User talk:Angstriddenyouth

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma, Myanmar, and torture
I certainly didn't take your earlier comments as a personal offense. Looking over my original comment, I can understand how it appears that I was granting my personal support for the illegitimate regime! I know you had just been commenting on that appearance. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Just a heads-up that I have replied to your comment on my talk page. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Request_for_Comment/Myanmar_vs_Burma
If you feel someone has commented on character and not content on a Talk page, as in this case, you should ask them to retract their comments by striking them out, rather than reverting them. See WP:TALK and WP:RPA for more information on this; it's only usually if someone exposes your real identity in an attack that removal of the remark is appropriate. In addition it's questionable whether this was even a personal attack in this instance: pointing out another editor is not acting in accordance with WP:NPOV is not an attack Coldmachine Talk 12:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ducks (and Mallards)
You may now moult with my mallards. Thanks! (Do mallards moult?) --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma
I don't want to clutter up the mediation page with any more rhetoric, but wanted to comment personally about your approach to the Burma/Myanmar debate. Your comments tend to frequently mention the concept of "deciding what the name of the country is". I would like to point out that this is not what the discussion is about; it's about deciding what people call it. In particular, for example, the governments of the US, UK and Canada describe their use of "Burma" as a gesture of support to the elected government; this does not mean that they consider that party to be the official rulers of the country, or the name the official name of the country, but it is the word they use. It's the usage of words that decides the title of articles, followed by the level of officiality of the name. The content of the article can easily explain what this means. I hope this may change your stance on the choice of title for the article, but that's up to your judgement. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Hey, no problem. I knew exactly what happened because, earlier, I thought you had deleted text in your edits! Only by scrolling down did I see that it'd just been moved. I've found that it's easy to get flustered in all the mess. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I mentioned "deciding what the name of the country was" in relation to the decision of a single editor to "decide" what the name was, as was recently done by the user Nichalp in favour of Myanmar. I made it clear that this was something to be avoided, and it was far better to reach a consensus. I agree that the "officiality" of the name and common usage are key points and I will expand on that when I have time. (Not right now!) However, the evidence that "Myanmar" is the commonly used name is unconvincing, as is the evidence that it is the "official" name. Ultimately, a "decision" has to be made on the evidence available. Incidentally, the US Government, for one, do consider Burma to be the "official" name of the country as do the National League for Democracy, the biggest political party in Burma. Thank you for your comment. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The page you cite says "due to consistent support for the democratically elected leaders". The democratically elected leaders are not the pragmatic leaders of the country and I don't think the US would deny this. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But they should be. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Burma
Okay, I have created Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey no problem! And no we haven't done this before, you're probably thinking about the Mediation Cabal we just did. That was unofficial, this one is official, and it's decision should carry more weight. I hope you can agree to this request for mediation. Deamon138 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I know what you mean. These kinda things do seem to drag on a bit and get tied up in a ton of bureaucracy. But I guess it's the only way to sort this problem out. Deamon138 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
 * I've started a new page for structured mediation if you're interested. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri
Sure. I suspect that Pachauri gets a bonus on top of his salary if he brings in money for TERI, and he is probably a shareholder of some the commercial spin-offs. But that's speculation. Wikipedia should be about facts. Richard Tol (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia should be about facts." That would be nice, yes. And so should IPCC reports!

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skeletor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)