text:
Sodoku

Sodoku is a bacterial zoonotic disease. It is caused by the Gram-negative rod Spirillum minus (also known as Spirillum minor). It is a form of rat-bite fever (RBF).

Signs and symptoms
The initial scratch or wound caused by a bite from a carrier rodent results in mild inflammatory reactions and ulcerations. The wounds may heal initially, but reappear with the onset of symptoms. The symptoms include recurring fever, with body temperature 101–104 °F (38–40 °C). The fever lasts for 2–4 days, but recurs generally at 4–8 weeks. This cycle may continue for months or years. The other symptoms include regional lymphadenitis, malaise, and headache. The complications include myocarditis, endocarditis, hepatitis, splenomegaly, and meningitis.

Causes
The infections are acquired through rat bites or scratches. It can occur as nosocomial infections (i.e., acquired from hospitals), or due to exposure or close associations with animals preying on rats, mice, squirrels, etc. Sodoku is mostly seen in Asia and Africa. Local transmission has been reported in US. The incubation period is 4 to 28 days.

Prognosis
Mortality is 6–10%.

title: Sodoku


text:
User talk:Peterbald~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I've noticed you've uploaded a few images that lack source or license information. Because of concerns as to copyrighted information being uploaded to Wikipedia, which happens frequently, we ask that you tell us where the image came from, who it belongs to and what license is is available under. If you need more help with that, message me on here or email me (morven@gmail.com) and I'll help. If the photographs were taken by you, this is very simple indeed. Thanks in advance, —Morven 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Romeo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Romeo.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Peterbald. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Peterbald~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Peterbald~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Revenge

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 17:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hunter Revenge
another music project failing WP:MUSIC. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hunter Burgan per FuriousFreddy below -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 06:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge and redirect to Hunter Burgan. --FuriousFreddy 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylk

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge).  Rob e  rt  00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sylk
See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Anittas 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Anittas 00:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it's fancruft that's of no interest outside Glitter. -- Hoary 05:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this Hollywood flick. -- Hoary 05:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Glitter (film). Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Add some information and an image, and the article should come together. Winnermario 21:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What kind of information might this be? -- Hoary 02:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge --Musicpvm 00:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylk


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael (Glitter character)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge).  Rob e  rt  00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Rafael (Glitter character)
See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Anittas 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note that Anittas provides no reason whatever for this recommendation. -- Hoary 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: He does not need to. If he votes keep, that means he must like it. Winnermario 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. But this is a discussion rather than a vote count. -- Hoary 02:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this sorry film, as this is mere fancruft, however conscientiously written and well intended, and because the character has no significance other than via the film (and probably none via that either). -- Hoary 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Glitter (film). Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If some extra information can be added, and perhaps an image, it would make this article look better. Winnermario 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's a valid point of view. My own point of view is that any extra "information" added to this article would be likely just to make it more absurdly bloated. What kind of "information" do you have in mind? -- Hoary 02:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge --Musicpvm 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Walker

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge).  Rob e  rt  23:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Timothy Walker
See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Anittas 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Anittas 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because Timothy Walker has no significance outside this single movie, whose own significance is a mere sad footnote to a history of Hollywood pap. However conscientiously written and well-intentioned, it's fancruft. -- Hoary 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense radically, and then merge and redirect to the article on the movie. -- Hoary 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Glitter (film). Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too long to merge. Winnermario 20:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Musicpvm 20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian "Dice" Black

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 4 merge).  Rob e  rt  23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Julian "Dice" Black
See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Anittas 21:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? -- Hoary 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, following Jkelly -- though this is actually a major character in this ludicrously awful-sounding movie. -- Hoary 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC) PS I meant by thta: Condense radically, then merge and redirect. -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Glitter (film). Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too long to merge. Winnermario 20:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: if it is too long to merge, that's because it's unacceptably prolix. So condense it. -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Musicpvm 20:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0(scribble) 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong
Most importantly, neither the earthquake nor the tsunami actually hit Hong Kong. Information about affected Hongkongers is already in Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and all information about relief is already in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Coffee 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. 23skidoo 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we are justifying an article by whether the place was hit by the earthquake or the tsunami, the articles on some other countries have to be deleted too. The rationale mentioned above failed to justify deletion. — Instantnood 05:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Conversely, articles would have to be created for many other countries/territories which are similarly effected, if not more. This article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami, and its singular existance skews the overall perspective of wikipedia too much in one small direction. In addition, some of its statements, such as "The catastrophe had a large psychological impact" appears exaggerated and overly emotive for an encyclopedia article.--Huaiwei 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Is " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " justified? — Instantnood 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, if it clearly has no room for further growth, and no similar articles are likely to be writtern for other entities since the full articles as mentioned by the nominator has served their purposes well and there is no current pressure to expand and split them.--Huaiwei 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. May I know if Norway was hit by the tremor or tsunami? And if yes, in what way it was hit? Thanks. (Here's a locator map of Norway.) — Instantnood 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh hell yes. The wave slamed into the Indian subcontinent, was uplifted into the air by the Himalayas, and smashed squaringly onto poor Norway. No one could explain why only this particular Scandinavian country was hit, and was indeed a freak chain of events certainly worthy of its own article. Did anything similar happen to HK?--Huaiwei 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling what'd happened. (So Hong Kong is the only country not directly hit to have such an article, since Norway was directly hit. Am I right?) — Instantnood 08:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not exactly correct. There is no country called "Hong Kong".--Huaiwei 09:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From your declaring that Norway was directly hit by the tremors and/or the tsunami, and therefore it deserves its own article, it's pretty obvious that you're twisting some facts to fulfill your targeting on Hong Kong-related topics on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you wish to use sarcasm/humour in otherwise serious discussions in wikipedia, then others are probably excused for expecting you to be able to accept it too. Once again, your paranoia with regards to others' targeting on certain topics has played a bigger part then it should in your editorial judgement, hence again raising questions on your claimed "fairness" and "maturity" in wikipedia . When I voted in this article, I did so on the simple reason that the earthquakes effect on HK is marginal at best compared to many other countries/territories without seeing a need to create a similar article. What is written for this article can easily be had in others. I did not notice the existance of an article for Norway until you pointed it out, which I found was an unfotunate occurance as I am afraid individuals (like yourself) would then take it as an excuse to create similar articles on every territory on earth no matter how small the effect actually is.--Huaiwei 10:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You were the only person to have mentioned fairness and maturity over there. — Instantnood 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing called synonyms. Your sense of denial is amazing, especially when I am clearly not the only one who specifically used the word "maturity", for eg.--Huaiwei 11:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad you know this word (a word that I mentioned frequently when saying country and sovereign state have to be distinguished). Could you please kindly tell what are the synonyms of maturity and fairness that I have used to claim myself to be? Thanks. — Instantnood 11:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but are you aware what this page is? Do you not feel any sense of shame in displaying this kind of behavior for all to see? If you spent the time to engage in wiki-soap operas on explaining the significance of this article, or adding good content to any other wikipedia article, I would think all will be better off. I refuse to further engage in senseless discussions.--Huaiwei 11:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All these would not have happened if nobody boldly declared " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami ", and carried on by distorting facts by saying Norway was directly affected , then continued to put forward her/his very own point of view that only sovereign states are countries . May I know who's not aware of what? Who's staging "wiki-soap operas"? And who should be feeling shame for her/his behaviour? — Instantnood 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. We have (yet another) instance of instantnood refusing to accept any responsiblity whatsoever in any contentious issues concerning wikipedia. All of a sudden, I am now being portrayed as a "troublemaker" who caused the above exchange single-handedly. Suddenly, instantnood's role dissapears completely from view. Do I need to clear my name? Hardly, because I dont attempt to shun responsiblity the way instantnood does, almost like its an inborn habit of his. I am more then willing to say that I felt ashamed that I was participating in this kind of low-level exhange in a page like this. If I hadent felt this sense of shame or guilt, I wont be asking him if he felt the same way. I call this exchange a soap opera, because it reads embarrasingly like one. Who is blaming who for "staging a soap opera", whatever that means? I suppose he dosent seem to feel any remorse based on his ceaseless attempts to be a real pain anywhere in wikipedia, even in a page like this? --Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Huaiwei did not express his feeling of shame or guilt when he was asking me that question, and I have not said a single word on whether I have shunned any of my responsibility that resulted from my responses to what Huaiwei has said. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From this response, I could only conclude that either it confirms his chronic inability in accepting responsibility (he practically ignored what I just said and insisted he was still innocent), or he has some difficulty in comprehending the English language. I rest my case.--Huaiwei 14:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No. Gamaliel 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, the similar article for Norway is now nominated. — Instantnood 13:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. I remember this strategy before. When an article/category which instantnood wants to keep is nominated for deletion, he gets every other related article/category nominated too, in his bid to swing the votes around in his favour, even if other similar pages may be far more deserving to remain. This is becoming yet another example of instantnood's constant manipulation and gaming of wikipedia rules/mechanisms, and I do hope other wikipedians and admins may take note of this.--Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If an article or a category should be deleted, the same reasons would very likely be applicable to other similar articles or categories. How much similarities do the articles share, and whether such similarities merit the same or similar action, are to be decided by the community. Each wikipedian can make her/his own decision, don't think votes can be swung or manipulated. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment IMHO that nomination is very close to violating WP:POINT, wether or not other nations have seperate articles should have no impact on wether or not this article about Hong Kong should be kept. I'm actualy a little supriced Germany or Sweden (and others) doesn't have seperate articles, they lost a lot of people too and probably raised simmilar debate and critisism as we had in Norway about how to handle major disasters involving our citizens abroad. The lack of or exsistence off other articles should have no bearing on wether or not this should be kept or deleted. If it contains information beyond what is in other articles it shouold be kept, otherwise it should be deleted, simple as that. Deleting it just because Hong Kong was not directly hit is just as bad a reason as keeping it just because Norway have a simmilar article. --Sherool 14:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Length of an article may or may not be relevant in deciding whether an article should be deleted. If the two articles share substantial similarities, and if the arguments mentioned in this page are readily applicable other similar articles, it would be better to assess them together. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Article length is an often-used criterion in deciding whether an article is deleted or not, and it is a relevant criterion in this instance, since its length does not justify its existance when its information could fit into other articles easily.--Huaiwei 14:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, centralizes information that is otherwise buried in other articles. No useful redirect because the information is in more than one place. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sub-trivial subset of larger, more important article. I was in Hong Kong (briefly) a week after the tsunami, and the biggest issue in the local paper seemed to be a) priority treatment of VIPs by Hong Kong authorities; and b) whether Jet Li was safe. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd be interested to know which papers you read. :-P Were all newspapers, TV and radio news, etc., talking only about VIPs and Jet Li?  — Instantnood 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: what Calton said could also be partly observed elsewhere. The only time HK was mentioned in the Singaporean media was whether some HK celebrities were alive for being caught in that region, in stark contrast to much more pressing and elaborate discussions related to other countries/territories.--Huaiwei 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Norway, as well as countries like Somalia, Réunion, Burma were rarely mentioned in Hong Kong during that period, comparing to Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. — Instantnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional information: Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee before the nomination for deletion (see edit history ). — Instantnood 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional observation: Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The rest of the old article includes information not fit for a wikipedia article. "Hong Kong Relief Information" and "How to donate" are examples of what wikipedia is not.--Huaiwei 15:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Donations information was considered necessary at that time, and in fact there was an article titled donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, until voted to be changed as a redirect in May. For other information, they should not be merged into articles until there's a clear consensus here to do so. — Instantnood 16:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I may quote from User:Kingturtle's comment in :
 * this article violates all sorts of wikipedia standards, but it was created to assist in donation efforts. in its creation, this article was meant to be temporary - and now it is time to delete it. although relief fund-raising continues, it has fallen off, and wikipedia *must* get rid of this article which violates all kinds of policies and standards.
 * The subsequent voting process was overwelmingly in his favour. That vote took place May, and it is a wonder why this page continues to display information considered temporary and a rare exception for humanitary purposes. user:TheCoffee's removal of this content is a step in the right direction, and lends no weight to user:Instantnood's claims that his deletions are disputable and hence should be restored in this article. On the contrary, it all the more highlights the fact that this article has nothing much to discuss beyond what is left behind.--Huaiwei 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no objection that donations information on this article should be removed. Nevertheless, other information from this article should not be merged to other articles until there's a clear consensus here. — Instantnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you remove those two sections, what is left remaining is basically what you see there now. Did he remove any important information? Please feel free to highlight them here.--Huaiwei 16:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My comment was made based on your "additional observation": " Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake " . — Instantnood 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And my comment was based on your "Additional observation": "Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee before the nomination for deletion" . So what are you trying to say now?--Huaiwei 17:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Apart from the information on how and where to donate, the figures showing the trend of amount of money collected were removed. — Instantnood 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this the only information you would consider important enough for this page to be kept?--Huaiwei 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: The article has now been reorganised and expanded. — Instantnood 19:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment on expanded article: The only significant expansion we can see in this article is the "Responses of the government and other organisations" section, which quite unfortunately is simply non-relevant to this article which talks about the effect it has on HK. The only other non-dorectly affected country article, Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Norway makes no mention on relief efforts at all, as all these should be in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. As for the section on Impact, which should be the gist of the article, it again suffers from exagerated comments, not surprising since we have members here fighting to keep it around and make it appear "significant" enough. The reduction in travel to the region affects the entire global tourism industry, and there is nothing notably different in this text. The humanitarian response and show of emotional care is to be expected in any civilised society. Anyhow, saying "Thai and Indonesian culture is highly visible in Hong Kong" is itself debatable, besides the question of just what kind of and the extend of its impact it can have on HK itself. To sum up...what has actually been contributed to the article besides the obvious?--Huaiwei 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Agree the article needs further improvement. In fact some of your comments are also applicable to the Norway counterpart. Response are results of the effect. The Norway article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 22:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Humanitarian efforts as a result of the "effect", if any, will have to directly addressed to the reader, or else no one is going to make this assumption. Does the degree of "effect" have on the amount of $$$ donated internationally? Please illustrate. The Norway article talks about impact, and rightfully yes it should, because this is mainly what an effect is all about. It does not, however, devote a sizeable chunk of its text on humanitarian responses thou, and there is no reason for it to.--Huaiwei 23:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 00:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you actually read what I wrote above, I made quite alot of commends on it. You sound like I want the entire section deleted for being irrelevant, when I was saying it was far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article.--Huaiwei 00:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ummm.. but you failed to justify why Norway is not far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article. — Instantnood 00:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Am I compelled to comment on another article in the first place, and how should that be relevant in this discussion? Clearly, it is not just me who felt the need to delete one and keep the other. Tells you alot on just how irrelevant the two articles are.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So far nobody has shown why the reasons to keep that article are not applicable to this one, and the reasons to delete this article not applicable to that one. — Instantnood 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Let the community decide, and learn to accept community concensus.--Huaiwei 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 沖洗它喜歡從我的靶垛出來的船尾 or, er, delete SchmuckyTheCat 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete or redirect. GhePeU 10:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Qawam al-Dawla

Abu'l-Fawaris, better known by his regnal name Qawam al-Dawla (April 1000 – October/November 1028), was the Buyid ruler of Kerman (1012–1028). He was the son of Baha' al-Dawla.

Biography
When Abu'l-Fawaris' brother Sultan al-Dawla became the senior amir of the Buyids in 1012, he appointed Abu'l-Fawaris (thereafter known as Qawam al-Dawla, "Foundation of the State") as governor of Kerman. When Sultan al-Dawla left Fars for Iraq in around 1017, Qawam al-Dawla decided to attack. With the support of the Ghaznavids, he invaded and occupied Fars. A counterattack expelled him from that province, but he managed to retain his hold on Kerman. Sultan al-Dawla died in 1024, and his son Abu Kalijar managed to gain control of Fars. Eventually, Qawam al-Dawla and Abu Kalijar engaged in hostilities against each other; the fighting ceased only when Qawam al-Dawla died in late 1028. He was poisoned; Abu Kalijar took over Kerman.

title: Qawam al-Dawla


text:
Nargis (Pakistani actress)

Nargis (Urdu: نرگس), born Ghazala Idrees, is a Pakistani film actress and stage artist. She has acted in more than 104 films in her career spanning from 1993 to 2018, and was the highest-paid stage artist across the country in 2016.

She is best known for her supporting role in the musical romantic film Choorian (1998 film), which ranks amongst the highest-grossing domestic films of all time. Her other notable films include International Luteray (1994), Ghunda Raj (1994), Soha Jora (2007), and Dushman Rani (2014).

Awards and recognition

 * Nigar Awards for 'Best Supporting Actress' in Punjabi language films Madam Rani in 1995 and in Kala Raj (1997)

title: Nargis (Pakistani actress)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billie Frank

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 5 merge).  Rob e  rt  23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Billie Frank
See also Julian "Dice" Black, Timothy Walker, Rafael (Glitter character), and Sylk. All apparently characters from Mariah Carey's film Glitter. Since the film itself is of marginal notability (it is probably most notable for being a critical and commercial failure), its characters are certainly not notable enough for their own articles. I informed the author that he should do something about them (my suggestion, which I still recommend, condense to a paragraph each and add to the main article or one on Characters in the film Glitter or something similar). If that is not an option, I would vote for an outright deletion, lest someone think it's neccessary to write several articles on every character from The Five Heartbeats or something similar. FuriousFreddy 06:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This character is about as major as can be, if I am to believe the description. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect all related articles back to Glitter (film)
 * Merge and redirect all related articles. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep too long to merge. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An article's length has nothing to do with whether or not it should be kept. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Anittas 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Anittas 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because these characters are not notable or known enough to deserve articles of their own. See Fancruft. --FuriousFreddy 07:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: As per WP:FICT, the articles should be merged, as none of the characters have had a major impact on society. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this awful-sounding movie. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. For the other characters my personal preference is the last, but since Billie is the main character I might favor an outright keep here. I suppose there's a lot you could say about how Billie's story is semi-autobiographical, that kind of thing. Everyking 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You could indeed. In addition to an article on Citizen Kane, you can and (to my mild surprise) do have a whole article on Charles Foster Kane (a better title than the somewhat recursive Citizen Kane (character in Citizen Kane)). But there are reasons for this: people have said a lot about C F Kane, and it has often been claimed that Hearst's recognition of himself in Kane is what, via Louella Parsons, blighted Welles's career: no trivial matter if true. Anyway, Citizen Kane is in a different league from Glitter (which admittedly has a more comely star) and of much greater and more lasting interest. If people want to write at huge length about the real-world precursors (etc.) of the characters in humdrum Hollywood flops, they're entirely free to do so, on other websites. Nobody is begrudging Glitter an article, and WP is of course not paper -- but hard drive space isn't unlimited either. -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because? -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Glitter (film). Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't really need to be merged or deleted. Don't ask me why, because I won't answer. I think it looks acceptable separate. Winnermario 20:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You should justify why this article should be kept, otherwise your vote might be discounted. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. --FuriousFreddy 22:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Second comment Can we get some more votes from neutral parties here? Every person who voted "keep" is associated in some way with all of those troubled Mariah Carey articles. --FuriousFreddy 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is surely less of an issue than the fact that the "keep" voters made little or no effort to explain why the articles should be kept. (Perhaps they're under the impression that WP is a democracy.) -- Hoary 02:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Musicpvm 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Samba (album)

Samba is an album by the popular Cantopop group, Twins, released in June, 2005.

Track listing

 * 1) "Happy Red, White, Blue" (快樂紅白藍)
 * 2) 咖啡迷
 * 3) 黑色喜劇
 * 4) "Hot Pink" (熱粉紅)
 * 5) "Samba Queen" Cantonese version (森巴皇后 廣東版)
 * 6) "Buoy" (救生圈)
 * 7) 紅睡星
 * 8) 狂想曲
 * 9) "Two Weeks" (兩星期)
 * 10) 一點一滴
 * 11) "Samba" Mandarin version (森巴 國語版)

title: Samba (album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyeball Skeleton

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 09:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Eyeball Skeleton
This one I liked, but sadly, nonnotable failing WP:MUSIC. -- ( ☺ drini ♫ | ☎ ) 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This one marks a bit of a milestone for me: Of the hundreds of bandity articles I've looked at here at WP, this was the first time that one of them has been interesting enough for me to check out their website in search of more info out of interest rather than just verifying facts. It does seem, alas, that they don't quite pass WP:MUSIC yet... they've been signed to a micro-indie label and released one album so far.  As a side note, congratulations to this guy for doing something truly creative with his kids, and I wish him and the band the best. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  10:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, sadly nn, if sweet. Mallocks 13:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:MUSIC... and I too wish them success. Cool idea.--Isotope23 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Okay, I surrender. After looking at all the facts, it seems Eyeball Skeleton are non notable and don't pass YET. *Sigh*. I guess after they release another album and it gets a second review from a a notable site such as All Music Guide, this article can come back, right? In the meantime, I guess the article will have to go for now. Fanficgurl 3:45 December 1 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Commodore BASIC

Information on memory copy timing incorrect?
"Test results have shown that copying 16 kilobytes of memory from ROM to RAM takes less than a second in machine code, but over 10 minutes in BASIC."

Actually takes 5 minutes, running the program below on the VIC. And that's even using number literals.

--Jquarry 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You copied 16 KB on a VIC? The VIC-20 had only 5 KB of RAM! Please explain. SJ2571 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Interesting. I distinctly remember copying the BASIC interpreter from ROM to RAM, in two 8-kilobyte blocks of  takes ten minutes. Unfortunately I don't have a real C64 any more to test it on. — J I P  | Talk 06:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I read something somewhere about this 10 minute delay, too. I have all my old C64 books in my garage so I'll pull them out and mull them over this weekend to see what I can find. Also, regarding the code snippets tested here: are they all on REAL physical machines as opposed to emulators? SJ2571 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I ran the following program on a Commodore 64:
 * According to the last line, it takes a total of 69.3 seconds to run - a long time, yes, but the "10 minute" estimate is off by an order of magnitude. Unfortunately, I can't include this original research in the article - but the information there now is clearly wrong. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the last line, it takes a total of 69.3 seconds to run - a long time, yes, but the "10 minute" estimate is off by an order of magnitude. Unfortunately, I can't include this original research in the article - but the information there now is clearly wrong. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm. How can plain program runs like the above, performed in order to establish a simple(?) fact, be construed as "original research"? I'd say there should be no problem fixing the article---as long as we could agree on the correct time. --Wernher 15:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, if you read WP:OR it says under "Expert editors":
 * "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable.
 * Since the information is verifiable I will add it. - DNewhall 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Easter Egg
Seeing as this is an encyclopedia, 'type X and see what happens...' just doesn't seem to fit properly in. Does anyone know what happens, as my C=64 died years ago? Empaler 14:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Amiga Basic, C128 V7.0 Basic Deal?
I owned both an Amiga 1000 and Commodore 128 back in the mid-80s. I half-remember reading that in order to get Microsoft to agree to do a Basic for the Amiga, Commodore would have to relent and place a Microsoft copyright on its 6502 Basic for the Commodore 128. Ah, just found a reference: Biggest Deal in Computer History. Is this information worth adding to the Wiki article? 2*6 20:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, add it.  Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PEEK command on BASIC 1.0 explicitly disabled
Not being able to read the BASIC ROM in V 1.0 basic is explicitly disabled by Commodore basic, which I believe was an early form of DRM.

PEEK and POKE to locations around $EXXX were allowed for access to I/O registers, e.g.

poke 59468,14

to set lowercase characters

I can't find a reference to this yet, but I remember this from looking at the BASIC disassembly a long time ago cojoco (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Where can I find a disassembly of BASIC 1.0 for the PET? If that is unavailable, I would settle for a binary image and a hexdump. I have noticed that binaries stored on Commodore Disk drives often include that pesky 2 byte leading pointer, or load address, something that really shouldn't be there.   That's why I wanted both a binary image, and a hexdump - so I can look for erroneous disassemblies that have to be corrected before they lead to a phase error.   The main article could be improved by linking it to a website where I could download it.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

List of BASIC 2.0 Tokens needed
The main article could be improved if there were a link at a bottom telling users where they locate a list of BASIC 2.0 Tokens. Maybe there is already a list to that effect in Wikipedia, but I haven't noticed where it is. Could somebody add a link to the bottom of the main article so I could examine the hexadecimal values to the BASIC 2.0 Tokens? 198.177.27.25 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Version used in VIC-20
The source dump available on Zimmers states that the BASIC version number used in the VIC-1001 and VIC-20 is 2.1. Is this source reliable enough to cite? Thu (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing machines and versions
Hi

The "Published Versions" section makes no mention of the PET/CBM 3000 series or BASIC 3.0 which I used at school; I was using a CBM 3032 and the annunciator on boot said:

 * 1) COMMODORE BASIC ###

31743 BYTES FREE

READY. However checking version numbers internally showed up version 3.0 as did all the manuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonelaughter (talk • contribs) 08:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commodore BASIC


text:
Talk:Hot Rod (magazine)

Untitled
In my opinion, the number of magazine covers shown here is excessive and beyond a reasonable fair use claim in this context, as well as unnecessary in this article. If nobody objects, I will be pruning them. —Morven 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This month’s issue
If you are going to put trucks in hot rod maybe just one ! I have been getting hotrod for 38 years consecutively and can’t remember seeing one of all trucks I thought that is what truck magazines are for ? Thanks for listening to a Devoted reader. 96.40.88.230 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hot Rod (magazine)


text: Category:Square Enix stubs

title: Category:Square Enix stubs


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric pressure demonstration

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, as it was transwikied into Wikibooks.  Rob e  rt  14:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Atmospheric pressure demonstration
Delete, a how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks Angr/undefined 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've completed the integration into Wikibooks School science -- Egil 11:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.