User talk:JRM/Archive4

How's tricks?
How's tricks, JRM? Lying kind of low, aren't you? Bishonen|Talk 12:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charter Convention
Would you consider a Charter Convention? &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 15:19, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * Link to material? I'll consider just about anything, provided it's readable and I've got the time (and I've seen your prose, so I'm not worried there).
 * Without having seen anything, though, color me skeptical. The wiki tends not to take constitutions, charters, legislative bodies, politicians and other trappings of formalized power well; things spring up as they appear to be needed. There is one rule I hold dear to my heart, ignore all rules, which does not mean what most people think it means. But as I said, throw me a bone and I'll chew on it. JRM 15:38, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * Might I also subvert you? Simplified Ruleset. Kim Bruning 15:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citation Template
Thanks for pointing out the current discussion. I was aware of a standardized but plain source note. After locating a good 100 undocumented citations of wikipedia in law review pages I felt it would be a good opportunity to launch my own more noticeable template. I may be giving myself more credit than I am deserving my but I see my template as different and justifiable. My temp is not intended to be informative (exact citation, link to sources page) - that's secondary, I congratulate contributers for their good work and convince visitors that Wikipedia is gaining prominence. Rather than standardize the material, I hope other Wikipedians see the larger promotional and honorary role unique to a source template. I'll stop and join the discussion though. Lotsofissues 15:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Followup
It appears the templates have been selected however the press citation template does not fit my purpose of documenting law review cites. I hope there are no objections, but I wish to continue to use my template for this sole purpose. Lotsofissues 23:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk query
Thanks for answering my query - I'd have saved myself hours of frustration if I'd only thought to ask sooner! Thryduulf 10:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFC on RickK
Hey! I agree with your view and am thinking of signing under view 5.--Jondel 01:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frank?
It has been over a month. Where are you? Come on, you've gotta come back. At least visit us occasionally. :-) SWAdair | Talk  11:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So here I am, visiting. Where are my tea and cookies? [[Image:Smiley.png|16px]]. --fvw *  00:49, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I'll get you a cup. Dig in! We aim to please. Very nice to see you! JRM · Talk 00:56, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * My, the service here is quick, Ta. --fvw *  01:03, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Insanity article
Heyo -- thanks a bunch for the work you did on Insanity just now. I sort of waffled back and forth between a cleanup and an NPOV; the article as it stood seemed to reek of adolescent rebellion. Your edits have made a much cleaner article. --  &mdash; I. Neschek |  talk 15:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually only planned to remove those quotes you complained about... and the single "you". Then I got carried away... but I'm glad you like it. JRM · Talk 15:48, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

VfD
Yes, you are right, I picked on a too general word "thing", which is open to many interpretations. My reading of the word "thing" was "object from real 'world' " as opposed to "article about the object". And my point is that one should distinguish invalid topics and invalid articles, with both issues being valid subjects for vfd. Extreme examples from real wikilife (with the whole spectrum, including merging the concepts altogether, exists): Sean Piniero is an invalid topic, while the article Nick (DNA) with the content "fuck you, moron" is an invalid article. Mikkalai 19:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was vote, not debate. And since I closed it, it could not influence anybody, so I don't see any harm at all. It was directed to you, rather than to sway someone's future vote. Anyway, next time in such cases I will talk to users' talk pages instead. Mikkalai 21:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism
Please see Votes for deletion/Pandeism and add your vote. -- brian0918 &#153;  21:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Please consider changing your vote on Votes for deletion/Pandeism to a "redirect" to pantheism. I believe I have adduced sufficient referential evidence to show that this article was not "original research," but simply a non-notably uncommon use of a term that is most commonly used as a reference to a word of similar construction. It's very easy for those not acquainted with religous details to confuse "theism" with "deism" (and in fact, most of the non-wiki-mirror references on the web do use pandeism to mean pantheism) so this would be a useful redirect. I apologize for having overestimated the importance of the use of this term with which I had been made familiar. It was one of my first posts, when I was new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with the criteria for notability. -- 8^D BD2412gab 06:32, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Forget the above. I have found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833, being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412gab 10:23, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * You're looking at the text, not the meaning - the whole thing as written is nonsense, but this Higgins was both a Druid and a phallic-obsessed joker - everything in this has a double meaning. This is a guy who was a follower of Tolands, would have known about both Pantheism and Deism (and don't forget, Toland wrote cryptically about Pantheism for many years out of fear of getting found out), using a term that we know has absolutely nothing to do with any religions ranging from Medea to India... so what does it really mean? Why would a man in Higgins position make up a word like that, and use it as he does? -- 8^D BD2412gab 10:43, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Pandeism is completely rewritten. You win. Have a nice day. -- 8^D BD2412gab 13:37, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Cricket
Hi. You commented on the move of the cricket portal to cricket. Having moved the whole affair back, I have made my own proposal. Could you come and comment, so that we can get consensus for the best version. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD
I want the article moved and the redirect in the main namespace deleted (as do most Wikipedians. I have clarified my intentions; adjust your own comments accordingly. Neutralitytalk 15:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Neutralitytalk 15:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Accept RFA NOM?
JRM, PLZ accept RFA NOM ASAP. TY!

OMG, WTF? TMD TLA! ARGH!

KB 01:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ps, I'd been wanting to do this to you for a long time, and now I had the perfect excuse! ;-)

Love Me, Love My Girlfriend
Sort of, yes. My point was merely that that person has been voting to oppose anyone and everyone who has said a word about the belle dame sans merci. I.e. it's something a bit automatic and really not by anyone's reckoning substantive. Asking for substance in that case is just going to feed the fire. An argument takes two sides, and I think it's enough that the community acts in an appropriate manner in regard to those with monomanias without allowing them to continue to believe that those actions are personal. (I.e. you're in the right, but pointing that out just helps a good editor go bad.) Geogre 02:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, hell, I was being so circumloquitous that I confused myself on re-reading that. Ok, at the risk of offending, here it goes.  I personally think that Everyking is an excellent editor with a long history of contributing high quality material, but he has an unaccountable monomania about Ashlee.  I don't get it.  You don't get it.  No one gets it.  However, it is a subject he cares so passionately about that it has led him to some highly ill-judged actions.  Well, the community has, I think, acted appropriately to counter these whimsies.  You've been one of those who has opposed his misguided efforts.  For whatever reason, Everyking is now voting to Oppose every RfA of every person who has ever said an unkind word about the Ashlee articles.  That's reactionary and, again I think, misguided and ill-considered.  There's nothing substantive in these Oppose votes -- no rationale, no reason -- and I don't think anyone is swayed by them.  My fear is that, for Everyking, something that should be objective has become personal, and the worst thing we can do is allow him to move the ground of the debate onto personal animus.  I hate the idea of a valuable worker like him losing himself, and our losing him, to this passion, and I keep hoping that if we refuse to play the game of personal invective and defense we can sway him back to the true path.  There.  Now I've said it, and Everyking can be mad at me, too, if he wants.  (I suppose he already was, as I'm a "deletionist.")  Geogre 02:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm continuing this discussion here because it's more important to keep it together than having us see the latest updates ASAP.

Yes, I did comment on the Ashlee Simpson issue. The first time I did so was on Votes for deletion/Autobiography sales and chart positions/Archive1. In which I voted Keep, as unlikely as that may seem! (I didn't outright support Everyking, but agreement with Everyking wasn't what we were voting on&mdash;and neither did I oppose him). The second time I did so was on Votes for deletion/Autobiography promotion and publicity, and here I voted to merge, and discussed with Everyking on why his position wasn't necessarily right because his edits were more substantive. Search for my name in there, if you will, and judge for yourself if I was harsh. No, correction: see for yourself if what I said in there sounds like a likely cause for someone to start disliking you.

I never hurled insults or invective at EK. I never took the scissors to his articles (I edited Autobiography once; a minor edit, not reverted by anyone, which is rare enough to convince me it had approval). And while my personal opinion is that the detail EK put in was of dubious value to the reader, if only for making it less accessible, and while I personally don't like Ashlee Simpson, these are my personal opinions, and I've never presented them as anything else (when I've presented them at all). Believe it or not, but if you hadn't said it, I would have never considered this issue to be at the root of his mistrust. I still find it hard to believe it is. My comment was not referring to it, in any case.

It took me some time to remember where and when I'd said these things, because while I make sure to remember every instance of behaviour on my part I myself see as potentially troublesome, this certainly wasn't one of those times. Of all the people he could possibly have a beef with over the AS issue, I should think I'm the least of his worries. If he really wants to oppose my adminship on those grounds, then he's going to have to come forth and say it, or formulate another argument why I should not be an administrator. I'm not doing this to taunt Everyking or mock his opposition&mdash;on the contrary. If he has a valid argument as to why my behaviour or atttitudes towards him or anyone else disqualify me as an admin, please let him say so, so I can work on it. I honestly want to know. Give me a trial by fire. Don't mince words. I'm presently at a loss divining the exact reason James is saying "no". If it's just personal dislike or distrust, that's fine too, as long as he says it is. Maybe I'm not entitled to such detailed answers, but I can damn sure try and get them. JRM · Talk 07:44, 2005 May 2 (UTC)


 * Wow. Well, I'm as much at a loss as you are, then.  Personally, I think that votes there, like votes on VfD, should not be counted if they have no rationale.  I don't know who the beaurocrats are who are considering these counts, but it seems to me that no one should be counted who merely votes without grounds in any deliberation.  I understand, of course, the sensitivity of this particular vote and why the stakes are higher, but a bit down the page EK was giving a similar opposition.  I haven't followed RfA as well as some folks, but the last time I looked in, he had again voted Oppose over the AS issue.  From the diffs, you appear to have handled the AS issue with as much delicacy and consideration as anyone could.  Perhaps EK has gone over too far to come back and the various attempts at RfC and arbitration are valid.  I'm sorry to even think so.  At any rate, I by no means meant to imply indelicacy on your part.  I merely thought that leaving a bald "Oppose" from EK spoke for itself.  Geogre 12:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "Look, Dmitri, I can be just as sorry as you are..." I didn't take your comments as implying that at all; I just wanted to know what "grudge" you could have been referring to. I'm going to sound very silly for this, but I honestly didn't think of the AS issue. :-) JRM · Talk 12:07, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip.
I always wondered why that happened - thought it had something to do with an edit conflict. By the way, have a look at my latest contribution - it's the greatest thing since sliced bread! ;-) -- BD 24 12 thimk 17:04, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Hmm, good luck finding the first mention. It seems the origins of sliced bread itself were cloudy enough to be all but obscured for decades; the phrase, originating not late after the introduction, is probably impossible to trace to its source (or a convincing first use, for that matter). Unlike have one's cake and eat it too. :-) JRM · Talk 17:28, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

My RfA, and yours, and yours
Eggsqueeze me? What's one thing got to do with another? It wasn't because I thought I wouldn't make admin that I opposed getting nominated, y'know. I benefit from the IRC factor too, with my pretty prattle in the channel all day long, so I rather thought I would, as immodest as that may sound. By now, though, I have of course enlarged my horizons and am going all out to topple User:Fvw's record! Helping it along a little—see me sneakily move votes from Oppose to Support? MWAHAHA! However. I can't say my heart is in these little ruses. The ridiculousness factor of (currently) getting more votes than you does kinda turn the whole thing into a joke. :-/ Bishonen | talk 17:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But getting more votes than me is nothing at all, eh? It's ok.  I know where I stand.  Last year's model and all that.  Oh, look, here's someone to endorse me. Geogre 02:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "Men, some to Bus'ness, some to Pleasure take;
 * But ev'ry Woman is at heart a Rake."

Geogre, to me you're every year's model, up to and including spacecraft! But as for getting more votes than you did back when, no, that actually ain't much. What exactly do you expect to happen when a person hangs around for ten months, scribbling more and more interferingness all over the shop, and spends the entire last month shitwitting on IRC and changing the topic to PENIS at least twice a day? If YOU had done those things (mutatis mutandis, since you think and type a lot faster and a lot less tastelessly on IRC than I do)--if you hadn't (sensibly) stood for admin as soon as you were ready for it--you would obviously have gotten more votes than any of us. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I LOG, YOU KNOW!
"<JRM has left #wikipedia ("Vote for Bishonen on WP:RFA!")" I LOG, YOU BASTARD! Elizabeth Barry 18:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What can I say? There's just no pleasing some people. JRM · Talk 19:36, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
 * Copy your efforts on my own pages? Bah. You hold me cheap. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I still think the Cricket (portal) VfD does not belong there. It started off badly with lots of knee-jerk reactions and no-one asking why the page was created in the first place - a point which is quite important to any discussion about the page. The first VfD has also achieved its original objective as Cricket (portal) is now a red link. On the other hand, the Portal:Cricket VfD has plenty of constructive comments - and generally the page is welcomed. Although there is some disquiet as to its location, it is looking that there will be a consensus to keep it where it is for now, although many would like to see new readerspaces for Portals such as this and for Lists. Indeed, I myself would not oppose such a development (and would probably see the page still being called Portal:Cricket, albeit in a proper Portalspace). It has some days to go yet, but that would seem a sensible conclusion and a positive, pro-Wikipedia way forward. Kind regards, jguk 19:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer templates
Thanks for your changes on Disclaimer templates. Your shift of emphasis made it a lot closer to what I wanted to say in the first place. It's a pity you didn't like my dragging of semi-policy into that ☺. --cesarb 12:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

re: No consensus for deletion
I like what you said about "Consensus for deletion" on the Pandeism vfd. If you think THAT was as clear a "keep due to no-consensus" vote as they come, then you haven't seen List of incidents famously considered great blunders. (Wait, you have seen the page already... but didn't vote on the vfd.... interesting... no strong opinion?)

I also like your philosophy as stated on your user page. I might "borrow" some of it. :-)

- Pioneer-12 19:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Those with no sense of humor can bite my shiny metal ass. And there is a very significant difference between flops and blunders, as explained on the vfd page and the talk page. I think my main mistake was expecting a higher level of maturity, open-mindedness, and understanding on Wikipedia then exists.

If Wikipedia doesn't grow up, it will eventually be destroyed, or beaten at it's own game.

See: Village pump (miscellaneous) ...Oh, you've already seen that, too! You really are quite observant. Impressive.

- Pioneer-12 20:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "These days days everything you create that smacks of dubiousness is tagged for VfD, because there are many more eyeballs around, and people have less time to give every entry its due."

That's a contradiction! More eyeballs should mean better analysis, not worse. The fact that they don't means that the system is screwed up. Eric S. Raymond (author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar) would NOT be happy with the current state of things on Wikipedia.


 * "Wikipedia has become more curt and businesslike as it has grown, for good or for bad."

I can see it becoming more "curt"... it may even have become for "businesslike"... but it has not yet become professional, and that's the key. Wikipedia has grown and evolved considerably, but it is still in a transitory state.... I think it's current state of evolution is analogous to the middle ages of human history. See Wikipedia talk:Revotes on Vfd. (If you haven't already seen that one, too.)

- Pioneer-12 21:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you...
For noticing, and all that. (The flower tucked behind the ear&mdash;too much with the hat, or no?) Actually, the supposed tirelessness is largely because I'm too lazy to write, at the moment! Oh, yeah, good luck on the whole admin thing; no, not getting it, clearly, but with that much support someone might expect you to do something with it. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sysop
Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the administrators' how-to guide helpful. Good luck. Angela. 00:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations JRM!

 * It seems everyone is now hell-bent on congratulating me on my adminship using "me, too" remarks. That's really not necessary, people, but if you must please use a page that doesn't spring colored boxes on me every time you edit it: /Congratulations. Thanks. :-)

Adminship
Yeah, I'd be all in favor of that as well. I think dividing up the powers is a reasonable idea. By the way, I need to tone down that stuff on my user page at some point. Everyking 01:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Shylocking
redirects may be cheap, but be careful how you use them, Shylock (Shakespeare) has nothing to do with Shylocking, other than one term is derived from the other. thanks Bluemoose 09:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, but what i meant is that it redirecting to a page that would be totally unrelated to someone who didnt know any better may be confusing, also, i think it could eventually become a reasonable article. thanks - Bluemoose 09:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is wholy laudatory in content, much of it written in language that wouldn't disgrace Hello! magazine. It's difficult to see what could be less NPoV really. It's not the use of the title, which gets other editors so incensed (I agree with them about usage, but not that it's PoV), it's the article as a whole. (I've just gone through the Talk page, and I notice that my complaint has not only been made by other editors, but even with a reference to Hello!.) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll copy it to the talk page (I had already explained on there, in fact, but perhaps it's got lost in all the hullabulloo). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:The Number, User:Sollogfan RfAr
Hi Joost, after a recent round of shenanigans perpretrated by these fans of Sollog, I've filed an arbitration request against The Number and Sollogfan. Please consider if you want to add yourself as a plaintiff, or comment on the case if it gets accepted. Cheers, --MarkSweep 09:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Weird tribute
Ha, yes. Did you notice that the Oddball barnstar is an animated .gif? Most of the time it doesn't move any, but keep staring at it, and... heh heh. I'm a put that suckah on the ETPH talk page, where it belongs, to honour all the oddball contributors. --Bishonen | talk 22:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hitler
Yeah, sorry about that. Was working with about three different versions at once, and yeah, mentioning the UK and France seemed a bit overloaded, but now that I put it back in it works well. Thanks for the message. --Golbez 23:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Chess
Ok with you if I play white? I suck so I should go first....and, if you don't agree I will crush you like a mag.... whoa power rush..... Anyway ok with you? Gkhan 00:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I'm sorry, you're right I should have told you. Just forgot....next time I'll be more considerate.... Gkhan 10:49, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ach! Ich brauche ein Hitlerbreak
Understood about Adolf Hitler--I hope my conduct didn't contribute to your dissatisfaction. Demi T/C 17:44, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry
JRM, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 14:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thus spoke the Arbitrator....
I've left notes on both talk-pages and on the game page. Strange thing, huh? BTW, it wasn't absolute that white would win in my opinion, that rook there makes all the differance. Gkhan 09:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I stand, once again, corrected (yer gonna beat the living shite out of me arnt'ya?). Gkhan 09:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking 09:22, 2005 May 18
Hey, don't mock my votes and comments, thanks. That's the second time. Everyking 09:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Chess
I do not wish to retract, not two times, and you're gonna win sooner or later anyway. Go ahead, make your move, kid. Gkhan 21:27, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
Hi; I'm sorry to be bothering you concerning this, but Chess championship is up for a VfD. Votes_for_deletion/Chess_championship Please vote to keep this thing alive... this is so lame that I need to ask people to help out here. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:48, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet/Proposal
Hi there! I've reworded this a bit per everyone's comment, and would like to get support to make this a guideline and allow it to be used. Could you please indicate if you agree? Thanks, Radiant_* 12:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Orange
I've put on the /move to wikt/ tag, but I'm not sure what to do with this. Probably someone more knowledgeable about wikt should decide. Presently the article is lengthy, but it discusses only etymology, rhyming, and usage of the word in literature. Radiant_* 11:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * (putting this on both your pages...) Neither of you need to do it, I do all the transwikis :) In response to your questions, here's the situation: I'm going to transwiki the article despite its encyclopdic content because that etymological stuff isn't all at the Wiktionary. But don't fret, it doesn't really mean anything will happen to the article. Most dicdefs are short articles with no other content and need to be fixed by deletion/merging/redirecting/etc. Cheers, Dmcdevit 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Xiong double vote
Okay, fair enough. Radiant_* 11:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikimeet this Sunday
Around 16:00 or 17:00 I think, in Amsterdam. Jimbo will be there too! If you'd like to come, drop me or better yet User:GerardM a line! :-)

Kim Bruning 21:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

See also: nl:Wikipedia:Ontmoeten.

(Sunday is the day before Holland Open.)

Kim Bruning 12:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, I could really use your help though. No chance at all that you could come? Is there any way I could bribe you? :-) Kim Bruning 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Computer Scientists
hey jrm, i made the above category for fellow computer scientists, so we can look each other up really quick. you might wanna add your page to it :) cheers :)

Project2501a 23:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, blame the messenger! ;-)
You were the one with the idea, and I just got it ratified. Now you'll have to live with it, bwahahahahahahahahaaaa ;-)

ph33r m3!

No wait, I'm just the messenger, honest!

Kim Bruning 17:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm noticing a pattern where you are responsible for some cataclysm and yet manage to completely avoid responsibility for anything. I'll be watching you much more closely in the future, and one day hope to accumulate enough circumstantial evidence to convince the ArbCom. JRM · Talk 17:12, 2005 May 30 (UTC)


 * That's the beauty of it! Descisions made by the god-king at wikimedia level are as completely outside the scope of the Arbcom as is possible! }:-)>


 * No WAIT! I mean, what have I done to deserve such emnity? *puppydog look*


 * Kim Bruning 17:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Giving people puppy dog looks is a big part of it, for sure... JRM · Talk 19:43, 2005 May 30 (UTC)