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

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.

I just noticed your comments on my talk page regarding changes in NYC, and you mentioned eating at Windows on the World. I never much liked WTC as architecture and in "native New Yorker" fashion I didn't go up in the towers for a decade after they were built (denial that Empire State was no longer the tallest building in NY) but a girl I was dating wanted to see them, so we did that and I have to say that WTC stood on its own. Much different and much more impressive than going up Empire State. I ate sveral times at WoW and maybe 3-4 times at Cellar in the Sky. Though I didn't have any affection for WTC as part of NYC, its loss is like a death. I understand intellectually what happened and that they are gone, but I haven't caught up with it emotionally. It was so massive, so solid, and gone in an hour. I think of being inside it, and can't believe it simply doesn't exist, just like that. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:37, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While they were standing, I would not have hesitated for a moment in characterizing the WTC towers as "ugly monstrosities". I had an architecture teacher who could go on for hours about how Lower Manhattan, once a sterling example of architecture symbolizing with its multiple spires, reflecting the spires of ecclesiastical forms, the aspiration of man towards God, had been ruined by the blocky, flat-topped giants which overpowered the skyscape and moved the fulcrum of Manhattan so far south it seemed it would tip over. I didn't much care for them when they were first constructed (the only bit I liked were the trefoil forms on the lower level, the only part of the buildings constructed to human scale). And I, like you, didn't go in them for a long time: once, to the roof, with visitors from out of town, and once, to WoW, for a celebratory dinner. The view was wonderful, but I found the height disconcerting.

Only after they were gone did I notice how much a part of the fabric of downtown they had become. One expects to see them when walking down Fifth Avenue, and their absence is really a palpable one: you can't look there without reflecting on how hard it is to create, and how easy to destroy, how unlikely it is, and how wonderful, that humans choose, for the most part, to do the former, or how tenuous civilization truly is.

They may have been ugly-ass, but we were used to them. I think the new buildings, sadly, will also take about twenty years to get used to. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Meta:Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Words fail me. I guess the only thing I can say is...nice. Mike H 17:50, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I just had a horrible mental image. Remember Linda Richman from the SNL skits? What if she hosted a show called Anus Talk with Linda Richman? That'd make me verklempt. Mike H 00:02, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

:-D Mike H 00:32, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I discussed the reasons and they are directly following Wikipedia's policies. You should put a note on that forum there. I will place a request for arbitration as well. -John69

Please stop reverting!! Or else answer my note on the forum.

-John69

Hi Nunh-huh,

thank you very much for stepping in to revert the vandalism on the Wesleyan University page. I had no idea how to go about it myself, especially as the User:John69 (Who is also known as User:Pnikolov) kept making the talk page vanish into thin air.

Thank you,
--Asbestos 02:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) H

Nunh-huh- Could you tell us what the policies are for an entry that two universities could use? Asbestos is known for several editing wars. Thanks.

-John69.

hi, what is format for list of books someone wrote, for example the format for peggy noonan versus format for chris matthews, is one better than the other?Scranton 22:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi! He is here again! Help! I discovered that Manuel II of Portugal did apoint the Braganças as his heirs, thus i guess, overruling the succession exclusion of the 1820s. I added this to Duke of Bragança, now the guy is quoting a book, written by a partisan as source. Meanwhile User:Jtdirl rewrote Hilda Toledano very nicely and was reverted. What else can we say to this person to stop, except the obvious p*** o**, which is of course what i feel like, but waaaay out of line. Should i revert everything, should we wait until he disappears again? Advice, please... Cheers, muriel@pt 09:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you created a redirect from Velouté to veloute, but there is currently no article at veloute. (It may have been deleted since the redirect was created.) Wikipedia policy is to get rid of redirects to non-existent pages, and someone listed Velouté on WP:RfD If you want the redirect to stay, you will need to create something at veloute (even a stub will do), or else the redirect will go away. If you do create the target, you don't have to do anything on WP:RfD (we'll eventually notice the target is there), but if you do, just delete the entry for Velouté. Thanks! Noel (talk) 14:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I understand most of that (although I don't know any of the details of how the article came to be deleted); I didn't mean to dump anything on you, but dozens of these things were just listed on RfD, and I'm trying to deal with them all, and without a lot of digging, yours was the only name that was immediately to hand (on the redir). I'll deal with the RfD entry. Thanks! Noel (talk) 19:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your work on Vince Van Patten inspired me to write a stub for his father. Please add more to it if you can. Mike H 22:16, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

The "Acting Dynasty" page made me laugh for ten minutes. Greatness! :-D Mike H 08:49, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the picture should go, but please don't abuse Wikipedia to prove a point. Thank you. Rhobite 04:24, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Also regarding woman, and WP:POINT--

Understanding the inconsistent nature of Wikipedia and accepting it as a good thing inherent in the processes and values of the project helps relieve Wikistress and limits the temptation to make disruptive edits.

You cited the lack of a similar photo at "man" as a reason why the image was not acceptable. Wikipedia will always be inconsistent, and your caption clearly made a point, and was, it appears, generally not accepted, though that is only by Rhobite and myself. I agree that the photo is not appropriate, but I don't think drawing attention to the image's inherent flaws within the article is the right way to go about it. If your comments were on the talk page, rather than in the image caption, I would readily agree with them. Thanks. - Vague | Rant 04:41, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I included the lack of a similar photo at "man" because it is illustrative of the point that the photo is sexually objectifying, and that women and not men are the usual objects of such objectification, not in an attempt to influence Wikipedia policy. - Nunh-huh 04:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)