User talk:Nunh-huh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:42, 23 August 2006

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

Wikijunior

Refactored: old stuff now just history:

Wikijunior Billie Burke, Eugenia Smith, Jonathan Tunick, Robert Bruce Cotton, Rachel, New Haven, Connecticut, New Haven Green, New Haven Colony, Soldaatvanoranje, Generalfeldmarschall, Cfrobel, Wanda Landowska, neutrophil, AIDS, President of the United States in Congress Assembled, various ersatz nations, territoriality, dates, incunabula, Maria Callas sang well (POV! POV!), Viscount Taaffe, still dead, Otto von Habsburg, lifting heavy boxes and abdominal pain The Days of Our Lives, 0: the year I got nothing done. Enzo Fiermonte and other gigolos. Coagulation Wikipedia:Categorization Fraunces Tavern Special:Categories medical classes here. Urinetown, the Gotha, Count Kinsky, the Pergamon Museum.

Mary Dimmick Harrison

With the help of WISCAT and the La Crosse, Wisconsin public library, I was able to get a copy of Professor Charles W. Calhoun's book: Benjamin Harrison (2005). Professor Calhoun teaches history at Eastern Carolina University. In the book, Professor Calhoun does detailed the relationship of Benjamin Harrison and Mary Dimmick Harrison. Professor Calhoun used some Harrison family papers that are in possession of Benjamin Harrison Walker, their grandson. I wanted to pass this information along. I hope you are well. Thank you-RFD 10:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The book about Benjamin Harrison by Professor Calhoun did mention Ben Walker-Benjamin Harrison Walker- who had his grandmother's-Mary Dimmick Harrison- private papers including a diary. That was the only relative mentioned and that was in the acknowledgement section. I do not know if that helps. Professor Calhoun has done an article about Caroline Harrison in the Indiana Historical Society magazine. Let me know what you think. If you see or talk to any of the relatives of Benjamin Harrison and Mary Dimmick Harrison please send my greetings. You mentioned you knew Dr. Jane Harrison Walker.Many Thanks RFD 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Nunh-huh 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueens edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 09:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA's 'notable trolls' section

Thank you for your consideration, but blatantly wiping half a section because you don't agree with it is not exactly a good idea. I believe the recent edits that might have caused you to blank the section are these (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America&diff=63747710&oldid=63747680) , but they're not actually GNAA-related, since I, as GNAA president, have never heard of such operation. I've removed this edit and replaced most of the other, verified content in the section. Have a nice day! --timecop 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though recent edits attracted my attention, the fact is still that "exploits" which have not attracted media attention are not verifiable, and not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. If your club's activities don't make the media, they don't make it here, either. It's also extremely bad form for you to be editing an article that is about "your" club. If someone not involved in GNAA thinks they are verified and important, they'll put them back. Have a very lovely day, yourself! - Nunh-huh 08:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits again. They *have* been listed in that section for MONTHS, way before you even knew what wikipedia was. Removing them now because you don't agree is probably not a good idea. --timecop 13:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still bad form for you to be editing an article devoted to a group which you lead. And, of course, "agreement" is not the question here, significance and verifiability is. Claims made by the GNAA which are backed up only by the GNAA's word are, in a word, unverified. - Nunh-huh 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to google and locate various references to GNAA activities that you keep removing. Several of them, such as dremel, harry potter, and freenode incidents were widely publicized by the "blogosphere" we all hate so much. --timecop 13:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you've noticed, I reverted the changes. You're welcome to discuss the 'notable trolls' section and references on the Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America. --timecop 13:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or I could just leave you to promote your group through Wikipedia. I have no particular desire to be a lifeguard in a cesspool. - Nunh-huh 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction

Thanks for fixing that before I could get there. --mboverload @ 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

You sig is completely illegible on this public terminal, which appears to be a pretty standard Windows XP installation. 209.11.184.1 05:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how - his signature is simply a different font in black... Killfest2 06:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, appearance will depend a bit on which fonts are installed, but every system ought to have a member of the "script" family available for substitution. Still, I'll gladly take any suggestions towards improving legibility. And of course, with a sig, all anyone has to do is click on it...reading is nice, but not necessary for function. See if this is better. - Nunh-huh 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss

Please discuss your point about constellation on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. Jefffire 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your advice. Of course, there was no such edit war. - Nunh-huh 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh

RFC on spoiler tags. See Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. -Randall Brackett 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to add an outside view on the rfc...? I'd be interested in hearing your full stance on the matter. -Randall Brackett 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Brady

Actually, it was redirected to Eve Plumb. But it's very much possible to expand the article into something noteworthy. Alice has an article. Why can't Jan? What I may do is revert that and wait for someone to fill in. How's that? WhisperToMe 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why not create a "Characters of Brady Bunch" article with Jan as one of them? When her content gets too big, she gets her own article! WhisperToMe 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" + The existence of articles on fictional characters has been a topic of discussion on the mailing list, and the general feeling is that most fictional characters don't need them. There's nothing that could be discussed in a "Jan Brady" article that wouldn't be equally at home in the "Brady Bunch" article. It's probably only a matter of time until Alice gets merged in there, too. - Nunh-huh 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I can sorta understand Jan getting merged, but Alice's article seems big. Again, we need to have a "Characters of Brady Bunch" article where they are discussed in detail. If desired, they can all be merged there. WhisperToMe 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual to find entire pages devoted to several characters of a TV show See Fullmetal Alchemist, which has several pages of characters. So does Yu-Gi-Oh! - The Brady Bunch article looks sort of big - But can you imagine how large it would get if every main and minor character was discussed in detail? WhisperToMe 05:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you will find that such pages will be getting rarer. Regardless, there's not enough information for a Jan Brady article. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the information will be consolidated? Or will it actually be lost? By the way, the actress article isn't meant to be repository information about the characters she plays, so that should be redirected to the "Brady Bunch" article... or a characters of Brady Bunch article. WhisperToMe 05:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine unimportant "information" will disappear, and important information will be consolidated. Jan Brady does redirect to The Brady Bunch. - Nunh-huh 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild

I will scream; I surely will. I am writing a biography of Rothschild and have been given proof of her descent from the Maryland Historical Society and other genealogical reference materials. Many papers about her ancestry (which is distinguished and detailed) have been provided by her family in Maryland, who have been more than forthcoming in their help with the biography. Mowens35 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's very nice, but to include the descent from Pocahontas as something other than a claim, it should be included in a citable reference. (Or, I would suggest, specifically delineated in a footnote, like the Key descent, though I am not sure this would be acceptable to others as something other than original research.). - Nunh-huh 17:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall provide a citable reference, including exact descent, if you like. If it has been published elsewhere, and established by descent, I will provide the direct descent as well. Until I get all that together and typed, I will leave the claimed citation. FYI: Her great-uncle, Wilson Miles Cary, was a noted American genealogist, whose papers (including the Pocahontas descent) are in the collection of the state of Virginia. Mowens35 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a delight to see. It's not a matter of "like", it's a matter of assuring accuracy. - Nunh-huh 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what exactly do you mean re original research not being acceptable? It's what I spend my career doing. Mowens35 17:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:No original research). Of course it should be encouraged - elsewhere! - Nunh-huh 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily Wiki says this about original research, ie fact-gathering as opposed to original research intended to support a POV: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." I think an archive held by the Library of Congress, et al, would be considered secondary sources, yes? Mowens35 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the nature of the archive; it is most likely a primary source, if it consists of letters, documents, etc. - Nunh-huh 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in my research, I am conducting primary-source research, ie original documents, letters, diaries, photographs, journals, et cetera ... which surely is acceptable by Wiki if properly cited. Mowens35 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, a citation is what I was asking for. - Nunh-huh 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki's guidelines, I am doing "source-based research" not "original research," of which the former is acceptable. Mowens35 18:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A line of descent not elsewhere published would seem to be a new hypothesis. Given that "Pocahontas" descents are often wrongly alleged, a claim that someone is so descended ought not to be uncited or nebulously cited. - Nunh-huh 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of Puerto Rico

Nunh-huh, thank you for writing. For me it is a real pleasure to hear from you. What happened is that the person made a simple redirect and merged my article with the other. I really didn't mind the move but, the only thing that concerned me is that I wrote "The Flags of Puerto Rico" plus I also made the vast majority of the contributions to the "Puerto Rican Flag" article. By merging the two articles, I would have contributed over 90% of the material but, if you look at the history page it wouldn't seem that way, you see what I mean?. A history page merge would be great if you would be kind enough to do it. Tony the Marine 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. It really cheeses me off to read stuff I've written that's been cut and pasted so the history is lost. I'm about to do the merge.... - Nunh-huh 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million. Count me among your friends here. If that ever happens again, I'll get in touch with you. Tony the Marine 05:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.5 list

You are certainly most welcome to make suggestions on the nominations page; the list is by no means final and could most certainly use the input of more editors. Nifboy 19:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barons de Longueuil

Dear Nunh-huh, I'm a relatively occasional user of Wikipedia, so I thought I might draw someone's attention to the situation who was more experienced and involved, and who had already come across the dispute before. Take a look at the history page on 'Michael Grant' and 'Baron de Longueuil'. I don't think this user is going to go away and it's a bit of a shame about the articles.GSTQ 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh, thank you for have confirmed this last version, by correcting the syntax. It is true that if Queen Victoria had appealed to an expert, She would not have been misleaded (God Save the Queen!)(User: 193.252.50.118)

A syntax fix doesn't mean the rest is right, but I do think we're improving. We always welcome additions that are verifiable or clarify. - Nunh-huh 17:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Thanks for your comment. If you would be so very good as to provide some details...? --Jumbo 02:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What details did you have in mind? - Nunh-huh 02:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there were errors in the format used so the issue had to be revisited and WP does allow a judgment call based on usage. In other pages where there are no errors in the dating then a wholesale change should not be made. I do however think that the compromise we used to solve the war is increasingly illogical. Why should Irish articles be allowed to use international dating but other European articles be required on occasion to use a dating system those countries don't use, simply because way back years ago the article was started by an American who used American dating instead of the correct local usage. Maybe we should establish a wikiproject to assess the dating formats used predominantly in each country, and then list the formats used on a page, with a recommendation that those countries which use mm/dd/yyyy or dd/mm/yyyy should have all their articles written in that format, but with the proviso that topics who cannot clearly be defined (ie, where both formats are used) the first one used be the standard. Wholesale changes should not be taken place. This case however is more complex because there were issues with the format used where some fix had to be done. (For example, the dates used commas in this article, meaning that all the dates had to be fixed anyway. So the format used was wrong. In the circumstances I think it OK where a problem exists with current usage to revisit the issue of which one?. If the usage had been 100% correct it should have remained as written. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 19:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were not such errors, and saying it again won't make it so. This was an inappropriate change for a user to make without obtaining consensus, and I resent you supporting such behavior. - Nunh-huh 20:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The errors I corrected were the "multiple careless errors" you kindly mentioned (though without giving details). Both slips o the finger and easily corrected.

Those were errors introduced by Superjumbo, not pre-existing errors. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you so very politely pointed out. I have since corrected them. I am sorry that this caused some misunderstanding when you interpreted those errors as being related to the date format. --Jumbo 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misinterpret them in any way. They were errors introduced by you in your zeal to change date formats. - Nunh-huh 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, you do not seem to have access to all the facts. I ask you again to provide details of the "longstanding rule" to which you refer, but the current policy is as per the MoS reference I have already given. Let me quote it:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Perhaps you are referring to this section on disputes over styles:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

Yes, that is the reason your crusade is inappropriate. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing U.S. date formats from articles on subjects where U.S. dates are not used is entirely appropriate, and the guideline is clear - a substantial reason must be provided for the change, and I have given it. Read on. --Jumbo 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that that is your opinion. - Nunh-huh 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The substantial reason for the change in date formats in the Prince Rainier article is that Monaco uses the "littleendian" date format of Day Month Year, as may be seen in the prince's official site, already linked above. In addition, the date formats were inconsistent and I rationalised them, as per my edit summary.

That's not a substantial reason, that's your rationale for exerting your preference over that of the original author's. We don't adopt the date preferences of the subjects of articles. The date formats were consistent within the article; two instances in the infobox were not. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank jtdirl for his contribution in this matter. Looking back over his contributions to Wikipedia it is clear that he is an expert in applying consistent and coherent styles as per the MoS, especially when fine interpretations over hotly contested topics are required, and we may all benefit from his advice. --Jumbo 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, and actions, are noted. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Having pointed out the relevant guidelines to you, and having had the benefit of some expert advice, I trust that we are now in agreement? If there are any remaining areas of doubt, now is the time to clear them up. --Jumbo 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not in agreement. You claim that you are correct in converting article's date formats from those in which they originated because you feel a specific format is more suited to the subject matter, and I feel you are unjustified in so doing. - Nunh-huh 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS allows me to change from one format to another if there is a substantial reason for doing so. My reason is that Monaco does not use the U.S. date format, and the example concerning British English in a British article underscores this. At the same time I tidied up the wikidates. I believe that this is perfectly in line with good WP practice. If I found a U.S. article that used a mixture of date formats I would change them to be uniformly U.S. format. --Jumbo 21:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that repeating your argument makes it more convincing? You and I disagree on your interpretation of the guidelines; I don't believe they were intended to permit the kind of wholesale changes you seem intent on making. - Nunh-huh 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (By the way, I'm assuming from your phrasing that you've never changed an article to "U.S. format" up till now. I'd be delighted to find out I'm wrong.).[reply]

I don't really want to argue with you on your own talk page, but no, I don't think repeating an argument makes it more convincing. My impression was that you hadn't fully understood WP:MoS as quoted. My interpretation is that date formats (and other styles) may be changed if there is a substantial reason to do so. That is what MoS states, based on an ArbCom case. How does your interpretation differ? --Jumbo 22:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think "in order to use the date style used by the subject of the article" is a substantial reason. I disagree. Your practice can only lead to edit wars. If you want to have Wikipedia adopt your rule, go about it according to process: propose your policy and see if others agree. Don't just start doing it because you want to and have so far gotten away with it. It is wrong to switch simply to change styles.- Nunh-huh 23:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from WP:MOS:

For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic.

This is an example of the guideline in action, and the use of date formats is another. There is no need to propose a new "policy"; the existing guidelines support my actions. Evidently you disagree, and I am at a loss to understand why. We have had the input of an expert on WP styles and formats, and you disagree with him as well, though not to the extent of reverting his changes or seeking further review. --Jumbo 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're defining "expert" as "someone who agrees with me". And as I've said repeatedly, the guidelines do not support your actions: they were devised especially to prevent such things. - Nunh-huh 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually numerous editors change date styles where it is clear that the format is inconsistent, or wrong in the context. I personally have changed numerous US articles which were originally written in International dating to American dating, as have hundreds of others. And people change articles written with American dating to international dating all the time if the article is country-specific and the country does not use American dating. There is neither logic nor common sense in your approach. The rule as applied is that if there is no correct format (i.e., if either format in used by that country) then it does by the original editor. But if there is a clear case, and there is a clear case with Monaco, then editors all over Wikipedia ensure that there is consistency in usage, and that the usage reflects local usage, in articles. When Wikipedia first started it had an unpresentatively high number of American users who started articles using American English and American dating, even where the country only uses International English and International Dating. In my experience only a hard core insist on forcing articles on national topics to use a format alien to the country (American English and American Dating), when it is demonstably wrong in the context. Curiously, it is almost always pushers of American English and American Dating who are insistent that their language and dating, even if little used generally, must get priority on the dubious argument that way back years ago it was an American who got to "set" the original article, and so the American usage must be kept, even if it is alien, unused and annoying to the vast majority. Most of us have proved willing on occasion to change US topics to ensure that US usage is reflected, even when other than in such circumstances on WP we never ever use American spelling and American Dating (indeed for many it is an irritant). It seems to be pushers of American spelling and American Dating who demand that their usage must be used even when it is patently wrong to do so. SuperJumbo's actions reflect what has been standard editing practice on WP for years. Yours do not. Yours only reflect the small minority who try to start edit wars to push non-native language usage and dating on topics where it is clearly wrong. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this was not a case of inconsistent style, unless you are asserting that the insertion of two dates (of many) means that one is thenceforward free to tailor the article to one's wishes. You're just making up rules, now. There's no such rule as "if there is no correct format". You may wish there was one: I suggest you propose it. I'd have thought the rhetorical flourish of trying to label me as a "pusher of American English and American Dating" was beneath you, but sadly I was mistaken. Unfortunately, you can't dictate what "standard editing practice" by personal fiat. And keep your personal attacks to yourself, please. - Nunh-huh 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a disagreement or two with jtdirl in the past, in the recent sad case of User:Pnatt (a user who was unable to work well within the community) but on looking over his contributions I could only be impressed at his knowledge of and implementation of WP:MoS guidelines. His expertise is surely beyond doubt.

I again make the point that this was not a case of correcting an inconsistent style (those two dates notwithstanding). It is a case of having a substantial reason to make a change, and that reason is to remove U.S. date formats from an article that clearly does not deal with a U.S. subject. This is allowed under the ArbCom ruling mentioned. --Jumbo 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it was not a correction of an inconsistent style. No one could reasonably maintain that it was. And again: repeating your feeling that your reason is substantial does not make it so. I am well aware of what Jtdirl is capable of. But buying ink by the gallon does not make you an expert. And it's not a question of expertise in any case. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such rule as "if there is no correct format"? D'oh! What then is Use British English for British and Commonwealth topics? It means exactly that. Use American English and American dating where appropriate. Use International English and International Dating where appropriate. If a country uses both, use the version of the original editor. That has been Wikipedia policy for years. If you want to change the rules, go on and try. They are the rules users all over Wikipedia use and will continue to use. As for claims of personal attacks, your blanket (and rude) attacking of SuperJumbo for simply doing as everyone else does, and your blind indifference to the rules as he showed them to you, were definite personal attacks. He and I have repeatedly explained the rationale. You have made personal attacks on both of us, including accusing me of making up rules when all I am doing is enforcing the same ones as everyone else, and applying them the same way everyone else does. If you want to change the rules, propose it. Until they are changed they are the rules. SuperJumbo is correct. You are not. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, again the pronouncements. Monaco is now a "British English" topic? Date format is a part of "British English"? It's not I who want to change the rules - or redefine what a personal attack is, or make up my own rules and trying to make them stick by yelling the loudest. Meanwhile, SuperJumbo, if you want the actual sense of what your fellow editors think, rather than a smattering of bluster and rhetoric, I'd suggest a good way to procede would be to request their opinions in a formal request for comments - something along the lines of "should the articles on countries have their date formats changed to accord with the format used in that country". They may agree with you, they may disagree, but in the end it is the community of editors and not any particular individual that will make these decisions. - Nunh-huh 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your scale of ignorance on the topic is bewildering. Monaco is not a "British English" topic. It doesn't use British English, English English, Hiberno-English, Canadian English, Australian English, Indian English, American English or any other sort. It uses what is known as International English and International Dating. It does not use American English and it does not use American Dating. All Superjumbo did was correctly convert the article to ID, the form of dating it uses, from AD, a form of dating it does not use. If you don't know the types of English and dating used internationally it is no wonder you are so confused. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaracterizing my state of knowledge really isn't going to bolster your argument. Neither is calling me ignorant or confused: I'm neither. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline de Rothschild/Pocahontas

Thank you for that addition.Mowens35 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links/Link

I just noticed your revision of the links to link change I made on Joe Tacopina's page. Quite honestly I don't care about the format but since you seemed so definitive on the subject I thought I would let you know that there is no preferred consensus regarding the links/link header for External links. Wikipedia:External links#"External links" vs "External link" I just thought I would let you know. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's worth knowing that that page doesn't reflect the concensus; I agree that it's not a particularly relevant issue and it would be silly to go about systematically changing it (others have, in the past, in the direction I've indicated). - Nunh-huh 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cavenaugh tag...

Comments on the talk, as requested. (I did read the article... it's not very long yet!) SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kinda the point. I didn't know he played a leading role until I went and looked it up on the other sites, then added into the text myself :).

BTW, I had assumed the "2 seconds" was metaphorical... you really thought it was 2 seconds? That would certainly have been an awful quick read! SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have.... But to harp on my "tag" theme: If that was the point, it would have been far more effectively conveyed by stating it on the talk page. The tag was an invitation to read your mind, because you would not take to time to make that unnecessary. - Nunh-huh 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please give me some advice...

I was really annoyed with you last night, because you were getting rather huffy with me and I didn't understand why you were doing that (which is why I put off editing that article until this morning).

After some reflection on it (flipping my compost windrows is often a good time to reflect), I realised what had happened between us:

I put the notability tag on the article because the text of the article (which was only 2 sentences) didn't make it clear to me that it was notable. (I was patrolling newpages, and if you've done that before, you'll know that most of the articles about actors and musicians are written by the actor or musician in question, or perhaps a good friend of theirs). While the article was quite stubby, it clearly was written by a sensible editor, so I didn't tag it with, for example, ((db-bio)) or ((prod)). The message appearing on the page when ((notability)) is used simply asks the contributor or editor to include something that points out the importance of the subject of the article. IOW, I was asking: "Is this important? If so, could you tell me why it's important?"
My guess is that when you saw the notability tag, you took it to mean that I (the tagger) thought that you were adding trivial and nonsensical information to wikipedia. I was saying that the thing (or person, in this case) you were writing about was unimportant, and wasn't "worthy". I was implying that you were wasting my time (i.e., the 1 minute or so I spent reading), and that I considered you to be a rather silly and shallow person for adding such trivial and useless knowledge to wikipedia.

So, I do apologise for offending you... that wasn't my intent. However, I do use that tag quite often when doing newpage patrol (do it for 1/2 hour and you'll see why). So I ask your advice: how could I have made the point in a non-offensive way? SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

He is also making the same nonsensical claims on New Mexico.

Castilian? In New Mexico? Very odd. - Nunh-huh 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been vandalising I think.

Ark of the Covenant

Hi Nunh-huh, The final comment from False messiah uk are not neutral and somewhat inflammatory in this present climate, and wikipedia should be above this. Please Nunh-huh, avoid the personal attacks in response to very questionable commentary, responding like with like will not help the situation. I know it gets annoying but a racial flame war, never helps the subject matter. I've responded on his talk page. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw a personal attack in my response to False messiah, you are seeing things that aren't there. You are chiding the wrong person, and that's not appropriate. - Nunh-huh 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images duplicated in error

On this page I accidentally duplicated images - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cone.JPG. I am still getting used to images on the wiki. I would be grateful if you could delete the duplicated images to save space on the wiki. I clicked the del button, but I got a message to say that only an administrator can do this. Snowman 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

I've never heard of it, but The Economist, and several other highly regarded publications uses their University rankings, claiming they are more objective, and accurate. The only criticism is it places too much an emphasis on accomplishments and publication in science, and not enough on humanities. In the end though, it receives much less criticism than the oft-cited, biased, and incomplete rankings of U.S. News & World Report. However, the user who added it to the Yale article has been putting the ranking information on several Ivy League schools. I don't know how extensive is his editing in this regard. Personally, I'd leave the ranking information on the Yale article, but since I'm not a Yalie, my word doesn't have as much an impact. Although, I did use the data for the Rutgers University article. —ExplorerCDT 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those rankings are meaningless anyway, and only designed a.) to sell magazines (namely U.S. News & World Report, a bad excuse for imitating Time Magazine or Newsweek), and b.) for college administrators to market their colleges. It's a symbiotic relationship. Since intellectualism is something rarely quantifiable, the methods by which statisticians derive such rankings is immediately suspect...even before getting to their motives. —ExplorerCDT 01:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A polite request.

I am asking you to correct your edits to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, as WP:MoS explicitly directs that articles on British subjects use International Dating. --Jumbo 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You use the word "direct". You are in error. - Nunh-huh 03:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask about your name

Is "Nunh-huh" a taunt or a Chinese name? Anomo 02:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, just two syllables that popped to mind when asked for a user name... - Nunh-huh 04:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lafosse Neutrality

Thank you for bringing that error to my attention. It has been corrected. Genealogyman1066

Warning

Edits such as this serve no useful purpose. You have reverted the article to a worse version, less conforming to Wikipedia style, for no reason that could be interpreted as an attempt to improve the article. The only reason I can see is that you want to frustrate Jumbo's work or make a point to him. If you make any more disruptive edits like this, or express an intention to continue doing so, there will have to be consequences. I'm already wondering whether you need a 24-hour time-out to think about whether such actions are in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I advise you not to push it any further. Metamagician3000 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 246: / Line 246: @@
 Thank you for bringing that error to my attention. It has been corrected. [[Genealogyman1066]]
+==Warning==
+Edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Earl_Sheffield&diff=70919097&oldid=70866904 this] serve no useful purpose. You have reverted the article to a worse version, less conforming to Wikipedia style, for no reason that could be interpreted as an attempt to improve the article. The only reason I can see is that you want to frustrate Jumbo's work or make a point to him. If you make any more disruptive edits like this, or express an intention to continue doing so, there will have to be consequences. I'm already wondering whether you need a 24-hour time-out to think about whether such actions are in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I advise you not to push it any further. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)