User talk:Nunh-huh: Difference between revisions
Phoenix of9 (talk | contribs) Notifying top 5 contributors (using vs.aka-online.de) to article HIV |
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Zapruder&diff=345143567&oldid=345143438]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Zapruder&diff=345149853&oldid=345143778]. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Zapruder&diff=345143567&oldid=345143438]. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Zapruder&diff=345149853&oldid=345143778]. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Yes, asinine is much better than silly :)! - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 03:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
:Yes, asinine is much better than silly :)! - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 03:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Good article reassessment for [[HIV]] == |
|||
[[HIV]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|good article reassessment]]. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|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 [[Talk:HIV{{#if:2|/GA2}}|here]]. '''[[User:Phoenix_of9|<font color="Red">Phoenix</font>]][[User talk:Phoenix_of9|<font color="Black"> of9</font>]]''' 06:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:33, 25 March 2010
Happy Nunh-huh's Day!
 |
Nunh-huh has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, 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)
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)