User talk:Shigernafy

Welcome!

Hello, Shigernafy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Anupam^Talk 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say Hi, both as a warm and genial (and probably, by this point, annoying) greeting, and a subtle and fear-inspiring reminder that I'm one of those people you'll never escape from in life. Kalthuras 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arr, 'tis Sardaukar-slash-Spatch. I'd write a similarly Dougadamsian sentence, but, due to exceedingly hostile sheets of printed text in various classes, my brain is fried; that is to say, it's hopped up on red bull, microwaved corndogs, and uncooked ramen in an effort to restart itself.

---

Note to myself:

Its not an issue of me liking it; its a question of it being so. I was looking for more in the way of how one determines what the Government is - but most of what you've given is a "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it and STFU." Perhaps I'm overreacting (I admit you did give an analogy to challenge my own), but it seems like this isn't a debate so much as a "here's my point of view, but its apparently stupid" sort of exchange.

You claim that land control isn't important in determining a government. I would say it is, though I'd be willing to concede the point since the Taliban did control 75% of the country at their strongest point... I guess that's good enough. I would say they also need a monopoly on coercion, some sort of rule-making apparatus, and a people that follows these rules. In this case, there were tribal allegiances which usually trumped the central rulers (ie, the Taliban) who also had militias and armed groups at their command. While I have no evidence of any widespread insurrection against the Taliban, this to me seems to signify a lack of a monopoly. Rule-making was diffuse but in the end could, I suppose, be Muhammed Omar, who at least had veto power but wasn't generally seen as an active and dynamic ruler as we usually consider them. Aside from him, there were people who held government titles and would make rules, often enforced by the Vice/Virtue squad. This is satisfied well enough. The people following the rules fits in a similar description as the power monopoly: it wasn't universal (but then, what society is), but no large scale revolts are known, so this one is similarly up in the air but leans Taliban.

My point would be: the Taliban were, as Mohammed Omar Taliban Movement here put it, de facto rulers of Afghanistan. Lacking de jure rule, international recognition, popular legitimacy, a monopoly on force, and universal territory control, I personally would not call them the government. Rulers, yes. Government, no.

ANYWAY, right, the issue is removing sources. Once again this issue wasn't discussed either though - the question I had was what determines an editor and how is his or her approval judged? If someone edits a page and doesn't remove something, does that imply that s/he approved of it? Or was there a loya jirga around here that I missed that discussed the sources and decided they were valid, and now Hanzo and I are just being morons fighting the will of the people?

The issue is a few sources which Hanzo claims aren't reliable, or miscount

Hooray Beer!

A little compendium of beer reviews, for personal use. Also a nice little experiment in formatting, once I get around to it.

Seasonal Brews

Winter Alaskan Winter Ale - very clean and easy to drink. Nice little aftertaste of spruce or somesuch; it bills it as having something like that, and the aftertaste is quite nice and fresh.

New Belgium 2 Below Ale - "a bright, hoppy palate and a cheery warm afterglow." Its not as good as the AWA above, though I can't describe exactly why. It has an odd hoppy flavor to it, probably some malts/hops interaction, if the label is any indication. I wouldn't bother getting it again.

Widmer Snow Plow milk stout - I have a fond recollection of Snow Plow, probably because of my days at the brewery, with friends and brezeln.. but it has a very distinctive, odd, and not altogether pleasant flavor. Also not a family favorite.

Normal Brews

MacTarnahans Honey Wheat - nectar of the gods. Not honey, ergo overly sweet, but quite pleasant. Highly recommended, if I can find it outside of the Cheesecake Factory.

Breckenridge Vanilla Porter - being a porter, this isn't exactly a light beer, but that vanilla really adds something great to it. Its basically a nice porter flavor.. then about two seconds into the drink, as a great aftertaste, this vanilla floats up out of nowhere and gives your taste buds a massage. Quite nice.

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Fair use rationale for Image:DarkSpace_box_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DarkSpace_box_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of collective nouns seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)