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

Refactored: old stuff now just history:

• 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.

Will her long arm reach out from the grave and seize the throne of Portugal? Will her youthful, willowy husband be able to discharge his duties, or will there be another kind of discharge all together? And what about Naomi?. Tune in to the exciting new serial, Bragonza-gone-gone. Same whack time. Same whack channel.

Dear Nunh, I see you reverted with User:Mr-Natural-Health over {{msg:CamBottom}} on Samuel Thomson. I have discussed this with him on his talk page. You might care to take a glance at our exchange. I have also expressed my concerns on Wikipedia_talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Infoboxes. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, perhaps he'll be civil with you while he's under scrutiny. I can't vouch for his civility. -- Nunh-huh 08:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ta. Done. No, I'd merely assumed that because the redirect record existed, the databse wouldn't accept a move from the Strauß name to the Strauss. --Tagishsimon

Please don't put anniversaries on Template:In the news. That is what the Selected anniversaries section is for. See also the guidelines for adding 'In the news' entries at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. --mav 09:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The meeting of the chiefs of state of the powers involved in WWII in Normandy, including Germany for the first time, to commemorate the anniversary of D-Day is a news event, and is not the same as simply reporting the date as an "anniversary". - Nunh-huh 20:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh. You're doing you're administrative duties amicably! I don't regret nominating you<g>.
I have nominated Dave Iberri, a trusted Wikidoc and scrupulous contributor. I hope he'll attract lots of votes (WP:RFA). JFW | T@lk 16:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought that whom was starting to be considered arcane. Geez, he's pretty picky for someone who can't properly attribute a quote. moink 04:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thank you to your idea. But please write in Talk Page. (I removed this to talk page) Rantaro 09:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern to me. My previous username was 65.73.0.137. I was wondering if it was possible to take my previous edits using this name and attribute them to my new username, Marcus2. If so, when should it happen? --Marcus2

I want to thank you so much for what you said to that anon. Marnanel 16:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) (whose photo it was)

Why is the article title just plain "Emperor Norton"? As he was emperor, it should conform with other articles on royalty, and be "Norton I of the United States". If he wasn't, then it should be under "Joshua Norton", which I can understand. But "Emperor Norton" is just silly.

And by what virtue do you say he wasn't emperor? Convention seems to be self-designation, see. Crown Prince Alexander II of Serbia and Yugoslavia, Baldwin I of Constantinople, etc. I think it should be moved back. --Xiaopo's Talk 00:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The naming convention is that people's articles belong under the name they were most known by. For this dude, that's "Emperor Norton". "As he was emperor" is simply wrong: he wasn't. If you want it moved somewhere else, by all means argue your case on his talk page and gain a concensus for moving it there. - Nunh-huh 00:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sure, it's being discussed on the talk page. And why wasn't he emperor? And note that the "most known by" rule doesn't apply to royalty. --Xiaopo's Talk 00:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, now it is. All followup there, then. - Nunh-huh 00:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What's the deal with all that? Clair and Claire aren't alternate spellings to her name or anything. TheCustomOfLife 03:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)