text:
Oxymonad

The Oxymonads (or Oxymonadida) are a group of flagellated protists found exclusively in the intestines of animals, mostly termites and other wood-eating insects. Along with the similar parabasalid flagellates, they harbor the symbiotic bacteria that are responsible for breaking down cellulose. There is no evidence for presence of mitochondria (not even anaerobic mitochondrion-like organelles like hydrogenosomes or mitosomes) in oxymonads and 3 species have been shown to completely lack any molecular markers of mitochondria.

It includes e.g. Dinenympha, Pyrsonympha, Oxymonas, Streblomastix, Monocercomonoides, and Blattamonas.

Characteristics
Most Oxymonads are around 50 μm in size and have a single nucleus, associated with four flagella. Their basal bodies give rise to several long sheets of microtubules, which form an organelle called an axostyle, but different in structure from the axostyles of parabasalids. The cell may use the axostyle to swim, as the sheets slide past one another and cause it to undulate. An associated fiber called the preaxostyle separates the flagella into two pairs. A few oxymonads have multiple nuclei, flagella, and axostyles.

Relationship to Trimastix and Paratrimastix
The free-living flagellates Trimastix and Paratrimastix are closely related to the oxymonads. They lack aerobic mitochondria and have four flagella separated by a preaxostyle, but unlike the oxymonads have a feeding groove. This character places the Oxymonads, Trimastix, and Paratrimastix among the Excavata, and in particular they may belong to the metamonads. Molecular phylogenetic studies indeed place Preaxostyla (oxymonads, Trimastix, and Paratrimastix) in Metamonada.

Taxonomy

 * Order Oxymonadida Grassé 1952 emend. Cavalier-Smith 2003
 * Family Oxymonadidae Kirby 1928 [Oxymonadaceae; Oxymonadinae Cleveland 1934 ]
 * Genus ?Metasaccinobaculus Freitas 1945
 * Genus Barroella Zeliff 1944 [Kirbyella Zeliff 1930 non Kirkaldy 1906 non Bolivar 1909 ]
 * Genus Microrhopalodina Grassé & Foa 1911 [Proboscidiella Kofoid & Swezy 1926 ]
 * Genus Opisthomitus Grassé 1952 non Duboscq & Grassé 1934
 * Genus Oxymonas Janicki 1915
 * Genus Sauromonas Grassé & Hollande 1952
 * Family Polymastigidae Bütschli 1884 [Polymastiginae Kirby 1931 ; Polymastigaceae; Streblomastigaceae; Streblomastigidae Kofoid & Swezy 1919 ]
 * Genus ?Paranotila Cleveland 1966
 * Genus ?Tubulimonoides Krishnamurthy & Sultana 1976
 * Genus Blattamonas Treitli et al. 2018
 * Genus Brachymonas (Grassé 1952) Treitli et al. 2018 non Hiraishi et al. 1995
 * Genus Monocercomonoides Travis 1932
 * Genus Polymastix Bütschli 1884 non Gruber 1884
 * Genus Streblomastix Kofoid & Swezy 1920
 * Family Pyrsonymphidae Grassé 1892 [Pyrsonymphaceae; Pyrsonymphinae Kirby 1937 nom. nud. ; Dinenymphidae Grassé 1911 ; Dinenymphinae Cleveland et al. 1934 ; Dinenymphaceae]
 * Genus Dinenympha Leidy 1877 [Pyrsonympha (Dinenympha) (Leidy 1877) Koidzumi 1921 ]
 * Genus Pyrsonympha Leidy 1877 [Pyrsonema Kent 1881 ; Lophophora Comes 1910 non Coulter 1894 non Kraatz 1895 non Moeschler 1890 ]
 * Family Saccinobaculidae Brugerolle & Lee 2002 ex Cavalier-Smith 2012 [Saccinobaculinae Cleveland et al. 1934 ]
 * Genus Notila Cleveland 1950
 * Genus Saccinobaculus Cleveland-Hall & Sanders & Collier 1934

title: Oxymonad


text:
Adam Pollina

Adam Pollina is an American comic book artist and penciller. He is best known for his work on Marvel Comics' X-Force, Rise of Apocalypse, and Angel: Revelation, Charlemagne at Defiant, Rai: Fallen World, and Wrath of the Eternal Warrior #2 at Valiant, Loose Cannon and Big Daddy Danger at DC Comics, and Pyrate Queen from Bad Idea Comics.

Early life and education
Adam Pollina graduated with honors from the Rhode Island School of Design.

Early career
He started his comic career immediately after college, illustrating for Friendly Comics in 1992, an adult comics imprint of Personality Comics, co-owned by Eric Shefferman. Later, at Shefferman's Triumphant Comics, he illustrated Chromium Man.

Pollina's work was spotted by writer Jeph Loeb, and in 1994 Loeb and Pollina collaborated on Loose Cannon, a DC Comics four-issue limited featuring Superman.

Marvel: 1995–1998
Pollina's work was then noticed by Marvel Comics founder Stan Lee, which led to work at Marvel. Pollina's Marvel included a run on X-Force, the limited series Rise of Apocalypse, the occasional issue of Generation X, and a variety of other contributions.

Pollina began to pencil X-Force in 1995 with issue #44 and continued as regular penciler until #81 in 1998.

Video game industry
During this time, Pollina began working in the video game industry, illustrating character design for EA Sports on such groundbreaking games as James Bond: Golden Eye, NBA Street Vol. 2, SSX Tricky, Def Jam Vendetta Wrestling, and God of War for Sony Activision.

Approached by Stan Winston Studios in 2001, Pollina was hired to design the female Terminator in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

In 2002, he produced the creator-owned limited series Big Daddy Danger, which was published by DC Comics and purchased by Disney Studios in 2003.

In 2002, Pollina directed his first music video, Enemy, for the band Sevendust. Pollina went on to direct several other music videos for bands like My Morning Jacket, Tsar, Elkland, and The Blue Van.

2008: return to Marvel
In 2008 Pollina returned to Marvel, teaming up with writer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa to retell Angel's origin story in the five-issue mini series Angel: Revelations. The story tells how Warren overcomes the trials and tribulations of a cold family life, his growing physical mutation while living at boarding school, abuse of power from authority figures, and deals with a religious zealot on a murdering crusade across America.

2010–2017: work outside of comics
In 2010 Pollina relocated to Bali, Indonesia, founded a bespoke atelier and began creating custom jewelry and garments for an elite list of clients. His designs were featured in the 2012 Biennale in Venice as well as Art Basel Miami 2013.

In 2014, Pollina became creative director for the world-renowned arts/music festival Wonderfruit.

2018–present
Pollina returned to the comics industry in the beginning of 2018, working on Secret Weapons #0 written by Eric Heisserer. Shortly after, Pollina returned to DC Comics to illustrate the Outlaws Annual Volume 3, written by Jeph Loeb. In 2019, he illustrated the sci-fi epic series Fallen World by Dan Abnett for Valiant.

In 2021, Adam Pollina, Matt Kindt, and Matt Hollingsworth created the fantasy book Whalesville, published by Bad Idea.

Pollina partnered with an all-star creative team to launch Rebel Studios, a multi-platform gaming and content provider. Their first project, titled EY3K0N, was a genesis NFT collection successfully launched in 2022.

Marvel Comics

 * X-Force #44-48, 50, 52–56, 62, 65–67, 69–72, 74, 75, 77–81, -1 (1995–1998); some material collected in Deadpool Classic Companion TPB
 * Rise of Apocalypse (4-issue mini-series, 1996–1997)
 * Slingers #0 (1998)
 * "Yes, Jubilee, There is a Santa Claus," in Generation X Holiday Special #1 (1999)
 * Angel: Revelations (2008)

DC Comics

 * Loose Cannon (1994–1995)
 * Big Daddy Danger (2002–2003)
 * Red Hood and the Outlaws Annual #3 (2019)

Valiant Comics

 * Fallen World #1
 * Harbinger Renegade #2 – cover B
 * RAI (Deluxe Edition)
 * Ninja-K #1 (2017)
 * Secret Weapons
 * Wrath of the Eternal Warrior #2, 4 — covers
 * Shadowman Vol. 1: Fear Of The Dark

Bad Idea Comics

 * Pyrate Queen #1
 * RefuseXLast Resorts
 * Whalesville #1

Unproduced

 * Hulk Hogan vs. the Incredible Hulk (Hollywood concept art)

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

title: Adam Pollina


text: User talk:80.139.182.149

title: User talk:80.139.182.149


text:
User:Rtconner

Username: rtconner

Name: Robert T. Conner (aka Rob Conner)

Residence: Buffalo, NY

Sex: Male

title: User:Rtconner


text:
Talk:Batbelt

Location
Perhaps this should be in Wikitionary, not Wikipedia?

Or maybe we could write everything that Batman have had in his Batbelt?

title: Talk:Batbelt


text:
Talk:Strict programming language

Disadvantages
One of the disadvantages listed is "language must be pure". I don't see this as a disadvantage, but just a consequence. In fact, I see it as a major advantage! All strict purely functional languages gave in to the siren call of side effects, non-strict semantics keeps you "honest" and is probably the reason why there even exists any purely functional languages today (and why things like monadic IO was invented - they had to because they couldn't have side effects without them, and laziness ensured that!). The only disadvantage that is truly an undisputed disadvantage is the one about space usage reasoning. I think the whole section should be refactored into a less "evangelical" form (i.e. rather than talking about "disadvantages", talk about "consequences", and perhaps in what circumstances those could be seen as disadvantages).

Common Lisp
The article lists Common Lisp as a strict programming language. I am under the impression that Common Lisp functions are strict, but Common Lisp macros are not. Do I understand correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Storm Surfer (talk • contribs)

 * As far as I can tell, macros are not directly related to strictness. Strictness relates to evaluation strategy, but macros are without evaluation strategy, as they are meta-evaluated. In effect, a macro can be used to change the evaluation strategy, so you can achieve macros that behave non-strictly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.66.63 (talk • contribs)

 * I feel that this is worth a mention in the article. For example, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs in section 3.5 uses delayed evaluation via two macros (delay and force) in Scheme to implement data structures such as infinite lists (streams). Since this is actually practical and used in the Lisp family, this matter should be clarified in the article. 132.236.75.84 (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Can't streams be implemented without macros in Scheme/Racket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.47.254 (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardware optimized for strict languages?
"All hardware architectures in common use are optimized for strict languages, so the best compilers for non-strict languages produce slower code than the best compilers for strict languages." Is there a reference for this? In what way are common hardware architectures optimized for strict languages? — Chris Page 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I've heard it in the form that all machine architectures would be optimized for C, which of course is a strict language. It could be easier to find references for what common hardware is missing from the lazy language point of view. --TuukkaH 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * So, here's the thing — there's no such think as a hardware thunk (at this point), so one could claim that hardware is optimized for languages without thunks. Not that it really matters, though; strict programming language, lazy evaluation, and eager evaluation all seem to have been created by people advocating a particular POV, and they've become essentially a forum for debating the two (even though lazy evaluation and eager evaluation are really just overgeneralized notions about families of evaluation strategies).  At some point I intend to clean them up a bit.  --bmills 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that this is soley an implementation issue. Who says lazy languages must be implemented in a way which is slow for current hardware? Seems unnecessary to mention anything like that as a fact. Indeed, non-strict semantics can be a significant optimization (thus producing much faster code) due to the avoidance of unnecessary work. Dogmatic generalisations about performance shouldn't be in here.

Expressiveness
I have removed the following sentence from the article: "A non-strict programming language is more expressive than an otherwise equivalent strict language." This claim is patently false; all non-strict programs can be encoded in a strict language using explicit thunks. It may be true that certain programs can be expressed more succinctly in a non-strict language, but that doesn't make it more expressive — just more concise in certain situations (and less concise in others). --bmills 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Non-strictness is important for expression, but as we define a non-strict language as one where the programmer can define non-strict functions, a strict language can have non-strictness, and most do. It's hard to imagine an imperative language without non-strict parts, but what about a purely functional language? Without a non-strict if/cond function, you're in trouble. In a strict language, you can't define higher-level conditional statements. Same goes for thunks, you need a way to implement them in the first place. I think it would be fair to explain how in theory non-strictness makes a lot of sense. --TuukkaH 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It's true that conditional expressions generally have some non-strictness in the evaluation of conditional branches. However, thunks can be implemented using functions, and a "conditional function" could be a function that takes a boolean-thunk and two (unconditional) branch-thunks, and returns an unconditional thunk that, when executed, calls the boolean thunk and the appropriate branch-thunk.

 * Consider the following example in typed lambda calculus, which takes a boolean and two functional thunks and returns another thunk:

 * In this case, b could be a suspended Church encoding of "true" or "false":

 * So all you really need are functions and unit; non-strictness is just a matter of convenience if you don't want to deal with explicitly invoking your thunks. I won't claim it's not convenient, because it is; but it's not really a matter of expressiveness.  --bmills 19:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * So expressiveness is the same thing as power of the computational model? I don't remember a good definition of expressiveness, but I'd say it's more about being as far from the computational models as possible =) Basicly, if you need to start writing thunks to use a new conditional statement, you don't define a new conditional statement. Plus, with functions above you meant first-class functions, which aren't available in every language. --TuukkaH 20:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Formal "expressiveness" of a language generally refers to which subset of computable functions it can represent. Since strict and non-strict evaluation can each represent the same functions, they have equivalent expressive power; in a strict language, you can simulate non-strictness using thunks, and in a non-strict language, you can simulate strictness using monads.  I believe they're actually logical duals, but I don't know the proper citation for that.

 * At any rate, I'm definitely not saying that non-strictness isn't useful; I'm just saying that it doesn't give you any additional expressiveness. And I did use first-class functions in my example, because you asked about pure functional languages; however, you could equivalently formulate it in, say, C, using closure-passing style.  --bmills 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I think I wrote the disputed sentence, and I think I meant it in the following precise sense: when you switch from strict to non-strict semantics, all non-divergent programs continue to work with the same meaning as before, and additionally some formerly divergent programs acquire a meaning, i.e. the set of valid programs is a strict superset of what it was before. I don't think "more expressive" is a very good way of describing this, but it's an interesting property that ought to be mentioned somewhere. (Though it no longer holds if you add exceptions to the language, so maybe it doesn't have much practical relevance.) -- BenRG 18:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It is true that non-strict evaluation has the same partial correctness behavior as strict evaluation; in practice it doesn't really make that much difference because function arguments rarely diverge, but it's certainly an interesting aspect to note. Be careful when talking about "meaning", though — some would say that divergence is a meaning as well, in which case non-strict evaluation does change the meaning of some programs.  Anyway, I'm not opposed to including that fact — it just needs to be phrased very carefully to avoid hitting any of the (absurdly many) loaded words in formal PL.  --bmills 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Scheme
I was under the impression that Scheme supports/can support some form of lazy evaluation...? -G3, 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

C is not strict
True, in C, user-defined functions per se are strict, but the built-in operators,  , and   all short-circuit, as does. Also true, a C++ that overloads these operators loses the short-circuiting behavior. But a C preprocessor macro can build a function that includes this short-circuiting behavior. Scheme also has  to build a function that short-circuits. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Chess's game tree
Isn't it incorrect to call the game tree of chess finite, when at any point, the players can just keep going back and forth with a single piece? Wouldn't it be more correct to use a cyclic Directed graph for a finite representation?

Difficult to understand
A strict programming language is a programming language which employs a strict programming paradigm, allowing only strict functions What does that means? It's like a recursive definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.120.227.55 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 * If I'm not mistaken you mean it is a circular definition. Yes there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of what strict means hereEthanpet113 (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No Context
There isn't enough context for this article to be useful, what is it that makes a programming paradigm strict. Is it only necessary that arguments to the function must be evaluated before call, or are there other requirements?Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strict programming language


text:
Talk:Ellery Queen (TV series)

Name?
does anyone know how the authors came up with the name "Ellery" for the sleuth Ellery Queen?

Ellery's birthday: In the episode The Adventure of Colonel Niven's Memoirs, it is established that Ellery's date of birth is April 2, 1912.

BBC
The show was billed on the BBC as "The Ellery Queen whodunit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.102.85 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ellery Queen (TV series)


text:
Brian McFarlane

Brian McFarlane (born August 10, 1931) is a Canadian television sportscaster and author. He is also the Honorary President of the Society for International Hockey Research. He is the son of writer Leslie McFarlane. He is best known as a broadcaster on Hockey Night In Canada and as an author of hockey books.

Early life and career
Brian McFarlane was raised in Whitby and Ottawa Ontario. He attended St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, on a hockey scholarship, graduating in 1955. In his four years he scored 101 goals for the Skating Saints, which remains a St. Lawrence record. On three occasions, he scored five goals in a game, a school record shared with several others. McFarlane was honoured as an All-American in 1952.

After graduating, he worked in television at WRGB in Schenectady, New York, before moving to CFRB Radio in Toronto, Ontario and then CFCF-TV in Montreal, Quebec (where he was sports director) and CFTO TV in Toronto. He had a lengthy career in broadcasting and journalism.

National Hockey League broadcasting
He is best known as a color commentator and studio host on Hockey Night in Canada, beginning in 1964. He made similar broadcasts on NHL games for the major American networks CBS, NBC, and ESPN. He was a colour commentator on Toronto Maple Leafs local telecasts until 1980, when he made on-air comments that were supportive of Leaf captain Darryl Sittler and critical of Leafs owner Harold Ballard. He was subsequently banned from the Maple Leaf Gardens press box. For Hockey Night in Canada, he was moved off Toronto games at this point, broadcasting the Montreal Canadiens and Winnipeg Jets (original team) games as the host. His last year with HNIC was 1991, ending a 28-year association with HNIC.

Peter Puck connection
McFarlane is often incorrectly cited as the creator or father of the cartoon character Peter Puck. The cartoon puck, which appeared on both NBC's Hockey Game of the Week and CBC's Hockey Night in Canada during the 1970s, was actually the creation of NBC executive Donald Carswell, although McFarlane had significant input. The character itself and the animation footage was created by NBC's production partner, Hanna-Barbera. After the network stopped carrying NHL hockey, McFarlane purchased the rights to Peter Puck from Hanna-Barbera and continued to promote the character.

Writing career
As of 2010, McFarlane had written 96 (with one in the works) books on hockey, selling over 1.3 million books. His first book, 50 Years of Hockey (Pagurian Press) was published in 1968 and he continues to write about hockey. McFarlane is an expert on hockey history and has compiled several volumes of NHL lore titled It Happened in Hockey, a 1999 series detailing the colourful history of the Original Six NHL teams, and "Proud Past Bright Future," the history of Women's Hockey (1994, Stoddard, ISBN 0-7737-2836-8). He published two memoirs, Brian McFarlane's World of Hockey (2000, Stoddart Publishing, ISBN 0-7737-3263-2) republished as Colour Commentary (2009, Key Porter, ISBN 978-1-55267-600-4) and From The Broadcast Booth (2009, Fenn, ISBN 978-1-55168-327-0). In 2008, he began a youth fiction series The Mitchell Brothers which always features hockey in the plots.

Personal life
Throughout his career, McFarlane collected much memorabilia, photos, and objects focusing primarily on hockey history. In 2006, Brian sold most of his hockey collection to the Municipality of Clarington, where it became Total Hockey, a multimedia, interactive museum located at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex in Bowmanville. The museum was closed in 2007 and the collection was sold to an Edmonton-based collector in 2013. Plans for the collection have not been made public, but McFarlane was assured by the purchaser that the collection would be preserved and made available to the public at some point.

From his teenage years, McFarlane was interested in painting. In semi-retirement he began painting regularly producing several hundred paintings, mostly in the Group-of-Seven style of Canadian landscapes. McFarlane has since become an accomplished painter, exhibiting professionally.

In 2022, he was named a Member of the Order of Canada for his contributions to the sport for "well over a half century."

McFarlane currently resides in the Greater Toronto area.

Achievements

 * 1995 inducted into the media section of the Hockey Hall of Fame.
 * Admitted into the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame.
 * Admitted into the Ottawa Sports Legends Hall of Fame.
 * Admitted into the Whitby Sports Hall of Fame.
 * Admitted into the St. Lawrence University Hall of Fame.
 * 27 November 2020 - Appointed as a member of the Order of Canada (CM).

title: Brian McFarlane


text:
Category talk:X86 microprocessors

x86 architecture
There are too much articles in the category:x86 microprocessors so I propose to create a parent category called category:x86 technology to move articles like Real mode, MMX or X86 assembly programming in real mode, leaving in the category category:x86 microprocessors only those articles relating with concrete models of x86 microprocessors. Or maybe, following the example of category:POWER architecture, to create the category:x86 architecture, making the category:x86 microprocessors a subcategory of that one. I prefer the second option. --surueña 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. This category now is a subcategory of Category:x86 architecture, but there are still some articles that must be recategorized. --surueña 15:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:X86 microprocessors


text:
Category:String quartets by Béla Bartók

String quartets by Béla Bartók.

title: Category:String quartets by Béla Bartók


text:
File:Golgo 13 Top Secret Episode (cover art).jpg

Description
Cover art of the 1988 NES game, Golgo 13: To Secret Episode

Fair use in Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode
The box itself has no copyright notice, and its copyright was not registered with the U.S. copyright office, meaning it is in the public domain in the U.S. However, the art contains an existing character protected by copyright. Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) Vic Tokai has released no such images into the public domain, and a replacement image could not be created that would adequately provide the same information.
 * 2) The image is being used for no purpose other than to identify the subject of the article.
 * 3) The image resolution has been significantly decreased from the original, so copies made from it would be of inferior quality.
 * 4) The use of this image neither detracts from the game nor inhibits its salability in any way.


text:
Talk:Helena Guergis

Guergis's position on same-sex marriage
Here's the exact quote from The Varsity:

 * When the Varsity asked what they would do if they ever had to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage, they all said they would be in favour of it.

 * "I believe in the right to choose," said the PC's Helena Guergis, "so I would be voting in favour of it."

Which of us was paraphrasing, again? CJCurrie 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points to my interlocutor:

(i) Many provincial candidates were posed questions about same-sex marriage during the 2003 campaign. The fact that there was no proposed provincial legislation at the time wasn't especially relevant -- the recent Ontario court decision approving same-sex marriage had made it an "issue of the day". The party leaders were questioned on the subject, as were candidates in numerous ridings.

(ii) It's true that Guergis was not quoted as saying, "I support same-sex marriage" in so many words. My considered view, however, is that the statement "I would be voting in favour of it" carries essentially the same meaning, when uttered in response to a direct question on same-sex marriage. The wording of the Varsity article doesn't appear to allow much leeway on this point. CJCurrie 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm no fan of hers, so this is not fan-boy editing - but in the article, the header "flip-flop" is not accurate. The article clearly states her position when in a socially conservative riding was to oppose gay marriage, and to support it when in a liberal riding. Sorry, but representing the views of the majority of your constituents is what you are paid to do. The word "flip-flop" is a pejorative, and unwarranted, so I changed it to the less charged "stances". Let the reader draw their own conclusion from the detailed discussion that follows. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents
It seems that CJCurrie's version checks out: the Varsity did report this. I will show a larger portion of the article below to show that CJCurrie is not misrepresenting or misinterpreting the article:

 * When the Varsity asked what they would do if they ever had to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage, they all said they would be in favour of it.

 * "I believe in the right to choose," said the PC's Helena Guergis, "so I would be voting in favour of it."

 * "I have absolutely no problem with supporting same-sex marriages," said the Liberal's Nellie Pedro.

 * The rest of the candidates made similar comments.

That is clear. The only question is whether the Varsity got it wrong, and mixed up Guergis's comments on another issue with that on SSM. This is possible, but evidence would have to be provided for other editors to accept this position, e.g., other statements that she made during that election. Ground Zero 22:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Addendum
I've discovered the following quote, from another Varsity article covering the same event:

"During question period, all five candidates supported same sex marriage rights, but the unanimity ended there." CJCurrie 22:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Guergis's background
Again another error on Wikipedia - Ms. Guergis is NOT GREEK. Lets see if you fools can figure this out! You should be careful you may find yourselves slapped with a law suit or two! (posted by User:24.157.185.17)

All right, yes. While it's true that Canadian citizens falsely accused of being Greek have traditionally filed a double lawsuit (not one lawsuit but two simultaneously with dfferent solicitors) in order to seek compensation, it is by no means a matter of Canadian law, at least not as far as the Supreme Court views it.

While the Governor General has recently encouraged double law suits during speaking tours abroad, the official position of the Canadian government is (and remains) that there is no such thing as a double lawsuit and that there is a job opening at Rideau Hall Mardiste (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You know ... a while ago, I saw a list of Indo-Canadian candidates in the 2004 federal election, which was put together for an Indian newspaper. One of the names on the list was James Rajotte, a Conservative MP from Alberta whose actual background is French-Canadian. Mistakes like this crop up in *all* varieties of media, not just Wikipedia -- and they don't usually result in lawsuit threats from the "aggrieved" parties (though it's not really clear that this counts a "grievance" in any event). How many times has John Kerry been described as Irish, I wonder?

In any event, thank you for your correction to the Greek Canadian page. Readers should be aware, however, that the error in question had nothing to do with the information on Guergis's bio page, nor with the controversy in the previous section of this discussion page. CJCurrie 00:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention anywhere about her mother or her mother's side of the family background, which was English.Birdie6 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Again, nobody has ever mentioned Helena's mother's side of the family. Only interest seems to be the father's side. Interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdie6 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation
Are you sure it's Hel-EE-na? She's actually introduced herself to me, and I thought she said He-LAY-na. Maybe I heard wrong. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Election Data
I think there's a mistake in the part of the page with the grids showing how many votes Helena and the other candidates received in the 2006 and 2004 federal elections. Specifically, the title for both of them is 2006 elections. I've never edited a Wiki page, so I didn't want to cause any damage. Just wanted to point it out! Soylord (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Soylord

"Happy f---ing birthday to me"
Did she really say that or are we being unnecessarily self-censoring? NorthernThunder (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlottetown Airport Incident
In light of the contention below I've taken a half-way step of carefully pulling out and better distinguishing the quotes. This visual separation makes the accusation clearer, as well as the explanation and Peter Mansbridge's (the meat of the section, imho) report on what he witnessed. I think this balances accurately reflecting the accusations that were in the news while keeping the accused's responses as befits an active controversy in a BLP. No words were cut, but quotes were separated which required some rearrangement. 24.86.200.31 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

--- previous debate on the appropriateness and balance follows ---

I think the section is waayyyy out of line the way it is currently referenced. An anon letter wtih several redacted areas doesnt even come close to passing Wiki:BLP. I'm not saying there arent reliable sources out there but die to BLP policy this stuff must come down now. And dont rush out saying find additional sources. Its not the job of those who find policy violations to try and make it right, its the job of the original contributer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.225.250 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Ive reverted the section as follows because the Charlottetown airport incident was well reported and cited. I realize it may need some more work re: neutral POV but in light of today's reporting of Helena Guergis's exec assistant's anonymous letters to media outlets I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the same kind of interference from Guergis's office is occuring here on Wikipedia. In the future do not delete entire sections for no reason. Thankyou. DSatYVR (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with the original. I am no fan of the Tories, but this hearsay is waaay out of line for an encyclopedia. Throwing a tantrum when about to miss your flight does not make you a child molester, and should not form the basis of an article about a Cabinet Minister, no matter how unpopular they might be in tabloid coverage.

 * Articles about living people should be a bit more charitable, and every sentance doesn't deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia.

 * Here's what I'd propose:

 * Guergis received considerable media attention following an "emotional" outburst when arriving late to the Charlottetown airport. An airport employee anonymously related the encounter to media, which was covered widely at the time. Guergis subsequently apologized, citing job stress.

 * The part about "no mention of criminal charges" is simple slander. Nobody is criminally charged for not wanting to remove their boots and then griping about how they're going to miss their flight. I mean, what possible law is broken here? Verbal abuse is also not accurate. She never directed an abusive statement to airport staff, only complained about her situation. 99.231.53.195 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The tone of the segment that includes all the specific quotes from the outburst is simply intolerable, even for any sitting minister, regardless of their unappealing politics. Guergis was a cabinet minister and was reelected. Politicians are human beings, and the fact that newspapers have gone tabloid does not justify this trash in Wikipedia. 99.231.53.195 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry but an anonymous letter that has not been verified by any media outlet ihave been able to find does not meet WIKI:BLP policy requirements. If you have reliable sources that are confirming the repotrs made in the letter then adding it back is fine. but relying on the sources that have been provided do not meet the policy standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.34 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the citation Unsigned-Letter-Redacted back into the article. I note the reference was faxed to Wayne Easter an MP in Canada's parliament. Easter's name and fax number are part of the letter (look at the header of page 1 and 2). The letter also forms part of a CBC article located here. Both the MP and the news organization would determine the details of the letter be an accurate portrayal of the Guergis "emotional outburst" or they wouldn't have made the letter public at the risk of legal action. DSatYVR (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Phony letter writing campaign
I've reinserted the last 2 sentences and citations into the article. I'm not sure why they were deleted by 205.250.101.100. Looking for comments. DSatYVR (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Guergis’ executive assistant Jessica Craven, Ms. Craven’s mother Dawn Richards, constituency office staff member Valerie Knight, former riding association president Paul Shaw, and Bonnie Ainsworth an assistant to Ms. Guergis’ colleague, MP Patrick Brown allegedly engaged in a coordinated letter writing campaign to the local media praising the abilities and achievements of Guergis. None of the individuals disclosed their close association with the Conservative Minister. Guergis subsequently blamed Jessica Craven, declaring it was not appropriate for her to send letters to media without disclosing her identity. CTV reports Guergis has little support from the Conservative caucus or the PMO office and are hoping Guergis resigns. Opposition leaders have called for Guergis' resignation or for her to be fired by PM Stephen Harper.

Propose adding a sentence to say that a similar campaign of unattributed letters to the editor prompted Paul Reitsma to be ejected from the BC Legislature through a campaign to recall amassing the required number of signatures. 69.172.114.153 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 * You should know that BLP also applies to talk page discussions and private investigators. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Mr. Gardiner. Deep breaths. If any of the claims made by the Toronto Star are in any way unsubstantiated or libelous or if the Prime Minister in any way defamed Ms. Guergis by announcing in the House that he had removed her from caucus and that the RCMP had been contacted, then I'm sure Mr. Jaffir and Ms. Guergis have already taken appropriate legal action and they will be vindicated in court. It's only been a week. They may be just waiting for the right time to do it. Mardiste (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While I might normally appreciate your condescension, it is misplaced here. My comment was a reply to one from Mr. Grant, which he since removed, inadvertently making it appear that I was responding to the anon above.  My comment was in fact not even in this section, one which I frankly had not bothered to read.  No apology is necessary.  --JGGardiner (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that seemed condescending to you, JGGardiner. I'm simply saying that Helena Guergis already has two lawyers on retainer who read this page every single day and she does NOT require OR desire you to act as her volunteer, unpaid white knight on the internet, monitoring and censoring her wikipedia page. I do believe it's meant well, but seriously, you can stop now. Mardiste (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reinserted the following into the article. It appears to be the object of a whitewashing campaign. Guergis was subsequently expelled from the Conservative Caucus and these facts are relevant to the biography of the individual(s) in question DSatYVR (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Phony letter writing campaign Ms. Guergis’ executive assistant Jessica Craven, Ms. Craven’s mother Dawn Richards, constituency office staff member Valerie Knight, former riding association president Paul Shaw, and Bonnie Ainsworth an assistant to Ms. Guergis’ colleague, MP Patrick Brown allegedly engaged in a coordinated letter writing campaign to the local media praising the abilities and achievements of Guergis. None of the individuals disclosed their close association with the Conservative Minister. Guergis subsequently blamed Jessica Craven, declaring it was not appropriate for her to send letters to media without disclosing her identity. CTV reported Guergis had little support from the Conservative caucus or the Prime Minister's Office and that they (the PMO & caucus) were hoping Guergis would resign. Opposition leaders called for Guergis' resignation or for her to be fired by PM Stephen Harper.

 * Too trivial for an encyclopedia and the Subject wasn't involved in it,apparently. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans2 youre going to have to come up with a meaningful reason for blanking this section rather than arbitrarily deleting it as you have done numerous times. Do you have a personal interest in censoring this section out of existence? Is there a particular sentence that irks you? DSatYVR (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Please do not continue to revert one another. I will do my best to stay neutral about the inclusion or exclusion about this material. If I might try to summarize the two positions, though: DSatYVR has presented well-sourced information that they believe is relevant to this biography. Mr.Grantevans2, on the other hand, takes the position that this material represents trivial information about Guergis, that it is rather more about people around her than Guergis herself, and (this might be just conjecture on my part) that it is undue weight for the biography. Do I have that right? If the two of you are unable to come to an agreement, would you be willing to seek a third opinion, or solicit some other opinions from the biographies of living persons noticeboard? Edit warring is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Thanks. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, Paul Eric, you have it exactly right regarding my view. I would welcome a third opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Paul Erik, I'd welcome the opinion of third party to resolve this difference of opinion with Mr.Grantevans2. I've taken care to cite credible sources in the "Phony letter writing campaign" section and I challenge the theory that the information presented not worthy of the article. This is one of many events that may have lead to the political downfall of Ms Guergis and as such may be of interest to Wikipedia readers. Any of the singular events, namely her connection to Rahim Jaffer, the verbal outburst(s) at Charlottetown airport and the "Phony letter writing campaign" may be judged are unimportant individually but taken as a whole this series of events lead Stephen Harper to expel her from Cabinet and the Conservative Party. Whether or not Ms Guergis knew of the supportive letter writing campaign is not important. What is important is it is one of the events that may have influenced her life and lead to her resignation. As such I would like to reinsert the section into the article and seek a third party to judge whether or not a deletion or re-write is warranted. I request that the section remain untouched by Mr.Grantevans2 until such time as the issue can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. cc'd to Paul Erik's talk page. DSatYVR (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Do you have any suggestions on a more suitable word? My preference is not to use 'fraudulent', although it could be argued that a fraud was attempted by hiding ones identity and close association to Ms Guergis by the the various individuals involved. fraud definition    phony definition  DSatYVR (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The section was previously "Unattributed letters to the editor" before DSatYVR titled it "Phony letter-writing campaign". Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I must admit I am surprised; I didn't think the information belongs in an encyclopedia. "Unattributed letters to the editor" is certainly better; I'll put that in for the time being. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the letters to the editor "unattributed"? IE Are the letters written by unknown persons? Newspapers verify the identity of persons who want their letters published prior to publication. There was an attempt to mislead newspaper readers by omitting the writers true names and/or association to Ms Guergis. Whats been done fits the description of fraud: ‘In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent’. I would rather not use the word "Fraud" in this case but I also don't think "unattributed" works either. What about "Orchestrated letter writing campaign" ? DSatYVR (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * That still is editorializing; you know, a whole lot has been written in RSs over the last few weeks in the Subject's favour which has not been added to this article, its really odd because this Subject's accusers are the ones who are actually charged with fraud. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say when 5 close associates of Guergis simultaneously write letters of support for Guergis it is an Orchestrated letter writing campaign. If it is known who wrote the letters then the letters are not 'unattributed'. Perhaps you should look up the definition of unattributed to clear up your confusion. DSatYVR (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Since we have not had any input from the posting at the noticeboard I'm going to offer an opinion about this section heading if I may. "Orchestrated campaign" is something that opposition MP Wayne Easter has called the controversy (quoted here) but reliable sources themselves have referred to it neither as "orchestrated" nor as a "campaign", as far as I can tell. Section headings in particular need to be neutral. I'd suggest changing this simply to "Letters to the editor".  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased,one-sided Content, maybe?
Maybe I'm missing something, but why has this article not included any of the RS material which brings into question/challenges the veracity of all the recent allegations made against Guergis? and $13 million in debt are 4 day old articles?? Is it a "Weight" issue? I just added 3 sentences but more work on the NPOV aspect needs to be done, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In all likelyhood because nobody's gotten around to it. Feel free to update the article using these sources. Resolute 23:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of Tabloid News is Excessive
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The Toronto Star might have gone tabloid, but this does not justify the same in Wikipedia.

The allegations of some guy who is part-owner of an escort agency do not deserve to occupy HALF of the article on a former Federal Cabinet Minister.

The quotes from tabloid news and blow-by-blow account of breaking events are not relevant to an encyclopedic.

If anyone wants to start a political tabloid wiki, create one on Wikia, but let's hold Wikipedia to a slightly higher standard here. We're not trying to sell ads here, my fellow editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.110.185 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I must agree with Anon. What I think it shows is the downside of having a smaller pool of interested Editors involved in editing a dynamic and inflammatory story about politicians...and maybe also that there is a tendancy not to proide politicians and/or celebrities with the same NPOV protection that we should. So, therefore I encourage 69.172.110.185 to become an established Editor and do some/more editing on this story, as well as encouraging anyone else who thinks the article needs improvement to help out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Malicious Smear Article This Is
I have been hoping the extreme 1 sided smear content of this article was a result of inattention, but now its apparent that the article is being watched and intentionally kept 1 sided even in the face of the alleged third hand source of the nasty allegations now having denied under oath those very allegations. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the article history shows that you were only reverted one time, you have to be accusing Resolute of acting maliciously. That's pretty uncivil in any circumstance but especially after one single edit.  It is particularly awful since Resolute was completely polite to you above. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is the issue.Why are well respected Editors quick to jump in here on the talk page while at the same time doing zero update editing on this article and allowing the article to remain absent of NPOV content, even of the Subject's denials of salacious, third hand accusations, for weeks now? I do not know why,but its a lousy reflection of adherance to NPOV and BLP policy, it seems to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly rewrite of the section could be useful, but a blind hatchet job to well sourced content that you do not like is not the answer. As I stated on your talk page, the accusations against Guergis by Snowdy remain on the record and remain relevant, as does the denials by Guergis' lawyers and by Gillani himself.  Resolute 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get it. Snowdy's accusations referenced Gillani as the source of the cocaine and prostitutes accusation; now that Gillani has testified that he is not the source for those accusations, then those accusations no longer have any source at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they do: Snowdy. Obviously one of these two men are lying, however it is not for you to introduce your POV to decide who that is. A neutral statement would argue that Snowdy's claims have been denied by Gillani.  Your preferred version is not neutral. Resolute 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Snowdy is not saying he has photos of, or even that he witnessed, the prostitutes and snorting; so it's not a "he said she said" type of dispute. Its heresay that's been denied by the 1 and only "Say"er; and it has no place at all in a BLP...but, where is that uninvolved Admin. you promised to bring in to have a look? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I only promised to bring in an uninvolved admin to look at your conduct if you continued to blindly block delete article content. Now, whether you like it or not, Snowdy's allegation is widely published, and is the reason why Guergis was asked to sit outside caucus pending the results of the investigations.  They are critical to the direction this controversy and her career have taken recently.  That Gillani has denied Snowdy's allegation does not change the fact that it was made, nor does it change the impact it had.  And no matter how hard you try to whitewash it, you simply can't. Resolute 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit you have a point, but I'm having a real hard time accepting that someone can make sensational allegations attributed to a third party which are then denied outright by that 3rd. party and the accusations remain published in a biography of the accused person in an encyclopedia ad-infinitem. Maybe that's just the way it is or should be, but it does not feel right to me. Are there any limits? What if the accusations were of child molestation? I suppose that,since we operate by consensus, that we do have some ability to agree to not include the specifics (snorting cocaine and prostitutes) of the accusations when it comes to Geurgis's BLP and I would propose that we agree to that. Gillani would have still been called to testify in relation to the alleged influence peddling so I don't see where these other 2 things are necessary. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I do understand where you are coming from. I tried to make sure the allegation was clearly stated to be second hand from Snowdy, but also that both Guergis and Gillani denied.  FWIW, I've asked an Arbcom member who has a long history of editing political bios to take a quick look, just as a third opinion. Resolute 15:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the word alleged added to the article. The employees at the Charlottetown Airport aren't stupid, they know when they've been verbally abused. Also, wasn't it proven, Guergis's staff were the authors of those positive reviews of Guergis? I'm not out to bury the women, but honestly. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good question from GoodDay :) People apologize sometimes not because they agree with the accusation but simply because someone misinterpreted their actions or took them more seriously or personally than intended. People apologize when they bump into someone accidentally but that doesn't mean they meant to do it, even if the other person is offended or thinks they meant to do it. The other thing is, anonymous letters from a single source rarely get any attention at all because for all we know it was written and mailed by some other person from another political persuasion who happened to be in the airport and knmew who she is.I personally doubt it was written by an airport employee because oif so that would be the first time that I know of such an employee has every gone public with a complaint about a customer. It is also suspicious that the letter discourages the reader from even trying to corroborate the letter's accusations-see the last sentence of the letter-because what is the constructive purpose of that sentence? to discourage official follow-up,perhaps? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be that Guergis has been set up and media/blogs/encyclopedia are being played like pawns to get the dirt out.It wouldn't be the first time politicians played dirty tricks to get ahead and it is suspicious,I think, that Snowdy's most bizarre topic(photos of prostitution/cocaine snorting) has been denied by the 1 and only source. Bottom line, it doesn't really matter from our standpoint what is true or not true so I try not to make any assumptions either way. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
I count 4 Editors here(above sections)expressing concerns about this BLP being "tabloid news","slanderous" and other NPOV adherance concerns. So, I have placed the tag until there is a consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When you add the tag, you are supposed to say specifically what you think needs to be changed. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that needs to be removed is this sentence in the resignation section ",.... when he says he learned Gillani had boasted of having pictures of Guergis and Jaffer partying with cocaine and high-priced prostitutes." as well as the anticipatory references "third accusation" as well as all other content premised on this as being RSed. The reason is that Gillani was the only alleged source and he has denied that he was the source for it. In addition, you (Gardiner) and Resolute have done nothing at all to correct the slanderous tone and content of this BLP over the past few weeks even with a host of new RS articles becoming available (which have shown Snowdy's charges to be suspect and/or false) yet you both are monitoring the BLP. That is negative pov orchestration-by non-correction-imo and that approach has been so prevalent here for so long that it seems to be systemic. The tag stays until all of the concerns raised by the 4 other concerned Editors as well as myself are rectified. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The other NPOV concerns raised on this talk page in talk page sections above were raised by Editors User:24.157.185.17, 209.121.225.250 ,99.231.53.195 and 69.172.110.185. You can read them and address them here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 * "Gillani was alleged by Snowdy to be the source" is as true as "Gillani denied being the source". Gillani's statements under oath do not erase the previous accusation.  You might also read and learn WP:AGF before you continue attacking other editors.  About the only thing you are correct on is that I haven't done much to edit this article yet, aside from reverting your unilateral deletion of content, mainly because I didn't take an active interest in it until I noted your unilateral deletion.   Incidentally, we're both treading the line of WP:3RR.  I won't be reverting again as a result, but consider this fair warning that I will seek an uninvolved admin to take a look if you continue to revert. Resolute 22:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to say that I haven't done anything wrong but I really haven't done anything at all. On the talk I noted that one comment was ironic and another uncivil.  I think it is the duty of every Wikipedian to point out both.  But I haven't expressed an opion on the article content, let alone edit the bloody thing; to be honest I haven't even read it apart from the diffs from Resolute's first reversion.  I would concede your point that my inactivty amounts to "pov orchestration" but only if you're willing to say the same about your non-correction at the Shakespeare authorship question article. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * lol, but the difference is, I'm not jumping into the talk page on Shakespeare and influencing content indirectly. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I should probably have let this go a while ago but I think it relates to the general problem you're having. You are reading too much into everything.  I merely commented that BLP, which you brought up, applies equally to the talk page, that editors should be civil on the talk page, and that an NPOV tag addition should include a corresponding description on the talk page.  Note I've only spoken about the content of the talk page and not the article itself as you've somehow imagined.  I think you may be reading more into what Resolute is saying than he has actually said also and that is making you needlessly defensive. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be 100% correct. It would not be the 1st. time I've gotten defensive without cause or misconstrued somebody's words. Thank you for the very polite "something for me to think about". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If editors are comfortable with the article as it is today I propose removal of the NPOV tag. If Editors still have an area or areas of concern please state them concisely below. Thanks DSatYVR (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually removed the tag myself about a month ago and it was quickly re-inserted; you may wish to contact that Editor (who re-inserted it) to see what they think. I am now re-inserting it because:
 * The insistence on the Letter Writing Smear,which the subject had nothing to do with, and insistence on characterizing it as "orchestrated" which may give the casual Reader the false impression that the Subject was involved in orchestrating the letter writing.
 * The article in its entirety highlights salacious, unproven, and disproven allegations against the Subject with a much lesser attention to her denials ,Jaffer's denials and more importantly, Gillium's and Snowdy's sworn testimonies which contradict the allegations which overwhelm the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Clean up Tag
Somebody noticed this BLP was in awful shape and put the Cleanup tag on; I am trying but I admit to having the POV that the entire article is and was a classic Smear, especially a month ago when there were so many viewers coming here for information about the Subject. So, someone more objective might want to keep an eye on my edits with that in mind. I will also say I have no idea what the point is of experienced Editors watching BLPs like this one when they allowed it to remain in such a "smear" state of being for so long. I really do not feel critical about that aspect, just confused, I suppose the answer is they have hundres of articles on their watch lists but again I am thinking, "what's the point?" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Helena Guergis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403202135/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100330/guergis_letter_100330/20100330 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100330/guergis_letter_100330/20100330
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412005728/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100409/guergis_update_100409/20100409 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100409/guergis_update_100409/20100409
 * Added tag to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100414/guergis_response_100414?hub=MSNHome
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430160700/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/storyv2/CTVNews/20100428/gillani_ottawa_100428/20100428/?hub=TopStoriesV2 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/storyv2/CTVNews/20100428/gillani_ottawa_100428/20100428/?hub=TopStoriesV2
 * Added tag to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100516/helena-guergis-alfred-apps-100516/20100516?hub=QPeriod
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510090953/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100505/helena-guergis-riding-conservatives-100505/20100505/?hub=TopStoriesV2 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100505/helena-guergis-riding-conservatives-100505/20100505?hub=TopStoriesV2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Helena Guergis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://192.197.82.11/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=85960
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311180154/http://www.thevarsity.ca/media/paper285/news/2003/09/18/OpinionAnalysis/Marchese.1.Guergis.Pedro.0-469960.shtml to http://www.thevarsity.ca/media/paper285/news/2003/09/18/OpinionAnalysis/Marchese.1.Guergis.Pedro.0-469960.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=886401
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616002216/http://howdtheyvote.ca/member.php?id=129 to http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/member.php?id=129

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helena Guergis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708212533/http://ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17585&show=Michael%20Coren%20Show to http://ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17585&show=Michael%20Coren%20Show

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Law graduate?
"She graduated with her Juris Doctor degree in November 2017."
 * Says who? There is no citation, and I can find nothing about this on the internet, only her acceptance into law school. Her web-presence since 2017 has become exceptionally obscure. There are two Linkedin entries for her that are little more than placeholders. JohndanR (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Found: https://www.ualberta.ca/registrar/media-library/convocation/fall-2017/november-22-2017-ceremony-afternoon.pdf JohndanR (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Helena Guergis


text:
User talk:Ormondroyd

File permission problem with File:JStelling.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JStelling.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Haynestributes2.jpg

The file File:Haynestributes2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ormondroyd


text:
User talk:Datgyrl4 b5

Bold textlooking for male teens 13 to 16

title: User talk:Datgyrl4 b5


text:
Executive Order 13292

Executive Order 13292 was an executive order issued by United States President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, entitled "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, as Amended, Classified National Security Information." The Executive Order modified the manner in which sensitive information was handled at the time as set out by President Bill Clinton's 1995 executive order.

Background
Clinton's order set declassification deadlines for classified material and made it harder for politicians to classify information. Bush's order appears to allow much more information to be classified and for longer periods; the wording is hard to decipher in some areas. It also appears to give more power over classification to the Offices of the President and Vice President, but the wording used was not properly defined in the listing of relevant definitions now consolidated into their own section in Part 6 of the Executive Order.

Changes from the 1995 regulations
Among the various changes made to the 1995-based regulations, Executive Order 13292 notably: A more extensive analysis of the changes from the previous executive order was compiled by the group Public Citizen.
 * eliminated the 1995-based order's standard that information should not be classified if there is “significant doubt” about the need to do so;
 * treated information obtained in confidence from foreign governments as classified;
 * authorized the Vice President, “in the performance of executive duties,” to classify information originally;
 * added “infrastructures” and “protection services” to the categories of classifiable information;
 * eased the reclassification of declassified records;
 * postponed the starting date for automatic declassification of protected records 25 or more years old from April 17, 2003, to December 31, 2006;
 * eliminated the requirement that agencies prepare plans for declassifying records;
 * canceled the order requiring the Archivist to create a “government wide database of information that has been declassified,” and instead requires the “Director of the Information Security Oversight Office ... [to] coordinate the linkage and effective utilization of existing agency databases of records that have been declassified and publicly released”; and
 * permitted the Director of Central Intelligence to block declassification actions of the ISCAP, unless overruled by the President.

Reactions
Then-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a February 15, 2006, interview, "There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President." This was based in the then newly added but undefined and untested wording stipulating the Vice President's ability to exercise classification authority rested “in the performance of [his] executive duties,”. The phrase no longer appears in Executive Order 13526 though the Vice President is directly listed rather than amended in separately via a standard Order.

Byron York of the National Review noted, "Throughout Executive Order 13292, there are changes to the original Clinton order which, in effect, give the vice president the power of the president in dealing with classified material....Executive Order 13292 is further evidence of real power in the vice president's office."

This analysis is contradicted by the supplemental Order of October 13, 1995 issued pursuant to Sec. 1.4 (a)(2) of President Clinton's Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995 declaring the Vice President as a designated official with the same ability to originate classified information at the highest level, "Top Secret", and by design - the lower-levels and further delegations by default, as if named directly in the original Executive Order pursuant to the clause directly preceding it [Sec. 1.4(a)(1)]. The subsequent revisions to the regulations governing Classified National Security Information practices by both Presidents Bush and Obama differed from EO 12958 in that they declared the Vice President directly in their original issuances rather than in a supplemental Order as President Clinton had.

Repealment
Executive Order 12958 and the amendments incorporated into it, including Executive Order 13292, were revoked by President Barack Obama in the issuance of Executive Order 13526.

title: Executive Order 13292


text:
Chessington branch line

The Chessington branch line is a short National Rail railway line in England, mostly in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, from Motspur Park to Chessington South.

History
The branch was intended as a secondary main line to relieve congestion from Leatherhead to Motspur Park, and was thus built as electrified double track from the start. However, the line only got to Chessington before green belt legislation put a stop to completing the line.

The line was the last line built by the Southern Railway. It was to serve the housing, industrial, engineering and storage developments south of Surbiton.

It was opened on 29 May 1938 from Motspur Park to Tolworth, with an intermediate station at Malden Manor, and extended on 28 May 1939 to Chessington North and Chessington South.

All the stations on the line were of concrete in an Art Deco style, typical of the period. Work to extend beyond Chessington was halted by the outbreak of World War II, with track laid beyond Chessington South as far as Chalky Lane, and preparatory works continuing further south. This included an embankment built by the Royal Engineers as a military exercise from Chalky Lane as far south as Chessington Wood, close to where the next station at Malden Rushett would have been built. A second station to serve Ashtead, namely at its northern extreme, was also planned. After the war green belt legislation put a stop to any resumption because Ashtead Common was given protective status. A goods yard south of Chessington South was used as a coal concentration depot from the mid-1960s to the end of the 1980s. The goods yard and the 0.5 mi of trackbed towards Malden Rushett are overgrown by trees. Two platforms were built at Chessington South but since the extension south was never built only one platform has ever been in public use.

It was originally intended to name Chessington North station Chessington Court and Chessington South station Chessington Grange.

The line was mainly constructed on embankment with short distances in cuttings and several bridges. A 140 ft viaduct crosses the Hogsmill River near Malden Manor.

Demand and population in the area increased after the railway's relatively late introduction. Malden Manor station is the line's busiest with 0.60 million journeys made in the 2014-2015 financial year. Its recorded use was 0.58 million ten years before. The total of journeys per year of the four stations on the line has reached 2.219 million recorded journeys. Malden Manor station has formally been assigned E (small staffed) status as its station category.

title: Chessington branch line


text: Talk:Fat Music for Fat People

title: Talk:Fat Music for Fat People