your association with the Universal Life Church. Your website links confirm that you are a handyman.

When making entries to an online encyclopedia about a medical condition, people may feel misled about the research and knowledge behind your entries if you include the PhD title. Readers may confuse you with Dr. Paul Marshall of the Center for Religious Freedom. Readers of your Tourette's Disorder website, who don't go to your personal website for the disclaimer, may confuse you with Dr. Paul Marshall of the Departments of Psychiatry and Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Mrindianajonesprm

A tag has been placed on User:Mrindianajonesprm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mrindianajonesprm


text:
Salad Fingers

Salad Fingers is a British adult animated web series created by David Firth in 2004. It revolves around the eponymous Salad Fingers, a thin, green, mentally troubled man who inhabits a desolate world. As of September 2023, thirteen episodes have been published on YouTube and Newgrounds. Since its debut, Salad Fingers has amassed a cult following and has been described as a viral phenomenon.

Background
Salad Fingers was conceived as an in-joke when one day, while Firth was playing the guitar, his friend and frequent collaborator Christian Webb commented that he had "salad fingers", referring to the way Firth played the C-chord. In 2004, Firth posted the first episode via Flash to entertainment website Newgrounds, where it was initially unpopular. However, the video quickly gained traction once it was featured on the website's front page. Later, once the series transitioned to video-sharing platform YouTube, Firth turned to crowdfunding because he was unable to monetize videos due to the platform's content policy.

In addition to writing and animating the series, Firth voices the titular character himself. Firth says the character's voice was inspired by that of his grandmother's and Michael Jackson's speaking voice. The softness of Salad Fingers' voice is due to the circumstance that Firth did not want to wake up his parents while recording. While the first episode took Firth "one day and one night" to produce, others took him six months and up to one year. He has cited the works of David Lynch, Tim Burton, and Chris Morris, as well as The League of Gentlemen and South Park as sources of inspiration. Music featured in Salad Fingers episodes includes work credited to Sigur Rós, Aphex Twin, and Boards of Canada.

In 2007, the series, then spanning seven episodes, had its theatrical debut at Sydney Underground Film Festival, where all episodes were shown back to back. In 2009, episodes were screened at Glimmer, Hull Daily Mail's international short film festival. In 2020, a Salad Fingers tour throughout the United Kingdom was announced. The tour was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was ultimately held in 2021 and 2022. Events featured back-to-back screenings of all episodes released thus far, followed by an in-person interview with Firth.

Reception
Salad Fingers has become the subject of a cult following and has generated a number of memes, having "captured the comically demented and strange underbelly of the internet" according to Elijah Watson of The Daily Dot. The series's characters, themes, and setting have inspired extensive discussions and theories online. In 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle ranked it among its "Top 10" pop culture phenomena. Wired considers Salad Fingers to be one of the most memorable Flash animations, and The Guardian describes it as one of the first to go "fully viral". Writing for the academic journal Convergence, Jessica Balanzategui and César Albarrán-Torres describe Salad Fingers as "a significant stylistic and generic contribution to the early period of participatory digital cultures" and the character as a "patron saint of the digital uncanny". In 2020, the series had been viewed 110 million times in total on YouTube, with the first episode alone receiving 36 million video views.

Jon Mendelsohn of Comic Book Resources observes that the series has "terrified audiences" by means of its "post-apocalyptic setting and crypticness" and compares it to the television series Twin Peaks. Tanner Fox of Screen Rant describes it as "nothing short of haunting" due to its "weird premises, nails-on-chalkboard background music, and shocking moments of gore and depravity". Devon Maloney of The Verge remarks its emphasis on gore and bodily fluids, calling it "basically ASMR for psychopaths". Will Ramsey of Hull Daily Mail calls it "comic, horrifying and strangely endearing". Emma Garland of Vice notes that the series has caused both fascination and dread in its viewers, and deems it "one of the bleakest comedies to ever come out of the UK". The series's landscapes, figures, dream sequences, and open-ended nature of episodes have drawn comparisons to the works of David Lynch.

In 2019, a Canadian high school teacher was temporarily suspended after showing his class a range of videos that students described as "weird, creepy and inappropriate" including Salad Fingers. The teacher ultimately resigned from his job at the school and attended a disciplinary program. In response, Firth commented on Twitter that viewings of Salad Fingers should be "mandatory" for children.

title: Salad Fingers


text:
Grand Teton

Grand Teton is the highest mountain of the Teton Range in Grand Teton National Park at 13775 ft in Northwest Wyoming. Below its north face is Teton Glacier. The mountain is a classic destination in American mountaineering via the Owen-Spalding route (II, 5.4), the North Ridge and North Face.

Geography
Grand Teton, at 13775 ft, is the highest point of the Teton Range, a subrange of the Rocky Mountains, which extend from northern British Columbia to northern New Mexico. It is the second highest peak in the U.S. state of Wyoming after Gannett Peak, the parent peak. The mountain is entirely within the Snake River drainage basin, which it feeds by several local creeks and glaciers. It is considered part of the Cathedral Group next to Teewinot Mountain and Mount Owen (Wyoming) and Middle Teton. Below its north face is Teton Glacier.

The mountain began its uplift 9 million years ago, during the Miocene. Several periods of glaciation have carved Grand Teton and the other peaks of the range into their current shapes.

Name
Grand Teton's name was first recorded as Mount Hayden by the Washburn-Langford-Doane Expedition of 1870. However, the name "the Grand Teton" had early currency. The edition of April, 1901 of the USGS 1:125,000 quadrangle map of the area shows "Grand Teton" as the name of the peak. A United States National Park named "Grand Teton National Park" was established by law in 1929. By 1931, the name Grand Teton Peak was in such common usage that it was recognized by the USGS Board on Geographic Names. Another shift in usage led the Board to shorten the name on maps to Grand Teton in 1970.

In terms of etymology for the mountain's naming, the most common explanation is that "Grand Teton" means "large teat" or "large breast" (téton) in French, named by either French-Canadian or Iroquois members of an expedition led by Donald McKenzie of the North West Company. Unsubstantiated claims exist that the mountain was named after the Teton Sioux tribe of Native Americans, even though this tribe lived about 200 miles (320 km) away in the Dakotas, not Wyoming. Moreover, in terms of etymology studies, the Teton Sioux tribe's name is stated as being "not related" to the Grand Teton.

First ascent
There is a disagreement over who first climbed Grand Teton. Nathaniel P. Langford and James Stevenson claimed to have reached the summit on July 29, 1872. However, some believe their description and sketches match the summit of The Enclosure, a side peak of Grand Teton. The Enclosure is named after a man-made palisade of rocks on its summit, probably constructed by Native Americans. Mountaineer and author Fred Beckey believes that the two climbed the Enclosure because their description better matches it and does not accurately describe the true summit, nor does it mention the formidable difficulties found just above the Upper Saddle. Beckey also believes that they summited the Enclosure because it was traditional with members of the Hayden Geological Survey of 1871 to build a cairn in such a place, but no such cairn was found when William O. Owen reached the summit of Grand Teton in 1898. In all likelihood, The Enclosure was first climbed by Native Americans as suggested by Langford in 1873. Supporters of Owen included The Wyoming Legislature and Paul Petzoldt, former pioneer American climber. Ironically among Langford's supporters was Franklin Spalding, who led the ascent to the summit and tossed the rope that allowed Owen and the others to follow.

Mountaineer and author Leigh Ortenburger researched the controversy in depth, using original source material, for his 1965 climber's guidebook. Ortenburger concluded: "Since historical 'proof' is extremely unlikely to be forthcoming for either side of the argument, perhaps the best way of regarding the problem, short of a detailed analysis of the probabilities, is to state that in 1872 Langford and Stevenson may have climbed the Grand Teton, in 1893 Kieffer, Newell, and Rhyan may have climbed it, and in 1898 Spalding, Owen, Peterson, and Shive definitely did succeed in reaching the summit."

Routes
Grand Teton can be climbed via the Owen-Spalding route (II, 5.4). A short section of the route is highly exposed and previous alpine climbing experience is recommended before attempting an ascent; nonetheless, athletes with no prior climbing experience regularly reach the summit. The Owen-Spalding route is named for the climbers who claim to have made the first ascent: William Owen, Franklin Spalding, Frank Peterson, and John Shive. There is some debate as to which group made the first ascent; see that discussion. Notwithstanding the first-ascent controversy, this climbing route has been firmly named after William Owen and Franklin Spalding. The Owen-Spalding route begins at the Lower Saddle which is reached by walking from the Lupine Meadows Trailhead to Garnet Canyon and then up to the Lower Saddle on a trail that's fairly well defined. The more technical & exposed part of the climb begins at the Upper Saddle.
 * The most popular route up the mountain is via the Upper Exum Ridge Route (II, 5.5) on the Exum Ridge, an exposed route first climbed by Glenn Exum, co-founder of Exum Mountain Guides. Much of the climbing is fourth class, with one wide step from the end of Wall Street Ledge to the Ridge comprising the first stretch of technical climbing. Other notable pitches include the Golden Stair (immediately following the traverse from Wall Street Ledge), the Friction Pitch (considered the most difficult pitch on the route), and the V-Pitch. The direct start of the Exum Ridge using the Lower Exum Ridge Route (III, 5.7,) is considered a mountaineering classic and is featured in the historic climbing text Fifty Classic Climbs of North America.
 * In addition to the Direct Exum Ridge Route, the "Classic Climbs" listing also features the North Ridge (IV, 5.8) and North Face with Direct Finish (IV, 5.8), both of which ascend the dramatic northern aspect of the peak. The Grand Teton has the most routes listed in the Fifty Classic Climbs of North America of any peak.  The only other to have more than one route listed is El Capitan, with The Nose and Salathé Wall.  These inclusions have helped maintain the fame of the peak in the climbing community.  Since the Grand Teton's first ascent, 38 routes with 58 variations have been established.

First ski and snowboard descents

 * First male alpine descent: Bill Briggs, 1971
 * First female alpine descent: Kristen Ulmer, 1997
 * First male Telemark descent: Rick Wyatt, 1982
 * First female Telemark descent: A.J. Cargill, 2004
 * First male snowboard descent: Stephen Koch, 1989
 * First female snowboard descent: Dani deRuyter, 2010
 * First male disabled ski descent: Santiago Vega, 2021.

Routes
The Grand Teton has been skied by five routes, each requiring at least one rappel. The first descent on skis was made by Bill Briggs in the spring of 1971 down the East Face and Stettner Couloir, it has since been renamed the Briggs Route. This descent required a free rappel, which was completed with skis on. More casually, skiing is possible from the crest of the saddle between the Grand and the Middle Teton, continuously into the valley floor.

title: Grand Teton


text:
Galyat

Galyat (گلیات) region, or hill tract, (also written Galliat and Galiyat) is a narrow strip or area roughly 50–80 km north-east of Islamabad, Pakistan, extending on both sides of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Punjab border, between Abbottabad and Murree. The word itself is derived from the plural of the Urdu word gali, which means an alley between two mountains on both sides of which there are valleys and it is not the highest point in the range. Many of the towns in the area have the word gali as part of their names, and are popular tourist resorts. Being on linguistic and geographical continuum this area has challenged social scientists in terms of anomalous classification.

Brief history and ethnology
The Galyat tracts were first 'discovered' by early British colonial officials, such as James Abbott, who ventured into these areas circa 1846–47. The British found them climatically conducive to them and began to develop some of the sites in the range/tract as hill resorts, to escape the summer heat of the low-lands. Later on, after Partition/Independence of Pakistan in 1947, these were neglected for some time but eventually developed further from the 1960s onwards as popular resorts.

The area, being home to the Karlal tribe, was called the 'Karral country' during the colonial times by the British (named after the tribe). The Karlal's are still the dominant tribe of the Galyat. The language spoke by the tribesmen is Hindko whereas the dialect of Hindko spoken is called the 'Dhundi-Kairali'. It is today located in what is the Abbottabad District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. At an elevation of 2,410 m (8,000 ft), it is a popular tourist resort in the summer months. It is forested with pine, cedar, oak walnut and also oak and maple trees.

In 2023, this region has been included by UNESCO in prestigious biospehere reserve sites.

Localities in the Galyat

 * Ayubia (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Bara Gali (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Changla Gali (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Dunga Gali (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Khaira Gali (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Khanspur (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Nathia Gali (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Thandiani (Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa)
 * Darwaza Ayubia (Khyber Pukhtunkhwa)
 * Dagri Naka (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Bagnotar (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Namli Maira (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Makol (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa)
 * Murree (Punjab)
 * Jhika Gali (Punjab)
 * Ghora Gali (Punjab)
 * Bandi maira

title: Galyat


text:
Talk:Basic Well-being Index

Merge with quality of life perhaps? --Alan Liefting 23:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Basic Well-being Index