text:
User talk:Markalexander100~enwiki/Archive2

Blocking

 * That IP address was blocked because of this obviously bad edit; I know mistakes sometimes happen in the confusion of editing this page, so I'll unblock the address and keep an eye on it. Mark1 04:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It must be a shared IP address situation. Thanks for posting that; I thought I was blocked because someone was insisting on a "fisherperson" link that didin't make sense and reverted my edit with an accusation of vandalism.

Thanks alot! Zosodada 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I have just a small suggestion. I would like to ask you, if possible, to put an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). And it would be good if that is indeed, every single time. Even for small changes.

None of us like arbitrary rules. So I would like to shortly explain why this particular rule is so important. You see, every time you change an article, it is not only the article which is modified. A record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on the watchlist. And most people have an article on their watchlist because they do care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing! Hyacinth 21:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
As a fellow Admin to another, please remember to list your actions about vandalism at Vandalism in progress. It helps to keep track of long time vandals and such. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Markalexander100
(please refer to delete votes)
 * Dear Wiki contributors, admins & sysops. You have been mislead by Curps. Please see that article in question and decide for yourselves if deletion is a correct Wiki thing to do. I have decided not to pursue the re-naming of Curps's article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and through consultation with other helpful Wikis, I have decided to start a series of Asian Tsunami articles on my own ... there is freedom to initiate such a move right ? The articles in questions is proposed to drill deep in the subject in question. In Asian tsunami : The earthquake I have attempted to focus just on the earthquake that caused the Asian Tsunamis. In Asian tsunami : Time-line (currently vandalised by Curps), I have drilled down to the exact minutes to minutes account of the waves of deadly tsunamis. I will be added other article in the Asian tsunami series like the humanitarian aspects, current news & occurrences etc. because I think it is the right thing to do. kenkam 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Singapore's FAC
Hi, you objected to elevating Singapore to featured status on FAC. I and some others have tried addressing your objections; would you mind reevaluating the article? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chihuly Inside and Out close-up.jpg
Perhaps I should clarify that it is a picture of a glass sculpture and not of a picture. I encourage you to reconsider your vote. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

impossibly
I just went through the article, reading, I must admit, some parts for the first time. You were right, some of the grammar was appalling, thanks for pointing it out. But let me nag you about "there are similarities that can impossibly all be due to chance" (since that phrase was mine; I have no problem with breaking it down of course, "There are these similarities. It is impossible that all of them are due to chance", but I don't even know if you are objecting to the pronoun or to the adverb) would you prefer "the having arisen of which as a result of chance is a matter of impossibility" maybe? I think this would be unassailable, gramatically :oD  dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm objecting to the adverb: There are these similarities. It is impossible that all of them are due to chance would be fine. ;) Mark1 00:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Or replace "can impossibly" to "cannot possibly". Peter O. (Talk) 00:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * there's an idea. I think we are looking at a semantic shift of 'impossibly', similar to 'terribly' (i.e. we are used to expressions like 'impossibly beautiful', where the word has lost its logical for an emphatic meaning). Will try 'cannot possibly'). dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Killing fields
The question is, what is the origin of this term? Was it a Cambodian usage, or was it invented by Hollywood? Or by the author of the book the film was based on? It is used by Cambodians now, but that is because of the film and because they know that is what tourists call it. And as far as I know, they only use it in relation to Choeung Ek. I would like to see a source before I agree that it is the generic term for all the Khmer Rouge execution sites. Adam 10:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, the origin of the phrase is an interesting issue, but one beyond my googling ability: I suspect it's lost in the murk of late 70s and early 80s popular culture.  What I do know is that the phrase is now used to refer to all the sites ; I've also found several examples of it being used to refer to the genocide as a whole.   That seems to be dealt with at Democratic_Kampuchea, but what we don't have yet, as far as I can find, is a discussion of the places where they did their killing: how many, where, organisation or lack of it, and so on.  We could always call that page Khmer Rouge genocide sites, but Killing Fields is more intuitive. Mark1 00:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cambodia
Cambodia has improved so much since it was nominated for FA status - you've really done some good work there. However, would it be possible to fix up the modern day history? It's my last major objection, which I don't think it'd be too hard to fix - and it's getting awfully close to judgement day for the article. Ambi 13:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wishes for the Chinese new year
Hello, dear Markalexander100. Thanks for your great contributions to the article Nanjing University. Best wishes for the coming Chinese Spring Festival and Chinese Chicken Year. Dictioner 02:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

References/Great Mosque of Djenné
Hi, thanks for the info. Did you yourself use those sources to add or confirm material in the article? If so, do you mind formatting them properly as references as at Cite sources. There is a section for how to format websites as references. Thanks - Taxman 14:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, done. Mark1 04:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Cantos
Thanks for the FAC vote. Glad you liked the article, which has certainly improved since I nominated it. Filiocht 10:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Itsukushima torii
Hello - I have lowered the photo's saturation using Photoshop, so I would appreciate very much if you would reconsider your vote. Thanks! — Dan | Talk 13:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shostakovich
Hi, Markalexander.

I had edited a paragraph to read as follows:

"What is uncertain is the extent to which Shostakovich expressed his opposition to the state in his other music. The revisionist view was put forth by Solomon Volkov in his 1979 book Testimony. Although Testimony purports to be Shostakovich's memoirs dictated to Volkov, the book is clouded by ongoing controversy."

And you subsequently restored the original paragraph, which reads:

"What is uncertain is the extent to which Shostakovich expressed his opposition to the state in his other music. The revisionist view was put forth by Solomon Volkov in the 1979 book Testimony, which was claimed to be Shostakovich's memoirs dictated to Volkov. The book claimed that many of the composer's works contained coded anti-government messages. It is known that he incorporated many quotations and motifs in his work, most notably his signature DSCH theme. His longtime collaborator Yevgeny Mravinsky said that "Shostakovich very often explained his intentions with very specific images and connotations" (Wilson p. 139). The revisionist perspective has subsequently been supported by his children, Maxim and Galina, and many Russian musicians. His widow Irina supports the general thesis but denies the authenticity of Testimony. Other prominent revisionists are Ian MacDonald, whose book The New Shostakovich put forward more interpretations of his music, and Elizabeth Wilson, whose Shostakovich: A Life Remembered provides testimony from many of the composer's acquaintances."

And your comment suggested you did so in the interests of a neutral point of view.

(a) The statement that Volkov's book is clouded by ongoing controversy, is neutral, is it not?

(b) The question is more complex than "Volkov is a revisionist, and his case is essentially thus," and "These others are 'anti-revisionists'"; the paragraph as it stands (and subsequent discussion of the 'anti-revisionists') essentially defines the issue in Volkov's terms, which is not neutral, is it?

(c) I agree that the paragraph which you have restored is of interest, but I would suggest that it belongs in a related article on Volkov.

Cheers, Karlhenning 15:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi!
 * a) "clouded" I think is not NPOV: it implies that as a matter of fact the book is "tainted" in some way. That may or may not be right, but as some people would not agree, we should not say so.  I'd have no argument with "controversial", though I don't think it would add much to Many musicians and scholars ... contest the authenticity (and debate the significance) of Testimony, which we already have.

 * b) and c) I think that perhaps you're misreading the paragraph, or at least not reading it the way I meant it. ;)  Only two of the sentences are about Testimony/Volkov; the remainder of the paragraph discusses the revisionist case in general, and mentions five other broadly revisionist opinions (five and a half if you count Irina). Mark1 01:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

60% of protein
I don't believe it. I deleted it. I think I'm deting what you added, so if you want to put "xxx says yyy (reference)" no problem.; but I still won' believe it. I bet rice alone gives Cambodians more protein than fish. 4.250.168.238 11:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, it's in the reference already cited. Rice, by the way, contains very little protein. Mark1 06:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam and Thailand links
I would respectfully disagree with the characterization of the links you deleted as "commercial". While it is true that we try to sell prints (and we do sell maybe ten in a good month), this is mostly so that we can support the site. The primary goal of the site has always been to share our photography. We have about half a million visits per month, so the sales that I mention are just a drop in the water. People return to the site because they like the contents, which is provided at no charge and without advertising, thanks to the few sales we obtain. Unlike real commercial photography sites, we have a generous free personal use policy, and often grant free permissions to organizatons as well.

 * The problem is that there are hundreds of sites with pictures of travel destinations, and since we can't list all of them it would be unfair to list just some.  If you really want to share photos via Wikipedia, you can release some under GFDL, upload them and add them to specific pages. Mark1 06:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a fair argument that I respect. However, I note that there are potentially millions of topics too. The reason why those topics are there while others are not is that someone has bothered to write copy for them. This does not make it unfair to other topics. The reason why some photo sites would have links and some not would be that some photographers have bothered to contribute a link to wikipedia. If a link is weak in contents, the community can certainly decide to remove it. However, I would challenge you to find other sites that offer the same amount of professional level photography, say, about Vietnam, AND at the same time a personal free use policy as extensive as the link I added. I have looked into the GNU before (I work in software), but unfortunately, it doesn't work as well for artistic content, where the copyright issues are different, and very delicate. For instance, you don't see too much music released under the GNU, do you ?

 * The written and unwritten articles are not competing with each other, however (if you only sell ten pictures a month, I'd say you're not competing very well rather than that you're not competing).  The reason that we don't already have a hundred links to photo galleries on each of the southeast Asian pages is not that people don't bother to add links, it's that we delete them as fast as people add them.  Links to photo galleries are just not what Wikipedia is for: we want to provide information on this site, not to send people to other sites.  There are, incidentally, a lot of GFDL images, if not music: Category:GFDL_images.   Mark1 07:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kircherearthfires.jpg
Image:Kircherearthfires.jpg says it is PD, but its source is a Stanford page which does not state the material is PD. Where is the Stanford copyright status information? An image copied from a PD source is not itself PD unless the holder of the copyright on the copy makes it PD. (SEWilco 06:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

 * Basically, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Whether Stanford thinks it has copyright is irrelevant.  It doesn't. ;) Mark1 07:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I was not aware of that principle being applied to images. Thanks. (SEWilco 16:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

This is obviously a similar image, although focused on his subterranean rivers: http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/heat/gallery/figures1/fig105.htm (SEWilco 18:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

 * That's a nice one- it's difficult to decide which ones to leave out of the articles! Mark1 03:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Depends upon the article. Volcano has the "internal fires" one, as "subterranean rivers" is not as focused on the topic.  Incidentally, you might want to tweak the brightness and contrast so the details are more visible.  (SEWilco 06:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

My adminship
Hi Mark, Your support in my nomination means a lot to me. I look forward to helping out. -  BanyanTree 04:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mud!
Hello! I was just looking at edits on Tibetan Plateau and noticed that you contributed "Between them, these rivers carry 25% of the world's mud." I would like to nominate that sentence for deletion, since of course any "...liquid or semi-liquid mixture of water and soil, or sediment, is commonly referred to as mud." This accurate definition (from mud) would make it extremely difficult to say what percentage, even roughly speaking, of the world's mud was in a certain region at a certain time, much less in general. Comments? Musser 23:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, I'm now regretting being a fool and not citing my source, but I definitely wasn't making it up. Give me a while to try to track down where I got it from and maybe to clarify it.   Two possibilities spring to mind: 1) it means 25% of the sediment carried by rivers, which one can measure reasonably accurately; or 2) it's referring to the Indus and Bengal fans: the latter alone is 2,500 kilometers long and 22 kilometers thick, which is a hell of a lot of mud.  Compared to that, measuring the mud at the bottom of your garden is irrelevant, since only the big chunks of mud will be statistically important.  Compare the (as far as I know accepted) fact that Lake Baikal contains 20% of the world's total unfrozen freshwater: compared to that, minor sources of freshwater are again irrelevant. Mark1 04:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The first option there is an interesting possibility, which might make sense. If that's the case, I think I could reword to make it a little more clear. Those fans in your second suggestion certainly do represent a lot of sediment. I could see how someone might think that would constitute a significant portion of the world's mud. But the overburden pressure resulting from 22 km of sediment would have the effect of driving the water out of the lower portion of this sediment... making it mud no more. In fact, this is the process of formation for sedimentary rock. Either way, would you mind posting on my talk page if you manage to track down that source? I will be away from the computer more than usual over the next few weeks and might miss you otherwise! Regards, Musser 05:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kigo
gK had already done a bunch of good work on what was originally a very stubby article that I think was a direct translation from the Japanese Wikipedia (before he "left the building"—see his user page). I've decided that I want to finish that work with the goal of first going to Peer review, and then Featured article candidates (and then to the main page as a Featured article, of course). If you want to help, or just make some suggestions, that would be appreciated. As for the bolding. Since the article is about kigo, I was trying to make the various kigo stand out from the regular Wikilinks. The other way to go would be only wikilink the kigo so that they didn't need bolding. Another way to go would be to make each kigo a new entry in a wiki-list (using "*"), but that would make for a l-o-n-g article. If you can offer another way to achieve the same results, that would be great. Blank Verse  ∅  09:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd suggest something like "ochiba (fallen leaves)", and use ochiba when referring to that kigo thereafter. After all, "ochiba" is the kigo, not "fallen leaves". But I'm afraid I don't know enough to help with the actual content. Mark1 02:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ochiba is a kigo in the Japanese language. Fallen leaves is a kigo (season word) in the English-language that can be used in writing English-language haiku (Higginson's Haiku World has several nice examples including one from Cid Corman). Although I think that I've done a good job of emphasizing that everything about kigo comes from the Japanese concept, I've also tried to show that it is not exclusive to Japan or the Japanese-language. Blank Verse  ∅  03:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, "fallen leaves" can be a kigo in an English poem, but in the section called "Common kigo in Japanese haiku" it's not the kigo under discussion.  In the section on English language kigos, italics or quote marks might work. Mark1 04:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Fidel
SeeRequests for page protection --SqueakBox 03:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, largely in response to Kapil's behaviour on that page, I have opened an RfC on him: []. It would be most helpful if you could certify it. Thanks, Viajero 00:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Polish September Campaign
I have adressed your comments, and images are in the middle of being clarified/removed (see comments). Are you still objecting, or just commenting? Or perhaps a 'conditional supporting'? :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just letting you now that User:Themanwithoutapast now supports the article. Please reconsider your vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Neua pad prik
Hi Mark. I've added Neua pad prik to the list of Thai dishes at Cuisine of Thailand. I noticed that prior to this addition, there are nearly no popular dishes listed which contain beef, is there a reason for that? Whenever you have a chance, could you please help me translate the word "neua" into Thai? It would doubly helpful for a disambiguation article I'm working on at NEUA. —RaD Man (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Biggest-selling female musician
Biggest-selling female musician - need to be deleted not cleaned up.......you can't take it seriously .....its a joke ....:)Vorash 04:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I wavered... If you list it on VfD, I'd gladly support. Mark1 04:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It was created by crazy fans of MAdonna and Mariah Carey.......you can clean up it 100 times, but they will continue to write their crazy stuff over and over again.....they dont want to listen to any facts.......it was created following my work in Best selling music artists and because they dont want to recognise a figures presented there...:)Vorash 04:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The value of the article is to keep the crazy fans' arguments out of the main articles for those artists! It presents all three cases, let it be.   Wasted Time R 10:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleting other editors comments
Please refrain from deleting other editors comments. Thanks. I have reverted your changes. El_C 09:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * As a general principle, you're obviously right, but people shouldn't vote on archived discussions. It just confuses people. Mark1 09:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to reserve the right to add a comment to a vote I already cast, if you don't mind, especially considering the only recent withdrawal of TBSDY's nomination, which I hadn't seen until now. The "confusion" argument seems quite weak here—or alternatively, I would like to reserve the right of "confusing" people when I want to, as well. Seeing that all comments are timestamped and we have edit histories, archival is a practice of convenience more than necessity anyway. Don't overdo it. JRM · Talk 09:53, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

 * I find your continued deletion border on vandalism. Please stop. El_C 10:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You are of course entitled to your opinion that people should continue to vote on closed votes, but don't expect many people to share it. ;) Mark1 02:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That was not a (new) vote, nor was it a change of vote, it was a comment on a vote. El_C 02:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It was a comment on a new vote. Deleting invalid votes and leaving the comments on them would just be bizarre. Mark1 03:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Bach
Why have you reverted the changes I made to the bach page? User:Helohe.

 * Hi, the comment that Gould is "one of the best bach performers" is completely subjective and therefore unencyclopedic. Mark1 01:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

FAC Nomination
I rewrote the nomination of Starfleet ranks and insignia so it doesnt sound like i am saying which votes will be counted. Please do not make further changes to my nomination without talking about it. It was a very serious problem last name with at least 4 users voting against FAC simply because they thought the article was "dumb" or "just about Star Trek". Per everything Ive read on Featured article candidates, those votes are inactionable and are not counted. I have a right in my nomination to voice my concern about this. -Husnock 05:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * FOLLOWUP: After saying all that, I actually went back and removed the paragraph myself. The question about those concerns is now on the FA talk page.  Maybe you can answer it. -Husnock 05:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vientiane_treaty
I went ahead and stubbed the article and moved it, so it can be hopefully expanded to something about the real Vientiane Treaty of 1973. Letting you know in case you want to withdraw the VfD :) — Phil Welch 09:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured list candidates
I saw your post about the sections. I think what happened was that you clicked a link just as I was moving some new nominations to the top of the list. Sorry about that. Should be OK now. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Mark1 08:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I think I addressed your concern about the quality of the English in the Notes section of List of Popes. Could you take a look at it? --Spangineer ∞ 17:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

University of California, Los Angeles
Hopefully this will settle down quickly. It's a silly little issue, just over the inclusion of an old photograph. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * There's often a direct proportionality between triviality of a dispute and the vigour with which it is pursued. ;) Mark1 08:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * With the passage of a couple of days, perhaps the dispute has settled down. Whenever you think it best to unprotect the page, please feel free to do so. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Done, thanks. Mark1 01:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hindu temples
I put those temples in the hindu temples in cambodia category for the as a sub group in Hindu temples category to show the distinction from other hindu temples. The temples may be inactive but they are none the less hindu temples. The only ones that could be considered former hindu temples are the Angkor Wat and Bayon since they started off as hindu and were turned into buddhist ones. both temples show hindu mythology on them since the khymer empire started off as hindu.

 I hadn't anticipated this issue, and was just keen to get the categories started in a hopefully useful way. With the title Hindu temples, I appreciate that it is ambiguous whether Hindu refers to architecture or religious usage, and whether the usage is current or historical. Now I remember why I have wiki-breaks! :-)

There are probably no consensual guidelines for issues like this, but there are many pages discussing categorisation.

My view is that categories can interpreted as being "current" by default where there is a "former" category, e.g. Colonies and Former colonies. Category:Formerly_X should be a child category of Category:X, as having to always either use Category:Current_X as a sibling or Category:Current_and_formerly_X as a parent would be cumbersome. Differing examples include Current national leaders and French monarchs.

In general, Wikipedia is tilted towards current data rather than historical data, e.g. the history of population sizes of countries is a lot rarer than the latest census total. If I'm reading an old document, I may want to look up facts relevant to that time. But I digress, and who reads old stuff anyway? :-)

Like the rest of Wikipedia, we are aiming for a compromise between perfect accuracy, maximum usability, and unanimity, i.e. verifiable facts presented in a NPOV manner, readability, consensus. I don't know how many Cambodian temple articles have this issue but here's a range of category solutions:

 * Highly specific: Buddhist temples in Cambodia that were originally Hindu, which could in turn be a child of Buddhist temples in Cambodia and Formerly Hindu temples, not to be confused with categories like Former Buddhist Temples (sic). This is bad when it results in categories with too few members and overly-long titles.
 * Inclusive and readable: Hindu temples in Cambodia and Buddhist temples in Cambodia. Relevant category pages can have a template or text explaining that they categorise religious sites by historical as well as current usage, as well as by architecture (for structures).  Hopefully, the relevant article(s) cover historical and current usage, as well as architecture where appropriate.
 * Overly general: Buildings. This is bad when it results in categories with too many members.

Hmmm, was I supposed to vote? --Zigger «º» 15:20, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

how to put your name at the end of a message?
how do set your sig at the end of a message?

 * Four tildas: ~


text:
The Deptford Mice Almanack

The Deptford Mice Almanack is a companion book to The Deptford Mice and Deptford Histories trilogies by Robin Jarvis, presented in an in-universe style. It was first published in 1997 by Macdonald Young Books in the United Kingdom.

Synopsis
Ten years after the events of The Final Reckoning, a red squirrel artist and writer named Gervase Brightkin is staying as a guest of mouse heroine Audrey Scuttle, now the Starwife in Greenwich Park. He is commanded by her to create an almanack to record the lore and traditions of the mice, squirrels, bats, and rats. There are entries for all the days of the year, and every major event in the main novels is given a date. Gervase includes journal entries throughout telling of his stay in Greenwich as well as his travels to Fennywolde and Holeborn to ask William 'Twit' Scuttle and Arthur Brown to tell their stories.

While in Fennywolde, Gervase encounters Alison Sedge, the field mouse who was jealous of Audrey in The Crystal Prison. She was seemingly driven mad because of the death of her love interest, Jenkin Nettle, for which she blames Audrey. Alison solemnly warns that Audrey will not be the Starwife for much longer and will know great loss. At the end of the year, the Great Oak (in which the evil rat god Hobb was imprisoned by a previous Starwife, Ysabelle) falls down because of heavy winds. It is seen as an ill omen, and many of the grey squirrels in the park begin to whisper that it was Audrey's fault because she is not a squirrel but "merely" a mouse. Traditionally, the office of Starwife was always held by a squirrel.

When two black squirrels, Morella and her father Modequai, arrive in Greenwich, everyone is shocked as that monarchical race was thought to be extinct. The grey squirrels see Morella as the perfect replacement for Audrey, and ultimately there is a revolt. Audrey is ousted from office, her silver acorn pendant is given to Morella, and the latter takes the title of Starwife. However, it is heavily implied that Morella is not what she seems. The almanack ends on this ominous note, setting the stage for a future Deptford Mice novel to resolve the cliffhanger.

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

title: The Deptford Mice Almanack


text:
Queensland Health

Queensland Health is the name of the overall public health service in the state of Queensland, Australia. The system is made up of 16 Hospital and Health Services (HHS'), and the Queensland Department of Health. Each HHS covers a certain geographical area of Queensland, with the exception of the state-wide service, Children's Health Queensland, and operates health facilities and other services. The Department of Health is responsible for the management and performance of the system, and support services like finance, centralised supply and procurement, HR, and IT services. Most HHS' also have associated foundations and authorities, which provide additional support.

Like all other states and territories in Australia, the Queensland Government provides free or low-cost health services to people with a Medicare card or are from reciprocal country, or at-cost services to ineligible patients. In addition, some people from northern New South Wales and the Northern Territory receive care through Queensland Health due to a lack of services in their local areas. Queensland became the first state in Australia to introduce free universal public hospital treatment in January 1946, a policy later adopted by other jurisdictions.

Queensland Health employs over 97,000 staff and has an annual operating budget of over AU$30 billion. At the end of June 2014, there were 11,109 inpatient beds available across all state hospitals, with 305 designed intensive care beds.

Hospital and Health Services
The Health and Hospital Services are independent statutory bodies which are responsible for delivering public health services in their areas. Each HHS is governed by a Hospital and Health Board and managed by a Health Service Chief Executive. There are 15 regional HHS', and one state-wide HHS (Children's Health Queensland). The HHS' are:

 * Cairns and Hinterland
 * Central Queensland
 * Central West
 * Darling Downs
 * Gold Coast
 * Mackay
 * Metro North
 * Metro South
 * North West
 * South West
 * Sunshine Coast
 * Torres and Cape
 * Townsville
 * West Moreton
 * Wide Bay
 * Children's Health Queensland

Children's Health Queensland (CHQ) operates the state-wide children's hospital in South Brisbane, as well as provides specialist advice to health practitioner in Queensland via telehealth, and runs programs throughout the state such as the Good Start Program and school-based nursing services. Children from anywhere across Queensland can be referred to CHQ, and can receive specialist care at Queensland Children's Hospital.

As not all HHS' are able to provide advanced care services, largely due to the size and remoteness of its catchments, some HHS (primarily Metro North and Metro South) accept referrals from outside their catchment where the service cannot be provided locally. To assist with this, Queensland has a Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme which covers reasonable costs of transport and accommodation to another public facility if it cannot be provided locally.

2005 restructure
Queensland Health was restructured toward the end of 2005 from 38 health districts to 20. There were a number consolidations particularly in the urban areas with the formation of the "Northside" and "Southside" Districts. Northside District included three major hospital facilities including The Prince Charles Hospital, Redcliffe and Caboolture Hospitals while Southside brought the Logan, Redlands, Beaudesert and Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospitals together. Due to their size and areas they covered, the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH) on the Northside, and the Princess Alexandra Hospital on the Southside remained independent districts in their own right. In September 2008, the 20 health service districts were further reduced to 15. Six new districts were created, merging together other districts:
 * Darling Downs-West Moreton incorporating the former Toowoomba and Darling Downs and West Moreton South Burnett districts.
 * Sunshine Coast-Wide Bay incorporating the Sunshine Coast – Cooloola, Wide Bay and Fraser Coast health service districts.
 * Metro South incorporates the Southside Health Service District and Princess Alexandra Hospital.
 * Metro North incorporates the Northside Health Service District and Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.
 * Children's Health Services, will oversee the implementation of a state-wide paediatric service.

2006 Health Quality and Complaints Commission
In response to the Forster Review of Queensland Health Systems an independent Health Quality and Complaints Commission was established on 1 July 2006 to allow patients to lodge complaints about health matters.

The (full-time) Commissioner is Professor Michael Ward, a former Professor of Medicine at the University of Queensland. There are also a number of part-time Assistant Commissioners. The Health Quality and Complaints Commission also has a role in the development and implementation of quality, safety and clinical practice standards throughout Queensland's public and private services and monitor best practice clinical governance and patient safety.

It was subject to review by an all-party Parliamentary Committee after its first full year of operation.

The HQCC has since been replaced by the Office of the Health Ombudsman.

2011 proposed decentralisation
Former Premier Anna Bligh announced on 12 December 2011 that the department would be dismantled. The decision was attributed to an "unacceptable culture", the theft of $16 million from the department and problems with the payroll system which has cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The department was due to cease operations on 1 July 2012.

In January 2012, more details of the reform plan were announced, with an emphasis on health care management to be done locally. Bligh described the changes as the biggest decentralisation of the public sector in the state's history. In March 2012, the ALP lost power in Queensland and the proposed abolition of Queensland Health did not eventuate.

2012 restructure
The 2011 National Health Reform Agreement was signed by all states and territories, and required the creation of local health boards and hospital networks that would be directly funded by the Commonwealth. In May 2012, the agreement was formalised in Queensland through legislation proposed by Lawrence Springborg, which transitioned the health districts to independent Hospital and Health Service entities. Under the new arrangements, each HHS would have their own board to manage and oversee health operations in that region. The boards are accountable to the minister for health, and the Department of Health was established as a 'system manager' to provide oversight and support to each of the services. These changes became effective on 1 July 2012.

Jayant Patel scandal
Queensland Health and the Bundaberg Base Hospital were involved in a scandal surrounding the employment of surgeon Jayant Patel. The Queensland Medical Board approved his registration and he was then quickly promoted to Director of Surgery even though he lacked specific qualifications. In March 2005, Rob Messenger raised concerns with Patel's medical practices in the Queensland Parliament after he was contacted by senior hospital nurse Toni Hoffman. Hoffman received the Order of Australia medal and 2006 Australian of the Year Local Hero Award for her role as a whistleblower. An inquiry into the matter known as the Morris Inquiry was started but was terminated on the grounds of perceived bias. A second inquiry known as the Davies Inquiry found that the district manager and the hospital's Director of Medical Services had mostly ignored more than 20 complaints regarding Patel.

On 1 July 2010, Patel was sentenced to seven years' jail after he was found guilty of three charges of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm. Patel appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal, his appeal was dismissed. Patel appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal who rejected his application. He further appealed to the High Court of Australia, which unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed Patel's convictions on the ground that prejudicial evidence had likely influenced the jury on 24 August 2012.

The following year, a retrial was held for one of the manslaughter charges, and Patel was acquitted by the jury. The remaining manslaughter and grievous bodily harm charges were later dropped in exchange for Patel pleading guilty to two counts related to him dishonestly gaining registration and two counts related to dishonestly gaining employment in Queensland. Patel was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence for those fraud charges. On 15 May 2015, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered that Patel's registration with the Medical Board of Australia be revoked, preventing him from ever practising medicine in Australia again.

Fake Tahitian Prince scandal
New Zealand citizen and Queensland Health employee, Hohepa Hikairo 'Joel' Morehu-Barlow, was jailed in 2013 for embezzlement of $16 million from the system between 2007 and 2011. He also pleaded guilty to fraud, for taking part in a Tahitian Prince scam and for using a fake law degree to secure a promotion within Queensland Health. The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission said in 2013 that the fraud "may be the single largest fraud ever committed in the Queensland public sector".

In 2020 upon his parole from custody, the Australian Border Force cancelled Morehu-Barlow's visa and he was deported to New Zealand under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

2010 payroll system implementation
Queensland Health has experienced several issues with its payroll systems and processes over the years, most notably the troublesome 2010 payroll system replacement project. Queensland Health's 2010 payroll system replacement came as a centralisation effort from the Shared Services Initiative, a related precursor to the current Smart Service Queensland whole-of-government offering.

The SAP and WorkBrain-based payroll system was implemented by IBM, initially as an interim system to replace the former LATTICE system which was rapidly becoming unsupported by the vendor, and later to be consolidated whole-of-agency payroll and human resources system. The new payroll system went live in March 2010 despite inadequate testing and an expectation that the system would fail to accurately pay health workers. The launch resulted in Queensland Health staff not being paid, being underpaid, or overpaid, for several months and a 10-times increase in manual payroll processing required. The contracts of several Queensland Health senior executives were terminated, and the total delivery and remediation costs for the project ballooned to over $1.2 billion.

2023 payroll corrections
In March 2023, Queensland Health internal auditing found that there had been further payroll issues relating to certain industrial awards being entered incorrectly into the system. Health Minister Yvette D'Ath clarified to parliament that for the majority of affected staff were overpaid by less than a dollar and that the government would not require staff to repay the balance. A limited number of staff received larger overpayments, however only up to $100.

An audit of all Queensland Health payroll during the affected period has been announced and is expected to be completed by the end of June 2023. It is expected that some underpayments, with a value of several million dollars, will be uncovered. Payment corrections (additional pay) is occurring in batches of 50 employees, to allow for payments to begin before the end of the audit.

An external audit of the system found that the industrial awards and instruments have since been corrected and are compliant with Australian and Queensland workplace laws.

title: Queensland Health


text:
Talk:Fourth Howard ministry

I think that Kevin Andrews, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, is missing. - Bambul 05:45, June 10 2005 (UTC)

Information is missing as relates to the Cabinet reshuffle caused by the resignation of John Anderson in July 2005. I've filled in the bit for the Outer Ministry, but I can't work it out for the Parliamentary Secretaries. I've got a list of the original Parl Secs (in this article) and a list of the new ones after the January 2006 reshuffle, but don't have one in between. Braue 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please try to contain your enthusiasm. The changes have not happened yet and the list can't change until they do. You can find details of other recent changes to the ministry at the Parliament website. Adam 12:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There was no reason to revert those changes I made. If you wished to, you could have simply taken out the sections relating to the January 2006 reshuffle. However, I also made changes relating to style and also added in a section on changes made to the Outer Ministry in July 2005.

 * On the point of the current reshuffle, I would argue that it is not premature. Howard has announced that these changes will be taking place. There isn't any ifs or buts about whether it will or won't happen. Furthermore, considering that the new ministry will be sworn in on Friday, there is no consideration of an extended period of time in which decisions will be made. If you think that it shouldn't be included, maybe you should put something in saying that these haven't yet taken place. They still are relevant. If people read this and see that no changes have been made, the sensible thing to assume is that the Cabinet listed in this article (and all the other positions) are current. So I'll be reverting it back to what I had. I'll also be adding a comment that these positions haven't been formally changed, but have been announced. Braue 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Format change
I suggest this be modified to a table, based on the system used for most UK ministries: three columns: Office; Name; Term of office. This will make reshuffles etc much easier to deal with, and help ensure no portfolio is overlooked. It may be tricky where portfolios are reorganised. i will have a try and see. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * While I like the table format I find the black bars too heavy and oppressive and detract somewhat from the content. Could we think about toning down the dividing bars?--Matilda talk 00:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd List
The order of the list (by portfolio) seems to be in no order I think it would be sensible if the list went along the lines of PM DPM Treasurer AG M for Foriegn Affairs M for Defence M for Trade etc etc (i.e. ranking the portfolios in their logical order - granted this would cause some debate, but if somebody more skilled in table formatting than me made the wholesale changes we could sought out the order at a later date)121.210.112.226 (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fourth Howard ministry


text:
User:Kevin Baas/Analysis of UK Cabinet Office documents

The DSM Coordination Center is a center for coordinating all things in support of exposing the truth behind the Administration's handling and presentation of pre-war intelligence, and whether the president was determined to go to war with Iraq prior to assessing and regardless of the facts, intelligence, and legality. The goals of this center are to aggregate information, prepare representatives (fight misinformation and propaganda), coordinate actions, and disseminate news.

Antimisinformation • Information • News • Analysis • Strategy • Action • Coordinate

9 June 2005. This file and related Zipped file of documents republished in response to inquiries.

D. writes:

 * The New Zealand publication "Scoop" (http://www.scoop.co.nz) has published what purports to be a transcript of a memo concerning the runup to the Iraq invasion from the U.K. ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer, to David Manning. The source document for this memo is a pdf, "meyer020318.pdf", from a collection of several others. All of these pdfs no longer appear to be available on the network. In an analysis of these documents Michael Lewis of Christ's College, Cambridge referred readers to an archive of these supposedly to be found at Cryptome, "leaks-brief.zip". These no longer appear to be on the Cryptome site. Have they by any chance been removed?

 * I ask because the authenticity of the documents is now being called into question.

5 October 2004. Thanks to Michael Lewis, who writes:

 * Please find attached pdf facsimiles of the leaked UK Cabinet Office documents discussed in various news outlets around 18th September, e.g.,

 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar18.xmlsSheet=/portal/2004/09/18/ixportaltop.html

 * and my analysis of them. The full texts, particularly several passages not much discussed by the news media, provide clearer evidence than either the Hutton or Butler reports of positively misleading statements made by Prime Minister Blair to the press and the UK Parliament.

 * The documents were not reproduced in full in the press, and are currently hosted on another site

 * http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/ukdocs0203.html [See below for Cryptome mirror]

 * but too much traffic may take down this site. The analysis below is not as yet posted anywhere.

Summary
The Butler Report of July 2004 highlighted substantial omissions of evidence regarding Iraq, but did not argue that positively false information had been given by the Prime Minister to press or Parliament. On 18 September 2004, the Daily Telegraph published extracts from a series of newly leaked documents from the Cabinet Office. With one exception, none of these were quoted in the Butler Report.[1] The full texts of these documents:

A) Provide clear evidence that the Prime Minister substantively misled Parliament and press in claiming that:

 * a. his government’s objective was disarmament, and not regime change by force; and that

 * b. as late as February 2003, no decision had been taken to invade Iraq.

Instead, they show that Blair was fully committed to regime change as early as 8 March 2002, and communicated this position to Bush and his officials. This is substantive evidence of positive falsehood on the part of the Prime Minister, not simply an omission of evidence.

B) Demonstrate that a new Security Council Resolution in 2002 and renewed inspections were designed to provide a trigger for war, as part of an explicitly set-out sequence of actions by the US/UK to provide political and legal support for invasion. Claims by the Prime Minister and others that it was only Saddam’s unwillingness to cooperate with renewed inspections that led to war were therefore misleading. These policy documents clearly show an intention to use (and arguably abuse) the UN route to provide a legal pretext for pre-decided regime change, not as a route to peaceful disarmament.

C) Show that as early as March 2002 the Prime Minister was advised that

 * a. intelligence on Iraqi weapons was “poor”;

 * b. containment had been “partially successful”, preventing Iraq’s resumption of a nuclear programme and restricting chemical and biological weapons development;

 * c. Iraq’s security threat was not increasing;

 * d. as such “current intelligence is insufficiently robust” to meet the criteria of proof required for legal justification of invasion.

The Prime Minister’s decision, taken at least as early as March 2002, to commit to regime change by force, was thus taken against the background of advice that the threat from Iraq was NOT increasing; containment was judged to be “partially successful”; and that without Iraq’s renewed rejection of weapons inspections, such a course of action would, on available evidence, not gain legal sanction under the UN Charter.

In addition, the documents demonstrate the scale of the misgivings expressed by the Prime Minister’s advisors to him and his ministers around the time that he committed to assisting regime change. The Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Secretary advised that:

 * a. the invasion of Iraq could not guarantee a WMD-free Iraq;

 * b. the invasion of Iraq could not guarantee a democratic Iraq;

 * c. neither the US nor the UK had credible plans for the aftermath of regime change;

 * d. the opposition groups relied upon so heavily before and after invasion were regarded by most Iraqis as “Western stooges”.

Contrary to recent assertions by the Prime Minister that at that time “the idea that we did not have a plan for afterwards is simply not correct”, the documents show that when the Prime Minister took the decision to support military regime change in March 2002, his officials warned him precisely that “none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured”, and that “Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions …[of] what happens on the morning after”.[2]

Facsimiles of these documents can be seen at

 * http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/ukdocs0203.html [See below for Cryptome mirror]

If you have any comments, please contact:

Michael Lewis Christ’s College St Andrew’s Street Cambridge CB2 3BU

Email: mhl24@cam.ac.uk

A) The Prime Minister’s concealment of his agreement to pursue regime change
1. Two Downing Street memos from mid-March 2002, marked ‘Secret’, describe meetings between David Manning (then the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser and current UK ambassador to Washington) and Christopher Meyer (then UK ambassador to Washington), and senior members of the US administration. Both describe promises made to the US about the UK’s support for regime change.

 * I said [to Condoleezza Rice] you [Blair] would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States.[3]

 * On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option.[4]

2. Contrary to his frequent public denials, therefore (see below), twelve months before war with Iraq, and eight months before UNSCR1441, the Prime Minister committed the UK to pursuing regime change.

3. That the UK envisaged that regime change might involve invasion, rather than an internal coup or the assassination of Saddam Hussein, is made clear by a further document, marked ‘Secret’ and entitled ‘Iraq: Options Paper’, produced on 8 March 2002 by the Overseas and Defence Secretariat of the Cabinet Office. It states that “[s]ince 1991, our objective has been to re-integrate a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam Hussein in power.”[5] The document considers three options for regime change: covert support for opposition groups to mount an uprising or coup; air support for opposition groups; and a full-scale ground campaign.[6]

4. Although it suggests that the first two might be tried as preludes to the third, it concludes that:

 * “[i]n sum, despite the considerable difficulties, the use of overriding force in a ground campaign is the only option that we can be confident will remove Saddam and bring Iraq back into the international community.”[7]

5. Although this document is a policy options paper rather than a formal commitment, it insists that a decision had to be taken relatively soon: “All options have lead times. If an invasion is contemplated this autumn, then a decision will need to be taken in principle six months in advance.”[8] In fact, Blair’s commitment to regime change in March 2002 demonstrates that such a decision preceded even this military timetable.

6. Contrary to this evidence, the Prime Minister and other ministers repeatedly denied throughout 2002 and early 2003 that a decision had been taken to commit to regime change, and insisted that if Saddam complied with the inspectors, he would be allowed to remain in power.

7. In an interview on 14 November 2002, Blair insisted that:

 * So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not regime change - that is our objective. Now I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime, I think it does enormous damage to the Iraqi people....but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.[9]

8. In his monthly press conference on 13 January 2003, Blair said:

 * Of course no-one wants conflict, everyone would prefer this to be resolved peacefully.[10]

9. In his monthly press conference on 18 February 2003, Blair again insisted:

 * There is no inexorable decision to go to war but there is an inexorable decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. How that happens is up to Saddam….when we went to the UN last November, that was America taking the decision that if Saddam co-operated that disarmament would happen peacefully, without war and without regime change.[11]

10. In the House of Commons on 25 February 2003, Blair continued to insist, contrary to his commitment to regime change, that Saddam could remain in power if he cooperated with weapons inspections:

 * even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.[12]

11. Given the evidence of a policy decision taken to pursue regime change as early as March 2002, these statements could only be true if government policy changed from supporting regime change up to March 2002, to supporting disarmament between mid-2002 and February 2003; and returned to support for regime change in March 2003. Blair needs to demonstrate that this ostensibly unlikely scenario was indeed the case: if not, then these statements clearly show that he misled media and Parliament.

B) UNSCR 1441 and the inspection regime designed to provide a trigger for war, as part of an explicitly set out sequence of actions by the US/UK to provide political and legal support for invasion
12. In his memo on lunch with Paul Wolfowitz, Christopher Meyer reported to Downing Street that:

 * ''“I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs”[13]

This suggests that renewed inspections, provided by a new UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) in November 2002, were intended to make Saddam default, providing a justification for a pre-planned war.

13. This is supported by the “Iraq: Options Paper” of 8 March, which establishes that renewed inspections and UNSCRs are part of a process explicitly designed to provide a pretext for war:

 * A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam, and developing military plans. There is a lead time of about 6 months to a ground offensive.[14]

 * 34. To launch such a [ground] campaign would require a staged approach:

 * winding up the pressure: increasing the pressure on Saddam through tougher containment….A refusal to readmit UN inspectors, or their admission and subsequent likely frustration, which resulted in an appropriate finding by the Security Council could provide the justification for military action.

 * careful [military] planning….

 * coalition building: diplomacy….

 * incentives: as an incentive guarantees will need to be made with regard to Iraq’s territorial integrity.
 * tackling other regional issues [including the Middle East Peace Plan]

 * sensitising the public: a media campaign to warn of the dangers that Saddam poses and to prepare public opinion both in the UK and abroad.[15]

14. The paper thus explicitly establishes that the UN/weapons inspector route was designed, contrary to the assertions of the Prime Minister (cf. paras. 7-10), to lead to invasion, not to peaceful disarmament.

15. A timescale is also suggested:

 * Sufficient air assets would need three months and ground forces at least four-five months to assemble so on logistical grounds a ground campaign is not feasible until autumn 2002. The optimal times to start action are early spring[16]

16. Yet in his 18 February press conference, Blair denied that a timetable had been considered:

 * QUESTION: I just want to come back to this point about timing. Once Hans Blix reports on the 28th [February], how long does the Security Council have realistically to secure a second resolution after that? Is the request from the French of 14 March a realistic request to come back and discuss things then?

 * PRIME MINISTER: The reason I hesitate about setting timelines or making dates of some sort of defining significance is because if I do so I am doing something where decisions really have not been taken, and it depends frankly what happens over the next period of time.[17]

C) Advice on Iraq’s weapons, the uncertainty of intelligence, and the lack of legal justification for offensive military action

 * Iraq’s weapons and intelligence

17. The September leaks strengthen many of the findings of the Butler Inquiry that the Prime Minister was advised that (a) Intelligence on Iraqi weapons was “poor”; (b) there was no new or imminent threat from Iraq’s weapons capability or intentions which might justify a change in policy.[18]

18. The ‘Iraq: Options Paper’, quoted in the Butler inquiry’s report states that:

 * As at [sic] least worst option, we have supported a policy of containment [since 1991] which has been partially successful. However: Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD, although our intelligence is poor. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened, though there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD.[19]

Although it thus argues that Iraq continues to have a WMD capability, it suggests that its threat is not increasing:

 * Since 1991, the policy of containment has been partially successful:

 * Sanctions have effectively frozen Iraq’s nuclear programme;

 * Iraq has been prevented from rebuilding its conventional arsenal to pre-Gulf War levels;

 * ballistic missile programmes have been severely restricted;

 * Biological Weapons (BW) and Chemical Weapons (CW) programmes have been hindered;

 * No Fly Zones established over northern and southern Iraq have given some protection to the Kurds and the Shia. Although subject to continuing political pressure, the Kurds remain autonomous; and

 * Saddam has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbours.[20]

19. In a letter marked “Confidential and Personal” to Jack Straw on 22 September 2002, written to provide “thoughts for your [Jack Straw’s] personal note to the Prime Minister”, Peter Ricketts, the Political Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, reiterated the view that nothing had changed which might justify new efforts at disarmament:

 * THE THREAT: The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September….even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.[21]

20. The Prime Minister was definitely made aware of this view, passed on in a letter by Jack Straw on 25 March 2002:

 * WHAT IS WORSE NOW?

 * 4. If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Usama Bin Laden] and Al Qaida. Objectively the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September.[22]

 * Legal justification for offensive military action

21. Given the current lack of evidence for an imminent threat, the ‘Iraq: Options Paper’ of March 2002 clearly argues that there is currently unlikely to be legal justification for an invasion:

 * 30. Currently, offensive military action against Iraq can only be [legally] justified if Iraq is held to be in breach of the Gulf War ceasefire resolution, 687….

 * 31. As the ceasefire was proclaimed by the Security Council in 687, it is for the [UN Security] Council to decide whether a breach of obligations has occurred….

 * 32. For the P5 and the majority of the Council to take the view that Iraq was in breach of 687:

 * they would need to be convinced that Iraq was in breach of its obligations regarding WMD, and ballistic missiles. Such proof would need to be incontrovertible and of large-scale activity. Current intelligence is insufficiently robust to meet this criterion.[23]

22. Although the Butler Report has shown that Joint Intelligence Committee reports seen by the Prime Minister did harden their language about Iraq’s weapons between March and September 2002 (partly from intelligence which was subsequently withdrawn as unreliable), the Prime Minister, as we have seen, took the decision to remove Saddam in March 2002: when, according to advice given to him, the threat from Iraq was NOT increasing; containment was judged to be “partially successful”; and there was insufficient evidence as yet to legally justify military action.[24]

23. Unless British policy changed from regime change to disarmament between 2002 and 2003, and back again in March 2003 (for which there is no evidence), then these papers indicate that British participation in the UN process between 2002 and 2003 was intended to provide a legal justification for regime change, not to pursue disarmament peacefully.

D) Advice that the invasion of Iraq might not produce a WMD-free Iraq, nor a democratic one; and that post-war planning, and even broad objectives, were inadequate

 * Post-war planning and outcomes

25. While Iraqi democracy is the clearly preferred outcome in the “Iraq: Options Paper” of March 2002, the paper is astonishingly unconfident that regime change will result either in Iraqi democracy or in long-term disarmament. The document even considers the UK accommodating the emergence of a “Sunni strongman” instead; and it stresses that neither democracy nor ‘strongman’ can guarantee a WMD-free Iraq:

 * The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change. The end states could either be a Sunni strongman or a representative government.

 * 11. In considering the options for regime change below, we need to first consider what sort of Iraq we want? There are two possibilities:

 * * A Sunni military strongman. He would be likely to maintain Iraqi territorial integrity. Assistance with reconstruction and political rehabilitation could be traded for assurances on abandoning WMD programmes and respecting human rights, particularly of ethnic minorities. The US and other militaries could withdraw quickly. However, there would be a strong risk of the Iraqi system reverting to type. Military coup could succeed coup until an autocratic Sunni dictator emerged who protected Sunni interests. With time he could acquire WMD; or

 * * A representative, broadly democratic government….Such a regime would be less likely to develop WMD and threaten its neighbours. However, to survive it would require the US and others to commit to nation-building for many years.

27. But it should be noted that even a representative government could seek to acquire WMD and build-up its conventional forces, so long as Iran and Israel retain their WMD and conventional armouries.[25]

26. In addition to these misgivings, Blair’s advisors also made it clear in March 2002 that they did not believe that the US had produced a convincing plan for Iraq’s replacement government and reconstruction. David Manning, describing his meeting with Condoleezza Rice, wrote:

 * From what she [Condoleezza Rice] said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:…what happens on the morning after?[26]

27. In a letter to the Prime Minister of 25 March 2002 marked ‘Secret and Personal’, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was even less sanguine about the lack of both US and UK planning, and likely outcomes:

 * We also have to answer the big question – what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole on this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq’s WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.

 * 11. Iraq has NO history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience.[27]

28. Blair denied the absence of planning when these documents were made public, on 18 September 2004:

 * And so the idea that we did not have a plan for afterwards is simply not correct. We did, and indeed we have unfolded that plan[28]

Yet given the timing of decision-making revealed by these documents, they show that when the Prime Minister took the decision to support military regime change in March 2002, his officials warned him precisely that “none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured”, and that “Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions …[of] what happens on the morning after”. They show that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was taken well before any plans for his replacement had been produced – arguably an extremely reckless sequence of decision-making.

External Iraqi opposition groups
29. A major part of the UK/US pursuit of post-Saddam democracy was to give substantial public support throughout 2002 and 2003 to external Iraqi opposition groups. Yet the “Iraq: Options Paper” of 8 March 2002 had warned ministers that external Iraqi opposition groups were unlikely to provide credible members of successor regimes:

 * The external [Iraqi] opposition is weak, divided and lacks domestic credibility. The predominant group is the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organisation led by Ahmed Chalabi, a Shia and convicted fraudster, popular on Capitol Hill. The other major group, the Iraqi National Accord (INA), espouses moderate Arab socialism and is led by another Shia, Ayad Allawi….Most Iraqis see the INC/INA as Western stooges.[29]

30. Despite being told by UK advisors that they had little popular legitimacy, considerable weight was given by both the UK and the US governments to these groups in forming the post-Saddam regime. On 14 April 2003, Blair assured the House of Commons that:

 * In relation to the coalition and Iraqi opposition groups, I hope that some of the conspiracy theories about people simply being parachuted in to take over the country can be laid to rest. What is important is that, in the end, the legitimacy of anyone—from inside or outside Iraq—will rest on their support from the Iraqi people themselves.[30]

31. Yet on May 22 2003, in response to a question asking what government’s “policy is on the involvement of Mr. Ahmed Chalabi in the post-war government in Iraq”,

 * Foreign Office Minister Mike O’Brien wrote that:

 * Chalabi is a prominent opposition figure. It is therefore only appropriate that the group he represents should be able to play a role in Iraq's future. But that role is for the people of Iraq to determine.[31]

 * [Ahmed Chalabi was subsequently appointed by the US/UK-led Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi Governing Council on 13 July 2003.]

32. On 20 July 2004, Blair told the House of Commons that:

 * If people read the letter from Dr. Allawi, published only the other day, they will see that he set out the authentic voice of Iraq and its future—what Iraq can now become.[32]

[Ayad Allawi, leader of the INA, was appointed Interim Prime Minister of Iraq on 28 May 2003.]


text:
Talk:Book of Enoch

Axum mention
There was a claim at Kingdom of Aksum that the book of Enoch mentions Axum. It was cited to someone named Murray “The Library: An illustrated history”. Any assistance in either assisting me in proving this wrong or else showing it to be somehow correct with an actual source on Enoch can head over there to the talk page. My removal has faced some resistance.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. Unless it is a later Ge'ez translation, there would be no possible way the earliest versions of the book of Enoch would mention Axum. Africologist (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopic manuscripts
According to James H. Charlesworth in The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha (vol. 1, p. 6) there exist also the following Ethiopic manuscripts: 95.233.176.20 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Kebran 9/II (Hammerschmidt- Tanasee 9/11), fifteenth century (Atiopischen Handschriften von Tanasee; Wiesbaden, 1973, pp.107f)
 * Princeton Ethiopic 3 (Garrett collection -Isaac 3): eighteenth or nineteenth century (A Catalogue of Ethiopic (Ge'ez) Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library (Garrett Collection), Princ. Univ. Lib. 1973 p. 3)
 * EMML 2080: fifteenth (possibly 14th) century (a microfilm copy is preserved at St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota. in addition to the 17th-century manuscripts EMML 4437 and EMML4750)

General problems
Text smells strongly of translation, possibly from Italian? Manuscript names don't follow standard English-language conventions. Bill (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Description" section
This section needs some work. It's unclear exactly how the section is helpful as it doesn't really summarize the work or give important details, and it seems to be written from a religious perspective in some places (as well as, until I just changed at least some of it, seemingly using 'ancient aliens' nonsense as a source. Nefaeryous (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Originally written in Ge'ez?
There is no possible way that the original Book of Enoch was written in Ge'ez. Translated into Ge'ez in the first millennium CE, yes. Africologist (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Does the article currently say that it was originally written in Geez?—Ermenrich (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. It is absurd. Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've repaired it. 10:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That was very obviously vandalism (someone just replaced all instances of Aramaic with Ge'ez).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * why is there no possible way and there is no evidence it was copied from Greek whatsover 149.90.75.126 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Book of Enoch


text:
File:MiceAlmanack.jpg

The Deptford Mice Almanack

title: File:MiceAlmanack.jpg


text:
Template talk:Lace types

2005 discussions
I have made a lot of changes and additions to the list of lace types and I am open to suggestions to modify it further. My basis for putting the Point Ground Bobbin laces after the Continental is that the Point Ground laces were "simplifications" (if you can believe it) of Mechlin in particular. Very often, you have to see the mesh stitches to determine if a lace is Mechlin or Point Ground because the lacemakers and designers making Point Ground literally copied Mechlin designs. PattyD 05:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is great. The next step is to create the stubs for all of these! Most of the links, especially those that are also place-names need to be modified to go directly to the lace type, not the place, in those cases where a disambiguation page already exists we can an entry for the lace type. I'm going to get started on that! -- pcrtalk 06:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like this organization better. Where would some of the contemporary laces, such as the artistic pieces currently made in Czechoslovakia, or Kortelaati's laces, fit? Do we need yet another category, or is there some way to categorize them within these categories? -- Julie E. 22:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Single Stitches are woven, knotted, looped or buttonholed. These four cover the vast majority of laces. As for the Czech laces and Kortehahti and the Swedish Guild (I've worked a couple) they are predominantly bobbin lace and fall under guipure, tape, Torchon or part laces. Their style is different, but their technique is not. As a matter of fact, I remember the day when I was looking at a picture of a piece of Honiton and came to the conclusion that it was essentially a tape lace (especially the degenerate designs called Slugs and Snails - eewwww! not very appealing!). I was shocked and amazed, but part laces ARE essentially tape forms. My, my, the lace world is getting smaller. The real point is that small differences in technique can appear to be much more significant than they really are. When you distinguish between the STYLE of a lace and the TECHNIQUE of a lace, the categories seem to stay more manageable.

On my way to the scanner to get some pictures going, after roughing out a template for the lace stubs.

Whaddya think? I always, always want to see a close enough picture to see the paths of the threads. So I think a picture box at the top of the form (probably half the width of the page). I also like a diagrammmatic layout of essential info (which, of course, we have to decide exactly what they are!)

Essential characteristics: Technique, Place, Time, Style, Fiber, Origins, ????

Which reminds me, we need stubs for general discussions of the principal techniques of lace. Chronologically ~ Lacis, Needle Lace, Bobbin Lace, Knit Lace, Crochet, Tatting

Crochet and Tatting are relatively young (19th Century). At first Crochet was the great imitator. Irish Crochet began as an interpretation of Gros Point de Venise, in sewing size thread and infinitely small hooks made from a sewing needle whose eye was cut to make a hook. Last week I went to see the Irish Crochet exhibit at Lacis in Berkeley, CA. Amazing. And they have (almost) everything in the open so you can get your nose an inch away. Heaven.

I have worked a piece of Crochet that is in imitation of Reticella (from Dillmont's Encyclopedia of Needlework). You really do have to look twice. It is really only in the 20th Century that Crochet found its own voice to sing with, using techniques and designs that are intrinsically rooted in the technical possibilites of Crochet.

Well, there I go again. PattyD 02:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vibeke Ervo is drafting an article on freehand lace for us. Maybe it will be clear where it belongs once we see the article--but I think a lot of it is very Torchon-like, except that it is made without pins other than at the footsides. Which made me notice we're missing Torchon, and I'm not positive about where it belongs in this scheme--am I right that it should be under Continental? -- Julie E. 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture box / form
I wonder what kind of form or box they were talking about. Jo Pol (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Navigation is not a classification
Hello joedkins

Note that this is a navigation template intended to quickly navigate between closely related pages. It is neither a taxonomy nor a classification page. As for the subcategories of bobbin lace I guess less is more. As cutwork is a link it stands less out as a category, so we may need an alternative layout, see the second example under "subgroup tests" of Template:Navbox/testcases. Jo Pol (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello Jo Pol
 * I'm quite happy with it for the moment. I think some type of classification is very useful, even if it was intended as a navigation aid! I plan to make the bobbin lace sub-groups into pages in their own right, and make them into links - similar to Lace Machine. Lacemakers find these distinctions (part lace, guipure, etc) extremely important, after all, and they are helpful to lace collectors, and a good introduction for anyone interested in lace. I may change some of the sub-groups later, but I intend to move slowly, and check what I am doing with experts (past experts in books, and current experts IOLI)

--Joedkins (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello joedkins
 * Now that I've thrown out the odd ecclesiastical lace (which seemed only to be there to support a former red link in a gallery on bobbin lace) I think you can combine ancient and French/Flemish into something like continuous. Thus we get less confusion with Flemish bobbin-tape lace, whatever that may be. Note that I had to create stubs for former redirecting pages: guipure and raschel knit -- Jo Pol (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello Jo Pol
 * I am glad that you've got rid of ecclesiastical lace! I was wondering what that was.
 * What I am doing at present is putting up pages for the bobbin lace categories, and trying to MAKE them proper categories! I'm starting with the ones that I know something about, and nibbling away until only the confused categories are left, then try to sort them out. I'm liaising with IOLI as I'm doing it, which will slow things down! But hopefully will mean that the categories end up acceptable. At present, we are 'discussing' whether bobbin tape lace is a part lace or not! They have the attitude, which I agree with, that the categories ought to be based on how the lace is actually made. Which is why I am starting with Part lace, which is made in bits, utterly unlike the continuous lace.
 * There does seem to be some confusion in modern lace classification about Part lace. The current Wikipedia classification makes it different from bobbin tape lace, which I approve of. Bruges is already under Part lace - I think it ought to be under bobbin tape lace. I've got a modern "How to" book, and Bruges lace (in that book) seems to be largely arrangements of tapes. But it also has added motifs. So perhaps this is where "Flemish bobbin tape lace" comes from - the less ornate Bruges lace (under the idea that Bruges used to be part of Flanders the country, or is in the modern Flanders area. I agree that this is a silly name!)
 * I would prefer to keep Part lace (possibly with a different name - Motif lace?) to signify Honiton and (I am told) Brussels or Duchesse lace - that is a lace where you make the little motifs, then combine them into the lace later with a ground or plaits. And Bobbin tape lace to signify making one or more bobbin tapes which are joined with a crochet hook, possibly with additional fillings (NOT needle lace fillings - that would be just tape lace). I realize that there are laces which might be hard to place as they are tape but with plaits as well - but this can be sorted out in the articles themselves. And get rid of Flemish bobbin tape lace, and possibly move Bruges to bobbin tape lace (or possibly not). But I have practically no knowledge of the lace of Belgium or Flanders (or indeed practically anything outside England) so you can see that I'm treading very cautiously here. I do NOT want to impose an Anglo-centric viewpoint! I do understand Honiton lace, though.
 * The lace types box is starting to look very pretty! Well done. Putting the background for the categories of bobbin lace is much better. I'll expand the Guipure lace article, if you like. This includes Bedfordshire lace and Maltese lace, which I do know about, and I can provide a picture, and some references.
 * A question for you. Some people get confused between bobbin tape lace (where the tape is made with bobbins at the same time as the rest of the lace) and 'tape lace' which is made with an existing tape - often machine made. There are, unfortunately, different terms used by British and Americans, which does not help! Wikipedia so far has 'bobbin tape lace', and 'tape lace', which is OK, but ends up with the term 'tape lace' in two different places. When I discussed this with IOLI, one idea was 'bobbin tape lace' and 'mixed tape lace' (as the second category uses two techniques - one for the tape and one with the joinings and fillings). I would like to do this, but I am hesitant, as it sounds a bit like 'original work', which is, of course, banned in Wikipedia. So I have left the term 'tape lace' as the category name, but mentioned 'mixed tape lace' in the article (it IS used, but not as much as 'tape lace') Do you think that we can change the name to Mixed tape lace? To distinguish it from Bobbin tape lace? Or even create a complete new main division of Mixed lace (meaning mixtures of techniques) and put 'tape lace' under it. That would put both types of tape lace at the same level. 'Hand-run gimps' could be put under Mixed lace' as well - that is a mixture of hand-made and machine made.
 * Sorting out the different ground continuous lace is going to be a challenge. I know about Bucks Point, of course. Is the use of a gimp (thick outlining thread) important of not? It is something that styles seem to either use or not. If this is acceptable, then it would be a way of breaking down the large number of continuous ground lace into smaller groups (but not too small!)
 * Is Torchon really an ancient lace? All examples I have seen are fairly modern, 19C or later. Has someone decided that since it is a 'peasant lace', it must therefore be primitive and so old? I am not sure that I like the 'ancient' category at all, to tell the truth. We are starting to get into bobbin lace history. Antwerp lace is old, I agree, but surely there ought to be some Italian lace in there!
 * That is a lot of questions and ideas, so I'll sign off. (I have introduced myself on my talk page.)
 * --Joedkins (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ancient
Indeed a lot of questions above. May be try to split them in separate sections, perhaps even on the relevant pages, so we can tackle them one by one. But at least I see we agree about getting rid of "ancient". Now a proper title for the combination. We can leave it a wanted page until someone comes with inspiration. Jo Pol (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Raschel / Guipure and interlanguage links
Hello Jo Pol

I've expanded the Guipure page. It's not very long, but has a picture, refers to types of guipure lace, and has references, which I think is all we need.

I'm not sure if I can help with Raschel knit! I've left the machine lace for a bit while I do the handmade lace, as most of the machine lace at least has a sentence or so each.

--Joedkins (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello Joedkins
 * Via wikimedia I found some sister pages for Rachel lace and the template, the Dutch template is done by me. Same trick might be possible for more pages. I got the text for the Raschel page from one of your references. Did you see my note on the talk page of guipure? It was nice to read in the glossary of Earnshaw's ID how its meaning changed over time and is not limited to bobbin lace. -- Jo Pol (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello Jo Pol
 * As you can probably see, I've done a bit of tidying up of the template and pages coming off it. Buratto had a redirect at the front of a perfectly good article, which meant you never saw it! I think Limerick is considered to be an embroidered lace. Teneriffe and Ñandutí are definitely not Filet lace. They are not really embroidered on anything and they are a very specific shape - round, and they seem to be called Sol laces, so I've put in the category. Battenberg is definitely a tape lace (made of machine tape) not cutwork. Hope you agree with all of this!
 * I've also written pages for guipure (expanded your stub) and bobbin tape lace (made a new article). And I have put links to those category pages for the styles within them. (Well, there aren't any pages for styles of bobbin tape lace yet!) --Joedkins (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mesh grounds
Hello Jo Pol I've come back here in case IOLI get fed up with us!

Embroidered seems more or less straight. Even Lorelei seems fairly happy with it!

I've done a little to (non bobbin) tape lace. I've added a Battenberg article (this used to be a redirect to Renaissance), and added some text, and pictures - general tidy, in fact. There seems to be a conflict as to whether Renaisssance is the name for the whole category or only one type. This is Pat Earnshaw v. The Lace Guild - both heavy-weights! So the article points out the conflict and gives references for each side. To tell the truth, I can't really get excited about this category - it was a hobby craze in the 19C. I think it's covered, apart from Mezzopunto and Romanian point. Earnshaw says Mezzopunto means all sorts of things apart from the tape lace, and quite frankly no-one seems particularly interested in it as a tape lace. I would be quite happy to get rid of it. I don't know anything about Romanian point, but it would be good to keep it as it is lace from somewhere else other than France, Flanders, England....

I've started on mesh grounds. I've tidied up some of the articles, added pictures when I could find them (out of copyright books, so picture quality not good, but they are there, and at least out of copyright!) and a couple of articles. There is no picture for Beveren lace. No-one seems very interested in that, either, but I found a Kantschool which talks about it a bit. The picture for Blonde lace shows a woman wearing it - very charming but short on details. But I can't find a picture in detail of the lace itself. There are two types of lace with no articles yet - I might do these some time. And there are the articles defining the groups, which I will think about.

There is something that I am not happy about. The article on Valenciennes lace has several pictures, which is good, but two of them are machine-made, which is not good. Can I remove them? Machine-made lace is not bobbin lace. --Joedkins (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Joedkins, You don't need to produce resume's of you changes. They are easy to follow via the 'related changes' links on the category page, the navigation template or project page. Jo Pol (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Because of the resume's I overlooked your question at the end. Of course you can remove. Perhaps even add a note on the picture page itself. Jo Pol (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Lace types


text:
User talk:DDS1964

Hi. Articles that aren't more than external links are speedy deletion candidates. Hope this helps. 71.102.72.201 05:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:DDS1964


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaman Zero

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Mega Man Zero. JeremyA 21:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Megaman Zero
This page is unstructured and is nothing but fancruft. Pages have been speedy deleted for less. Supersaiyanplough 05:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - cruft, non-wikified, unencyclopedic, pick your poison. --FCYTravis 06:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete minor games cruft. JamesBurns 06:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but leave a stub. It is a notable game series, simply a very poorly written entry. see below. jglc | t | c 06:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but leave a stub....maybe someone else can write something three time shorter and three times better. -Phantym 07:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Delete but leave a stub?" That seems contradictory. Do you maybe mean "Keep, stubbify"?   — Gwalla | Talk 07:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Commment: Yes, but in the light of Mega Man Zero, I change to Redirectjglc | t | c 13:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, stubbify. Kappa 07:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean up. It's worthy of its own article but it could use some wikifying and some reorganization. -Tadanisakari 08:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs to be cleaned up, but it is notable enough to stay. Some of you should check the definition of 'Cruft'. Sonic Mew 08:22, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rewrite as stub. Proto 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to merge with Mega Man Zero - although all information is duplicated, so a simple redirect might be better. Proto 13:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Extreme cleanup. The game is very real and notable, but the article is gawd-awful. Salvage is possible. Jamyskis 10:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Scrub that, I'll go with Nestea and say Redirect to Mega Man Zero. A hard learned lesson to check alternative spellings. Jamyskis 14:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the significantly better article Mega Man Zero. I'm right in assuming they are related yes? -- Lochaber 10:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Mega Man Zero. Nestea 10:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - doh *slaps forehead* ;-) Jamyskis 11:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*keep real game, needs a serious rewrite. delete per -Snorre/Antwelm -- The_stuart 14:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) --The_stuart 18:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * '''Delete and redirect per Nestea. --Scimitar 13:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Nestea --Chill Pill Bill 16:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Mega Man Zero. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 'merge and redirect Yuckfoo 20:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge / Redir per Nestea. This is a real game, but the article is a mess.  Marblespire
 * Keep but cleanup. You 20:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) Merge You (Talk) 19:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the already-written Mega Man Zero, which while itself needs cleanup is in a much better state. --Boco XLVII 19:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments
I've fallen into the trap of making articles when others exist, it can spawn different versions of articles as we've seen. Perhaps a Wikiproject group to handle redirects would be useful, or perhaps a janitoral Wikigroup if one doesn't exist :). --ShaunMacPherson 12:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's easy to do. Sometimes the wiki search helps, but I find my bookmark to use google better.  Now, if I can only remember to use it.  Oh, this problem also happens when different editors put the same data in different articles. Vegaswikian 06:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Ning Baizura

Ning Baizura binti Sheikh Hamzah (born 28 June 1975), better known by her stage name Ning Baizura, is a Malaysian pop and R&B singer, actress who sings in Malay, English, Japanese, Italian, French, Mandarin and Cantonese.

Early life
She was born in Kajang, Malaysia from parents of Arab, Malay, Dutch, Indian, Chinese and Javanese ancestry. She is an alumnus of Convent Kajang Secondary School.

Career
Ning crossed into the commercial scene in 1992 and became a recording artiste under various international labels, including (Sony, BMG, AMS Records Japan and Warner Music Group. From September 2008, she has recorded songs in the genres of pop, soul and R&B for her own music label, HappeNings Records. Her discography includes ten full studio albums (three of which are full English albums), as well as numerous compilations.

Personal life
Baizura is married to Omar Shariff Christopher Layton Dalton who is English and a divorcee with two children from a previous marriage. Their wedding took place on 31 January 2008 at the Saidina Abu Bakar as-Siddiq Mosque in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur. They have one child.

Album

 * 1993 – Dekat Padamu (Sony Music)
 * 1994 – Ning (Sony Music)
 * 1995 – Teguh (BMG)
 * 1997 – Ke Sayup Bintang (BMG)
 * 1997 – Always (BMG)
 * 1999 – Pujaan Ku (BMG)
 * 2001 – Natural Woman (AMS Records,Japan)
 * 2003 – Selagi Ada... (Warner)
 * 2004 – Erti Pertemuan (Warner)
 * 2008 – EastTo West
 * 2010 – 3 Suara (with Jaclyn Victor & Shila Amzah)
 * 2011 – Dewa
 * 2013 – Kekal

Awards and nominations

 * 1991 – Voice of Asia
 * 1991 – Best Artiste Development Award
 * 1993 – AIM Awards: Best New Artiste
 * 1993 — AIM Awards: Album of the Year (Dekat Padamu)
 * 1993 — Anugerah Juara Lagu: Best Song – Ballad Category (Curiga)
 * 1994 — AIM Awards: Best Pop Album (Ning)
 * 1994 — Anugerah Juara Lagu: Best Song – Pop/Rock Category (Kau & Aku), award as lyricist
 * 2003 — Anugerah ERA: Choice Female Vocalist
 * 2004 — AIM Awards: Song of The Year (Selagi Ada Cinta)
 * 2005 — AIM Awards: Best Album Cover (Erti Pertemuan)
 * 2005 — AIM Awards: Best Music Video (Awan Yang Terpilu)
 * 2005 — AIM Awards: Song of The Year (Awan Yang Terpilu)
 * 2005 — AIM Awards: Best Pop Album (Erti Pertemuan)
 * 2008 — VOIZE Favourite Local Act Award
 * 2008 — Cosmopolitan Malaysia magazine's Fun, Fearless and Fabulous (FFF) Award 2008 – Singer category
 * 2011 — Anugerah Planet Muzik: Best Duo/Group (award for '3 Suara' with Jaclyn Victor and Shila Hamzah)
 * 2011 — AIM Awards: Best Vocal Performance In A Song Duo/Group – (Beribu Sesalan, award for '3 Suara' with Jaclyn Victor and Shila Hamzah)
 * 2011 — Anugerah Juara Lagu: Best Song (Runner-up) – (Beribu Sesalan, award for '3 Suara' with Jaclyn Victor and Shila Hamzah)
 * 2012 — Anugerah Bintang Popular Berita Harian: Most Popular Duo/Group (award for '3 Suara' with Jaclyn Victor and Shila Hamzah)
 * 2015 — Brandlaureate Awards: Country Branding award
 * 2015 — Global Leadership Awards: Excellence is Entertainment award
 * 2015 — Global Branding Awards: Global Fashion Icon
 * 2017 — Anugerah Personaliti Industri & Usahawan Malaysia: Malaysia Music Icon award
 * 2017 — McMillan Woods Global Awards Night: Jazz Diva of the Year

title: Ning Baizura


text: User talk:68.97.152.19

title: User talk:68.97.152.19


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allhood.net

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE   — Gwalla | Talk 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allhood.net
Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Advertisement for site/forum.  — Gwalla | Talk 05:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. spam. --Chill Pill Bill 06:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 06:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising/vanity. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Street gangs have websites now? Jamyskis 10:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete website advertising. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete spam --Xcali 15:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NeoJustin 15:22, June 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spamvert. -- BD2412 talk 19:50, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non encyclopedic. -- Poli 18:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
File:DarkPortalBook.JPG

Fair use rationale
It is contended that the use of the image of a book cover qualifies as fair use when used in the article The Dark Portal for the following reasons.
 * This image is a low-resolution image of a book cover. This image is of lower resolution than the product itself.
 * This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the magazine in connection with its organization.
 * This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone.
 * Use of the book cover visually identifies the book and its author in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.

Summary
The Dark Portal

title: File:DarkPortalBook.JPG