User talk:Deamon138

HTF character articles
Do you think that the HTF main characters should have their own articles back ? We don't need all the content they had, I think just having the wikitable the articles they had before, The character bio and the trivias would do. In the list, the main characters stay there but with only one phrase and a link for their main articles. The list of characters would have the images for the other characters and each character would have their images on their own articles. What do you think ?

To answer click here

--Mr Alex (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I sent you this message because no one answered to this message in the List of characters' talk page, and also I'll reupload the images by myself, I got all images and summary contents in my computer, I can do it in a snap.

RE:PS
That's right, I sent this message to each users who had HTF userboxes, and I also will send the messages tol some users who frequently contributed in the list of characters.

--Mr Alex (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. asenine say what?  23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. as<FONT COLOR="#72b5d9">e</FONT><FONT COLOR="#87ceeb">nine</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#72b5d9">say what?</FONT>  07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone makes mistakes. I've seen an awful lot worse! ;) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><FONT COLOR="#4682b4">a</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5c9cc7">s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#72b5d9">e</FONT><FONT COLOR="#87ceeb">nine</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#72b5d9">say what?</FONT>  21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alteration to your comment
Hello Deamon138,

I altered a comment you made at. Please see this difference, including the edit summary. If you disagree with the change I made, please feel free to revert it.

Best regards, Fg2 (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your AfD
I say the nomination was bias because the list did not appear to violate any policies and it appeared that the nomination was biased by that it may have been posted by someone that is active in the subject of global warming (notice the word may). I later checked your contrib log and saw you've only been here for a total of one month (which is why I said that the item was nominated by a "green" user, as in a "new user). When youask if I replied to myself, are you refering to the IP that replied to my comment? No, that was not me; my IP address is 74.4.124.190. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">GO-PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time of listing it for deletion, I was under the impression that it did violate policies, however after being made aware of the two links by L0b0t and Celarnor, I've accepted the communities decision to keep. By noticing I've only been here for a month, you should realise that I could well go under the description of a "wikin00b" (so probably don't know all the policies) and should therefore be more careful that you follow WP:FAITH, WP:NOOB and WP:EQ. You probably know all that and it was just a momentarily lapse (I'm betting that Global Warming articles can get pretty heated at times!). However, just to assure you I am not biased (though if I was I would say that! XD). Remember, ANYONE putting something on AfD could be biased, but its best to assume otherwise until it is more evident. I do try not to let my opinion on a subject bias any editing I do and it's one of the things I love about Wikipedia, that despite what I think about a subject, if another opinion exists, it usually belongs in, especially since someone else may not have formed an opinion and can now analyse the subject fairly and has internal and external links at their disposal for more information. I have never come across "green user" as meaning "new user", I thought you were calling me an "eco user" or something, since you had mentioned bias right above. (Incidentally, that comment and your second comment right below, not the IP, was what I was refering to when I said you replied to yourself. Obviously you werent I was just making a silly statement that it looked like you were talking to yourself, just my warped sense of humour lol!). Sorry about that and I will try to follow WP:UNDUE and that other link given to me by L0b0t in future. Deamon138 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't talking to myself, I was actually noting (kind of in a poor manner) that you are somewhat new to the encyclopedia, and probably weren't completely familiar with our policies here; I was vouching for you in a jolly way; I was giving you a free excuse, but using a silly (and apparently confusing) pun in my explaination (notice the phrase "no pun intended" lol). By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">GO-PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Myanmar/Burma naming discussion
Thanks for your message. It's certainly not a "pain" to respond to queries! In relation to "doesn't Burma only fall into one of the categories that we supposedly have consensus on, but Myanmar both?", my answer is not necessarily. There doesn't appear to be a consensus on how the country can be said to self-identify. Certainly, the government has named the country [Union of] Myanmar, but there is a distinct thread arguing that the opposition's choice of Burma is of equal or greater significance, given its victory in the last democratic elections. Even if Myanmar was accepted as the official name by which the nation self-identifies, it doesn't necessarily follow that meeting both criteria trumps meeting one. It may well do so, but I don't believe that there is a precedent for saying that it must. Warofdreams talk 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, sorry for replying on my own talk page, I just think it might be easier to keep any discussion in one place, however don't feel obliged to reply here if you don't want to.
 * Okay I agree that the what the government says being not necessarily the self-identifying name is an argument that was used. However, the victory of the other party in the democratic elections may not have been because party wanted the name to be Burma. I would say it was more that they wanted to end the human rights abuses and get rid of a totalitarian regime was the reason people voted for them in their droves. I'm obviously not up on my Burma/Myanmar politics, but could it not be a similar situation to a likely victory of the Democrats over the Republicans in America, and the same with the Conservatives over Labour i.e. that the people become disillusioned with the government, and just vote for anything that goes against them, and not specifically for a particular party. I mean, I'm 18, so when I get to exercise my opportunity to vote for the first time, I don't think they'll be a single party that I'll agree with ALL their policies, but there might be one I'm mostly in agreement with. I also think (and as sad as this sentiment sounds) but when deciding an official self-identifying name (and we don't have an idea of what the people say) then we go with the name used by those with the power. I think going with Burma because "it's used by the ones that were democratically elected" seems to me to have a little unintentional POV in favour of democracy which obviously we can't do.
 * Also, the fact that there was consensus on the issues you said there was, is contentious. It depends I think on your definition of "consensus." If you use the definiton that "there is a majority in general agreement" then no, there was no consensus. However, if you use the definition that Wikipedia gives, which I think I mentioned in the debate (that someone on that page's opinion has to be taken into account when forming consensus only when it follows policy), then yes, there probably was the consensus that you mentioned.
 * Still, I (and a couple of other users) are a little confused over another issue that has been brought up on Talk:Burma/Myanmar: that the fact that you said, "No consensus" therefore "keep at Burma" doesn't appear to have a causal link between those two statements. You'll see what I mean if you have a gander at the newest section on that talk page.
 * I hope you don't take this the wrong way or anything, or that me and the others on that page are just upset that we "lost" or anything, these (or at least the one mentioned on that Talk page) are real concerns. Thanks for participating in the Medcab thing on this issue anyway, and thanks also for continuuing after to reply to mine and other's issues if you have the time to do so. Deamon138 (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. There's no need to apologise!
 * With regard to the nature of support for the pro-democracy opposition, I suspect that you are probably correct. The amount of weight to give their position is therefore a matter for debate; there did not appear to be consensus on this in the discussion.
 * With regard to the definition of consensus in Wikipedia, it's true that it is possible to discount or give less weight to positions which are clearly illogical, jokes or contradict core policies. However, I was more interested in seeing how the discussions had developed.  The points I raised as appearing to have consensus were ones which had come up in the debate and had either not been questioned, or had produced discussion which appeared to me to have reached the broad consensus I described.
 * Finally, on the no consensus therefore keep at Burma statement, the general attitude taken on Wikipedia is that if there is no consensus to do something, it is not done - there was no consensus to move the article to Myanmar, so it should remain at Burma. That differs from saying positively that it should be at Burma; there was equally no consensus that it should stay at that title, so I wouldn't expect my comments to be used as a precedent or argument against the article being moved, if a consensus does emerge in future.  I was a little reluctant to just make the statement as I am aware that there was significant controversy around the move of the article to Burma originally.  I took the view that in our limited role in interpreting consensus in the mediation discussion, it would be inappropriate to address that issue which had not featured heavily in the debate. Warofdreams talk 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for clearing that lot up, it certainly makes sense what you've said. Obviously whether or not there was an overall consensus or consensus on some of the underlying points is very very hard to decide, and can get pretty subjective, so I respect your decision on that. On the "no consensus therefore keep at Burma statement" that you talked about, what you've said seems fair, I personally would've mentioned (in your decision summary) something along the lines of "That differs from saying positively that it should be at Burma" or whatever, more explicitly myself, but I guess you can't always get what you want. No worries. Deamon138 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to quote my comment here, should you wish. Warofdreams talk 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

BBF3
Where is it commonly referred to as "Blaise Bailey Finnegan III"? I have only heard it referred to as "BBF3", and only expanded out when an explanation is given for what BBF3 stands for. For example, Brainwashed.com, Constellation, and Amazon all call the song "BBF3". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the reference to mention both titles, and explained in the article that song titles are not found on the album packaging. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You have hit 3RR on Jimmy Wales. Further reverts will get you blocked. Viridae Talk 08:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signature
Lol, thanks for the signature. I like that shiny thing too, just added it today :P. Glad you like it! :) --haha169 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I like it when people take the time to play with my code toys, (though you're the first one). Nobody's touched my vandal box yet...:( Ah, well. The disclaimer said that people would jump at the opportunity to vandalize, and I've only had that box up since yesterday! --haha169 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah...good job. You found my menu template, eh? I purposely hid it in the middle of random coding, but my bolded message messed everything up. Good job! Play with it...I like these codes. But don't forget to keep on improving Wikipedia as well! :) --haha169 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Deamon138/Shiny Globe, eh? Here, how about this code, try it! --haha169 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me I work fast (lol), but I got the second layer image coding from User Page design center. (my wiki-coding isn't that fast.) I'm actually quite horrible. It took me an entire day to design my current userpage! Not to mention my subpages... --haha169 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the purge link. I'm sorry if I'll be responding slower than usual, but I'm in the middle of sorting through 776 images and choosing appropriate ones for the Commons, as well as handling a WP: FAC. I'll be busy for some time. But feel free to talk to me anytime! (Firefox 3 is cool, isn't it?)--haha169 (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very true. Sometimes, you have absolutely nothing, and all of a sudden, 3 people comment on your FAC and you have to fix all the problems...then silence. Wish they'd spread things out more evenly, lol. (Life is never like that) --haha169 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. Anyways, FACs as a concept really aren't that difficult to understand. You just nominate an article that you think meets criteria, then suffer humiliating constructive criticism. Quite simple :P. --haha169 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was joking. The reviewers really are nice people, and a whole bunch of them are helping edit my current FAC's article. Occasionally, you come across someone who picks at straws, yes, but its really unlikely. (There is no "panel", anybody can review and vote, but you need legitimate reasons for support, neutral, and oppose). GAN is much easier, and very simple for beginners to understand. The FAC concept is easy, but the process is really difficult, nonetheless. --haha169 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, shoot. I forgot to answer your question: No, there is no time limit. When Raul or SandyGeorgia thinks that everything is in order, they either promote it, or archive it as "failed". They choose the outcome - based on the reviewer's opinions. They offer ideas, as well. --haha169 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet Browser
Just a question, what Internet Browser do you use? I want to conduct some tests on my userpage with different browsers. --haha169 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a joke. (And I already saw your 04:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Great clunking fist listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great clunking fist. Since you had some involvement with the Great clunking fist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Theosophist (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Clunking fist listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clunking fist. Since you had some involvement with the Clunking fist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Theosophist (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2015 (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) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)