text:
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, sometimes referred to as ASPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (1986 c. 14) passed in 1986, which regulates the use of animals used for research in the UK. The Act permits studies to be conducted using animals for procedures such as breeding genetically modified animals, medical and veterinary advances, education, environmental toxicology and includes procedures requiring surgery, if certain criteria are met. Revised legislation came into force on 1 January 2013. The original act related to the 1986 EU Directive 86/609/EEC which was updated and replaced by EU Directive 2010/63/EU

In 2002, a Government select committee inquiry described the Act as the "...tightest system of regulation in the world" in relation to the regulation of using animals for research.

Background
Prior to ASPA, the use of animals in the UK was regulated by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which enforced a licensing and inspection system for vivisection. Animal cruelty was previously regulated by the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (now largely repealed) and more recently by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, both of which outlaw the causing of "unnecessary suffering". Specific exemptions apply to experiments licensed under the 1986 Act.

History and scope
The 1986 Act defined regulated procedures as animal experiments that could potentially cause "pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm", to protected animals, which encompassed all living vertebrates other than humans, under the responsibility of humans. A 1993 amendment added a single invertebrate species, the common octopus (Octopus vulgaris), as a protected animal. The Act applied only to protected animals from halfway through their gestation or incubation periods (for mammals, birds and reptiles) or from when they became capable of independent feeding (for fish, amphibians, and the common octopuses). Primates, cats, dogs and horses had additional protection over other vertebrates under the Act.

Revised legislation came into force on 1 January 2013. The Act has been expanded to protect -

The definition of regulated procedures was expanded to -

ASPA also regulates the modification of genes in protected animals if this causes the animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. Other considerations in the Act include animal sources, housing conditions, identification methods and the humane killing of animals. This legislation is widely regarded as the strictest in the world protecting animals used in research. Those applying for a license must explain why such research cannot be done through non-animal or in-vitro methods. The project must also pass an ethical review panel which aims to decide if the potential benefits outweigh any suffering for the animals involved.

Licences and certificates
ASPA involves three levels of regulation — person, project, and place.

The 'person' level is achieved by the granting of a "personal licence" (PIL, procedure individual licence) to a researcher wishing to carry out regulated procedures on a protected animal. Having undergone a defined sequence of training, a researcher can apply for a PIL permitting specified techniques to be carried out on named species of animals.

The 'project' level of regulation is governed by the granting of a "project licence" (PPL) to a suitably qualified senior researcher. The PPL details the scope of the work to be carried out, the likely benefits that may be realised by the work, and the costs involved in terms of the numbers and types of animals to be used, and the harm that might be caused to the animals. Typically a large and detailed document, the PPL precisely defines which techniques may be applied to particular animals and for what purpose.

Finally, the 'place' where regulated procedures are carried out is controlled by the granting of a "establishment licence" (PEL) to a senior authority figure at the establishment, such as the Registrar or Vice-chancellor of a University, or the Chief executive officer of a commercial company. The PEL details which rooms in the establishment are permitted to be used for certain techniques and species, but may also apply to outdoors areas and even mobile areas (e.g. boats) if this is where the research is to be conducted.

It is an offence under ASPA to carry out regulated procedures on a protected animal unless authorised by a personal licence, a project licence, and an establishment licence.

Opinion
A 2002 House of Lords select committee inquiry compared the Act to legislation from France, the U.S., and Japan. The report concluded that "virtually all witnesses agreed that the UK has the tightest system of regulation in the world" and that it is "the only country to require an explicit cost/benefit assessment of every application to conduct animal research." Costs are explicitly in terms of adverse effects on animals, not the financial cost to the experimenters. This has since been re-named the harm/benefit analysis.

In 2005, Patricia Hewitt, then British Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, called the Act "[among] the strongest laws in the world to protect animals which are being used for medical research."

A 2006 report by Animal Aid called the Act a "vivisectors' charter", alleging that it allows researchers to do as they please and makes them practically immune from prosecution. The report said that licences to perform experiments are obtained on the basis of a "nod of approval" from the Home Office Inspectorate, and that the Home Office relies on the researchers' own cost-benefit analysis of the value of the experiment versus the suffering caused.


text:
Famy

Famy, officially the Municipality of Famy, is a 5th class municipality in the province of Laguna, Philippines. According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 16,791 people, making it the least populated municipality in the province.

Famy lies in the north-eastern part of the province of Laguna via Manila East Road. It has a total land area of 3.297 sqmi which is bounded by Real to the east, Santa Maria to the north, Mabitac and Santa Maria to the west, and Siniloan to the south. It is 27 km from the provincial capital, Santa Cruz, 79 km from Manila, and 75 km from Lucena.

History
The history of the town as a barrio of Siniloan dates back to the year 1612 when its natural resources were first exploited by the busy hands of home seekers from Daraitan in Tanay. These home seekers named the place Calumpang, after a big shady Calumpang tree that grows in the heart of the place.

Year after year, the inhabitants of the place increased. People from nearby towns were attracted to the barrio because of the vast area of uncultivated lands. After years of struggle for development, they succeeded in making the lands suitable for food crops. They especially made use of the lowlands where more of the inhabitants settled. Home industries gained interest among women. Spiny bamboos were planted as raw materials for the basket industry that remained an important industry in the present time.

In the year 1835, when the people realized the changes of the place, from the bedlam of wilderness to a barrio worthy of becoming a town, they for the first time, sought to become a municipality with its own government. The plan was rejected because of the meager population of the barrio. The people did not lose hope. Again the prominent men of the barrio tried to secure the separation. Stimulated by the feeling of patriotism, men from the barrio voluntarily presented themselves as revolutionist claiming that they will fight on the side of General Emilio Aguinaldo, if the General will help making the barrio a town. So after the revolution, the President of the Republic of the Philippines ordered that Calumpang be separated from the Municipality of Siniloan. Barrio Calumpang was then renamed Famy. This was in memory of Aguinaldo's mother, Mrs. Trinidad Aguinaldo y Famy.

When the Americans took possession of the Philippines, the form of government automatically changed. With an Executive Order, small towns became barrios of nearby towns. Famy was affected by this order, and again became a barrio of Siniloan in 1903. In spite of these changes the people continued the development of the barrio. They tried their best to increase the area of cultivated lands. The inhabitants of this municipality were not satisfied of being a barrio again of Siniloan, so they filed a request to the Governor General that Famy be a town again, citing that no salary for services rendered will be asked and that the municipal hall and school buildings shall be constructed, all on the help of the town's people. By virtue of this request, the Governor General issued Executive Order No. 60 series of 1910, separating Famy from the Municipality of Siniloan, Laguna. This order took effect on August 15, 1910.

Barangays
Famy is politically subdivided into 20 barangays. Each barangay consists of puroks and some have sitios.

 * Asana (Poblacion)
 * Bacong-Sigsigan
 * Bagong Pag-Asa (Poblacion)
 * Balitoc
 * Banaba (Poblacion)
 * Batuhan
 * Bulihan
 * Caballero (Poblacion)
 * Calumpang (Poblacion)
 * Kapatalan
 * Cuebang Bato
 * Damayan (Poblacion)
 * Kataypuanan
 * Liyang
 * Maate
 * Magdalo (Poblacion)
 * Mayatba
 * Minayutan
 * Salangbato
 * Tunhac

Demographics
In the 2020 census, the population of Famy, Laguna, was 16,791 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2.

Bus Route

 * MRR Transport Inc & Raymond Transportation Inc (via Infanta, Quezon Western Famy Crossing) local only.

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

title: Famy


text:
James E. Williams

James Elliott Williams (June 13, 1930 – October 13, 1999) was an American law enforcement officer and honorary United States Navy chief boatswain's mate who was awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War. Boatswain's Mate First Class Williams was one of 32 Native Americans to receive the medal and is considered to be the most decorated enlisted man in the history of the United States Navy. Williams completed his career as the United States Marshal for South Carolina.

Early life
Williams was born in Fort Mill, South Carolina, and moved two months later with his parents to Darlington, South Carolina where he spent his early childhood and youth. He attended the local schools and graduated from St. John's high school. He claims to be of Cherokee descent.

Navy service
Williams enlisted in the United States Navy on August 8, 1947, at the age of 17, and completed basic training at Naval Training Center San Diego. He served for almost twenty years, retiring on April 26, 1967, as a boatswain's mate first class. During those years, he served in both the Korean War and Vietnam War. On May 14, 1968, Williams was presented the Medal of Honor by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the dedication ceremony of the "Hall of Heroes" in the Pentagon. In 1977, he received the honorary title of chief boatswain's mate.

During the Korean War, Williams served aboard the destroyer USS Douglas H. Fox (DD-779) from November 1950 to June 1952. He served off the coast of Korea where he was detached off the destroyer to take raiding parties into North Korea on small boats from March to June 1952.

Petty Officer Williams served aboard USS Little Rock (CLG-4) from June 1960 through April 1963, reenlisting aboard Little Rock in April 1962.

In April 1966, with the enlisted rank of petty officer first class and the rating of boatswain's mate 1st class (BM1), Williams was assigned in May to the River Patrol Force, River Squadron Five, in command of River Patrol Boat 105 (PBR-105). The force's mission was to intercept Viet Cong and People's Army of Vietnam arms shipments, supplies, and personnel on the waterways of South Vietnam's Mekong Delta and to keep innocent boat traffic on the river and canals safe.

On October 31, 1966, Williams was commanding PBR 105 alongside another PBR searching for Viet Cong guerrillas operating in an isolated area of the Mekong Delta. Suddenly, Viet Cong manning two sampans opened fire on the Americans. While Williams and his men neutralized one sampan, the other one escaped into a nearby canal. The PBRs gave chase and soon found themselves in a beehive of enemy activity as the VC opened fire on them with rocket propelled grenades and small arms from fortified river bank positions.

Williams repeatedly led the PBRs against concentrations of enemy junks and sampans. He also called for support from two heavily armed UH-1B Huey helicopters of HA(L)-3. When that help arrived, he kicked off another attack in the failing light. As a result of the three-hour battle, the U.S. naval force killed 1,000 Viet Cong guerrillas, destroyed over fifty vessels, and disrupted a major enemy logistic operation. For his actions on that date he was awarded the Medal of Honor.

U.S. Marshals Service
After retiring from the navy in April 1967, Williams worked for the Wackenhut Corporation. In 1969, he was appointed U.S. Marshal for the District of South Carolina, where he served until May 1977. He was then transferred to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia, as an instructor and National Armorer. He was called back to South Carolina in July 1979 under court appointment as U.S. Marshal for South Carolina and served in that position until April 1980. He was then transferred to U.S. Marshals Service Headquarters, Washington, D. C., as Programs Manager, Health and Safety and In-District Training Officer where he served until his retirement from the U.S. Marshals Service with the grade of GS-1811-15.

Personal life
In 1949, Williams married the former Elaine Weaver and they had five children (daughter, Debbie, sons, James E. "Jr.", Stephen Michael, Charles E., and daughter, Gail) and seven grandchildren.

Death
Williams died on October 13, 1999; he was buried at the Florence National Cemetery in Florence, South Carolina.

Military awards
Williams' decorations and awards include:
 * 4 gold service stripes.

Medal of Honor citation
"Rank and organization: Boatswain's Mate First Class (PO1c.), United States Navy, River Section 531, My Tho, RVN, Place and date: Mekong River, Republic of Vietnam, October 31, 1966. Entered service at: Columbia, S.C. Born: June 13, 1930, Rock Hill, S.C.

CITATION:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. BM1 Williams was serving as Boat Captain and Patrol Officer aboard River Patrol Boat (PBR) 105 accompanied by another patrol boat when the patrol was suddenly taken under fire by 2 enemy sampans. BM1 Williams immediately ordered the fire returned, killing the crew of 1 enemy boat and causing the other sampan to take refuge in a nearby river inlet. Pursuing the fleeing sampan, the U.S. patrol encountered a heavy volume of small-arms fire from enemy forces, at close range, occupying well-concealed positions along the river bank. Maneuvering through this fire, the patrol confronted a numerically superior enemy force aboard 2 enemy junks and 8 sampans augmented by heavy automatic weapons fire from ashore. In the savage battle that ensued, BM1 Williams, with utter disregard for his safety exposed himself to the withering hail of enemy fire to direct counter-fire and inspire the actions of his patrol. Recognizing the overwhelming strength of the enemy force, BM1 Williams deployed his patrol to await the arrival of armed helicopters. In the course of his movement he discovered an even larger concentration of enemy boats. Not waiting for the arrival of the armed helicopters, he displayed great initiative and boldly led the patrol through the intense enemy fire and damaged or destroyed 50 enemy sampans and 7 junks. This phase of the action completed, and with the arrival of the armed helicopters, BM1 Williams directed the attack on the remaining enemy force. Now virtually dark, and although BM1 Williams was aware that his boats would become even better targets, he ordered the patrol boats' search lights turned on to better illuminate the area and moved the patrol perilously close to shore to press the attack. Despite a waning supply of ammunition the patrol successfully engaged the enemy ashore and completed the rout of the enemy force. Under the leadership of BM1 Williams, who demonstrated unusual professional skill and indomitable courage throughout the 3 hour battle, the patrol accounted for the destruction or loss of 65 enemy boats and inflicted numerous casualties on the enemy personnel. His extraordinary heroism and exemplary fighting spirit in the face of grave risks inspired the efforts of his men to defeat a larger enemy force, and are in keeping with the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service."

Navy Cross citation
Citation:

"The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Boatswain's Mate First Class James Elliott Williams (NSN: 9908934), United States Navy, for extraordinary heroism on 15 January 1967 while serving with River Section 531, River Squadron FIVE, Task Force 116 (TF-116), and friendly foreign forces during combat operations against communist insurgent (Viet Cong) forces on the Mekong River in the Republic of Vietnam. As Patrol Officer of a combat River Patrol Boat (PBR) patrol, Petty Officer Williams interdicted a major enemy supply movement across the Nam Thon branch of the Mekong River. He directed his units to the suspected crossing area, and was immediately taken under intense hostile fire from fortified positions and from along the river banks. After coordinating Vietnamese artillery support and U. S. Air Force air strikes, Petty Officer Williams courageously led his three PBR's back into the hazardous river to investigate and destroy the enemy sampans and supplies. Blistering fire was again unleashed upon his forces. Frequently exposing himself to enemy fire, he directed his units in silencing several automatic-weapons positions, and directed one PBR to investigate several sampans which could be seen, while the other PBR's provided cover fire. Almost immediately, the enemy renewed their fire in an effort to force the PBR's away from the sampans. Petty Officer Williams ordered the destruction of the sampan and the extraction of all his units. During the fierce firefight following the temporary immobilization of one of the units, Petty Officer Williams was wounded. Despite his painful injuries, he was able to lead his patrol back through the heavy enemy fire. His patrol had successfully interdicted a crossing attempt of three heavy-weapons companies totaling nearly four hundred men, had accounted for sixteen enemy killed in action, twenty wounded, the destruction of nine enemy sampans and junks, seven enemy structures, and 2400 pounds of enemy rice. By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, his unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and his utmost devotion to duty, Petty Officer Williams upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

Other honors

 * Navy Special Boat Unit 20 headquarters at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia Beach, Virginia, was dedicated the BM1 James E. Williams Building in 1997.
 * Navy guided missile destroyer USS James E. Williams (DDG-95) was named and christened in his honor on June 28, 2003, at Pascagoula, Mississippi.

title: James E. Williams


text: User talk:67.63.17.27

title: User talk:67.63.17.27


text: File:John Coltrane - A Love Supreme.jpg

title: File:John Coltrane - A Love Supreme.jpg


text:
Category:Lithuanian musicians

Musicians from the country of Lithuania.

title: Category:Lithuanian musicians


text: Talk:The Klinik (album)

title: Talk:The Klinik (album)


text:
Conference proceedings

In academia and librarianship, conference proceedings is a collection of academic papers published in the context of an academic conference or workshop. Conference proceedings typically contain the contributions made by researchers at the conference. They are the written record of the work that is presented to fellow researchers. In many fields, they are published as supplements to academic journals; in some, they are considered the main dissemination route; in others they may be considered grey literature. They are usually distributed in printed or electronic volumes, either before the conference opens or after it has closed.

A less common, broader meaning of proceedings are the acts and happenings of an academic field, a learned society. For example, the title of the Acta Crystallographica journals is Neo-Latin for "Proceedings in Crystallography"; the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is the main journal of that academy. Scientific journals whose ISO 4 title abbreviations start with Proc, Acta, or Trans are journals of the proceedings (transactions) of a field or of an organization concerned with it, in that secondary meaning of the word.

Authorship and editorship
Selecting and collecting papers for conferences is organized by one or more persons, who form the editorial team. The quality of the papers is typically ensured by having external people read the papers before they are accepted in the proceedings. The level of quality control varies considerably from conference to conference: some have only a binary accept/reject decision, others go through more thorough feedback and revisions cycles (peer reviewing or refereeing). Depending on the level of the conference, this process can take up to a year. The editors decide about the composition of the proceedings, the order of the papers, and produce the preface and possibly other pieces of text. Although most changes in papers occur on basis of consensus between editors and authors, editors can also single-handedly make changes in papers.

Since the collection of papers comes from individual researchers, the character of proceedings is distinctly different from an educational textbook. Each paper typically is quite isolated from the other papers in the proceedings. Mostly there is no general argument leading from one contribution to the next.

In some cases, the editors of the proceedings may decide to further develop the proceedings into a textbook. This may even be a goal at the outset of the conference.

Publication
Conference proceedings are published in-house by the organizing institution of the conference or via an academic publisher. For example, the Lecture Notes in Computer Science by Springer take much of their input from proceedings. Conference proceedings also get published through dedicated proceedings series as an edited volume where all their inputs comes from the conference papers. For example, AIJR Proceedings series published by academic publisher AIJR. Publication of proceedings as edited volume in such series are different from publishing conference paper in the journals; also known as conference issue. Increasingly, proceedings are published in electronic format via the internet or on CD, USB, etc.

In the sciences, the quality of publications in conference proceedings is usually not as high as that of international scientific journals. However, in computer science, papers published in conference proceedings are accorded a higher status than in other fields, due to the fast-moving nature of the field.

A number of full-fledged academic journals unconnected to particular conferences also use the word "proceedings" as part of their name, for example, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Format
Conference proceedings may be published as a book or book series, in a journal, or otherwise as a serial publication (see examples). In many cases, impact factors are not available, although other journal metrics (such as Google Scholar h-index and Scimago-metrics) might exist. Bibliographic indexing often is done in separate bibliographic databases and citation indexes, e.g., Conference Proceedings Citation Index instead of Science Citation Index.

title: Conference proceedings


text:
Talk:Patricia Cornwell/archive

This is an archive extracted from an ongoing discussion. See Talk:Patricia Cornwell

The last edit to this page has introduced too much POV, and it now needs to be balanced. [Note, this entry was unsigned and undated, but is old, so the "last edit" was a long time ago.] DreamGuy 11:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Requests
This article needs to include:

 * Cornwell's other publications

 * Her notorious "affair" with the wife of an FBI agent, and other publicity coups

Jumbo 16:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper
I've put the Jack the Ripper/Sickert stuff back AGAIN. This stuff CLEARLY belongs on this page and NOT Walter Sickert. [unregistered anonymous user]

 * "CLEARLY"? What, a while back several registered active Wikipedia editors moved information to the Sickert article and you, a sole unregistered anonyymous user object to it, it's supposedly clear? As already explained, the information here duplicates coverage of the Sickert article so there's no point to having it in both locations. As far as your edit comments that the Ripper accusations are only in the sick fantasy of Cornwell goes, Sickert actually has been accused of being involved in the Ripper crimes by atleast five different authors, Cornwell only being one. AS the theories are different, you can't cover them here because most of it doesn't relate to Sickert in any way. The Sickert page is the proper place for it. Now stop blindly reverting the page with the exact same comments without even bothering to read the talk pages of the articles involved as if your will is the only thing that's important here. So far your actions have been little better than that of a vandal. DreamGuy

 * You are getting personal, making things up accusing me of vandalism and being disruptive, this is all very rude behaviour, please desist. My edit summary clearly explained why I re-instated this information. I said "This should not be on the Walter Sickert page because it is all a fantasy in the head of Cornwell and had no place in a proper biography of Sickert" I did not use the word "sick" - so stop twisting my words. I am not talking about what other authors have written but what Cornwell has written. You said - "the information here duplicates coverage of the Sickert article" - but my point is that it shouldn't be in the Sickert article any more than the suggestion that G.W. Bush is a reptile should be in the George W. Bush page. Sickert was not even in Britain at the time of the murders so the suggestion that he was the Ripper has no foundation whatsoever, so why do you taint the man's biography with this scurrilous nonsense. This information should be on the page of the authors concerned if they are notable enough to have an article and should also be on the list of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects page. [unsigned again, but same person as above]

 * I am not getting personal, I'm trying to get you to realize that you are harming this encyclopedia with your stong bias and unwillingness to follow along with what several editors have been working on. The reptile argument makes no sense, because G W Bush is notable for so many things that the reptile accusation doesn't even enter the picture. Sickert is notable first and foremost for the Ripper accusations. He's also known as a student of Whistler, but would have been mostly forgotten except for the fact that the Ripper accusations keep putting him in the spotlight. Even the major exhibitions and books by art critics discuss the Ripper accusations. Some of his major biographers support some of the accusations (not sure which because we are still waiting for Anna Greutzner Robins' book to come out). Trying to sweep it under the rug instead of objectively covering the pros and cons of the arguments is not only ridiculous but completely contrary to how encyclopedias work. Your edit summary simply states your bias and doesn't take into account the work that myself and many others have put into these pages. For you to come along and not just decide you disagree but to try to tell us to do the exact opposite of what we all agreed to do (move in-depth coverage of theories about suspects to the pages for those suspects) is fairly ridiculous. All you do is keep repeating the same arguments I've already responded to several times over and phrased in several different ways. As a new editor here at ikipedia, you should go read the NPOV policy as well as the other information about how to interact with others here and what the goals of an encyclopedia are before making any more edits. DreamGuy 10:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * "Sickert is notable first and foremost for the Ripper accusations". - No he is NOT!. He is notable (first and foremost) because he was an artist of repute. - If he wasn't of famous for this (i.e. his art) then he wouldn't even be in the frame for the Ripper would he!? He was one of the most prominent painters of his era. One of the most influential British Impressionists of his day. And he was not even in the UK when the murders happened. So if one thing can be stated clearly it is that he is NOT Jack the Ripper - Turkey

 * This shows that you do not understand at all about the case in question or how encyclopedia work. His art only gets attention now because of the Ripper claims, not vice versa. And, yes, there is evidence that he was on vacation in the south of France during a length of time, that, if he didn't leave in the middle, overlaps some but not all of the Ripper murders. Objectively that's all we can say. That's different from 1) claiming as a fact that he couldn't have made the trip back to make a murder, 2) claiming he didn't kill any of the victims that were killed when he was proven to be in the UK either, 3) claiming that he couldn't have done anything he was accused of, and 4) concluding that it should not even be discussed in his own article. DreamGuy 11:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * He was president of the Royal Society of British Artists for goodness sake. He WAS a prominent artist of his day. His paintings were hanging in museums and being sold for high sums long before he was first suggested as a Ripper suspect in the 1970s. You are talking rot. IVoteTurkey 12:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You ARE getting personal because you are accusing me of all sorts of vandalising and bias etc..etc.. when all I am doing is re-instating information about Cornwell's book on her page. I don't see anyone else other than you complaining about that. - Turkey

 * You are vandalizing this page, clearly haven't read at all about how wikipedia is supposed to work (because you don't understand NPOV, etc.), and you have violated the Three revert rule which is an offense that could get you banned. Please learn from your mistakes and do not wallow in your ignorance. DreamGuy 11:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * This is ridiculous. You are the one who keeps reverting the page by removing relevent information. By they way your tone is extremely rude and condescending. It is not appreciated. - Turkey

 * Have you read the Three revert rule? You violated it, that means you should be banned now. You have made no attempts to learn how Wikipedia works and are violating its policies and whining about people who follow them. If that sounds rude, and you don't appreciate it, perhaps you should go read up on how this site works and follow the rules instead of being offended when people point out that you don't. Your obstinance to following Wikipedia policy and inability to try to work with others is what's rude. DreamGuy 02:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

three revert rule
I have just looked at the timestamps for this article which are as follows

 * (cur) (last) 12:13, 6 Dec 2004 MacGyverMagic m protected because of revert war, please try to come to an agreement on the talk page.)
 * (cur) (last) 10:10, 6 Dec 2004 IVoteTurkey (restoring information about Cornwell's most recent and probably most infamous book, because THIS is where it belongs)
 * (cur) (last) 10:00, 6 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (the same guy finally registered, but he is STILL reverting the article without even trying to respond to explanations on the talk page about how the info duplicates & contradicts the other article)
 * (cur) (last) 09:34, 6 Dec 2004 IVoteTurkey (revert again)
 * (cur) (last) 22:51, 5 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (again reverting change by anonymous user who says the exact same thing, ignoring discussion and ignoring the fact that several editors made the changes he/she objected to on the other page.)
 * (cur) (last) 13:31, 5 Dec 2004 80.43.205.224 (Revert - This should not be on the Walter Sickert page because it is all a fantasy in the head of Cornwell and had no place in a proper biography of Sickert)
 * (cur) (last) 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (rv cahnges by unregistered user -- there's already info on the Walter Sickert page, claiming that removing redundant information is bad and makes no sense)
 * (cur) (last) 13:19, 3 Dec 2004 80.43.205.224 (Revert - This should not be on the Walter Sickert page because it is all a fantasy in the head of Cornwell and had no place in a proper biography of Sickert)
 * (cur) (last) 01:35, 3 Dec 2004 DreamGuy (Jack the Ripper - think the bulk of this should be on the Walter Sickert page, copying text to talk page of that article for merging later)

I have also just looked at the three revert rule page. This clearly states - Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

I made 4 edits on this page, the first is dated - 13:19, 3 Dec 2004, the last is dated 10:10, 6 Dec 2004 - by my reckoning (someone can check my maths) there are 68 hours and 51 minutes between the first and last edit. Therefore I DID NOT violate this rule. DreamGuy - I would like you to apologise for claiming that I broke this rule, and threatening to ban me for something that I didn't do. IVoteTurkey 13:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why are you comparing the first of four edits to the last of four? Compare the closest set of three. Those last three were all within 24 hours. 07:31, Dec 5, 2004 80.43.205.224 (Revert - 03:34, Dec 6, 2004 IVoteTurkey (revert again) 04:10, Dec 6, 2004 IVoteTurkey (restoring And since you admit above that you did the Dec 3 revert, that proves the 80.43.205.224 revert in this set of three was you. You did three reverts in 21 hours. I can't ban you for it because I am not a sysop, but you violated it just the same. DreamGuy 13:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Eee gads it says - more than three - more than three  - not three! IVoteTurkey 13:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected the page. Please try to summarize your view on the edits that keep getting reverted in ten lines or less without insulting the other user or assuming bad faith. Remember, we should strive for consensus. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:18, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to preserve this page in its current format, i.e. containing several paragraphs about Cornwell's book, which accuses Walter Sickert of being Jack the Ripper. I did not write this information, but I think it belongs on this page. DreamGuy believes that this information should be on the Walter Sickert page and has been replacing it with a summary and a link to the Sickert page. I believe that it is wrong to include this detail on the Sickert page. This information is not about the life of Sickert, it is about what Cornwell did in order to try to prove her allegations against Sickert. It is not biographical to Sickert at all. Whilst it is true that other authors have suggested Sickert as the culprit, few seriously minded people believe that Sickert was the Ripper. I therefore believe that we shouldn't be unbalancing that article by having such blackening suggestions (i.e. that he was a serial killer) on Sickert's page. Info about these books suggesting Sickert as the killer should therefore be on List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects, which can then link to the Cornwell article. IVoteTurkey 12:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As already explained above, currently there are two pages, Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert that contain in-depth information about her theory that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper. The two pages duplicate and contradict each other on several points. It should only be in one location. The Walter Sickert page is the best place for it because the editors of the various Jack the Ripper pages agreed to move in-depth discussions of individual suspects to the pages for that suspect (so they don't unbalance the coverage of the suspects list, where small sections only are devoted to each), where their candidacy as the Ripper is a highly notable aspect of their lives. Sickert is named as the Ripper or an accomplice in no less than five different books (one from well-respected Sickert biographer Anna Greutzner-Robins, whose opinions are not so easily dismissed as the others), and his current fame is due largely to that fact. The consolidated information cannot be on the Cornwell page, because there are five different theories to discuss, many of which share little if anything in common with Cornwell's theory. Objective discussion of the most notable aspects of a person's fame is clearly the way encyclopedias handle such matters. Removing "blackening suggestions" is to not only pick a side but to declare that the other side should not even be mentioned, clearly violating NPOV policy. DreamGuy 02:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I feel I have to follow DreamGuy's post. DreamGuy's claim about other editors wanting to move information into suspects articles appears to be bogus. IT was suggested that the information about Cornwell's book and Sickert be moved from the main Jack the Ripper page, because Cornwell's book was dominating that article. One user suggested moving the info to Sickert, but in the end it was decided to put in on Cornwell's page and a brief reference to this was left on the Sickert page. Later on this Ripper information was expanded and grew to duplicate the information on the Cornwell page. It was also agreed to remove the details regarding the Duke of Clarence and Lewis Carroll because few people take the claims about them being Jack the Ripper seriously. Since then the List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects has been created. What better place to discuss in detail all those (including the unlikely ones) who have been named as suspects. IVoteTurkey 05:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * For the record, IVoteTurkey's summary of of what happened at what times is all messed up, which is unsurprising because he wasn't involved with any of them. The list of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects existed previously under a different name, was merged with Jack the Ripper, and was split again. In depth information was moved to pages for the suspects, and for those suspects where it was not very notable at all (Lewis Carroll having one minor book mentioning the theory, for example), most of the information has recently been split off again, with summaries still remaining (which he is also apparently object to, as he doesn't want any mention at all of the Ripper theories on the pages of people named as suspects). The splits for Lewis Carroll and the Duke came long after the List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects was created, and no editor other than newly-registered IVoteTurkey here has recommended that that information be removed completely from the biographies or returned to the list of suspects page. His proposal goes against the standards set by the editors of the Jack the Ripper pages as well as those of the suspect pages, where concensus has been set time and again. DreamGuy 09:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

If there's more people that proposed Sickert as the Ripper there's a difference in information. I think the Sickert page can contain indepth info about all theories, but Cornwell's page can contain info about her own theory with a reference to the list and the Sickert page. If there's discreprencies in her own theory between the pages, that needs to be fixed.

DreamGuy, could you make a compromise to have the information about Cornwell's theory in both articles as long as they contain correct and verifiable information? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no objection to that. The duplication sounds like it'd be a little hard to keep in sync on both pages, which is what I was hoping to get around, but if it solves anything it's fine by me. I was actually the person who (before I registered) went through and added most of the points showing the con sides of Cornwell's theory, so in principle I have no problem with the discussion being here. My main objections here have been the redundancy between articles and IVoteTurkey's stating that he/she wants to keep the info here because he hopes to erase it on the Walter Sickert page. Based upon that, I suspect that your compromise suggestion won't be to Turkey's liking. His main stated goal is to remove Jack the Ripper references from all articles of people who have been, in his opinion, unjustly accused, no matter how well-noted the accusations are or ho objective the coverage of those accusations has been. I am more curious as to what he would suggest as a compromise, as so far his idea of trying to work things out is to demand that everyone else accept his way. DreamGuy 09:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * DreamGuy is distorting facts. Firstly the other books claiming that Sickert was the Ripper have long since been discredited they are not worthy of merit by all normal standards of investigation, next he says "Anna Greutzner-Robins" claims that Sickert was Jack the Ripper. He is actually reporting what Cornwell wrote in her book.

 * Untrue. I am reporting what Gruetzner Robins has announced in press releases and in interviews about her upcoming book Walter Sickert: The Camden Town Murder in Focus which is due to be released any day now. The ISBN is 1-8543751-5-6. I am not distorting any facts, I am exposing your lack of knowledge about the topic. DreamGuy 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok so what EXACTLY does she say.. you can't know in detail because the book hasn't even been published. Are you saying that in this book (which is about a single painting by Sickert) - that she firmly states that Sickert was the Ripper?! - I doubt it. IVoteTurkey 12:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For crying out loud, you never heard of this book a half hour ago and now you are trying tell me what's in it and claiming that I can't know anything about it even though I already explained that she has been interviewed about it by others already? Either way, the point is that I was not lying about her book and you don't have the background to be making the claims you keep making. DreamGuy 13:22, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * No I don't know what's in this book - and neither do you (in detail) - that's the point surely, but I do know what Cornwell wrote about Gruetzner Robins saying - and that did not gel with what you stated - I never accused you of lying - please desist from using emotive terms like this. Now I'm just using my intuition so forgive me if I'm wrong here but given that she is an art historian and given what she has already written about Sickert - and given what she has already said according to Cornwell - then I would take a poke and suspect that she talks a lot about his painting - what do you reckon? - do you have information about what precisely she said in the press releases and interviews - you haven't elaborated on this? IVoteTurkey 18:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- On page 60, Cornwell refers to Anna Gruetzner-Robins and claims that "she does not see how it is possible ... to study Sickert extensively and not begin to suspect that he was Jack the Ripper." - this is NOT the same as what DreamGuy claims - i.e. "Sickert is named as the Ripper or an accomplice". If you want to check what she actually worte you can e-mail her -  - note all her publications are listed here, they are about art not Murder.

 * Which does not have the book I am referencing because it hasn;t been released yet. 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have looked at the Jack the Ripper Suspects page which was the version of the list of suspects before it was recreated. Just before the page was redirected to Jack the Ripper it was simply duplicating information in the main article and was very short, as can be seen from this version. DreamGuy mis-reads my intention. I do not want to expunge completely any mention of Jack the Ripper from these article pages, but for Lewis Carroll, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Walter Sickert, all of whom are HIGHLY speculative suspects, merely a passing reference should be made to these theories and the details of these theories should be put in a sensible place namely List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. With regard to Cornwell's allegations - I will make mention of what must be seen as the single defining principle behind my view that this should not reside in the Sickert page, and that is that all of it, every single word of it is not about the life or work of Sickert, it is about what Cornwell has done. Look at this, each paragraph begins as follows -

 * Cornwell has been involved ....
 * She contends Sickert ....
 * Cornwell cites Sickert's artistic ...
 * In recent speeches, Cornwell says ...
 * All in all, Cornwell claims ....
 * Ripperologists and other critics of her theory ....
 * Critics also note that Cornwell ....

Why should all this stuff about Cornwell be in Sickert's page!? You might say well it would be worded this wy because it is currently on the Cornwell page... ok well let's look at what is currently says on the Sickert page ....

 * In 2002, crime novelist Patricia Cornwell ....
 * Cornwell purchased 31 paintings by Sickert ....
 * At the time of her research and book publication, Cornwell was not ....
 * Critics of her theory note ....
 * Critics also note .... Even if Cornwell can ....
 * Cornwell's claim that Sickert .......
 * Most problematic for Cornwell's theory .....

So can you not see that this IS NOT biographical information!?

 * You seem to be under the misguided notion that everything in an article about an individual has to be strictly historical biography. This is not true. The articles cover whatever is notable about that person, and in this case it's that he has been extensively linked by several authors to the Ripper case. In fact, it's the single most thing he is known for. He hasn't had an exhibition of his artwork for years, and now after Cornwell's book came out, he suddenly has two, both using publicity about Cornwell's book to advertise the show. Whether those theories in your opinion make sense or not should have no bearing on the objective process of covering all sides of major topics of note about an individual. DreamGuy 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I firmly agree that all sides of this subject should be covered - but not in the page about Sickert. If the subject of Jack the Ripper comes up on the Sickert page it should be in the context of his work as an artist. I suspect that this is how Anna Gruetzner-Robins treats the subject. IVoteTurkey 12:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This is what it all comes down to: You want a highly notable aspect of his current fame to not even be discussed objectively on his page because you find it personally offensive. This is clearly against the NPOV policy.

 * I don't find it personally offensive - so you are on the wrong track there. IVoteTurkey 10:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok so now I come to the compromise suggestion - this I'm afraid is not acceptable for two reasons 1) I concur with what DreamGuy originally said i.e. that the duplication is unnecessary. 2) This information should not be on the Sickert page for the reasons stated above.

The most sensible place to put information about the other books is on the List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects page with a link to Patricia Cornwell (or perhaps a new page about her book) which should contain the details of her book. As previously stated this is not biographical information about Sickert, if anything it is biographical information about Cornwell and what she has been spending here time and money on. IVoteTurkey 10:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In other words, your idea of compromise is to ignore what I recommend, ignore what MacGyverMagic recommends, ignore what the people who have worked on the Jack the Ripper pages have done and to ignore what the editors who worked on the Walter Sickert page have done so you can do what you wanted to do from the very beginning? That's not compromise, that's an attempt to hold this encyclopedia hostage to your whims. A diverse number of editors were working on these pages in harmony before you came along. We've all already voted by our previous actions, and obviously your position that the info should be removed from the Sickert article is not accepted by most. Frankly, I am rather shocked that someone with such a short history here and who has violated wiki rules (with your three reverts in 24 hours, the first before you registered) is in a position where you are now trying to make demands out of the rest of us, especially when what you want to do is to violate the NPOV policy to advance your opinions. Either make an honest attempt at compromise or leave the article alone so the people with more experience and who have been working in harmony can get on with things.DreamGuy 12:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have asked for people to come here and comment on this page but as yet no-one has come forward, other than MacGyverMagic who came here after I requested that the page be protected from your reversions. MacGyverMagic was not in full possession of the facts when he made his suggested compromise, I suspect that his aim is not to take sides anyway. Oh and for the final time of asking will you quit with this rude, aggressive and condescening tone where you keep going on about getting me banned or whatever, I really do not appreciate it. I think we need the opinions of other people who have worked on these articles and as I said earlier I have asked people to come here. I think we should wait to see what other people have to say. IVoteTurkey 12:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's amazing that you think you can complain about my reversions. You reverted it more times than I have (including three in 24 hours), without explanations why, and without having had the history of contribution to the article that I do. But the fact remains that what you intend to do (remove references to Jack the Ripper on the Sickert page) has clearly already been shown to be something the majority of editors of the associated pages were actually doing just the opposite of. For you to not offer any sort of compromise and to try to claim that other opinions are needed is to willfully ignore the history of these articles. And if you feel that it is somehow rude for me to point out that you are violating wikipedia policies, the easy solution is for you to stop violating them. I find it extremely offensive that you can flaut your violations of the rules, harass me on my talk page, claim that I am lying, and then pretend to be the victim when I point out that what you are doing is wrong. Two editors here already have agreed to a compromise, while you are deadset against budging from your drastic and unsupported plans to change to how Ripper suspect pages have been handled during their history here. Suggest a compromise or leave the pages alone to the people who have been editing them just fine without you. DreamGuy 13:22, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * DreamGuy You say "you reverted it more times than I have (including three in 24 hours), without explanations why.." -this is simply not true. The edit summary (as shown above) clearly shows why I reverted your removal of this information. Now concerning various users contributions to this subject. - When the Jack the Ripper page contained the list of suspects it made perfect sense to "farm out" the details to other pages so that the page wasn't overly long, but now we have the list of suspects page it makes perfect sense to "flesh out" this page with the details of the theories concerning the various suspects. Let those who have contributed come here and speak for themselves. Please do not assume to speak for them. You say "And if you feel that it is somehow rude for me to point out that you are violating wikipedia policies, " - I have clearly demonstrated that I haven't violated the three rule revert policy. As for me claiming that you are lying - what exactly are you referring to here? I'm sure I can validate the truth of the matter. IVoteTurkey 13:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, lets look at what someone said on the Talk:Lewis Carrol page - "I can see how it would be too much text within an entry on his life, as it seems to pay too much attention to a strange theory, but the same problem creeps up with others who have been suggested as the Ripper for almost equally unlikely reasons (Walter Sickert, Prince Eddy and Sir William Gull, for instance)." - DreamGuy wrote that - and I agree with it completely. IVoteTurkey 13:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I would prefer that the theories about Sickert remain at Sickert....after all, if John Keegan writes a book on World War I, his theories should be put at the WWI article, not his own. I share DreamGuy's concern about duplication, but if Mgm's compromise will end this strange edit war, I am happy with it.  I do not agree with what IVoteTurkey is proposing. Jwrosenzweig 15:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That's a poor analogy - We are talking about an individual (i.e. Sickert) not a broad subject like WWI. However I would hardly expect an article on Wikipedia about WWI to have 4 or 6 paragraphs about how Keegan (or some other author with a pet theory) has gone about trying to prove that Archduke Ferdinand was actually killed as part of a British conspiricy or something. I might expect a passing reference to Keegan's work in the Wikipedia WWI article but I would more likely expect it on a page about the book itself or the author himself. John Keegan is of course a respected author and he deals with facts. but these allegations about Sickert are almost universally believed to be false. I'm sure even DreamGuy would admit that. Jwrosenzweig the reason I asked you to come comment on this page is because on the Talk:Jack the Ripper (it's now on talk:List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects) you said "'::Do we really have to have Lewis Carroll here? The author of the book attacking him lists as his qualification "twenty-five years in the data processing field" (ref ).  Sounds a lot to me like someone self-publishing a pile of tripe.  If I published a book claiming that Queen Elizabeth II was actually Ramses II, returned from the planet Nepton, would that rate it a mention in the Queen's article?  I guess I'd advocate deleting Carroll from the list. " - following what you say here these books about Sickert (which have all been discounted) do not deserve mention on Sickert's page. - What is your objection to my proposal? IVoteTurkey 17:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see why the analogy is wrong -- both Sickert and World War I are encyclopedic subjects, and I see no reason why Sickert's position as an individual human being makes the case different. But be that as it may.  The allegations about Sickert may or may not be acknowledged to be false -- do you have a verifiable data source for that?  Without it, all I can say is that several books, at least one of them a fairly well-known book (Cornwell's book sold quite well, as I recall -- perhaps even a week or two on the NYT list?), made these allegations -- with that many people buying the books, it's at least worth mentioning.  I understand, Turkey, that you invited me here because I had made a comment that made you think I would be sympathetic to you, but that doesn't give you cause to complain if I don't say what you expect. :-)  I have not seen it demonstrated that these books have been "discounted", as you say, and given that allegations have been raised by a respected biographer of Sickert, as well as by Cornwell (who has some level of expertise in crime detection, given her work experience, and whose allegations were seen as conclusive by several Scotland Yard detectives, if I remember her book's introduction aright), I think something needs to be said on Sickert's page.  Even if the book by Cornwell is given its own article, a summary of the charges would still have to go on Sickert's page.  Some scholars have alleged that Thomas Jefferson fathered slave children -- even if I believe that these charges have been discounted, or that the allegations are a smear job, I still have to admit that the allegations are public enough to warrant mention on Jefferson's page (whether or not a more detailed article on the allegations belongs elsewhere).  Surely you can agree to this? Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I invited you here because when I read your comment about the Queen and the planet Nepton I was struck about how similar it was to my words about George W. Bush and David Icke on the Talk:Walter Sickert page. I'm not complaining about your opinion - but I was suprised by it - and suspected (as you have now yourself stated) that you were not in full possesion of the facts regarding the validity Sickert allegations. Yes a well-known author (of fiction) had a best-selling book about the subject - but the book has been almost universally condemned by seriously minded people - read the reviews at Amazon.com. I suspect that DreamGuy, given his interest in the subject, might very well have written one of those negative reviews - in fact I'd put money on it. To use another analogy - many books have been written about the supposed faking of Project Apollo and specifically Apollo 11 (some by "supposed" experts), but I see little or no mention of this on those pages, because these theories have all been discounted as bogus. IVoteTurkey 10:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok - I'll make a proposal - I suggest that the information about Patricia Cornwell's book be moved to Jack the Ripper: Case Closed - which is the title of her book. Now I suspect that DreamGuy will object to this because he has already stated that he thinks all the anti-Sickert allegations should be in the same place - but does anyone else object to this idea? IVoteTurkey

Why not do what seems to have successfully been done with the Duke of Clarence - put the accusations at a page specifically about the accusations that that person was Jack the Ripper, and only have a brief mention of the stuff at Walter Sickert? john k 21:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would accept moving the detailed summary of the allegations and the criticisms of them to the article that Turkey proposes, and simply placing a paragraph summary on Sickert's page (with a link to the detailed article, of course). Jwrosenzweig 22:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of the material on Sickert as murderer ought to go on the same page.

By the way, I think Jefferson fathering slave children is a lot more respectable than these Ripper theories that revolve around Prince Eddy. Recall that Jefferson was accused of fathering slave children in his own day, and that a DNA test proved that the descendants of one of Sally Hemings's sons are, in fact, descended in the male line from the Jeffersons (yes, it could be another Jefferson than Thomas). On the other hand, nobody every accused Prince Eddy or Sickert or any of these people of any involvement in the Ripper crime until decades later, and it seems to be all based on no evidence at all. Nothing actually ties Sickert to the Ripper case except the extneded detritus of the Prince Eddy story which, so far as I am aware, was made up out of whole cloth without any actual evidence to back it up many many decades after the event. It should be noted that Britannica's article on Sickert makes no mention of the Ripper stuff. Neither does the Columbia article, although that is very short. It seems to me vaguely libelous to include lengthy discussions of what are essentially absurd conspiracy theories with no genuine evidence to back them up as the bulk of articles about people who are distinguished in their own right - and Sickert, while perhaps not the most highly regarded artist out there, is certainly distinguished enough in his own right to warrant an encyclopedia article that is about his actual accomplishments, rather than repeating deranged accusations that seem essentially to be based on nothing. Sickert is only a suspect because someone made up the Prince Eddy as Ripper story and then found out that Prince Eddy was in Scotland at the time, and had to find someone else who could actually commit the murders within the same basic storyline. That Cornwell seems, at least from the account of her version here, to have discarded the detritus of the Prince Eddy version seems immaterial - the only reason anyone ever thought of Sickert as a suspect is as a result of the Prince Eddy stuff. The problem with the whole thing is that a suspect is come up with based on a completely bogus line of reasoning. When the reasoning is shot through, the suspect isn't discarded, just a new (totally bogus) line of reasoning is come up with to explain how this person is the Ripper. It's just like Shakespeare authorship theories.

That is to say - I think all this ripper theorization is encyclopedic and deserves to be somewhere. But I don't see how anything more than the briefest notice is appropriate to an article about these people who are "suspects" for absolutely no reason at all. john k 23:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * John, I grant you the Jefferson allegations are more well-founded. :-) Re: Sickert, I guess I would say that my limited knowledge had given me to believe that Sickert was a reasonable suspect, but that I wouldn't want to contend with someone who said otherwise -- all I can say as an editor here, however, is that the allegations are real, and that it looks to me that the most popular book on Ripper of the last five to ten years was Cornwell's, so I have no doubt that there are a reasonably large number of people who believe Sickert is somehow associated. By reasonably large, I don't mean "a majority of English speakers" but at least a significant minority of those who care about Jack the Ripper's identity.  The paragraph I'm suggesting would be something along the lines of:
 * "Sickert has been accused in recent years by several popular authors (including Name and Name) of being responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders. He was never listed as a suspect while the murders were taking place, and no physical evidence conclusively ties Sickert to any of the Ripper murders.  The most well-known work connecting Sickert with Jack the Ripper is Cornwell's book; the details of her allegations can be found at that book's article.  The connection between Sickert and Jack the Ripper is seen as unlikely by most students of the Jack the Ripper case."
 * Does that seem to be too much of a smear to you? I don't think we can understate the case more than that without taking too strong a stand against the POV that Sickert is connected to the murders. Jwrosenzweig 00:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are already taking a stand against the point of view means your version is quite POVy. I don't see why you think all the various theories about Sickert should be split up on separate pages for each author and book, as it makes sense to have them all in one place. You might as well say, "Yeah, he's an artist that nobody would have heard of except for these list of accusations we'll give you links to read elsewhere on separate pages because we think they are bunk and splitting them up dilutes the 'smear' on his character." This case is quite a bit different from the Lewis Carroll case, as he is well known for other things and the accusations about being Jack the Ripper were in a book hardly anyone has even seen and nobody except the author seems to support. Sickert is primarily known for the Ripper accusations, and many of them have taken strong root in the field and public consciousness. He pops up in fictional accounts as a character because of these accusations. It's his claim to fame. And regarding nobody linking him at the times to the crimes, it can be argued (not by me, for the record, but by the people whose opinions I'm am defending here strictly out of objectivity and encyclopdiec standards) that he linked himself, by naming his paintings after the crimes, telling people that the room he lived in was the place where Jack the Ripper had lived, telling stories about a mad veterinary student who was the Ripper, etc. The idea that you are here to defend Sickert and admit you are understating the case shows you've taken a side, and that shouldn't be happening in an encyclopedia. IVoteTurkey's bias is over the top obvious, what you recommend here doesn't sound much better at all. But then we should move the talk to that page instead of here. DreamGuy 02:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

You say Sickert is primarily known for the Ripper allegations. However, every other encyclopedia has an article on the man which does not even mention the Ripper stuff. So Britannica and Columbia (and probably Encarta, although I can't look at it) seem to feel that he is significant for things other than the Ripper murders. Britannica calls him a "painter and printmaker who was a pivotal figure in British avant-garde painting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." At any rate, I fully agree that there's no reason to split up the Sickert theories. But I don't see why we can't do what was done for the Prince Eddy article, which is just to split off all the theories about Sickert into their own article. As far as Jwrosenzweig's suggested article, I have no particular objection, although I don't think it needs to go into it that much. I think it could just be mentioned that he has been brought up as a potential Jack the Ripper suspect and point people to the article on theories about him as Jack the Ripper. john k 04:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggested solutions
Alright, this is all over the place, but lets take these things by pieces and see what we can agree on (please place any discussion about a point under each point instead of at end):

 * Unlocking this page, because I have no objection to keep information here, I was just trying to clean things up and resented the fact that some newbie with no history was rudely reverting with no explanation whatsoever other than biased attitudes.

 * Keeping Cornwell's Sickert theory here instead of creating a page for her book, as we don't need to further spread things out more (until such theoretical time as her own article fills up with more info on her life and books and lesbian affair that led to the gun-wielding stalker and so forth and then the Sickert theory can be moved for space reasons).

 * Discussing fate of Sickert article (whether it duplicates info as currently and as proposed as a compromise above, sweeps it all under the rug and refuses to mention anything at all, or something else) on that talk page instead of here.

How do those sound? DreamGuy 02:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * That sounds fine. john k 04:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. IVoteTurkey 09:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DreamGuy - throughout this discussion - you have constantly been at my throat - and you are still at it above - you say "some newbie with no history was rudely reverting with no explanation whatsoever other than biased attitudes" and " IVoteTurkey's bias is over the top obvious" - my explanations were in the edit summary and my position is exactly the same as John K - the fact that I am a relatively new editor seems to have caused you this "fit of pique" - now I have asked you to please stop this condescending tone and I have asked you to apologise for falsely accusing me of breaking the three revert rule - and you have done neiter. Now I am am asking you once more - can you please conduct these discussions with some decorum and without these personal attacks. IVoteTurkey 09:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Since all of you seem to agree with the suggested solution, I'll unlock the page. I'd also like to recommend IVoteTurkey and DreamGuy to try and sort out their differences in some other way than fighting on article discussion pages. If you do not agree with an edit the other makes, please do not revert directly. It's better to see if others agree with you first. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been off-line a day or two. Several people asked me to look at this and associated talk pages. My goodness!  I will join the discussion soon, after doing so, but I don't want to shoot off my mouth without being better informed.  I hope I can add something.  I'll be back soon, perhaps to offer suggestions, perhaps to give up.  Meanwhile, keep in mind that the encyclopedia belongs to the readers, not the writers.  Best regards, Ortolan88 23:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybee one should point DreamGuy´s attention to one of your own rules WP:bite - otherwise there will be no new editors wherever DreamGuy is stating his opinions obligatory for the rest of the world. BTW repeating the statement that Sickert is known only as JTR suspect does not make this statement more true, it just shows that somebody has no idea of great European painters. Any serious art site does not mention the obscure JTR theory with a single line.eliZZZa 22:01, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)eliZZZa

 * This is a personal attack an bile of your own, though I'm not surprised you are still mad that I objected to you placing links to your own personal websites to probably a hundred unrelated articles or more. New editors do come into articles I help edit, as recently shown on the Jack the Ripper page and the spin off victim article pages, as anyone following them in the last few days would have noticed. I work well with people who are trying to improve pages and want to discuss them, but I am understandably annoyed at the kind of people who harass me on my talk page (as you and ILoveTurkey have both done). And the fact that Sickert is known primarily as a JtR suspect doesn't mean that art historians haven't heard of him. Of course the art encyclopedias talk about his art, I mean, come on. But crime encyclopedias talk about his alleged crimes and nothing about his art (except where it fits into the theories). A general encyclopedia needs to cover both, and the question of notability should be concerned with overall notability. Objectively covering the JtR claims does not advance them, and, in fact, simply educates readers about the problems with the theories. Removing them because it "blackens" their history assumes that people won't instead comclude that the people making the claims against him blackened themselves and that potentially negative things should not be discussed. DreamGuy 00:57, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * "I am understandably annoyed at the kind of people who harass me on my talk page (as you and ILoveTurkey have both done)." -- pardon me, but I was given to understand that the point of a user's talk page was for the purpose of communcation. Why do you call that "harrassment"? BTW I am still waiting for an apology. IVoteTurkey

eliZZZa 22:48, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)eliZZZa
 * The Guardian "Monstrous stupidity"

This is an archive extracted from an ongoing discussion. See Talk:Patricia Cornwell

Re to DG
Sorry to all you Ripperologists here to be off topic, but I cannot leave DGs lies unresponded. You wrote: ...you are still mad that I objected to you placing links to your own personal websites to probably a hundred unrelated articles or more ...but I am understandably annoyed at the kind of people who harass me on my talk page (as you and ILoveTurkey have both done).

Here are the facts and the truth is: When I recently stopped by to edit the serial killers list to a country-order, I found your link-removals with every edit commented like this:

- Site has been link farmed in tons of wikipedia articles. If there were a Bundy page linked to it'd be different - Site has been spammed to tons of wikipedia pages - also removed link to site that's been spammed to all sorts of wiki pages to which it has no relevance - One half sentence mention on long page of unrelated info is not worth a link, site (other pages) has been actively spammed to tons of wikipedia articles - Removing link to site with little to no information on article topic that has been spammed to tons of wiipedia pages - removing site that has had links added to tons of basically unrelated wikipedia articles... it'd be different if it was to a specific page on the Atlanta Child Murders - removed link to page that makes no sense for this article, that site is spammed to tons of wikipedia pages - ...and the "R" section of same site is totally over the top link farming

I was surprised as those links stayed there since April, but much more I was surprised about the way you commented your deletions, so I looked up some FAQs how to deal with my questions - and I went to your UserPage.

In my humble opinion the solution would have been an easy one - contact me and I would have changed the links to appropriate articles in my database.

Following my entry to your talk-page, which you call "harassment" now. I used a polite tone and I meant it politely. I also admitted to your concerns about links to a general serial killer database, not to specific articles. :

Hi DreamGuy, what do you mean with the above statement (which I find repeated several times)? The link you were referring to was neither spammed nor to "all sorts of wiki pages" nor does it have no relevance to those pages I added the link. Furthermore I checked with some Wikipedians, if it would be okay to add the link.

Serial Killer Crime Index indeed has relevance to articles about serial killers. I can agree, if you don´t think it is appropriate to specific articles on individual serial killers. I remember having added it to pages, where there is more detailed information on an individual serial killer.

As I don´t mean to spam, I would appreciate your explanation when adding external links is meant to be spam. Kind regards from Austria eliZZZa

Your replies were hostile, insinuating and brought in an unacceptable tone and continued repeating over and over your "spammed to tons of articles", "linkfarming" (you obviously don´t even know what that is), knowing that you removed 23 links and I myself removed the rest, 15 links (after our discussion). About 20 out of all were links to specific serial killer articles.

You know (as you wrote you checked the sites) that those are not my "own personal websites". Serial Killer Crime Index is a private research project since 10 years and honored by many of your Criminology Institutes and Organizations (e.g. NCJRS, JustNet and many more), by well-known authors and reputable Criminologists as the most comprehensive - public - serial killer database worldwide. Neither is the incriminated site a "pet site" as you stated in one of your replies. Nor do I need Google rankings, hits-pushing etc. as this project is non-profit and well-known to people interested in that topic in any way. And spare your words now on the amazon-links on my sites - I am too glad to give you the permissions to access the reports - those links are a courtesy to many people asking for literature and movie references.

I find you behaviour damaging to "the spirit of wikipedia" and discrediting every polite and good-willing Wikipedian.

P.S. Also ALargeElk made a deletion of one link - in a neutral and wiki-manner (as I understand it): ALargeElk: External links - - delete link to Serial Killer index (has no information on the Wests)

Sorry again to the rest of the readers here, but I had the urge to reply where those false accusations were placed once again. I won´t engage in any further discussion about this my statement and for sure I won´t bother you here with any further disturbancies.

eliZZZa 21:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)eliZZZa

title: Talk:Patricia Cornwell/archive


text:
Thérèse Schwartze

Thérèse Schwartze (20 December 1851 – 23 December 1918) was a Dutch portrait painter.

Life
Thérèse Schwartze was born on 20 December 1851 in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. She was the daughter of the painter Johan Georg Schwartze, who grew up in Philadelphia and trained in Düsseldorf.

Schwartze received her first training from her father, before studying for a year at the Rijksacademie van Beeldende Kunsten. She then travelled to Munich and studied under Gabriel Max and Franz von Lenbach. In 1879 she went to Paris to continue her studies under Jean-Jacques Henner. When she returned to Amsterdam she became a member of Arti et Amicitiae. Schwartze exhibited her work at the Palace of Fine Arts at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois.

Death

On 22 July 1918 her husband, Anton van Duyl, died. As Schwartze was in bad health at that time (and tried to hide this), the death of her husband was a blow that she could not overcome easily. She died in Amsterdam on 23 December 1918 from a sudden illness.

Schwartze was buried at Zorgvlied cemetery in Amsterdam. Later she was reburied at the Nieuwe Ooster cemetery in Amsterdam, where her sister created a memorial to her, modelled after her death mask, which is now a rijksmonument.

Works

Her portraits, mostly of Amsterdam's elite, are remarkable for excellent character drawing, breadth and vigour of handling and rich quality of pigment. She signed her works "Th. Schwartze" and was married late in life in 1906 to Anton van Duyl, whereupon she signed works with "Th. v Duyl.Schwartze".

She was one of the few women painters who had been honoured by an invitation to contribute their portraits to the hall of painters at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. Some of her best pictures, notably a portrait of Piet J Joubert, and Three Inmates of the Orphanage at Amsterdam, are at the Rijksmuseum, and one entitled Five Amsterdam Orphans at the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam.

Her niece Lizzy Ansingh, who she painted a few times, also became a painter. Her sister Georgine Schwartze became a sculptor. She lived with her extended family at Prinsengracht 1901 in Amsterdam and painted her housemates in 1915:

 * Works of Thérèse Schwartze by museum
 * Jewish antique dealer, Joods Historisch Museum
 * Portrait of Mozes de Vries van Buren, Joods Historisch Museum
 * Portrait of Abraham Carel Wertheim, Joods Historisch Museum
 * Portrait of P. M. Wertheim-Wertheim, Joods Historisch Museum
 * Portrait of Dr. J.L. Dusseau (1870), Rijksmuseum
 * Young Italian woman with the dog Puck (1879), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Peter Marius Tutein Nolthenius (1879/1880), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Frederik Daniël Otto Obreen (1883), Rijksmuseum
 * Three Inmates of the Orphanage at Amsterdam (1885), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Dr. P.J.H. Cuypers (1885), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Alida Elisabeth Grevers (1889), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Piet Joubert (1890), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Paul Joseph Constantin Gabriël (1899), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Amelia Eliza van Leeuwen (1900), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Lizzie Ansingh (1902), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of Maria Catharina Josephine Jordan (1902), Rijksmuseum
 * Portrait of C.M van der Goot-Mabé Grevingh (1883), Teylers Museum
 * Several drawings, Leiden University
 * Portrait of Prof Adriaan Heynsius (1883), Leiden University
 * Portrait of Prof Gustaaf Schlegel (c. 1900), Leiden University
 * Portrait of Prof A.P.N. Franchimont (1899), Leiden University
 * Portrait of Prof. M.J. de Goeje (c. 1905), Leiden University
 * Portrait of Prof Blok (1914), Leiden University

title: Thérèse Schwartze


text:
Kellenberg Memorial High School

Kellenberg Memorial High School is a Roman Catholic college-preparatory school in Uniondale, New York, on Long Island, United States. Kellenberg Memorial is a Marianist school on Long Island, alongside St. Martin de Porres Marianist School in Uniondale and Chaminade High School in Mineola, New York.

History
Kellenberg Memorial High School is named in honor of Most Rev. Walter P. Kellenberg, founding Bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre. In the 1960s, Kellenberg commissioned the construction of four diocesan high schools, including Maria Regina in Uniondale. Due to declining enrollment and a lack of low-cost priests and nuns to teach in these schools, Bishop McGann closed Maria Regina, but in the face of parental protests, the school was acquired by the Marianist brothers who were already running Chaminade High School in nearby Mineola, and was reopened as Kellenberg Memorial in 1987.

In September, 1987, the administration of Kellenberg Memorial High School announced the establishment of the Bro. Joseph C. Fox Latin School. The Latin School is named in honor of Marianist brother Bro. Joseph C. Fox, who taught for over fifty years in Catholic schools. This new division of KMHS provides a qualitative Catholic education to students from the public schools in grades six through eight.

Campus
Kellenberg is accessed through the main entrance across from RXR Plaza on Glenn Curtiss Blvd. Although the lobby was originally designed as the main entrance, the school is oriented toward its north entrance, which features a mural of the Holy Family designed by artist Yan Rieger in 1997 in honor of the school's tenth anniversary. The mural includes a depiction of Jesus when he was young. Students and Marianists assisted the artist and his wife with the execution of the mural.

Kellenberg Memorial has five athletic fields, four of which are named after the Four Evangelists. The fields are used for baseball, football, softball, and other sports. The school is also the caretaker of two Nassau County properties, one of which is located east of the school and one located west, which are also used for athletics. These properties are named Jerusalem and Jericho, after the two biblical cities. An artificial turf field was installed during the summer of 2010. This marks a series of campus improvements and expansions that was to take place throughout 2010 and 2011.

Kellenberg's campus features three courtyards and four chapels. The main courtyard is located in the center of the building and contains a koi river, four bridges, and a central bell tower. Many interior classrooms overlook this courtyard, and students are permitted to pass through the courtyard between classes.

Academics
Kellenberg Memorial High School offers a rigorous college preparatory curriculum. Core liberal arts courses are supplemented with required courses in chorus, health, computer technology, music and art. Students in the Latin School are required to take Latin.

Admission to the school is highly competitive, with many applicants enrolling in private exam preparation courses for the Catholic High School Entrance Exam (CHSEE/TACHS) in general and Kellenberg in particular.

Latin School
The school also operates the Brother Joseph C. Fox Latin School on the same campus as the high school. Serving students from grades 6 through 8, it was originally designed for students who started in public school but wished to transfer into the Catholic school system; it now accepts students from both public and Catholic elementary schools.

Admission to the program is highly competitive, with many applying over a year in advance. The nature of the program allows middle school students to take courses taught by high school teachers (often with high school material) and to take part in clubs, activities and services that would normally not be available at a regular middle school. Students in grades 7 and 8 are required to take Latin, with those who remain at Kellenberg for high school placed in accelerated classes. Students who graduate from the program are guaranteed admission to the high school; however, they are required to take the CHSEE for statistical and quality-assurance purposes.

While the Latin School has a separate administration for academics, guidance and discipline, the schools are otherwise administered as one unit, sharing facilities and faculty. Most clubs and activities are run as one unit for grades 6–12. The administration of the Latin School is subsidiary to that of the greater school, with the Assistant Principal for the Latin School answerable to the Principal and President of Kellenberg Memorial High School.

Faculty
As of April 2010, the faculty included 130 members, including three Marianist Priests and 12 Marianist Brothers. Many school administrators maintain teaching roles in the school. There is also a large school staff body consisting of about 70 members. Many members of the Society of Mary have canine companions that often follow them to the classroom or reside in their offices during the day, sometimes cited as a very likable trait of the school. Many of the faculty and school staff are alumni.

Administrators have contributed articles to a diverse range of publications, from the religious Catalyst to the mainstream New York Times. Current faculty include college faculty, published authors and professional musicians. Former faculty members contributed to works still included in the school's curriculum, from history classes to faith-based clubs. Music produced by student organizations is sold at online music retailers.

Co-curricular and extracurricular activities
In the Marianist tradition, many students join sodality groups to mutually reinforce their Catholic faith. The groups meet weekly and participate in various religious activities. The school also operates Emmanuel, a Marianist Retreat House devoted to students' spiritual formation.

A major co-curricular focus is music. Activities in this area include Band (four levels), Chorus (four levels), Guitar Club, Jazz Band, the Firebird Swing Jazz Choir, Orchestra, Pit Band, and Jubilee Choir, Gregorian Consortium (sometimes called St. Greg's).

Publications include Blue and Gold (a yearbook), The Renaissance (a literary magazine), The Phoenix (a newspaper), and the Blue Blazer Newsletter (a digital newspaper).

Kellenberg also has an Academic Quiz Bowl team and a Science Olympiad team. The Academic Quiz Bowl team came in 11th place at the 2008 NAQT High School National Championship, and placed second in the 2010 season of the New York area TV show The Challenge. The team won the 2009 New York State NAQT tournament, placing first in the state with the JV team in fifth; at the state level, three of the top five players came from Kellenberg teams. The Science Olympiad team has qualified for the New York State Science Olympiad Competition several times in recent years.

A major activity for female students at Kellenberg is the annual Blue and Gold show. Students who participate are divided into two teams, a blue team and a gold team. The girls practice from February until May. The competition takes place on one night in May, and attracts a widespread Long Island audience.

In 2006, the school received national attention when the principal, Kenneth Hoagland, canceled the Senior Prom. In a letter from late March 2006, he cited "booze cruises" sponsored by parents, cocktail parties, and the film American Pie as examples of "adolescent culture being formed and led by the media". The school received national attention from ABC, CNN, Fox News, MTV, The New York Times, and Comedy Central's The Colbert Report.

In 2018, the school reestablished the varsity ice hockey program, as well as established a varsity crew program for both boys and girls. In 2019, a junior varsity ice hockey team was added.

Notable alumni

 * Donatella Arpaia 1989 – restaurateur; television personality who appears on The Food Network
 * Jon Harris 1992 - 1st round draft pick #25 for the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles
 * Karine Jean-Pierre 1993 – White House Press Secretary (2021-)
 * Marc Forgione 1996 – chef and owner of restaurant Marc Forgione; competed on The Next Iron Chef in 2010 and won; an Iron Chef on Iron Chef America
 * Reid Gorecki 1999 – outfielder for Major League Baseball's Atlanta Braves
 * Jason Michael Brescia 2004 – film director and writer
 * Kevin McCarthy 2010 – pitcher for the Kansas City Royals

title: Kellenberg Memorial High School


text: Category:World music groups

title: Category:World music groups


text:
Basic (dance move)

The basic step, basic figure, basic movement, basic pattern, or simply basic is the dance move that defines the character of a particular dance. It sets the rhythm of the dance; it is the default move to which a dancer returns, when not performing any other moves. More formally, it can be defined as a "rhythmic step pattern" in the form of a "consistent and recurring grouping of weight changes" between the feet (as well as certain moves that do not involve complete changes of weight, as when one taps, kicks, or points a foot) which is rhythmic and repeated for the length of a song. For some dances it is sufficient to know the basic step performed in different handholds and dance positions to enjoy it socially.

Most traditional partner dances have only one basic step which can be easily mastered. Others, such as West Coast Swing, have multiple basic steps, any of which can theoretically be selected by the leader.

Examples

 * Box step, the basic move in some American style ballroom dances: rumba and arguably waltz and bronze-level foxtrot.
 * Cha-cha-cha. There are several variants of the basic movement in cha-cha-cha: basic, open basic, basic in place.
 * Lindy basic in lindy hop
 * Mambo basic in mambo
 * Salsa basic in salsa
 * Zydeco basic in zydeco

Links to videos showing these dance steps can be found in the references section below.

title: Basic (dance move)


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax/div-tags-000.txt

Back to main index page.

How does this work?
 * 1) Randomly select one block of 5 problems from the list of contents below.
 * 2) Fix those 5 syntax problems.
 * 3) With each fix, if you want, set the edit description to "Please help out by clicking here to fix someone else's Wiki syntax."  (This is to encourage more malformed syntax to be fixed.)
 * 4) Then delete that block of 5 problems from this page (so that we know that they're done).

That's it.

Tip: Copy this into a text editor now so that you have it handy: Please help out by clicking here to fix someone else's Wiki syntax.


text:
User talk:146.176.2.17

Nomination of Pat Bridson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pat Bridson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pat Bridson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:146.176.2.17