Jump to content

User talk:Nunh-huh: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wiki brah (talk | contribs)
364 edits
hi :)
Nunh-huh (talk | contribs)
30,738 edits
Line 488: Line 488:


Yes I unsderand what you might be concerned but trust me i meant this in the best possible way I mean its a fact that women in new york won't have anal sex with you right away and in boston they wont have it even after a long term relationship even while in brasil where i am if you aren't fucking your girl in the ass on the first night you must be doing something wrong, as is our saying.[[User:Wiki brah|Wiki brah]] 05:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes I unsderand what you might be concerned but trust me i meant this in the best possible way I mean its a fact that women in new york won't have anal sex with you right away and in boston they wont have it even after a long term relationship even while in brasil where i am if you aren't fucking your girl in the ass on the first night you must be doing something wrong, as is our saying.[[User:Wiki brah|Wiki brah]] 05:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

:You seem to have mistaken me for someone who cares about your sex life. Your sex life is not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. It you are important enough to have a biographical article in Wikipedia, you might want to add this information to that article, if you can find it in a citable source, and we can verify it. Otherwise, don't add it to Wikipedia. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 05:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:50, 11 September 2005

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

Wikijunior

Refactored: old stuff now just history:

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Princess...

Thanks for the re-correction of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. I just read the talk page after doing the change. Stupid royal namings and politics! violet/riga (t) 10:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if you know which army regiment DPoW's father served in? My father who was born in the same year swore that he had been in the same unit as him. Albatross2147 12:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Actually I was referring to Diana, PoW's old man. Albatross2147 08:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would that they were in the same unit as my old man was in the Bird Catchers (ie. the Royal Scots Greys) ('42-'47) too. However I might mention, purely anecdotally, that my father who was not prone to wartime reminiscence when he eyeballed Spencer walk up the aisle with Di on TV some 35 years later exclaimed, "What's that bastard doing there?" and related a story that indicated that he did not share the same view of the earl's gallantry under fire as the superior officers who at some point mentioned him in despatches. My father never talked about it again and it was only because I came on your article as a result of a typing error that I thought I would query the point. Well you have proved that my old man was not bullsh--ing about his one degree of separation from Diana. And as regards the earl's alleged behaviour - well it was all a very long time ago and far, far away.

Thanks for your help Albatross2147 00:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Protection

You don't think you could acutally protect that article, please? 216.52.110.253 gave up doing more than reverting a long time ago... Kiand 01:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kiand 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
cat article has asplode again, sad to say... same anon user involved, different other editors in opposition. DreamGuy 23:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Benedict XVI's elected age

So I guess the Papacy is a great (but late) birthday present for him, eh? Zscout370 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could be. Sometimes when you get a present it turns out you really didn't want it in the first place, though! I hope he surprises those who have little confidence in his ability to use this great gift for good. - Nunh-huh 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NHL additions and corrections

Thanks for the work on the stages of lymphoma. I'm still learning about it as I go tonight, and your edits made it much more clear. Glitch010101 05:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube

Ah, sorry, Nunh-huh. I see now that perhaps you intended your edits to Time Cube seriously. However, the Time Cube article is a bed of contention which can easily be thrown in disarray by careless editting. You called Gene Ray a crank, an accusation which would have summoned a murderous hoard screaming "NPOV! NPOV!" until it trampled someone to death. Granted, he is a crank, but that's our opinion rather than testable fact. One-dimensional Tangent 02:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is in fact a fact, and there is certainly some way of working it into the article, which is a morass of mealy-mouthed and ill-expressed nonsense. Nonetheless, if you'd prefer to deal with it, I'm fine with that. I've grown accustomed to the fact that Wikipedia will contain articles which are little more than cesspools, and only get upset if they start to overflow. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Still, I find it amusing to see how objectively we can discuss complete nonsense. Cheers. One-dimensional Tangent 03:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know....I would think the following both more objective and more useful:

http://www.mcwetboy.com/mcwetlog/index.phtml?archive=11_01 Time Cube: the funniest bit of earnest online insanity I've seen in years.

http://www.crank.net/timecube.html

http://weblog.soulhuntre.com/items/id/001738/ What might have been a fairly amusing little argument on an obscure message forum for people who like to debate odd theories turned into a lifelong obsession that spans the ‘net. Gene is wrong in so many levels but he won’t ever see that. When you add in a healthy dose of some serious personality disorders (I couldn’t even begin to pick just one) you get a e2:crackpot of stunning proportions that postulates a vast conspiracy of (I think) Jews to keep Gene downtrodden.

http://home.swbell.net/drt1/pseudo.html Page after page of this bizarre rambling definately proves something, but I'm not sure which: Is Gene Ray taking a LOT of LSD, or does he just need his medication increased?

http://www.insolitology.com/topten/generay.htm Gene is the biggest oddball in the world, and the originator of the biggest oddball movement on the Internet.

http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html

Time Cube is a seemingly endless schizophrenic fucking spewing by the (self-proclaimed) "Wisest Human" that defies nearly every possible level of logic, purpose, dignity, and everything else crucial to the act of communication and/or the understanding of reality. If you've ever wondered what a -400 Mental Balance in Kult is like, or what overdosing on both crack and acid while carefully scraping out your brain to replace it with flaming shit might do to you, or what's really inside Happy Noodle Boy's mind, the Time Cube website is a useful example.... understanding the Time Cube depends crucially on acid, pot, hard alcohol, and other mind-altering substances, so you should start taking those NOW and avoid the rush.

- Nunh-huh 03:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This is going to become a pointless revert war with 211.28.*.*, and based on the talk pages he/she has a lot more patience than any of us. I think we need to move this into mediation or at least a survey (so we can have an official consensus favouring a simple page). I've proposed this idea to 211.28.*.* on the talk page, please feel free to join in and add similar comments. Cheradenine 18:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 21:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should reserve pictures of sexual acts for sex manuals, and that "Wikipedia is not a sex manual". However, there exist a considerable coterie of folk who love putting explicit picture in Wikipedia, and as long as they remain culturally insensitive and insist on "their way or the highway" it's fruitless to dispute with them. Our "masturbation" article is puerile, and an embarassment to Wikipedians of good sense, with or without photos. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

prestige

deftly done. Gzuckier 17:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) yeah, my contribution in a similar vein was

Although the school is referred to as "hyper-prestigious" by college English professor and blogger Margaret Soltan, many Wikipeidians feel that this is an arbitrary judgement without factual merit.

but, having received the objective source they had requested, they still refused to go away. Gzuckier 17:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? When I'm right I'm right. Nohat 18:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say, that too would be fine. - Nunh-huh 18:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) I see the prestige argument and the campus murder argument as being similar, in being an overzealous attempt to stndardize all such articles on higher educational institutions into somewhat of a table format, at least conceptually; so that whatever school you could look up "prestigious, yes or not", "famous murders on campus", etc. While said concept is valuable for a summary for each school's basics, nevertheless there is still a particular individual character of each school which is orthogonal and irrelevant to any other school and deserves special attention in and of itself, regardless of whether other schools have a similar discussion or not. As I said, at Yale a discussion about students getting robbed, mugged, and murdered by random New haven residents is appropriate; at MIT, people who kill themselves as a result of high stress alienation and isolation. Or at yale, mit, or harvard prestige can be taken for granted, without obviating the need to argue whether university of michigan is prestigious or not. but that's just my opinion. Gzuckier 18:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Fortunately we're writing (or at least trying to, when not distracted by pointless revert wars and sophistry-of-the-sort-most-often-found-in-a-dorm-room) an encyclopedia, not a "Guide to the Colleges". - Nunh-huh 18:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my spelling error, and for the info that you added, on the Oscar Wilde page. Your nickname is perfect to go with finding such a simple goof. I guess that I have become one of thoses lazy "let the spell check fix it" so and so's and since wiki doesn't have that feature I'll pay better attention to what I am doing in the future. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding and correcting information on the Lady Mary Cambridge page. I am new to this and seeing the corrections to made will help to make those adjustments myself in the future. ESQ24

Oxford comma

Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:03, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Of course their position makes no sense, so trying to reason with them seems likely to produce only frustration. I think I'll content myself with slipping in the comma when it's missing. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD on S.Golomb

Hi there! You forgot me while counting the votes. I also made a 'keep' making it 12 to 1. Radiant_* 07:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not intentional. I must have missed your vote because it was in the comments section. Go right ahead and update the tally. - Nunh-huh 21:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6FU

Yes, thank you for bringing up the idea for more flavorful deaths. I wanted someone else's opinion since I created the article. It looks better actually. Thanks. Sfufan2005 02:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry

Nunh-huh, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 14:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would have considerably less trepidation about the collegiality, success, and intent of the latter project. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's just you apparently. Adraeus 23:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find that very surprising. By latter I mean yours. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you meant. Andrevan, BDAbramson, Dbachmann, Everyking, FeloniousMonk, RickK, sannse, and Slrubenstein all support the real Inquiry project. I'm a professional project manager and I'm a proficient researcher. Regardless of what you think about my credibility and me personally, the Inquiry project will initially play a supporting rule by focusing on the professional acquisition, collection, dissemination, and publishing of academic research useful to encyclopedic articles. Have you ever seen a bibliography from a peer reviewed journal? Sometimes the bibliographies extend for pages. That's the type of research Inquiry aims to provide: material that is professionally researched, and all that research professionalism entails. With a basic issue tracking system, Wikipedia editors may interact with the Inquiry database by requesting material, and filing requests for citation of existing articles. I'm confident that the the project will work quite well. There's only one hindrance to its success: finding the right people. I can remedy that problem. Adraeus 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't criticised either you personally or your credibility. I'm sorry that you have the notion that I have. I support any project that could enhance the accuracy, and therefore the authority, of Wikipedia. (And yes, I do have some familiarity with bibliographies and peer-reviewed journals <g>.) - Nunh-huh 01:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know we've had issues in the past so I think I was fair (although wrong) in assuming you don't like me. Regardless, I think you are amazingly intelligent, and I respect you greatly for the contributions you've provided to Wikipedia. Inquiry would work far better offsite because it wouldn't be subject to Wikipedia policies which do not provide real projects with the protection and autonomy that a project needs to flourish. By the way, I think I misinterpreted your statement about less trepidation. I should avoid discussion at all costs when I'm incredibly fatigued. Oops! Do accept my humblest apologies for misinterpreting your statement and intent. Adraeus 13:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My sentence was a little convoluted: the result of trying to avoid being accused of "personal attack" for saying something like "I couldn't be a part of any project that takes Sam Spade/Jack Lynch's advice seriously or welcomes his participation". Since that's not an attack but simply a clear statement of my feelings, I should have just gone ahead and said it. I don't recall that we've clashed mightily over anything, and certainly not in a way that's left me with a grudge. If there's any way I can help with Inquiry, let me know. - Nunh-huh 00:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC) - oh, and thanks for your kind words! - Nunh-huh 00:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS page

Hi there. I see you expressed concern about the state of the AIDS article in April, but I'm not sure exactly about what. I am even more concerned about it now, and have slapped an NPOV dispute on it. Would you please have a look? --Robert Merkel 01:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

On requested moves WP:RM, comments and votes should not appear on the WP:RM page because they will be discounted. You must add them to the Talk page of the article of the proposed move. I have just moved your comments to Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#Name_change from WP:RM but it was after the decision had already been made. Next time please add them to the talk page and not the WP:RM page Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysius

Thank you for pointing out the error I introduced into the Common Era article. That was (thankfully) a rare one for me. However you might have fixed the error instead of reverting it, because the same edit had fixed two other errors in the article. I can understand if you were in a hurry and missed that. I have since clarified the explanation of the Gregorian calendar, which was misleading, and properly pointed out Dionysius' role, which was the important one with repect to the CE article. Thanks again for serving as a backstop. --Blainster 02:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article still needs a thorough going over. It still seems to confuse "Common Era" and the "Gregorian Calendar". If you don't get to it I'll be happy to give it another look. - Nunh-huh 02:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior name vote

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum

AIDS and AIDS reappraisal

I thought we might more constructively engage a discussion off the main talk pages for these articles, because I don't think that either of these articles is very good right now, and I hope we can work constructively to improve things. I don't like the revert wars that have been going on and I hope you agree. What I have been saying, and wish to make clear, is that I am non-partisan on the issue. There is a mainstream scientific view that ought to have precedence, and there are respectable scientists who disagree and ought to be given fair mention. If we can achieve this kind of balance, there will be no need for NPOV or factual disputes to be maintained. When you undo my edits on the grounds of removing "waffling" I think it is unhelpful. Will you at least grant good faith on my part? Whig 04:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain that we agree on what is wrong with the articles, so it's difficult to see common ground on how to improve them. I certainly don't think either article would be improved by merger: the dissidents certainly won't be satisfied with the number of words it would be appropriate to devote to them in an article on AIDS, (roughly "for any scientific fact, there are a group of people who deny it: see link): while those without a revisionist agenda don't much care for the distortions and debating style which cannot, apparently, be rooted out from the dissident page(s). If you believe the AIDS article suffers from being able to make clear statements without detailing dissident objections, I simply do not share your opinion. I do have a suggestion: I think it may be helpful if you list the things you find wanting. Some of the things you have listed would indeed improve the article, and wording could be worked out on talk pages without reversion. But an AIDS article in which each reference to the fact that it is caused by HIV is hedged would be unreadable, inferior, uninformative. Assumptions of good faith have led to the AIDS article becoming a mess, through exploitation of that good will by subtle distortion and near-sabotage. This makes it a bit difficult to extend that same assumption of good will to those who ally themselves with those responsible for the original sabotage. Ultimately good faith won't have to be assumed, because it will have been demonstrated by those who have it, and won't be by those who don't. - Nunh-huh 04:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stating scientific theories as facts is problematical in the first place, because it denies the scientific method, which entails constant reconsideration and the formation of new hypotheses to be tested and occasionally developed into more predictive or explanatory theories. That is largely what separates science from theology. With that said, simple "denial" is not scientific either. Those who "deny" evolution, for instance, but have no testable hypothesis to offer in its place, are not practicing science. We need not (and I agree, should not) provide a link to everyone who might deny any given statement.
To put this in the context of a different scientific dispute, would you support an article on the Big Bang beginning, "The Big Bang is the method by which the universe began"? I hope you would not, and I think that article is illustrative. Even if a given theory is the consensus of the scientific community at one point in time, does not mean it is an established fact. Certain observations tend to confirm or refute the theory, and those observations ought to be fairly reported, such as that recent measurements suggest that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. This will hopefully lead eventually to a revised theory that makes more accurate predictions, which does not mean that the advocates of the steady state theory were correct either, nor that any revision must mean that "the bible had it right" or whatever.

Your analogies are not helpful. The fact is that HIV causes AIDS, as has been shown by the scientific method. Arguments to the contrary are flawed, and generally are founded on "debating points" rather than scientific method. If we were to embrace the scientific method to Wikipedia's bosom, and restrict ourselves to tested hypotheses, the AIDS revisionist article would be very short indeed. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see where you stand, and that you are quite certain of your belief. I lack such certainty, but remain open to scientific demonstration. If HIV is certainly the cause of AIDS, then it should be possible to develop an attenuated virus that would stimulate immunity to further infection, and that would be wonderful, a vaccine. Troublingly, though, this would mean all vaccinated people would have HIV antibodies, which would make the present-day diagnostic tests rather less useful. All such concerns aside, I hope this will prove effective in the very near future. Indeed, this would and should invalidate most or all of the AIDS reappraisal article and therefore I agree it should be very much shortened. Please go ahead and do what mass removals you think appropriate, but be sure to cite your sources. I wouldn't want there to be any doubt that you are correct, and I hope you have the references to back your position up. It will be most helpful to me to learn them. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see that you want to depict knowledge as mere belief, and that you wish to write about the cause of AIDS without having researched it. This seems unreasonable to me. Until you do that research, you should be aware that there are many viruses for which no vaccines have been developed, that not all vaccines involve use of an attentuated virus, and that not all vaccines would necessarily make such tests as HIV viral loads unuseful. But even if an HIV vaccine were developed, there would be a population which would still proclaim that HIV and AIDS are unrelated. The HIV deniers would not agree with you that AIDS reappraisal article was invalidated: at most it would need a new paragraph handwaving the results away. I extend your thoughtful invitation to me to you in turn: go ahead and make what changes you feel necessary, after you have done some basic research and can cite something to justify them. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the subject of AIDS is that it has a much more direct and immediate impact upon people, and lives are actually at stake. Thus there tends to be a much more impassioned argument, with those on both sides feeling that the other is wrong and responsible for people either (depending on POV) refusing life-sustaining treatment, or taking toxic chemicals which cause more harm than good.

Fortunately, we don't have to guess which of these is correct. We now have adequate scientific tests of these two positions, and clinical experience of more than two decades. Those who take the toxic chemicals live longer. Those who take the toxic chemicals have fewer episodes of opportunistic infections. Those who take the toxic chemicals are hospitalized less frequently. Those pregnant women who take the toxic chemicals are less likely to transmit HIV to their children, and those children are more likely to live to adulthood rather than dying in infancy of AIDS. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please cite. Should we move back to the AIDS Talk page? Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again, these are basic concepts. If you are unaware that the survival times of AIDS patients has increased since the introduction of HAART, or that the use of antiretrovirals during delivery decreases the risk of transmission to infants, you can find that information easily. Here's one citation for each of these: there are hundreds more.
HAART has had a significant impact on survival 10 years after HIV infection in all age groups: "Survival after introduction of HAART in people with known duration of HIV-1 infection. The CASCADE Collaboration. Concerted Action on Serconversion to AIDS and Death in Europe." Lancet. 2000;355:1158-1159.
HAART has dramatically increased the time from HIV infection to AIDS: Tassie JM, Grabar S, Lancar R, et al. "Time to AIDS from 1992 to 1999 in HIV-1-infected subjects with known data of infection." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:81-87.
HAART has increased the chance of surviving for 2 years after AIDS onset: Fordyce EJ, Singh TP, Nash D, et al. "Survival rates in NYC in the era of combination ART." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:111-118
Reduction of maternal-child transmission risk: Connor EM, Sperling RS, Gelber R, et al. "Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment." N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1173-1180.
I look forward to seeing how you work these into the AIDS and AIDS denial articles. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that Wikipedia ought not to be in the business of letting the passions of either side override our policy to maintain NPOV.

It's not about passions, it's about not misinforming our readers. These "sides" are not equal in terms of evidence or intellectual honesty. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you there. << WINK! >> Revolver 16:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since I'm on neither side, you can surely convince me with the evidence that you have at hand to cite. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but you are on the side that proposes that denialists have something to teach us. And you are on the side that refuses to do the requisite research, but demands to have their opinions valued. HIV denialists are not convinced by citations or evidence: the evidence is made to conform to their theory, and their theory is not made to conform to the evidence. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We as Wikipedians don't do original research, we don't claim to know who is right, we should say that the most prevalent theory is X, that some have questioned it on specific and cited grounds, and other theories Y or Z which might have a separate article (and not be lumped together as "X reappraisal") are likewise questioned on more (or less) substantial cited grounds. Do we at least agree that this is how we ought to be doing things? Whig 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't entertain specious arguments, we should report them. As specious. Or as dishonest, which ever the case may be. Placing the specious arguments together or separately is a matter of no concern to me, though they do use the same sort of arguments and they would be repetitive if separated. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't simply say "That argument is specious" without specifically saying that "we've circumnavigated the globe and taken pictures from space and measured the curvature of the earth." Whig 07:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That argument is specious. This is not a case of "doubt" on "specific and cited" grounds, and is not a case of two competing explanations of the origins of AIDS. It's an explanation on one hand, and a few guys yelling "Is not!, Is not!" on the other. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Time will tell, Nunh-huh. How about a $100 bet, and we'll see who wins in 30 years? Revolver 16:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No thanks. In 30 years $100 will buy a loaf of bread. Who knows which of us will need it more? Who knows what kind of evidence a denialist would accept?? In the meantime, I've supplied Whig with the references he requested, and he has declined to read them because he's "unequipped" to evaluate them....though not "unequipped", apparently, to write about AIDS, because he's "equipped" to evaluate random web pages on the subject. I don't know why you'd choose to ally with such an advocate, but that's your choice. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AIDS revisionists should get roughly the same treatment in the AIDS article as Flat-Earthers get in the Earth article. The "debate" has been decided, it's just that some people haven't gotten the message. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. Send the message. Put out the studies and the support to rebut the contrary arguments. Indeed, you should do so in the main AIDS article so that people won't be left with any misimpression that their pet hypotheses haven't been disproven. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, AIDS denialists have received the message and rejected it. It doesn't need to be sent again. Anyone who is an AID denialist at this point in time is incapable of being persuaded by evidence. And an AIDS article aimed at "persuading" AIDS denialists would suck big time. It is much better to present the established information in a straightforward manner than to transform the AIDS article into a debate club. An article refuting the strawmen thrown up by denialists might be instructive (see [1] for how such an article might look) and informative, but it would not be an article about AIDS. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your devotion to not reverting didn't last long. Ah, well. - Nunh-huh 04:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted me. I reinstated and gave my reasoning. Whig 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and if I were to revert you again I could say the same thing you just did. And that might lead to an erosion of your assumption of good faith. Such actions do that. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is unhelpful. You wish a unilateral right to revert, and then accuse me of bad faith? Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are wounded by my (supposed) accusation, and yet wish to claim I want a unilateral right to revert? I agree with your suggestion that discussion of these articles should return to their respective talk pages, where it is possible it will result in better articles. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empress Sisi

Have you seen that currently there are two articles, Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Elisabeth of Bavaria 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Someone duplicated it, but it should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. - Nunh-huh 30 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)


Karel Kinsky

Hi ages ago I worked on the above stub, and then never put it on my watch list and rather forgot about it. I have just come across it by chance and noticed some new edits. We discussed the subject's parentage here Talk:Karel Kinsky. In this diff [2] an anon has changed the parentage. You seem to know more about this than me, I just wondered if that new edit is correct, I have a feeling it is not, but am reluctant to revert as I am not 100% sure. Regards Giano | talk 30 June 2005 09:04 (UTC)

Ciao. Giano, On first glance it seems to me that the new information actually is a correction...I looked it up at the online gotha's Kinsky page, and the information matches The Kinsky Family. So I don't know where we got the former information. I'll nose around to see, but I'd keep the changed version unless we find a source that disagrees with Theroff. - Nunh-huh 30 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Reversing redirect vandalism

Greetings. I did some research (mostly fiddling with the user's page, to be honest), but by the time I think that I had it figured out how to fix the vandalism, you had done so already. Thanks! I'll remove the request from the noticeboard... Fire Star 1 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Empress Alexandra Fedorovna

Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna is again having a vote: upon the heading, at Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. At least I am against that "Alix" version, as she was not well known by it- however, there are certain people who are pushing it through. 217.140.193.123 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've always seemed a sensible person to me, Nunh-huh. I'll be glad of your input. Deb 20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly explain to me how "Alexandra of Hesse" or "Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse" are misleading (as you seem to say or imply)? Those, in my understanding, are not mix of "maiden" and "married" names, rather it is a mix of post-conversion first name (which belonged to her already before the marriage, though briefly then) and the territorial designation which always belonged to her, also after marriage. (You implied: "Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse is misleading: we shouldn't mix and match maiden and married names.") I think, btw, that we do not have yet a naming convention regarding Russian consorts and empress-consorts. Arrigo 09:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian language is obsessive-compulsive about everyone having a patronym as the penultimate portion of one's name. If you became Russian, as did Alexandra, you had to change your name somewhat. A somewhat analogous situation exists in Iceland, where patronyms are still the rule -- and your name is alphabetized in the Rekjavik phone book just like Wiki names are done, first name first.

Marie-Josèphe

I have no objection to your move of Marie-Josèphe to Marie-Josèphe of Saxony, particularly as a redirect was left behind (you used the rather alarming word 'move'). I carefully chose the name space because it was already in use (red links), tho' I considered your choice. I'm rather proud of this article, in that it is pure wiki, no external sources (tho' my own historical sensibility applied).--FourthAve 06:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Academic Boosterism Tags by YOU

PLEASE DO NOT remove tags before discussion has concluded. The tags placed on Harvard University, Yale University and others reflect those pages being far worse offenders of the academic boosterism being discussed on the MIT page. Until this issue is resolved fairly on all schools pages, all of these schools current pages require this tag to be present.

I've responded to your vandalism in the appropriate spot. - Nunh-huh 00:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dpbsmith/Boosterdampers

Take a look... what do you think? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

? (4th Earl of Clarendon dab-page)

also appears on my talk page

  • Red links bad, ambiguity bad. It's (almost) a non-issue now that there are articles for each person listed. A minor point: we will succeed if no reader ever has to see a disambiguation page during the course of read-click-read behavior. The question arises as to whether searches such as "clarendon", "earl of clarendon" and "4th earl of clarendon" are facilitated by the dab-page.
    • "clarendon" leads to a dab-page, Clarendon
    • "earl of clarendon" leads nowhere, just to search results; I've created a redirect to lead to Earl of Clarendon
    • "4th earl of clarendon" leads nowhere, just to search results with 0 hits; I've created a redirect to lead to 4th Earl of Clarendon, the dab-page.
In the absence of the search-case analysis, we only assume that a disambiguation page facilitates navigation. I do such examinations using all lower case because that's the typical search behavior of most folks (I don't have a reference for that, hmm; I should find one). This is something that makes the work more time consuming, the treatment of meta-data pages, such as the dab-pages, in their native context as opposed to stand-alone objects, which is how most people I think do treat them.
Hope that helps to explain a little where I'm coming from, even if it is an indirect answer to your "?". Regards, Courtland 01:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

also appears on my talk page

  • The good or evil nature of red links is a matter of how we interpret their impact. You are interpreting them from the standpoint of the editor; I am interpreting them from the standpoint of the reader. Those are not separate or diametrically opposed viewpoints, but they are distinct. Courtland 01:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

also appears on my talk page

      • Reading and editing are two different use cases for Wikipedia. The fact that they are embodied often in the same person is a great boon, but that does not mean that the reader and the editor have the same needs. With respect to the linking .. the linkage to the disambiguation page is an error on the part of the editor and it should be corrected by putting the properly specific link in place. Courtland 02:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my talk page just now! -Splash 02:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus has everything to do with current events.

They told me in church that todays news is bible prophecy coming true.

William Campbell

Hi Nunh-huh. I wish to draw your attention to the IMDB entery for one William Campbell. According to this, the same William Campbell who was the Paul McCartney look-a-like also starred as Trelane and Koloth twice on Star Trek. While is accurate that the actor who played those two roles on Star Trek is named William Campbell, I wonder if this is the SAME Wlliam Campbell involved in the Paul Is Dead matter. After all, IMDB is not 100% infallible, is it? So I am wondering if there should be a separate article, for example, William Campbell (actor). See also Star Trek.com,Memory Alpha. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Duomillia 03:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFun Round 9: Lightning Round Time

I have decided to attempt to advance and end the round quickly. Parts of the question will be revealed with more hints and/or be more elaborated on as every two days. I have currently provided more hints on the answer pages for the current remaining questions. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy

Look, voting is secret, all non-military execise of public power is public. We can look as close as we want. This thing on my talk page and you and tregoweth is not working. You wanna talk it out, you do it on Talk:Elizabeth_Morgan just like everybody else. I thank you for the special notification. That considerate of you. Now get over to the correct page. I made special invitation for people like you on that discussion tab days ago. Did read it? No. Did you follow the rules? No. I am moving the thread there now. Let us all work it out. tregoweth has already caved so now it is just you and me. Amorrow 03:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have any concept of how bizarrely you are acting. My suggestion to you is that you see how the Morgan article fares without your diligent attention. - Nunh-huh 03:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter

Hi there:

I noticed that there was vandalism by Μel Etitis on the Rush Limbaugh page, which surprised me, because Mel Etitis has always struck me as a mature, considerate editor. Then I saw that you had blocked Μel Etitis and followed the link on his home page to Mel Etitis, where I saw this on Mel Etitis' home page:

I can't quite figure out the difference in user names between you User:Mel_Etitis and the imitator User:Μel_Etitis.

Just in case you're still in the dark, the first letter of "Μel Etitis" is not an M, but a capital Mu, character CE9C in UTF-8 coded Unicode. This sort of stunt is really only possible with the recent upgrade to MediaWiki 1.5, which switched Wikipedia over to Unicode instead of straight Latin-1 character code. Latin-1 doesn't have very many characters with similar graphs; Unicode, having such a large character space, has tons of them.

HTH. — DLJessup 04:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and for Nunh-huh's block of the imposter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HIV

please restore the Grcampell text you reverted. Sci guy 09:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've reverted anything, nor have I deleted anything of significance that Grcampbell wrote in that article. You are the one who seems to have eliminated text . - Nunh-huh 09:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the Grcampbell text, "The most severe manifestation of HIV infection is AIDS." I have therefore used the WHO definition "The term AIDS applies to the most advanced stages of HIV infection." Sci guy 09:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to like phrases which point out the cause of AIDS. The WHO definition is a nice definition, but not the only one, and not particularly important to have as an introductory phrase. The pertinent point is the disease which HIV infection causes. We also need to spell out AIDS the first time it's used in an article. We don't need to talk about "the term" AIDS, but the disease. - Nunh-huh 10:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what I like or dislike. It was NOT, I repeat NOT my text! I am sorry you have a problem with the text proposed by Grcampbell and also by WHO. On balance I prefer the Grcampbell version in this context, it is more informative than "HIV causes AIDS". Sci guy 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's your text if you put it there. As for more informative: hardly!. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

antibodies

Grcampbell is claiming that some HIV antibodies prevent progression to AIDS. I have asked for references. The original point about HIV antibodies was that in the USA evidence of HIV infection was required for a AIDS definition - but in Africa most people diagnosed with AIDS were not infected with HIV and did not test positive on an HIV antibody test. Sci guy 09:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cube

IRT your lastest posting on Talk:Time Cube (rv with extreme prejudice); is there an easy way to revert anon 211.28's edits without being an admin? I have this on my watch list, but it's a pain to open an old version to copy the old source. Thanks. -- Dave C. 05:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - didn't realize you could edit/save an old version, although I had seen the warning. Thanks! -- Dave C. 06:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russian pretenders

I found oout that you had several months ago criticized the then headings of those two: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, Grand Duke George of Russia. Meanwhile, something has happened to them. Others moved (I do not have button privileges), but in the end I was involved in discussions. The first one moved a couple of times, including to Maria Romanov (which I did not like), and I remember I suggested then the heading that is now in use. I am rather satisfied with it. The latter one I had criticized also, and it was moved, but I have no definite opinion. Now it is a bit better than earlier, but I am not sure if a yet better heading could be devised. Could you kindly check / Your opinions, please? 217.140.193.123 17:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts

Hi,

I've reverted your edits to this page and here's why:

It's irrelevant to say that MacOS X uses ATSUI. Windows doesn't say that it uses Uniscribe because that's what comes with Windows! It's my understanding that ATSUI is the standard text API for OS X and the vast majority of users visiting that page need not know the name of the API or need links to the API documentation. This page is meant to be for end users who are new to the concept of Unicode Indic scripts - not programmers directly interfacing with APIs.

I selected 10.4 because Tamil isn't present in older versions of OS X (so I've read). Unfortunately I can't find much in the way of resources indicating which OS X versions suport which Indic languages. If you are sure that it is supported in all versions then by all means put it back.

I removed "layouts for Devanagari, Guarati, and Gurmukhi" because again it's irrelevant and simply duplicated the information listed in "Supports:".

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your response on my talk page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


Duchess of Angoulême

Yes -- thanks. I was just trying to make sure that there was a link with the name duchess of angouleme relating to that article. It refered to her husband the Duke of Angouleme, but not Duchess. I also agree about the need for a plaintext version...that would make it much easier for searching. Womble 06:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mumps - Nunh-huh deleting correct information and substituting incorrect without consultation

Dear Nunh-huh,


MUMPS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumps

Part of an encyclopedia's primary role is to inform and provide facts rather than personal opinion.

Accordingly, please provide justification for your assertion that a 'prevention' section should not start off by saying whether prevention is necessary.

I won't justify what I haven't said! - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to see that you are not saying a 'prevention' section should start off otherwise than by dealing with whether prevention is necessary. However, your actions are inconsistent with your stated position. Accordingly, logically, that is what the section should start off with. If you disagree, perhaps you would explain. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, your characterization of my actions are in error. There's more than one way to write anything; starting out with established recommendations is a way of placing the more important information prominently. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am most grateful to you for answering the question. Your believe a 'prevention' section should not start off by saying whether prevention is necessary. You see the issue as one of what should come first (your words 'the more important information'). You consider what some organisations recommend in terms of prevention is more important than whether prevention is necessary. If you disagree with this summary of your view, please advise. Further, do you agree these are therefore two separate issues. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether prevention is clinically necessary in individual cases is a matter of fact and that is the principal and first issue to be addressed under the heading 'prevention'. It might also be considered inappropriate to make general claims about recommendations for clinical treatment in individual cases without substantiating those assertions.

It's inappropriate for use to write about "individual cases". That would be medical advice. For advice on individual cases, people should consult a physician. What we can report is general recommendations made by reputable medical associations. -Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Then if Wikipedia reports the general recommendations by reputable authoritative medical sources that vaccination against mumps is not necessary, with references, you would not dispute that - please confirm. If you feel it would be appropriate to add a caveat that anyone needing to make a decision in an individual case should seek advice on an individual basis, that would not be objectionable. If you dispute that prevention is not necessary in general for western economy children, please confirm. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What we await is your citation of an authoritative source that currently recommends against vaccination for mumps. That is, something more authoritative than "some pediatricians". - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed first are references for authoritative sources for the current text. You have been asked to provide them but you have not done so. It also seems that what you have written may be incorrect. Accordingly, if you supply authoritative sources for the current text that will assist in resolving the matter. Would you please be so kind as to do so? --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you then choose to assert that prevention is necessary, please provide medical references to appropriate medical texts supporting that assertion and also the references supporting any contrary medical view (which will of course be necessary to ensure balance).

I don't "choose to assert" that prevention is necessary: I choose to report what responsible medical organizations advise. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nunh-huh, you have provided no references to substantiate your statements that these organisations advise that prevention of mumps is generally clinically necessary. Until you do, then it is difficult to take the assertions you make further or indeed to know whether the statements you attribute to these organisations are actually made by them. Further, if it is the case that prevention of mumps is not necessary, despite what these organisations recommend, then are they are being responsible or are their 'recommendations' something other than what you assert?--Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to report the recommendations, not evaluate them. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would assist if you would provide citations for what you assert you are reporting as such recommendations. Your statement also appears to be at odds with Wikipedia policies. "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge." [3]. Accordingly, whilst one might record the fact that a recommendation exists (and no verification or substantiation of what you describe as 'recommendations' has yet been provided), why such a recommendation exists and whether it is a recommendation that finds universal favour are also part of human knowledge. Further, you will find, in due course, that what you have put at the beginning of this section on prevention is seriously misleading and in fact wrong. But we will come to that when you have managed to assemble some form of authoritative reference for your assertions. Accordingly, please provide the references requested so that your assertions can be verified. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems what you have inserted regarding recommendations appears also incorrect, hence the clear need for references.

It is also not relevant to whether prevention is or is not necessary in individual clinical cases what you claim political organisations with no popular democratic mandate and their own agendas recommend. It is to be questioned whether citing the views of political organisations is any substitute for dealing with the factual issue of whether prevention is necessary.

Your proposition that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians are political organizations is ludicrous. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nunh-huh. If you wish to engage in dialogue you need to explain how you feel able to assert that the body representing the interests of a section of pediatricians or of family physicians is not political? That is a political role, to represent the interests of the membership. It is not an answer to a valid point to claim it is 'ludicrous'. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a government organisation which implements the political mandate of the executive from time to time and is clearly fulfilling a political function. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. By your definition everything is political. You are pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda while pretending to be objective. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making your position clear and confirming your strongly held opinions. Is it the case then that your real concern is to ensure that a 'pro-vaccination agenda' (whatever that may be) is put, instead of reporting what human knowledge has to say on the topic of prevention of mumps? That does seem to be coming across from your arguments. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue of fact - whether prevention is or is not necessary and you clearly have strong personal views on this matter, attributing any view other than your own to 'anti-vaccine' sentiments. It is inappropriate in this context to delete impartial, appropriate and correct information and replace it with information representing a personal point of view.

No, this is not an issue of fact. It is a matter of opinion and judgement. Where opinions and judgements differ, we report both and attribute them to the organizations saying them. We don't report the opinion of the Wikipedia editor, and we don't report the opinion of "some pediatricians" unless there are a considerable number of such pediatricians, and they have published a noteworthy recommendation we can attribute to them.- Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see you advocate that the prevention section should advise that prevention is a matter of opinion. In that case all relevant opinions should be covered to ensure balance. Are you suggesting that the section should therefore also say that prevention is a matter of opinion and in the opinion of some organisations it is recommended and in the opinion of others it is not, and in each case why? --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What we await is your naming the organisations that recommend against vaccination. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to keep to the point. This is about a section on prevention of mumps, not on whether the practice of vaccination is one to be promoted or opposed. The latter seems somewhat tribal, like which football team you support. As you have not answered the question, we can take that as a 'yes' - the prevention section should advise that prevention is a matter of opinion - all relevant opinions should be covered to ensure balance. On the general issue of vaccination, there seems to be a Wikipedia page for you to take such issues further if you wish [4].

I have taken the opportunity of taking the debate to you, because you have not responded to similar issues raised in the discussion page for mumps [5] but have reverted text with no discussion or substantiation.

It is one thing to dash in and change something you do not agree with. It is another to support your assertions. I look forward to seeing you support your main assertion that a prevention section should not deal with the issue of whether prevention is necessary.

That's not my assertion. That's the strawman you're trying to set up. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you can resolve the matter by being so kind as to clarify your position in the matter. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Anon The Editor 13:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon: It is impossible for Wikipedia to have any opinion whatsoever as to the advisability of vaccination in any particular instance. And Wikipedia is not a place for the advancing of the opinions of individual Wikipedians. Wikipedia is here to report who says what. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Then you seem to be implying that Wikipedia should be reporting the valid opinions of authoritative sources in a balanced way. If you disagree, please advise. --Anon The Editor 16:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have so advised. I await your "authoritative source" recommending against vaccination for mumps. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you would address the question in point, namely that of the current text which you advocate but will not substantiate. As you agree Wikipedia should be reporting the valid opinions of authoritative sources in a balanced way, please provide the references requested so that what you say can be verified. That would be appreciated. --Anon The Editor 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier to communicate if you adopted a less supercilious tone. I gather you are having trouble finding the recommendations of the CDC, etc? Click here for a .pdf of the immunization schedule approved by the Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Centers for Disease Control. Their respective web addresses are also in that .pdf. - Nunh-huh 06:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing a reference. Regrettably, the .pdf link you provided does not appear to be valid. This indicates, as does the foregoing lengthy dialogue, that the editing of this page was carried out without first checking sources. A link to the current (2005) US recommended immunisation schedule can be found here http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/count/CountVAC.asp?id=child-schedule.pdf and for all the current versions of the schedule, please see here http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-schedule.htm#printable. The US 2005 schedule is also available from other sources such as http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule.pdf. Perhaps you might now be so kind as to provide a reference for the assertion that the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain also recommend vaccination against mumps. Please also provide any authoritative reference to 'Anti-vaccine activists' who disagree with the prevention of mumps utilising vaccination. -- Anon The Editor 10:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a valid link, which loaded for me with no difficulty both before and after you wrote your most recent note. If you indeed checked it and couldn't load it, the problem is at your end. Since you had no apparent difficulty locating the information yesterday, I wonder why you had such difficulty locating it in the past week or so. Please provide the requested information regarding "some paediatricians" whom you wrote presently recommend against the mumps vaccine. Who are they? What organization do they represent? Where can we find their recommendation? - Nunh-huh 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nunh-huh, thank you for your response. I take it, therefore, from your not addressing the question put regarding the current text that up to now, you feel you have no suitable authoritative reference either for the recommendations you attribute to the British Medical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain or to those of the 'Anti-vaccine activists' to which you refer. If that is wrong, or if you do find such authoritative references please advise. It is clear that the current text is not NPOV. I will be happy to debate with you other issues should the current text change for those issues to become relevant. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if you would please be kind enough to address the requests regarding the current text, so that a little more progress can be made. I am pleased that the link you added is now working for you. -- Anon The Editor 00:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The link always worked for me. It was you who said it didn't work for you, and from that "fact" assumed that it was an invalid reference, and asserted that I had checked no sources. Please stop misrepresenting things. It does little for your credibility. Nor does your illogic in assuming that your inability to access a link meant that I had been intellectually dishonest. Again: Who are the "some paediatricians" whom you wrote presently recommend against the mumps vaccine. Who are they? What organization do they represent? Where can we find their recommendation? Once we know that, we can address whether, as you contend, the BMA etc advise that the recommendations of health authorities requiring the MMR be followed, or not be followed. - Nunh-huh 01:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I just got your message, and went over the case again. While it is true that the abovementioned user has only edited Homosexuality three times in the last twenty-four hours, he (yes, a guy :-) did revert the article about six or seven times on September 1. That day is when both users committed the 3RR violation. I don't think the addition or removal of the certain paragraph counts as vandalism, as it was sourced. Thanks for the heads-up, though; never fail to critcize or correct me! Regards, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that might make it all a bit clearer. I'll add it right now. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:47, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

False 3RR on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Hi Nuhh-hu. I'm actually LotLE; posting from lynx in a shell account. I don't want to post much from here, but I saw you had questioned Bratsche's incorrect blocking of me. Could you take a look at my comment at my user talk page. And maybe add a not at the 3RR noticeboard about the incorrect action. (or just unblock me yourself). Thanks, Lulu

Hi again, I'm still not too pleased by the whole block thing, by Bratsche, and all that. I elaborated more on my user talk page. But OK, fine, it's done. However, now I find that over 24 hours from the block, I still cannot edit. Or at least I cannot edit from my regular browser/IP address. I'm not sure how the system works, but I see two different messages in the blocklist about me, each saying something like "The IP was used by LotLE", with different expiration times. I've still been reading pages, editing my talk page, and once in a while I tried pressing "Edit" to see if the block had expired yet (the administravia is not clear to me, and I was still kinda hoping some admin would have removed it given the real misrepresentations by Bratsche).

arbogast (general)

thanks for the great revisions with my first article of arbogast (general)! S0berage

The message I get from my regular (non-shell, non-lynx) browser is:

Your IP address is 70.109.229.212. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

I assume that means something. My DSL is on dynamic IP, though it doesn't change IP addresses very often. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:30, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Padron me...

Why did you delete my new york city article I know all about that sort of thing i'm just trying to share my info with you its not 'vandalism' by any means I am something of an expert in this.Wiki brah 05:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi :)

Yes I unsderand what you might be concerned but trust me i meant this in the best possible way I mean its a fact that women in new york won't have anal sex with you right away and in boston they wont have it even after a long term relationship even while in brasil where i am if you aren't fucking your girl in the ass on the first night you must be doing something wrong, as is our saying.Wiki brah 05:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who cares about your sex life. Your sex life is not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. It you are important enough to have a biographical article in Wikipedia, you might want to add this information to that article, if you can find it in a citable source, and we can verify it. Otherwise, don't add it to Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 05:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nunh-huh&oldid=23021895"