User talk:Nunh-huh

really belong in an article on the thirteen colonies, or at least not in the opening paragraph that identifies those colonies. This article should, instead, contain information on matters that affected the thirteen colonies (such as the Pequot War, King Philip's War, Bacon's Rebellion, the Glorious Revolution, Coode's Rebellion, Leisler's Rebellion, the Great Awakening, and the Parson's cause, etc., not to mention the four Anglo-French Wars). Why are you so interested in bringing the 1780s and 1790s into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.137 (talk • contribs)

The problem with the 13 colonies article is that one of the contributors keeps inserting the false claim that a country called the United States of America was established in 1776. This is quite simply false. The Declaration of Independence itself didn't purport to establish a country, and the colonies were not united as a single country until many years later - through a process which involved a war, an aborted attempt to confederate (the Articles of Confederation) and the actual establishment of the nation through the Constitution. I have no interest in bringing the 1780s and 1790s into the article, but rather in keeping misinformation about what happened in 1776 out of the article. - Nunh-huh 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I have a question for you, as well as a few points for your to consider. The question is, on what authority do you insist that the United States of America was not established in 1776? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Are you a college professor who teaches this? If not, is this something that you can cite from a recognized source? I am serious about this, and I don't, at all, mean any offense. If you have some specialized knowledge on this subject, I am willing to defer to your judgement.

But keep in mind the view of the other person who keeps insisting that the United States was founded in 1776. Just to play the devil's advocate to your point, consider for a moment that not only does the United States government consider July 4, 1776 as the "birthday" of the United States, but the closing paragraph of the Declaration begins with the words, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America." Also, it is quite possible, and has happened numerous times in history, that a country can exist without a government. So, couldn't it be argued that the United States came into being in 1776, years before it adopted a goverment? And, of course, there are historians who argue that the Second Continental Congress was a "shadow government."

Nonetheless, assuming you are correct about 1776 -- and I do see your point that there was no United States government until the adoption of the Articles of Confederation or even the Constitution (take your pick), so am not trying to disagree with you on the facts -- the language I inserted was an attempt to resolve the differences between you and that other person. I didn't say that the United States was founded on July 4, 1776. I said that that date is "traditionally considered the 'birthday' of the United States." Therefore, even if you dispute whether or not the United States was founded on July 4, 1776, you cannot dispute that that date is considered by most people to be the date the country was founded. Hence, I used the word, "traditionally." Look on the back of a one-dollar bill. The foundation of the pyramid contains the Roman date "MDCCLXXVI", ie, "1776." So, even if that is not the date that the United States started, it is the date that most people (including the government) the beginning of the United States.

Again, I mean no disrespect or offense. I am interested in your opinion (and the sources you use to back it up). But, I am trying to find language to resolve the dispute over what is essentially a minor point when one examines the history of the thirteen colonies. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.137 (talk • contribs)

There is no historian who asserts that there was a country called the United States of America on July 4, 1776, so really I don't know why you'd want to try to dispute that fact. And whether or not you can make the case that that date is a "traditional" "birthday", that factoid has no place in the opening paragraph of an article on the 13 colonies. - Nunh-huh 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, as Gordon Wood wrote, "When people in 1776 talked about their 'country' or even their 'nation,' they usually meant Virginia or Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.'" (Wood, The American Revolution, A History, p. 70). However, using the words "no historian" is taking a pretty strong stand. I don't have many of my books here at home, and I agree with you that few historians suggest that an American nation existed in 1776. However, regarding your statement that "no historian...asserts that there was a country called the United States of America on July 4, 1776," I would call your attention to the late John Richard Alden, a long time professor at Duke, who wrote that, "On July 2, 1776, after much debate and soul searching, they announced the secession of the Thirteen Colonies from the British Empire and the birth of the new nation, the United States of America." (Alden, The American Revolution, 1775-1783, p. 73.)

But, it is really silly to pursue this. I am completely satisfied with your latest revision, which simply (and accurately) states that the thirteen colonies "formally declared their independence on July 4, 1776." (If we really wanted to get technical, we could debate whether the actual date is July 2nd or July 4. For the record, I suppose I see the difference between the two as July 2 being the date independence passed and July 4 being the date it took effect. But, please, I don't want to get into that can of worms!) Again, I didn't mean to sound disrepectful or offensive. I was simply looking for a solution that would satisfy everyone. ((unsigned|198.11.27.137}}

Well, as long as we're all happy then. I'd be willing to amend "no historian" to "no thoughtful historian in anything other than an off-the-cuff throwaway statement". - Nunh-huh 08:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that I would call someone who taught at Duke anything less than "thoughtful," and I would hardly consider the final sentence in an opening paragraph on a chapter on Independence an "off-the-cuff throwaway statement," but I see your point. Few historians would agree with what Alden said. Gordon Wood, perhaps the most prominent historian today on the American Revolution and the adoption of the Consititution (or, for that matter, on any topic) does not believe that the United States of America started in 1776.

For the most part, however, this has been a debate over a silly issue that few historians even care about. What difference does it make if the United States began in 1776, 1781, 1783, or 1789? The important thing is, it grew out of the Revolution. Most modern historians are not so much concerned with pinning down a single date. Instead, they are concerned with the meaning of the Revolution -- What caused it? How did it change society? People like Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (A Midwife's Tale) and Linda Grant De Pauw (Founding Mothers) look at how the Revolution affected women. Afred F. Young, in The Shoemaker and the Tea Party, examines how the average participants looked back at their involvement in the Revolution. Even Wood, who made a name for himself arguing that the American Revolution really was a "revolution" and who is now on a crusade attempting to prove that the Founding Founders are still relevant isn't so much concerned with this issue. His major works (The Creation of the American Republic and Radicalism During the American Revolution) are studies of the impact of the Revolution on ideology rather than a simple survey of dates and facts. Wood's work is, of course, in some ways the reverse of his professor, Bernard Bailyn, whose Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is still influential in how people look at the Revolution.

This hasn't been a debate. This has been an attempt to be accurate. Attempting to be accurate is not silly. - Nunh-huh 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hehe, that's a funny picture. Thanks for wishing me well too. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww... The picture was deleted. Oh well. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can still remember it clearly. *laughs* Thanks for giving it to me way back when it existed. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of bacteria

Hi there. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, if you just edit the section I'll leave that alone for a bit and there should be less chance of an edit conflict. Thanks again. TimVickers 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm trying in the pathogenic bacteria section to move in order of specialisation from bacteria that are only pathogens in unnatural circumstances to bacteria that are obligate pathogens. This is why I had the commensal/pathogens (facultative pathogens?) next to the opportunistic infection. This isn't really my area, so it's good to have an expert like yourself to filter out my stranger ideas! Thanks. TimVickers 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my suggestion is that you should do it the other way round: it is more natural to move from least specialized (more common) pathogens to the rarer ones. - Nunh-huh 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion, it does read better that way. TimVickers 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). If you had any further comments they would be very welcome. Thank you. TimVickers 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One of these days I hope we'll get the Pathogens sentence in a form everybody is happy with. If this ever happens, I think I'll have a beer to celebrate! TimVickers 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I have always hated bacterial secretion systems, could I ask a favour and have you write a short paragraph on them at the end of the section on extracellular structures? I agree with Willow that we can't just miss them out, but I really can't bring myself to read about them. TimVickers 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to divert attention by adding an animated gif of tap-dancing helicobacter? I can give it a go, though not tonight. (Any chance Willow would care to add it instead? It's not really my thing, either :) ) - Nunh-huh 05:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Or just adapt the prose from the secretion article: There are at least five specialized secretion systems in bacteria:

• the Type I secretion system using ATP binding cassette transporters.
• the Type II secretion system using the Sec Y-E-G complex to enable proteins to cross the inner membrane and another special system to cross the outer membrane. Bacterial pili use modifications of the sec system, but are different from type I system.
• the Type III secretion system (T3SS) is homologous to the flagellar basal body. It acts as a molecular syringe through which a bacterium can inject proteins into eukaryotic cells.
• the Type IV secretion system is homologous to the bacterial conjugation machinery, and can transport both DNA and proteins.
• the Type V secretion system, also called the autotransporter system, uses the Sec system to cross the inner membrane. Proteins which use this path form a beta barrel in their C terminus and insert into the outer membrane to transport the rest of the peptide out.

-Nunh-huh 06:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea of a Dancing Helicobacter, that would make a wonderful screensaver. I bit the bullet and added a paragraph. It won't satisfy the people who live for such things, but it does direct them to something they can read. TimVickers 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely done. There's no need for excruciating detail in such a general article. - Nunh-huh 19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

COTW template placement

Well, I won't move it back, since it's not the point, but here are the directions for its placement: Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week#How to nominate an article. Hoverfish 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed them. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. Best regards.--Húsönd 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sybille Bedford

Hey, I gave the Sybille Bedford article you started a once-over. Hope to find the time to make more changes... indeed, sort of needs to be wikified at this point. Interested, though, in your thoughts on the content, if you have any to offer. Watchsmart 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. You're very right in regards to the name being a little bit awkward. I like how it is handled on, for example,Virginia Woolf's page - referring to the author as "Virginia" when describing her early life, and as "Woolf" everywhere else. When the article is broken up into sections that technique reads pretty well. I'll try to implement something like that as I expand the article.

I think I'd like to leave the description of "A Compass Error" as-is for now - the protagonist of the work has sex with both men and women. Thematic stuff can be made clear with some further expansions to the article. Watchsmart 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance

I would have to say that Wikipedia's greatest weakness is the patent ignorance of many of those who mindlessly add content to it.

It's a contender, I suppose. Did you have something specific in mind? - Nunh-huh 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

This edit? BenC7 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If your question is: "did you mean to delete the portions of the page that are deleted in this 'diff'?" The answer is no. I suspect something went sideways in an edit conflict. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. BenC7 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Naked Woman Debate

A simple solution to the naked woman debate - please see my suggestion on the discussion page. Please tell me what you think, as you seem ultra keen on this issue. Regards, --ToyotaPanasonic 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aign

no- I had forgotten, and apologize. The school computers have access to JSTOR URLs in a way that my home computer doesn't— precisely because they are school computers. The article is stored on that site, memory serves, so I should be able to check its footnotes and arguments and paraphrase quickly, or see if the music library has the journal quoted- that would be best; then I can do so in more leisurely fashion than right after work :) (I'm temp/casual-staff, to explain.) Thanks. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is a link to a review of Bayreuth : a history of the Wagner festival by Frederic Spotts, published by Yale University Press in 1994. The university library has the book being reviewed (and allows reading the magazine's issues online also through the library catalog for students/staff/etc, because of JSTOR through 1999, because of the publisher afterwards.)...

However, the reviewer (Stephen McClatchie) regards the book as badly under- and poorly documented (that is, those documents/citations provided don't always establish what's claimed.)

The reviewer does mention Michael Karbaum's Studien zur Geschichte zum Bayreuther Festspiele and Peter Pachl's biography of Siegfried Wagner as sources for Siegfried Wagner's having fathered an illegimate son (and presumably for his having been Walter Aign)... page 281 of the review. Will see what my poor German can make of those books and if the library has them, in a bit. Thanks again. Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the reviewer and the paragraph on page 122 (now this is from memory but I'll open the article again in a couple of hours- not annoyed, just doing something else :), this interests me too. ) Spotts mentions Siegfried "fathering an illegitimate son in 1900" but doesn't give the name. It opens a paragraph about undocumented (by Spotts) same-sex relationships. (I care that it's undocumented by the author, interesting, and yes, illegal at the time.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

:)

That's what I wanted to write, but now they'll have both our heads. Can I change it to something readable and satisfying? --VKokielov 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

There is not a consensus to add the homeopathic comment you keep reinserting into the Rush Limbaugh article. Please do not reinsert this comment without getting consensus in TALK first, otherwise you will be in violation of WP:3RR rules. Please review WP:3RR Caper13 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with 3RR, thank you. It applies to deletions as well as additions. - Nunh-huh 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work seeing through the Caper13/RtRev/DualFreq/Allen3 cabal. They ignore consensus, strip the page of anything short of fan-club like commentary, and then try to lure editors into 3RR violations. Nice to see more and more editors are calling them on their lies. Keep up the good work! Eleemosynary 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Without necessarily endorsing your characterizations :), I am amazed at the resistance to including a simple statement of an undisputed fact in the article in question. And yes, fortunately I can count to 3 :) - Nunh-huh 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

At least thank you for not endorsing the "cabal" view. The reason for my resistance to this edit is that it is trivial. WP is already swimming in trivia especially in BLP's. What is your view on the notability of Limbaugh's ZiCam endorsement and how is it different from any other celebrity endorsement for a product? I fail to see how this is a notable feature in Limbaugh's biopgraphy. --Rtrev 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly, Limbaugh frequently advises his listeners on the strength of the scientific arguments for and against various issues (global warming, the gasseous output of trees, the usefulness of pleuripotent stem cells for research, and other issues such as whether Michael J. Fox's "spastic" movements are natural or exaggerated). Those who take his advice on one of these scientific subjects should do so in the light of the fact that he also personally endorses a homeopathic remedy—effectively, he's saying water cures colds. The endorsement has been noted in Time magazine, the Washington Post, and other places, and deserves mention here. The vehemence of the reaction against placing this simple statement of fact into the article provides a diagnosis of why the article is one-sided and bears the neutrality tag. It will probably bear the tag forever, as some can't bear to see any statement included that's from anything other than the "Rush Point of View", and resist each such with tooth and nail. - Nunh-huh 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. You are using his sponsoring of a homeopathy medicine to try and score a social point on the man using the Wikipedia. It is not the goal of the Wikipedia editor to attempt to color the reader's judgment of Limbaugh's claims. It was mentioned in passing in Time and the WaPo which does not by default make it notable.

I also think you are confusing a desire for neutrality and non-trivial additions with Limbaugh boosterism. At least once a week someone goes to the talk page and accuses one or more editors of being part of some cabal to sanitize the Limbaugh article. I can assure that is not the case with me. Please WP:AGF. I really don't care for Limbaugh but this addition is just not encyclopedic or meaningful and it is clear that there is no consensus for its addition. The only supporters seem to be you and Eleesmary.

Anyway, I would like to convince you that it is trivial but I doubt we will reach an agreement. So consider my part of the discussion done for now. The only thing I ask is that you would stop accusing editors of being Limbaugh boosters bent on sanitizing his article whether directly or by implication. It is not generally constructive and it is just one of those things that always irks me when I see it on WP. --Rtrev 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You really should heed the advice you offer. You object to being accused of boosterism, but you accuse me of "scoring social points". Oh well, I shouldn't expect consistency. Again, the fact that Time magazine noted it makes it notable. The fact that the Washington Post noted it makes it notable. There's no consensus for removing the information, so it should stay. That's the way it works. As for whether Limbaugh's article has been sanitized: it has. There's no appreciable space given to any viewpoints opposing Limbaugh's; someone who read it would, among other things, never know there was a book (or two) written in opposition to him. The thing speaks for itself. - Nunh-huh 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas J. Preston, Jr.

Hi! I found some information on the RootWeb family tree website about Professor Thomas J. Preston, Jr. of Princeton University. He married Frances Cleveland, the widow of Grover Cleveland in 1913. Also I hope you like the book about Benjamin Harrison especially since there was information about his second wife, Mary Dimmick Harrison. Thanks-RFD 13:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- I got your message and the information. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you find information in researching for articles.RFD 16

15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Helminth infections

Thanks for fixing the spelling: I was getting there slowly and laboriously, clicked save -- and you had already done it! Thanks again, -- The Anome 08:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to article John Kerry

Hi Nunh-huh, you recently added source to article on John Kerry linking him to Anne Bradstreet. This may be my mistake but I couldn't find any such info on the refed website. Can you point me to specific part of the page that supports this? Thank you.--Pethr 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Answered on User_talk:Pethr. - Nunh-huh 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven' t searched for her girl name but for Anne Bradstreet. My mistake.--Pethr 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas J. Preston, Jr.

Hi! I was wondering if you would please link the 2 articles about Thomas J. Preston, Jr. that you posted on my talk page and put them on the discussion page about Thomas J. Preston, Jr.. That way people might want to read them when they look at the article. The United Staes Presidents make interesting reading. For example President John Tyler may had fathered some illegitiment children by his black slaves. Many thanks for your help. RFD 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology

You are correct. That edit summary was not appropriate. My only excuse is that I am being hounded by not-you at the current time. To strike at you was not appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

[[1]]Max Thayer 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

193.251.10.73 keeps vandalizing and should be blocked undefinitely.Max Thayer 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology long overdue

I was browsing around today and came across a discussion you and I had over at Talk:Cardiology diagnostic tests and procedures way back in 2004. Sorry for being such a jackass and assuming that I had a better grasp of WP's needs than you. I know we don't cross paths all too often, but I admire your work, particularly your reference desk presence and your efforts to organize the response to the Nature article. Hope there are no hard feelings. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture copyright

At Talk:Charles Darwin you provided helpful info including a link to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which unfortunately includes opinions on English law differing, "UK museums therefore continue to claim copyright over photographic reproductions of items in their collections". The UK Museums Copyright Group refers to "UK law" and "British law", so presumably it also applies to Scots law. I've noticed such claims here and have tended to be cautious about such sources. Would this have implications for finding images of Darwin? .. dave souza, talk 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence of Apollo moon landings merge proposal

Hi. I was just about to write up a Request for Comment concerning the ongoing dispute. In essesnce, I would like to come to a consensus as to whether the Moon landing hoax accusations can even be mentioned or discussed on the "independent evidence" article. I have no problem with the merge proposal, but I am not sure whether it is better to do the RfC before or after the merge debate. If you remove the merge proposal, I'll try to write up the RfC ASAP. On the other hand, if you think now is a good time for a merge debate, could you start a sub-topic on one of the pages and list your reasons? Lunokhod 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any reason for an "independent evidence" article if hoax accusations didn't exist? It seems to be that one is the answer to the other, and I see no need for two articles about such silly accusations when one would do. - Nunh-huh 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I put the independent evidence article up for deletion about two weeks ago, but it failed. The primary reason for the failure seemed to be people who were voting that did not understand wikipedia policy. In particular, this article is non-notable (no publications that deal exclusively with independent evidence), it is a POV fork from the "accusations" page, and the title is not in accordance with NPOV policy (in my opinion). I am also worried that this article consititutes original research: not in the statements themselves, but in the manner that they have been collected and presented.

To answer your question, I think that the two articles are intimately related, and that a merge is probably the solution (since deletion didn't work). However, you are going to run into gravitor's arguements that "independent evidence exists, therefore it deserves an article" and "the evidence itself has no relationship to the hoax." These argument are weasel arguments, and he is not taking wikipedia policy in good faith. He is a well know hoax proponent and is trying to use this article to prove a point (presumably that the evidence is weak, but who can decipher his logic?). If the merge discussion starts up, I will add my comments to it, otherwise I'll write up the RfM request this weekend. Lunokhod 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, then you have matters well in hand. I would think to the extent that "independent evidence" is important, it should be placed in the various mission articles and/or as rebuttal points in the (obligatory) hoax article. If the matter comes to comment or discussion, I'll add my two bits. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

HIV Testing

We should probably talk about the 1st ip on the talk pageDaniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably. One thing that ought to be made clear is that HIV exists, and is the cause of AIDS. That nutcases don't believe it needn't be taken into account in writing an article about those facts. - Nunh-huh 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, you said MastCell was reverting me - when in fact he went with my plan (he merely re-added some citations because of the whole ref name thing - by taking out ones for one sentence, I was actually taking out future ones) -which was to not include the sentence in the opening paragraph (or perhaps at all - I think we left the section that we had on that sentence - which was my main reason for deleting it - there). So if you still think it's better your way you might want to still fight for it on the talk page.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I don't want you to think I was accusing you of vandalims - when you had reverted me without talking about it on the talk page (I had stated a suggestion and you never responded so I put it up and then still with out responding you reverted) I stated an if statement - because what you were doing seemingly violated WP:MOS and there is a section in the vandalism page where it says... something along the lines of if you continue to do edits/reverts that hinder the improvement of the article it is considered vandalism. So I stated that if you continue to just revert without trying to come to a consensus it's essentially vandalism. Hope that clears things up a bit.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you can say whatever you like about me. You do have to reaccess what you are doing at that article, and should probably not use "vandalism" in your idiosyncratic sense on Wikipedia, because that's not what it means here. - Nunh-huh 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Woman poll

Please, let's not clog up the talk page with discussion of whether a poll is a good idea. I think that the ongoing discussion on the talk page (including objections to Venus) show that the issue is still alive. If you've noticed, I oppose Frau too, but I don't want to make her the center of the debate. I would really appreciate it if you'd participate in the poll; I know you're tired of this issue after 3 years but I actually hope that this poll might finish it once and for all. Read my bit about consensus, it's not a vote, you don't have to worry that Frau will win simply through force of numbers. Cheers, --Homunq 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but your "clog" is my important contribution. You've made a big mistake by even including Frau, and any poll which includes Frau is a non-starter. - Nunh-huh 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant, not your original objection, but the back-and-forth. From my point of view, any poll which does not include all the options which have shown significant support is a non-starter. Please don't boycott just because you don't like one option. Let me repeat: I think of you as an ally, I also oppose Frau, but the poll must include her to be fair. Please, go say "strongly object" if you feel so, and that will make two strikes against her. And if you object to the montage as long as it includes Frau, please give a "conditional object" to that option too. --Homunq 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Frau is a dead option. A poll, or any other means of reintroducing her, is not to be countenanced. - Nunh-huh 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, listen to me: this poll is an attempt to come to a stable solution to an ongoing unstable situation. Hopefully, it will put the nail in Frau's coffin, if (as we agree) that's justified. If I didn't include Frau in the poll, the Frau-ists could justifiably counter that the poll was unfair. It is not intended to revive her. Please, participate; I still am not sure whether you object to any nude photo or just "two big breasts that happen to be attached to a body" (or something) as you've called Frau.--Homunq 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me think about it. I certainly don't object to every nude photo. But I don't think a nude photo should be of paramount importance or the first and most prominent thing on the page. Women are not just nudes. (And I was being polite to Frau, as I don't think my uncensored opinion of it would be permitted on Wikipedia (and would be cruel to the subject, who is some Wikipedian's friend and needn't be insulted.). - Nunh-huh 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sops and frumenty for all!

At long last, the long-overdue nomination of medieval cuisine as an FAC is under way. You are invited to grab your fill of potage, quince pie, a subtlety worthy of a pope, and all the beer you can drink! Oh, and don't forget to make a few comments while you're digging in...

Peter ^Isotalo 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Royal Genealogy Templates

If you want to change the template, be my guest. I didn't create the template I was using, I just copied it from the articles that were already using it.

Starting date - Third millenium

I have submitted several items in an attempt to solve once and for all the question about the so-called "missing year zero." At one point you advised me that I was wrong and had put my comments in the wrong place. One of the major problems I have had in getting my point across has been the fact that the table I have relied upon to nail down my position has been garbloed in the transmission. Yesterday evening I actually saw my comments presented in the discussion page of Talk:Year Zero with my table actually as I have been trying to presenyt it. Lo and behold when I decided to bring it up again so that I could print it, it had been discarded. Now I cannot find it anywhere and also find out that your comment on it in this location has also been eradicated. I get the distinct feeling that someone, somewhere for some unknown reason is attempting to keep my comments from being considered. I am requesting that you contact me about this at your convenience. Sam H. Hastings68.203.120.253 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have a user name, so there's no "Talk" page to contact you on. So I'll reply here. Of course, there's no "missing year zero". But if you want to find the table on the talk page of Talk:Year zero, you will have to look through the history of the talk page (by clicking on the "history" tab and looking at each revision); it should be there, or in one of the many archives of that page that can be accessed at the top of the talk page. If you have some idea as to when it appeared, you will have an easier time finding it. Our articles here reflect accepted views, so if you are trying to prove some original point (that is, your personal opinion rather than one shared by most people), you should recognize that personal theories are explicitly off-bounds for articles. We don't present personal opinions, only important ideas attributable to specific notable people or identifiable groups. - Nunh-huh 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Millenium definition is inaccurate.

Thanks for your quick reply. I checked and find that my User talk:Samhastings is alive and well. I was able to call up one of my various submissions. The table is one of the garbled ones. The contribution I called up yesterday had a very complete table (don't ask me how come - it's a mystery). But when I went back to Talk:Year Zero it was no longer there for me to copy. I believe that the direct one-on-one comparison of the ordinal numbers for the first century, first decade and first year with the cardinal representations of the beginnings of the these units of the passage of time demonstrates that the first year begins at zero just as do the decades and centuries. But I don't know how to get this idea presented. I know that Wikipedia subscribes to the idea of a missing year zero. This is why they maintain that the Third Millenium started on January 1, 2001. Samhastings68.203.120.253 22:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Georg of Bavaria

I have created a separate section for the Josepha Zapletal section, referred to the story as unverified, and removed the disputed tag. I hope that you concur. Noel S McFerran 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to you adding a disputed template to the section on the Zapletal relationship; that's certainly better than having it at the top of the article. Noel S McFerran 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Grimaldi

Thank you very much for the clarification :-) Charles 12:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Wikipedia

I noticed you added commas to the dates in Grand Hotel. It is customary not to use commas when entering dates; by omitting them, American readers will see a date as March 31, 2007, while others will see it as 31 March 2007. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's customary to use commas. I've left a fuller explanation on your talk page. - Nunh-huh 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you've rempved the fuller explanation without responding to it, I'll append it here : No, it's not customary to omit commas. The software will correctly format [[March 21]], [[1885]] into the format designated by the user's preferences, and unlike [[March 21]] [[1885]], it is a correct format actually used by humans. Removing the comma is a misguided attempt to save "bytes". I refer you to the Manual of Style, which gives the following as acceptable formats:

• Day, month, and year
  • [[February 17]], [[1958]] → February 17, 1958
  • [[17 February]] [[1958]] → 17 February 1958
  • [[1958-02-17]] → 1958-02-17

- Nunh-huh 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Being Sworn in to Testify before Congress or in a Court of Law

Would you consider providing a source for, or altering or removing one of your responses on the reference desk. I have a source which states that the power of Congress to subpoena and to compel testimony does have limits, that (among other limits) they must be pursuing a legitimate function of their branch of government. Would you please provide a source for your claim on the Reference Desk, or otherwise retract or alter it.—eric 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to hear who your source claims would enforce this limit. - Nunh-huh 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading a court case where there was a motion in a US District to quash a subpoena to testify before congress, on the grounds that the testimony sought was outside the limits of the congressional power, and another where a person had been charged with contempt of congress for failing to appear, and raised a similar issue as a defense. I would need to do some searching to find my source on this, and I don't recall exactly what the decision was on what the limits were. But I believe that there are some limits, and they are generally enforced through such court proceedings if it comes to a test, which I think is very rare. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There may indeed be some theoretical limits, and they may have been enforced occasionally, but by and large, I think it's fair to say that there are virtually no effective limits, demonstrated by the rarity of any attempt to enforce them. All that is needed for most congressional subpoenas is the signature of the committee chairman. I you do find a case of someone other than Congress quashing a Congressional subpoena, I'd be very happy if you'd share it. - Nunh-huh 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate theatre

I suggest you check a dictionary for the definition of "legitimate theatre" before making changes to articles with snide remarks that prove you have no knowledge of the subject at hand. Your past contributions indicate you have no particular expertise in the area of theatre, whereas I am a published theatre historian. Nitpick about the formatting of dates all you want, but please don't "correct" articles if you're not familiar with the topic. And the info about other Winter Garden Theatres is irrelevant, since they were not located on this site nor had any connection to this venue in any way whatsoever. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You know nothing about my expertise. See the talk page of the article, and please respond there rather than revert. - Nunh-huh 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your creation of a separate article about the "other" Winter Garden Theatres was a sensible solution. Thank you. 14:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yale University

Hi Nunh-huh,

Regarding our edits to Yale University:

1) Sorry about changing the "Tyng Cup" to the "Tying Cup" — I did a Google search for the latter spelling and saw the Yale Herald results so I assumed it was correct. Thanks for correcting it.

2) Regarding this source. I deleted it because it was only accessible with a password and user ID (e.g., "Enter the username and password you created or a Houghton Mifflin Representative provided to you."). I am privy to neither and I'd assume most Wikipedians or users do not as well. You "restored" the reference, at least to me, but it doesn't seem to do a whole lot of good of no one can access it. Unless it's just my web browser that runs into this password requirement it strikes me that we should either delete this reference or replace it with on everyone can reference (and I did a cursory search for the same information but found nothing).

It looks like the original source (on which the information in the hyperlink's article is based) is the "Increase Mather" entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (also known as the Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition), available in a variety of formats on the web due to expiration of copyrights. Check out Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition#External links (using normal precautions against evil websites)

SootAndBroom 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3) I deleted the references to the residential colleges because seemed to serve very little purpose (as there are already Wikipedia articles on each of the respective colleges with their own external links!) and cluttered things up and I didn't want to take the time to format all 12 of them. However, since you did the hard work I have no objection.

4) Thanks for catching my other typos!

Jarfingle 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, I was just admitted. Hopefully they'll straighten me out there :)

Jarfingle 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your right... sorry got carried away by the joke, i understand why you deleted it. -Urisas

Prostanoid synthesis

Hi there. I just noticed a topic in the Science Reference Desk ("Prostacyclin and Thromboxane") and realized you and JWSchmidt caught an error in Image:Prostanoid synthesis.svg, a diagram I created. I'd like to let you know it's fixed now, and thank you for letting the user who asked about it know the diagram was incorrect. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad too :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please refrain from editing my user page.

As I have previously explained on my user talk page it was a mistake AWB told me needed correcting. As a result of that I created many "mis-corrections", but please note that I also did lots of proper corrections. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nunh-huh had a good point, you claim on your user page that your 3,000 edit was a correction, but you actually caused an error in that article.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not claiming I was copying that line from my contributions...~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How about now? I have pointed out myself that it was a mistake. Happy now? ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking 100110100

Just a thought, but do you suppose the "that spate of small was against mos fag" could have been a typo, meaning, "against the WP manual of style FAQ"? It's just that 100110100 presents himself as a fervent advocate of all sorts of sexual identities, and it seems unlikely that he'd use "fag" as a pejorative. I could be wrong, of course. Waitak 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Woman, again

It would be helpful to have your response at Talk:Woman, yet again... I'm sorry, I've abandoned the anti-nude (though not the anti-Frau) camp, so we'd like to get some reading on your anti-nude objection - in our previous chat here you made it clear that you'd prefer no nude-photo lead, but I'm not 100% clear about the level or the breadth of your objection. Is there some way, other than clothes, that a picture could make it clear that "women are not just nudes"? (if you're purposefully abstaining/ not commenting, that message will be much clearer to me after this message, and I would definitely respect the meanings of that.) --Homunq 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing whatsoever against a tasteful nude at any position other than the top. Puting a nude at the top supports the puerile view that what is most important about a woman is her sexual availability. A tasteful nude occupying a position of secondary importance would be fine. (And of course, Frau is anything but a tasteful nude). - Nunh-huh 07:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat the question: is there anything, other than clothes, that could make "sexual availability" not the message of a photo? I'm being a bit silly here, but just brainstorming - she could be in a karate or a meditation stance, or have a book in her hands (with the title somehow unreadable?), or have a "you have got to be kidding" look on her face (NOT a model-style sneer), or be in a starting-block crouch, or on a bicycle, or she could be 60 ... trying to think of things that lead the puerile viewer's mind away from sex, without being too culturally specific, I'm sure you could continue the list on your own. Would anything like that be unobjectionable? (Please do try to draw a distinction between "unobjectionable" and "what I would like to see there"... consensus is sometimes impossible if people incapable of making such a distinction aren't ignored.)--Homunq 08:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, there are lots of things that could temper the message of "I am on display for your pruirent interest". But as no such pictures have been proposed, that's sort of moot. - Nunh-huh 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So I read that as, you would be open to new nude photos with some aspect which tempered the prurient angle. Thanks. (It's not moot, because who would go to the work of creating an image that would just be objected to anyway?) --Homunq 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Answers

I've added a section to the Ref Desk guidelines

Wrong Answers

Everyone should attempt to give correct answers, but a few wrong answers are inevitable. If you believe your own answer is wrong, please strike it out and add a comment as to why you no longer think the first answer was correct. If you think somebody else's answer is wrong, add a comment saying so, why you think it is wrong, and providing evidence, if you have any. However, do not remove the incorrect answer, as it may actually be you who is wrong.

This section has been removed by others, however. If you agree with adding this section, either as is, or with different wording, or if you don't, I'd value your input on the Guidelines talk page, here: [2] and here: [3]. I'm contacting you because I know you are interested in this issue due to this recent Ref Desk talk page discussion: [4]. StuRat 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chicken filets Sadi Carnot

An editor has nominated Chicken filets Sadi Carnot, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken filets Sadi Carnot and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Shakespearean authorship

Good comments. We can't let the pseudoscientists and pseudohistorians pretend that their untrained and wildly minority views should get "equal time" -- they should get equal to how many recognized experts and academics on the topic take it seriously, which is small enough to justify a briefmention and a link elsewhere but no more.DreamGuy 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was really appalled at the current state of the article. There's a lot of cleaning up to do before it's suitable for a respectable encyclopedia.... I've always loved the fact that one of the wackiest of the "critics" was a Mr. "Looney". - Nunh-huh 23:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually - my last wasn't a true revert. I did a number of rewrites.Smatprt 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

I dunno what happened but when you added your comment to this discussion, you removed most of the other comments: [5]. I've reverted you and readded your view to the bottom of the discussion. WjBscribe 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know either, but it seems to be fixed now. - Nunh-huh 14:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Andre Chad Parenzee

Hey, I've started collecting secondary sources to use as references here. I don't have a strong feeling about naming an article after the man vs. the trial, as one could redirect to the other. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

3rv Violation

In spite of making warnings to me about the 3 rvt rule, now you appear to have reverted 4 times within 24 hours. Smatprt 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, I beg forgiveness for miscounting. But kindly stop rules-lawyering and trying to play "gotcha" and obtain consensus for your changes before making them. When you're the only person who insists on something, perhaps it's time to reconsider that thing. - Nunh-huh 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be more civil

I undid your revert of User:Tbeatty, since there didn't seem to be enough justification for a unilateral deletion. While he may, indeed, have mistaken neck swelling for neck pain, it would have been more productive if you pointed that out in a friendly manner, instead of responding like this:

Once again: the questioner would be well-advised not to take "answers" from someone who (even now) fails to distinguish between pain and swelling. The reference desk's function is to lead people to the right answers, not lead them astray. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The object is twofold, to not piss off other editors and to not leave a poor impression with the readers. StuRat 05:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not a response to his initial mistake, but to his insistance that his answers aren't wrong. And Tbeaty undid the revert, not you. TBeatty's responses are both just plain wrong and additionally unhelpful, and don't belong on the reference desk. But since he insists they be there, I've left them there since his revert. - Nunh-huh 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I undid the revert, but the history software sometimes misattributes an undo, so this may have happened here. In cases where one answer contains a mistake, I think it's more productive to describe the mistake, than to delete the contribution. I'm glad to see you didn't edit war over this, that shows maturity. StuRat 06:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If reverts are being misattributed, we have a serious problem that needs to be fixed. Sadly, there is productive to be learned from Tbeatty's wrong answers, other than that he completely misunderstood the question. - Nunh-huh 06:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the misattribution in the history is a serious (but rare) problem. In this case, though, it looks like he may have beat me to the undo. If you believe his answers were wrong, then provide evidence, and let the readers decide. That way, nobody gets offended. StuRat 06:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

His answers didn't answer the question asked, and were seriously misleading. It's not a question of belief: just facts. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You believe he's wrong, he believes he's right, so present the facts and let the reader decide, rather than fight over it. StuRat 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The facts: anterior neck swelling is not a symptom of meningitis or encephalitis. It's already been presented. - Nunh-huh 07:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to message concerning Seung-Hui Cho

Reply to your message: I'm aware of the use of brackets, as I've correctly used them when the case of the word in the article differs from the case of the word in the original quotation. This principle applies regardless of the person who is quoted on record or from a speech. Therefore, I've reversed the changes based on this principle. P.S. Sockpuppet of Mr. Blonde 139??? lwalt 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Lwalt's talk page. - Nunh-huh 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Use also depends on whether the writer relies on MLA, APA or other like guidelines for use of various types of punctuation. Chicago Manual of Style is just one of several authorities that writers rely upon to guide them in correct usage of punctuation. Sure you're not a sockpuppet of Mr. Blonde? lwalt 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your awareness of several style guides makes it all that much more mystifying that you would insist that you are "correct" on this issue, as though your preferred style were a universally accepted rule of orthography. And thanks for repeating your baseless accusation. Feel free to request a checkuser. - Nunh-huh 05:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

American English

I would try and start a discussion about it, but it seems to be mostly anonymous IPs doing it. I am hoping its just the random Canadian's surfing through getting irate! I am sympathetic as I am citizen of the US who recently moved to Canada and had to drastically adjust my terminology to avoid conflict! Thanks for the note. Tmtoulouse 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

John Rolfe (Pocahontas

I saw your edits to John Rolfe and if you know he was married to Pocahontas. They had a child and there is an article about him, but it is short and "imageless". If you decided to edit John Rolfe because you saw it in the recent changes page and you really don't know anything about John Rolfe's son, then tell me so. They're two articles I am trying to devote myself to. --

Carmen

I will minimize the stupidity, I promise! Don't complain! 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay! If you are willing to edit some more, it'd be great (because I'm hoping those articles will be featured someday). Bye :)--

Carmen

I will minimize the stupidity, I promise! Don't complain!

03:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

removed content from refdesk

Greetings, some content you recently contributed to the reference desk was removed. The following explanation was given: "Note, the preceeding content was modified from its original version. Some unsubstantiated assertions were removed. Other correct statements were also removed so as to avoid discontinuities in the discussion." thanks for your contributions and clarifications. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond on my talk page. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: turk vs Turk

Please be careful not to introduce errors when "correcting" spelling. "Turk" (with a capital letter) is an ethnic description. With no capital, "turk" is a young dynamic person eager for change. When you change the word "turk" to "Turk", you change the meaning of the sentence in which it appears, and when you do it while altering someone else's comments on a talk page, you can make it appear that he has made an ethnic slur when in fact he has not. In short: if you think all instances of "turk" should be "Turk", you are wrong. - Nunh-huh 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read the comment in question and it's associated article several times and it appears that the posted is commenting that most people are not as organized as the Turks mentioned in the references article. Turk is also, as far as I know, not a racial smear at all, but simply a way of designating country or origin like Italian or Brit. I also don't know what you mean by turk - is that a specific person or is it a general term I'm unfamiliar with? In any case, I won't revert back because the difference is trivial. --Bachrach44 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is not trivial, and I don't know how you would presume to say so if you're unfamiliar with the term. When you are unfamiliar with a word, using a dictionary is usually a good idea. Merriam-Webster Collegiate's definition is "a usually young dynamic person eager for change, especially, "young turk"." I think you're probably right about the speaker's intent, but that's a bit of a mind reading act. The purpose of my comment was to inform you that blindly changing "turk" to "Turk" is inappropriate. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, that too is capitalized. [6] [7]. --Bachrach44 13:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Once again I refer you to an actual written dictionary. Indeed, one of your two online references noted a capitalized "Turk" as a variant only. - Nunh-huh 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Walters' birthyear

hi - The source has mysteriously vanished - I read the same one several times, and I know it is correct, but it's not coming up now. I sent an email to the siteowner and hope it will be replaced. When did you see it? Tvoz |talk 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link from ancestry by any chance? This back-and-forth has been going on for a long time on the article; it settled down, but seems to be back. Can't figure what the reason is. BTW I fixed the font hijack that happened above - hope you don't mind. Tvoz |talk 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good point about ancestry. Well, maybe the rootdig guy will get back to me. Tvoz |talk 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I saw and reverted - you know it's the same person? Tvoz |talk 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I hadn't checked that far. I reported it. Tvoz |talk 19:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Accidental Block

Hi, Thanks for unblocking me, now I can get back to spending my afternoon fixing up Wikipedia. Don't worry about the mistaken block; however, I do plan on eventually requesting adminship myself and if this block comes up as a question, I hope you'll back me up. I will be saving the conversation about the accidental block on my talk page for that very reason. Anyway, no hard feelings, you were just trying to do your job as an admin by blocking vandals and I was trying to do my job of tagging articles for admins to delete. Useight 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrei Sakharov Archives

Hello; I updated the Andrei Sakharov Archives as you suggested. When you find time to make a look, let me know. dima 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the corrections. I updated also the Russian version. How about the Spanish version? dima 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reverting editions

Hi! About your reverting as "bogus cat": What have you studied and learned about Rosicrucians in order to make such reverts and comments? What is your expertise in literature and history fields to make such reverts and comments? I am available to discuss and to point out sources if you wish (as I already did previously), so please don't start flame editions just because it does not comply with your beliefs: if you have an opinion it must be based upon knowledge in order to be valid; pls. use the respective article's discussion page. --Lusitanian 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is you who wishes to catergorize - for example - Dante - as belonging to the "Rosicrucian Enlightenment", while he lived centuries before Rosicrucians existed. Please obtain agreement that the category is appropriate on the respective talk pages before adding your favorite category willy-nilly throughout Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I've been following your good work on On the Jews and their Lies from afar. You are extremely patient and calm-headed.

You must have caught me during one of my calm seconds! ;-)

Thanks for the explanation of the translation issue. I wonder how much of an old translation has to be changed to trigger a new copyright. If I take one that's public domain and I change the odd word here and there, it surely wouldn't be enough, so I'm assuming there must be some minimal amount of labor that must have been invested in the new version. It's an interesting question: how much labor is needed before an X should be regarded as a Y. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

AKA RANDY BUGGER

Hello my real name is Moses Weintraub. The user name Randy Bugger has been put to rest due to potential breach of Wikipedias user name policy. Moses Weintraub 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maria Pia page

Hi, but please can explain me why in this page I can't insert also the link of the Brazialian Journal of Culture (written by a of the most important brazilian judge) and the words of Sainty about this libel suit where Sainty with objectivity affirmed: “It is nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case nor the claims of Mr Poidimani which have not even been addressed by the court as yet”. This is true. I hope you can see this is not vandalism but an objective point of view. Thanks, M.deSousa

You need to explain yourself on the talk page and try to achieve general agreement that such additions are appropriate before making tham, since it is apparent that several editors object to them - Nunh-huh 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wallis Simpson

Could you let me know please what sources King cites for his denial of Higham's research? Higham cites census returns, family documents, original certificates, research at the Monterey resort and newspaper cuttings from the Baltimore Sun for his assertions. I would like to compare the two. Thanks. DrKiernan 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Hello;

I saw you from dealing with Manuel de Sousa and noticed that you are an admin. I have posted on the admins' noticeboard twice now regarding a situation and no administrators have commented on it. Would you mind taking a look? It is located here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by Tfoxworth. Thanks. Charles 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Thank you for the reply and I am sorry that I did not get back to you earlier! It appears that the situation has quieted for now. I am going to preserve my report in the meantime in case something else happens. I feel it is more a case of POV-pushing and harrassment than content... After all, it is pretty clear how titles, etc are treated (use what they call themselves, etc). Thanks though. If there are any interesting events relating to this I will update you. Charles 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh. The issue has come up again and now there are multiple sockpuppets to contend with. Can you take a look at the following? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I vonH removing sockpuppet proof, etc. Thanks! Charles 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Regarding this edit, could you please tell me why you feel it shouldn't have a spoiler tag? Thanks a lot, JHMM13 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been a sea change in the use of spoiler tags; they're now reserved for recent works with actual surprises, and not in works like this one, which is ten years old, where it was placed, redundantly, in the plot section, to inform the reader that the plot contains actual plot. - Nunh-huh 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Did not know that! Thanks, JHMM13 04:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Prince William

That's a great pic of Wills! I'm sure Ms Middleton would kill to get it framed ;)

Seriously though, I reckon its a great image; front on, mid/close up, he's smiling(ish) ... its quite personal. Really, really well done !

Paul. Proberton 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relate Bard template

It actually links to John Hall (physician) I had to do some digging to find it. Wrad 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Witch Ann

First off, thanks for making that Ann Greenslit article look so good. Did I put up a link to the New Yorker article on her? I can't remember nor can I find it in the history. Here's the deal. Some family member copied it, I scanned it, and put it into a .pdf file, and I have a link to that file: http://greenslit.net/uploads/Ann_Greenslit_New_Yorker.pdf Does the fact that it's old mean WP can use it, or can you think of any other reason allowing it? To be clear, I just want to link to it from WP. It skips my site and goes to the upload file, so you'd have to work a bit to find my site from the link. My site being www.greenslit.net. Finally, is it normal for people like me to use your talk page or the discussion page of the article in question? I'd like to use only one place for discussions. Thank you. Nanabozho 05:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you talked about the Greenslit (Greenslet, Greenslade) name just recently. Have a look here: http://greenslit.net/Ann_Greenslade_Pudeator.php at the top of the page. Another thing, if a new editor shows up on Ann's page, it might be our genealogist. I asked her to and she's the best. Nanabozho 05:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I vonH

I vonH is continuing to blank pages. Per the discussion regarding I vonH/Tfoxworth and his sockpuppets, I think action needs to be taken (a block). Thanks. Charles 20:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any way to continue the investigation into the sockpuppets/Tfoxworth and the harassment that is found continually among the edits? Charles 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User is again reverting/blanking user page and is beginning to re-add unneeded citations tags after being informed that the information rendering the citations tags pointless is available already on Wikipedia. Charles 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think that this ought to be noted [8]. Although it has been evidenced already, it serves to note as insight or admission of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Charles 03:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the quick reply! I will formulate how I will respond to Mr. Foxworth's (I believe that they are one and the same and nothing has convinced me otherwise so far) actions in the near future when my attention isn't so divided (off-Wiki life is very busy at the moment). In the meantime, if I have any questions about the process, may I post them here? I haven't been to dispute resolution or anything of the sort before. I assumed that you didn't go there to deal with sockpuppets and vandals, but I suppose it would be the best method to draw attention to the matter. Oh, the mediation was rejected because I vonH/Tfoxworth lied about previous mediation attempts. It was rejected by the time I was even notified of it. Not surprising, IvonH also tried to use a 3RR write-up against me but omitted everything stating that there was no violation. Sigh... Again, thanks. Charles 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Nunh-huh, please don't start an edit war on the article over that authorship section. A large number of us have worked really hard on the article and doing an edit war at this point would doom the FAC. Please do not make any more edits to that section. The editors involved in the FAC who are concerns about the authorship section have agreed that it won't be a deal breaker; they've also signed onto a compromise I brokered to leave the final decision on whether that section should or should not be in the article until after the FAC is finished. --Alabamaboy 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I left the same comment with Smatprt about the edit war, so please don't take that personally. I also wasn't asking you not to discuss the issue. I simply don't want people reverting the section back and forth. The discussion has produced some solid academic sources for that info. That's good. What we want to avoid is reverting each other's edits. But if having even the section as it currently exists prevents you from supporting the FAC, that is your choice. Best,--Alabamaboy 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood.--Alabamaboy 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, please don't simply revert edits back and forth on the article. First discuss any controversial changes on the article's talk page. --Alabamaboy 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that controversial changes are being made without prior discussion, not that those changes are subsequently reverted. - Nunh-huh 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OsteopathicFreak

He's revamped the allopathic medicine article, changing the focus to osteo/allo differences and adding new criticism sections that apotheosize osteopathic med schools. This is after I backed him in removing the fact that osteo med school admission standards are much lower than traditional med school admission standards since it was, though true, contentious. He's even created a new page - Differences between allopathic and osteopathic medicine. Anyway, I thought you'd be interested. Antelan ^talk 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he appears to want to privilege one POV over another. I find keeping things fair quickly becomes exhausting when faced with zealotry. Hopefully others will try to keep things neutral. - Nunh-huh 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. OK - so we disagree. Perhaps we can work it, or at least move beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality of this discussion.

I want to better understand what we disagree about. Here's my points, feel free to state your objection to each one.

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term used by many today, in a non-pejorative manner. Including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

OK - so that's where I'm at. What part of this do you not agree with. It seems like maybe we agree on 1-4, and then we have some major rift around 5 and beyond. At what point am I losing you? Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You lose me at #2. It's a term rarely used today, and nearly always to create a distinction between mainstream medicine and something else that wants to put itself on an equal footing with it. That is, it seeks to lower standard medical practice to just another "denomination" of medicine on equal footing with the minority view doing the distinquishing. You seem to want to overemphasize the importance of the fact that, say, the AMA uses a term (in a fairly limited way). This always reminds me of Miracle on 34th Street", where someone is "proved" to be Santa Claus because the post office delivers Santa's mail to him. This page, by the way, is not the place for this discussion, which should be held on the talk pages of the respective articles. - Nunh-huh 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - I don't have a problem giving full representation of this point of view on the allopathic medicine page. I just ask that other definitions of the term be represented. Do we agree that the OED, and other authoritative sources, list definitions other than the one you are giving?Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding this discussion to Talk:Allopathic medicine

Modified list, again, how far do make it this time? Past #2? Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem witch trials. Join us!

Psdubow 14:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)