Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 01:51, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed your edit on George W. Bush. Thanks! Nice work. Meelar 02:48, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kudos on your patience with the Benito Juárez burger flipper. Let's hope he stops back and reads your helpful reply. –Hajor 20:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I saw on the Diff was not what got reverted. I was going to put it back, but Minesweeper beat me to it. RickK 03:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About Billie Burke

Actually, there's no hard and fast rule, but a person's full name is generally not considered trivia and usually goes first. See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Mother Teresa, Groucho Marx, and Ringo Starr, and then John Wayne for contrast. As a compromise, I propose following the Groucho Marx example: "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke, known as Billie Burke" -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These seem to be done exactly backwards. A person's "real" name is the one they are known by, and it matches the title of their article. It's very jarring to click on "Billie Burke" and start reading about "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke". Why, indeed, one might ask, "Burke"? Why not "Mary William Ethelbert Appleton Burke Ziegfeld"? The answer: no one's looking for that name. When names are "close" like Richard Starkey and Ringo Starr, and relatively common knowledge, it's not so jarring, but "Billy Burke" and (MWEAB) are sufficiently different, and (MWEAB) so unknown, that expecting one and finding the other is disconcerting. One ought to take this into account, and I think the "reveal" of an utterly trivial name, like (MWEAB), which was never used by, or known to, the public, ought to be within the narrative. It just clutters up the topic sentence otherwise, for no discernable reason. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We actually do have a Manual of Style for Wikipedia, and here's what the specefic one on biographies says on the topic: For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

• Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. (June 29, 1929 - December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens
  • '''Louis Bert Lindley, Jr.''' ([[June 29]], [[1929]] - [[December 8]], [[1983]]), better known by the [[stage name]] '''Slim Pickens'''

Alternatively, the birth name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym:

• E. B. White, born Elwyn Brooks White (July 11, 1899 - October 1, 1985), was an American essayist, author, and noted prose stylist.
  • '''E. B. White''', born '''Elwyn Brooks White''' ([[July 11]], [[1899]] - [[October 1]], [[1985]]), was an [[United States|American]] [[essay]]ist, [[author]], and noted prose stylist.

You can suggest changes to the standards at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)

I'm not going to suggest a change, though it should be changed. I'm not into dictating what others write, or setting down countless regulations and rules. The Manual of Style is a suggestion, not writ in stone, and not a one-size-fits-all solution. If you sincerely prefer your opening sentence, change it. If you do change it, I hope you will also actually make substantial contributions to the article. I, however, would consider that such a change reduces the readability of the article. -- Nunh-huh 23:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure I heard that JWs could transfuse their own blood, but apparently I heard incorrectly. Nevertheless, the resulting change is good, I think.

If dialysis is precluded also, might mention that.

Scott McNay 04:42, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

• I think you probably heard about some other intra-operative "blood-saving" technique in which their own blood is returned intravenously. It would have previously been forbidden, but bit by they seem to be "loosening up". When Procrit first came out, it was forbidden, now it's a "matter of personal conscience". Dialysis is allowed, as are "non-primed" cardivascular bypass machines. Cell-saver technology is currently forbidden...the problem seems to be that blood is momentarily "stored" rather than always circulating during its use. (Go figure)<G>. If any detail is to be gone into, it probably needs a whole "Jehovah's Witnesses and blood" section, and no doubt that would attract a lot of edit-warring. But it has become such a complex doctrine that it really can't all go in one sentence. -- Nunh-huh 05:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on Eugenia Smith. RickK 00:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good work, I was going to look him up, but I got busy on the Oscars. I looked up Liza on imdb, and she won Best Actress for Cabaret. Did she win a Tony?

I thought Liza won a Tony for "Liza with a Z". RickK 02:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• She won a "Special Tony" in 1974 for "adding special lustre to the Broadway season", which I think was the year of "Liza with a Z", so it's another of those "asterisk" awards... fortunately for her, she had two real ones, but apparently no Grammy. (I can't find a good Grammy database though) -- Nunh-huh 03:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

whoops, I meant "Grammy", not "Tony" RickK 03:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's possible.... but she usually isn't on "the all 4" list, so I'm reasonably sure she lacks the Grammy (our article on her says she has an Emmy)... the Grammy database doesn't seem to go all the way back, but if we can confirm she won one, she'd qualify. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've seen links on small animal 'immunity' due to their fragility, but don't have them at hand, so your change is prudent. Thanks. Brian Rock 03:17, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Nunh-huh...thanks for info...I have been to this site...or one very similar! None of the examples are what I am looking for....but....I do know that it is a "hedron"...just not certain of prefix....or....perhaps! Would it be a POLYHEDRON in the shape of a 10-12 pointed star? Is it possible to get a picture of it?

                           Aurora

Aurora,
the "small stellated dodecahedron" has twelve points, but it's hard to say if it is what you are looking for. You can see it here. If not, see if you can find a picture of what you're looking for (anywhere), it will be easier for people to recognize if they can see it rather than read a description. -- Nunh-huh 06:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polio In moving my work off, you claim popularity of belief is a pre-requisite for Wiki. Where is this stated? I don't find it in Guidelines. (# 64.63.223.230)

The Guidelines are indeed difficult to find anything in. Wikipedia is, in short, meant to discuss ideas held by significant numbers of people rather than original research. It's meant not as a place to popularize ideas, but to report on significant ideas. One way we gauge the significance of ideas is by the numbers of people who believe them to be true. If an idea is held by a very few people, it must always be attributed to them, rather than presented as an equal alternative to the generally accepted view. One place to get a feel for this should be NPOV. - Nunh-huh 06:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Possibly more appropriate reference: Wikipedia:No original research -- Nunh-huh 06:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

About Hannah Lightfoot - what are your sources of information?

(also, where did you get that user name from?) Arno 08:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello, i saw the article. These figures are not all Roman emperos indeed, so i agree entirely with the classical antiquity figures expression. Interesting way of classifying books. Maybe i'll do the same in my library... Cheers, Muriel 20:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)