User talk:JRM/Archive3

Welcome back!
Welcome back, Germ! Bishonen | Talk 15:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmph. For the record: only Bishonen can call me that. And that's primarily because I can't do anything about it.
 * Which means that anyone can call me that, I guess. Curses! It's Joost, dammit, Joost! JRM 15:43, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Thanks
Joost, dankjewel voor het fixen van de image tag op m'n userpage. (Pfff... probeer ik eens in het Nederlands te schrijven hier, bestaat nog de helft van m'n zin uit Engels vocabulaire.)  &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Too cool for words?
Now what am I supposed to do with that? NPOV shouldn't mean no style. Anyway, if you think my rant on the Pump is bad, check out some of my contribs. I figure I'll write the way I please, and count on the community to edit me down to stenderd. --Xiong 16:23, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Oops; I bit on that before; that "new section" thingie doesn't take markup that way.

Anyway, thanks for the fan mail. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 16:48, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Any more - put them on 'my' Talkpage
OK. Look at the logic. Wyss spent weeks, maybe months insisting that I am Sollog. He deleted posts. He posted on my TalkPage I was Sollog. He abused and abused and abused me. Calling someone a liar and a known pornographer is abuse...

Initially I thought Wiki people would intervene but of course every time they did they had to scold me for fear of annoying Wyss. Even handed - not. I have better things to do than play these Wiki games however I posted to let people know it was a publicity stunt this 'Sollog in jail' stuff. I then get asked to prove a negative - i.e. prove he was not there. These are the same people who do not accept me describing what is on the wall of a bar in Salisbury (UK) as proof I am there. The same people who would want what proof? A headline that Sollog is NOT in jail? Then along trolled Wyss. Wyss is a special case because here was someone who has obsessed about me and truly believes I am Sollog. (It takes a special type of intellect to believe someone who is plainly English is in fact an American) It is here that the illogicality unfolded. Let's move into the Wyss world for a moment. Number = Sollog. Number/Sollog posts that Sollog/Number is not in jail. Wyss then asks - and keeps on asking - for a source. Other Wikis deliberately failing to see the lack of logic, join the baying including one person who when I asked him as an Administrator to explain 'editorial conflict' said (I quote): "I am not your fucking monkey!" So Wyss believes I am Sollog and asks me (Sollog) to source my (Sollog's) post about me (Sollog) Hence he is (must be!) either forgetful, deranged, a hypocrite or a fool. Perfectly logical and naturally deleted because yet again the Wiki people, when they see something obvious, have to spit on it. The Number 20:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi there
Hey there! I noticed you flagged pinball as needing attention. I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing (i've done some minor changes here and there as 67.36.111.174). How can I help? I could really expand the History section of the article, that seems to be the area most needing work. Lkoziarz

It was a bug.
It was a bug. I had copied from your talk page, as i'm about to do with the rest of your talk page intro, but i assumed it was a template and i didn't have to edit the username. so, yeah, mea culpa. I fixed it.

Project2501a 10:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transcript Transcribed
Salve, JRM! I posted a reply to your query about the Boston Transcript at Reference_desk. If you'd like, I could e-mail you the catalog records direct from the OCLC database. (You can send your address to me with the e-mail this user link so you won't have to post it publicly.) Newspapers are one area I done some work on (see a list here) and if I can help further, let me know. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome!
Hello Joost! Thanks for the welcome (and for fixing my user page!) I'm quite comfortable with wikis (I run a couple myself), but the big wide world of Wikipedia is a lot to take in at once.

I definitely have a lot of content that I can add to the Pinball area, so I'll start slow and we can think about organization later. I think once more stuff gets added it will be a little more clearer how the article should properly read.

I definitely will try to get other enthusiasts (and industry folk) to contribute where possible!

Lkoziarz

Asopos de Vliet
Greetings O speaker (and reader) of Dutch! Never mind the sollogs, take a look at Asopos de Vliet, if you have a spare moment. I'm no devotee of either sports or university clubs, but I thought at least one of the contributory reasons given for deletion was about the silliest ever, and thus felt compelled to comment. However, I can do no more, as I can't read Dutch. -- Hoary 06:22, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) in Tokyo where spring may be coming at last ..... PS I doubt that you'll want to reply, but if you reply, please do so here.
 * Well, I tried, but this club really seems to be not notable. Their homepage is a quaint collection of local affairs and news of interest only to members. While I don't care about notability (only verifiability), I know others do, but I found myself unable to establish it. PS. "Never mind the sollogs", thanks for that pun... JRM 14:12, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking, and sorry if I wasted your time. It occurred to me later that "Vliet" was an English name, or at least an American one. And so far as notability does count, I still think that Asopos de Beefheart is more significant than a lot of the squillion or so Americans who get articles on the strength of having done something with a ball in front of a paying audience. -- Hoary 04:24, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Wiki Break
Hey JRM, I'm off on a Wiki break. Could you watch my talk page and cleanup any "messes" that appear while I'm gone? I'd be grateful! Thanks... Wyss 06:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Number
I hadn't intended to get involved at all, but he posted a message on my Talk page, falsely accusing me of being an outsider, and of not having contributed to any of the articles involved in the dispute. I replied on his Talk page, and was more than surprised to see him continue the discussion on the RfC Talk page. I'm not part of any 'get The Number' group; indeed, this is the first time (so far as I remember) that I've had direct contact with him.

I was also surpised, then, to be jumped on by you. Is your point that, in the interests of cuddly-bunnyhood, we should ignore whatever this user does? Peace is all very well, and certainly something to be aimed at &mdash; but that doesn't excuse reprimanding someone whose words have been twisted, and who is trying to set the record straight. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; perhaps it was a combination of my slight over-edginess and your slight over-sensitivity? Feel free to post links to relevant bits of the discussion. (My edginess might have been due to my just having reviewed all the evidence supplied in the RfC, and The Number's approach to 'discussion' (that is, to keep pounding away at the same point, wilfully ignoring everything that's said except what can be turned to his advantage) being all too familiar from other, even longer-standing editors, as well as to one member of an audience at a talk I gave the other day...) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not wilfully ignore what people say. I just choose not to respond as these constant arguments are tiresome. I 'pound away' because others ignore - witness how your own (JRM's) comments have been flagrantly ignored as yet again people seem to want to have a go at me. The Number 19:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel I have done all I can do, and said all I can say. What people do with my advice is up to them, apparently, it's little. If you are really interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I honestly suggest just getting a new account and forgetting all this ever happened. As far as I'm concerned, the point of diminishing returns has been reached a long time ago. JRM 19:25, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)


 * You will notice that people have now started using the Talk Page to trash my contributions elsewhere. My criticisms of various Editors get proven time and time again. I am certain that if I spent time contributing elsewhere my ID or IP would be traced somehow and the little gang would attempt to hound me from whever I had contributed. It's their mindset. The Number 23:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You may be interested to know I have already started contributing - see my entries for Bournemouth. :-)) The Number 19:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

? Bournemouth history Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * and also Impotence. The Number 22:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The pointlessness of a RFC
An RFC was asked for about my behaviour at the TalkSollog page. The major accusation was that I failed to contribute anywhere and that I was here for only negative reasons.

I contributed to two sites elsewhere. These contributions were then held up for examination and - in the spirit of harmony - roundly trashed. One, a recipe for an aphrodisiac which I placed on an Impotence TalkPage - was dismissed by 'experts' as 'a joke' in the most condemnatory way possible. The other was criticised for being in the wrong place....on a TalkPage!

That deals with the contribution aspect.

The second accusation, that I was here for negative reasons, was even easier to prove. Firstly I stated what my purpose was NOT. This was then deliberately contradicted and, for the lazy editors, the word 'not' was omitted.

Gamaliel said my sole purpose was to act as a means to correct behaviour when I had very clearly stated that that was NOT my purpose.

Is there really no form of censure for the behaviour of other people who deliberately lie? Not quoting out of context but totally contradicting what I said and then pretending that in fact they're quoting?

I think it goes deeper than that. Gamaliel has previously shown serious signs of stress. He has insisted I never contact him and yet here he seeks to engage me in dialogue. He seems to be in a parlous state of health and just as he stated things about me that if they were true he would only have known this by reading my mind (a power he does not have) it does seem that he may finally have flipped. In view of this I urge people to read his comments in that light - at least look for the source of his comments when he says that I have stated my one purpose is....  I have asked him for the source but I am 100% it will not be forthcoming. The Number 08:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but as I've stated before, I am no longer personally interested in mediating in these disputes. These activities take up time and effort that I'm quite honestly not willing to spend on them. I am first and foremost a contributor to an encyclopedia, and only second a member of its community. I've decided to focus on contributing again, and let quarrels and arguments among other people remain with other people. I feel I've tried my best in this effort, and have failed. So be it.
 * If you really feel Gamaliel's behaviour is so troublesome, you are of course free to seek Mediation yourself. Other volunteers may be more motivated to pick up the gauntlet than me. JRM 10:29, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

User talk:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder/Anti 'T' bias poll
Vote early, vote often. Filiocht | Talk 08:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi JRM: Your clarification has really cleared things up. Thanks for that. --Theo (Talk) 21:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clear better talk good. --Theo (Talk) 22:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A non-non-notable response
Yeah, you're right (about it being a bad idea to use "non-notable" as a speedy reason) ... I over-reacted to the deluge of vanity sub-stubs burying wikipedia; it's so much work to either verify that the person is actually notable or else to VFD it, that sometimes I snap. I need to take a deep breath and stay away from "new pages" patrol for a while - time to visit "requests for articles", or maybe fix some typos ... - DavidWBrooks 19:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Help desk: Edit counts
Blast! Thanks for your help anyway. I was secretly hoping it might have been the edit mentioning my 2500th edit, but never mind :). Cheers, Slac speak up!  09:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Netoholic and TfD
Since you seem like a rational guy and I hope you consider me rational, too, I'd like to call your attention to what I can only describe as Netoholic's vendetta against me.

Since I wrote, on Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates, a lengthy rebuttal which he is completely unable to answer, Netoholic has retaliated by nominating, en bloc, nearly every template I ever created. He and his sparewheels are jumping all over these templates, not omitting personal attacks. I don't wish to be alarmist in suggesting you may want to "check your six", too.

These templates fall into two groups: the second is a number of trivial templates which I'd be happy to remove, just for the asking -- though this non-confrontational route was not tried. The first is a set of carefully designed box templates, including a general-purpose master template -- exactly the sort of thing which so upsets Netoholic in the first place. His characterization of them is misleading at best. Far from being a vector for my personal idiosyncracies, they are a tool intended for the most general use. Nor have I gone mad using them.

I feel Netoholic is acting in very poor faith and has dragged in friends to escalate this dispute into a war. Failing to suppress, in the designated forum, templates he dislikes, he has resorted to policy change. Now that the policy change has stalled, he is picking on a new user who represents the opposition, returning to TfD to make bad-faith, confrontational nominations -- apparently to annoy or discredit me. He is in any case unwilling to answer any of my objections or respond directly to any of my comments.

TfD is a very lightly trafficked forum; Netoholic can do a lot of damage there without arousing general interest. I would like to bring in more voices, but I wish to do so properly. I am new here; I do not have a gang of my own to toss into this fight -- and I hope I never have to do business here in that way. I would highly appreciate it if you would take the time to check out TfD, and get back to me with your suggestions.

Thank you. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 05:31, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I perfectly agree with your position. It's not generally productive to fight fire with fire. I'm not looking for anyone to join my "gang". But I am new enough that I don't really know what all I can do in this situation.

If you'll allow me to clarify, I'm not really worried about Netoholic hitting my templates on TfD -- or, more specifically, possible removal does not fret me. I take the long view; nothing is ever really deleted around here. Even if it managed to get wiped from history, it's on the backup tapes. For that matter, even Netaholic hasn't started to fry user pages, and I can store anything there "for the duration". Add to that the simple fact that I agree that several templates he's nominated should, indeed, go -- I'm even willing to do the work myself.

If he really wanted them gone, he might have tried to drop me a line. I've previously moved things on my own and speedied the ghost. I don't fight over content. But my objection has little to do with content and much to do with Netoholic's confrontational style, which crosses the line from mere bad manners to disruption of the project.

Now, I see he's going down the list of my contribs; he's gotten around to nominating a tutorial of mine for a move to Wikibooks. Another user put that in a week ago, and withdrew it after he and I had a friendly, open chat about it.

I'm sure that, given time, Netoholic will find a reason to stomp on every edit I make. And he will have a facile justification for each one, individually. That makes him a menace to us all. Nobody can possibly contribute substance while fending off a blizzard of snarky nominations, each of which demands an individual defense.

I almost value the man; every user should know, as a fact, not merely as a theory, that his edits will be put through the mill. Look at the Talk page for divbox -- I did not dare to put that out there without a clearly-stated purpose. Sketchy articles should be hastily thrown up against the wall. If it were possible to tone Netoholic down just a little, he'd be a key player, not one to lose.

As it is, I've got a limited amount of time to invest in WP, and I've already exceeded yesterday's quota by about 300%. If all I contribute to this project is to assist with a curb on this loose cannon, so be it; but I feel my time might be better spend making real contributions.

I'm sure you're aware that Netoholic is in arbitration; it took me much digging to find out. I wish a big fat tag were appended to his sig, so clueless users like me would know this, and not feel the Juggernaut is crushing us unchecked. &mdash; Xiongtalk 13:27, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I so like that "lynch" tag; I am possessed by the desire to include it in all my sigs. Seriously, it would greatly alleviate Wikistress to know that the Tyrannosaurus bearing down on one is already marked for destruction.

I honestly do not believe that all Netoholic's motives are pure. He believes he is on the side of Right, of course; but so do we all. Even the worst troll believes he is doing the world Good to puncture inflated egos. But I suspect that, somewhere in the back of his mind, he is haunted by the notion that Somebody, Somewhere -- somebody he actually respects -- does not appreciate his methods.

I don't really care if he edits ruthlessly; that's fine. The lasting damage he does is not to content at all, or even written policy. It is that, by repeatedly testing every single boundary placed on good behavior, he eliminates all common sense. There is no room for subjective judgement -- wisdom -- in a project where Netoholic operates; he will discover a way to force men of good will to disagree on everything that is not written in black or white. &mdash; Xiongtalk 00:25, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

User_talk:VosConclavo
You say there that you are not an admin. Why not? You should be. dab (&#5839;) 14:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Aye, there's the rub, indeed. I would nominate you maliciously, hoping to waste even more of your time, any day. dab (&#5839;) 15:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's do! That'll fix him. :-) (And I can't understand Bishonen's reluctance, either. I'm an admin, and look how much it has helped me. Now, I get free drinks in bars. Women flock to me, falling at my feet, even when I have used deodorant. My calls always get returned.) Seriously, it doesn't have to take up more time than you're already spending, JRM.  Further, you can still get into the muck with troublesome users to the same degree (which is to say not much), but with a few powers to help out.  Me, I use my powers most on New Pages patrol and cleaning out cat:csd. Geogre 17:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd use them to block you both for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Nemo me impune sysoppit! :-) JRM 17:25, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you've got me wrong, Geogre, I'm not reluctant for JRM to be an admin. In fact I just now, on dab's page, exhorted JRM to accept! (Hmmm? Yes, to my way of thinking, it is important to write to you on JRM's page, to JRM on dab's page, usw. Wait, I'll just go give Mark Dingemanse a piece of my mind on your page.)Bishonen|Talk 17:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring an old discussion
The changes to countdown deletion are fine. Thanks for letting me know. Maurreen 16:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Acknowledgement we have been trolled'
You seem to think that I am a Please explain to me exactly how I have 'spammed' the Sollog Article with my (deleted) contribution (which was a NPOV) about the 'Great Quake'. It is one thing to delete and condemn - quite another to actually be right. You do realise that if I have not spammed the Sollog ARTICLE (as indeed I maintain I haven't) then the accusation of troll is, at least, weakened. The Number 10:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, I never call individuals trolls, but I will call individual behaviour trolling. Trolling, in this sense, is persistently posting content with the sole intent of sparking controversy and discussion, particularly without any evidence that one is working towards consensus or at least maintaining an open discussion.


 * My comment of referred to your earlier persistent repeating of all perceived wrongdoings against you, even when it was clear the discussion wasn't going anywhere, would never go anywhere, and was of zero importance to the goal of building an encyclopedia. That is what I saw and see as trolling, in retrospect.


 * Now, I have never used the word "spammed". I was not involved in deleting your contribution, neither did I condemn it, and as I said above, my assessment (which is an assessment according to the criteria above, not an accusation of a crime) is not based on your contributions. As I understand it, it was reverted on grounds of being factually inaccurate, not POV. But whether or not this is so, you should take that up with those who reverted you, not me. JRM 10:50, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Countdown deletion
That's a pity. I think a lot of people are interested in improving the deletion process, and are unhappy about the unwieldiness of VfD (and maybe other aspects of it). And still proposals for new or additional techniques never do get much attention. That could be simply because they're hard to find, especially at the pre-voting, please-edit-or-comment-on-this-proposal-stage. I remember how Geogre's "Managed deletion" finally got an influx of people wanting to discuss and change it only when voting started, maybe because it was then nailed to the post as "Poll of the day" on the Community Portal or wherever. That was too late; you can't usefully have a proposal both in flux and being voted on. How exactly are people supposed to find yours? What's the path to it? I don't see it at the Pump (and anyway I hold fast to my doubt that people consult those sections of the Pump much). How about this: I think we need a new permanent high-profile page, Proposals for deletion, WP:PFD (uh, not leading where it does at present...). Like WP:RFA and WP:RFC and WP:FAC and so on. I have a dream: that at least some people would get into the habit of checking there, the way I check RFA and FAC every now and then, and you (uniquely!) check the Pump. But I do see the problem: how would anybody ever become aware of WP:PFD itself? Or in other words, do I think "high profile" can be conjured out of thin air? That's the big trick, indeed. Circular problem? You be the judge. Bishonen|Talk 21:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am about to change 'significant' to 'material' throughout the policy statement. Are you happy with this? --Theo (Talk) 21:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I was not asking permission; I was seeking your opinion. I have now made the change (after medicating all my bruises). I still think that the biggest issue with this is promotion: how do we make people sufficiently aware of the process? [Please do not answer this question on our talk pages; this is simply to make you aware of the weight that I give this aspect of the policy]. --Theo (Talk) 22:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. It's frustrating when you think you're doing good (if thankless) work and you keep having to defend yourself over and over and over again. However, friendly words from others help a ton, my spirits have been lifted. Kevin Rector 13:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I wandered into an ant hill
Oh dear this TEA thing is getting quite out of hand. Yesterday I stumbled across the Talk page of Tea (disambiguation) due to something that I was working on and found an ongoing discussion about merging the Tea/TEA pages and then discovered a third TEA. So I made some corrections only to find myself getting into a time wasing mire. So this morning I dug myself out of the first hole and now of course your comments have begun the controversy anew. Please check out the Talk page I mentioned (I will transfer your comments over there), because no sooner had I bowed out of there then they got busy changing stuff around. I am just sitting on the fence and whistling. I have no personal stake in any of this because my original link was from Texas Education Agency which I am constantly linking to, which is TEA everywhere on Google. MPLX/MH 17:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Experiment
Is great. :-) Thank you for thanking me. No seriously! I hadn't seen that before, and it improves the atmosphere on wikipedia. I like it :-) By the way, will you be on irc today? Kim Bruning 18:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. Have the Ye Olde Bidet Award of 2005 in recognition of your stout efforts in the Great April Fool's Hoax War! Bishonen|Talk 00:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC). P. S. Yeah, and I'll social process you! --Bishonen|Talk 00:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Temper, temper.
 * By my own unfortunate policy of accepting and prominently displaying any "award" bestowed on me, I'll have to treat this dubious honour likewise. JRM 08:01, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)