really belong in an article on the thirteen colonies, or at least not in the opening paragraph that identifies those colonies. This article should, instead, contain information on matters that affected the thirteen colonies (such as the Pequot War, King Philip's War, Bacon's Rebellion, the Glorious Revolution, Coode's Rebellion, Leisler's Rebellion, the Great Awakening, and the Parson's cause, etc., not to mention the four Anglo-French Wars). Why are you so interested in bringing the 1780s and 1790s into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.137 (talk)

The problem with the 13 colonies article is that one of the contributors keeps inserting the false claim that a country called the United States of America was established in 1776. This is quite simply false. The Declaration of Independence itself didn't purport to establish a country, and the colonies were not united as a single country until many years later - through a process which involved a war, an aborted attempt to confederate (the Articles of Confederation) and the actual establishment of the nation through the Constitution. I have no interest in bringing the 1780s and 1790s into the article, but rather in keeping misinformation about what happened in 1776 out of the article. - Nunh-huh 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I have a question for you, as well as a few points for your to consider. The question is, on what authority do you insist that the United States of America was not established in 1776? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Are you a college professor who teaches this? If not, is this something that you can cite from a recognized source? I am serious about this, and I don't, at all, mean any offense. If you have some specialized knowledge on this subject, I am willing to defer to your judgement.

But keep in mind the view of the other person who keeps insisting that the United States was founded in 1776. Just to play the devil's advocate to your point, consider for a moment that not only does the United States government consider July 4, 1776 as the "birthday" of the United States, but the closing paragraph of the Declaration begins with the words, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America." Also, it is quite possible, and has happened numerous times in history, that a country can exist without a government. So, couldn't it be argued that the United States came into being in 1776, years before it adopted a goverment? And, of course, there are historians who argue that the Second Continental Congress was a "shadow government."

Nonetheless, assuming you are correct about 1776 -- and I do see your point that there was no United States government until the adoption of the Articles of Confederation or even the Constitution (take your pick), so am not trying to disagree with you on the facts -- the language I inserted was an attempt to resolve the differences between you and that other person. I didn't say that the United States was founded on July 4, 1776. I said that that date is "traditionally considered the 'birthday' of the United States." Therefore, even if you dispute whether or not the United States was founded on July 4, 1776, you cannot dispute that that date is considered by most people to be the date the country was founded. Hence, I used the word, "traditionally." Look on the back of a one-dollar bill. The foundation of the pyramid contains the Roman date "MDCCLXXVI", ie, "1776." So, even if that is not the date that the United States started, it is the date that most people (including the government) the beginning of the United States.

Again, I mean no disrespect or offense. I am interested in your opinion (and the sources you use to back it up). But, I am trying to find language to resolve the dispute over what is essentially a minor point when one examines the history of the thirteen colonies. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.137 (talk)

There is no historian who asserts that there was a country called the United States of America on July 4, 1776, so really I don't know why you'd want to try to dispute that fact. And whether or not you can make the case that that date is a "traditional" "birthday", that factoid has no place in the opening paragraph of an article on the 13 colonies. - Nunh-huh 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, as Gordon Wood wrote, "When people in 1776 talked about their 'country' or even their 'nation,' they usually meant Virginia or Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.'" (Wood, The American Revolution, A History, p. 70). However, using the words "no historian" is taking a pretty strong stand. I don't have many of my books here at home, and I agree with you that few historians suggest that an American nation existed in 1776. However, regarding your statement that "no historian...asserts that there was a country called the United States of America on July 4, 1776," I would call your attention to the late John Richard Alden, a long time professor at Duke, who wrote that, "On July 2, 1776, after much debate and soul searching, they announced the secession of the Thirteen Colonies from the British Empire and the birth of the new nation, the United States of America." (Alden, The American Revolution, 1775-1783, p. 73.)

But, it is really silly to pursue this. I am completely satisfied with your latest revision, which simply (and accurately) states that the thirteen colonies "formally declared their independence on July 4, 1776." (If we really wanted to get technical, we could debate whether the actual date is July 2nd or July 4. For the record, I suppose I see the difference between the two as July 2 being the date independence passed and July 4 being the date it took effect. But, please, I don't want to get into that can of worms!) Again, I didn't mean to sound disrepectful or offensive. I was simply looking for a solution that would satisfy everyone. ((unsigned|198.11.27.137}}

Well, as long as we're all happy then. I'd be willing to amend "no historian" to "no thoughtful historian in anything other than an off-the-cuff throwaway statement". - Nunh-huh 08:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that I would call someone who taught at Duke anything less than "thoughtful," and I would hardly consider the final sentence in an opening paragraph on a chapter on Independence an "off-the-cuff throwaway statement," but I see your point. Few historians would agree with what Alden said. Gordon Wood, perhaps the most prominent historian today on the American Revolution and the adoption of the Consititution (or, for that matter, on any topic) does not believe that the United States of America started in 1776.

For the most part, however, this has been a debate over a silly issue that few historians even care about. What difference does it make if the United States began in 1776, 1781, 1783, or 1789? The important thing is, it grew out of the Revolution. Most modern historians are not so much concerned with pinning down a single date. Instead, they are concerned with the meaning of the Revolution -- What caused it? How did it change society? People like Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (A Midwife's Tale) and Linda Grant De Pauw (Founding Mothers) look at how the Revolution affected women. Afred F. Young, in The Shoemaker and the Tea Party, examines how the average participants looked back at their involvement in the Revolution. Even Wood, who made a name for himself arguing that the American Revolution really was a "revolution" and who is now on a crusade attempting to prove that the Founding Founders are still relevant isn't so much concerned with this issue. His major works (The Creation of the American Republic and Radicalism During the American Revolution) are studies of the impact of the Revolution on ideology rather than a simple survey of dates and facts. Wood's work is, of course, in some ways the reverse of his professor, Bernard Bailyn, whose Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is still influential in how people look at the Revolution.

This hasn't been a debate. This has been an attempt to be accurate. Attempting to be accurate is not silly. - Nunh-huh 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AndonicO's version of Randfan's Happy Thanksgiving template

Hehe, that's a funny picture. Thanks for wishing me well too. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww... The picture was deleted. Oh well. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can still remember it clearly. *laughs* Thanks for giving it to me way back when it existed. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, if you just edit the section I'll leave that alone for a bit and there should be less chance of an edit conflict. Thanks again. TimVickers 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm trying in the pathogenic bacteria section to move in order of specialisation from bacteria that are only pathogens in unnatural circumstances to bacteria that are obligate pathogens. This is why I had the commensal/pathogens (facultative pathogens?) next to the opportunistic infection. This isn't really my area, so it's good to have an expert like yourself to filter out my stranger ideas! Thanks. TimVickers 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my suggestion is that you should do it the other way round: it is more natural to move from least specialized (more common) pathogens to the rarer ones. - Nunh-huh 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, it does read better that way. TimVickers 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). If you had any further comments they would be very welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days I hope we'll get the Pathogens sentence in a form everybody is happy with. If this ever happens, I think I'll have a beer to celebrate! TimVickers 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I have always hated bacterial secretion systems, could I ask a favour and have you write a short paragraph on them at the end of the section on extracellular structures? I agree with Willow that we can't just miss them out, but I really can't bring myself to read about them. TimVickers 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier just to divert attention by adding an animated gif of tap-dancing helicobacter? I can give it a go, though not tonight. (Any chance Willow would care to add it instead? It's not really my thing, either :) ) - Nunh-huh 05:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just adapt the prose from the secretion article: There are at least five specialized secretion systems in bacteria:

• the Type I secretion system using ATP binding cassette transporters.
• the Type II secretion system using the Sec Y-E-G complex to enable proteins to cross the inner membrane and another special system to cross the outer membrane. Bacterial pili use modifications of the sec system, but are different from type I system.
• the Type III secretion system (T3SS) is homologous to the flagellar basal body. It acts as a molecular syringe through which a bacterium can inject proteins into eukaryotic cells.
• the Type IV secretion system is homologous to the bacterial conjugation machinery, and can transport both DNA and proteins.
• the Type V secretion system, also called the autotransporter system, uses the Sec system to cross the inner membrane. Proteins which use this path form a beta barrel in their C terminus and insert into the outer membrane to transport the rest of the peptide out.

-Nunh-huh 06:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea of a Dancing Helicobacter, that would make a wonderful screensaver. I bit the bullet and added a paragraph. It won't satisfy the people who live for such things, but it does direct them to something they can read. TimVickers 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely done. There's no need for excruciating detail in such a general article. - Nunh-huh 19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't move it back, since it's not the point, but here are the directions for its placement: Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week#How to nominate an article. Hoverfish 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed them. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. Best regards.--Húsönd 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I gave the Sybille Bedford article you started a once-over. Hope to find the time to make more changes... indeed, sort of needs to be wikified at this point. Interested, though, in your thoughts on the content, if you have any to offer. Watchsmart 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. You're very right in regards to the name being a little bit awkward. I like how it is handled on, for example,Virginia Woolf's page - referring to the author as "Virginia" when describing her early life, and as "Woolf" everywhere else. When the article is broken up into sections that technique reads pretty well. I'll try to implement something like that as I expand the article.

I think I'd like to leave the description of "A Compass Error" as-is for now - the protagonist of the work has sex with both men and women. Thematic stuff can be made clear with some further expansions to the article. Watchsmart 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that Wikipedia's greatest weakness is the patent ignorance of many of those who mindlessly add content to it.

It's a contender, I suppose. Did you have something specific in mind? - Nunh-huh 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit? BenC7 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is: "did you mean to delete the portions of the page that are deleted in this 'diff'?" The answer is no. I suspect something went sideways in an edit conflict. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BenC7 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple solution to the naked woman debate - please see my suggestion on the discussion page. Please tell me what you think, as you seem ultra keen on this issue. Regards, --ToyotaPanasonic 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no- I had forgotten, and apologize. The school computers have access to JSTOR URLs in a way that my home computer doesn't— precisely because they are school computers. The article is stored on that site, memory serves, so I should be able to check its footnotes and arguments and paraphrase quickly, or see if the music library has the journal quoted- that would be best; then I can do so in more leisurely fashion than right after work :) (I'm temp/casual-staff, to explain.) Thanks. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a link to a review of Bayreuth : a history of the Wagner festival by Frederic Spotts, published by Yale University Press in 1994. The university library has the book being reviewed (and allows reading the magazine's issues online also through the library catalog for students/staff/etc, because of JSTOR through 1999, because of the publisher afterwards.)...

However, the reviewer (Stephen McClatchie) regards the book as badly under- and poorly documented (that is, those documents/citations provided don't always establish what's claimed.)

The reviewer does mention Michael Karbaum's Studien zur Geschichte zum Bayreuther Festspiele and Peter Pachl's biography of Siegfried Wagner as sources for Siegfried Wagner's having fathered an illegimate son (and presumably for his having been Walter Aign)... page 281 of the review. Will see what my poor German can make of those books and if the library has them, in a bit. Thanks again. Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reviewer and the paragraph on page 122 (now this is from memory but I'll open the article again in a couple of hours- not annoyed, just doing something else :), this interests me too. ) Spotts mentions Siegfried "fathering an illegitimate son in 1900" but doesn't give the name. It opens a paragraph about undocumented (by Spotts) same-sex relationships. (I care that it's undocumented by the author, interesting, and yes, illegal at the time.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wanted to write, but now they'll have both our heads. Can I change it to something readable and satisfying? --VKokielov 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a consensus to add the homeopathic comment you keep reinserting into the Rush Limbaugh article. Please do not reinsert this comment without getting consensus in TALK first, otherwise you will be in violation of WP:3RR rules. Please review WP:3RR Caper13 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with 3RR, thank you. It applies to deletions as well as additions. - Nunh-huh 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work seeing through the Caper13/RtRev/DualFreq/Allen3 cabal. They ignore consensus, strip the page of anything short of fan-club like commentary, and then try to lure editors into 3RR violations. Nice to see more and more editors are calling them on their lies. Keep up the good work! Eleemosynary 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without necessarily endorsing your characterizations :), I am amazed at the resistance to including a simple statement of an undisputed fact in the article in question. And yes, fortunately I can count to 3 :) - Nunh-huh 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least thank you for not endorsing the "cabal" view. The reason for my resistance to this edit is that it is trivial. WP is already swimming in trivia especially in BLP's. What is your view on the notability of Limbaugh's ZiCam endorsement and how is it different from any other celebrity endorsement for a product? I fail to see how this is a notable feature in Limbaugh's biopgraphy. --Rtrev 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated repeatedly, Limbaugh frequently advises his listeners on the strength of the scientific arguments for and against various issues (global warming, the gasseous output of trees, the usefulness of pleuripotent stem cells for research, and other issues such as whether Michael J. Fox's "spastic" movements are natural or exaggerated). Those who take his advice on one of these scientific subjects should do so in the light of the fact that he also personally endorses a homeopathic remedy—effectively, he's saying water cures colds. The endorsement has been noted in Time magazine, the Washington Post, and other places, and deserves mention here. The vehemence of the reaction against placing this simple statement of fact into the article provides a diagnosis of why the article is one-sided and bears the neutrality tag. It will probably bear the tag forever, as some can't bear to see any statement included that's from anything other than the "Rush Point of View", and resist each such with tooth and nail. - Nunh-huh 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. You are using his sponsoring of a homeopathy medicine to try and score a social point on the man using the Wikipedia. It is not the goal of the Wikipedia editor to attempt to color the reader's judgment of Limbaugh's claims. It was mentioned in passing in Time and the WaPo which does not by default make it notable.

I also think you are confusing a desire for neutrality and non-trivial additions with Limbaugh boosterism. At least once a week someone goes to the talk page and accuses one or more editors of being part of some cabal to sanitize the Limbaugh article. I can assure that is not the case with me. Please WP:AGF. I really don't care for Limbaugh but this addition is just not encyclopedic or meaningful and it is clear that there is no consensus for its addition. The only supporters seem to be you and Eleesmary.

Anyway, I would like to convince you that it is trivial but I doubt we will reach an agreement. So consider my part of the discussion done for now. The only thing I ask is that you would stop accusing editors of being Limbaugh boosters bent on sanitizing his article whether directly or by implication. It is not generally constructive and it is just one of those things that always irks me when I see it on WP. --Rtrev 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really should heed the advice you offer. You object to being accused of boosterism, but you accuse me of "scoring social points". Oh well, I shouldn't expect consistency. Again, the fact that Time magazine noted it makes it notable. The fact that the Washington Post noted it makes it notable. There's no consensus for removing the information, so it should stay. That's the way it works. As for whether Limbaugh's article has been sanitized: it has. There's no appreciable space given to any viewpoints opposing Limbaugh's; someone who read it would, among other things, never know there was a book (or two) written in opposition to him. The thing speaks for itself. - Nunh-huh 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found some information on the RootWeb family tree website about Professor Thomas J. Preston, Jr. of Princeton University. He married Frances Cleveland, the widow of Grover Cleveland in 1913. Also I hope you like the book about Benjamin Harrison especially since there was information about his second wife, Mary Dimmick Harrison. Thanks-RFD 13:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- I got your message and the information. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you find information in researching for articles.RFD 16

15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the spelling: I was getting there slowly and laboriously, clicked save -- and you had already done it! Thanks again, -- The Anome 08:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nunh-huh, you recently added source to article on John Kerry linking him to Anne Bradstreet. This may be my mistake but I couldn't find any such info on the refed website. Can you point me to specific part of the page that supports this? Thank you.--Pethr 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User_talk:Pethr. - Nunh-huh 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I haven' t searched for her girl name but for Anne Bradstreet. My mistake.--Pethr 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was wondering if you would please link the 2 articles about Thomas J. Preston, Jr. that you posted on my talk page and put them on the discussion page about Thomas J. Preston, Jr.. That way people might want to read them when they look at the article. The United Staes Presidents make interesting reading. For example President John Tyler may had fathered some illegitiment children by his black slaves. Many thanks for your help. RFD 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. That edit summary was not appropriate. My only excuse is that I am being hounded by not-you at the current time. To strike at you was not appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]]Max Thayer 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

193.251.10.73 keeps vandalizing and should be blocked undefinitely.Max Thayer 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing around today and came across a discussion you and I had over at Talk:Cardiology diagnostic tests and procedures way back in 2004. Sorry for being such a jackass and assuming that I had a better grasp of WP's needs than you. I know we don't cross paths all too often, but I admire your work, particularly your reference desk presence and your efforts to organize the response to the Nature article. Hope there are no hard feelings. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Charles Darwin you provided helpful info including a link to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which unfortunately includes opinions on English law differing, "UK museums therefore continue to claim copyright over photographic reproductions of items in their collections". The UK Museums Copyright Group refers to "UK law" and "British law", so presumably it also applies to Scots law. I've noticed such claims here and have tended to be cautious about such sources. Would this have implications for finding images of Darwin? .. dave souza, talk 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just about to write up a Request for Comment concerning the ongoing dispute. In essesnce, I would like to come to a consensus as to whether the Moon landing hoax accusations can even be mentioned or discussed on the "independent evidence" article. I have no problem with the merge proposal, but I am not sure whether it is better to do the RfC before or after the merge debate. If you remove the merge proposal, I'll try to write up the RfC ASAP. On the other hand, if you think now is a good time for a merge debate, could you start a sub-topic on one of the pages and list your reasons? Lunokhod 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any reason for an "independent evidence" article if hoax accusations didn't exist? It seems to be that one is the answer to the other, and I see no need for two articles about such silly accusations when one would do. - Nunh-huh 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the independent evidence article up for deletion about two weeks ago, but it failed. The primary reason for the failure seemed to be people who were voting that did not understand wikipedia policy. In particular, this article is non-notable (no publications that deal exclusively with independent evidence), it is a POV fork from the "accusations" page, and the title is not in accordance with NPOV policy (in my opinion). I am also worried that this article consititutes original research: not in the statements themselves, but in the manner that they have been collected and presented.

To answer your question, I think that the two articles are intimately related, and that a merge is probably the solution (since deletion didn't work). However, you are going to run into gravitor's arguements that "independent evidence exists, therefore it deserves an article" and "the evidence itself has no relationship to the hoax." These argument are weasel arguments, and he is not taking wikipedia policy in good faith. He is a well know hoax proponent and is trying to use this article to prove a point (presumably that the evidence is weak, but who can decipher his logic?). If the merge discussion starts up, I will add my comments to it, otherwise I'll write up the RfM request this weekend. Lunokhod 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then you have matters well in hand. I would think to the extent that "independent evidence" is important, it should be placed in the various mission articles and/or as rebuttal points in the (obligatory) hoax article. If the matter comes to comment or discussion, I'll add my two bits. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably talk about the 1st ip on the talk pageDaniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. One thing that ought to be made clear is that HIV exists, and is the cause of AIDS. That nutcases don't believe it needn't be taken into account in writing an article about those facts. - Nunh-huh 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you said MastCell was reverting me - when in fact he went with my plan (he merely re-added some citations because of the whole ref name thing - by taking out ones for one sentence, I was actually taking out future ones) -which was to not include the sentence in the opening paragraph (or perhaps at all - I think we left the section that we had on that sentence - which was my main reason for deleting it - there). So if you still think it's better your way you might want to still fight for it on the talk page.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I don't want you to think I was accusing you of vandalims - when you had reverted me without talking about it on the talk page (I had stated a suggestion and you never responded so I put it up and then still with out responding you reverted) I stated an if statement - because what you were doing seemingly violated WP:MOS and there is a section in the vandalism page where it says... something along the lines of if you continue to do edits/reverts that hinder the improvement of the article it is considered vandalism. So I stated that if you continue to just revert without trying to come to a consensus it's essentially vandalism. Hope that clears things up a bit.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you can say whatever you like about me. You do have to reaccess what you are doing at that article, and should probably not use "vandalism" in your idiosyncratic sense on Wikipedia, because that's not what it means here. - Nunh-huh 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not clog up the talk page with discussion of whether a poll is a good idea. I think that the ongoing discussion on the talk page (including objections to Venus) show that the issue is still alive. If you've noticed, I oppose Frau too, but I don't want to make her the center of the debate. I would really appreciate it if you'd participate in the poll; I know you're tired of this issue after 3 years but I actually hope that this poll might finish it once and for all. Read my bit about consensus, it's not a vote, you don't have to worry that Frau will win simply through force of numbers. Cheers, --Homunq 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]