User talk:Nunh-huh

User:Nunh-huh/sandbox

Happy Nunh-huh's Day!

Nunh-huh has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nunh-huh's day! For excellent service on the RefDesk and beyond, enjoy being the Star of the day, Nunh-huh! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Behe BLP Issues

this revert is in violation of WP:BLP as discussed here. Please self-revert. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I received no response, I've reverted your edit and requested comment at | the the BLP notice board]. JPatterson (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I see they're in the process of setting you straight there. Behe's theory is rejected by the scientific community, and saying so is not a violation of any BLP policy. - Nunh-huh 04:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon‎

I just wanted to clarify my edits at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon‎ because your edit summary seemed to indicate I removed content because of "formatting issues". I did two entries. One was just formatting a reference. The second edit moved an internal link to the "See also section" because it stated "Follow this link for the article on Genetics and the Book of Mormon." Attached to this sentence was a reference that related to genetics, not to the topic of this article (archaeology). The information that you put back, which was originally a reference, belongs in the genetics article. My apologies for not being clear when I made that edit. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. - Nunh-huh 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank your for clearing up my confusion re Kodachrome in the context of the Zapruder film. As you may have noticed, I expressed my doubts in an HTML comment, away from the eyes of the general reader yet positioned so someone "in the know" would be likely to find it. Just as I expected, you did find my puzzled query and resolved the conundrum. What didn't expect was the insultingly asinine edit summary [1]. While you obviously have knowledge, you apparently lack the insight of the master, which is to see the subject not only from one's own point of view, but when necessary to see it as others do. Your effort would have been better expended in improving the text so others would not be perplexed, as I was, by this completely intelligent (if perhaps inexpert) question [2]. EEng (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, asinine is much better than silly :)! - Nunh-huh 03:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for HIV

HIV has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Phoenix of9 06:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Nunh-huh's Day!

User:Nunh-huh has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nunh-huh's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nunh-huh! Peace, Rlevse 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Eliot Bible.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Eliot Bible.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with this file, which is a two-dimensional representation of a work published in 1663! There is no copyright either for the original work or for a two-dimensional scan of that work. - Nunh-huh 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bellomont spelling

It should be Bellamont. Cheers,86.46.213.225 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I leave it to you to work out, but it's not clear to me that one spelling is more "correct" than the other. Cokayne's Complete Peerage treats the Viscountcy and Earldom under the heading "Bellomont, and Bellamont", noting that both are attempts to Latinize "Ballymount". Also noted: in Ulster's official Roll, the Viscountcy is given as Bellomont, the same spelling used in the enrollment of the 2nd (and last) Viscount. Similarly, the Earldom was created "Earl of Bellomont in our Kingdom of Ireland". When the Earldom became extinct, the Barony of Coote of Coloony devolved on a cousin of the last Earl, which cousin was then created "Earl of Bellamont in our Kingdom of Ireland". Cokayne considers this spelling a mistake - but of course, a mistake in a creation stands. So strictly speaking, "Bellomont" should apply to the early carriers of the title, and "Bellamont" only to the last one, created in 1767. - Nunh-huh 08:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nils Olav inspection.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nils Olav inspection.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional physicians listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of fictional physicians. Since you had some involvement with the List of fictional physicians redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for something to fill those empty hours?

Hi Nunh-huh. Would you please take a look? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say this about that: thank god you didn't choose something that I actually need to disavow... :) - Nunh-huh 07:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Princess Frederica Charlotte of Prussia

Hi, Nunh-huh! We talked about the above article in this discussion [[3]], and you said that you would be happy to add the references for the information to the article if I added it. Well, I have, so reference away! If you don't have the time, so no worries, it can just be removed or tagged and referenced eventually by anyone the usual way. Greetings--Aciram (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

A wee bit of writer's block there! Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Gretchen Carlson

You're right. I saw the ip blanking and the "removing references" tag, and rolledback without reading more closely. Not like me. Thanks for fixing it. Page really needs some wikilove. You'd think after a few years of subject being in the spotlight, there'd be enough RS to to build it up properly, giving Jon Stewart, Olbermann and Media Matters their appropriate tiny place in the subject's controversies section. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to copyedit and improve the article today and in the near term; I'll get some better references, but please feel free to help out or disagree. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Howdy bud, I'm only on WP intermittently these days so I just now found your message. I think your additions are an improvement to the article - but since all the listed sources are printed materials, not online, I can't double-check.

I'm still concerned that a great many points in this article still seem to be unsubstantiated. Without doing a minute examination of the edit history, I can't tell who made these mistakes, you or someone else, but some that I think need attention are:

1. "The marriage never occurred." How do we know? Better to say "According to xxxxxx, the marriage never occurred," and give a source citation.

2. The first paragraph under the Death section is generally well written; however, there is no "Mr. Bush" listed in the reference section. Citation 6 uses "ibid" to refer to citation 5, which I suppose discusses the Bush claims; but Wikipedia policy is not to use ibid. or op. cit., because those references are easily broken. Somebody can come along tomorrow and insert a new source, which will come between what are now citations 5 and 6, making the "ibid" ref invalid.

3. The second paragraph in the Death section is totally unsourced. Where does that come from, about his "severe syphillis"? Who says so? I'm no doctor, but I find it suspect; I know that untreated syphillis *can* eventually lead to great physical and mental breakdown - but doesn't that take quite a few years to reach the end stage? He was only 24 when he died; maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't sound quite likely. Also, even though this was long before antibiotics were discovered, didn't they have treatments back then to at least slow the progress of the disease? He could certainly have afforded to seek medical treatment, coming from a wealthy family. Also, it says he got the bug "when he was a Guards officer" - but the article never says that he joined the Guards in the first place. And what "Guards" regiment was that, exactly? In England or in Coburg? Also, "his absence was announced . . . " By whom? In what paper? When? Again, solid sourcing and some direct quotes needed here.

4. Paragraph 3 in the Death section is pretty bad. Two paragraphs before, the article states "the exact circumstances of Alfred's death are not known," but this paragraph begins by flatly saying he shot himself. WTF?? The sentence is also ambiguous - if he did shoot himself, was it in front of his assembled family (awful thought)? Or was he somewhere else while they were having a party? If so, where exactly? Since as already stated in this section the circumstances are subject to debate, seems important to me that every verifiable fact be nailed down here with reliable sources.

You made a good start at cleaning up the article, hope this helps if you have the source materials and can do more revising. Textorus (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

I have listened to the beginning for your recording of Thomas Jefferson and nothing is mentioned that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves or Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Why? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the recording is an accurate rendition of the article as it existed at the time of the recording. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AIDS Denialism

the term "denialism" IS a derogatory term, kiddo. Haven't you heard "he's in denial"??? Fine, you want documentation, you got it. But the real reason is that you simply wish to continue to marginalize this group. Pathetic. Kaihoku (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you've found a reliable source that shares your opinion, I have no difficulty with its inclusion. The group, by the way, is marginal—as in "fringe group", but it's not me who's responsible for that. :) - Nunh-huh 19:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Nunh-huh! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yac (French)

I have just read your translation on the KAVEBEAR's talk page. Yac (French) is a nautical word to refer to a part of an English flag, ref. here. In the past the phrase "yac français" could have been used to refer to the French flag ref. here— AldoSyrt (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

HIV diagram being discussed at dispute resolution

Hello, I thought you might be interested in the discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#HIV discussion. Apparently DavoDavoDavo is still trying to get the HIV diagram deleted. I noticed you participated in discussions at the Talk:HIV page relating to this matter. MsBatfish (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Frogs

Thanks for pointing out my duplicative edits on The Frogs (musical), and thanks for your politeness in calling it to my attention. I deleted my edit (but left the reference.)Flami72 (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Refs

Can you add refs to the content you have added to the HIV articles per WP:MEDRS. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You added this paragraph [4] and it has no inline refs... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources are sufficient per WP:MEDRS thus moved to the talk page until this can be dealt with.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS emphasis the importance of secondary sources. As HIV is at GA secondary sources will be needed for inclusion there. Will look into it some time. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in addition they note that primary sources may be used judiciously. The guidelines exist to avoid people misrepresenting and juxtaposing original research to make points not justified by secondary sources. There's no problem in this regard with respect to the material in question; there are no novel or even remotely controversial points being made here. I'm certain that Vwwong will supply references that you will like better; I myself am not convinced that replacing the references already supplied with, say, a citation to Harrison's Internal Medicine, would be an improvement. In any case, thanks for volunteering to help her. - Nunh-huh 17:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Fido (dog)!Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

& aussi pour tes réponses rapides et compétentes à mes questions sur "Reference Desk" ! A propos, je viens de (presque) terminer la traduction (légèrement amplifiée...: 112 000 octets...) de Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War, si tu as le temps d'y jeter un coup d'oeil...Hal Jespersen l'a fait, et il m'a recommandé d'être prudent avec le problème des "Black Confederates". Je crois l'avoir été, d'ailleurs. Avec aussi mes meilleurs voeux pour 2012 ! Arapaima (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bessie McCoy as Yama Yama Girl.jpg

Hi Nunh-huh, I'd like to move this over to Wikicommons. Do you know the source, was it from online somewhere or did you scan it yourself? Green Cardamom (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I scanned it from a postcard that I own. I actually have a few more Bessie McCoy things that I will use for her article...I'm waiting to write it till I get to the library for a bit more research. - Nunh-huh 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimson weed and sourcing

Dear Nunh-huh. I see that you've edited out my addition to the "Medical Explanations for Bewitchment" page now twice. I'm asking you to reconsider and repost it. "Jimson weed poisoning" is the most likely explanation for the afflictions in Salem Village in 1692. To exclude what I have added to this page will do Wikipedia and Salem researchers a huge disservice. I am a professional researcher and writer, who initially made this connection while extensively researching the Salem Witch Hunt in 1993 for a copyrighted, award-winning screenplay (It was a Walt Disney Studios Fellowship Finalist). Later, I adapted that story and original theory into a historical novel. Then more recently I discovered that I am not the first Salem researcher to make this link with Jimson weed poisoning. Back in the 1950s, seminal Salem historian, Marion Starkey, considered Jimson weed poisoning the most likely cause for the Salem afflictions which triggered the witch hunt. That was two decades before ergot poisoning was ever proposed by grad student Linda Corporeal. I didn't know about Marion Starkey's opinion when I made my independent Jimson weed discovery, but I did see at that time that Corporeal's theory of "ergot poisoning" couldn't be correct. (The ergot theory has now been disproved. Salem historians have established that the weather in Salem Village was dry in the summer of 1691, not wet and rainy as previously thought; therefore the ergot fungus couldn't have formed.) I also now know about Marion Starkey's support of my theory thanks to an article published in 2006 in "Skeptical Eye" written by Walter F. Rowe, Ph.D., Professor of Forensic Sciences at George Washington University, entitled: “Mysterious Delusions: Witchcraft in Salem” (Note: I include this citation in what I posted on Wikipedia today: Skeptical Eye, Vol. 18, No. 1 2006, p. 15.) Further, in an article by Ben Shattuck titled "The Devil's Trumpet" published last week in "The Morning News," which I'm presuming you read, my research was discussed. Despite his inaccuracies, in Ben's article, Mary Beth Norton, Cornell University professor of history, a well-known Salem authority, allows that my theory of Jimson weed poisoning might be right. (Historical fiction generally contains a blend of history and fiction.) My book THE AFFLICTED GIRLS won a national award--the 2010 IPPY Silver Medal for Historical Fiction. (IPPYs honor the year's best books from Small Presses, University Presses, and Independent Publishers in North America.) For all these reasons, I'm hoping you will reconsider reposting my piece. Please let me know what you decide. Thank you. Suzywitten (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Suzy Witten, MA

Hi, Suzy Witten... The issue (which I've discussed on the talk page of the article in question) is not an issue of the validity of your theory, but rather an issue of sourcing and importance. We generally do not report theories which have not been considered and written about by secondary sources—in this case, such sources would be a discussion by historians about your theory of jimson weed poisoning with regard to the "witchcraft" allegations in Salem Village. If your theory is taken up and written about by such sources (and we generally prefer more than one) we will of course add it to the article and footnote it accordingly. So if Mary Beth Norton, writing about the Witchcraft trials in a peer-reviewed historical journal or work of non-fiction discusses your theory, we could cite her discussion. But a mere mention that it "could" be right in a popular blog is not the kind of reference that we are looking for. And lastly, I direct you to WP:COI; we are trying to become a reliable source of information rather than a place that people use to promote their own theories; we report theories according to the degree of acceptance they have, not according to the degree of acceptance they should have, or that we think they should have. In the event that your theory becomes more accepted I would urge that you let an independent Wikipedian add it rather than add it yourself to avoid this conflict of interest issue. (I would note also that, simply in terms of chronology, Marion Starkey could not possibly have supported "your" theory, but rather, if you share the same opinion about Jimson weed poisoning, you support "hers".) - Nunh-huh 10:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)