User talk:Nunh-huh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Nunh-huh/sandbox


Contents

Happy Nunh-huh's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Featured article star.svg

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. RlevseTalk 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Eliot Bible.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Your Wisdom has been Noted[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

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)[edit]

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. hereAldoSyrt (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

HIV diagram being discussed at dispute resolution[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

...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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Nomination of Vicky Budinger for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vicky Budinger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Budinger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Barney & Eva Palmer-Sikelianos[edit]

Thanks for your interest and editing help. Zamdrist (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta[edit]

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Luka_Magnotta.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've seen it. Is there something there you think particularly pertinent to or of interest to me, because if there is, I haven't noticed it. - Nunh-huh 22:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
It was simply because you protected the article Karla Homolka in July 2008. The media is claiming that some of the edits were by Magnotta himself, and while not outside the realms of possibility, some of them look like routine adding of gossip from the newspapers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 02:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, now I get it. Let's hope those with real-world powers of protection act promptly and effectively. - Nunh-huh 03:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts[edit]

Hi. :) It seems like you're having a bit of trouble editing AN with edit conflicts today. You have twice removed another editor's comments: [5]; [6]. I've fixed it, but please be careful. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I note that you had a similar problem. Showing that care isn't always sufficient. So please be careful about suggesting others are acting from malice in your edit summaries, when the vagaries of our system of edit conflict version resolution rather than specific intent is sufficient to explain the results. - Nunh-huh 13:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:450p-Gt-st-barts-int-800.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:450p-Gt-st-barts-int-800.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. Magog the Ogre (t c) 02:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Laboratory tests[edit]

Hi Nunh-huh, I posted a question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Laboratory_tests, to which I would be grateful for your comment, if you have the time. Thanks! --NorwegianBlue talk 20:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The context is allergy testing, but yes, I'm looking for broad categories. It's for a talk on a specialized topic within laboratory medicine. I am considering contrasting the list of "valid" or "legitimate" reasons, with the list given in this paper:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a space on every laboratory form in which the doctor had to state exactly why he had ordered a test. I believe if answers were honestly filled in we might get this sort of thing:
(1) I order this test because if it agrees with my opinion I will believe it, and if it does not I shall disbelieve it.
(2) I do not understand this test and am uncertain of the normal figure, but it is the fashion to order it.
(3) When my chief asks if you have done this or that test I like to say yes, so I order as many tests as I can to avoid being caught out.
(4) I have no clear idea what I am looking for, but in ordering this test I feel in a vague way (like Mr. Micawber) that something might turn up.
(5) I order this test because I want to convince the patient there is nothing wrong, and I don't think he will believe me without a test.
The majority of requests we receive contain no clinical information at all. -NorwegianBlue talk 11:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comments! I redacted my entry above slightly. The edit summary explains why. --NorwegianBlue talk 07:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Nunh-nun. Thanks for your further comments! I had to take a wikibreak to get the talk finished in time. I hope you weren't too badly affected by the storm, and that you and your loved ones are safe! I've decided on not citing the article in the talk itself, but will have it among a couple of extra slides after the final one, should the need arise. The audience will span from experts in the fields to practitioners such as the ones you mention. I'm not surprised you are unfamiliar with the field. I had a look at the US catalog of the main supplier (I only found the 2010 catalog online, but still...), and the tests in question were not listed. Maybe they're still waiting for FDA approval. Also, it's a somewhat controversial field, on the borderline between science and medical practice. See PMID 21771081 and PMID 21467924. I find it somewhat puzzling that the latter paper quotes the fable of the fox and the grapes - and ends "nondum matura est" - they're not ripe yet - as if that were the end of the story, after having criticized the field for being immature. But as our article states, the moral of the fable is 'People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves.'. The first author works in Italy, badly hit by the financial crisis, and the second in the USA, possibly having to cope with restrictions imposed by the FDA. I'm unable to tell if the irony was intended or not. --NorwegianBlue talk 21:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Stale requests#George Gould Strong[edit]

Dear Nunh-huh! Is your request still open or ready for archiving? Please let me know. Thank you, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiMedicine[edit]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Organ crawl PROD[edit]

Proposed deletion of Organ crawl[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Organ crawl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources since April 2009

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tuner420 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Phantom[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nunh-huh. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for January 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gisèle Pascal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page L'Arlésienne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Nunh-huh; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Lee Andrews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evita (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacquetta Eliot, Countess of St Germans[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jacquetta Eliot, Countess of St Germans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

genealogy only- nothing in the article to suggest any notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Crown Prince ... Yugoslavia[edit]

Well done on your explanations on the talk page of that article from some years ago; I just read it now and enjoyed it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Governor of New Jersey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bob Martin, John Hoffman and Edward Dickson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Hewitt key.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

FloFo[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nunh-huh. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Georg of Bavaria[edit]

Hi, I just came across your comments on the above page. I would like to ask you few questions in reference to that. I also have some fascinating scans of documents that you may be interested to see. Is there a way to contact you directly and e-mail these to you? Jauernig2011 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Designation of Prince of the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi Nunh-huh - actually both "ordinarily" and "necessarily" are wrong, as all Princes of the United Kingdom have been designated as such by Letters Patent, and some of the principals followed in earlier years, for example those issued by Queen Victoria, would have resulted in Charles being designated a Prince by virtue of his being the grandson of a sovereign. I'm going to delete the word altogether.

Love, Light and Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinky (talkcontribs) 10:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think "ordinarily" clearly indicates "under existing letters patent" or "in the absence of future letters patent to the contrary", either of which might be better substituted in preference to deletion of the word. I'll take a look, I see we're presently going with "usually" which, like "ordinarily", seems both correct and clear. - Nunh-huh 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Bladderball.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:Carlos-inbreeding.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Man of La Mancha[edit]

Back in July, I asked about whether I need to read Don Quixote before seeing Man of La Mancha. My wife and I saw the musical last week and we both enjoyed it. FYI, I have still not read through the whole book and my wife has never read any of it. Thank you again for your answer. Dismas|(talk) 04:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I did indeed see it in Burlington. How does one find out about these national tours? I'd like to see others, especially H.M.S. Pinafore, but just usually wait till my local theater advertises something. Is there a listing somewhere?
And before the play, the manager of the theater did come out and say a few words which included talking about someone who had died but I didn't catch the name. Thank you for clarifying that. Dismas|(talk) 11:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Darwins[edit]

The LDS database has her dying 13 January 1898 at Egerton Place, London, London, England and buried 17 January 1898 at *Putney, Wandsworth, Surrey, England, citing Visitation of England and Wales (1893-1921), Howard, Joseph Jackson, (21 volumes. London: [Joseph Jackson Howard], 1893-1921), FHL (Family History Library) book 942 D23h., additions and corrections vol. 6 p. iv.

  • Is there any mention of which church in Putney, please?
No, that's all there is. I think you will have to check out the possibilities one by one. My first thought would be Putney Vale Cemetery, but there are many other possibilities.- Nunh-huh 21:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A BIG THANK YOU! 2.30.195.31 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you check out just THREE Darwins, two with spouses, from CD's generation on LDS for me please? Martin 2.30.187.251 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I will if you reveal their names :) SEE BELOW!

1. Marriane Parker, nee Darwin.

She married Henry Parker (1788–1858) in 1824.

Birth: Apr. 7, 1798 Shrewsbury Shropshire, England Death: Jul. 18, 1858, England


2. Susan Elizabeth Darwin (unmarried)

Birth: Oct. 3, 1803 Shrewsbury Shropshire, England Death: Oct. 3, 1866, England


3. Emily Catherine “Catty” Langton, nee Darwin

She married 1863, Charles Langton clergyman and widower of her cousin Charlotte Wedgwood.

Birth: 1810 Shrewsbury Shropshire, England Death: 1866, England


It also might be a good Idea for you to select a username so you have permanent page -- Nunh-huh 02:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Putney Vale Cemetery,Stag Lane SW15: FOUND! AGAIN MANY THANKS FOR YOUR HELP; DETAILS TO FOLLOW.

yes! (will do) 2.27.132.10 (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

2.27.132.10 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Marriane Parker, nee Darwin.

She married Henry Parker (1788–1858) in 1824.

Birth: Apr. 7, 1798 Shrewsbury Shropshire, England Death: Jul. 18, 1858, England

2. Susan Elizabeth Darwin (unmarried)

Birth: Oct. 3, 1803 Shrewsbury Shropshire, England Death: Oct. 3, 1866, England

3. Emily Catherine “Catty” Langton, nee Darwin

She married 1863, Charles Langton clergyman and widower of her cousin Charlotte Wedgwood.

Birth: 1810 Shrewsbury Shropshire, England Death: 1866, England

Hopefully LDS will reveal where all the above are buried? Can you make it a "hat trick"? Nitramrekcap (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Early returns do not look promising. So far no results found, but I'm going to keep looking. There are some christening dates, if you care, but no burials. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Peach Melba[edit]

Hello, Nunh-huh. You recently edited Peach Melba to say that the "Place of origin" of the dish is "France", noting that Escoffier made the dish for the Duke d'Orléans. It's not a cut-and-dried issue, but to me Prince Phillippe d'Orléans was not a place. The Savoy Hotel is in London, but of course Escoffier and Phillippe were French people, and Melba was Australian. I think it would be better to include no particular place, but I'm certainly not going to war over that opinion. Cnilep (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Bertie & Elizabeth II[edit]

Hello! You wrote, they are cousins, but according to thePeerage.com Andrew Bertie wasn't a descendant of George III. -- Worobiew (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no statement on that site that "Andrew Bertie wasn't a descendant of George III!" Even if "thePeerage.com" failed to include such a relationship, it wouldn't mean that there was no such relationship! In any case, thePeerage.com does indeed show the descent in question. I wrote that Andrew Bertie and Elizabeth II were fourth cousins twice removed, by common descent from King George III, and they are. Bertie's descent from George III is as follows:
1 George III of Great Britain (1738 - 1820) & Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744 - 1818)
2 William IV of Great Britain (1765 - 1837) & Dorothea Bland (1761 - 1816)
3 Elizabeth Fitz-Clarence (1801 - 1856) & William George Carr, later Hay (1801 - 1846)
4 Adelaide Harriet Augusta Hay (1821 - 1867) [thePeerage.com calls her Ida, but Cockaine's Complete Peerage calls her Adelaide, as does Lodge's Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire, and I think we must favor published sources over a self-published web-site] & Charles George Noel (1818 - 1881)
5 Constance Julia Eleanor Georgiana Noel (1847 - 1891) & Sir Alan Henry Bellingham (1846 - 1921)
6 Augusta Mary Monica Bellingham (1880 - 1947) & John Crichton-Stuart (1881 - 1947)
7 Jean Crichton-Stuart (1908 - 1995) & James Willoughby Bertie (1901 - 1966)
8 Andrew Willoughby Ninian Bertie (1929 - 2008)
I am sure there are other, more distant relationships as well; I've just detailed the closest. Hope this is helpful. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course you are right. Thank you very match. -- Worobiew (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: antisemitism[edit]

Thanks for the feedback. I've replied to you on my talk page. -- Kendrick7talk 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically, your suggestion is not allowed per WP:CANVAS. But I can't stop you from watchlisting the category talk page. :) -- Kendrick7talk 03:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your help with the translation template last week. I've translated a new article: Theodor Birt. I've added the language links at the bottom left of the page, but am afraid I've a stupid problem with the template on the talk page. How do you find the version number and the insertversion number to add to the template? Are these somewhere obvious? Thanks for any help! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Hopkins (Mayflower passenger)[edit]

I returned the information to the status it was when it was reverted. My apologies. Mugginsx (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Hopkins (Mayflower passengers)[edit]

Hello. I have added several other examples of published works of Caleb Johnson on the Talk page of Stephen Hopkins article and I wondered what your opinion is as to my choices - i.e., if they are good examples.

If you have any suggestions, I am open to them. You are obviously very knowledgeable on the subject. Mugginsx (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Nunh-huh. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Mugginsx (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Albinia Wherry[edit]

I just moved to Albinia Wherry to mainspace. If you could help add project tags to the talk page, categories, and generally expand it, that would be great. You could even get a DYK for yourself. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)