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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Billie Burke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If dialysis is precluded also, might mention that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                           Aurora

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

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

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

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

About Hannah Lightfoot - what are your sources of information?

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

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

Face it. You are ruled by Germans! :) -- Decumanus 08:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It was great day at Bowling Green when they pulled him down. -- Decumanus 08:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have modified Rachel (actress) so that it reads less POV I hope. check it out or you can just make a further edit. -- Taku 02:49, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects that might be correct are not speedy deletions, but rather they should go through WP:RFD. Thanks, Dori | Talk 05:45, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I find it odd that you are so insistent about the wording of an article you evidentally (judging from your comment on VfD) want deleted... Everyking 03:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I didn't vote for deletion. I wrote most of what's there now. The trivial fact that he happened to be the third person hanged after a certain date shouldn't predominate the article. It's like a sports record with a thousand asterisks. He wasn't the first executed. He wasn't the first hanged. He wasn't the first hanged after 1967. He wasn't the second hanged after 1967. He wasn't the third executed, he was the third executed by the specific method of hanging. That is, the third if one starts counting in 1967. This is not the Guinness Book of Executions. - Nunh-huh 03:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Face it. You are ruled by a bastard queen! :) -- Decumanus 09:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I took the decision of deleting House of Braganza on the grounds of patent nonsense, which it is. If it would have gone for VfD, everybody would say VfD is not cleanup and the thing would remain. I will create a stub when Manel is tired of propaganda. As for Maria Pia, dont worry, i'll do it. I think i will return to my last edit in duke of Braganza: i like it better. Thanks for the help! I never thought we would get a weirdo attacking such a boring topic :) Cheers, Muriel 11:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dont worry, i dont do this often :) It would be too much work to NPOV that thing as it is. Muriel 11:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You did an excellent job, Nunh-huh, to clear out this nonsense! I found the link you gave me very usefull and bookmarked it as a tool to check things in my family trees. All the best! Muriel 09:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry about that. Meelar 13:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps... If it was unobtrusive, I may have missed it, as I was taking bong hits at the time. In any case, I'm sure Comedy Central will rerun it at least ten thousand times in the next two weeks. Tuf-Kat 01:52, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing the deleting of the multiple lethal injection links. I couldn't finish the task at that time, but I'm pleased that someone did. Thanks -Two Halves

I've replied to the List of people by name question you left on my talk, below your question there. It doesn't look, from your own talk page, as if you find that reply-practice annoying, but in case you aren't watching my talk page, the "new msgs" msg should alert you. Tnx. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 03:17, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Nice entry on the New Haven Green churches! Im not sure myself on the actual directions, but we can always check them through the map online at the city's website. Love the details you put in on who's buried there -- I learn more stuff about the city every day. Cheers from Miami -- Soldaatvanoranje 04:34 utc 19 March

I am confused as to why you call them "fictional entities masquerading as real". Doesn't their identification as, or with "micronations" adequately suggest that there is some challenge to, or lack of acceptance of, their reality? The point is that they've all engaged in real activities, generally the issuing of artistamps. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:17, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, not adequately. If they are issuers of gummed labels, they should be so identified, rather than gussied up as if a country. -- Nunh-huh 18:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your answer shows a lack of understanding of the function that micronations sometimes play in mail art, and a lack of understanding of artistamps. It is difficult for me to know where to begin with this other than suggesting that you read the artistamp, micronation, imaginary country and mail art articles. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your assessment of my ignorance is incorrect. -- Nunh-huh 20:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then what claim are you making? That Pinica, Natatoria and the Empire of Upper and Lower are not recognised countries? The labelling of the Empire of Upper and Lower as a "micronation" and Pinica as a "former micronation" asserts this. That they issue stamps? Where is the "gussying up"? Saying that they are just "issuers of gummed labels" would be somewhat misleading in my opinion, as these "labels" are at least artistamps, and they have gone a little beyond this as they have allowed the transport of letters, packages and the like on a quasi-local post and even airmail basis. You might characterise the "labels" as cinderellas or artistamps but beyond this I can't begin to imagine what you're talking about. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the claim is clear. "Issuers of gummed labels" is accurate. Unless they don't bother adding adhesive. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you draw any distinction between gummed labels and artistamps? There are many types of gummed labels that are not artistamps and not cinderellas (such as Christmas seals &c.). There are also artistamps that have not been used to show that a fee has been paid for the transport of letters, packages and the like. As for adhesive, some of the stamps are ungummed, some are gummed with "water-activated" (regular stamp) adhesive and some are self-adhesive. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you want to make the distinction, I suggest you do it in the articles: the term "artistamp" does not have enough widespread use that it should be a link without an explanation. -- Nunh-huh 21:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You wrote on my Talk: page:

You seem to have accepted without question RickK's judgment that the places mentioned in the New Haven article are without cultural or social value. His judgment was wrong, his characterization of the mentions as advertisements was incorrect, and in supporting them you do not strengthen your case. I would like you to read Talk:New Haven, Connecticut and formulate your own opinion. The repeated reversions at New Haven were not unlike a pack of sysops, from whom one would wish better behavior, constantly reverting Portland to excise mention of Powell's with sneering comments such as "Hmpf! A bookstore!" "Revert advertising!"

Well, Nunh-huh, I read that page, & have to agree with their position: we are not here to make Wikipedia into something that a Chamber of Commerce would approve. The burden to prove that a business ought to be mentioned or included in Wikipedia lies on the contributor, & if it cannot be shown that it has clear historical (e.g., the first foobar sandwich is said to be made there) or cultural (when owner Joe Bob insisted on place settings having 3 forks, all of the other restaurants in town followed suit), then I agree that it is advertising.

As for your comment about Powell's Books, it is a cultural center in Portland. The Wikipedia article puts less emphasis on its business than on its effect in local culture (e.g., its role during the Measure 9 campaign). However, I'll admit the article needs work: for one thing, it omits an important detail: its owner is on the board of the Port of Portland, a major local government organization. In any case, I have no strong opinion about its inclusion: if the article was removed through a proper VfD, I'd miss it, but there are more important articles I'd be concerned with. -- llywrch 01:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And I'd like to return your thank you with one of my own. (No sarcasm intended.) I have found a lot of anger & incivility here on Wikipedia as of late, & this small gesture has bought a lot of credibility for you in my eyes. -- llywrch 01:19, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful information! --Dobrowsky

Thank you for your contributions to the page on Crown Prince Rupprecht. Nice to see that others have interest in getting pages up on German Field Marshals. Cfrobel 06:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Got pages up for 2 of them, could you take a look and make sure everything looks in order, if I missed anything or got any of the facts messed up. Cfrobel 08:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I feel your use of the word is overly narrow. I gave my rationale on the talk page for the washington monument page. I do not want to get into an edit war though so I will leave it out but I wanted to suggest that the word has a wider meaning than you seem willing to allow. Qaz 01:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the support for my version of nazism and socialism. I've rewritten it to try to make it more acceptable to Sam Spade, although I have little doubt he'll continue to disapprove, and to revert to the old version rather than trying to work to improve this version. But we'll see. john 07:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect this won't turn out all that well. But, we shall see. Taking a look at the history, I notice that the article was once very much devoted to debunking the notion that Nazism was a form of socialism. While I personally don't believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, I think this was the wrong way to go about making the article, since it contained a lot of musing about fooling those who are ill-educated, and about the meaning of the term "national socialism" and so on. It was, essentially, POV, in a way which was certain to irritate people on the right. So I'm just aiming to have a historical review of a) how different people have made the argument that the Nazis were socialists in the 85 years or so since the foundation of the Nazi party; and b) what we can see from looking at the Nazis' actual policies to support or refute the notion....we'll see how it goes. john 07:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess the SS has spoken. - Nunh-huh 08:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That was against wikiquette, and in fact could be regarded as a personal attack, or liable. Think before you spit. Sam Spade 21:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Feh! Your comment (which you interestingly failed to quote) was rude. Politeness begets politeness. -- Nunh-huh 21:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) (BTW, the word is spelled "libel").

Hi Nunh-huh--

Knowing very little myself, I could only check an online library catalog for books about Landowska that might help you, and found these:

• Gavoty, Bernard. Wanda Landowska. Portraits by Roger Hauert; text by Bernard Gavoty. Geneva, R. Kister, c1957.
• Cash, Alice Hudnall. Wanda Landowska and the revival of the harpsichord microform : a reassessment
• Landowska, Wanda. Landowska on music. Collected, edited, and translated by Denise Restout, assisted by Robert Hawkins . New York, Stein and Day. 1964.
• Sachs, Harvey. Virtuoso : the life and art of Niccolò Paganini, Franz Liszt, Anton Rubinstein, Ignace Jan Paderewski, Fritz Kreisler, Pablo Casals, Wanda Landowska, Vladimir Horowitz, Glenn Gould. New York, N.Y. : Thames and Hudson, 1982.

I don't know your personal library situation, but perhaps if you have a research library connection you could get these, by interlibrary loan if necessary.

I looked at the article and found it pretty informative. Two possible tweaks (I don't want to put them in myself because I can't vouch for their accuracy):

• I think Landowska's Pleyel harpsichord was based more on a 20th grand piano than on an 18th century German 16 foot instrument.
• There's a marvellously arrogant remark Landowska once made which you might like to include; see this link.

I hope this helps. --Opus33 06:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that addition to The Power and the Glory -- I think it's not so obvious that we shouldn't include it, and it certainly makes it look less stubby. :-) Excellent work here, btw, keep it up! Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sometimes the obvious stuff just needs to be said<G>. Thanks for the encouragement. _ Nunh-huh 00:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nunh-huh, I am new and just trying to find my way around. The reason I deleted Fatima from the Little Egypt page is that they are two different dancers. --Mike McClure 02:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nuhn-huh,

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I agree that most doctors and immunologists would refer to the neutrophil by its short name 95% of the time, but that does not mean it's not really a colloquialism. The National Library of Medicine divides white blood cells in granulocytes and mononuclear leukocytes, with "neutrophil" (indeed, without the "granulocyte") as a subclass of the granulocytes.

As for "neutrophilic", a light microscopist would refer to the cell as having neutrophilic staining, but when it comes to nomenclature, it seems that the "-ic" has been dropped. See also Webster's, which mentions the meanings in parallel. When Googling for both variants, the "-ic" form returns about 345 while the form without it gets to 602.

Hope this addresses your concerns! Jfdwolff 07:33, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)