Hello, Deamon138! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dlohcierekim22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ?
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.
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.
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. GO-PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! GO-PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Warofdreamstalk00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Warofdreamstalk23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:Deamon138/Shiny Globe, eh? Here, how about this code, try it! <span style="background:#ffffff;position:absolute;top:-45px; left:-165px;z-index:-3">[[Image:Animated Kaleidoscope.gif|164px]]</span><span style="position:absolute;top:-92px;left:-195px;z-index:-1">[[Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|220px]]</span> --haha169 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, it's not a joke. (And I already saw your <code> mishap :P. I can't exactly explain it to you easily, but the code I gave you, the first image is the background, and the second image is the foreground. Replace them with whatever other combination.
Use the first code I gave you if you only want one image, or else the image moves down a bit and covers the Main Page link on the left "Navigation" bar. --haha169 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just got confused with the linking. Simple error, but I've been making a lot. Thanks for pointing that out! As for the "About Me" and the vandal box, I don't think its supposed to be off-screen. Try it on Firefox 3. As for those browsers, I have all IEs, Firefox, and Opera on the Wii. I use Safari on whatever Apple computer I get my hands on, which is actually quite often. I'll fix any problems you spot, as long as I can see it on my browser. :) --haha169 (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all the links. The only one that was broken was the Information one, and that was because I typed it in wrong. --haha169 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Your work on the FAC is quite helpful. Its really good experience for whenever you decide an article is ready for FA. This is actually only my second FAC, and I can tell how much I improved. Get all concerns done immediately, and you'll have no more problems afterwards. Or else, you run out of time (see my first FAC). --haha169 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. The following comment is a reply regarding your comment on Brawl's FAC, but is posted on your talk page because it is inappropriate and too off-topic to be posted on the FAC. Yes, Smashbrosboy will obviously support Brawl, but keep in mind that he has actually helped build the article, so his support is worth more than that support before him...erm, by Stifle. Who was he again? Oh yeah...the guy who rated Brawl "A" class without going through the "unofficial" process first. Oh well. I think he's an admin. Btw, you want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo/WikiForce SmashBros? You don't really have to do anything...but you know... :P --haha169 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A vandal with a death threat against another editor as his username had vandalized it: I deleted the article and then restored the history minus that contribution and its revert.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the last few edit/reverts you noticed, yes, same guy. It wasn't any worse than some of his other usernames, and probably wasn't serious, considering how long he's being doing it, but I occasionally have severe attacks of no-sense-of-humor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Burma
Hello Deamon. Thank you for including me in this RFM, and for informing me of course. I'll try to provide some feedback. Regards, Húsönd00:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. :-) Anyway Deamon you might have noticed that I had to break the rules on the mediation page. Would you like to work a solution? Sorry for the trouble. Regards, Húsönd00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound fair, as long as you allow an asterisk or something like that to be placed next to the "agree" and a note at the bottom of the section informing that asterisks indicate that the expressed positions are dependent of commentary placed on the talk page. But I would find a simpler solution the lifting of the comments restriction. Húsönd01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. :-) Yeah, they should scrap the comment restriction. If mediation is being asked, I find it rather inappropriate to start setting conditions and instruction creep right for starters. Húsönd01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You were 100% right on that. For an encyclopedia heading down the "example path" for any subject borders on "ungh" :), but the 2 examples that are there are fine. And hopefully no more need be included. Back tracking the ref read through... Journey would have been the other candidate to join Styx at the top of that particular heap. Thanks again and have a nice day. Libs (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Music Notation
This picture is an excerpt of sheet music from a copyrighted musical composition or arrangement. The original composition and/or arrangement may be owned by the credited writers of the song. If an album-only song, it could also be owned by a person or people credited as writer on an album of which the song is included, if not credited on a certain piece of the album. Copyrights can also be assigned to a music publishing company (can be specialized in song rights management or in releasing of sheet music).
Though the music may not be free, it is considered that the purpose of a limited number of sheet music excerpts
for critical commentary on the composition of a song or other music in question, on a music theory topic demonstrated in the excerpt for which there is no free alternative to demonstrate the topic, or on an aspect of music performance demonstrated in the excerpt for which there is no free alternative,
Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
Please be sure that this tag is only being used for copyrighted sheet music. Do not use it for other purposes, such as for audio samples of copyrighted sound recordings.
To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.
well I think by "limited number" they mean part-to-whole ratio. That is to say if you are using only 10 measures (music units) out of a 100 measure song, you could still claim fair use. (Of course, subjectivity would have to be overcome if somebody gets in the way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fefogomez (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Mediation Cabal, Nichalp started a straw poll on Talk:Burma/Myanmar. After a time, he closed it and moved the article back to Myanmar, giving his reasons for having decided that Myanmar was the more correct name: Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Name has been changed and the rationale behind it. Afterward, there were concerns about Nichalp's process (including from me). The straw poll had not been held on the main talk page, it was not advertised very well, and Nichalp had shown in the past that he preferred the name Myanmar. The page was moved back to Burma, and we continued on the merry path we still walk today. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tawker (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC) -- Tawker (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brawl FAC
Ok, I'm adding a new section. Internet Browsers is hardly the correct header, lolz. Anyway, I have to thank you bunches for helping at the Brawl FAC. Good for you! :) Wikilove promotes smiles. :):):)--haha169 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deamon! I'm glad to inform you that the Brawl FAC has passed 8/2/0! It, along with all other Smash related articles, are currently at the FTC. Feel free to give your support...(or oppose)... It's also a great chance to learn about another aspect of Wikipedia's featured content! Happy editing! --haha169 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Screw the Bot
That notice/tag completely sucks and ruins the article, to be honest. The inner drama of WIkipedia (the failings to be honest) shouldn't ruin the article. Beam20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it's already noted on the talk page. I'm going to think about it, I'll probably end up removing the tag altogether. Beam22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Because "Shiny Globe" also isn't the right name for this section heading, though this name isn't any better...
Well, my watchlist only has one article, and its non-existent. I'm rather hoping someone will create it: Talk:Golden Sun: The Lost Age/GA1.
It'll hit the main page whenever Raul decides its ready. No rush, really.
Which article are you considering for GAN? I could help you review it.
SSBB is my first FA article, (And get ready for it), I started working on it since January this year. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it soon. After SSBB, I've been able to get an article to GA status within 3 weeks of its creation. It gets easier later on. :) --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I guess I can be a GA wiz, but FA is much more difficult. I took a look at the article, and OMG. I'm almost certain you can pass GAN on your first try - but FAC will be much more difficult. I do have a small list of things which might need fixing:
"He was born at Basra, Iraq, spent most of his life in Cairo, Egypt, and...", I think you need his birth date there, and Basra is a little repetitive, since it was mentioned in the previous sentence.
My suggestion is to nominate it for GAN right now. If somebody picks up the review, notify me and I'll help you. How's that sound? --haha169 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. We're both watching GAN pages now. :P And definitely, I'll help you when the reviewer comes by. Just leave a note on my talk page when that happens. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, GAN assessors are pretty much required to know as little about the subject as possible, but as much about the article's broad subject, ie. People, Video Games, Biology as much as possible, as to fix formatting errors. --haha169 (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deamon138! My dictionary gives about 3 dozen translations of "logos", but not "knowledge" - sorry. I just copied the sentence as it is given on other pages, e. g. Andrology.
On the other hand, the translation "to talk about kidney" sounds a bit strange to me - what about something like "the description of the kidney"?
And what about the corresponding explanations on pages like Biology? "study" seems to be incorrect as well, and the link leads to a disambiguation page... shouldn't this be unified somehow?
"Maybe this could be taken up with at a higher level to get some standardization underway? Wikipedia:WikiProject Science maybe?" Good idea. How do I do this, just posting the problem on their talk page?
"Do you really know 54 digits of Pi?" Just checked and found out I forgot the ones between #32 and #41... I'll change the userbox to 54 again as soon as I've caught up! (The whole thing goes back to a bet who would be the first to know 100 digits. None of us managed.)
Are you still interested in the issue? Since there isn't any response from WP Science, have you any suggestions? I could be bold and change the definitions on two or three high-traffic pages like Biology, and if someone objects, we could try to involve them. Or would that be reckless? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started updating the Xology articles - beginning with Acarology. You could have a look at my "thoughts list" at Talk:-logy#Changes to the order of this article and Citations, or you could update a few Xology articles, beginning with Zymology, if you have the time ;-). In case you do the latter, please keep close to this format:
Hi there... could you please explain the reason for deleting my edits on Bangkok page... If in case there was anything to adjust... I could do that. But please....any reason?? --Borndistinction (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to inform you ---> I've added citations wherever necessary to my 2nd edits on Bangkok page, the rest information are TAT's own content. Any more adjustments needed... please let me know! Thanks --Borndistinction (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Al Haytham and the telescope
Salaam Deamon138,
Hello. I noticed you have an interest in the article on Ibn Al-Haytham (Alhazan) and I was wondering if you could give your opinion on the this page. Basically, I just wanted to add a sentence to the history section, but theres at least 4 people against that idea and about 3 people for it (two are admins that I haven't officially asked yet, but stated that they didn't think it would hurt to add a sentence). I wanted to complete the dispute resolution process but it seems I will have to ask for their opinion as well (the admins). I hope you can help. InternetHero (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks a bunch
Thanks, a lot for your input man. I just wanted to contribute... I'm not even Islamic: I'm half French and half Native American. Thanks again. Jagged, was a huge help as well. Happy Drinking. I'm off to the bar... InternetHero (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you mind just saying something about me here. The users (one is a World of Warcraft player) and the others seemed to have put a lot of effort into this "rfc/U", but they completely take it out of context. Anyway, just read at least half of this page and you'll see why I had to get some admins/canvass. I tried following that flow-chart thing for Dispute Resolution, but I lost my patience in accordance to the clause in respect to seeking an admin. Anyway, this is what I mean. "Forgets" to emphasize that I sought help from 2 admins and didn't lose any courteousy. I you can, just try and give your opinion on me. InternetHero (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Prairie Home Companion, Best Example of a Ensemble Movie?
I read your message(s) in the history section, asking for only 3 examples. Sorry, I reverted my edit. Yet I do think that A Prairie Home Companion (2006) is the best example though. It is very notable as being an ensemble film, but almost on heard of as a low budget motion picture. Yet it does have Meryl Streep, Lindsay Lohan, Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee Jones, and Kevin Kline in equal roles!
142.161.190.225 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)142.161.190.225 (talk)[reply]
Ibn al-Haytham
Hi,
I removed the comment that he is a Muslim polymath after reading a complaint that Galileo is not called a Christian polymath. Later on it said that he practiced Islamic physics, etc., as if he didn't practice real physics. We only identify scientists by their religion when they're Muslim. I think that, for example, calling Einstein a "Jewish physicist" would meet with stiff opposition, especially considering the meaning of Jewish physics. Ibn al-Haytham's scientific credentials stand on their own, and don't depend on him being Muslim. I think that info belongs in his bio, as it does for all other religions. kwami (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you commented after the discussion had closed (don't worry I did the same earlier today elsewhere), but anyway, I wanted to say in response to that comment, is that I believe I changed my mind about an arbitrary number of sources in this comment. Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment wasn't directed specifically at you. Just that such a thing was being discussed at all.
As I understand it, the terms of the GFDL are such that Wikipedia's content can be used freely but only with proper attribution. I'm not an expert in this field, though. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deamon138. Please remove the notice at the top of your user page (the "I am preparing to sue" one) immediately. Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats, as they are taken seriously even if it looks like you may be joking. User who make legal threats are blocked indefinitely until the threats are unconditionally retracted. I notice you've just recently been unblocked, so I'd like to give you a chance to remove the comment before blocking you again. Thanks. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was just a joke yes, but I have removed it per your request. Actually, I am planning on redesigning my userpage (but haven't had time), and that bit was going to go in the process. Oh, and thanks for unblocking my IP just! :) Deamon138 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing on how the ranking is calculated, I know a 12 year old could do that. But if we leave it at that, everyone would start writing ranking in advance without heeding for official announcement. Consider an example of this user who altered rankings of all top ten WTA players. As for the sources, there can be number of reliable sources who would make that prediction, but remember that they are news reporters while this is an encyclopedia. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ibn al-Haytham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Wronkiew (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is fully documented; I've restored the redir, and put a notice on the talk page. Thanks for the advice! --Orange Mike | Talk02:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC) more an Old Labourite himself[reply]
About the prose issues, the GA criteria says the prose should be clear and correct. The prose in the article is mostly correct but definitely not clear. I'm not that great at writing clear prose myself, so I relied heavily on two tools to do the work for me. One is an automatic grammar check. The other is the fog index calculator. In addition to the problems flagged by those tools I recommended some additional changes as I thought appropriate. The fog index is an automatic appraisal of the reading level of a chunk of text, based on sentence length and the proportion of three or more syllable words. A non-technical article should be accessible to a large audience including people with less than a college education. That corresponds to an index of 10–12. The article, when I last looked at it, had an index over 16. Changing "initiated" to "started", when appropriate, will at least replace a longer word with a shorter one. The grammar checker also flagged it as artificially formal. A better example of artificial formality is "utilize" vs. "use". Replacing "a number of" with "several" says the same thing with two fewer words, which reduces the sentence length and improves readability. "Upon" was flagged as archaic, which I'm not sure I agree with. At least "on" is more common and means the same thing. The thing with the semicolon is a correctness issue. "And" is preceded by a comma, not a semicolon. Hope that helps, and feel free to let me know if there's anything else you want an explanation on. Wronkiew (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CLOSED, NOMINATION WITHDRAWN AFTER COMMENT ON THE PROCESS BELOW
This article is different from the one nominated for deletion about a year ago. It no longer has a list of survivors' names. The main body of the text describes how few survived and where they were located in the building. This could be easily merged with the main article or the WTC article. I am not aware of any reason why this needs to be a separate article, though this AFD could offer explanations.
There is no political agenda for the AFD. I am not trying to eliminate information about 9-11 nor am I opposed to mention of survivors or lack of survivors.
This article doesn't seem to meet WP criteria for people, i.e. notability. Nor does it meet the requirements of criminal acts, which is covered by the main articles. This article doesn't offer any information which a merge could not accomplish.
At this point, I recommend and merge and redirect. Editors who have worked hard on this should be encouraged to continue to do so after the merge, if that's what is decided. Chergles (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People who want information on a subject like this don't have a lot of places to look, therefore Wikipedia should have lists like these to supply interested people with relevant information. A merge would only clutter associated articles. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This message is being sent to all editors who made edits to this article in 2008, except IP and simple vandalism corrections/reverts. Chergles (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support for so-called the 'triple intersection' Fooian expatriate footballers in Booia'
Hi there. I noticed that you ve commented on this issue before and thought you might be interested in doing so again should there be a discussion on it in the coming days, something that seems to be in the works - Category:Xian Expatriate footballers in Y intersections. Regards, 04:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I read a BBC article on this guy and I'm pretty impressed by our coverage. Do you think it's ready for featured status? - Mgm|(talk)10:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
