User talk:JRM/Archive2

CNOM hoax and related
Thanks for proving the rule that cooler heads will prevail, and by offering sensible words of advice in all this madness. I admit, I'm cold, harsh, and often a horse's ass...not the most flattering of qualities. But thank you for seeing through the mascinations of folks like CharlesMatthews. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Iasson 15:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am glad tha I made you smile with my votes. But there is a reason I am casting such a vote, and this is due to the Average Rule phylosophy. I actually believe that it is not correct for a common voting policy to be applied to every poll, and I think that each poll should have its own specific policy that depends on the subject of the poll. The variables you have to take into account for a Vfd policy (either applied to every poll or to a category of polls or to each poll separately) are not unlimited. Along with your favorit poll option, you also have to decide about the minimum participation on the poll that is about to make it legitimate, decide about the decision method (for example a 2/3 majority has to agree, or the best rated poll option e.t.c), decide about how long the poll should be an active one, and finnaly decide how long the extracted decision should be valid. So, by defining those four variables, you can either define a common policy for all Vfd polls, or you can alternatively let the people to vote both their poll option and the above 4 variables. Then by using the Average rule voting method you can extract the decision from the poll. :-) Iasson 15:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the meaning of my strange votes. I dont want all VfD polls to have the same policy. I think that every Vfd poll should have its own policy that depends on what it is actually written on the article. A vanity article deserves a different Vfd policy than a nonsense article for example. And of course I dont wont to force people to follow the policy that I think is correct for a specific article, thats why I put my proposed policy into a poll along with my poll option. If you think my position is funny, I also think the same! :-) Iasson 11:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for your messages, I was swamped here and on IRC with troll activity so couldn't respond right away. happy editing :) Arminius 10:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New VfD nominations
Hi, could you put the name(s) of the article(s) you're nominating in the edit summary when you update Votes for deletion? So if you're nominating Foo for deletion, put Foo in as summary. That way, people who have VfD on their watchlist can jump to nominated articles without having to (re)load the gargantuan VfD page. I added this suggestion to the procedure, so I'm more or less playing ambassador to it :-) TIA. JRM 13:53, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC) And poll all you want; if nobody can be bothered with this I'll switch to Lynx for VfD editing. This is uncomfortable, but it wouldn't slow me down as much. JRM 14:24, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * You'll miss a lot of VfDs doing that unless you refresh your watchlist a lot... I assumed it was a remnant of when VfD wasn't so busy. I'll start doing it again, but I may try and get it removed or made optional later, as I'm not really sure it's worth the effort considering the method of monitoring VfD it creates is less than optimal and VfD is complex enough as it stands. --fvw *  13:57, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * It is optional, that's what the "as a courtesy" is supposed to mean. Nobody's going to haul you in for an RfA if you don't do it. :-) Re missing a lot: not really, as I do refresh my watchlist a lot. To me it's preferable to loading VfD a lot &mdash; my browser is unusable for several seconds while it's just rendering the page. (Loading RC a lot is only when I'm on patrol.) Re not worth the effort: OK, if it's too much typing, then don't. As I said, nobody's forcing you. Perhaps I should have amended it to "as a completely optional courtesy to JRM, if you really want to because nobody else finds it useful..." Something like that. :-) JRM 14:08, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there's optional and optional. Courtesy is optional here at wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I'd consider myself having the option of not being courteous. Anyway, I'll have a think about what to do about this, maybe I'll just have a "does anybody apart from JRM actually use this" poll. As for dragging people to RfA: I think you might want to check your abbreviations before you make a very embarrassing and destructive mistake :-P. --fvw *  14:14, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * WP:RfA. Damn, I was wondering why the other side always won, and then blocked me! Damn shortcuts. :-D
 * Hmm? Your problem is rendering time, not load time? Lynx might render slightly faster, but I think the UI will just slow things down even further. Are you sure you don't have some misconfiguration or other software problem? Even on older machines, VfD takes only half a second to render for me. --fvw *  14:28, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

LastMeasure script
Dude, bad idea to have that on Wikisource. You realise if we do this that they'll upload rustina.jpg, along with the penisbird image? And they'd be justified in doing so. THEN you'll have a massive problem with trying to get rid of that stuff. No, I reckon just having a link and a reference to it should be OK. It's not like its hidden or anything, and its valid info. I just don't understand why we're removing that material. Is it because it's offensive to some ppl? If so, then we'd better go against consensus and remove the picture from clitoris and vulva. If we remove info because its offensive and we officially sanction that, I'll go ahead and remove childlove movement as I find it quite offensive. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orange
Yes, very much so. Oranges already points at the fruit, now Orange points at the color and both have pointers to disambiguation for people who have place names to find or didn't type "orangemen" instead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

my proposal on Meta
Hello, thanks a lot for your interesting feedback on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edit_rules. I have changed some parts of my proposal and clarified others because of your critics. And of course I find your idea with the flags quite nice and have written it down and embedded in the frame of my ideas. I hope that you can be with my proposal more comfortable now. I have also answered to your concerns on the talk page and am very interested what you now think about it. Arnomane 14:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: On "latter"
You're absolutely right that "latter" is now sometimes used to refer to a set of three or more items. But a lot of native English speakers think it's just a fancy-sounding form of "last", which is a pet peeve of mine. I felt a little rude editing someone else's user page, but you say to right up at the top, so i figured i'd be bold. I'm glad you appreciated my input, thanks for letting me be a grammar nazi on your page. It certainly is a strange feature of the language to have adjectives for one (e.g. good), two (better), and many (best) items. Foobaz 07:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tonight is vandalism night, free keyring with every second vandalism!

 * Frank, you have my sympathies. Being a vandal-hunting admin is a thankless job. Are you sure you wouldn't rather mediate disputes? :-) Ah, who am I kidding. You probably live for this, right? JRM 03:45, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did offer my services to the MedCom, but by the looks of it they're going to politely decline. But yes, this does constitute a mildly entertaining evening on wikipedia by my books, much more pleasant than the usual barrage of POV-pushers. --fvw *  03:50, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Remember me? Request for review Business continuity planning
Hi JRM, remember me? A while back you helped me on a disambiguation page for the acronym 'DR'. I finally finished the completed draft of Business continuity planning and thought you might like to take a second look, now that I have all the sections populated. Also worked on the disaster page if you are interested. Thanks in advance. Revmachine21 14:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I will post the Business continuity planning article and resubmit the disaster article.  There wasn't any response to my prior disaster submit on the RFPR, so I have directly approached those users who have appearred proactive!  Thanks again.  Revmachine21 10:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD listing section headings
Thanks for the correction, should know better. It's late here - thats my excuse :) . Steve. Sc147 02:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

aDSL is dead
Hey, JRM, fyi, my dsl is deader than wikipedia after 10 slashdot tsunamis. So, i'll be out of IRC for a bit. Project2501a
 * My DSL is fine, but I'm planning to cut back a little anyway. :-) I'm guessing the channel will get along fine without us... JRM 11:04, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

animals
Hey, remind me to get that book on animal sex. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Re large and bright-red banners people don't read
I don't know what the policy on this is, but my gut instinct says it would be OK to protect talk archives for preventing this sort of mishap (and any possibility of crypto-revisionism). Of course, some people may cry "abuse of admin powers" because admins can do that and mundanes can't... *sigh* How about a read-only archive: namespace? :-) JRM 12:05, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps some sort of archiving provision would be nice. But I think there are more important things to be done with (and more importantly, to) MediaWiki right now. I suppose I could protect them, but I'll just stick to petty whining until it becomes a real problem. --fvw *  21:01, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
 * Perl? I wish. All PHP. --fvw *  08:19, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Missing your commentary...
both in IRC and on Wikinews. - n:User:Amgine

Have you led me into trouble?
I've had great fun since discovering and enjoying your User page. HierarchyPedia. Ask me about it some time. Robin Patterson 08:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bye Bye!


I've got your user page on my watchlist. Hope you'll be back eventually. Have a nice break! --MarkSweep 22:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not the wikibreak you're looking for
here's some milk, too.

Project2501a 10:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder
Hey, JRM. A cultural page I've been leisurely polishing in my userspace (you'll see what it was doing there if you go look) together with some co-conspirators got outed and FAC'd this morning. I can quite understand that the brilliance of the article impelled Ta bu shi da yu into putting it on FAC, but it was a little premature... I had been planning to move it to the article namespace, to nominate it on April 1, and, well, to be on IRC and receive the encomia of the populace. Can't IRC from work. :-( If you feel that the article is scholarly, comprehensive, and well-referenced, perhaps you'd care to comment on FAC (no telling how long it'll stay there)? I'm not canvassing for a support vote, really: any and all assessments, up to and including "Crap!" would be truly appreciated. Bishonen | Talk 14:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VFD nomination process clarification
I would like your opinion about my suggested VFD nomination process clarification. Please see: Template_talk:VfDFooter. Thank you for your time. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * JRM is on a recreational WikiBreak at the moment. I doubt any kind of comment will be forthcoming any time soon. --MarkSweep 09:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When you are back take a look at:

 * Wikipedia talk:Piped link Regards Gangleri | [ Th] | T 15:54, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)