All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• commons:User Talk:Nunh-huh
• m:User Talk:Nunh-huh

Wikijunior

• Wikijunior meta page
• b:Wikijunior Big Cats
• b:Wikijunior Solar System
• b:Wikijunior South America
• User:Nunh-huh/sandbox

Refactored: old stuff now just history:

• Wikijunior Billie Burke, Eugenia Smith, Jonathan Tunick, Robert Bruce Cotton, Rachel, New Haven, Connecticut, New Haven Green, New Haven Colony, Soldaatvanoranje, Generalfeldmarschall, Cfrobel, Wanda Landowska, neutrophil, AIDS, President of the United States in Congress Assembled, various ersatz nations, territoriality, dates, incunabula, Maria Callas sang well (POV! POV!), Viscount Taaffe, still dead, Otto von Habsburg, lifting heavy boxes and abdominal pain The Days of Our Lives, 0: the year I got nothing done. Enzo Fiermonte and other gigolos. Coagulation Wikipedia:Categorization Fraunces Tavern Special:Categories medical classes here. Urinetown, the Gotha, Count Kinsky, the Pergamon Museum.

• Stop stalking and blocking me. Your admin privileges and request to become a bureaucrat would seem to warrant a NPOV to editing, deletions and reverts. However, for reasons known only to yourself you prefer to stalk, harass, malign, and block many editors who bring your violations of Wikipedia policy to the fore for discussion. Again, stop stalking me. Do not send me email, and do not contact me for any reason. If you delete or revert this, or block me to punish me for having confronted your violations of Wikipedia policy, I have a copy to forward to support my contention that your admin privileges should be suspended indefinitely. - unsigned.

It would help this discussion immeasurably if you gave me some clue as to what you are talking about. Request to become a bureaucrat? Stalking? Me emailing you (where? at your IP address)? none of these things exist except in your fantasy life. Kindly don't leave notes if you don't want "contact" for any reason. The purpose of talk pages is communication; if you don't want communication, then just remain silent. - Nunh-huh 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-correction of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. I just read the talk page after doing the change. Stupid royal namings and politics! violet/riga (t) 10:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if you know which army regiment DPoW's father served in? My father who was born in the same year swore that he had been in the same unit as him. Albatross2147 12:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to Diana, PoW's old man. Albatross2147 08:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would that they were in the same unit as my old man was in the Bird Catchers (ie. the Royal Scots Greys) ('42-'47) too. However I might mention, purely anecdotally, that my father who was not prone to wartime reminiscence when he eyeballed Spencer walk up the aisle with Di on TV some 35 years later exclaimed, "What's that bastard doing there?" and related a story that indicated that he did not share the same view of the earl's gallantry under fire as the superior officers who at some point mentioned him in despatches. My father never talked about it again and it was only because I came on your article as a result of a typing error that I thought I would query the point. Well you have proved that my old man was not bullsh--ing about his one degree of separation from Diana. And as regards the earl's alleged behaviour - well it was all a very long time ago and far, far away.

Thanks for your help Albatross2147 00:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think you could acutally protect that article, please? 216.52.110.253 gave up doing more than reverting a long time ago... Kiand 01:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kiand 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cat article has asplode again, sad to say... same anon user involved, different other editors in opposition. DreamGuy 23:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

So I guess the Papacy is a great (but late) birthday present for him, eh? Zscout370 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could be. Sometimes when you get a present it turns out you really didn't want it in the first place, though! I hope he surprises those who have little confidence in his ability to use this great gift for good. - Nunh-huh 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the stages of lymphoma. I'm still learning about it as I go tonight, and your edits made it much more clear. Glitch010101 05:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Nunh-huh. I see now that perhaps you intended your edits to Time Cube seriously. However, the Time Cube article is a bed of contention which can easily be thrown in disarray by careless editting. You called Gene Ray a crank, an accusation which would have summoned a murderous hoard screaming "NPOV! NPOV!" until it trampled someone to death. Granted, he is a crank, but that's our opinion rather than testable fact. One-dimensional Tangent 02:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is in fact a fact, and there is certainly some way of working it into the article, which is a morass of mealy-mouthed and ill-expressed nonsense. Nonetheless, if you'd prefer to deal with it, I'm fine with that. I've grown accustomed to the fact that Wikipedia will contain articles which are little more than cesspools, and only get upset if they start to overflow. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, I find it amusing to see how objectively we can discuss complete nonsense. Cheers. One-dimensional Tangent 03:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know....I would think the following both more objective and more useful:

http://www.mcwetboy.com/mcwetlog/index.phtml?archive=11_01 Time Cube: the funniest bit of earnest online insanity I've seen in years.

http://www.crank.net/timecube.html

http://weblog.soulhuntre.com/items/id/001738/ What might have been a fairly amusing little argument on an obscure message forum for people who like to debate odd theories turned into a lifelong obsession that spans the ‘net. Gene is wrong in so many levels but he won’t ever see that. When you add in a healthy dose of some serious personality disorders (I couldn’t even begin to pick just one) you get a e2:crackpot of stunning proportions that postulates a vast conspiracy of (I think) Jews to keep Gene downtrodden.

http://home.swbell.net/drt1/pseudo.html Page after page of this bizarre rambling definately proves something, but I'm not sure which: Is Gene Ray taking a LOT of LSD, or does he just need his medication increased?

http://www.insolitology.com/topten/generay.htm Gene is the biggest oddball in the world, and the originator of the biggest oddball movement on the Internet.

http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html

Time Cube is a seemingly endless schizophrenic fucking spewing by the (self-proclaimed) "Wisest Human" that defies nearly every possible level of logic, purpose, dignity, and everything else crucial to the act of communication and/or the understanding of reality. If you've ever wondered what a -400 Mental Balance in Kult is like, or what overdosing on both crack and acid while carefully scraping out your brain to replace it with flaming shit might do to you, or what's really inside Happy Noodle Boy's mind, the Time Cube website is a useful example.... understanding the Time Cube depends crucially on acid, pot, hard alcohol, and other mind-altering substances, so you should start taking those NOW and avoid the rush.

- Nunh-huh 03:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is going to become a pointless revert war with 211.28.*.*, and based on the talk pages he/she has a lot more patience than any of us. I think we need to move this into mediation or at least a survey (so we can have an official consensus favouring a simple page). I've proposed this idea to 211.28.*.* on the talk page, please feel free to join in and add similar comments. Cheradenine 18:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 21:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should reserve pictures of sexual acts for sex manuals, and that "Wikipedia is not a sex manual". However, there exist a considerable coterie of folk who love putting explicit picture in Wikipedia, and as long as they remain culturally insensitive and insist on "their way or the highway" it's fruitless to dispute with them. Our "masturbation" article is puerile, and an embarassment to Wikipedians of good sense, with or without photos. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, masturbation itself is "sex-manual". That page is presumably for those who haven't figured out how to do it, and need the help. Maybe it could have a link to a page demonstrating how to pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. Wahkeenah 01:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deftly done. Gzuckier 17:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) yeah, my contribution in a similar vein was

Although the school is referred to as "hyper-prestigious" by college English professor and blogger Margaret Soltan, many Wikipeidians feel that this is an arbitrary judgement without factual merit.

but, having received the objective source they had requested, they still refused to go away. Gzuckier 17:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? When I'm right I'm right. Nohat 18:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say, that too would be fine. - Nunh-huh 18:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) I see the prestige argument and the campus murder argument as being similar, in being an overzealous attempt to stndardize all such articles on higher educational institutions into somewhat of a table format, at least conceptually; so that whatever school you could look up "prestigious, yes or not", "famous murders on campus", etc. While said concept is valuable for a summary for each school's basics, nevertheless there is still a particular individual character of each school which is orthogonal and irrelevant to any other school and deserves special attention in and of itself, regardless of whether other schools have a similar discussion or not. As I said, at Yale a discussion about students getting robbed, mugged, and murdered by random New haven residents is appropriate; at MIT, people who kill themselves as a result of high stress alienation and isolation. Or at yale, mit, or harvard prestige can be taken for granted, without obviating the need to argue whether university of michigan is prestigious or not. but that's just my opinion. Gzuckier 18:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Fortunately we're writing (or at least trying to, when not distracted by pointless revert wars and sophistry-of-the-sort-most-often-found-in-a-dorm-room) an encyclopedia, not a "Guide to the Colleges". - Nunh-huh 18:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my spelling error, and for the info that you added, on the Oscar Wilde page. Your nickname is perfect to go with finding such a simple goof. I guess that I have become one of thoses lazy "let the spell check fix it" so and so's and since wiki doesn't have that feature I'll pay better attention to what I am doing in the future. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding and correcting information on the Lady Mary Cambridge page. I am new to this and seeing the corrections to made will help to make those adjustments myself in the future. ESQ24

Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:03, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Of course their position makes no sense, so trying to reason with them seems likely to produce only frustration. I think I'll content myself with slipping in the comma when it's missing. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You forgot me while counting the votes. I also made a 'keep' making it 12 to 1. Radiant_* 07:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not intentional. I must have missed your vote because it was in the comments section. Go right ahead and update the tally. - Nunh-huh 21:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for bringing up the idea for more flavorful deaths. I wanted someone else's opinion since I created the article. It looks better actually. Thanks. Sfufan2005 02:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 14:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have considerably less trepidation about the collegiality, success, and intent of the latter project. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's just you apparently. Adraeus 23:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very surprising. By latter I mean yours. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you meant. Andrevan, BDAbramson, Dbachmann, Everyking, FeloniousMonk, RickK, sannse, and Slrubenstein all support the real Inquiry project. I'm a professional project manager and I'm a proficient researcher. Regardless of what you think about my credibility and me personally, the Inquiry project will initially play a supporting rule by focusing on the professional acquisition, collection, dissemination, and publishing of academic research useful to encyclopedic articles. Have you ever seen a bibliography from a peer reviewed journal? Sometimes the bibliographies extend for pages. That's the type of research Inquiry aims to provide: material that is professionally researched, and all that research professionalism entails. With a basic issue tracking system, Wikipedia editors may interact with the Inquiry database by requesting material, and filing requests for citation of existing articles. I'm confident that the the project will work quite well. There's only one hindrance to its success: finding the right people. I can remedy that problem. Adraeus 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't criticised either you personally or your credibility. I'm sorry that you have the notion that I have. I support any project that could enhance the accuracy, and therefore the authority, of Wikipedia. (And yes, I do have some familiarity with bibliographies and peer-reviewed journals <g>.) - Nunh-huh 01:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've had issues in the past so I think I was fair (although wrong) in assuming you don't like me. Regardless, I think you are amazingly intelligent, and I respect you greatly for the contributions you've provided to Wikipedia. Inquiry would work far better offsite because it wouldn't be subject to Wikipedia policies which do not provide real projects with the protection and autonomy that a project needs to flourish. By the way, I think I misinterpreted your statement about less trepidation. I should avoid discussion at all costs when I'm incredibly fatigued. Oops! Do accept my humblest apologies for misinterpreting your statement and intent. Adraeus 13:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sentence was a little convoluted: the result of trying to avoid being accused of "personal attack" for saying something like "I couldn't be a part of any project that takes Sam Spade/Jack Lynch's advice seriously or welcomes his participation". Since that's not an attack but simply a clear statement of my feelings, I should have just gone ahead and said it. I don't recall that we've clashed mightily over anything, and certainly not in a way that's left me with a grudge. If there's any way I can help with Inquiry, let me know. - Nunh-huh 00:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC) - oh, and thanks for your kind words! - Nunh-huh 00:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you expressed concern about the state of the AIDS article in April, but I'm not sure exactly about what. I am even more concerned about it now, and have slapped an NPOV dispute on it. Would you please have a look? --Robert Merkel 01:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On requested moves WP:RM, comments and votes should not appear on the WP:RM page because they will be discounted. You must add them to the Talk page of the article of the proposed move. I have just moved your comments to Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#Name_change from WP:RM but it was after the decision had already been made. Next time please add them to the talk page and not the WP:RM page Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the error I introduced into the Common Era article. That was (thankfully) a rare one for me. However you might have fixed the error instead of reverting it, because the same edit had fixed two other errors in the article. I can understand if you were in a hurry and missed that. I have since clarified the explanation of the Gregorian calendar, which was misleading, and properly pointed out Dionysius' role, which was the important one with repect to the CE article. Thanks again for serving as a backstop. --Blainster 02:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article still needs a thorough going over. It still seems to confuse "Common Era" and the "Gregorian Calendar". If you don't get to it I'll be happy to give it another look. - Nunh-huh 02:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum

I thought we might more constructively engage a discussion off the main talk pages for these articles, because I don't think that either of these articles is very good right now, and I hope we can work constructively to improve things. I don't like the revert wars that have been going on and I hope you agree. What I have been saying, and wish to make clear, is that I am non-partisan on the issue. There is a mainstream scientific view that ought to have precedence, and there are respectable scientists who disagree and ought to be given fair mention. If we can achieve this kind of balance, there will be no need for NPOV or factual disputes to be maintained. When you undo my edits on the grounds of removing "waffling" I think it is unhelpful. Will you at least grant good faith on my part? Whig 04:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain that we agree on what is wrong with the articles, so it's difficult to see common ground on how to improve them. I certainly don't think either article would be improved by merger: the dissidents certainly won't be satisfied with the number of words it would be appropriate to devote to them in an article on AIDS, (roughly "for any scientific fact, there are a group of people who deny it: see link): while those without a revisionist agenda don't much care for the distortions and debating style which cannot, apparently, be rooted out from the dissident page(s). If you believe the AIDS article suffers from being able to make clear statements without detailing dissident objections, I simply do not share your opinion. I do have a suggestion: I think it may be helpful if you list the things you find wanting. Some of the things you have listed would indeed improve the article, and wording could be worked out on talk pages without reversion. But an AIDS article in which each reference to the fact that it is caused by HIV is hedged would be unreadable, inferior, uninformative. Assumptions of good faith have led to the AIDS article becoming a mess, through exploitation of that good will by subtle distortion and near-sabotage. This makes it a bit difficult to extend that same assumption of good will to those who ally themselves with those responsible for the original sabotage. Ultimately good faith won't have to be assumed, because it will have been demonstrated by those who have it, and won't be by those who don't. - Nunh-huh 04:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stating scientific theories as facts is problematical in the first place, because it denies the scientific method, which entails constant reconsideration and the formation of new hypotheses to be tested and occasionally developed into more predictive or explanatory theories. That is largely what separates science from theology. With that said, simple "denial" is not scientific either. Those who "deny" evolution, for instance, but have no testable hypothesis to offer in its place, are not practicing science. We need not (and I agree, should not) provide a link to everyone who might deny any given statement.

To put this in the context of a different scientific dispute, would you support an article on the Big Bang beginning, "The Big Bang is the method by which the universe began"? I hope you would not, and I think that article is illustrative. Even if a given theory is the consensus of the scientific community at one point in time, does not mean it is an established fact. Certain observations tend to confirm or refute the theory, and those observations ought to be fairly reported, such as that recent measurements suggest that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. This will hopefully lead eventually to a revised theory that makes more accurate predictions, which does not mean that the advocates of the steady state theory were correct either, nor that any revision must mean that "the bible had it right" or whatever.

Your analogies are not helpful. The fact is that HIV causes AIDS, as has been shown by the scientific method. Arguments to the contrary are flawed, and generally are founded on "debating points" rather than scientific method. If we were to embrace the scientific method to Wikipedia's bosom, and restrict ourselves to tested hypotheses, the AIDS revisionist article would be very short indeed. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see where you stand, and that you are quite certain of your belief. I lack such certainty, but remain open to scientific demonstration. If HIV is certainly the cause of AIDS, then it should be possible to develop an attenuated virus that would stimulate immunity to further infection, and that would be wonderful, a vaccine. Troublingly, though, this would mean all vaccinated people would have HIV antibodies, which would make the present-day diagnostic tests rather less useful. All such concerns aside, I hope this will prove effective in the very near future. Indeed, this would and should invalidate most or all of the AIDS reappraisal article and therefore I agree it should be very much shortened. Please go ahead and do what mass removals you think appropriate, but be sure to cite your sources. I wouldn't want there to be any doubt that you are correct, and I hope you have the references to back your position up. It will be most helpful to me to learn them. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that you want to depict knowledge as mere belief, and that you wish to write about the cause of AIDS without having researched it. This seems unreasonable to me. Until you do that research, you should be aware that there are many viruses for which no vaccines have been developed, that not all vaccines involve use of an attentuated virus, and that not all vaccines would necessarily make such tests as HIV viral loads unuseful. But even if an HIV vaccine were developed, there would be a population which would still proclaim that HIV and AIDS are unrelated. The HIV deniers would not agree with you that AIDS reappraisal article was invalidated: at most it would need a new paragraph handwaving the results away. I extend your thoughtful invitation to me to you in turn: go ahead and make what changes you feel necessary, after you have done some basic research and can cite something to justify them. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the subject of AIDS is that it has a much more direct and immediate impact upon people, and lives are actually at stake. Thus there tends to be a much more impassioned argument, with those on both sides feeling that the other is wrong and responsible for people either (depending on POV) refusing life-sustaining treatment, or taking toxic chemicals which cause more harm than good.

Fortunately, we don't have to guess which of these is correct. We now have adequate scientific tests of these two positions, and clinical experience of more than two decades. Those who take the toxic chemicals live longer. Those who take the toxic chemicals have fewer episodes of opportunistic infections. Those who take the toxic chemicals are hospitalized less frequently. Those pregnant women who take the toxic chemicals are less likely to transmit HIV to their children, and those children are more likely to live to adulthood rather than dying in infancy of AIDS. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please cite. Should we move back to the AIDS Talk page? Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, these are basic concepts. If you are unaware that the survival times of AIDS patients has increased since the introduction of HAART, or that the use of antiretrovirals during delivery decreases the risk of transmission to infants, you can find that information easily. Here's one citation for each of these: there are hundreds more.

HAART has had a significant impact on survival 10 years after HIV infection in all age groups: "Survival after introduction of HAART in people with known duration of HIV-1 infection. The CASCADE Collaboration. Concerted Action on Serconversion to AIDS and Death in Europe." Lancet. 2000;355:1158-1159.

HAART has dramatically increased the time from HIV infection to AIDS: Tassie JM, Grabar S, Lancar R, et al. "Time to AIDS from 1992 to 1999 in HIV-1-infected subjects with known data of infection." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:81-87.

HAART has increased the chance of surviving for 2 years after AIDS onset: Fordyce EJ, Singh TP, Nash D, et al. "Survival rates in NYC in the era of combination ART." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:111-118

Reduction of maternal-child transmission risk: Connor EM, Sperling RS, Gelber R, et al. "Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment." N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1173-1180.

I look forward to seeing how you work these into the AIDS and AIDS denial articles. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Wikipedia ought not to be in the business of letting the passions of either side override our policy to maintain NPOV.

It's not about passions, it's about not misinforming our readers. These "sides" are not equal in terms of evidence or intellectual honesty. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you there. << WINK! >> Revolver 16:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm on neither side, you can surely convince me with the evidence that you have at hand to cite. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you are on the side that proposes that denialists have something to teach us. And you are on the side that refuses to do the requisite research, but demands to have their opinions valued. HIV denialists are not convinced by citations or evidence: the evidence is made to conform to their theory, and their theory is not made to conform to the evidence. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We as Wikipedians don't do original research, we don't claim to know who is right, we should say that the most prevalent theory is X, that some have questioned it on specific and cited grounds, and other theories Y or Z which might have a separate article (and not be lumped together as "X reappraisal") are likewise questioned on more (or less) substantial cited grounds. Do we at least agree that this is how we ought to be doing things? Whig 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't entertain specious arguments, we should report them. As specious. Or as dishonest, which ever the case may be. Placing the specious arguments together or separately is a matter of no concern to me, though they do use the same sort of arguments and they would be repetitive if separated. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't simply say "That argument is specious" without specifically saying that "we've circumnavigated the globe and taken pictures from space and measured the curvature of the earth." Whig 07:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That argument is specious. This is not a case of "doubt" on "specific and cited" grounds, and is not a case of two competing explanations of the origins of AIDS. It's an explanation on one hand, and a few guys yelling "Is not!, Is not!" on the other. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time will tell, Nunh-huh. How about a $100 bet, and we'll see who wins in 30 years? Revolver 16:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No thanks. In 30 years $100 will buy a loaf of bread. Who knows which of us will need it more? Who knows what kind of evidence a denialist would accept?? In the meantime, I've supplied Whig with the references he requested, and he has declined to read them because he's "unequipped" to evaluate them....though not "unequipped", apparently, to write about AIDS, because he's "equipped" to evaluate random web pages on the subject. I don't know why you'd choose to ally with such an advocate, but that's your choice. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AIDS revisionists should get roughly the same treatment in the AIDS article as Flat-Earthers get in the Earth article. The "debate" has been decided, it's just that some people haven't gotten the message. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. Send the message. Put out the studies and the support to rebut the contrary arguments. Indeed, you should do so in the main AIDS article so that people won't be left with any misimpression that their pet hypotheses haven't been disproven. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, AIDS denialists have received the message and rejected it. It doesn't need to be sent again. Anyone who is an AID denialist at this point in time is incapable of being persuaded by evidence. And an AIDS article aimed at "persuading" AIDS denialists would suck big time. It is much better to present the established information in a straightforward manner than to transform the AIDS article into a debate club. An article refuting the strawmen thrown up by denialists might be instructive (see [1] for how such an article might look) and informative, but it would not be an article about AIDS. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your devotion to not reverting didn't last long. Ah, well. - Nunh-huh 04:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted me. I reinstated and gave my reasoning. Whig 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and if I were to revert you again I could say the same thing you just did. And that might lead to an erosion of your assumption of good faith. Such actions do that. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is unhelpful. You wish a unilateral right to revert, and then accuse me of bad faith? Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are wounded by my (supposed) accusation, and yet wish to claim I want a unilateral right to revert? I agree with your suggestion that discussion of these articles should return to their respective talk pages, where it is possible it will result in better articles. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen that currently there are two articles, Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Elisabeth of Bavaria 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Someone duplicated it, but it should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. - Nunh-huh 30 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Hi ages ago I worked on the above stub, and then never put it on my watch list and rather forgot about it. I have just come across it by chance and noticed some new edits. We discussed the subject's parentage here Talk:Karel Kinsky. In this diff [2] an anon has changed the parentage. You seem to know more about this than me, I just wondered if that new edit is correct, I have a feeling it is not, but am reluctant to revert as I am not 100% sure. Regards Giano | talk 30 June 2005 09:04 (UTC)

Ciao. Giano, On first glance it seems to me that the new information actually is a correction...I looked it up at the online gotha's Kinsky page, and the information matches The Kinsky Family. So I don't know where we got the former information. I'll nose around to see, but I'd keep the changed version unless we find a source that disagrees with Theroff. - Nunh-huh 30 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Greetings. I did some research (mostly fiddling with the user's page, to be honest), but by the time I think that I had it figured out how to fix the vandalism, you had done so already. Thanks! I'll remove the request from the noticeboard... Fire Star 1 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna is again having a vote: upon the heading, at Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. At least I am against that "Alix" version, as she was not well known by it- however, there are certain people who are pushing it through. 217.140.193.123 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've always seemed a sensible person to me, Nunh-huh. I'll be glad of your input. Deb 20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly explain to me how "Alexandra of Hesse" or "Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse" are misleading (as you seem to say or imply)? Those, in my understanding, are not mix of "maiden" and "married" names, rather it is a mix of post-conversion first name (which belonged to her already before the marriage, though briefly then) and the territorial designation which always belonged to her, also after marriage. (You implied: "Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse is misleading: we shouldn't mix and match maiden and married names.") I think, btw, that we do not have yet a naming convention regarding Russian consorts and empress-consorts. Arrigo 09:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian language is obsessive-compulsive about everyone having a patronym as the penultimate portion of one's name. If you became Russian, as did Alexandra, you had to change your name somewhat. A somewhat analogous situation exists in Iceland, where patronyms are still the rule -- and your name is alphabetized in the Rekjavik phone book just like Wiki names are done, first name first.

I have no objection to your move of Marie-Josèphe to Marie-Josèphe of Saxony, particularly as a redirect was left behind (you used the rather alarming word 'move'). I carefully chose the name space because it was already in use (red links), tho' I considered your choice. I'm rather proud of this article, in that it is pure wiki, no external sources (tho' my own historical sensibility applied).--FourthAve 06:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT remove tags before discussion has concluded. The tags placed on Harvard University, Yale University and others reflect those pages being far worse offenders of the academic boosterism being discussed on the MIT page. Until this issue is resolved fairly on all schools pages, all of these schools current pages require this tag to be present.

I've responded to your vandalism in the appropriate spot. - Nunh-huh 00:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look... what do you think? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, then, got any other ideas? (Of course, perhaps you feel there is Wikipedian consensus that academic boosterism is not an issue, in which case obviously nothing needs to be done). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to your last on my own Talk page... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also appears on my talk page

• Red links bad, ambiguity bad. It's (almost) a non-issue now that there are articles for each person listed. A minor point: we will succeed if no reader ever has to see a disambiguation page during the course of read-click-read behavior. The question arises as to whether searches such as "clarendon", "earl of clarendon" and "4th earl of clarendon" are facilitated by the dab-page.
  • "clarendon" leads to a dab-page, Clarendon
  • "earl of clarendon" leads nowhere, just to search results; I've created a redirect to lead to Earl of Clarendon
  • "4th earl of clarendon" leads nowhere, just to search results with 0 hits; I've created a redirect to lead to 4th Earl of Clarendon, the dab-page.

In the absence of the search-case analysis, we only assume that a disambiguation page facilitates navigation. I do such examinations using all lower case because that's the typical search behavior of most folks (I don't have a reference for that, hmm; I should find one). This is something that makes the work more time consuming, the treatment of meta-data pages, such as the dab-pages, in their native context as opposed to stand-alone objects, which is how most people I think do treat them.

Hope that helps to explain a little where I'm coming from, even if it is an indirect answer to your "?". Regards, Courtland 01:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

also appears on my talk page

• The good or evil nature of red links is a matter of how we interpret their impact. You are interpreting them from the standpoint of the editor; I am interpreting them from the standpoint of the reader. Those are not separate or diametrically opposed viewpoints, but they are distinct. Courtland 01:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

also appears on my talk page

• • • Reading and editing are two different use cases for Wikipedia. The fact that they are embodied often in the same person is a great boon, but that does not mean that the reader and the editor have the same needs. With respect to the linking .. the linkage to the disambiguation page is an error on the part of the editor and it should be corrected by putting the properly specific link in place. Courtland 02:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, ambiguous links are ambiguous, not erroneous—unless incorrectly disambiguated. - Nunh-huh 02:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my talk page just now! -Splash 02:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They told me in church that todays news is bible prophecy coming true.

Hi Nunh-huh. I wish to draw your attention to the IMDB entery for one William Campbell. According to this, the same William Campbell who was the Paul McCartney look-a-like also starred as Trelane and Koloth twice on Star Trek. While is accurate that the actor who played those two roles on Star Trek is named William Campbell, I wonder if this is the SAME Wlliam Campbell involved in the Paul Is Dead matter. After all, IMDB is not 100% infallible, is it? So I am wondering if there should be a separate article, for example, William Campbell (actor). See also Star Trek.com,Memory Alpha. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Duomillia 03:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to attempt to advance and end the round quickly. Parts of the question will be revealed with more hints and/or be more elaborated on as every two days. I have currently provided more hints on the answer pages for the current remaining questions. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, voting is secret, all non-military execise of public power is public. We can look as close as we want. This thing on my talk page and you and tregoweth is not working. You wanna talk it out, you do it on Talk:Elizabeth_Morgan just like everybody else. I thank you for the special notification. That considerate of you. Now get over to the correct page. I made special invitation for people like you on that discussion tab days ago. Did read it? No. Did you follow the rules? No. I am moving the thread there now. Let us all work it out. tregoweth has already caved so now it is just you and me. Amorrow 03:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have any concept of how bizarrely you are acting. My suggestion to you is that you see how the Morgan article fares without your diligent attention. - Nunh-huh 03:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there:

I noticed that there was vandalism by Μel Etitis on the Rush Limbaugh page, which surprised me, because Mel Etitis has always struck me as a mature, considerate editor. Then I saw that you had blocked Μel Etitis and followed the link on his home page to Mel Etitis, where I saw this on Mel Etitis' home page:

I can't quite figure out the difference in user names between you User:Mel_Etitis and the imitator User:Μel_Etitis.

Just in case you're still in the dark, the first letter of "Μel Etitis" is not an M, but a capital Mu, character CE9C in UTF-8 coded Unicode. This sort of stunt is really only possible with the recent upgrade to MediaWiki 1.5, which switched Wikipedia over to Unicode instead of straight Latin-1 character code. Latin-1 doesn't have very many characters with similar graphs; Unicode, having such a large character space, has tons of them.

HTH. — DLJessup 04:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and for Nunh-huh's block of the imposter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please restore the Grcampell text you reverted. Sci guy 09:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've reverted anything, nor have I deleted anything of significance that Grcampbell wrote in that article. You are the one who seems to have eliminated text . - Nunh-huh 09:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the Grcampbell text, "The most severe manifestation of HIV infection is AIDS." I have therefore used the WHO definition "The term AIDS applies to the most advanced stages of HIV infection." Sci guy 09:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to like phrases which point out the cause of AIDS. The WHO definition is a nice definition, but not the only one, and not particularly important to have as an introductory phrase. The pertinent point is the disease which HIV infection causes. We also need to spell out AIDS the first time it's used in an article. We don't need to talk about "the term" AIDS, but the disease. - Nunh-huh 10:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what I like or dislike. It was NOT, I repeat NOT my text! I am sorry you have a problem with the text proposed by Grcampbell and also by WHO. On balance I prefer the Grcampbell version in this context, it is more informative than "HIV causes AIDS". Sci guy 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's your text if you put it there. As for more informative: hardly!. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grcampbell is claiming that some HIV antibodies prevent progression to AIDS. I have asked for references. The original point about HIV antibodies was that in the USA evidence of HIV infection was required for a AIDS definition - but in Africa most people diagnosed with AIDS were not infected with HIV and did not test positive on an HIV antibody test. Sci guy 09:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRT your lastest posting on Talk:Time Cube (rv with extreme prejudice); is there an easy way to revert anon 211.28's edits without being an admin? I have this on my watch list, but it's a pain to open an old version to copy the old source. Thanks. -- Dave C. 05:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - didn't realize you could edit/save an old version, although I had seen the warning. Thanks! -- Dave C. 06:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found oout that you had several months ago criticized the then headings of those two: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, Grand Duke George of Russia. Meanwhile, something has happened to them. Others moved (I do not have button privileges), but in the end I was involved in discussions. The first one moved a couple of times, including to Maria Romanov (which I did not like), and I remember I suggested then the heading that is now in use. I am rather satisfied with it. The latter one I had criticized also, and it was moved, but I have no definite opinion. Now it is a bit better than earlier, but I am not sure if a yet better heading could be devised. Could you kindly check / Your opinions, please? 217.140.193.123 17:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've reverted your edits to this page and here's why:

It's irrelevant to say that MacOS X uses ATSUI. Windows doesn't say that it uses Uniscribe because that's what comes with Windows! It's my understanding that ATSUI is the standard text API for OS X and the vast majority of users visiting that page need not know the name of the API or need links to the API documentation. This page is meant to be for end users who are new to the concept of Unicode Indic scripts - not programmers directly interfacing with APIs.

I selected 10.4 because Tamil isn't present in older versions of OS X (so I've read). Unfortunately I can't find much in the way of resources indicating which OS X versions suport which Indic languages. If you are sure that it is supported in all versions then by all means put it back.

I removed "layouts for Devanagari, Guarati, and Gurmukhi" because again it's irrelevant and simply duplicated the information listed in "Supports:".

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your response on my talk page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- thanks. I was just trying to make sure that there was a link with the name duchess of angouleme relating to that article. It refered to her husband the Duke of Angouleme, but not Duchess. I also agree about the need for a plaintext version...that would make it much easier for searching. Womble 06:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nunh-huh,

MUMPS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumps

Part of an encyclopedia's primary role is to inform and provide facts rather than personal opinion.

Accordingly, please provide justification for your assertion that a 'prevention' section should not start off by saying whether prevention is necessary.

I won't justify what I haven't said! - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see that you are not saying a 'prevention' section should start off otherwise than by dealing with whether prevention is necessary. However, your actions are inconsistent with your stated position. Accordingly, logically, that is what the section should start off with. If you disagree, perhaps you would explain. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, your characterization of my actions are in error. There's more than one way to write anything; starting out with established recommendations is a way of placing the more important information prominently. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful to you for answering the question. Your believe a 'prevention' section should not start off by saying whether prevention is necessary. You see the issue as one of what should come first (your words 'the more important information'). You consider what some organisations recommend in terms of prevention is more important than whether prevention is necessary. If you disagree with this summary of your view, please advise. Further, do you agree these are therefore two separate issues. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether prevention is clinically necessary in individual cases is a matter of fact and that is the principal and first issue to be addressed under the heading 'prevention'. It might also be considered inappropriate to make general claims about recommendations for clinical treatment in individual cases without substantiating those assertions.

It's inappropriate for use to write about "individual cases". That would be medical advice. For advice on individual cases, people should consult a physician. What we can report is general recommendations made by reputable medical associations. -Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then if Wikipedia reports the general recommendations by reputable authoritative medical sources that vaccination against mumps is not necessary, with references, you would not dispute that - please confirm. If you feel it would be appropriate to add a caveat that anyone needing to make a decision in an individual case should seek advice on an individual basis, that would not be objectionable. If you dispute that prevention is not necessary in general for western economy children, please confirm. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What we await is your citation of an authoritative source that currently recommends against vaccination for mumps. That is, something more authoritative than "some pediatricians". - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed first are references for authoritative sources for the current text. You have been asked to provide them but you have not done so. It also seems that what you have written may be incorrect. Accordingly, if you supply authoritative sources for the current text that will assist in resolving the matter. Would you please be so kind as to do so? --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you then choose to assert that prevention is necessary, please provide medical references to appropriate medical texts supporting that assertion and also the references supporting any contrary medical view (which will of course be necessary to ensure balance).

I don't "choose to assert" that prevention is necessary: I choose to report what responsible medical organizations advise. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nunh-huh, you have provided no references to substantiate your statements that these organisations advise that prevention of mumps is generally clinically necessary. Until you do, then it is difficult to take the assertions you make further or indeed to know whether the statements you attribute to these organisations are actually made by them. Further, if it is the case that prevention of mumps is not necessary, despite what these organisations recommend, then are they are being responsible or are their 'recommendations' something other than what you assert?--Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to report the recommendations, not evaluate them. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would assist if you would provide citations for what you assert you are reporting as such recommendations. Your statement also appears to be at odds with Wikipedia policies. "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge." [3]. Accordingly, whilst one might record the fact that a recommendation exists (and no verification or substantiation of what you describe as 'recommendations' has yet been provided), why such a recommendation exists and whether it is a recommendation that finds universal favour are also part of human knowledge. Further, you will find, in due course, that what you have put at the beginning of this section on prevention is seriously misleading and in fact wrong. But we will come to that when you have managed to assemble some form of authoritative reference for your assertions. Accordingly, please provide the references requested so that your assertions can be verified. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems what you have inserted regarding recommendations appears also incorrect, hence the clear need for references.

It is also not relevant to whether prevention is or is not necessary in individual clinical cases what you claim political organisations with no popular democratic mandate and their own agendas recommend. It is to be questioned whether citing the views of political organisations is any substitute for dealing with the factual issue of whether prevention is necessary.

Your proposition that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians are political organizations is ludicrous. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nunh-huh. If you wish to engage in dialogue you need to explain how you feel able to assert that the body representing the interests of a section of pediatricians or of family physicians is not political? That is a political role, to represent the interests of the membership. It is not an answer to a valid point to claim it is 'ludicrous'. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a government organisation which implements the political mandate of the executive from time to time and is clearly fulfilling a political function. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. By your definition everything is political. You are pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda while pretending to be objective. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making your position clear and confirming your strongly held opinions. Is it the case then that your real concern is to ensure that a 'pro-vaccination agenda' (whatever that may be) is put, instead of reporting what human knowledge has to say on the topic of prevention of mumps? That does seem to be coming across from your arguments. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue of fact - whether prevention is or is not necessary and you clearly have strong personal views on this matter, attributing any view other than your own to 'anti-vaccine' sentiments. It is inappropriate in this context to delete impartial, appropriate and correct information and replace it with information representing a personal point of view.

No, this is not an issue of fact. It is a matter of opinion and judgement. Where opinions and judgements differ, we report both and attribute them to the organizations saying them. We don't report the opinion of the Wikipedia editor, and we don't report the opinion of "some pediatricians" unless there are a considerable number of such pediatricians, and they have published a noteworthy recommendation we can attribute to them.- Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you advocate that the prevention section should advise that prevention is a matter of opinion. In that case all relevant opinions should be covered to ensure balance. Are you suggesting that the section should therefore also say that prevention is a matter of opinion and in the opinion of some organisations it is recommended and in the opinion of others it is not, and in each case why? --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What we await is your naming the organisations that recommend against vaccination. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to keep to the point. This is about a section on prevention of mumps, not on whether the practice of vaccination is one to be promoted or opposed. The latter seems somewhat tribal, like which football team you support. As you have not answered the question, we can take that as a 'yes' - the prevention section should advise that prevention is a matter of opinion - all relevant opinions should be covered to ensure balance. On the general issue of vaccination, there seems to be a Wikipedia page for you to take such issues further if you wish [4].

I have taken the opportunity of taking the debate to you, because you have not responded to similar issues raised in the discussion page for mumps [5] but have reverted text with no discussion or substantiation.

It is one thing to dash in and change something you do not agree with. It is another to support your assertions. I look forward to seeing you support your main assertion that a prevention section should not deal with the issue of whether prevention is necessary.

That's not my assertion. That's the strawman you're trying to set up. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you can resolve the matter by being so kind as to clarify your position in the matter. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Anon The Editor 13:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon: It is impossible for Wikipedia to have any opinion whatsoever as to the advisability of vaccination in any particular instance. And Wikipedia is not a place for the advancing of the opinions of individual Wikipedians. Wikipedia is here to report who says what. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Then you seem to be implying that Wikipedia should be reporting the valid opinions of authoritative sources in a balanced way. If you disagree, please advise. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have so advised. I await your "authoritative source" recommending against vaccination for mumps. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would address the question in point, namely that of the current text which you advocate but will not substantiate. As you agree Wikipedia should be reporting the valid opinions of authoritative sources in a balanced way, please provide the references requested so that what you say can be verified. That would be appreciated. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to communicate if you adopted a less supercilious tone. I gather you are having trouble finding the recommendations of the CDC, etc? Click here for a .pdf of the immunization schedule approved by the Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Centers for Disease Control. Their respective web addresses are also in that .pdf. - Nunh-huh 06:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a reference. Regrettably, the .pdf link you provided does not appear to be valid. This indicates, as does the foregoing lengthy dialogue, that the editing of this page was carried out without first checking sources. A link to the current (2005) US recommended immunisation schedule can be found here http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/count/CountVAC.asp?id=child-schedule.pdf and for all the current versions of the schedule, please see here http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-schedule.htm#printable. The US 2005 schedule is also available from other sources such as http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule.pdf. Perhaps you might now be so kind as to provide a reference for the assertion that the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain also recommend vaccination against mumps. Please also provide any authoritative reference to 'Anti-vaccine activists' who disagree with the prevention of mumps utilising vaccination. -- Anon The Editor 10:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a valid link, which loaded for me with no difficulty both before and after you wrote your most recent note. If you indeed checked it and couldn't load it, the problem is at your end. Since you had no apparent difficulty locating the information yesterday, I wonder why you had such difficulty locating it in the past week or so. Please provide the requested information regarding "some paediatricians" whom you wrote presently recommend against the mumps vaccine. Who are they? What organization do they represent? Where can we find their recommendation? - Nunh-huh 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nunh-huh, thank you for your response. I take it, therefore, from your not addressing the question put regarding the current text that up to now, you feel you have no suitable authoritative reference either for the recommendations you attribute to the British Medical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain or to those of the 'Anti-vaccine activists' to which you refer. If that is wrong, or if you do find such authoritative references please advise. It is clear that the current text is not NPOV. I will be happy to debate with you other issues should the current text change for those issues to become relevant. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if you would please be kind enough to address the requests regarding the current text, so that a little more progress can be made. I am pleased that the link you added is now working for you. -- Anon The Editor 00:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link always worked for me. It was you who said it didn't work for you, and from that "fact" assumed that it was an invalid reference, and asserted that I had checked no sources. Please stop misrepresenting things. It does little for your credibility. Nor does your illogic in assuming that your inability to access a link meant that I had been intellectually dishonest. Again: Who are the "some paediatricians" whom you wrote presently recommend against the mumps vaccine. Who are they? What organization do they represent? Where can we find their recommendation? Once we know that, we can address whether, as you contend, the BMA etc advise that the recommendations of health authorities requiring the MMR be followed, or not be followed. - Nunh-huh 01:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just got your message, and went over the case again. While it is true that the abovementioned user has only edited Homosexuality three times in the last twenty-four hours, he (yes, a guy :-) did revert the article about six or seven times on September 1. That day is when both users committed the 3RR violation. I don't think the addition or removal of the certain paragraph counts as vandalism, as it was sourced. Thanks for the heads-up, though; never fail to critcize or correct me! Regards, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that might make it all a bit clearer. I'll add it right now. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:47, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

False 3RR on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Hi Nuhh-hu. I'm actually LotLE; posting from lynx in a shell account. I don't want to post much from here, but I saw you had questioned Bratsche's incorrect blocking of me. Could you take a look at my comment at my user talk page. And maybe add a not at the 3RR noticeboard about the incorrect action. (or just unblock me yourself). Thanks, Lulu

Hi again, I'm still not too pleased by the whole block thing, by Bratsche, and all that. I elaborated more on my user talk page. But OK, fine, it's done. However, now I find that over 24 hours from the block, I still cannot edit. Or at least I cannot edit from my regular browser/IP address. I'm not sure how the system works, but I see two different messages in the blocklist about me, each saying something like "The IP was used by LotLE", with different expiration times. I've still been reading pages, editing my talk page, and once in a while I tried pressing "Edit" to see if the block had expired yet (the administravia is not clear to me, and I was still kinda hoping some admin would have removed it given the real misrepresentations by Bratsche).

arbogast (general)

thanks for the great revisions with my first article of arbogast (general)! S0berage

The message I get from my regular (non-shell, non-lynx) browser is:

Your IP address is 70.109.229.212. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

I assume that means something. My DSL is on dynamic IP, though it doesn't change IP addresses very often. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:30, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Padron me...

Why did you delete my new york city article I know all about that sort of thing i'm just trying to share my info with you its not 'vandalism' by any means I am something of an expert in this.Wiki brah 05:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pets

"In my experience, if you don't know what to feed a caterpillar, the thing it is most likely to turn into is a dead caterpillar" -- I found this very amusing. Bravo! --Fastfission 05:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Antoinette

Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Hi, that line and the style of "you" storytelling has been in there since the beginning of the article. Let's keep it that way ok? Fuzheado | Talk 04:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not parallel: it looks bad, so let's not. I'm not eliminating all "you"'s, I'm eliminating an instance in which the subject of one sentence "Wikipedia" and the subject of the next "you" don't match: it's quite jarring. - Nunh-huh 04:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh, correcting for grammatical accuracy and parallelism is OK. That's fine. But I want to know why is the article protected now? In what sense is "times up?" -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bodanov Affair

dunno if you were serious about what you said about the Bogdanov brothers on Jimbo's page, but if you were, could you explain? otherwise it seems non sequitur. r b-j 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sure! let's have it! i haven't heard anything about this regarding the bogdanoff brothers before. if you want, you can email me at the address on my user page. thanks . r b-j 01:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 32005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Hello! The man is attacking again. Now, introducing the President of the Royal House of Portugal Museum. This is not fun anymore. I think that people will actually vote to keep this nonsense. Do you know of any project policy about personal propaganda? Please help! I hope everything is fine with you. Cheers, muriel@pt 12:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what? I had to block the guy in wiki.pt. By decision in VFD@pt Maria Pia etc etc is to be a redirect and the guy keeps reinstating the article! I was thinking that i should talk to some policy-makers around here to explain this case to them and suggest the writing of something official to prevent these things. Some piece of policy that states clearly that Persons or Things that are only present in Internet in wiki-mirrors are not aceptable. I'm not going to write it myself, of course. Do you know anybody i can suggest this to? I lost track about who is doing these things here now. RickK was a great los! Signed by HRH The Duchess of Bumpatabumpah, may the light of Bumpa be with you. muriel@pt 10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Just wanted to say thank you for helping me out back then with information about how to use Wikipedia better, your informations were very insightful and you have shown great patience and humour. all the best.. File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 20:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

*lol* You deserve it, you've been very kind and patient. You're going to laugh, I'm still on the "Order of Phoenix" I've been so busy with my studies and writing my final thesis paper (turned it in two days ago, yeah!) As soon as I get to it, I'll let you know and we can have a chat about it ;-) cheers... File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, it was really difficult sometimes doing Wikipedia and writing a thesis at the same time. But after finally turning it in, I think I deserve some rest and can chill a little at Hogwarts for a while. Maybe I'll even contribute some info from my thesis to Wikipedia (talked about Indonesia). File:Gryffindor.jpgGryffindor 21:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC) btw: if you want you can join Esperanza take a look at it if you want.[reply]

House of Anjou category

Hi, I was the shouty person ...I would have preferred the category to have stayed as Plantagenet but User:CalJW is insisting on "standardising" every category under the sun regardless of normal usage, he wanted to change Plantagenet to House of Plantagenet which is not a normally used phrase. I was going to add a note on the House of Anjou category explaining that it is usually divided into the Angevin Dynasty up to John, and from then the Plantagenet Dynasty, unfortunately we cannot have categories with dynasty in the name according to User:CalJW. We now have House of Bruce and House of Balliol perhaps we should add House of Fraser? Arniep 02:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I feel the need to standardise everything is just crazy, this is not what happens in real life. House of Plantagenet is not the normally used phrase, and as user User:CalJW was insisting that every Royal dynasty was referred to as House of * I felt House of Anjou was a better stop gap as all the Plantagenets were male lineal descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou, and House of Anjou is a phrase which is normally used. I realise there are other Anjou dynasties in France but they are usually differenced as the senior and junior Houses of Capet-Anjou. Arniep 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have reworded the intro text in Category:House_of_Anjou. Arniep 14:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what is "usual" depends on what one reads; what I read referest to Plantatgenet kings or to the Angevin line. If "dynasty" is part of the most logical way to classify these houses, consistency will have to give way to logic. I've proposed some categorization schemes; I'll move them to the Category talk:House of Anjou page and hopefully there will be some input and we can begin the process of reclassification into some logical system. - Nunh-huh 17:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category:Plantagenet

Hi. Reguardless of you not seeing the final cleanup list, there was ample discussion and notification of this categories renaming. The community decided it should be renamed, and it was then deleted. I speedied the recreation of the category under CSD gen #9. I also reverted the articles that you placed back in the category. This is nothing personal, rollback is just quicker than me going through and giving precise details. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27#British royal houses, again, this is the link to the discussion for your preview. I appologize for any confusion this may have caused, but CFD is backed up, and those particular cleanup links have been posted for a few days. I moved them to User:Whobot/tasks, and provided a link to this page, so that other users working on cleanup would not bump into the bots work. Shortly after you asked for the link, it was provided, so I do not understand your recreation of the category. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 03:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying "thank you" for? That's a fairly condescending signoff. I didn't "recreate" a category, I created a subcategory. I hope you don't imagine that just because the same name has been used for a previous category it can't be reused. If that is your belief, it is an easy matter to choose a new name for the category. I hope you realize that reflexive changes made because they are convenient for you are not helping matters. And I hope you don't imagine that the question of categorization of the Plantagenets has been decided one-and-for-all by a discussion on an out-of-the-way page in the deepest-and-darkest recesses of Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always sign thank you. I do not have a problem with you, I am just trying to cleanup as intended by the community. I am sorry if you see it differently, or feel I am trying to be condesending, I am not. The consensus was to rename the category, if you feel that strongly that it needs to be a sub, then feel free to use it. Though it seriously seemed by your other comments that you were just reverting the edits done by Whobot becuase you did not see the listing in cleanup. If that is not the case, that is fine. Many times I do not list something in cleanup and do the job myself, as cleanup is just a summary, and a listing for other users to help with the moves. Thats why there are the archived discussions, as they contain all the pertinent info. I tried my best to work out any disagreement that we may have had, or have, and hope you are still not offended. If you still wish to use that category as a sub, then I will not change anything, nor will I participate in the discussion if it shows back up in Cfd. Again, this is not personal, just trying to do what was decided in the Cfd discussion. Thanks for replying. (yes, I sign that just as often :) ) ∞Who?¿? 04:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable, but I think it says per WP:CFD, I really only added that to give a reference to why the change was done. I think the main flaw is with the {{cfd}} tag itself, as it doesnt point to the Cfd day page. I have been planning on working on this. Thanks again for replying. (sorry, its a nasty habit) ∞Who?¿? 04:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little bit of both really :) Yea changing that is a little more difficult, I'm working on fixing the cfd tag right now, then I'll look into a better edit summary. Have to figure out how exactly I would want it to read and input the data. It's do able though. ∞Who?¿? 05:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I fixed Whobot's edit summary to show the CFD day page. Example: Recat per WP:CFD Category:Mad_scientists to Category:Fictional_scientists I have to wait till tomorrow to see if my CFD test page worked right. ∞Who?¿? 06:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing..review the pages on Richard Nixon The Southern Strategy and a biography on Lee Atwater contained within this encyclopedia. You'll know exactly what I'm saying is correct. Just anecdotally, I was at a fundraiser for Jerry W. Kilgore this afternoon. You'd be shocked to know how the GOP bigwigs in Winchester, Virginia treat the African American and Latino employees of the catering service.22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Bastard

you stopped ME???!!?!?!? from editing, how dare YOU!--152.163.100.9 04:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey and Katharine Hepburn

Hi there. I think the wording "not closely related" serves only to reinforce the rumour that they were related (even if not sisters). But the point is they were not related, in the sense that we normally use that term. Any person chosen at random is related to you, or to me, but in most cases it would be virtually impossible to identify the actual connection. That Audrey and Katharine had the same surname does not, of itself, make them any more closely related than any 2 people chosen at random. I would much prefer to say they were "not related", but will wait for your response. Cheers JackofOz 05:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a problem to say this in a way that is simultaneously [1] relevant, and [2] true. Since we know that Audrey Hepburn and Katharine Hepburn were 19th cousins once removed by their common descent from Guillaume III de Avesnes & Jeanne de Valois, (and that they have at least 343 other enumerable more distant relationships, and there's no reason to preclude that they are in fact more closely related than this were we able to trace out their respective ancestries), saying "they were not related" is simply false. -Nunh-huh 06:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wasn't aware of the 19th cousin thing. In that case, how about saying "they were very distantly related". Even some mention of the 19th cousin connection would definitely put to rest the belief that they were a lot more closely related than that. JackofOz 06:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it<g>. Or add something like - the closest relationship that has been identified for them is 19th cousin. That's both true and falsifiable.... (FWIW....they were 20th cousins by descent from King Edward I..... ) - Nunh-huh 06:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've come to an agreement. I'll make the change. Thank you. JackofOz 06:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, have you seen that some anon is still trying to convince the world that Audrey's real name is Andrey? 23skidoo 22:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placenta

Heh. JFW | T@lk 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Thanks for the grandiose amusement== alteripse 04:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Find-A-Grave

My computer froze for about 10 seconds as I checked out your chunking edit, so, yes, I agree. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-25 05:58

The longer letters should probably be split in half at least, into separate pages. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-25 05:58

See how I did it at Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people/M. The easiest way is to open the window as an edit box. add in the two links to split it, CTRL-X to cut out the first half, preview the page, open the first link in a new window, paste into there. Save that new page. Then go back to the original, CTRL-X the rest out, open the 2nd link in a new window, paste into there. Save that. Save the original page. Did that make any sense? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-25 06:07

It'll be years before this list is completed, so we should at least try to get it nice and organized for the future generations. Once the pages have been split to a manageable size, I'll put a link tree on the main page of each letter. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-25 06:10

Yeah, I'm just going to do it like at W. To make a subpage link, you just type a [[/wa]], you don't need any of the preceding stuff, as long as the subpage link is on its parent page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-25 06:33

• I'm going to sleep for the night (or morning), so you won't be edit conflicted if you want to try some splitting. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-25 06:52

re:cite

The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth edition. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 22:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you provide does not indicate that thusly is an improper use, only that a previous usage panel discourage it. Have you checked a more recent edition of The American Heritage Dictionary? One that cites a current usage panel? - Nunh-huh 22:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word is still of disputed usage. If you're going to choose between two words, the one that definitely means what you want it to is a lot better choice than the one that maybe means what you want it to but might just be some kind of weird linguistic joke and sounds bad anyway. By the way, can you respond on my talk page so I get a message when you respond? Thanks. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thusly" isn't in the Collins Dictionary, the Oxford Dictionary calls it informal for "thus", and Fowler's Modern English Usage says: "Thusly seems an unnecessary form, since thus is already an adverb, but it is used in AmE in jocular contexts". It looks to me as though Purplefeltangel is correct in her approach to it; it shouldn't be used in an encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree then. I don't think an approach in which uniformity of diction is enforced enhances the Wikipedia in any way. As for the use of "thusly", it is evident that the older the reference work the more likely it is to get its snoot up about its use, meaning that the trend is towards acceptance. Fowler thinks many things are "unnecessary" which people - messy beings that they are - feel a need for. Did you read the particular instance that occasioned my comment on Purplefeltangel's hypercorrection? - Nunh-huh 21:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is a bit odd, in that all three works that I cited are very recent (two within the last five years, one a little older). Before I looked the word up, I was of the same opinion, I should say; I've only ever seen it used facetiously (except occasionally in undergraduate essays, which is no recommendation). I assume that by "hypercorrection" you mean "correction with which I disagree". I don't know which of the corrections you took exception to, as you didn't say in your message, but it's a pointless word, not used by anyone who knows about language, and I don't see that the precise occasion of use matters to the point here. Why are you so attached to it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right if you're deaf to the music of "thusly"<g>. The particular instance is here. - Nunh-huh 16:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say that I'd have corrected that too... Sorry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks

Thanks for reverting. I have added my changes back in and will scan to see if I got it all back. It is so annoying to deal with these vandals!!! --speedoflight 05:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

Hi

I have seen you adding good stuff to both the HIV and AIDS articles (amongst others). I thought you'd like to know that AIDS has been nominated for a Medicine Collaboration of the Week and we could do with your support and help in making the AIDS article of decent quality for December 1, 2005. Can we count on your support? --Bob 18:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French sentences

Hi Nunh-huh. It'll be a pleasure to help you.

I suspect there is an error in the first sentence ("Ils jouaient avec elle..."). "s’en pouvoir s’en lasser" should be "sans pouvoir s'en lasser" (the latter being homophonic to the former). Sans means without, pouvoir means to be able to, the s with an apostrophe is part of the verb se lasser de, meaning to become tired of, to become weary of, to lose interest in. en is indirect object of se lasser, and refers to the action playing with "her". So literally sans pouvoir s’en lasser means without (sans) being able to (pouvoir) become weary of (s(e) lasser (de)) it. Obviously this is not an acceptable final translation, but I'm sure you'll manage to find one, now that you understand the meaning of the sentence.

Second sentence: "Sa mère, qui était fort exaltée, s’était, jetée par la fenêtre." should probably be "Sa mère, qui était fort exaltée, s’était jetée par la fenêtre.", without the third comma. Unless the author put it there so that the speaker has to pause at that position (as if he/she were out of breath), I see no reason for this comma to be there (but this is trivial, really). As for the meaning, I don't think "se jeter par la fenêtre" is a widespread idiomatic expression. Literally, the verb "s'était jetée par la fenêtre" means "she threw herself out of the window"; there is no ambiguity as to who threw her out. The author might have used the verb figuratively, though. I don't know the context.

Third sentence: A monocle is a single eyeglass, usually held only by the muscles of the eye, and not with a handle or stick ("tige"). You might have seen of those in movies. As far as I know, a lorgnette is a pair of glasses. Note that the Oxford Dictionary has both words (I checked), so you might as well use "monocle" in your translation, since both are foreign words anyway.

I hope this helps. Phils 11:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. "à tige" cannot have the meaning you suggest; it should be "un monocle dirigé vers sa tige" or "pointé vers sa tige" or something equivalent, but "à tige" clearly means the monocle is equipped with some kind of stick. Phils 22:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of Nobility Amendment

I noticed that you and another editor had been back and forth on Titles of Nobility Amendment as to the sentence that says "no constitutional scholar supports these theories". I deleted that sentence because I thought it would end that edit war. I thought that that sentence was unnecessary—I think it would be obvious to any reasonable person that the theories are loony—and the introduction to the theories carefully stresses they are only claims. I don't think deleting the sentence will mislead anybody—and the deletion will end the tunnel-minded attacks on it. (Also, I think describing supporters as a "lunatic fringe", while probably accurate is not appropriate for Wikipedia—which is probably why an anon user deleted your new sentence.) Thanks. Mateo SA | talk 23:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Wing timeline skew

Thank you for your edits at Timeline skew theories for The West Wing! If you are interested in its future, please comment on the on-going AfD regarding the article. Thank you again! -Scm83x 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter/Jesus using magic

While I was not the original contributor of this addition to the Harry Potter page, I have reverted the contributed sentence back into the article. See Talk:Harry Potter for a page I (quickly) found that said something very similar. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While the exact quote is not in that article (as I said, this is likely not the original source of the author, perhaps we should ask him) I felt it was something remarkably similar. Here are a couple of quotes from that page:

"The pressure to participate in the fun and frenzy is intense. So what can a Christian child do in the midst of such hype, hypocrisy and popular wizardry?

Those who know God can find answers in His Word. Consider this list of Biblical warnings and wisdom, then put on the Armor of God and pray that He lead you in His way."

"8. The implied source of power behind Harry's magical feats tend to distort a child's understanding of God. In the movie as in the books, words traditionally used to refer to occult practices become so familiar that children begin to apply the same terms to God and His promised strength. Many learn to see God as a power source that can be manipulated with the right kind of prayers and rituals -- and view his miracles as just another form of magic."

Let me know whether you think this is not similar enough to the author's addition to merit inclusion. Thanks. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the added sentence to be more in line with the source that I found. Instead of reading Some claim it undermines Christianity by implying Christ was a wizard and his miracles were magic. it now reads Some claim that children who read the books may begin to view the miracles of God as simply another form of magic. I feel this is more in line with the source that I found, and is fully supported by the quotes above. I felt the first quote was very similar, especially since Jesus and God are interchangable in many Christian doctrines; furthermore, you can find many sites online comparing Harry to Jesus (calling him a "Christ-like figure"). However, I understand your concern, and hope the current change is more agreeable. Please let me know if you feel this is better or if it still needs some tweaking. Thanks! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Austin Weird

Hey...we meet twice on the same night. I too was concerned about the edits on the Keep Austin Weird page. Upon reverting them, I got a message from an anon user, which you can read in full on my talk page. Apparently a professor at the University of Texas, who is married to the man who coined the phrase "Keep Austin Weird," made it an assignment to edit the Keep Austin Weird Wikipedia page for a grade. I have already emailed the professor informing them that this is perhaps not the best idea, citing What Wikipedia Is Not. I told her it would be better if they moved it to a private message board or, if they insisted upon using Wikipedia, use the talk page for Keep Austin Weird, and then perhaps we could integrate the more factual elements onto the page. So, until the professor agrees to this and informs the students, we'll probably see several more of these signed edits. Hopefully the professor will check her email soon so we don't have to keep reverting them for long. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Die Lustige Witwe

You have again removed the cleanup tag from Die Lustige Witwe, despite the problems with it not being resolved. Please restore the tag, immediately. Andy Mabbett 11:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which problem are you referring to? You previously said it was the hidden text. This was unsalvagable, and related to another work and had no business in an article on the Merry Widow. It has been eliminated, thus resolving the only problem you communicated about the article. What problem do you now make reference to? - Nunh-huh 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problems, plural, which I described on the talk page, before your repeated removal of the tag. Andy Mabbett 11:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copying them from the talk page and construing them as plural, your objections were:

• the commented out pidgeon-English translation
  • this is now gone.
• improper capitalisation
  • I fear I don't see much in the way of improper capitalization.
• lack of linking
  • I see no links which need to be made.
• poor punctuation
  • While there may be a comma or two one might object to (and others would not), surely you would get a result more like the one you want simply by adjusting the punctuation you feel needs adjusting? Or perhaps you could be more explicit than "poor punctuation"? - Nunh-huh 11:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[indenting reset in view of the above formatting] Given that you cannot, by your own admission, recognise what is wrong with the article as it stands, kindly restore the tag immedately, and leave rectification of the problems and removal of the tag to someone who can. Andy Mabbett 12:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC) GIven that I cannot reconstruct your rationale for tagging it from the information you've provided, feel free to tag it and provide a more robust explanation of what precisely, in your opinion, is wrong with it. We are not mindreaders here. - Nunh-huh 12:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To do so would breach 3RR. Kindly restore the tag immedately. Andy Mabbett 15:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the above still applies (it's been some time) I'll happily put the tag there for you if you explain what needs to be cleaned up on the article's talk page. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your changes. These seem to answer my queries. Thanks. JackofOz 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do so. It's always easier to address specific queries. A "cleanup" tag by itself is woefully uninformative. - Nunh-huh 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have now made some of the changes, the need for which you formerly claimed you could not recognise. Remarkable. Given that the other issues which I highlighted have not been addressed, Kindly restore the tag immedately. That's "Immediately".Andy Mabbett 08:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have me confused with someone you can issue orders to. I certainly will not "tag" a page as needing to be cleaned up if no one has identified specific problems. - Nunh-huh 09:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the other issues which I highlighted did you not understand? For the fifth time of asking, Kindly restore the tag immedately. Andy Mabbett 09:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I certainly will not "tag" a page as needing to be cleaned up if no one has identified specific problems. - Nunh-huh 09:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have identified secific probelms, your comment is absured. Andy Mabbett 11:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to fight with you. (Assuming you meant "specific", "problems" and "absurd".) Any specific items you care to point out on the article's talk page will be addressed. - Nunh-huh 12:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion for the Ballet version section on The Merry Widow operetta article is excellent. Figaro 18:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Thanks a ton telling me what that coin was. It was in my basement and I had no idea what it was. Now to write an article for it.

Johann Wolfgang 14:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. The coin you linked too was silver, but mine is gold...strange)

Your more than welcome to use in an article.

I think I'll get it appraised soon, maybe then I'll find out the whole story. Thanks again for ideniftying it for me.

Pigs

That's par for the course for him. He hasn't reponded to his rfar yet, despond three notices. Heck, he didn't even respond to his RfC. At this rate, he'll probably be indef blocked pretty soon, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Thanks for letting me know, i'll add his harrassment of you onto the evidence page. Karmafist 21:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need more help with my German question.

Thank you sir- if you find anything please contact me. Either way, really. -London 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is <g>?

Hi. You seem to use <g> a bit. What does it mean? JackofOz 04:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so that's what it means. Now that I know ... thanks. JackofOz 05:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Mumps Talk Page

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. (this unsigned personal attack is by User:81.111.172.198 - Nunh-huh 08:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

For details please see:- [Talk - Mumps - CAUSES_AND_RISKS[6]] 81.111.172.198 08:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do ask you Nunh-huh to kindly refrain from making personal attacks on those like myself 81.111.172.198 who are trying to assist you by pointing out your seemingly inappropriate editing practices. It would assist if you could endeavour to maintain a civil attitude to other Wikipedians. I have previously drawn this to your attention.

81.111.172.198 09:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have so refrained, and I have not made a personal attack on you. I don't view your repeated, non-informative messages here as of any assistance. They do, of course, prove that you'd like a fight. I, personally, wouldn't. Please control yourself. Rest assured I'll ask you your opinion of my editing practices when I have need of it. - Nunh-huh 09:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further vandalism on Mumps Talk page

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 81.111.172.198 08:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing your personal attack this time, 81.111.172.198. I'd suggest you have a look at what is meant when we use the term vandalism at Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 08:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had already checked. Thank you for you kind assistance.

Regarding signing edits, the system keeps a record of who makes changes. If it assists you, you can check this from the history tab. Accordingly, also if it assists you, merely forgetting to add a Wikipedia signature is not an unpardonable Wikipedia crime and it can be corrected at any time. Which this addition achieves.

If you have any further queries or require any further assistance please do not hesistate to let me know.

81.111.172.198 08:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You read the definition of vandalism, yet you misuse the word and the tag. Ah, well, it's to be expected. You should stop responding to imagined accusations, by the way. Anyone reading your words might assume I'd actually accused you of committing an unpardonable crime, when all I did was sign your formerly anonymous comment for you. - Nunh-huh 09:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For details please see:- [Talk - Mumps - CAUSES_AND_RISKS[7]] 81.111.172.198 08:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. - Nunh-huh 08:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*fruitcake* article

Gah, you beat me to the deletion before I could use the {{db-test}} reason for the very first time! I've used plenty of nonsenses and empties in my time here, but never a test. I guess they usually just go striaght for the utter nonsense as opposed to actually talking to the reader about it being their first edit. ;)

I'm still mad at you for doing this, BTW. :P --Spring Rubber 09:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you accidentally wound up giving me a user page. I guess the blue does look nicer than the red, though. I suppose I should actually find something to write there one of these days. --Spring Rubber 09:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Or I suppose I could just redirect my user page to my talk page like you do. :P --Spring Rubber 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Goblet of Fire

hallo Nunh-huh, how's it going?

just thought I'd drop by again to let you know that no unfortunately i still have not read the half-blood prince (in the middle of exams right now) but i did make it to the movies today and saw the newest release. it was really cute and nice, especially the dragon scene was very impressive.. but unfortunately a lot of stuff was missing that was in the book (i really missed the Veela-Leprechaun fight:). on the other hand again, i think trying to put everything into the movie would have made me sit there all day. so it's difficult say... the book and one's own fantasy is still best i think, the movie is a cute divertisement, but not more really.... did you see it? very nicely done though and still worth it i thought... cheers from Gryffindor 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh then go see it! i thought you saw it already, i shouldn't have given away anything in that case (well not like the movie added to the story, but still...) I've been avoiding like hell to read any of spoilers about the half-blood prince, and telling all my friends to keep quiet and not tell, but the pressure is growing c'est vrai :-) Gryffindor

You'd be surprised....!! no jk, but i mean the actual scenes and what has been missing i shouldn't have told you. well, treat yourself, it's still good. uff, still learning and researching for that exam :-(( have a good one... Gryffindor

Streptococcus pneumoniae

Most of the page is about the disease, but the title is about the organism. Many other Wikipedia pages split the disease and organism onto different pages. Do you object if I do a split on this page? --Arcadian 22:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"HELP ME!!!!! please!!" guy

I think you were very kind to that guy at the reference desk. Most people would have written "do your own homework". For that, you get (another?) Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Broken S 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please see my note at Image talk:Bach, The Little Music Book of Anna Magdalena Bach, Musette rumba rhythm.PNG. / Habj 06:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Emmanuel of Italy

I was wondering why you reverted my removal of the parantheses in Victor's article [8]. I thought and still think that it looks strange to have his full name in parantheses, and then his birth date with just the closing parantheses. Don't you? Prsgoddess187 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Prsgoddess187 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the star

Would you accept a star for "providing the the greatest number of ref desk answers I can't think of any way to improve", especially on biological and medical topics ? alteripse 13:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I award this Barnstar For conspicuously unimprovable reference desk answers.

Just a thanks

"Shouting Fire In A Theater" [9].

Nice to know someone noticed. :)

Puck 05:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look

Hi Nunh-huh, could you please take a look at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews#Humus' Proposed New Intro. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"On the Jews and ..."

Nunh-huh, perhaps you would enjoy working on this article "On the Jews and their Lies" Doright 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there might be a lot of overlap with the article on Martin Luther and the Jews. (Which in turn sounds discomfortingly like a Hardy Boys title.... )- Nunh-huh 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no more overlap than the article Mein Kampf has with the article Adolf Hitler. I believe "Mein Kampf" deserves its own article as does "On the Jews and their Lies." These and others are essential works documenting the history of antisemitism that has led to the death of millions of Jews over the millennia. By the way, who eliminated the article "Martin Luther and Antisemitism?" Doright 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acheulean

Hi Nunh-huh. I have finished my corrections to Acheulean and swapped in the new article as nobody seemed to object to the contect of my rewrite. I don't suppose you could mark it up on Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors could you? I had a go but kept breaking it. Cheers. adamsan 16:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. adamsan 22:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I'm actually in favor of posting sources.

Good to be the King: The Foundation of our Constitutional Freedom, by Michael Badnarik. ISBN: 1594110964 Kade 16:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is Michael Badnarik's academic affiliation? On what page of his book does he say, "the TONA was properly ratified and it has been suppressed as part of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by attorneys who do not wish to forfeit their American citizenship when they use the title "Esquire" after their last name"? Would you care to add that information to his article? - Nunh-huh 02:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC) - Never mind, I found it. It's page 99. Definitely worth adding to his article. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Though the academic question still stands. What makes him a Constitutional scholar? Writing a book? - Nunh-huh 03:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some real live cases to the article - they were the only ones that came up on Lexis. Fun! BDAbramson T 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive smarck

Does this look made up to you? Image:North American Frosted Chipmunk.jpg??--Ytrewqt 07:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the "Mr. Peanut" version you originally uploaded. - Nunh-huh 07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try and avoid playing with my chipmunk?--Ytrewqt 07:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buh-bye. - Nunh-huh 07:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, a warning probably would have been sufficient. Blocking him after the fact looks like punishment, and that's not good. I also think you shouldn't post emails, even upsetting ones. They're generally understood to be private correspondence. I realise not everyone shares that POV, but personally, I like people to know I won't just repeat what I'm told in private. James James 08:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. I'm not "upset" and I didn't block him after the fact. And I don't think epithets are entitled to a presumption of privacy. - Nunh-huh 08:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You seemed upset, given that you posted it to his talkpage. I was just expressing my opinion. You think it's okay to post an email, I don't. The world's still turning. James James 08:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to him on his talk page. I censored his e-mail address out. All part of the service. - Nunh-huh 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What?--Ytrewqt 04:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yale and government

Not a rhetorical question: does Yale have a special interest in educating government leaders in some way that is distinct from Harvard and Princeton? Is there, say, a tradition/stereotype that Yale men go into government while Harvard men go into, say, business? Is education for government a recognizable Yale specialty or is it just something that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all do with varying (but great) degrees of success?

I do note the statement by Yale's president regarding "a determination to educate leaders." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LaFosse

Thanks for your note to me re: LaFosse. I changed the section relating to his "Orders" and "Honours." Some may complain that I am being very POV by, for example, stating that the "Order of Malta" LaFosse is a member of is not legit. However, there are a couple of simple tests to verify the status of Orders. See the discussion on the "Chivalric Orders" site maintained by Guy Stair Sainty. None of the groups to which LaFosse belongs meet the tests.

You have done a very good job keeping the LaFosse article factual by fending off the assorted partisans. 66.156.107.108

Chicken Pox

Just a quick note to thank you for your great improvements to chicken pox and your use of science to keep the alternative therapists at bay. Maustrauser 09:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Braille

In an hour or so. Right now I vprotected in case this is a coordinated attack. If it is coordinated, the people involved might've found a way of creating accounts and keeping them with 0 activity for several days until they could get around sprotect. Just a hunch. I'll sprotect in an hour. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. It's sprotected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I don't think anything I'd add would be of much use to anybody - I don't fully follow what's going on there, but I gather it has something to do with the Bogdanovs - but in any case I haven't have extensive interactions with any involved party. - Nunh-huh 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take a look at the "Order of Saint Lazarus " page? The article is written as a POV promo for this group, which is not a genuine Order of Chivalry. Check Guy Stair Sainty's website "Chivalric orders" for information about the Lazarus group, which also does not actually descend from the Medieval Order, as the current article would lead one to believe.66.156.107.108

Chickenpox

Hello, checked back on chickenpox article today. Putting the aspirin caution back in is fine. I'll try to find some time this week to do another close read and pare it down some more if needed. --FloNight 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Archbishops of Canterbury

Im sorry this complaint is so late, but i have only recently noticed your comment. i do not understand your objections to my amendments. I have checked the links i altered and cannot find any broken links or disambiguated links. I would be grateful if you could point to an example. The areas you describe as just wrong are in fact almost universally agreed. Cranmer was definatly protestant not merely the first archbishop of canturbury outside of Rome(as the current edition of the site shows). The purpose of incorporating "Saint" in the names was to create a uniform list rather than in which "Saint" appeared before some and not others. Forgive me for ranting but you amendment seems unfounded and irrational.

--AdamClarke 11 January 2006

You're asking me about your changes one year ago?!?! When you made your changes, adding Saint to the names broke links, converting them from blue to red, meaning there were no redirects from what you changed them to. One year later, some of those redirects may have been made, and some of those pages may have been moved. As for the difference between George Abbot (Archbishop of Canterbury), and George Abbot, follow the links for yourself and see the difference. As for Cranmer, I don't know what issues you have with the article, which states that he was openly Protestant from 1547, but if you have such issues, the article's talk page is the place to raise them. - Nunh-huh 16:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]

-- You could easily have corrected this broken link without reverting all changes by replacing *George Abbot with George Abbot(Archbishop of Canterbury). My issue is that you claimed he was not protestant at all "Thomas Cranmer was certainly not a "Protestant"" as you said as you reverted my addition saying that he was. I am sorry to go on but i finfd your narrow-mindeness intollerable.

I feel your pain. Still, it was a year ago, and I'm not going to rehash it now. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Execution

Don't wish to intrude on a private argument (but I will :-)), but isn't the standard English legal usage that of the original meaning of 'execute' (to carry out) as in 'The sentence of the law on N. has beeen carried into execution'

Perhaps you'ld better alter it to 'hanged'! Bob aka Linuxlad 23:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has been executed, but so has the person. Words change; words acquire meanings. To prefer etymological definitions may be fine for one's own use, but to expect others to hew to one's preference is unreasonable. - Nunh-huh 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is an English legal subject - best to follow the conventions of the subject surely. Bob aka Linuxlad

My objection was to the assertion that "people are not executed", which is false. If someone wants to reword the article without making that false assertion, in readable prose, rather than convoluting a sentence into unreadability (and in the process, falsity) because of their adherence to (an essentially dead) "convention", I have no objection. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifun round 12

This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.
Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.
-- Ravn 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Allopathic entry

I wrote this in the discussion, but I thought you might not notice it so I am copying it here as well. Hope to hear from you soon

Hi Nunh-huh. I just re-read the article and it is still misleading. The problem is that the article over represents antagonism toward M.D.s and underrepresents the use every-day of the term from inside the M.D. world. The article sounds like the term is irrefutably negative, with a couple of minor, incidental, positive uses as a rare exception. Obviously this is misleading. Literally all I do all day is medicine and I was totally unaware that a negative association even exsists. While I registered for the MCAT I had to check the "allopthathic" box to show that I was applying to M.D. schools (other kinds of medicine also use the MCAT...podiatric, osteopathic, etc.). When I filled out my applications, I had to go through the self-described "allopathic" MCAS service, as opposed to going through the podiatric or osteopathic services. All the way through the entire process the M.D. world described itself as allopathic. Now that I am in medical school, the M.D.s in the hospitals constatnly use the term allopathic to differentiate themselves from everyone else. In school we had some lectures on the history of medicine, so I knew that the word had been coined by Hahnemann, but until a couple of days ago I had never heard ANY innuendo that the word might be negative. So now imagine yourself in my place. Your entire experience in medicine (which you do all day every day) tells you that there is no such thing as a negative meaning for the term "allopathic." You see it used all the time by the M.D. official sources, and your M.D. teachers. Then suddenly you come across this website where non-M.D. editors are making this arguement that the word "allopathic" is not used in conventional medicine! They are insisting that it is used almost entirely alternative and other spurious sources. Wouldn't you object? Wouldn't you see such claims as absurd? So, Nunh-huh, as one of the main proponents of the antagonistic meaning of the term allopathic, I think you are best equipped to make changes in the article which will more accurately describe its current usage. Definitions from official sources are important (OED, or whoever), and examples of current use by both sides are important. But most of all, neutrality and accuracy (not agenda-pushing) are critical. Having said all this, go back and read the article. Every time any mention is made of allopathic sources using the term, there are lots of disclaimers intended to make it clear that these allopathic sources are an extreme minority and are probably not reliable (which is silly since they are all M.D. organizations). I have no issue with clear demonstration of current pejorative use, and obviously the term's non-M.D. origin is essential, but you have got to show with less bias the use from within the self-described allopathic world. Rather than just insisting that it is bad, show sources. Give examples of pejorative use. Give more examples of M.D. objecting to being called allopathic. In summary here are my requests:

• make the article be about the definition of the word. Discussion of its disputed neutrality must be secondary.
• include a medeical dictionary definition like Steadman's (or Doerling or whatever as long as it is a well-known source). I have the 4th edition of Steadman's, copyrighted 2005 (a gift from the AMA when I joined). Under allopathic, the only thing it says is "Relating to allopahy." The allopathy definition is the very next one (bottom of page 50 in my edition) and reads as follows: "A theraputic system in which a disease is treated by producing a second condition thiat is incompatible with or antagonistic to the first. Cf. homeopathy. SYN heteropathy (2). [allo _ G. pathos, suffering]
• just give the dictionary definition--don't comment on how it supports or detracts from either side. (I think it describes conventional medicine just fine but for neutrality's sake I think we should leave all commentary out)
• be more neutral--show both sides of the story WITHOUT discaimers
• show solid sources that back up arguments of it being antagonistic. Insinsting that it is so does not make it so. Show proof.

Finally, I think that we have been making progress. Let's keep it up.Donaldal 18:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Steadman corresponds to the current article. I'm all for adding definitions from reputable dictionaries. They've been added before (by me) and removed. All the definitions note that the primary use of the term was by Hahnemann (to denote a school of medicine that has never existed except in his mind) and some note that the term is sometimes applied to non-alternative medicine today. All of which the article also notes. So no, I don't think the article is misleading, and I think the attempts by (usually anonymous) foes of non-alternative medicine to get it to be misleading really ought to be resisted. And, finally, I'm pretty sure, if you're in medical school in 2005, that I have a bit more experience than you<g>. So you should keep in mind that your experience may be of limited use here, and skewed toward recent usage, and go with what the sources say. - Nunh-huh 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GreenPencil.jpg

Why is it black? Lupo 08:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably because you haven't calibrated your monitor? On mine it appears distinctly... well, greenish anyone. Maybe it should be renamed BiliousPencil. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tron's parents

Can I suggest we don't provoke them by adding their names? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I realize that some might consider it unnecessary, so of course you can! I tend to think that if you bring a lawsuit, you're going to get your name in the paper, and that it is our purpose to inform. As I've said elsewhere, I think that the parents are being very, very poorly served if they are being advised to bring a lawsuit to quash publicity. Unfortunately, both in terms of jurisdiction and freedom of speech, this case may very well become a landmark. - Nunh-huh 03:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scare quotes

let's work together to find a better way to discuss curses than scare quotes. certainly we can use the english language to say what needs to be said rather than scare quotes. Kingturtle 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can come up with anything better, but since you have an aversion to them, your suggestions for an alternative would be welcome. Removing them and having Wikipedia assert that there is a "curse of Otzi" etc. is certainly not appropriate. - Nunh-huh 08:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put God or Satan or Jesus Christ in scare quotes. Wikipedia doesn't say Jesus was the "Son of God." That which is supernatural can be explained without using scarequotes, and we should find a way to do it with curses. Kingturtle 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's peculiar to equate God with the "Curse of Ötzi", but, playing along for a moment, this is an argument against you making changes to Wikipedia which cause it to state or imply "Curse X exists" in its own voice. The traditional answer is to find a quotation of someone saying "curse X exists": that is, attribute the allegation rather than have Wikipedia make it. - Nunh-huh 08:48, 21 January 2

i'll have to ponder that one. it's getting late and sleep calls. cheers, Kingturtle 08:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await your further thoughts. Bon nuit. - Nunh-huh 08:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!

Hello! I'm here, so you know what this means... Check AfD for you-know-who... Does he have a life? muriel@pt 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Original_!North_American_Frosted_Chipmunk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Original_!North_American_Frosted_Chipmunk.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fry it, toots, with extra ketchup. I only restored the thing, I"m not the original uploader, and it doesn't look like we need this particular picture for anything whatsoever. - Nunh-huh 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors

Speaking of factual errors, why don't you drop by Mason-Dixon line? It seems to me that there's a, not congruent, but similarly flavored argument occuring there. Much more than selling you on what we call Norton, I'd like to convince you that our disagreement actually boils down to a difference of POVs, and not to my willingness to compromise the encyclopedia, which I would consider vandalism and would never do. I know that you're working for a better Wikipedia; thank you for that. So am I. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian nobility

hi Nunh-huh, how are you? I have a question regarding the family names of Austrian nobility. User:Cfvh keeps on insisting that every family name, such as "vom und zum Stein" or "von Hindenburg" or "Kinsky von Wichnitz und Tettau" is translatable into English. I believe it is "Count Kinsky" or maybe erroneously "Count of Kinsky", but maybe I could be wrong. I have enormous reservations about the feasibility and especially correctness of such a move. You can see the discussion on this topic on the user's and my talk page. You can also see the user's changes on the history function of the article. I proposed to move that discussion to the article's talk page itself in order to avoid confusion. Maybe you could share some insights with me. I really think it is not possible to translate every family name into English, except for "Prince of" (Fürst) or "Archduke of", meaning like a ruler or lord of a territory, domain, or honourary title (Duke of Reichstadt). Looking forward, thanks... Gryffindor 13:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nunh-huh, thanks for your help. That's what I was thinking the whole time as well, it just sounds very weird trying to translate family names. I've placed my new comments on the talk page of Austrian nobility. with kind regards Gryffindor 15:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

I have had another problem with an article move:

I accidently moved Ernst Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine to Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse and not to Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse, as I wanted to. Could you please help me in this. Cheers, Str1977 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nunh-huh, but it should be Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse, the English version and without the "by Rhine". Str1977 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request at [10]. Cheers, Str1977 01:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. The case is closed. Thanks very much. Str1977 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opera spoiler warnings

I just thought that you'd like to know that those of us who are currently active on the Wikipedia Opera Project have decided (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Spoiler warnings) to remove all spoilers from articles on individual operas, and, AFAIK, have already completed the job (and I removed one from In questa reggia too, while resisting the temptation to change it into a redirect to Turandot). I've also resisted the temptation to add anything to the interminable and inconclusive discussion on the Rusalka talk page... --GuillaumeTell 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. --GuillaumeTell 01:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical pronunciations

Okay, wise old tomcat...I have a question for you. Since you work in ID I thought you might be a good resource. For KS do you say ka-POH-see's sarcoma or KA-puh-see's? My friend's dad is a dermatologist in NYC and he insists that it is KA-puh-see's. Steadman's gives both pronunciatoins, but after my experience on here with how much medical dictionaries can equivocate, I am not sure I really trust them that much. This dermatologist insists that we are going to look stupid on the wards if we say ka-PO-see's. We kinda think he has rocks in his head, but I thought you might have an opinion there.Donaldal 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never short of opinions<g>! I think pronunciation of medical terms is interesting because the "correct" pronunciation to use (i.e., the one you want to use to avoid being looked at as an idiot) is the one that's locally-prevailing rather than the one that linguists might think correct (think of Beçhet's). For KS, I'd say "KA-puh-see's" (probably I'd say more like "KA-poh-see's"): definitely accenting the first syllable and not the second. But then: [1]I'm in the NY area, and [2] I run in ID circles. (But since ID and dermatology pretty much have KS to themselves...maybe that's dispositive.) If someone were going to insist on "correct", you'd have to see how Moritz Kaposi pronounced his last name, which as I recall involves doing something funny with the "s". (To distill all this: only the most pedantic of pimpers would make an issue of it, and either pronunciation, really will get the job done, but using the second will mark you as one of the cognoscenti, which can't be bad). As long as I'm offering opinions: you're best off considering Steadman's as primarily slanted towards stenographers: it's an ok place to learn to spell a word, but for what it means, or how it's pronounced... not so much... - Nunh-huh 04:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...his story definately corresponds with yours. He said that it is technically pronounced KA-po-shi's (with the aspirated s just like you said). But he also says SAHN-ta-me-ter for centimeter, so I was a little leery of trusting him. You aren't of the SAHN-te-me-ter camp, are you? <g> At any rate, I am going to trust you two on this one and move to the KA-po-si's camp (although I am not quite inteligentsia enough for the aspirated s). <g>ThanksDonaldal 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a radiologist lecturer in medical school who insisted on SAWN-ti-met-ers. I mocked her. I'm not proud, but decades later, no one points at me and snickers when I discuss measurements<g>. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we have been doing lots of mocking of profs/attendings...probably mostly secondary to realization of the pathetic nature of our lives right now. <g> Nothing could ever have really prepared me for this...Donaldal 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I shouldn't encourage you... but my favorite attending was a deaf endocrinologist. I used to stand behind him and give the correct answers to my interns <g>. It was a lot of fun. Tip of the week: never lie to an attending, cause if he's any good he'll find out. One of my colleagues asked her resident how "Mr. Smith" was when he saw him this morning, and got an answer like "all right". At bedside, it transpired that Mr. Smith had been dead for some time, and the resident was treated to an impromptu lecture about how long rigor mortis took to develop, and how it was impossible to be "all right" at 8 am and have rigor mortis at 10.... - Nunh-huh 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Knotts

• No need to be snippy. The link should have been posted to begin with. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to feel the need to be snippy. You should assume good faith before reverting accurate information, ask for confirmatory citations when you feel they are needed, or wait the damn ten minutes it takes between an announcement on MSNBC and a citable page from a newspaper. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ugly picture removed Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind in case I'm ever tempted to make a personal attack, or to make a personal attack by accusing someone of making a personal attack, or do anything remotely approaching disruption. And I assure you that I'm not "hot", despite your accusation that I am. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archeology and the Book of Mormon

If you run into any 3RR limits on this article, please drop me a note on my Talk page and I will gladly contribute my quota of reverts. Alienus 04:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White chocolate

What I really need to do is learn not to edit on four hours' sleep. ～J.K. 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Tilden

All I know about his family comes from DeFord's book. Chapter 12 has a lot about his antecedants. His father was William Tatem Tilden, who was born in St. Georges, Delaware, in 1855. His mother was Selina Hey, called Linie, born in Philadelphia, probably about the same time. She died of a stroke on May 11, 1911. He died on July 19, 1915. There were a number of other siblings who either died before Big Bill's birth or who died young. Hayford Peirce 23:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]