User talk:Damienhunter

Welcome!

Hello, Damienhunter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! --Nehrams2020 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Much better. --Nehrams2020 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Manoeuvring is not a spelling mistake. It is the correct way to spell the word in British English Jooler 19:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Enforced homegenisation by majority (a debatable majority at that as most of the readers of Wikipedia are probably not native English speakers anyway) is not a tenet of Wikipedia policy. Jooler 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Apology

Don't worry about it - I can understand your frustration :). Good luck - Mart inp23 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The reason that I listed all of the suggestions that should be fixed on the article is because I was reviewing the article. If I was not going to review the article, I could consider making all of the changes myself, and let some other user review the article. One of the criteria for a GA reviewer is that he/she not have made any significant changes to the article, because otherwise the reviewer could be biased in passing/failing in article that the reviewer had involvement in. For example, if you look at the GAC page, you'll see: "You cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it." Or if you go to any of the talk pages for the GA nominations, the GA banner will say: "If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page." Besides, by listing the suggestions, the nominator can continue to improve his/her writing abilities for Wikipedia, or better understand what requirements that need to be met for future GA nominations. Let me know if this answers your question. --Nehrams2020 00:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been Approved for Trial. Please see the request page for details. --kingboyk 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page archiving

In re "What was the reasoning for deleting the discussion?" in your 07:35 (UTC) edit summary:

Nothing was deleted: some older sections were archived.

Talk:Christopher Michael Langan had reached 279 kilobytes. Archive 1 was already 131 kilobytes. I opened Archive 2 for this purpose:

"It is customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when it becomes too large. Bulky talk pages are difficult to navigate and usually contain obsolete discussion. Additionally, large talk pages are a burden for users with slow Internet connections. If possible it is better to archive talk pages during a lull in the discussion, as it is best to avoid archiving in the midst of an active discussion so that the full context of the discussion is together." — Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

There had been no posts in the past three weeks in any of the sections archived.

The main talk page had been reduced to 143 kilobytes before you brought it back up to 231 kilobytes. — Athænara ✉ 08:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to undo your archiving. I skipped over the archive box on the side. Would it not maybe be better to center the box underneath the WPBiography box to make it stand out a bit more? Just a thought. --D 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!

I agree with you about the boxes—they're often a formatting problem when they start to stack up like that. I didn't put those there, but they can be moved around. (See Talk:Albert Einstein for an even worse situation.)

Now that you know the inactive sections are intact in Archive 2, is it okay with you if I remove their redundant copies from the main talk page? — Athænara ✉ 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bout the mixup, it's fine if you revert the page back to its archived form. --D 09:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will. — Æ. ✉ 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne

I got your message before I went but I thought you were talking about just the dog tags. But I still noticed on his file that it said A+. I joked with my family that when he was David Webb, he had O-, but when he became Jason Bourne, his blood changed to A+. Maybe the water dunking had something to do with it? I don't know if the discontinuity will stay in the article or not, usually they don't when they reach GA/FA levels. I'll probably call you tomorrow after I get off work. Congradulations on seeing a movie before me though, that's a first. --Nehrams2020 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOA discussion

Continued from Talk:Ron Paul#Is Ron Paul a minarchist or an anarchist? --Serge 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't forced to stay in the United States. By your definition our government is voluntary and consensual. But by being here you enter willingly into a contract with the government of the United States of America, agreeing to obey the laws of the land. (Suggested reading: "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine) And it could very well be in the future all homes will fall under a homeowners association, killing the consensual and voluntary part of the organization. The organization only remains voluntary and consensual up until the point that it's not that only option left, which makes it an unsustainable definition (it has boundary conditions which would void the definition). --D 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the larger the scope of the governance, the less practical is the option to avoid it or leave it. I am well aware of the concept of the social contract, and, to an extent, it is libertarian. After all, libertarianism requires everyone to abide by the non-aggression principle (NAP). And in a free market, contracts are fundamental. If a capitalist chooses to develop his land and sell parcels or units with covenants attached, he should be free to do so in a free society. Conversely, buyers should be free to accept the conditions of purchase, or not. In other words, these issues are not at all black and white. There is a continuum of choices and options. I think it's pretty clear that the optimal point maximizing liberty on this continuum minimizes the conditions to adhering to the NAP at the federal and perhaps even state levels, and optionally adds more restrictive conditions at the more local levels, accordingly to social demand. This balances the freedom to be free of conditions and covenants (by leaving it practical to avoid or leave unwanted conditions), with the freedom to choose to live in an association, community or society where all members are bound by certain conditions and covenants. --Serge 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's nice but you still haven't proven that homeowners associations are actually consensual and voluntary as you stated, but rather that they are more consensual and voluntary then larger federal governments. Mostly right is not right. --D 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that an HOA is nothing more than a voluntary contract in a free market, just like any other contract in a free market. Agreeing to pay rent for a fixed period (a lease), with certain conditions, is another example. Buying/selling insurance is another. Again, contracts, with whatever conditions are agreed to by both parties entering the contract, are fundamental to a free market economy, and are fully consensual and voluntary by definition (as long as no one is coerced to enter the contract, or defrauded somehow). I don't see how agreeing to buy a home under the auspices of an HOA is different from any other free market voluntary and consensual contract. You might argue that someone who inherits such a property never agreed to the conditions, but then you'd be ignoring what exactly the person inherited. It's not the property, it's the property including an agreement to abide by the conditions. In accepting the property, the inheritee implicitly agrees to the conditions. Again, no one is forcing him to agree to accept the property. He is also of course free to sell the property and fair market value, again per the covenants attached to the property, which includes obtaining agreement to those covenants from any future buyer. --Serge 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was wondering how you got all you userboxes to be on the right side and to go straight down the page? And how do you know Nehrams2020? --Hippieslayer (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Hippieslayer[reply]