text:
Jones (Animal Farm)

Mr. Jones of Manor Farm is a fictional character in George Orwell's 1945 allegorical novel Animal Farm. Jones is an allegory for Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Jones is overthrown by the animals of his farm, who represent Bolshevik and liberal revolutionaries.

Description
Mr. Jones had been a capable farmer once in his lifetime, but in the aftermath of a very damaging lawsuit, he had become quite disheartened with his lot in life and an alcoholic. This led to his neglect of both the animals and buildings of Manor Farm. Instigated by Old Major who is 12, the animals rebel by driving out Mr. Jones, his wife and his workers, and removing him from power, supposedly ending the days of extreme hunger and hard labour.

In the second chapter, an exiled Jones lives at the Red Lion Inn, where he feels sorry for himself and commiserates with sympathetic and perplexed farmers (and more drinking). One day, the animals are at work when they see several humans on Animal Farm, not only their former masters but some neighboring farmers such as Frederick and Pilkington, and all agree that Jones and his farmhands are attempting to recapture the farm. He is defeated by Snowball's tactics. Many of the men are frightened by the organized animal defense, and the animals suffer only one death. Frightened, Jones flees the farm for good.

At the start of the final chapter, after 'years passed', Jones is mentioned to have died in a home for alcoholics. By this time, most of the animals on the farm were either born after the Rebellion; many of the remaining animals who were called to the barn by Old Major have died as well. It is mentioned that most of the deceased or exiled were forgotten – Snowball 'was forgotten' as was Boxer, excepting 'the few who had known him'. The days before the Rebellion have been forgotten as well. Only a few pigs, Moses the Raven (his 'special pet'), Clover and Benjamin remember Jones. The pigs and Moses obviously have no inclination to bring their former master up – they don't even mention Snowball, who was a scapegoat for a long number of years. Clover is an old and rather sick mare, past the retirement age that had been removed. Benjamin is merely more cynical.

Portrayals
In the 1954 animated adaptation of the novel, Jones was voiced by Maurice Denham, who provided all voices bar the narration. The story is fairly faithful to the novel, except Jones is not married and never leaves the area and instead remains in his local pub. When the other major farmers decide to make an attempt to seize Animal Farm, Jones offers to join them but is turned down. Instead, he acquires a large quantity of dynamite and destroys the windmill with himself still inside (due to being drunk).

Pete Postlethwaite portrayed Jones in the 1999 live-action film, as a brutish yokel who is highly in debt and is the laughingstock of the neighboring farms for his poor farm, although his alcoholism is toned down. In this film, he and Mrs. Jones destroy the windmill together before fleeing the area. What happened to them afterwards is never revealed.

Tony Robinson portrayed Jones in the 1994 featurette Down on Animal Farm, a documentary about the making of the 1954 adaptation.

title: Jones (Animal Farm)


text:
Talk:7th Heaven (TV series)

Glenoak
I want you to know it is one word, not two words. It is Glenoak. Look at the show, the hospital sign, the newspaper name, everything else there is no space and oak is not upper case. DO NOT CHANGE THIS UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT AND YOU CAN'T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:804:0:3AA8:4C98:90AD:1F84:2E6A (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Family program
I have to say, this makes no sense to me: "... has been renewed for its 10th (2005 - 2006) season, making it the longest-running family program in television history." What does "family program" mean here? A program which is centred on a single family? Because then you would (obviously) have The Simpsons with a longer run. Or a program that is watched by "all the family"? Because the Aussie soap Home and Away qualifies on that score. Or is it an American usage I'm not aware of? RMoloney 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think it means familily show from a conservative/Christian point-of-view ie Touched by an Angel...basically the kind of program I consider to be god awful crap ! Dowew 00:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "family program" means that it is a program that the whole family can watch, and The Simpsons does not fit into that category. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I hate The Simpsons or anything. Va_girl2468

You guys are all sort of right, but I still think the term "family program" isn't the right one here. It should say "the longest running family drama", because that's what its network (the WB) promoted it as- The Waltons and Little House on the Prarie are considered to be in the same category. It still is a stupid comment altogether- it's a long running show, yes, but creating such a small category of tv shows so that you can be number one is a bit sad when it comes to advertising- perhaps it should be re-worded and the idea that the WB promoted it as such be added in front. Any other thoughts? Emily 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The term family programing means that it is something that the whole family can watch it. people of all ages something many shows you cant do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.161.41 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I reworded and added links to article explaining family friendliness. I actually misunderstood at first, erroneously thinking, "there is no way there have been no other dramas about families that lasted 11 years." If i misunderstood, I think it likely that many others will too. That is the rationale for this minor change.

An aside, i think you would have some trouble finding an authoritative, reliable source saying that no TV drama which lasted longer is family friendly. Who defines something as family friendly? Coronation Street might be a candidate. Re The Simpsons not being family friendly? I would suggest that very few families would object to it. Japanscot (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

TH43 undid my edit as explained above without giving any reasons or explanations at all. Please explain your edits, especially those undoing work whose rationale has been explained by other editors. Japanscot (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Family Program Terminology - USA
The term "family program" in the USA is given to a show that has content that is appropriate for all family members to watch, regardless of their age. These shows would typically have little or no violence, simulated sex or sex inuendo, nudity, or profanity. They typically have story lines that have a moral to their story so as to reinforce positive wholesome values.

I truly feel sorry for anyone in any country who would opine that these types of shows are as one has said god-awful. Would that the entire world was filled with people who practice and respect these moral values.

 * "appropriate for all family members" according to autocratic "moral clarity" vanguards. (Personally, if the world were filled with these closet psychos, the Camdens, just shy of drinking the kool-aid, I couldn't move fast enough towards the sweet release of death.  Watch some Aeon Flux instead and get some perspective!) 71.162.255.58 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Duration
"The series lasted from 1996-2006." By my calender it's only Dec 05, is there a crystal ball involved? Avalon 05:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The network announced that the show would have its final season in 2006 earlier in 2005.67.142.130.25 23:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The series actually lasted from 1996-2007 because after the season 10 finale they renewed it for a 11th season.

Record length?

 * In its 10th season it set the record for being the longest running family show in television history.

Oh, really?

From Bonanza: "It aired on NBC from 1959-09-12 through 1973-01-16."

This little "record" appears to be non-factual. Can we take it out, please, or qualify just exactly what is meant? Perhaps Bonanza was not a family series since there was no mother? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I see this has been discussed with no resolution and no substantiation. I have made the change.  Even if you define "family program" quite narrowly, Bonanza still fits it.  I'm confident I can think of more if I try hard enough.  I've been noticing conflicting claims of "longest running series" or "longest running series of X type" for years, since long before Wikipedia.  I'd like us to not just repeat them the way other media sources do.
 * For those of you who like the "conservative/Christian" definition of family series, I wish you'd at least check out some of the good series of old. Yes, if your horizon extends back only ten years, 7th Heaven is the longest running series on television.  But there were many other such shows in the past, and at least one ran longer. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet ran '52-'66 and started on radio before that and My Three Sons ran for 12 years. The Waltons had 221 episodes after 9 years, plus 5 or 6 two hour "movie" episodes after the show ended. 7th heaven has to make 23 episodes this season (as opposed to their normal 22) to make it 221.  The main problem here is that the WB announced it as "...longest running family _DRAMA_" and fans have felt the need to drop the "drama" and tout it as longest running family show ever.

 * Thanks to whoever provided the facts. I'm glad to see that this hasn't been revert warred into the article or anything.  I note that even with the "family DRAMA" qualification, Bonanza is still a longer-running family drama.  Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * They meant the longest running family show on The WB. 74.226.71.67 03:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Longest runnig family drama, ad Bonanza was a Western, not family! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.131.236 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Denomination
"However, the fact that there is mention of church deacons would indicate Congregational or Baptist; the fact that he is addressed and referred to as "Reverend Camden" rather than "Mr. Camden" would indicate a somewhat extreme evangelical orientation"

I went to a Methodist church growing up which had at least one deacon. It was neither extreme nor evangelical, but the ministers weren't addressed as "Mr. So-and-So" either. For these reasons, I believe that the above quoted section of the article might need to be changed.

A deacon in a Methodist church is quite different from in the Congregationalist/Baptist tradition, where the deacons are equivalent to a Presbyterian session or an Anglican/Episcopal parish council. A Methodist deacon is a lesser order of ordained clergy, comparable to deacons in the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal tradition; there is likely to be only one or two in a congregation. "Reverend So-and-So" is correct in Protestant Ireland and this has been carried over to the more conservative evangelical Protestant denominations in North America but it is indicative of that sort of tilt in churchmanship. Congregationalist and Presbyterian clergy -- and certainly Anglican/Episcopal and the more middle class Methodists -- would certainly prefer not to be "Reverend So-and-So" but rather "the Reverend Mr/Dr/Mrs/Miss/Ms So-and-So" and would regard the former as incorrect. Masalai 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've spent my entire life in the Methodist church. Our pastor for 25 years went by Mr. He retired about five years ago, and his replacement goes by "Pastor" or Dr. It is just a personal preference on the part of the pastor. SkittlzAnKomboz 17:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More "Demonination" Section Problems
The section reads, "If the congregation were Baptist one might expect to hear "Reverend Camden" referred to from time to time as the "pastor"". Are you kidding me? Let's just say, for starters, that the rambling on about what the church might be and then ending with: "Possibly this mixture of denominational indicators..." is ridiculous. Simply say that there is no specific demonination of the church mentioned, and if the word "possibly" MUST go in there (although it probably shouldn't, as this is supposed to be a factual article), then just mention it. Son't go on and on. But back to the referring to Lucy and Eric as "pastors"- they have Associate Pastors (Lucy and STAR Chandler- remember?!), and I think Eric and Lucy actually ARE referred to as "pastors" once or twice. This needs to be changed. Can I change it? Emily 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Masalai, why did you revert the section back? I misspelled "once" (sorry, I accidentally spelled it oce, I just looked at history). It wasn't illegible! Please explain. Emily 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Why is it considered necessary to identify Rev. Camden's church with a particular denomination? The fact that it's called "Community Church" is consistent with Non-denominational Christianity. The entire section about "denomination" seems to be emphasized too much in this article. --Metropolitan90 05:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not judgmental
The article states that the true reason for the show's success might have to do with the fact that it is not preachy or judgmental. Not only is that completely unverifiable, but I find that a show about a pastor telling his kids, neighbours, and friends what is right and what is wrong is kind of preachy. - Unmitigated Success

Well, the show is very guarded. In the episode "Vote", people were on oposing sides, but no one mentioned Bush or Kerry... so no one watching would feel that their views were being "judged". Instead of teaching that abortion, for instance, is wrong (or not), the topic never comes up, ever. In this way, no one can be offended. Emily ( Funtrivia Freak ) 19:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to big controversial issues, such as the presidential election, homosexuality, abortion, I believe that the show never takes sides precisely so no one will take offense, as those are typically the kind of binary debates that would immediately hurt the ratings, because it would divide the audience in two groups, with one of the two groups walking out on the show. Instead the preaching applies to more ordinary situations people would be confronted with. I recall an episode where one of the son's was hanging out with a new friend, who happened to have pot in his backpack, as Rev Camden found out. His immediate reaction is to call the police, explaining to his son that a) drugs are wrong, and b) call the authorities on your friend, because that's the American way. Because a lot of episodes are about his teaching his kids a lesson in moral values, and because as a reverend he has basically the same role for his parish/neighborhood, the way I see it is that all the plots involving him are essentially about preaching and judging. - Unmitigated Success

Emily, you're free to make changes if you want.

Not preachy or judgmental?! What show are YOU watching, because you must not be watching 7th Heaven. From RevCam sanctimoniously spying on people and telling them what to do, to the rest of the family sticking their noses into other people's business, they are about as judgmental as you can possibly get. Not preachy? What about that episode "Healing Old Wounds" (more like opening new ones) where Martin's Dad was giving Roxanne all kinds of bullshit reasons for going into Iraq and kissing her before she could respond? This show is pure, unadulterated CRAP and I can't believe that it has fans or that it got revived (how it's lasted ten seasons - at least six too many - is beyond my comprehension).

Political affiliation
In the syndicated episode Matt admitted to Sarah that he is a Republican and disclosed that his father, the Reverend Camden, is a Democrat.

Jessica Biel section
There's a problem in the last paragraph.

"Her appearance in the 10th season finale, though limited, shed light on events taking place during the last few months. Mary graduated college the same weekend as Matt and Sarah, reunited with husband Carlos, and is pregnant with twin girls. Although she was not with the family, her conversation with her husband during the episode revealed that their reunion took place during Matt and Sarah's graduation ceremony, the first time they had all been together in almost three years, also suggesting some final resolution to the estrangement that had been present since Season 5."

It is impossible for Carlos and Mary to have reunited at Matt and Sarah's graduation, as that graduation was scheduled to take place the day after the events seen this episode. I don't recall the actual situation mentioned of how they reunited, but it clearly wasn't this one.

Also, in addition to the scene of her talking on the phone, she showed up in an imaginary sequence earlier in the episode, where she interrupted Simon and Rose's wedding ceremony.12.75.53.85 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

someone wrote something about Mary becoming a hooker...? I wish this was true but, come on, surely it isn't.

Characters

 * Please help expand this page: List of 7th Heaven Characters It needs a lot of work. -AMK152 15:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

- surely Lucy is not named for a key biblical figure. Or are there reasons to believe it is derived from Luke? It seems a bit of a stretch compared to all the other kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.92.5 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

TRUE or FALSE?!!
3 new characters have been added to the cast and 3 others have left. Also, its been said if the 13 episodes do good, 9 more will be produced and Beverly has went on to say that if the show does in fact get a 12th season, it WILL have new actors for the characters that are currently there, as in a big if.

David G and Jessica both said the same thing about that one of the characters this year wll pass away.

In the Alison Lohman article it is stated that she had a part in 7th Heaven, however she does not appear in the cast lists. Can anyone verify please?

Denomination (redux)
“... many American Protestant denominations do not permit women to occupy a clerical position.” Where does this come from? Most Protestant demoninations I am aware of here in the U.S.A. have female clergy. This statement needs verification. — Michael J  23:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * See Ordination_of_women. Many do not: Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Reformed Church in the United States, probably some independents as well, etc. etc. I'll remove the  accordingly. --  The Great Gavini  16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

spell correcting
hi i fixed several spelling errors

Election
A 2004 episode about the importance of voting on election day seemed to suggest that men in the family were voting for incumbent president George W. Bush while the women were voting for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry

Where in this episode is a clue that Eric & Kevin vote for Bush and Annie & Lucy for Kerry? There was absolutely no clue AFAIR.--84.142.162.135 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A section for criticism
I would really like to see voiced opinions about this show. I would add both a section for praise, but also a section for skeptics. For me, I am a european, this show is pretty dramatic in its continuing touting of american white moral standards, lack of diversity of opinions, and speculative upbringing. For me, those kids seem traumatised by their parents, though the parents love them, I personally think the show touts "tough love". I would believe an article about a large and long-running show like 7th Heaven benefits a section about opinions regarding the show. 84.48.23.161 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we just burn every episode of this shitty show instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.130.84 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How about we go and burn "every episode of Family Guy" instead? Silvershrek (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Silvershrek

Hi, I have no idea if this appropriate or not, since I'm not a contributor, but the criticism section does appear to be quite one-sided. I remember reading this rather scathing (and amusing) review in the NY Times, a paper of record, I believe. So might this be included? 89.247.107.191 (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471
 * In Desperate Housewives (season 1) on 2011-03-17 08:19:46, 404 Not Found
 * In Eve (TV series) on 2011-03-18 11:19:08, 404 Not Found
 * In George Lopez (TV series) on 2011-03-19 21:44:16, 404 Not Found
 * In Gilmore Girls on 2011-03-22 06:08:32, 404 Not Found
 * In Half & Half on 2011-03-22 19:27:20, 404 Not Found
 * In Half & Half on 2011-04-15 21:56:17, 404 Not Found
 * In Joey (TV series) on 2011-05-13 23:48:48, 404 Not Found
 * In 7th Heaven on 2011-06-19 21:16:23, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393
 * In Eve (TV series) on 2011-03-18 11:19:08, 404 Not Found
 * In George Lopez (TV series) on 2011-03-19 21:44:16, 404 Not Found
 * In Get This Party Started on 2011-03-19 23:32:12, 404 Not Found
 * In Get This Party Started on 2011-03-22 05:09:18, 404 Not Found
 * In Girlfriends on 2011-03-22 06:32:21, 404 Not Found
 * In Half & Half on 2011-03-22 19:27:20, 404 Not Found
 * In Half & Half on 2011-04-15 21:56:32, 404 Not Found
 * In Joey (TV series) on 2011-05-13 23:49:00, 404 Not Found
 * In 7th Heaven on 2011-06-19 21:16:32, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing 'Jessica Biel's departure' section?
Just wanted to note that the article references a non-existant "Jessica Biel's departure" section in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.29.167 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed the reference. There had been a section named that, but it was removed last year for lack of sourcing. — Ed! (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 7th Heaven (TV series). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000937471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 7th Heaven (TV series). 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/20070613044057/http://www.zap2it.com:80/tv/news/zap-collinsheavenstory,0,6958603.story?coll=zap-news-headlines to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-collinsheavenstory,0,6958603.story?coll=zap-news-headlines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 7th Heaven (TV series). 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/20061212220452/http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2000top/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2000top/main.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527194146/http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2004/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2004/main.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523142544/http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp

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) 10:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
— Assignment last updated by Dhop10 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:7th Heaven (TV series)


text:
Beta Apodis

Beta Apodis (β Aps, β Apodis) is the Bayer designation for a star in the southern circumpolar constellation of Apus. It is located approximately 149 ly from Earth, as determined by parallax measurements. The apparent visual magnitude of this star is +4.24, which is bright enough to be seen with the naked eye

The spectrum of this star matches the characteristics of a K0 III, which, according to models of stellar evolution, indicates that it is in the giant star stage, having exhausted the supply of hydrogen at its core. The measured angular diameter of this star is 2.09 ± 0.11 mas. At the estimated distance of this star, this yields a physical size of about 11 times the radius of the Sun. The expanded outer atmosphere of Beta Apodis has an effective temperature of about 4,900 K. This heat is causing it to glow with the characteristic orange hue of a K-type star.

Naming
In Chinese caused by adaptation of the European southern hemisphere constellations into the Chinese system, 異雀 (Yì Què), meaning Exotic Bird, refers to an asterism consisting of β Apodis, ζ Apodis, ι Apodis, γ Apodis, δ Octantis, δ1 Apodis, η Apodis, α Apodis and ε Apodis. Consequently, β Apodis itself is known as 異雀三 (Yì Què sān, the Third Star of Exotic Bird.)

title: Beta Apodis


text:
Nagamachi-Minami Station

Nagamachi-Minami Station (長町南駅) is an underground metro station on the Sendai Subway Namboku Line in Taihaku-ku, Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan.

Lines
Nagamachi-Minami Station is on the Sendai Subway Namboku Line and is located 13.3 rail kilometers from the terminus of the line at Izumi-Chūō.

Station layout
Nagamachi-Minami Station is an underground station with a single island platform serving two tracks.

History
Nagamachi-Minami Station opened on July 15, 1987.

Passenger statistics
In fiscal 2015, the station was used by an average of 11,762 passengers daily.

Surrounding area

 * Taihaku Ward Office
 * Nagamachi-Minami Bus Pool
 * The Mall Sendai Nagamachi
 * Lala Garden Nagamachi
 * Sendai City Tomizawa Site Museum
 * Sendai City Southern Developmental Disorder Consultation Support Center (Nambu Archl)

title: Nagamachi-Minami Station


text:
Talk:Greenview Secondary School

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greenview Secondary School Crest.png
Image:Greenview Secondary School Crest.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 ensure 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) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greenview Secondary School


text:
West Cape

West Cape is the westernmost point in the main chain of islands of New Zealand. It is located in the far southwest of the South Island, within Fiordland National Park, between Tamatea / Dusky Sound and Taiari / Chalky Inlet. The cape consists of a small rocky shore and low forest-covered sloping land, and is located just north of the Newton River mouth.

West Cape is one of the 4 New Zealand Cardinal Capes, as named by Captain James Cook, on his first voyage to the region in 1769-70. The other Cardinal Capes named at the time are North Cape, Cape East, and Cape South.

title: West Cape


text:
Talk:Nicole Wallace (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)

Untitled
How on earth does someone have this extent of knowledge on the topic of a fictional TV character?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trademarx (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really that hard, considering the info is given in the episode.--Kross 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Goren and Eames raided Wallace's house, but she refused to go without a fight, and was apparently killed along with her lover when Eames opened fire on them in self defense." That's not right. Wallance arranged to meet her accomplice at a pier warehouse. When Wallace discovered that her accomplice was bugged, she crushed her trachea and threw her through a window into the river. A quart of Wallace's blood was at the scene, but no body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.62.56 (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're correct, I fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.154.41 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did she ever get prosecuted/serve time for the murder tied to her first appearance? If not, why wasn't she held on to in the second episode? David Iwancio 03:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That depends on what coast you watched that episode from, two versions of the episode were shown. The east coast version is where she met at the pier, the west coast version is where she was shot dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werds (talk • contribs) 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is from Mseames
 * Wallace was acquitted of the murders from her first two appearances (Anti-thesis and A Person of Interest), most likey due to her wealthy husband at the time, Gavin Haynes, who bought her innocence. This was implied in a non-Nicole episode "Pas de Deux".
 * There are a few errors I also corrected. It was not said that Nicole was married to her daughters father, and she never murdered a rich husband. The only husband that we know Nicole has had was to Gavin Haynes in 2003 and that marriage ended in divorce in 2004. The person murdered in "A Person of Interest" was a young army nurse. Nicole murdered her to steal the Anthrax that was used to set up Dan Croydon, the second person Nicole murdered in "A Person of Interest". I also added the fact that Nicole had been inprisoned in Thailand for several years where she and her then boyfriend had murdered 9 men. This is also how Nicole learned to speak "low class" Thai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woohookitty (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Another correction from me. Nicole did not attempt to kill Gavin Haynes in "A Person of Interest". In fact, this is the episode where we learn Nicole married Gavin. In Nicole's next appearance in "Great Barrier, Gavin and Nicole are now divorced, and this is the episode where Nicole uses Ella to try to kill Gavin but did not succeed with the murder. Mseames —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.13 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The two different episodes concerned her third appearance, not her first appearance. Nicole was prosecuted for her murders in her first and second appearances (off screen) but, she was acquitted (off screen as well), most likey due her her then husband's money and connections. This inference is referenced in the non-Nicole episode "Pas de Deux". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Another correction: Eames didn't shoot Nicole in the West Coast version; Goren did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation vs. Reality and Other
I think the third paragraph is all based on Goren's speculation and shouldn't be presented as fact. We don't actually know if she was molested by her father or if she resented her mother: those are all Gorem's speculations on her motives and haven't actually been confirmed (though I admit they are likely).

Also "the brains behind a diamond smuggling ring" is being overly generous. Neither Nicole nor Ella were smuggling anything: they were stealing. I don't think there was any mention of smuggling those diamonds. Vjmurphy 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Great info about a great character. Just a couple things... Fremont presents himself as British, but we're told in Slither that he's actually French. He spent some time in Hong Kong, which is what Goren used to deduce that he(Fremont) speaks Mandarin Chinese with a Thai accent, but this is strange because while Mandarin is the official national language of China, Cantonese is the primary language in Hong Kong. 69.110.243.98 18:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC). ez 18:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Various Storyline Corrections
Slither Episode

Benard had came to New York about 4 years ago, around the same time Nicole arrived. YThus, Benard had not "recently" arrived". Nor was there any indication that Benard had contact with Nicole nor had tried to seek her out in New York. Goren suggested Both might not have known the other was even there. The information about "Slither" needs much correction!

Wallaces' whereabouts and life before arriving in New York City

It was not said that Nicole recieved a lesser sentence for testifying against Fremont, deported back to Australia. It was not said either that Wallace supported herself as a prosititute. This is pure assumption. We do not know Wallace's whereabouts or her activities until 1996, when Goren learned she had been in Bendigo, Australia and 1997, when she gave birth to her daughter, again in Australia. Wallace's whereabouts are not specified again until her arrival in New York in 2002, though I think she was in England shortly before she arrived in New York City. The earliest wherabouts of Wallace is from 1985 to 1994, where she was imprisoned in Thailand for nine years.

Elizabeth Hitchens

I believe Elizabeth Hitchens was an English citizen who worked in Australia and Wallace murdered and assumed Hitchens' identity in England, shortly before Wallace arrived in New York City.

Great Barrier and Grow Episodes

Goren and Eames never found anything to convict Wallace of in Great Barrier. They attempted to use a wired Ella to connect her to the crimes but instead Wallace killed Ella and fled once again. Rather, Wallace was indicted for Ella's murder in "Grow" but never faced trial as she fled the police a fourth time.

'''A Person of Interest Episode"

And for the nth time, Wallace did not attempt to kill Haynes in A Person of Interest!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.138.141 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A Person of Interest Episode

"She then murdered a young former Air Force nurse so she could steal a vial of anthrax from her to use in the set up of Dr. Dan Croydon." Perhaps this should be changed to just Dan Croydon. Much was made of his NOT earning a PhD in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.106.6 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheldon Ranz comments:
 * There's a huge amount of Goren's speculation accepted as fact about Hitchens/Wallace over here. We really don't know who murdered that 'young former Air Force nurse' or who managed to get Croydon hung.  Croydon is a tall, strong man - how could petite Hitchens/Wallace manage that feat?
 * She has denied all of these killings (except for allowing her daughter to drown at sea). Given that she was cleared of the killings and other mayhem perpetrated by her drug-addicted fiancee in "Grow", perhaps her other denials merit currency.
 * Nicole was not cleared of the murders in "Great Barrier" or "Grow", she jumped bail before she stood trial. It is said in "Pas de Deux" that Gavin paid for a not guilty verdict for the "Anti-Thesis" and "A Person Interest" Murders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, Goren mentions in "Grow" that she has an attraction to serial killers. Since she married Gavin Haynes, what does that say about him?  It's bizarre that Goren and Eames never suspected him of any wrongdoing.  Haynes struck me as too smooth to be just some innocent passersby in Hitchens/Wallace's life, as if anyone could be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.120.215 (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do know who murdered the nurse and Croydon. Nicole murdered the nurse and to steal the anthrax used to set up Croydon, who she then killed and made look like a suicide to smear Goren. Nicole was tried for their murders and those ftom "Anti-Thesis" and was only acquitted due to then husband's buying her acquittal. Goren told us how Nicole killed Croydon - she got him intoxicated and then strung him up. It's not impossible for a woman to kill a man - Nicole has killed several men.
 * Nicole was not trying to kill the child in "Grow" but, she did admit to killing the child's uncle. Nicole married Haynes years after her first murders - she also murdered the real Elizabeth Hitchens in Australia and murdered men in Thailand with Bernard, which she was convicted and imprisoned in Thailand for - and also tried to kill Gavin (in Great Barrier) when he was no longer of use to her. Nicole only married Gavin to secure USA citizenship. "Slither" was dedicated to Nicole's "killer skills". Bernard bragged about teaching Nicole how to kill and fawned over Nicole's murderous abilities.
 * Nicole did not allow her small daughter to simply "drown at sea" - the child's neck was forcibly broken according to coronor's reports. There is no doubt hat Nicole is guilty of all the murders she is said to have committed. Nicole is not guilty based on Gorens' speculations, Nicole is guilty because all of the evidence clearly points to her. Criminal Intent has plainly and clearly laid out in each Nicole episode how and why Nicole is guilty of her numerous murders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.5 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Thesis (2:3) Episode

The article stated that Wallace kills Mark Bayley when she "injects his nicotine gum with peanut oil causing Bayley to go into anaphylactic shock".

I do not recall any such injecting of nicotine gum, but in any case I know this is not how she killed Bayley, having just seen that episode a couple of weeks ago. (See article for correction.)Daqu 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But wait!: Is there a chance (based on reading above that at least one episode has two versions) that this episode, too, has two versions -- which would explain differing perceptions of how Wallace killed Bayley???Daqu 08:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicole Wallace was written as a serial killer, as Goren's nemesis, and already had a history of murder before she first arrived in New York City. To have it turn out that Wallace is in fact this innocent woman that you are portraying her as defeats the purpose of her being a nemesis and taking on the Moriarty role as Sherlock's nemesis.

Anti-Thesis (2:3) Episode

The article stated that Wallace kills Mark Bayley when she "injects his nicotine gum with peanut oil causing Bayley to go into anaphylactic shock".

I do not recall any such injecting of nicotine gum, but in any case I know this is not how she killed Bayley, having just seen that episode a couple of weeks ago. (See article for correction.)Daqu 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicole killed Mark by spiking his gum with peanut oil, of which he was highly allergic to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

But wait!: Is there a chance (based on reading above that at least one episode has two versions) that this episode, too, has two versions -- which would explain differing perceptions of how Wallace killed Bayley???Daqu 08:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is only one version. Nicole spiked Mark's gum with peanut oil, of which Mark was highly allergic to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheldon Ranz responds: (I'm just going over this since there will be a new Nicole Wallace episode in just a few weeks - today being 8/9/2008)

The viewer never saw who did any of those murders - if the show's writers wanted it to be clearly "Nicole", all they had to do was to have the camera angle widened when the army nurse opened the door and the refrigerator so we'd see her clearly. Remember when "Criminal Intent" used to do that in the first season?
 * The show usually did not show the actual killer, especially past the first season. Nicole's episodes started in season 2. The evidence points to Nicole. We usually did not see who committed any murders - only was the killer revealed at the end. The fact that we did not SEE Nicole kill her victims is not enough reason to claim she is innocent. If that were true, then the same would have to be said for every Criminal Intent episode where we did not see the actual murders. Which in turn defeats the purpose of Criminal Intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, women can kill men. Guns, for example, are the great equalizer. But since guns were not used here, it requires a more intense personal effort on the part of the killer. [Why would Croydon allow himself to have a drink with her anyway, especially in his paranoid state?] Unless Ms Wallace turns out to be a latter-day Xena, Warrior Princess, I don't see it.
 * That is Nicole's MO. She seduced men to kill them, usually by poison. Bernard taught her how to use poison. Croydon was paranoid but thought he had found an ally in Nicole against Goren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nicole was not trying to kill the child in "Grow" but, she did admit to killing the child's uncle.

Nope. She did not admit to anything of the sort. When Goren first brought that up, she said he was crazy. She has never confessed to any murder, only to the criminally negligent homicide of her daughter.
 * I'm certain she alluded that she killed the uncle to protect the child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nicole married Haynes years after her first murders - she also murdered the real Elizabeth Hitchens in Australia and murdered men in Thailand with Bernard, which she was convicted and imprisoned in Thailand for - and also tried to kill Gavin (in Great Barrier) when he was no longer of use to her. Nicole only married Gavin to secure USA citizenship. "Slither" was dedicated to Nicole's "killer skills". Bernard bragged about teaching Nicole how to kill and fawned over Nicole's murderous abilities.

You're mixing in speculation with facts. It's not at all clear that the Nicole Bernard knew is the same women who has called herself Elizabeth Hitchens and then changed her name to Nicole Wallace because "if you can't beat them, join them", as she told Eames. And did she try to kill Gavin, or was that Ella's own idea? Or perhaps Ella and Gavin arranged that together to frame Hitchens/Wallace, just like Evan Chapel tried to frame her years later?
 * There is not any speculation. There is no doubt that Nicole Wallace is the same woman because Bernard talked with Goren about Nicole, saying Goren had made Nicole a fugitive. Bernard talked directly about her, and the police had a photo and Thai documents placing the two together in Thailand. The show alludes that the attempt on Gavin's life was Nicole's idea - not Ella's. Nicole tried to kill Gavin to silence him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, even Goren claims that Nicole didn't marry Gavin just to secure citizenship, but that she genuinely is attracted to him because of the forceful way he seemed to be protecting her in his study when Goren barged in in "A Person of Interest".
 * Goren thought Nicole was trying to delude herself by marrying Gavin, insinuating Nicole was trying to deny her own fickle nature. Goren warned Gavin that Nicole would turn on him and he was right - she did turn on Gavin in Great Barrier - she tried to have him killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nicole did not allow her small daughter to simply "drown at sea" - the child's neck was forcibly broken according to coroner's reports. There is no doubt hat Nicole is guilty of all the murders she is said to have committed. Nicole is not guilty based on Gorens' speculations, Nicole is guilty because all of the evidence clearly points to her. Criminal Intent has plainly and clearly laid out in each Nicole episode how and why Nicole is guilty of her numerous murders.
 * Actually, there's plenty of reasonable doubt that I've laid out above. And in "Grow", the DNA analysis could not link the child to Hitchens/Wallace because of the soil, a finding which caused ADA Carver to fume that he "felt like a first-year law student out there!"
 * Regardless, Nicole admitting to killing the child so there is no doubt she killed the child. You can argue the degree of intent with which Nicole killed the child but, Nicole herself admitted to Goren that she killed the child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the show is being ambiguous about whether D'Abo's character is guilty of any of the murders. Is the ambiguity intentional or accidental? Will the upcoming season finale clear things up in favor of the conventional wisdom - GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY - or will it shock us with a big revelation, like, say, Wallace/Hitchens and Goren both being the children of serial murderer Mark Ford Bailey? All that ribbing she gave him in their first interrogation-room encounter about what their fathers had in common would begin to make sense, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.175.192 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Wallace Not Modeled On Chantal
The recurrent character of "Nicole Wallace" in the Law & Order episodes is most likely not based on Charles Sobhraj's wife Chantal, who returned to Paris with her daughters early in their marriage, but rather on one of his lovers, the French-Canadian Marie-Andree Leclerc who is thought to have committed several of Sobhraj's crimes with him. Leclerc is the one who was arrested with Sobhraj and who spent several years in a Thai jail (like Nicole on L&O) before being granted an early leave due to the fact that she had developed ovarian cancer. Unlike Nicole, Marie returned to Canada after her release and died of her illness within a year or two following that time.

Also, the Law & Order character Bernard Fremont, Nicole Wallace's former mentor, lover and instructor in the art of poisons, confidence games and evil of every kind (whom she later kills during the episode where he appears) is almost certainly based upon Charles Sobhraj himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.5 (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bayley and Ella Miyazuki
How did Nicole get away with their murders? She clearly exlpoited Bayley's peanut allergy and killed Ella with her bare hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.37.218 (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * She jumped bail before she faced trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is She Really Dead?
I am not so sure. We never saw her body in Frame (7:22) and Declan Gage is not the most stable or reliable individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristeVita (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheldon Ranz remarks:

Indeed, not only is there no body, but the ME does not say how long ago the heart was removed from Nicole's chest. What if Nicole had a heart transplant say, ten years PRIOR, and kept the original fresh in formaldehyde just to use it to throw people off her trail by faking death? Remember, when she fought Ella at the pier years before, she brought some of her old transfused blood and splattered it over the area to convince Goren and Eames that she must have bled to death.

Declan never said explicitly HOW he killed Nicole. Indeed, he seems too urbane to get his hands involved in anything gory. And since he said he never targetted Donny, then who DID sent the package with the heart inside and the Donny photo outside?

Theory: Once Declan resisted Nicole's seduction, she had a hunch that he would try to kill her later on. So she substituted something harmless in the needle he intended to use on her, and faked her death when he injected her with what he thought was poison. He hired some thugs from the Masucci crime family to dispose of the body but chose not to witness what they did; Nicole "awoke" and scared the thugs, but told them that whatever Declan was paying them, she'd double for them NOT to do it. They agree, and later she sends the heart in the package with Donny's photo on top to Pittsfield, Massachusetts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.2.4 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, something we agree on. I do not believe Nicole is dead either, unfortunately. Until there is a body, her reemerge is entirely possible. It's a good theory on how she faked her death. The only question is - why is Declan still alive if Nicole did in fact turn on him? Surely Nicole would come after him. Nicole did not poison Declan, Declan poisoned himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.44 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheldon remarks: Nicole may be planning an attack on Declan in the near future, but not immediately. Why? Well, she may have thought it wise to lay low for a while, having the world think she's dead so she can plan her next move without having to look over her shoulder so much. Of course, she might have figured Declan would have confessed to Goren eventually, so why not let Bobby do some of her dirty work by getting Declan sent to jail? He'd be an easier target there.
 * True. I think she's still lurking out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.191 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that not seeing Nicole kill anyone on screen means that she's automatically innocent - we usually get a confession if not an outright visual from all the other perps. But the seeds of doubt were planted in "Grow" in which she was cleared of one murder (Evan Chapel's first wife) and an attempted murder (Gwen Chapel). That doesn't jibe with what we know about serial killers. Her talent at convincingly assuming all kinds of careers - college professor, drug counselor - sounds less like the skill set of a Ted Bundy and more like that of the Jared, the "Pretender" (the Michael T. Weiss character from the 1990s NBC show of the same name)
 * I thought "Great Barrier" was written to manipulate the viewer. This was the episode where viewers were to decide if Nicole lived or died and the Nicole we were given did not jive with the Nicole we seen in her previous episodes. I think "Grow" continued the manipulation. Instead of trying to hold Nicole accountable for her actions, both episodes spent much of the time trying to manipulate the viewer into feeling sorry for Nicole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.191 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Goren tried to explain away the oddness of Nicole becoming uncharacteristically attached to Gwen because Nicole was trying to delude herself that she was completely normal. He convinced her to "give up" Gwen because Nicole would eventually turn on Gwen. That Nicole could snap and kill Gwen. I think Nicole was infuriated that Goren was correct but as usual, blamed Goren for her actions rather than taking responsibility for herself. Nicole has yet to take any kind of responsibility for anything she has done because Goren mollycoddles her. That is one of the many things about this story line that always struck me as odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.191 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember The Pretender. I always wondered if they based the premise of the show on Frank Abagnale Jr., the great con artist who now works for the FBI... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.191 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to Nicole - I think her assuming identities can be associated with her sociopath personality. Her chameleon like abilities do seem odd but much of the story line was odd and filled with plot holes from the first episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.191 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no indication that Larry Chapel was seduced by Nicole (no saliva in the groin area, for example, as with Goren's brother) - he was seen carrying a gun into the projects, he was almost a foot taller and around 100 lbs heavier than Nicole. He was fully aware of her reputation. So how could she overpower him? And wasn't her alleged M.O. then to have others do the dirty work of murder (Bailey, Bernard)?
 * I think Nicole sneaked up behind Chapel. He may not have been aware of her reputation. Nicole didn't even realise the father was ware of her reputation. Nicole did have a gun so she wouldn't need to overpower Chapel, rather she just needed to get his attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.191 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

These are all valid questions. I hope the L & O writers are reading this and incorporating a sensible explanation into a future Nicole Wallace appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.158.54 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind Nicole returning to settle the plot holes and to have her have a dramatic sendoff. Having Nicole go out with a "whimper" didn't seem fitting considering how she was postured to rival Goren as a nemesis. Having her have a dramatic ending seems more fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.6.191 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Frame Episode
Nicole was shown four times in total, not two. First at the drug meeting, second at the cafe, third knocking at Frank Goren's door, and fourth at the flower shop. The flower shop is the only time you can clearly see her face. Any particular reason the other two times were not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.22.59 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Murder Victims
Regarding her daughter's death, much was made in Great Barrier that Nicole had murdered the child, hence the broken neck and forcibly twisted arm being mentioned. Later much was made about the child being murdered, and Nicole's flippant remarks to Goren about "accidents" seemed to confirm she did murder the child. Given the information in the episode, I think saying it might have been an accident is reaching. 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.17.92 (talk)

Requested move 19 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nicole Wallace → Nicole Wallace (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) – The final episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent was broadcast 11½ years ago, in June 2011 and, while Nicole Wallace was indeed a memorable character, she appeared on the series in only five episodes intermittently seen between 2001 and 2008. On the other hand, the TV host Nicolle Wallace has been presenting for two hours daily over a period of years. Thus, Nicole Wallace should redirect to Nicolle Wallace, where an already existing hatnote — For the Law & Order: Criminal Intent character, see Nicole Wallace. — can be tweaked to state, For the character, see Nicole Wallace (Law & Order: Criminal Intent). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


text: User talk:64.53.88.92

title: User talk:64.53.88.92


text:
File:Labouroflust.jpg

Licensing
Reduced-sized (3" x 3") digital facsimile reproduction of 12" x 12" album cover art for 33 1/3 RPM Long-Playing recording and 5" x 5" album cover art for Compact Audio Disc recording of the following copyrighted work: Labour of Lust by artist Nick Lowe originally published 1979 by Demon Records.

Removed from the following pages: --OrphanBot 10:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Labour of Lust

title: File:Labouroflust.jpg


text:
Template talk:Game theory

Theorems
I removed existence of NE from the list of theorems. There is already a sketch of the proof at Nash equilibrium and I don't think there is much more to be said. If there is enough to warrant an article, I'd be happy to add it back in. --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Arrow's Theorem?
I think the linkage between the AT and game theory is a bit tenuous, and especially there is nothing in the AT article that creates that linkage. So I'm not sure if we should leave it in, even though the list of theorems is pretty short as it is. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely on the border of game theory. Perhaps Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem is closer, but even that isn't exactly game theory.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I took it off, and also the Guess 2/3 of the average link, which is listed at List of games in game theory but at best maginally notable ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Too long
I'd argue that this template should be drastically shortened or deleted. It is an eyesore on most articles, and it should only be a short list useful for an overview, most articles could simply be in categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how to shorten it, in particular on how to create a feasible inclusion guideline for future articles? ~ trialsanderrors 22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, rm the "related topics" box, that should be in Game theory proper in context. Rm most articles in the "Games" box, only a few very representative ones should be there. Rm most equilibria too, leave a few to give the reader an idea.
 * Simpler yet, make sure Category:Game theory has good categories, and then delete this template, and write a good overview at Game theory. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Navboxes serve a very different purpose than categories. They're quick referral directories while categories are comprehensive (or should be). I'm in favor of not listing every marginal game or solution concept, but I want to know on what grounds we should include or exclude any individual item. ~ trialsanderrors 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, keeping the several most representative items only could be good. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, ready to weed out? ~ trialsanderrors 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I am .... :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic game balancing
Someone ought to look at adding dynamic game balancing to the template. I don't even know if the article is valid or not, but if it is, it needs to be added since it's almost an orphan right now. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's more of a computer game thing, so I pointed that project at the article. C RETOG 8(t/c) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pareto efficiency
Pareto efficiency is listed as a solution concept. I guess that's because it's sometimes used as part of equilibrium refinement? Anyway, I'm thinking to remove it, since it's not really a solution concept (unless I'm missing something), and the Pareto efficiency article isn't currently helpful in providing context. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Signaling game listed twice
I removed the second link for it. --Rajah (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Game Theorists
Perhaps we should link to articles on some of the established game theorists - Nash, von Neumann, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.160.200 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem
Can we include the the Monty Hall problem or is the format incorrect for "game theory" since there is only one player? JamesLucas (" " / +) 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bargaining problem vs. Nash bargaining game
Nash bargaining game, listed here under "games", links to a redirect to bargaining problem, which we list here under "classes of games". Do these really differ such that we need separate entries, and if not, which should we keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMog (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

n-player games
Repeated games are mentioned on the template—shouldn't n-player games also be included? —Perceval 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Separate abstract strategy games from others
I am not sure whether abstract strategy games belong here at all (or under something like combinatorial game theory somehow), but I think it is not at all helpful that they are all mixed up with other games. Does anybody want to subdivide this part of the box? PJTraill (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Game theory


text: User:L'Houngan~enwiki

title: User:L'Houngan~enwiki


text:
Contemporary dance in Japan

Contemporary Japanese dance draws on various traditional styles as well as Western classical and avant-garde forms, interpreted with the standards of Japanese schools. Many famous dance studios grew from training centres for Kabuki actor-dancers or derived from famous Kabuki families.

Western schools covered classical ballet, jazz dance, and modern dance and influenced the butoh avant-garde dance movement. Ballet was said to have replaced traditional Japanese arts, such as flower arrangement and the tea ceremony, in the hearts of young girls. Prima ballerina Morishita Yoko sat on the jury for the Prix de Lausanne Ballet Competition in 1989, held for the first time in Tokyo, marking the arrival of Japanese classical ballet in the international community. Horiuchi Gen, a 1980 Prix de Lausanne winner, became a major soloist with the New York City Ballet, and Japanese performers noted for their superb technique were members of many major international companies. Modern dance was performed early after World War II and was later taught by dancers such as Eguchi Takaya. The Tokyo Modern Dance School and the Ozawa Hisako Modern Dance Company also promoted avant-garde modern dance. A wide experimental range within modern dance occurred from which choreographer Teshigawara Saburo drew to create multifaceted works for his KARAS Company. Many female dancers drawing their art from butoh were trained by the Hanayagi school, whose top dancers performed internationally. Ichinohe Sachiko choreographed and performed traditional dances in Heian court costumes, characterized by the slow, formal, and elegant motions of this classical age of Japanese culture.

The vital avant-garde butoh dance was a major development after the war: at least five major schools performed in the 1985 Butoh Festival, and there were numerous creative offshoots. Hijikata Tatsumi was a dancer who experimented with different kinds of creative dance to capture expressive motions he considered expressly suited to the Japanese physiognomy and psyche. He combined eroticism, social criticism, and avant-garde theatre ideas, and he considered the body to be a repository for "stored memories", which could be metamorphosed into dance forms. His theories and choreography were carried on by a number of famous dancers, who eventually formed their own major companies, which were strong in the 1980s and toured abroad.

title: Contemporary dance in Japan


text: File:Lifekillingme.jpg

title: File:Lifekillingme.jpg


text: Category:Government of Lithuania

title: Category:Government of Lithuania


text:
Coldwell Banker

Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC is an American real estate franchise owned by Anywhere Real Estate, with headquarters in Madison, New Jersey. It was founded in 1906 in San Francisco, and has approximately 3000 offices in 49 countries and territories. It publishes an annual house price guide, Home Listing Report.

History
After the devastating 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fires, Albert Nion Tucker, Colbert Coldwell and John Conant Lynch formed Tucker, Lynch and Coldwell on August 27, 1906. Benjamin Arthur Banker joined the firm as a salesman in 1913, and became a partner in 1914. The company changed its name to Coldwell, Kern & Banker in 1918. In 1919 the name became Coldwell, Kern, Cornwall & Banker, and in 1920, Coldwell Cornwall & Banker. Cornwall retired in 1940, and the company name changed again to Coldwell, Banker & Company, which was shortened to Coldwell Banker in 1974. Banker and Coldwell remained active in the company throughout their lives.

In 1920, Coldwell Banker moved to a three-story building in San Francisco. It opened an office in Phoenix, Arizona, its first outside California, in 1952. In the 1970s the company expanded by acquiring firms in Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. The first international Coldwell Banker office opened in Toronto, Canada in 1996.

Coldwell Banker & Company became a corporation in 1961, and went public in 1968. In 1981 it was bought by Sears, Roebuck, and became part of the Sears Financial Network. In 1989, Sears sold Coldwell Banker's commercial unit to a management-led buyout group including The Carlyle Group for approximately $300 million. As part of the sale, the residential unit retained the Coldwell Banker name; the commercial group has changed names several times after the sale and various mergers and acquisitions, and is now CBRE Group.

Sears sold Coldwell Banker's surviving residential unit to the Fremont Group, a California investment company, for $230 million in 1993. It was sold to HFS Inc., later Cendant, in 1996. When Cendant broke up in 2006, the real estate businesses were spun off as Realogy, which was sold to Apollo Management for about $7.75 billion. In 2022, Realogy rebranded as Anywhere Real Estate, Inc.

Philanthropy
In 2006 helped to raise $5 million to support 100 Habitat for Humanity homes to commemorate its 100th anniversary. In February 2015 it collaborated with Adopt-a-Pet.com, a dog adoption website.

title: Coldwell Banker


text:
Alcohol and cardiovascular disease

In a 2018 study on 599,912 drinkers, a roughly linear association was found with alcohol consumption and a higher risk of stroke, coronary artery disease excluding myocardial infarction, heart failure, fatal hypertensive disease, and fatal aortic aneurysm, even for moderate drinkers. Alcohol abuse may also cause occupational cardiovascular disease. The American Heart Association states that people who are currently non-drinkers should not start drinking alcohol.

Excessive alcohol intake is associated with an elevated risk of alcoholic liver disease (ALD), heart failure, some cancers, and accidental injury, and is a leading cause of preventable death in industrialized countries. Some studies have suggested that one drink per day may have cardiovascular benefits. However, these studies are controversial, and the common view is that no level of alcohol consumption improves health. There is far more evidence for the harmful effects of alcohol than for any beneficial effects. It is also recognized that the alcohol industry may promote the unsubstantiated benefits of moderate drinking.

Alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease
Some early reviews showed that light alcohol consumption may have a protective effect on cardiovascular health. For instance, a meta-analysis from 2010 found that patients with cardiovascular disease who were light to moderate alcohol consumers, were less likely to suffer from cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. However, the researchers warned against encouraging cardiovascular patients who do not regularly consume alcohol to start drinking due to lack of controlled intervention studies and evidence.

Several possible mechanisms have been suggested for the cardioprotective effect of alcohol. These include glucose control, lipid metabolism, and metabolism as a whole. However, another possible explanation is that the cardioprotective effect is only a confounding research result. A logical possibility is that some of the alcohol abstainers in research studies previously drank excessively and had undermined their health. After they quit they were categorized as non-drinkers, which in turn lead to more sick people in the non-drinkers category. To test this hypothesis, a 2019 meta analysis has recategorized people accordingly. As a result, no benefit was found for alcohol consumption of any dosage, moreover, alcohol was detrimental to health even at low doses.

The American Heart Association states that drinking too much alcohol increases health risks including cardiovascular disease precursors such as obesity, high blood pressure, high triglycerides and also heart attacks and strokes. They warn that "We’ve all seen the headlines about studies associating light or moderate drinking with health benefits and reduced mortality. Some researchers have suggested there are health benefits from wine, especially red wine, and that a glass a day can be good for the heart. But there’s more to the story. No research has proved a cause-and-effect link between drinking alcohol and better heart health."

The World Heart Federation (2022) recommends against any alcohol intake for optimal heart health.

It has also been pointed out that the studies suggesting a positive link between red wine consumption and heart health had flawed methodology in the form of comparing two sets of people which were not actually appropriately paired.

Alcohol reduction
It is well known that alcohol consumption increases the risk of hypertension. Hence, many clinical trials examined the effect of reduction in alcohol consumption on blood pressure. Systematic review and meta-analysis have shown that effect of alcohol reduction on blood pressure is dose dependent.

 * I. For people who consumed 2 or fewer drinks per day, blood pressure was not significantly decreased when they reduced alcohol consumption close to abstinence.
 * II. For people who consumed 3 or more drinks per day, blood pressure was significantly decreased when they reduced alcohol consumption close to abstinence.
 * III. For people who consumed 6 or more drinks per day, reduction rate on blood pressure was the strongest when they reduced alcohol consumption close to abstinence.
 * IV. The effect of alcohol reduction on blood pressure is still unclear for women and hypertensive patients who consume less than three drinks per day due to limited clinical trials.

History
In 2010, a systematic review reported that moderate consumption of alcohol does not cause harm to people with cardiovascular disease. However, the authors did not encourage people to start drinking alcohol in the hope of any benefit.

See

 * French paradox
 * Long-term effects of alcohol consumption

title: Alcohol and cardiovascular disease


text:
Hervé Le Tellier

Hervé Le Tellier (born 21 April 1957) is a French writer and linguist, and a member of the international literary group Oulipo (Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle, which translates roughly as "workshop of potential literature"). He is its fourth president. Other notable members have included Raymond Queneau, Georges Perec, Italo Calvino, Jacques Roubaud, Jean Lescure and Harry Mathews. He won the 2020 Prix Goncourt for The Anomaly.

Biography
Born in Paris, Le Tellier started his career as a scientific journalist, and joined Oulipo in 1992. As an author, he came to general attention in 1998 with the publication in France of his book Les amnésiques n'ont rien vécu d'inoubliable, a collection of one thousand very short sentences all beginning with "Je pense que" (I think that), published in English as A Thousand Pearls (for a Thousand Pennies). His rather complex novel Le voleur de nostalgie is a tribute to the Italian writer Italo Calvino. He is also one of the participants of Papous dans la tête, the cult literary quiz of France Culture, the French cultural radio station.

He became in 2002 a daily contributor to the website of the newspaper Le Monde with a short satirical chronicle called Papier de verre ("sandpaper"). He founded, with Frederic Pages and others, the "Association of Friends of Jean-Baptiste Botul" to promote this fictitious philosopher and his school of "Botulism".

One of his most recent publications is Esthétique de l’Oulipo (The Aesthetics of Oulipo), a very personal essay on literature under constraint, considered from a linguistic perspective.

Seven of his books have been translated into English, from Enough about love (Other Press) to The Sextine Chapel (Dalkey Archive).

Award

 * 2020: Prix Goncourt for The Anomaly (French: L'anomalie). He is the first member of Oulipo to win the Goncourt.

Published books

 * Sonates de bar, short stories, 1991.
 * Le Voleur de nostalgie, novel, 1992.
 * La Disparition de Perek, 1997.
 * Les amnésiques n'ont rien vécu d'inoubliable, 1998 (A Thousand Pearls (for a Thousand Pennies))
 * Inukshuk, 1998, videograms by Jean-Baptiste Decavèle.
 * Joconde jusqu'à cent, 1999.
 * Zindien, 2000, poetry, illustrated by Henri Cueco.
 * Encyclopaedia Inutilis, short stories, 2002.
 * Joconde sur votre indulgence, 2002.
 * Cités de mémoire, 2003, (Sighted cities)
 * La Chapelle Sextine, novel, 2005 (The Sextine Chapel).
 * Esthétique de l'Oulipo, essay, 2006.
 * Je m'attache très facilement, novel, 2007 (The Intervention of a Good Man).
 * Les Opossums célèbres, poetry, portmanteau words, illustrated by Xavier Gorce, 2007.
 * Assez parlé d'amour, novel, Éditions Jean-Claude Lattès, 2009 (Enough About Love).
 * L'Herbier des villes, urban haïkaï, Éditions Textuel, 2010.
 * Eléctrico W, novel, Éditions Jean-Claude Lattès, 2011.
 * Contes liquides, written under the nom de plume Jaime Montestrela, short stories, Éditions de l'Attente, 2013, Grand Prix de l'Humour Noir.
 * Demande au muet, socratic dialogs, Editions Nous, 2014.
 * Moi et François Mitterrand, 2016, Editions Jean-Claude Lattes.
 * Toutes les familles heureuses, 2017, Editions Jean-Claude Lattes⁴ (All Happy Families).
 * L'anomalie, 2020, Éditions Gallimard
 * Le nom sur le mur, 2024, Éditions Gallimard

In English

 * The Sextine Chapel, translated by Ian Monk, Dalkey Archive Press, 2011. ISBN 978-1-56478-575-6
 * A Thousand Pearls (for a Thousand Pennies), translated by Ian Monk, Dalkey Archive Press, 2011, ISBN 1-56478-636-6.
 * Enough About Love, translated by Adriana Hunter, Other Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59051-399-6
 * The Intervention of a Good Man, translated by Adriana Hunter, Other Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59051-492-4
 * Electrico W, translated by Adriana Hunter, Other Press, 2013, ISBN 978-1-59051-533-4. For her translation, Adriana Hunter won the 27th Annual Translation Prize founded by the French-American Foundation and the Florence Gould Foundation.
 * All happy families, translated by Adriana Hunter, Other Press, March 2019, ISBN 978-1-59051-938-7.
 * Atlas inutilis, in French Contes liquides, "Fluid fables", translated by Cole Swensen, Black Square Editions, 2018, ISBN 978-0-9860050-9-1.
 * The Anomaly, translated by Adriana Hunter, Other Press, November 2021, ISBN 978-1-63542-169-9.

In English, with Oulipo

 * Oulipo Compendium, Atlas Press, 1998
 * Winter Journeys, Atlas Press, 2000

title: Hervé Le Tellier


text: User talk:194.153.187.141

title: User talk:194.153.187.141


text:
Talk:Greystone Inn

Removed references to Courting Disaster because it has nothing to do with Greystone Inn.--60.225.156.53 03:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greystone Inn


text: User talk:71.241.228.183

title: User talk:71.241.228.183


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Bladderwort/archive1

Bladderwort
Comments requested on this article that I was asked to write by the chap who began most of the carnivorous plants articles. I did make an effort: a poor librarian in Bristol was practically bent double under the pile of books I requested from the basement. After I couldn't find suitable public domain photos I waded into numerous ponds in search of samples, and I even sketched a couple of diagrams myself where the article seemed to warrant them. For those not intimately acquainted with literature on carnivorous plants, please take my word for it that references 1, 2, 4, and 5 are acknowledged leading authorities on this subject. Genuine advice sought on how to bring this to FA standard, if the subject is of sufficient intrinsic interest to get it there. I've an idea it needs more, but I've reached the limit of what value I can add without outside suggestions. Many thanks to anyone who offers their opinion, ~ Veledan • Talk + new 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Great article on an interesting topic- the content is all there, but it could use some work in the organization. Hope that give you some ideas.--nixie 02:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Taxobox would probably be better with a more general pic that gives an impression of the whole plant, like Image:Uk pond bladderwort.jpg
 * 2) The lead is too long- try and cut it back to three paragraphs that adequately summaries the topic. For example the etymology details in the lead could be moved to the description part of the article.
 * 3) This template was suggested for plants - which is not perfect or universally applicable, but I think the description should come before the distribution details.
 * 4) The article doens't explicitly mention how they reproduce.
 * 5) Some people don't like numbered figures, you may want to get rid of the numbers and make sure the figure has a good descriptive caption and is described adequately in the text
 * 6) Do the plants have any value to humans, are they edible or have they been investigated for medicinal properties? Are they an inportant food source in aquatic ecosystems?
 * 7) There was a recent phylogenetic study, which might be of interest for expanding the species section, the ref is PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION 250 (1-2): 39-67 JAN 2005; if you'd like the pdf email me. Similarly there was a recent article about digestive enzymes NEW PHYTOLOGIST 159 (3): 669-675 SEP 2003

 * Wow thanks for being so specific and for giving me so many pointers! I have to admit I wasn't even aware of the existence of that template.  Numbers 1-5 I can work on this morning, number 6 will see me back in the library and number 7 - I'll mail you right away :-).  Again, many thanks ~ Veledan • Talk + new 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Follow-on question: although I'm going to try to find out for sure later, I already suspect the answer to number 6 is no, no, no and no. I can see the article needs to answer the questions, but how to flesh it out and reference negative statements? So far no studies appear to have been conducted... (shudder) ~ Veledan • Talk + new 06:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If the anwser to 6 is no, no, no, just leave them out.--nixie 09:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK - I echo everything nixie said too. Good work - looong article for such an obscure thing! Kudos! Ryan Norton T 08:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Many paragraphs too short
 * 2) Intro should be 3 good size paragraphs rather than 7 medium-size ones
 * 3) "This is a strange genus:" - POV.... "unlike some others" would be more nuetral for example
 * 4) "Physical description" - no section intro
 * 5) "Trapping mechanism" - no section intro
 * 6) "Species" - too short
 * 7) "Image (Fig.2)" - first sentence of caption should try to sum up what it is rather than explain it

Thanks, I now have a workplan :-)

Thanks to you both; these are the pointers I was hoping for in coming here. As promised, I spent this afternoon in the library and I'm about to start work again. I'll implement everything suggested as best I can. First, a couple of specific points I wanted to mention:
 * Nixie:
 * 1. A pity the pond pic I took isn't better but it's too late in the year for me to get another. UK bladderworts are now just rotting brown strings with turions on the end :-/
 * 4. Glad you pointed me in this direction. It turns out that bladderwort flowering habits are as weird and inconsistent as anything else about them.  I look forward to adding the details.
 * 6. Mostly going to be left out. You wouldn't believe what detailed studies have been done on these plants (actually, you probably would, considering the two studies you sent me :-)).  For example: their seeds have been tracked across oceans, presumably carried on the feet of birds.  But nothing re the above categories has been mentioned.  I will check CITES listings etc as a final bid before beginning the writing though.
 * 7. Thanks for these studies. You have access to a pretty impressive information store!

 * Ryan:
 * 3. Thanks for picking that up. I'll look at my sources again and choose between neutralising it or substituting an attributed paraphrase.  I've come back from today's library visit with some great quotes, including one or two from Darwin himself.

 * - When you say 'loong article' do you mean too long? It may get a little longer in restructuring, though condensing paragraphs where I can will counter the effect a bit.

Is it OK for me to come back and say and invite more comments when I'm done? It may take me a day or two to restructure the article because I'm away for the weekend and will only have occasional computer access.

Cheers again, ~ Veledan • Talk + new 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course :) - these things typically last for two weeks to a month depending on when we respond :). Ryan Norton T 18:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm delisting this for now even though I'm only half way through making the amendments to the page because I'm on a more or less unavoidable wikibreak (new job, new bosses to impress) and have very little energy left for editing. Thanks to you guys for your help, and I will finish the work when I feel capable.  ~ Veledan • Talk + new 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
John Peile

John Peile (24 April 1838 – 9 October 1910) was an English philologist.

Life
He was born at Whitehaven, the son of geologist Williamson Peile, F.G.S., who died when his son was five years old.

He was educated at Repton (under the headmastership of his uncle, Thomas Williamson Peile, father of Sir James Braithwaite Peile), St. Bees School and Christ's College, Cambridge. After a distinguished career (Craven Scholar, Senior Classic and First Chancellor's Medallist), he became Fellow and Tutor of his college, Reader of Comparative Philology in the university (1884-1891), and in 1887 was elected Master of Christ's. He took a great interest in the higher education of women and became president of Newnham College. He was the first to introduce the great philological works of Georg Curtius and Wilhelm Corssen to the English student in his Introduction to Greek and Latin Etymology (1869). He died at Cambridge in October 1910, leaving practically completed his exhaustive history of Christ's College (publ. 1913). Married.

title: John Peile


text:
A Low Down Dirty Shame

A Low Down Dirty Shame is a 1994 American action comedy film written, directed, and starring Keenen Ivory Wayans. The film also stars Charles S. Dutton, Jada Pinkett, and Salli Richardson.

Plot
Former LAPD detective Andre Shame is a wisecracking, gun-toting private investigator who owns A Low Down Dirty Shame Investigations. He runs it with his energetic and talkative assistant Peaches, whom he arrested shoplifting six years earlier and to whom he has developed a slight attraction. Despite the high-risk jobs, Shame is unable to keep the firm afloat, and may be forced to close.

Five years prior, Shame and a team of detectives traveled to Mexico to apprehend drug lord, Ernesto Mendoza. Though Shame seemingly shot and killed Mendoza in a shootout, the other detectives were killed, with Shame and colleague Sonny Rothmiller being the only survivors. This caused Shame to leave the force in disgrace.

In the present day, Rothmiller, who is now working for the DEA, tells him that Mendoza is still alive. He hires Shame to find the only witness who would testify against him...his ex-girlfriend Angela, who was caught in the middle of a love triangle with the two men. Angela escaped from the Witness Protection Program in New York and is in LA. Shame is hesitant at first, but seeing this as a chance to arrest the man who took everything from him, decides to take the case.

Shame gets information on one of Mendoza's lieutenants, Luis, Shame's former childhood acquaintance, then goes to a restaurant and has Luis warn Mendoza that Shame is coming for him. Upon arriving home, Shame is attacked by Mendoza's henchmen and warned by a very much alive Mendoza to back off.

With the help of Peaches and her homosexual roommate Wayman, Shame tracks Angela to a posh hotel, and calls Sonny. Shame explains that he originally went to Mexico for her. She tells Shame that she was going to testify against Mendoza, but Mendoza found her location, forcing her to flee. Shame discovers that Rothmiller is working for Mendoza, and the two barely escape Mendoza's thugs. Shame drops Angela at Peaches’.

Shame cleans himself up, then abducts Luis and takes him to an abandoned building. When Luis refuses to give Shame Mendoza's whereabouts, Shame has him stumble into a meeting of white supremacists. With the supremacists chasing him, he gives Shame his boss' location in exchange for a ride. But Shame leaves him at their mercy.

At the club, Shame and Mendoza exchange words, then get into a Mexican standoff with Mendoza using his date as a hostage. When Wayman attempts to get Shame's attention, Mendoza uses the distraction to escape. Shame goes to Peaches to find Angela gone (she and Peaches had gotten into an argument earlier), and Capt. Nunez waiting for him. He has Nunez place Peaches in protective custody and heads off to find Angela.

Shame meets Angela at a storage locker and discovers the real reason Mendoza wants her dead: she stole $20 million of his money. At a motel Shame receives a call from Mendoza informing him he has kidnapped Peaches and will exchange her for Angela and his money. The two agree to meet at a Mendoza-owned shopping mall. Angela tries to convince Shame to leave with her, yet admitting that he cares for Peaches, Shame refuses and the two of them head to the mall.

Before the exchange, Sonny admits he was the one who killed the other detectives, because they wouldn't take Mendoza's bribe without Shame. He left Shame alive to take the blame. Peaches and Angela are placed on the escalator, and Mendoza discovers that Angela is a mannequin. With a gun hidden on the escalator Peaches begins shooting. Shame kills the mercenaries hired by Sonny, Luis is attacked by the dogs that were supposed to kill Shame, and Sonny is killed by Angela.

Mendoza captures Peaches, only to be confronted by Shame. After winning a fistfight, Shame arrests Mendoza, who is then killed by Angela. She attempts to kill Shame, telling him she knows he won’t allow her to keep the money she stole. Peaches comes and fights off Angela. Nunez threatens to arrest Shame, but Shame reminds Nunez that he helped take down a drug lord, identified Sonny as the DEA mole, found a federal witness on the run (Angela, who is lead away in handcuffs for her crimes), and recovered $15 million in stolen drug money. Nunez reluctantly lets Shame go. Shame keeps $5 million for expenses, with Peaches getting perks of a romantic relationship with Shame.

Cast

 * Keenen Ivory Wayans as Andre Shame
 * Jada Pinkett as "Peaches" Jordan
 * Andrew Divoff as Ernesto Mendoza
 * Charles S. Dutton as Sonny Rothmiller
 * Salli Richardson as Angela Flowers
 * Chris Spencer as Benny
 * Corwin Hawkins as Wayman Harrington
 * Don Diamont as Chad
 * Gary Cervantes as Luis
 * John Capodice as Mob Boss
 * Gregory Sierra as Captain Nunez
 * Andrew Shaifer as Bernard
 * Kim Wayans as Diane
 * René Hicks as Hooker

Soundtrack
A soundtrack containing hip hop and R&B music was released on November 8, 1994, by Hollywood Records and Jive Records. It peaked at #70 on the Billboard 200 and #14 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums.

Reception
On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, with 23 reviews, the film has an approval rating of 4%, receiving an average rating of 3.8/10. The website's critics consensus reads: "A trifecta of failure for writer-director-star Keenen Ivory Wayans, A Low Down Dirty Shame lives repeatedly and resolutely down to its title."

Year-end lists

 * Top 10 worst (not ranked) – Dan Webster, The Spokesman-Review
 * Top 18 worst (alphabetically listed, not ranked) – Michael Mills, The Palm Beach Post

title: A Low Down Dirty Shame


text: User talk:151.205.235.143

title: User talk:151.205.235.143