Sigh... you're right. supadawg 16:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now I notice that a Brazilian computer programmer had moved from Pedro to Peter. So I am reverting what I did. I will contact the Brazilian computer programmer to see what he thinks. Maybe it should be "Peter II of Brazil" for some reason.

And yes. I should have moved. ---Rednblu 07:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Yep. I see you fixed it. Thanks. It is up to Pedro's subjects to decide where he lies.  :))) ---Rednblu 07:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You recently put some data in that page that someone put up as a stub. I think all of the relevant material is fully covered in existing pages: New_moon, Easter, Computus, Epact, even Full_moon_cycle and various entries on calenders. I agree with "Unconvinced" that the page better be cleaned up (removed?), as well as links you pointed to it. --- Sincerely, User:Tom Peters 20040817T15:24 UTC

For what it's worth "cleaned up" around here is usually taken to mean "rehabilitated by editing" while "removed" would generally be called "deleted". I have no objection at all if you have a better idea how to handle the article - edit, delete, clean up or whatever! - Nunh-huh 03:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, sorry for reverting you on 12 Days of Christmas. I reacted to the edit quickly and hadn't noticed the Snopes external link. Perhaps it should be referenced in the text to make clear why the 'no evidence statement is made'? Perhaps also you can come up with a phrasing that doesn't sound _quite_ so POV?

Klanda | Talk 06:03, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the point is to not BE POV. The "not sounding POV" part only helps avoid unnecessary reverts. In this case, there is no evidence that the lyrics were ever what modern internet opiners claim they might have been. It's simply a baseless assertion. If anyone thinks this is POV, all they need do is cite someone who cites evidence to the contrary. Feel free to tidy or explain 12-D-O-C in any way you prefer, but please don't suggest that there is evidence supporting (an unsupportable) position when there is none! - Nunh-huh 06:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to move articles because you prefer an alternative spelling. - Nunh-huh 21:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I was doing. I was moving those articles because the articles had one spelling, and the title had another. Arno 03:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on all the operettas. RickK 05:31, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Done; thanx for correcting my english (-: Cdang, a poor french guy

That's the fun with French : you have several ways of spelling the same sound (e.g. è-est-ai-ei-ê) and a spelling is not always pronounced in the same way (just like your ea in read or ready). By the way, don't hesitate to modify the articles, they ar not mine (-: Cdang 08:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't contribute much to the english wiki, more to the french one. But I appreciate your pedagogical way. Cdang 08:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Concerning restoration and restauration, I'm a bit confused about the articles; my feeling tells me that restauration should be related to restaurants, but the article is an historical one. An error somewhere ? Cdang 08:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BTY, I saw you were involved in the medical project. I posted two suggestions but still got no answer, would you give me your opinion ? See Talk:Stretcher and Talk:Evacuation -- Cdang 12:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about scoop precisely because of scoop stretcher and scoop and run. Well, I'll ask to the talk page you told me. Thanx Cdang 07:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

God, what a bitch. I don't miss not seeing her on TV. Mike H 23:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

<snort>! Good think I'm not drinking milk, it'd have been right out my nose. - Nunh-huh 23:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I didn't think the response you gave came off a bit...bitchy? Mike H 22:54, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Geez, I thought I toned it down to piqued. Trust me, you'll know bitchy when I mean it<g>. I wasn't sure if you were "correcting" it because you didn't know it was a correct spelling, or because you knew but simply preferred one spelling over another. The latter reason tends to tick people off. No permanent harm done, I trust? In the words of Rula Lenska..."Don't hate me...". - Nunh-huh 23:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could never hate you! :-D I'm not jealous of anyone's beauty. I've come to peace with the ugly bit. :-P Mike H 23:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

The reference is not really all that apropos, but who else would understand a Rula Lenska reference? I hated to waste it. - Nunh-huh 23:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a textual caricature of me smiling! :-D Mike H 00:12, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hate me because I am really good in bed and you can't have none of this? Possibly? What, no? I don't believe you. Mike H 00:17, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't believe so. A misspelling is, by very definition, a mistake. The sentence is therefore contradictory.

Merriam-Webster entry:

Pronunciation: "mis-'spel

Function: transitive verb

: to spell incorrectly

Thanks however for your precious help on Quebec artists. ;-)) --Liberlogos 23:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Nunh-huh 00:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The word "Misstress" is not the correct spelling of "mistress". It is spelled incorrectly. So the definition you cite disproves your case. -- Nunh-huh 23:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why did you move all of Da Ali G Show character information into the Sacha Baron Cohen article? Each of the three characters is complex and have lots of separate information on them, relating to backgrounds, beliefs, etc. Other shows have separate articles for characters as well, such as Frasier. Just wondering. Thanks. - MattTM 05:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think generally it's better to have one encyclopedic article instead of 4-5 "blurbs"... there was (and still is) a lot of repetition between the Ali G Show article and the Sacha Baron Cohen one. We started out with a million Harry Potter articles too and had to combine them. If there are a lot of Frasier articles they might well benefit from combination. We manage to cover "Romeo and Juliet" without making an article for each of them, and they are a bit more complex than "Bruno". - Nunh-huh 05:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I admit Bruno doesn't need an article (and didn't have one); that is the character with the least depth. However, the separate articles for Ali G and Borat were quite lengthy, and not just "blurbs" (in my opinion). Because of the dynamics of the show, it was set up so Da Ali G Show article contained information on the characters that directly related to the show, and then the separate character articles covered the broader view of the character and all of its other involvements. Though Sacha Baron Cohen plays all three characters, I'm not sure if it's right to have them all in his article, since they are more directly related to Da Ali G Show and other shows/events. Once again relating this to Frasier (though it applies to a number of articles), Kelsey Grammer's article doesn't have the biography of Frasier Crane in it, it simply mentions that he plays Frasier on Frasier, and provides the proper wikilinks.

I do understand your decision a bit better now, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. Thanks for getting back to me. - MattTM 05:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, once again. I'll look over the information and see if I can expand the character information enough to warrant separate articles. I didn't want to just start reverting your changes, as I hear that's how edit wars get started, and you seemed quite passionate in getting everything moved and tidied up. As for Dr. Frasier Crane, how can you possibly find him boring!? ;) He is easily one of the most riveting characters on television. - MattTM 06:05, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Well, perhaps for some definition of "fascinating". Not mine though! I wasn't, btw, being passionate, just quick. And it would be good if you could think about adding any character info to the show's article rather than think only in terms of adding "enough" to break them out as separate articles. The material really is more informative if it's all in one place. - Nunh-huh 06:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to have information in one place in many circumstances, but because of the unique nature of these characters I'm going to move them back to their original articles. The characters don't seem to belong to Da Ali G Show, or Sacha Baron Cohen. They're almost separate beings entirely, based on the way they interact with the real world instead of just other characters on a television set. Ali G stars in movies, gives speeches, etc. Borat, from what I've heard, is getting his own show in Britain soon. Because of this, it seems to me like they should be separated. Sorry to keep this going, I just wanted to clarify my decision so you wouldn't wonder. It can, of course, always be changed back in the future after further deliberation. Take care. - MattTM 06:25, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I tried. - Nunh-huh 06:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Listen, feller, I'm not trying to cause a fuss but, I'm guessing you're American (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong), and Ali G started out in England about 6 or 7 years ago, now. I know It's doing quite well in America but the impact it had in England when it came out, considering it is primeraly a satire of an English striotype, was huge. Therefore, from an English perspective, it definately warrents the space it is getting. i'm not saying that the opinion of an American is not welcome in such a debate, but it is worth considering the perspective of others, to whom the subject matter is of greater relevence. Of course, if you are British, I don't know what your agenda is. Also, and I say this in as friendly and helpful a way as possable: D'yer have to be so bitchy? It gets peoples backs up. God Belss.--Crestville 22:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right about human rights and civil rights not amounting to the same thing, though as it relates specifically to gay rights (which I'm assuming is where the comment came from), through much of the history of the gay rights movement there has been as much or more concern with basic human rights (like the right to continue living) as with civil rights (like the current push for gay marriage). I don't so much think it is necessary to make separate categories for each, but if you want to, by all means go for it. -Seth Mahoney 05:31, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with the difference becoming a big issue - at least not yet. Thanks for the info, though. -Seth Mahoney 05:38, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

The new text was a craptastic babelfish translation of the German-pedia article on the library. I cleaned it up so it makes sense and is generally tighter. Thanks for the note!! jengod 02:12, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

<g> jengod 02:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I thought "disturbing" was POV. How about "unanswered"? RickK 23:31, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Questions which imply they suspect pretense, forgery and other misdeeds" - that works. RickK 23:36, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

RE: Nail disease vs Diseases of nails

As I review the medical format 'diseases of nails' seems more in keeping.

thanks

DrGnu23

I realize that the software now automatically fills in a section title for the edit summary, but IMHO it would be much easier on other people who are trying to figure out what is going on if some idea of what was actually changed could be provided in the edit summaries. One shouldn't have to do an explicit comparison of versions to find out whether a substantive change was made or only a spelling correction. P0M 06:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good call on folate vs. B12. I must be thinking about neural tube defects as I am currently studying neuroscience. I noticed that you took my poorly worded bit about microcytic anemia being due to impaired production of non-DNA "stuff" out -- is there any way to elegantly state the heuristic that microcytic is due to non-DNA production gone bad and macrocytic is due to DNA production gone bad? Mgmei 03:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh, long time no Talk. I have reverted all 69.196.224.243's edits to malaria, as this was getting ridiculous (and a copyvio to boot). As you seem to be knowledgeable on this disease, would you mind giving it a treatment (chloroquine for a start)? I'm too unfamilair with this to contribute greatly to it. JFW | T@lk 02:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The editor probably has a fixed IP. He needs a fair bit of guidance, as he exhibits many symptoms of newbie syndrome. Yet, we shouldn't bite him. A bit of help may turn this person into a valuable contributor.

PS I always learnt that haemolytic anaemia led to macrocytosis. This has recently been changed in the anemia article. Do you have the final word? JFW | T@lk 02:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that background. I read a note that this topic needed to be revised and it is a bit of a dog's breakfast at present so I read the discussion to see what is happening about it. I guess I should just have a go at editing it and see what happens.

Hey, thanks lol, I am still very new at this, it is all quite interesting, I thought it only made sense for the latest remarks to be at the top, but I will post at the bottom now thanx lol. User:Casanova:Casanova

Replied on my talk page. Would you support deletion of the article? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've VfD'ed it. By the way, who says that Hogwarts headaches are fictional? JFW | T@lk 22:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Granted, I wasn't aware of the existance of Water Skiers Enemas. Well, first a central line, and then I will go down to Pubmed and have a glance. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I still stand by the fact that I am not traumatized at all. Really! Mike H 00:22, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Don't joke about that! I'm probably on my way to getting that. From typing, of course, not from masturbatory trauma. Mike H 00:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ice it down?! That's defeating the purpose! I subscribe to the "massage it and eventually it'll go away" school of penis philosophy. Mike H 00:46, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank the Lord for backs. Where would I be without one? Traumatized, maybe. Mike H 00:55, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

If I had a combination of my back and someone else's, it wouldn't just be masturbatory. *grin* Mike H 00:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

And without a spinal cord, it's also hard to live. There's been much proof of that. Mike H 01:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. :-) Check out a new section I added to Nancy McKeon and tell me what you think. Mike H 03:42, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies concerning entry vandalism as well as user harassment. Adraeus 08:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the first, thus my attention to your deletions. Wikipedia:Etiquette covers the other nicely. - 09:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No deletion existed. I removed the nonfactual section to Talk:Evolutionary_creationism and proceeded to explain the removal. If you would remove your head from where it shouldn't be, you would plainly see that I've provided ample content in my response, however, you behaved carelessly and hastily replaced the offending entry regardless of the factuality of its content. For someone bent on harassing other users with etiquette notices, you would do well to fact-check a section you replace. Moreover, if you're an admin, I don't care. The fact is that you vandalized the entry, not I. In fact, I've been fixing and enhancing it despite being an atheistic member of the Institute of General Semantics, the Center for Inquiry, the CSICOP, and the Council for Secular Humanism. What have you been doing? Posting nonfactual information and harassing people that correct your mistakes. If you persist in this antagonistic manner, I will seek alternative arbitration. Adraeus 09:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or you could just "blacklist" me. That would be meaningful. - Nunh-huh 06:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know it was a "closed debate" (pfft...), and I don't think you should have to necessarily consider notional origin (for example, I wouldn't have felt the need to put forward my opinion had we been dicussing The Beatles, who are just as significant to American culture as they are to British culture, or, by the same token, would I accept critisism for becoming embrioled in a debate over the Simpsons, which is just as popular in Britain), but I do think that, where a subject matter is of greater significance to a particular nationality, religion etc. some sort of leniency is deserved. Also, I wasn't trying to put you down, but rather help you out. Good Luck etc. etc.--Crestville 14:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you mistake specific relevance/interest for chauvenism. Also, THE BITCHY THING! Funny though it may be, someone with a shorter temper than myself could get very annoyed. Personally, I don't mind, but I'm sure you wouldn't like to find yourself embroiled in an editing war or something. Despite this, I wish you all the best in your further endevours, indeed, it apears, you shall need it. --Crestville 11:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thesteve has posted a fun website on my talk page. Take a look. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi there -- I noticed this edit to Ahmed Kuftaro -- I never knew this about dates -- is there a reference page that explains it?

Many thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't clear... keeping balance in this article is difficult. User:Doug22123 is, in fact, being more rational, careful and cooperative than most POV-pushers, and I've responded to that, and I'm sorry if I leaned over a bit too far in accommodating him. I thank you for your efforts to keep the article accurate. I misunderstood your point about "original research" and you're right. "Data" volunteered by website visitors should not be in the article; I think the current paragraph about this is OK.

I do perceive that User:Doug22123 he is using Wikipedia to promote his cause. I am not happy about that, and I certainly am not happy to hear that he is linking to his site in other articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)