Jump to content

User talk:Nunh-huh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nunh-huh (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 21 July 2006 (→‎Rothschild). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Wikijunior

Refactored: old stuff now just history:


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]

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]

See also portuguese newspaper about their pretender

Hi, also one of the most famous newspaper in Portugal "Destak" [1] of today 14 July 2006, in the page 5, tells about the portuguese succesion and mentioned dom Rosario Poidimani as pretender and Dom Duarte Pio as an illegitimate pretender for his exclusion from the last monarchic Constitution. This affirmation was an affirmation of the president of the P.P.M. The only Moanrchic Party in Portugal. So please again reinsert Rosario Poidimani as a true pretender,Maria Pia as true pretender and Duarte Pio opposition in his page. Please reply Manuel de Sousa, 14 July 2006 (UTC)82.54.244.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I believe Mr. Stair Sainty had it correct in his response to the nearly identical missive you placed on this subject on alt.talk.royalty [2]: "Oh for goodness sake; you know very well that she was born Hilda Toledano, and her father was unknown. But even if she was the bastard daughter of the king of Portugal, he was at the time legally and canonically married to another so there are absolutely no circumstances in which she could have been legitimate or legitimated. Every illegitimate child is perpetually barred from the succession by the royal constitution which you cite as the basis for the exclusion of dom Duarte. Poidimani is a nobody, with no connection whatsoever with Portugal, or with the Royal House of Bragança or with the Kings of Portugal. His claims are pitiful inventions designed to con the ignorant, of whom you seem to be the generalissimo." - Nunh-huh 05:12, 16 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nunh-huh&oldid=65064181"