text:
User talk:JeremyA/Archive03

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 25 July 2005 and 7 October 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Thank you. JeremyA (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Previous archive page: User talk:JeremyA/Archive02.
 * Next archive page: User talk:JeremyA/Archive04.

Thanks for the help
Thank you for the image uploading help on the blue Buick. I am very used to ignoring case sensitivity in a Windows environment, so it did not dawn on me that an uploaded file would be case sensitive.

I went back and looked at the instructions and could not find where it says anything about case sensitivity. Needs editing in my view, but I do not know where. BuickGuy 04:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation Protected
Dear JeremyA,

I just saw that you protected the sub-article of World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation. This article was done as an sub article to avoid an Edit war of the article about Genseiryu. Mario Roering made an NPOV article and made sub articles for both organizations. One for GKIF and one for WGKF. The last time Peter Lee from Denmark started editing the article of WGKF telling stories which are his opinion and not facts. You protected the article this early morning after he changed it according to his point of view. I wonder if it wouldn't be more fair to protect it after the people from WGKF edited the article according their side of the story. In most cases Mario changed the article and took a very neutral point of view in this article. He didn't insult somebody and he took the effort to write a NPOV. But anyway he is punished this moment. Maybe you can arrange that the article written by Mario can be the article protected, seems more fair and logic. I hope you consider this. Best regards, --TenChiJin 06:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JeremyA"

Thanks
Thank you for reverting my user page. :) - Mark 05:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ian Lustick
Since you speedied this article (which I never had the chance to see), I'd like to point out that I am recreating it. There are very clear cases of teenage vanity and advertisement which are allowed to run their course on VfD, so I think speedying this after about an hour on VfD was a bit overzealous. Lustick certainly seems notable enough, and I think being a full professor at a major university is a claim to notability that precludes speedy deletion. The previous article was apparently speedied because of blanking by the author, but that may well have been a reaction by some newbie to the VfD nomination. Uppland 13:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/12.144.5.2
I've seen you have some issues with Louis Epstein before, so I thought I'd invite you to comment on the RfC I've set up. He's crossed the line into edit warring over the em-dash thing. — Phil Welch 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Karate
Dear Jeremy, could you please do something against the vandalism and insulting language of Peter Lee, who keeps writing offensive and slandering texts about me in the summary of karate! Peter Lee claims to be learing Japanese, but he doesn't understand shit about it (or he denies the text). The site Genseiryu Karatedo tells clearly (maybe you know a Japanese administrator who can prove this!) on its main page: このホームページは、創始者・祝嶺正献の承認の元に活動している唯一の正式団体である「玄制流空手道本部」のホームページです. Meaning just as much that this is the ONLY official Genseiryu Karatedo Honbu homepage as approved by the founder Shukumine Seiken ("創始者・祝嶺正献"). "玄制流空手道本部" means 'Genseiryu Karatedo HONBU'. "正式" means 'official'. The rest of the text on the main page talks about copyright of the name Genseiryu (with special exceptions to certain people). There's no doubt here whatsover that this site IS an official site to the Genseiryu Karatedo HONBU. Peter Lee keeps deleting this, because he doesn't acknowledge this honbu, but is thus vandalizing the article. Maybe a minor thing to you, but a big thing for the practisioners of the original Genseiryu. Also, the reverts Lee makes are accompanied by summaries with smearing texts with my name in it. Is this allowed on Wikipedia??? Please act accordingly! Thanks! -- Mario R 08:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hoyland Nether
I'm no expert on the area around Barnsley, but from what I can make out, the name is now seldom - but occasionally - used (the alternative "Nether Hoyland" seems to have entirely fallen from use). It doesn't appear on any current maps I can find, but refers to what is now the central area of the town of Hoyland, which originally consisted of several villages - the various Hoylands. I would suggest merging it in to our sparse article on Hoyland. Warofdreams 13:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence
Dear JeremyA, This message I have sent to Splash. Best regards,--TenChiJin 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Dear Splash, I can deliver some proof about items that are claimed on the Genseiryu site. Only I want them to be treated confidential. They are at the moment translated by an official translator from Japanese to English. I will sent them, after the translation is ready, to JeremyA who already tried to mediate in the conflict about the Genseiryu article. Best regards,

Genseiryu
My original interest was in stopping the fight-by-edit-summary with the hope that a talk-page discussion would be more fruitful. But as soon as MarioR realised that I wasn't going to advocate his cause over the other, he went completely quiet; I've only managed to extract one slightly abusive message from the anon (presumably Peter Lee). Evidently, we have acquired a fight from the Dutch wiki where neither side is presently allowed to continue the war.

I had also considered offering to write the article myself: but I didn't manage to persuade anyone to make their case. I suppose with material from both sides, an NPOV article could be constructed, but I wonder whether it would be the 'right' NPOV or whether it would be repeatedly re-NPOV'd just as the current offerings are. It appears you are about to receive confidential materials. I'm not sure how they can be usefully incorporated into a public article short of simply making a judgement call about "the truth" — which would seem unlikely to fix anything. Perhaps the two current articles should be merged and a section or two added describing the dispute(s) between the two schools of thought, with careful presentation of both sides of the dispute.

I am not sure what kind of more draconian action might be available. File a user-behaviour RfC? Can a third party do that? Can a third party file a user-behvaiour RfAr, or would the arbitrators just reject it? I suppose we could forcibly list the issue at RfM, but given the progress so far, I'm not hopeful of success there. -Splash 20:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Jeremy (and Splash)! First of all, I understand what you did with removing the part about "the 'other' Genseiryu style" (on WGKF), however I don't believe you fully understand the importance of this part of text, but I blame myself for that (since it came not out the right way in that part of text). I have now tried to explain it on the talk page, and I have rewritten the text in a way that it now must be clear that this is important information for a full understanding of the reasoning behind the establishment of the WGKF. I sincerely hope that it's now clear. Please, let me know if you do/don't...
 * Secondly, I want to set something straight: Splash writes here that "neither side is presently allowed to continue the war". There IS no war on the nl.wiki, because this Peter Lee has been banned for one year, because of the exact same behaviour he has been showing on the en.wiki all along! So why are you still defending him? He made perfectly clear to everybody he is not willing to contribute to Wikipedia, he wants every article regarding Genseiryu removed (deleted and blocked) and he shows absolutely no sign of willingness to talk to me or anybody else connected to WGKF. Besides that, how much evidence do we still need to show you that this person is not who he really is and is nothing but a fraud, a teacher of a so called McDojo???
 * I myself have tried to write an NPOV article, even now I try to rewrite sentences in a different way as much as possible, just to stop this pointless edit war, started by Peter Lee. But Peter Lee said himself that nobody is allowed to talk about Genseiryu besides himself, so he keeps changing everything to his own POV, which is totally way off and only functions to destroy our organization and to promote his teacher's book... I hope the evidences that TenChiJin sent you, will shed some light on the situation and you will start to realize that there IS no "middle course". Although the WGKF might have made some mistakes, their story comes close enough to the real story! Do you really think that WGKF (including myself, sensei Konno, and others from WGKF involved in this conflict) would have been invited to the celebration of 55 years of Genseiryu/40 years of Taido, where the Shukumine family was present as well, if they would have been spreading lies?!? (See also here (scroll all way down): ). But nobody of GKIF was invited there!! There was no Kunihiko Tosa, there was no Peter Lee, actually, to our knowledge, there was absolutely NOBODY of GKIF present! Think about that fact!
 * Thanks again for all the time you are putting in this complicated and specialized subject... -- Mario R 12:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. FWIW, I think your current course of action is appropriate. -Splash 01:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you! Sometimes I do get a little bit carried away however. Not hard to believe regarding all the insults and name slandering I have to endure from this guy (Peter Lee)... But, I will try to work as much as possible in a Wikipedia way and listen to all the advice you, Peter van Londen and JeremyA gave me... -- Mario R 15:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Responded to your Critical Mass post
Thanks for alerting me to your talk on Critical_Mass. I responded. Michaelbluejay 20:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
Thank you for reverting the vandalism made on my user page. —M ESSED R OCKER (userpage) (talk) 02:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

User 63.19.135.105
In the last couple of weeks, the devs made a change such that a blocked user can still edit their own user and talk pages. In this case, since the person/s behind this IP only cares about editing the user talk page, the block was disappointingly ineffective. You have to protect the user talk page too. FreplySpang (talk) 03:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * See also Blocked users can edit their own talk page. --cesarb 04:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Jeremy. Good work:  you blocked the "Luxembourg", aka "Mississippi" or aka "Fake Places in North Carolina" vandal (.  He will almost certainly log out and back on with another 63.19 IP.  He's been one of the most persistent vandals around for the last couple of months; Curps, for one, likes to range-block him for an hour or two at a time.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Jeremy, thankyou very much for removing the vandalism from my user page. Rje 15:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

What to do?
Well, what you list is almost exactly what I attempted too, although you had more success than me. Just before you began doing it, I was considering reverting on-sight any edit which was a revert with an abusive edit summary. I've left you to do that, although I would have stepped in if I had been awake and the 3RR looming.

Like I said on the various talk pages, I'm sceptical of the value of taking this particular dispute to RfM since what both of us have tried has been almost completely fruitless. I think, however, that we should probably go to RfC before RfAr or there's a good chance the Arbitrators will reject a third-party case on those grounds. Will they even hear a 3rd party case? So how about we file both article and conduct RfCs simultaneously (although the article one ought to be redundant, it will do no harm) and give them a few days to see if anything comes of it? I have some diffs and commentary I can give to both RfC and RfAr, although the bullk of the evidence will necessarily come from the articles' histories. I gather you have quite a bit of other material that you or may not be able to offer. RfCs often just give an alternative forum for the scuffle to be conducted in without attracting any outside attention but that, in this case, might be better than war-by-edit-summary. -Splash 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Crikey. What is it? I'm not sure I've come across the device of making a minor change specifically for the purpose of an abusive edit summary before! We probably do have enough to go directly to arbitration, but I guess RfC is appropriate first. Meantime I'll go ask a hypothetical question on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. So, obviously I'll certify an RfC, and I don't mind writing it but do you have vastly more stuff to contribute to it than me? -Splash 20:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I am writing that RfC at the moment. It is very tedious; I can't fathom how some of the more...uh...something...editors can bare to file one of these so regularly. I'll post it once I'm done (in a while), but it will need input from you. In particular, I can't find the link to the page at nl: where Peter Lee was banned for a year, and am not sure whether to include the VfD-tag stuff early on. I'll drop you a line once it's posted.-Splash 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm still working on it. Pity they don't make RfC into FAs, because this would qualify. As a heads-up, it particularly needs any evidence you have of failed dispute resolution from your talk archives, which I haven't the energy to go through in detail. I've extracted some from Mario's and Peter's pages, and the articles' talk pages, but I don't know what may have happened here in isolation. -Splash 01:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel like putting myself in the washing machine after all that dirty laundry. Your signature and evidence are needed here in the usual 48 hours. Note that I have been through both users' talk page contributions, so what I don't have is any of your attempts to fix things, outside of those listed in the Evidence section. -Splash 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RfCs are not good things. I knew that before, and I'm sure of it now. Anyway, now that it has jumped through the various hoops, I'll let the editors in question know that it is open for their responses. I'll use Lee's main talk page, and that of the article. I'm reluctant to stick the message on a bunch of anons' pages in case they are used by others in future. -Splash 03:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In digging out the evidence, I remembered about GKIF which appears not to be part of the dispute. Do you know why this is, and how it fits in? Or just ignore this per WP:BEANS. -Splash 03:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, that last email is cause for encouragement. There may be a way ahead after all. -Splash 03:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Mario tried to make an NPOV article. One part for all organizations and 2 sub articles to avoid an edit war and to let every organization tell their story on their sub article. Mario decided to stay off the part of GKIF. Probably he sticked to this decision. This also shows the right intention off Mario although his last action was not a good choice. But this action is easy to understand if you are attacked and insulted continously. --TenChiJin 20:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  No, I didn't include it. I excluded a few of diffs of Peter Lee's on the basis that they were messages to and about users not party to the RfC. They appear to be directed at editors who dropped out of the fight early on, and I am unsure of their procedural applicability although I reckond they'd be ok in an RfAr. However, on reading that particular one more carefully (I looked at soooo many), I see it does deal with the other party, and so I will add it. -Splash 03:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That link you are looking for is now in the archive of "Stemlokaal": . Again, hope to be of a little help... -- Mario R 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have prepared but not filed separate RfCs if such is insisted upon widely. I was personally rather disappointed that anyone supposed they could adequately deal with 150+ diffs in a single dismissive sentence, but there we go. The price we pay for policy. I am deeply sceptical of the value of separate RfCs in this case: I hope, perhaps futilely, that a new forum for them to jointly talk in will be useful. Separate RfCs wouldn't achieve that. In any case, both could comment in each others, and most if not all outside views would have to be duplicated in large part. If the community insists on separate RfCs, I propose we give them a matter of days to succeed or fail and then proceed directly to Arbitration. We can point out to the Arbitrators the cackhandedness of RfC if that happens. I personally see no value in presenting this to Mediation since the parties must agree to it, have indicated that they will not (as shown by the diffs), and have not responded to informal mediation. But that is just my personal opinion. Bedtime. -Splash 05:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so. It's been more than a week of RfC. Mario has responded, Peter Lee has refused, we have outside views from nl: and from here. I did ask Mario if he would suggest a way forwards, but he hasn't edited significanty since then. What shall we do? Unprotect and see if everything resumes? (Thanks for the strong support by the way; I'll do proper thank-yous at the end of the week.)-Splash 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your earlier message disappeared inside another one and I didn't notice it when I pressed "last diff". Ok, yes, I suppose unprotecting and holding our breaths is next in line. Range blocks on those IPs look ok at the moment, and I guess someone will shout if they're hit by it. There's a page full of instruction about range-blocks somewhere around... -Splash 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How tiresome. Do you think it's at all interesting that those edits were at 4am his time? I know I edit at that kind of time, but I'm fairly sure that's more the exception than the rule. He's 'edited' late before, I suppose. Anyway, I'll revert if he carries on. -Splash 13:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Separate filings
Please see this discussion on Splash's talk page, as it addresses both of your concerns. Acetic Acid 07:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

SuperShadow VfD
Greetings: pawing through the SuperShadow edit history, I noticed you've edited the page in question before. I thought you'd want to know it is now the subject of a Vote for Deletion, at Articles for deletion/SuperShadow. If you want, you could stop in there and cast a vote. --Maru 22:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sheffield Neepsend
Your excellent contributions to the Sheffield Central article prompted me to look over our related articles. Where did you find the information on the earlier elections? And do you whether Neepsend was really abolished in 1955? Although that date is given here, it seems suspiciously soon after creation, and no other Sheffield constituencies were altered until 1983. thanks, Warofdreams 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the strong support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. It does beging to appear that the Genseiryu Wars, if not over, are calming down which is a relief. Hopefully, we can avoid RfAr. Anyway, thanks again! -Splash 23:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for reverting vandalism to my user page:

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this Wiki Defender Barnstar for defense of Wikipedia against vandalism.

Take care, Molotov (talk)  21:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Future Constituencies
Thanks for the reply regarding future British constituencies. It will take a while to put all the seats up there, I think I'm up to G or H, so a while to go. Thanks also for putting up some new seat articles; that'd stop me from worrying when I create the link and note the active links :)

Cheers again doktorb 11:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:ChicagoWinter1.jpg
Just saw your picture of Lincoln Park in the winter. I recently moved from Chicago to a small city in Minnesota. There are many aspects of Chicago I was happy to leave behind: the traffic, the lack of parking, and so on. And yet I do miss it as well. Seeing your photograph definitely made me feel a bit homesick—in a good way. So I thought I'd pop by and say thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh man, I used to dread those orange signs. I think I would have rather the streets just remain dirty! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent vandals
I could use an admin hand to step in where Fvw left off earlier tonight. Are you game? A quick look at my recent contributions should give you an idea of what I'm up against.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks much. Your help is greatly appreciated.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
I didnt know i could get banned. Sorry i thought it was just for my screen. we didnt find out until now. my bad

Charlie Holder
I am a student at Georgia Tech and out teacher asked to post about something and I wanted to post about myself. The first time it was deleted because of "vanity" but I didn't intend it like that. The second time it was deleted by you because of "bio" and I was just wondering if bios aren't allowed or what? If that's the reason then that is fine. Is it possible for my teacher to see the deleted post if he were to go to where the post used to be? Thanks.

Charlie

Webdirectory/Links
You state that wikipedia is not a webdirectory. First, make a point by defining what a webdirectory is then, and what the function of wikipedia should be, since it is an ONLINE medium. The only PRO for Wikipedia compared to normal printed media is that it can link to pages on the internet. Mediawiki is developed with THAT in mind. Certainly up to the point where links are needed to illustrate the writing they are therefore necessary. What you do is simply boldly delete ALL links YOU personally don't find interesting or appropriate relating to the article. In that case you can do the exact same for about 10000 other pages in wikipedia, and I sure hope you will soon find yourself asking what the hell your plan in life is; To be helpful or to annoy people? Now the only thing I see you do is obstruct the sharing of knowledge and blocking information from the reader by blindly deleting carefully selected (and over the years collected) External links. I had a life once, now I have a mission: I will keep on putting them all back for the innocent viewer looking for info. 194.109.22.148 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Isle of May
Thanks for your comments on the Isle of May article, and for the pictures of the lighthouses — the one of Stevenson's lighthouse is particularly good. I have never been to the island myself, but having spent time researching it for the article I am very keen to get out there next time I am in that part of the country! Best wishes Jll 20:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Behavior therapy
I noticed that you redirected behavior therapy to cognitive therapy. While cognitive therapy is sometimes called "cognitive behavior therapy", my dictionary suggests that "behavior therapy" is another name for "behavior modification". Is this a more appropriate target for the redirect? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's RfA
Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Newcomer with policy inquiry
I've recently joined Wikipeda as a editor of mostly technical articles and have been a bit 'fuzzy' about the policies regarding external links: Through observation I've noticed that edits containing external links to certain websites will get reverted by an admin. Most of the time it's software websites.

What is the specific policy being followed here? (confused) Frogtumor 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

User:203.144.9.73
I just reverted this anon's vandalism of the abortion article. I noticed you gave him/her a final warning on September 14th. I'm not sure what to do now. Thanks for your help--Shanel 01:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I actually forgot there that people usually have dynamic IP adresses.--Shanel 00:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:JeremyA/Archive03


text: Category:Cathedrals in Denmark

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

title: Category:Cathedrals in Denmark


text:
Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)

Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3, 2003 SCC 62, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which followed the Nova Scotia Supreme Court's finding that a delay in building French language schools in Nova Scotia violated the claimants' minority language educational rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This finding led to an important debate regarding the scope of section 24(1) of the Charter, which provides for remedies for those whose rights are infringed, and the applicability of the common law doctrine of functus officio. While the Supreme Court of Canada split on what constitutes an appropriate usage of section 24(1), the majority favoured a section 24(1) with broad, flexible capabilities.

Background
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, Nova Scotia's past had not been marked by a great deal of governmental action for providing education in French. After 1982, however, section 23 was added to the Constitution of Canada, thus creating a right for Francophone and Acadian Nova Scotians to schooling in their own language, provided that they were of a sufficient number. Several Francophone families in five school districts, Kingston/Greenwood, Chéticamp, Île Madame-Arichat (Petit-de-Grat), Argyle, and Clare, tried to invoke that right, requesting new buildings or programs for primary and secondary education, and the provincial government responded with affirmation that section 23 did indeed mandate that this request be fulfilled. This affirmation was, however, followed by delay, and in 1998, with no schools having been built, the minority language community turned to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to move the government to meet its obligation.

The court heard the case in October 1999. The court was led by Justice LeBlanc, who found that section 23 required new schools and programs for the families. Moreover, he ruled that the delay in construction also constituted an infringement of the claimants' section 23 rights. He reached the latter conclusion by pointing out that French language Nova Scotians were increasingly being absorbed into the English-language community. Hence, any further delay would eventually jeopardize the existence of the French community. Since the French community's requests were also anchored on a constitutional principle, they also deserved priority. Accordingly, LeBlanc used section 24(1) of the Charter to set deadlines and demand that the government report to him as construction progressed.

The obligation of the provincial government to report to Justice LeBlanc was disputed, as it was considered a violation of functus officio, in which a judge makes a ruling and afterwards has no authority. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal sided with the government and overturned the requirement of reporting, citing concerns about moving Canada towards United States-style injunctions and upsetting the relationship between the Canadian court system and the government. The argument that section 23 gave the claimants a right to French programs and schools, however, was not questioned.

Decision
While construction had been completed by the time the minority language families appealed their case to the Supreme Court of Canada, Justices Frank Iacobucci and Louise Arbour, writing for the majority of the Court, declined to set aside the case for mootness. They went on to vindicate the position of Justice LeBlanc and overturn the Court of Appeal.

Section 23
The majority of the Supreme Court approved the creative method for enforcing section 23 partly by emphasizing the importance of section 23 and how it was always meant to be an enforceable right. Section 23, they wrote, has a "remedial nature... designed to correct past injustices not only by halting the progressive erosion of minority official language cultures across Canada, but also by actively promoting their flourishing." Hence, section 23 is a positive right requiring government action.

Section 24
Regarding section 24, the majority cited past Charter cases such as R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1986), Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985), and Vriend v. Alberta (1998) to point out that the courts have approached the Charter with a "generous and expansive interpretation and not a narrow, technical, or legalistic one." This style of interpretation, the majority felt, was just as applicable for remedies as rights, and they observed the broad wording of section 24(1), which merely dictates that the court will award a "remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances." Since section 23 must be enforced, section 24(1) must be "responsive" to an infringement of the right, and since section 24(1) is itself an important part of the Charter, the remedy must be "effective." While judicial restraint is important, it is limited by the obligation of the Court to enforce constitutional rights.

The circumstances, which included the threat that the French language would eventually disappear, were judged to require a remedy that would ensure the right would be met in a reasonable amount of time. The section 24(1) phrase limiting remedies, requiring that they be "appropriate and just in the circumstances", was defined partly as giving the courts themselves the right to determine what was appropriate and just, although judges should be aware of doctrines such as functus officio. The Supreme Court also defined an "appropriate and just remedy," as being one that upholds the right, including with regard to circumstances. It is also appropriate and just to remember that as part of the constitution, and with broad wording, section 24 can "evolve to meet the challenges and circumstances of those cases" and can have "novel and creative features." The Court should avoid taking functions it could not hold and should be fair to the government, but in this case hearing reports was judged to allow the court to exercise its constitutional function to enforce rights. In addition, the court would not "improperly take over the detailed management and co-ordination of the construction projects."

With regard to functus officio, the Court ruled that this common law principle cannot invalidate section 24, although it is an important consideration. The Court ultimately concluded functus officio was not violated because the reports did not "alter a final judgment." While LeBlanc could see reports, he could not change his decision to further define section 23.

Dissent
The justices who did not side with Iacobucci and Arbour did not dispute the applicability or importance of section 23. Instead, a dissent regarding the usage of section 24(1) was written by Justices Louis LeBel and Marie Deschamps. They justified their dissent on the grounds that in order for the courts to "avoid turning themselves into managers of the public service... Judicial interventions should end when and where the case of which a judge is seized is brought to a close." In their view, Justice LeBlanc seeing reports amounted to overseeing the construction, which violated functus officio and the separation of powers, which could, in turn, threaten judicial independence. The dissenting justices also felt Justice LeBlanc had an option not to require reports, and section 23 still could have been enforced.

Justice LeBlanc's expectations, moreover, were not judged to be clear enough to the government. Fundamental justice was thus seen as having been violated.

The majority responded to these concerns by arguing that "the approach taken by... LeBel and Deschamps JJ. which appears to contemplate that special remedies might be available in some circumstances, but not in this case, severely undervalues the importance and the urgency of the language rights in the context facing LeBlanc J."


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nucular Power

 * 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 – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Nucular Power
(Probable) neologism, inheritely POV and unencyclopedic. Probably counts as original research. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV attack —Wahoofive (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, well said. --W.marsh 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nuclear power. Pburka 03:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, redirect to Nucular. Pburka 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Do not redirect, it's not a common typo. -Splash talk 03:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Splash, I don't understand. Even if its never used, whats the harm in the redirect?  Furthermore, to me, it seems a likely misspelling.  --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 05:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a common mispronunciation, not a common misspelling —Wahoofive (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * #REDIRECT → Nuclear Power, R from misspelling --Mysidia (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cute attack and all but make #REDIRECT as per Mysidia. Qaz  ( talk ) 07:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nuclear power. feydey 15:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We can't make every possible misspelling of every word a redirect. -R. fiend 17:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect. I agree with nom; inherently POV. Btm 20:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite giving me a chuckle, it's not something for an encyclopedia.  Bushytails 06:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Create redirect to Nuclear power. That misspelling is actually somewhat common. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually no, not so much a misspelling as a satirical one, like lurve or yoof. So a redirect would be a bad idea. But anyway that's all been dealt with already at Nucular. So delete. Flapdragon 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know... I go to college and copyedit a lot of papers. That one actually gets thrown around seriously. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nuclear power. Redirects are cheap.  Jkelly 01:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN and redirect to nuclear power. Nice POV satire regarding the inability of a lot of people to pronounce "nuclear" as noo-clur rather than noo-clear. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:32, 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/Ceraphite

 * 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus Karmafist 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Explanation on Talk Page

Ceraphite
This sounds bogus to me. If anyone can provide solid evidence that this material actually exists, then by all means keep it, but a Google search yields very little except Wikipedia mirrors, so I'm doubtful. —Keenan Pepper 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, the content is barely paraphrased from http://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/6.html. —Keenan Pepper 01:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is parphrased enough not to be a copyvio, IMO, but that site does not use this name Ceraphite

Newsgroups: sci.chem.electrochem From: rek...@gmail.com - Date: 30 Sep 2005 08:09:10 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 30 2005 11:09 am Subject: Re: Looking for more info on Ceraphite "aka white carbon" tia sal
 * Comment Found on usenet:

Searching the Science Citation Index brings up exactly 1 result for 'ceraphite' from a 1977 meeting abstract in the obscure journal 'Carbon'. The title of the abstract is "Ceraphite, a hard and high-strength new carbon material". The abstract is cited all of zero times. Unless it has another common name, sounds like a case of wikipedia syndrome to me.
 * This makes me suspicious. The radiochemistry.org cite seems good evidence that there is such a materiel, but not that Ceraphite is the proper name for that substance. DES (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: the material seems to originate from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I suspect that this is just a misspelling of "graphite" (which is, indeed, a very soft substance) that has propagated due to other sites copying the LANL page. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No I think not. The following sites all list it as a separate form of carbon, and do not seem to be wikipedia mirrors or derived from wikipedia:, , , and . However none of them discuss its properties or confirm the description in the current article in any way. The only site i could find that does, other than obvious wikipedia mirors, is but this may still be dereived from wikipedia info. By the way, mirrors are everywhere. After excluding from a google search "wqikipedia" "GFDL" "GNU" "stub" and a phrase from the current article, there are nearly 400 hits, the vast majority of which are derived from the wikipedia article or the usenet post that questions the wikipedia article. DES (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: DOE laboratories are managed by contractors and the source may be copyrighted. -- Kjkolb 03:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although there doesn't seem to be much information on ceraphite, Carbon and several external sites on carbon allotropes list it. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you hear that anyone can edit Wikipedia? Pilatus 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless supported by primary literature. Please note that some phases of carbon are formed only under extreme conditions, and that is why not all reports are trustworthy. I don't particularly feel like scouring Gmelin's Handbook for a reliable reference. Pilatus 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: No hits on PubMed or sciencedirect.com (sources of primary literature), however one seemingly authoritative hit from Google Scholar (Hazardous Materials Chemistry for Emergency Responders, p. 52). The above comment was made by Btm.
 * That Hazmat book is a secondary reference. The Scientific Citation Index lists the substance just once, in a 1977 conference abstract, as the usenet posting quoted above says. It was never followed up with a full paper as far as I can tell. Pilatus 21:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is suppsoed to be a tertiary reference. Secondary sources are perfectly acceptable to support articles here, indeed there is some suspicion of an article with only primary sources. A demand for primary refernces is not acceptable. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment That Hazmat entry look like the probable source for the current version of the entry -- indeed the wrding is clsoe enough for one paragehp to be almost a copyvio. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure if this is the same article as the 1977 conference—it was presented at a conference in 1979 and published in the journal Wear in 1980 (I wish I could provide a link instead of quoting the abstract here; unfortunately I cannot). Btm 05:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Surface wear characteristics of some hard carbons * 1

 * H. M. Hawthorne

 * National Research Council of Canada, Mechanical Engineering Division, Western Laboratory, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

 * Received 15 October 1979. Available online 10 February 2003.

 * Abstract: The surface resistance to damage of homogeneous hard carbons such as glassy low temperature isotropic pyrolytic (LTI) and Ceraphite carbons have been determined by the falling abrasive particle test using SiC grit. Surfaces prepared from within the bulk of the glassy carbon specimens exhibit wear resistance proportional to their microindentation hardness but material near their virgin surfaces shows a lower resistance to this low velocity impact wear. Both pure and silicon-alloyed LTI carbons and Ceraphite material show considerably greater wear than the bulk glassy carbons of the same hardness. However, all of the hard carbons exhibit much greater surface damage resistance than other materials of comparable hardness such as mild steel or soda-lime glass. Microscopic surface examination indicates that brittle fracture is the main wear mode of the hard carbons in this test and the results are interpreted in terms of the microstructural features and characteristic elasticity properties of these solids.

 * * 1 Paper presented at the International Conference on Wear of Materials 1979, Dearborn, Michigan, April 1979.

 * Surface wear characteristics of some hard carbons
 * Wear, Volume 60, Issue 1, April 1980, Pages 167-182
 * H. M. Hawthorne

 * Delete. Um, nn allotrope? No, I suppose that won't do. How's this - the article is doomed to remain non-encyclopedic, because all sources repeat the same few short sentences about it. My fear is that it is bogus, and the wikipedia syndrome is just spreading it far and wide. Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The above does not sound like a description of the "supersoft" substance described in the current article. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was started in Dec. 2004, so it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that the Wikipedia article was derived from one of these sources and not vice versa. It also seems pretty clear that this is not a hoax, as the Los Alamos National Laboratory uses the term here (pdf) and UC Berkeley does so here (giving the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and the American Chemical Society as the sources for the page).  I agree that there is little in the primary literature, but we must remember that most of the databases of scientific articles only include articles dating back to the early '90s and there is no quick way to do thorough search on such an obscure topic.  So, I vote to keep, because although obscure, an allotrope of carbon is quite notable and encyclopedic. Btm 05:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Both Carbon and Wear are awfully obscure Elsevier journals. Also note that the papers that go into Wear don't deal with the difficult subject of metastable phases in the phase diagram of carbon. The word isn't mentioned once in an ACS journal. As the editor who put the article up still hasn't put a source to back up his claim the entry ought to go; too many people have already wasted their time with it. Pilatus 14:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have done some more digging, which should settle the question. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1973, 3, 195 mentions the mineral chaoite as a recently discovered carbon allotrope. The article then continues to say claims were made than an identical material is prepared by subliming graphite at high temperature and low pressure. "In spite of these seemingly definitive reports ... several other groups have tried unsuccessfully to reproduce these experiments. Independent confirmatory work is obviously needed in this area, and at the present time white graphite appears to be the carbon analog of polywater. Delete and redirect to chaoite, or get rid of the spurious phase altogether. Pilatus 14:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or redir to Chaoite w/ mention of possible alt. name in chaoite. Vsmith 15:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite to cite the sources listed above, and document the confused nature of the primary literature, adn the absence of a clear source for the current description. DES (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, definately. This was the article that lead me to learning of Ceraphite and if we delete this page we may as well remove it completely from the Carbon page as well.  Also, with advancing scientific research we should soon be able identify a mollecular structure for it and maybe even get some pictures of it.  Also there is no proof that ceraphite is chaoite.  It says chaoite is grey or white whereas ceraphite is white, no mention of gray. User:Rickem
 * There is no proof that ceraphite even exists. It is mentioned in two conference abstracts, and the review cited in the chaoite entry cautions that those reports were not reproducible at all. IIRC, chaoite is a carbyne phase. Pilatus 00:21, 14 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Mr Creosote

Name
Why was he called Creosote? Any ideas?--Jack Upland 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, but eating food or drinking water containing a lot of creosote, a sort of liquid obtained by the distilling tar, causes stomach pains, etc. Perhaps it's a reference to the character's obvious gastric problems. --Polylerus 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That being said, the Pythons did refer to creosote in a sketch in the episode "Face the Press" (Episode #14, aired 9/15/70). It's the one where Eric Idle, playing the moderator, interviews a governmment official in a pink dress, played by Graham Chapman, as well as patch of brown liquid ("...such as creosote"). The Pythons liked to reuse words and names in their sketches. --Polylerus 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on creosote mentions that the wood-tar variety of it has been used medicinally as a laxative, an expectorant and an emetic (it makes you vomit) among other things. Pretty simple really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.59.136 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Death
Did he die? Cuzandor 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC) No he didn't, he explodes and then pay the bill. So we can assume that he has done this procedure before.

 * That would be a foolhardy assumption. -- 71.102.194.130 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am fond of telling people that the Mr Creosote sketch is the world's shortest tragedy. He is destroyed by his own failings. There are surely useful parallels elsewhere with the role of the waiter as facilitator. A pity that Terry Jones in no longer with us. He would surely have had something to say. Python must have thought about this; they are generally very interested in form and structure. Is there anything helpful that can be said?118.67.199.162 (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr?
Why does "Mr" not have a period after it in the title, and in other places? Is it supposed to be like this? Should this page redirect to "Mr. Creosote"? Something is wrong, because both "Mr" and "Mr." are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.123.246 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 March 2007

 * "Mr" with no period is UK use, "Mr." with period is US use. Izaakb 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe you're wrong, Izaakb. If you'd check earlier works by well-known British authors now in the public domain, you'd find that dropping the period after abbreviations such as Mr., Mrs. and St. is a rather recent development, most likely introduced by lazy and/or semi-literate tabloid journalists.  We find other, but similarly nonsensical punctuation anomalies in contemporary journalism emanating from American sources. Just because an error is fashionable doesn't make it "right".—QuicksilverT @ 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia also does not use Middle English, which at one time was correct and proper. Languages are not monolithic, and on Wikipedia, current usage is preferred.  Mr with no period is current usage in UK English.  References:

 * Oxford Grammar and Punctuation: ''http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Grammar-Punctuation-John-Seely/dp/0199233462/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237571452&sr=8-2

 * English Grammar Online: http://www.ego4u.com/en/business-english/communication/business-letter/salutation''
 * Among other references.  regards!  izaakb    ~talk ~contribs 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
"pronounced 'caruso' "

I'm taking this out. There is no citation, and it sure sounds like the fish in The Meaning of Life says "Creosote" if you ask me. The "t" may be barely (if at all) audible, but I hear no "u." Funkeboy 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mr Creosote.PNG
Image:Mr Creosote.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger_proposal
If the article survives deletion, should it be merged with the main article on the film? I'm leaning toward merge, but I am not a member of the project and only came to know this page existed through the AfD. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I would recommend notifying the relevant project if you have not yet done so. Best, --Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok. Pretty sure we aren't going to reach consensus on the merger. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance
Protonk asserts that this article is of low importance. I studied the scale and consider that the article is obviously of high importance. The discussion at the AFD, where Protonk seems out of step with the general consensus, seems to confirm this. I shall therefore continue to edit accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever man. It's "mid" for now. Mr. Creosote is a character in a sketch in one of Monty Python's less successful movies. do you mean to really tell me that with regard to the history of film, he is more important than Jake Gittes, Rick Deckard, Tom Joad, to name a few? Heck, Charles Foster Kane is only above him in your scale because he is of "top" importance. And I see the general consensus is that he is notable, not that he is of high importance to the project. Protonk (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Edit. Turns out CFK redirects to the film. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * My opinion was formed by reference to the scale. The difference between depth of knowledge and more minor details is a matter of degree but I consider that Mr Creosote is more than a minor detail.  As compared with your other examples (two of which I had to look up), I consider that Mr Creosote is more significant as, while they are fairly conventional heroes/protagonists, Mr Creosote is more distinctively memorable.  I am not inclined to edit immediately over this difference since the matter seems unimportant so suggest we wait on input from other editors before returning to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Depth of knowledge here refers to the field itself. The way I look at it, this question should be similar to asking a film professor how important topic X is to the study of film.  Or a historian.  The ranking should help guide the project toward making edits on subjects that are more central to the field.  I'm going out on a limb here (I'm not a film historian), but I suspect if you ask a historian how important Mr. Creosote is to film (Or, to phrase it in the terms used by the ranking, "How important is knowledge of Mr. Creosote in establishing a breadth of knowledge in the field?"), the answer would either be "who?" or "not very".  Even a student of film who rightly recognizes British sketch comedy as significant among developments in the medium will probably tell you "not very".  Try this.  Assemble, in your mind, the most important elements of WHATEVER the Pythons have done, in rank order.  This includes the pythons as a group, individual members, TV shows, and films, scenes, etc.  How far down the list do you have to go before you reach a character?  I have to go about 15 spots, and the first character I come to is Chapman's Brian.  Now, imagine where on the list of FILM each of those elements of the python list fall. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. DMacks (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Creosote → Mr Creosote — It's the correct spelling of Mr in UK English. Ericoides (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment what does the creditroll say? Was this creeping informalism in UK English used in the film's credits? If not, it should not be renamed. UK English certainly didn't drop the dot before. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I can't find the creditroll on YouTube and don't have the DVD. Do you mean before 1983? Ericoides (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just popped in the DVD. The film does not have separate listings for characters at the end credits (and has no opening credits). It just has listed at the end that the film "was written by and starred" followed by the six of them. However, for what it's worth, in the DVD's episode selection feature the section is listed as "Mr Creosote: the Meaning of Fat".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support. I have searched Google Books and though  is somewhat more common,   is also well represented and this does not appear to be directly a common naming issue, but simply based on the author's manner of abbreviating mister based on their background. Because this is a British-related subject, and because this is the prior name of the article that was moved without discussion in December 2009 because the person was unfamiliar with the British convention (see the edit summary), it should be moved back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability
At present, there is no indication that this article's topic harbor any notability that is independent of ''The Meaning of Life". Of the four references/citations currently in the article:
 * One is just a link to the clip on YouTube, which is not a secondary source, and cannot go to notability.
 * One is just a recitation of some of the dialogue.
 * One is a link to a Channel 4 story that has gone dead. I tried using that site's search engine to find "Creosote" and "Tarantino", but found nothing. Interestingly, the editor who added it didn't even bother including the Volume number that was clearly a part of that story's title, because it just said, "Quentin Tarantino on Kill Bill Vol." Fortunately, a found a replacement url via Google, but this isn't really about critical reception, as Tarantino merely mentions the scene grossed him out. That is hardly something that goes to notability, and the one passage in that section that is about critical reception, which mentions "other critics" and Leonard Maltin, would go to notability if it were sourced, but it isn't, and I could not find a replacement for it. I removed that passage.
 * The Yorkshire Post citation is the one secondary source that is valid, but by itself, and even with the Tarantino bit, this does not demonstrate notability that is independent of the film itself. The material in it should simply be added to the article on the film, which I have just done now with the Tarantino passage.

Unless secondary sources can be provided to establish independent notability for this one scene, it should be deleted. Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, of course an article should be deleted if there are no reliable secondary independent sources substantively treating it. But we only delete articles if those sources do not exist, not if they haven't been substantiated through citation. The only way this could be properly deleted is at AfD, and the very first thing you should do before taking it to AfD is to spend thirty seconds doing a Google Books and News Archive search and then you wouldn't properly take it to AfD because that search would reveal that there are huge numbers of those sources in existence so there's no basis for deletion on notability grounds and you would be wasting everyone's time in nominating it (which is also why a prod would be inappropriate). Your choices would appear to be: source it yourself, tag it with an appropriate maintenance tag (e.g., refimprove) and/or call attention to the issue, maybe at WikiProject Monty Python. For those reasons, I'm not sure what your purpose is in stating how poor the sourcing currently is. Note that I am in no way defending the sorry state of this article's sourcing (and in fact believe and have in the past argued that we should delete unsourced and poorly sourced articles [and not doing so has gotten us into the current mess of a few million such articles]; I support making verifiability have teeth for present sourcing, such as through something like Requests for verification. Those pragmatic policies have never caught on and so we molly coddle the unsourced and poorly sourced. But that policy, that I would support, is not now nor has ever been the state of actual policy and guideline.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mr Creosote


text:
Regina City Council

Regina City Council is the governing body of Regina, the capital city of the central Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The council, which meets in Henry Baker Hall at Queen Elizabeth II Court, consists of the mayor, who is elected city-wide, and ten councillors representing ten wards throughout the city. The current council was elected to a four-year term on November 9, 2020.

title: Regina City Council


text: Category:Regina, Saskatchewan

title: Category:Regina, Saskatchewan


text:
Talk:Midian

NPOV or not
This is not very NPOV.... it assumes biblical events & explanations as fact... fundies may so believe, but many think thats a crock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.122.179 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I understand your reasoning, the article mentions multiple times that information on Midian and the Midianites comes largely from the Bible. --Merovingian (t) (c) 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is very NPOV. For such characters of such antiquity the ONLY information we have of them is legend, deduction and what is believed to be holy writ. You must either prove the current sources wrong or find another. The only thing is that achaeology is confirming these sources. I would dare suggest that the reader may be the one who needs to consider if they have a neuteral point of view. --Avanduyn (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In instances where the Bible is the only source of information, the Wiki page must include, "according to the biblical book of Numbers..." or words to that effect. For NPOV, one cannot take ANY single source as factual, even if that single source is the Bible... especially if it's the Bible! --Edward-F (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. When writing or editing an encyclopaedic article, the onus is not on the editor to prove the current source wrong. The source has to be proven right for it to be presented as fact.--Edward-F (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, which books/sources would you consider to be proven right from around this period, or indeed any period before the printing press? Epideme (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is a farce. It even speculates about Abraham's motives while he fulfilled god's commission. As the existence of Abraham is very much unproven, never mind his god, this is nowhere near the standard required for an encyclopaedia. It has to go. FergusM1970 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Moses' Orders
Ive added to the section describing Moses' prescribed punishment for the Midianites. According to the Book of Numbers, he ordered his soldiers to kill all male children, and all non-virgin females. He then allowed the Israelite men to take the virgin women.

Marcadams99 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Marcus, July, 20th, 2007

"Citation Needed" Tags
I've added tags on three paragraphs that really kicked off some questions. If we've only tentatively identified the Midianites with the Hyksos, it seems odd for the article to claim that they have a specific geographic location, economy, or archaeological finds. I won't be able to take a look at this stuff until towards the end of the month, but if no one's addressed these citations, I'll start digging into my archaeology journals. Justin Eiler 23:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed those sections--they're quoted below. Anyone who has a citation for these assertions is more than welcome to re-add the sentences and plug in the citations.

From "Midian"
 * Further evidences of the geographical position of the Midianites appear in a survey of their history.

From "Economy" (section header removed)
 * For a time during the decline of Egyptian power in the Levant, the Midianites controlled the copper mines at Timna. They were a sophisticated people whose territory sat astride several important trade routes of the ancient world- including the King's Highway. Rolls of fine cloth and beads have been discovered at Midianite sites, as well as fine objects of worked copper.

From "Midian"
 * Copper sculptures of serpents from Midianite sites are reminiscent of the Biblical story of Nahushtan (Numbers 21:6-9), a bronze snake statue created by Moses to stave off snake attacks. This has led to speculation of an ophidian cult among the Midianites, as existed among other ancient people, such as the Marsi.

Justin Eiler 16:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Article moved
For reference during the discussion:

This article was moved from Midian to Midian (son of Abraham) with the edit summary "for consistency". I don't understand that. Of the sons of Abraham, only Medan has a more significant meaning and that son's article is therefore located at Medan (son of Abraham). There was no need to move the others, as they are not ambiguous. See WP:NAME. Please comment below as I am inclined to move it (and the others) back. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem right! I cannot find any reason as well! --Submitter to Truth (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It's odd that this article makes no mention of the person Midian or of any connection between the Midianites and Abraham; therefore, I have take the "son of Abraham" page and turned it into a bio page for the person. This page can then remain focused on the region and the people. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ODD RESULTS ON FIREFOX
The printable version, when Viewed on Firefox, looks normal, but when printed via Firefox the Hebrew words are reversed -- the correct letters but running left-to-right instead of right-to-left. This does not happen with IE7, which prints the Hebrew correctly. Darndest thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.242.140 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say the name in Arabic?
Why does it say the name in Arabic? If we were to put it in more languages, then Greek would probably take a bigger priority. The Arabic version of the Bible came much later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.56.20 (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the People of the Book, Christians Jews and Islamics speak different languages. In the time of Midian the languages of western Arabia were Afroasiatic Beja, Cushitic, Berber and Omotic rather than semitic. The writing originated in Arabia and did not come from outside, was not western semitic, Canaanite, Akkadian or Egyptian but rather an Arabian language written in Thamudic script (wasums) developed from rock art. The language at Elat was Egyptian and in Edom was Canaanite c 1450 BC

And because Midyan is an area in Greater Arabia, and its history part of Arabian lore. Asking this question presupposes certain biases and a POV. Have you looked at Midian on a map lately? Putting the Arabic for a place name that is considered in Arabia is as proper as it gets. In any case for non-original research examine Richard Burton's travels through Midian. - Anonymous 208.65.192.1 (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing detail in reference
In the time of Midian the languages of western Arabia were Afroasiatic Beja, Cushitic, Berber and Omotic [13] rather than semitic. "Loprieno "Ancient Egyptian" p5"

Does anyone have an actual reference to this comment? I looked the mentioned book up in Google books und could not find anything on p5.

Google Books Ancient Egyptian "Loprieno" http://books.google.com/books?id=5OkIeaxGg2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Loprieno+Ancient+Egyptian&hl

August09 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious Speculation around Mouth Horeb
--Avanduyn (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)I personally found this section to be speculative in it's current form and believe it needs extensive clarification and referencing before entering the main article again. I have left it here to aid in it's development.

The Midianites also seem to have been centered around a cultic site at Mount Horeb. This has led some scholars to speculate that the worship of YHWH (a name of God in Judaism) may have actually begun among the Midianites to be adapted later by the Israelites, a claim contested by many Christian scholars. Josephus, in "Antiquities Of The Jews," BK IV, Chapter VI, clearly contradicts this claim as he portrays in extensive narrative the seduction of young men of the Israelite Army, during the time of Moses, by Midianite women who enticed the Israelites through lewdness and idolatry to worship their gods in return for their remaining with them. An Egyptian inscription refers to "Yhw in the land of the Shasu" as a tribe or people living in what would later become Midianite territory.

New Bible References Secton
It seems to me that the Bible References in it's current form is an attempt at retelling every bible story with midian in it in as condensed a version as possible. I believe this article needs to be encyclopedic and far more objective in telling us about Midian. Hence I will use this page as a developmental section as I work toward a replacement section... which may take some time.

Yet it may yet prove that this section will have to be merged with 'History' due to the fact that much of what we know of them comes mostly from the Hebrew scriptures.--Avanduyn (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginnings
At the first we find Abraham begetting Midian by his concubine and then some time later Issac by his wife Sarah; from Issac we find Esau who went and dwelt in Mt. Seir  and lived with the troglodytes, to found the race of Edomites. This land came to be known by the Hebrews as Edom, which Esau and those after him ruled. Yet various people populated this vast land, namely the Children of Midian and the incestuous product of Lot and his older daughter, the Moabites, along with a sprinkling of Amorites to Lot's younger daughter. These races live seperately but contemporaniously; but the book of Genesis clearly shows how the Moabites came to the dominance in a singular battle "in the field of Moab" against the forces of Midian. Some five hundred years later when the children of Israel return we still find the continuance of this contemporaneous co-existance with dominance of Moab in Balak's and the Midianites collusion to exterminate Israel.

Location and Lifestyle
Archeaology grants us with a spread of 'Midianite wares' rangeing from Iraq, Jordan, Arabia to the Negev desert in southen Israel, presenting us with a spread population not just limited to the domains of Edom. Yet their own lands cannot be easily defind, but available evidence indicates that it must have extended from the eastern shores of the Sinai peninsula to the deserts east of the Gulf of Aqabah, Edom and Moab.

This race of tent-dwellers were led by five kings, each representing one of Midian's five son, of which the tribe of Epher seems to have been the wealthiest, typified by the copious trade in camels an dromidaries. . The story of Joseph also presents them as unscrupled traders, willing to sell their second or third half cousin into slavery.

The enterance of several million hostile people into Palastine, mustered every fiber of cowardice or of desperate resistance.

<? --- more to come on use of 'Swift Camels' - Judges 6-8 two princes Oreb (Hebrew: עֹרֵב, Orev) and Zeeb (Hebrew: זְאֵב, Z'ev)

Any connection to Midian (son of Abraham)?
I noticed that this article makes no mention of any connection between the Midianites and the son of Abraham. So, I removed the redirect from "Midian (son of Abraham)" and made that a separate article on the person. But I also notice that the article on Abraham says he is the founder of the Midianites. If this is correct, then I think it should be mentioned in this article; if it's not correct, it needs to be removed from the Abraham article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that though there has been vigorous studies on The Bible, the information given is incomplete and lacks substance in a lot of cases. The midianites a tribe from Abrahams marriage to Keturah Genesis 25:1-2 have been placed geographicaly in present day Yemen and this is incorrect from The Bible. Midianites were a tribe that belonged to ethiopia Numbers 12:1. from whom Moses married his wife Ziporah. This would mean that Moses met GOD first on the mountains of Ethiopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.106.230 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Do nomadic shepherds grow corn?
The section Geographical location and culture says that "The Midianites were nomadic shepherds who ... lived in tents of goat hair and ate mostly bread ...". Being nomadic, presumably they got their bread from Greggs the Bakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.218.33 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Midianite pottery
Maybe I am missing something, but shouldn't there be a section on Midian pottery? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midianite_pottery http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-midianite-pottery.htm RANDOM78 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

median?
i know it seems anachronistic, slightly, but considering that abraham probably never actually existed, i'd just like to throw out the idea of associating this person with the medes, rather than an arabic tribe, and if anybody is willing to tie that to the brahma/abraham similarity.

It is not just anachronistic, it makes no sense and exhibits a certain bias. Whether you think or modern scholarship thinks Abraham existed or not is irrelevant. The character, his name, and his linkage with origin stories for the Midianites and their region, Midian, is part of the lore of the Semitic speaking peoples of the region, both Arab and Israelite, and has been for thousands of years. There is absolutely no base from antiquity to even more tendentiously and tenuously link him to the Medes outside of modern linguistic speculation, mostly of a Hindu/Aryan/Iranian nationalist religio/nationalistic bent. - Anonymous 208.65.192.1 (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Midian. 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/20050721134132/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/burton/richard/b97m/preface1.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/burton/richard/b97m/preface1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024234638/http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000002707.htm to http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000002707.htm

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) 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
, you are currently re-inserting the same text over and over, over the objections of multiple editors. This is edit-warring, and a failure to observe the norms outlined at WP:CONSENSUS. Instead of violating Wikipedia policy by repeatedly inserting your preferred version of things repeatedly, you need to come to the talk page and try to gain consensus first.

One problem with the text you keep trying to insert is that you have not provided a source for your claim that Midian is first mentioned in the Bible. There are some other problems, but you would need, at the very least, a source first. See WP:V about sources. Alephb (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mountains
See this regarding my decision to redirect the related stub Midian Mountains, which I created, to this article. Leo1pard (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

“Cult”
Objection: Reference and inference to “religion” of YAWEH(Ancient Israel’s belief in God) as “cult” 23.251.65.204 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your problem with that? Cult is a standard term for religious devotion to deities. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Murder of the Midian
Right now the article reads "War against Midian followed. Numbers 31 reports that all but the virgin females were slain and their cities burned to the ground." while the next sentence mentions "Some commentators, for example the Pulpit Commentary and Gill's Exposition of the Bible, note that God's command focused on attacking the Midianites and not the Moabites,[23] and similarly Moses in Deuteronomy directed that the Israelites should not harass the Moabites"

If the direction of gods command and Moses direction are mentioned, should we not also mention Moses 4.31.14-18 ? From the King James Bible (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2031%3A14-18&version=KJV) "14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Right now it reads as if the children of Isreal slaid the Midian male kids and babies as well as the women at the same time as the men. Yet all men were killed during the war and women and children taken prisoner. After the war on the way back Moses wrathfully orders the death of the prisoners, except the virgins.

The way it is right now is midleading, downplaying the horror ordered by one of the most important figures in the old testament. The murder of prisoners, especially children, in this way can only be described as genocide in our modern days. Also the morals of the ancient Isrealites prevented them from slaying the later victims in the war and they had to be ordered by Moses to commit such acts. It seems important, that: a) woman and children were first taking prisioners, b) Moses ordered the murder of them, especially the "little ones", c) the surviving virgin females were taken "for themselves" and, as mentioned later on, divided with the rest of the spoils of war.

Request:

If there are no objections I would suggest, pointing out at least points a) - c), for example: Numbers 31 reports that all men were killed in the war against their cities and the rest of the Midianites were taken prisoner. Brought before Moses, he ordered to kill all prisoners but the virgin females, which he orderd to be divided with the other spoils of war.

We already have a lengthly discussion about the ethics of this sections on wiki in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_31, which could/should be linked to here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:7720:E0E1:DC34:1114:16A3:571F (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

About current Ismaelites redirection
Hello,

Currently Ismaelites redirects to Midian, but shouldn’t it rather redirection to Isma'ilism instead? 2A02:2788:228:2EE:A8D2:416E:389F:B1B1 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Midian


text:
Oktyabrskaya (Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya line)

Oktyabrskaya (Октябрьская. English: October [station]) is a Moscow Metro station in the Yakimanka District, Central Administrative Okrug, Moscow. It is on the Kaluzhsko–Rizhskaya line, between and  stations. Oktyabrskaya opened on 13 October 1962 and was originally the northern terminus of the Kaluzhskaya line before the latter extended northwards in 1970.

Design
The architects were A. Strelkov, Nina Aleshina, Yu. Vdovin. Oktyabrskaya has block white marble pylons and walls faced with white ceramic tile.

The station's freestanding entrance vestibule is located on Big Yakimanka street about half a block north of Kaluzhskaya Square (in 1962 - October square, hence the name), nearby the Garden ring.

Transfers
From this station it is possible to transfer to Oktyabrskaya on the Koltsevaya line.

title: Oktyabrskaya (Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya line)


text:
List of rivers of the United States: D

A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - XYZ

This is a list of rivers in the United States that have names starting with the letter D. For the main page, which includes links to listings by state, see List of rivers in the United States.

D - Da

 * D River - Oregon
 * Damariscotta River - Maine
 * Dan River - Virginia, North Carolina
 * Dan Hole River - New Hampshire
 * Davis Creek - West Virginia
 * Days River - Michigan

De - Di

 * Dead River - several in Florida
 * Dead River - Maine
 * Dead River - New Hampshire
 * Dead River - New Jersey
 * Dead Diamond River - New Hampshire
 * Dead Moose River - Minnesota
 * Dearborn River - Montana
 * Deep River - North Carolina
 * Deep Fork River - Oklahoma
 * Deer River - Michigan
 * Deer River - New Hampshire
 * Deerfield River - Vermont, Massachusetts
 * Deerskin River - Wisconsin
 * Delaware River - New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware
 * Delaware River - Kansas
 * Delta River - Alaska
 * Des Lacs River - North Dakota
 * Des Moines River - Minnesota, Iowa
 * Des Plaines River - Wisconsin, Illinois
 * Deschutes River - Oregon
 * Deschutes River - Washington
 * Deshka River - Alaska
 * Detroit River - Michigan
 * Devils River - Michigan
 * Devils River - Texas
 * Devils River - Wisconsin
 * Dillons Run - West Virginia
 * Dirty Devil River - Utah
 * Dix River - Kentucky

Do - Dr

 * Doe River - Tennessee
 * Dog River - Alabama
 * Dog River - Oregon
 * Dog Salmon River - Alaska
 * Dolores River - Colorado, Utah
 * Donner und Blitzen River - Oregon
 * Dosewallips River - Washington
 * Dowagiac River - Michigan
 * Doyles River - Virginia
 * Draanjik River - Alaska
 * Drakes River - New Hampshire
 * Driftwood River - Indiana
 * Dry Fork of the Cheat River - West Virginia
 * Dry Fork of the Tug Fork - West Virginia, Virginia
 * Dry River - New Hampshire
 * Dry Wolf Creek - Montana

Du

 * Duck Creek - Ohio
 * Duck River - Alabama
 * Duck River - Tennessee
 * Duckabush River - Washington
 * Dugdemona River - Louisiana
 * Dungeness River - Washington
 * DuPage River - Illinois
 * Dupuyer Creek - Montana
 * Duwamish River - Washington

title: List of rivers of the United States: D


text:
Iain Fyfe

Iain Stuart Fyfe (born 3 April 1982) is a retired Australian A-League professional footballer.

Club career
On completion of his SASI program in 2000, Iain joined hometown NSL club Adelaide City. After just three appearances off the bench in 2000–01, he broke into the Adelaide first team the following season, making 52 appearances in two years before moving to Sydney Olympic in 2003. He also earned a call up to the Australian Under-23 side for a friendly against Spain, but it would be the only one. Domestically, his move was positive, becoming a key figure for Olympic, playing all-but-one matches of the 2003–04 season.

Scotland
Following the collapse of the NSL after that season, Fyfe went overseas and trialled at various clubs, including Scottish Premier League side Hibernian, before signing for Hamilton Academical in the Scottish Second Division. There he played alongside fellow Australians, David Carney as well as childhood friend and former Adelaide City teammate Scott Tunbridge. Fyfe struggled to break into the Hamilton first team, making only fifteen appearances before being released in early 2005.

Sydney FC
Partnered next to first Mark Rudan and later Jacob Timpano, Fyfe was in the Sydney first XI for much of the A-League season. However, he was dropped to the bench for the penultimate round due to inconsistent form. Several strong performances from Rudan kept him there, making only one start and three appearances off the bench in the club's last five games, although a missed match was through suspension. In the A-League grand final, Fyfe played an important role in defending Sydney's 1–0 lead over the Central Coast Mariners, having replaced injured Mark Rudan with 20 minutes remaining.

In the 2006–07 season, Fyfe was shifted to a wide defensive role by new coach Terry Butcher, who opted to play Mark Milligan in midfield rather than his usual right back position. The impact of the move was immediately apparent with Fyfe, goal-less in the previous season, scoring the winning goal against Central Coast in the opening round and netting again in the 3–2 loss to Melbourne Victory a week later. He went on to play every match of the season up until Sydney's semi-final exit. Strong performances led to another call up to the national team, included in the A-League-based Australian side for the 2007 Asian Cup qualifier against Kuwait on 16 August 2006, but again did not make an appearance.

During the Pan-Pacific Championship Iain played his 100th competitive game against Major League Soccer Glamour team Los Angeles Galaxy. Sydney went on to lose the match 2–1, with Sydney's goal coming from Brendan Renaud. He was Sydney's most capped player, and most consistent, only missing 3 competitive matches, in the 3 years Sydney have played in the A-League.

Adelaide United
On 24 November 2008, it was announced in November that Iain had signed a contract with Adelaide United commencing April 2009; this brings Fyfe back to Adelaide where he began his career after 5 years playing in Sydney and Scotland. Starting all the games in the opening of his first season back at Adelaide, Fyfe's first goal allowed his club to equalise against Wellington Phoenix in round five.

He scored his second goal for Adelaide in a 1–1 draw against Central Coast Mariners in Round 2 of the 2010–11 season. On 14 January 2011, it was announced that Iain would be joining K-league club Busan I'Park FC. His farewell game for Adelaide was meant to be on 29 January 2011 against Central Coast Mariners at Hindmarsh Stadium, but due to a hamstring injury his last game was on 21 January 2011 against North Queensland Fury when they won 8–1.

Busan I'Park
In January 2011, Fyfe joined South Korean club Busan I'Park. Fyfe made his first start and debut for Busan I'Park in their 2–1 away loss to Jeju United in the first week of the 2011 K-League season.

Return to Adelaide United
On 29 February 2012, it was announced that Fyfe had signed a one-year undisclosed contract with club Adelaide United after his contract with South Korea K-League club Busan I'Park.

Mes Kerman
He was linked to a move to the Iran Pro League in summer 2013. On 2 August 2013, Mes Kerman announced that Fyfe will be joined to the team after passing medical test. He officially joined to the team on 10 August and signed a two years contract. He made his debut in a 1–0 loss to Saipa.

Newcastle Jets
In November 2016, Fyfe signed a short-term deal to return to the A-League with Newcastle Jets as an injury replacement for Daniel Mullen, joining from South Australian club Campbelltown City.

International career
Fyfe started his career in 1999, joining a talent identification program at the South Australian Sports Institute, and was soon exposed to the international football stage. He was selected for the Australian U17 side in qualifying matches for the 1999 FIFA U-17 World Championship and retained his place in the Joeys squad for the final tournament in New Zealand. Australia marched through to the final against Brazil, the match ending scoreless after extra time and proceeding to penalties. Fyfe entered the match as a substitute in extra time to secure the defence, but in the shoot-out he was tasked with Australia's ninth penalty kick. His shot was dramatically saved by goalkeeper Rubinho, allowing Brazil to take the title.

On 16 February 2005, Iain Fyfe returned to Australia became the 16th member of the inaugural Sydney FC squad. Playing at centre back under coach Pierre Littbarski, Fyfe was instrumental in Sydney's qualification for the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship, being named Player of the Tournament for the 2005 Oceania Club Championship. This prompted his inclusion in a Socceroo training camp with new manager Guus Hiddink, and his inclusion on the substitutes bench for the World Cup qualifier against Solomon Islands.

Club

 * Sydney FC
 * A-League Championship: 2005–06
 * Oceania Club Championship: 2005

 * Campbelltown City
 * National Premier Leagues South Australia: 2016

Country

 * Australia
 * OFC U-17 Championship: 1999

Individual

 * Oceania Club Championship Player of the Tournament: 2005

Career statistics
(correct as of 4 February 2014)

'International Cup' matches refer to AFC and Club World Cup competitions.

title: Iain Fyfe


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steezy

 * 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 -- (drini's page| ☎ ) 20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Steezy
Dictdef of a neologism. delete and transwiki to wiktionary if considered notable, otherwise just delete. This was listed as a speedy delete, but being a distdef is not a speedy criterion. DES (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --Rogerd 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)--Rogerd 02:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary. Most slang terms are only notable in select circles, this shouldn't preclude them from an online wiktionary. --Anetode 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary has no concept of notability. Its inclusion criteria are based upon attestation, not notability. Uncle G 03:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Does not belong on Wiktionary unless it is verifiable. Eclecticology 22:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Used as skater/snowboarder jargon on    ; Listed on the Slang Exchange; many other mentions on various forums, also a popular alias. Anetode 18:33, 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steezy


text:
You Know What to Do

"You Know What to Do" was the second song written and recorded by George Harrison with the Beatles. It was recorded on 3 June 1964 but remained unreleased until its inclusion on the band's 1995 outtakes compilation Anthology 1.

Background
During a photographic assignment on the morning of 3 June 1964, Ringo Starr was taken ill with tonsillitis and pharyngitis, 24 hours before the Beatles were due to leave for a six-country tour. The recording session booked for that day was originally intended to produce a fourteenth song for the band's A Hard Day's Night album, but this activity was cancelled so that a replacement drummer, Jimmie Nicol, could be brought in and rehearse with the group. After running through six songs in a one-hour rehearsal in EMI's Studio Two, everyone felt satisfied with Nicol's drumming, so he left to pack his suitcase.

That evening, in a four-hour session in Studio Two, each of the three present Beatles recorded a demo of a newly written song. Harrison recorded "You Know What to Do"; John Lennon did "No Reply", which eventually ended up as the opening track of their next album, Beatles for Sale; and Paul McCartney did "It's for You", a song which was written specifically for Cilla Black to sing. The tape of the session was subsequently misfiled, but was rediscovered in 1993.

Harrison's first contribution to the Beatles' output was "Don't Bother Me", recorded in September 1963. His next contribution was not until "I Need You", recorded in February 1965. Asked about this gap in 1965, George Martin said that Harrison "got discouraged some time ago when none of us liked something that he had written". According to music critic Richie Unterberger, Martin was most likely referring to "You Know What to Do".

Musical structure
The song is in the key of A major. After an introduction in D chord on the guitar the verse begins in A (I) on "When I see you I just don't know what to say" ending that line with E (V). The verse also features a D (IV) chord. Musicologist Dominic Pedler cites the song as an example of how "one of The Beatles' greatest contributions to pop songwriting was their skill in combining the familiarity of simple I-IV-V sequences with dramatically new harmonic material". The bridge features an "8-7-flat7-6" glide in consecutive semitones down the chromatic scale, a device subsequently used by the Beatles in "Michelle", "Cry Baby Cry", "Got to Get You into My Life", "And Your Bird Can Sing" and "Mother Nature's Son".

Release
In anticipation of the track's release on Anthology 1, McCartney announced: "there will be a bunch of people interested in hearing the George Harrison song from thirty years ago that no one to this day has heard – it's not the greatest thing George ever wrote, but it's an undiscovered nugget. If you find a little Egyptian pot, it doesn't have to be the greatest Egyptian pot. The fact that it is Egyptian is enough."

Ultimate Classic Rock listed "You Know What to Do" as the worst of the Beatles' 227 officially released songs, stating: "When Harrison finally hit his stride, he became the Beatles' ace in the hole. But this early song ... shows why his songs were still being passed over at this point."

Personnel

 * George Harrison – vocal, rhythm guitar
 * John Lennon – tambourine
 * Paul McCartney – bass guitar

title: You Know What to Do