User talk:JRM

Please add a new section to add a new comment. Loose comments are subject to being put in sections with accurate but ugly names. Unsigned comments will be signed by me according to the edit history; if this is not what you want, sign yourself with ~~~~.
Regardless of (the absence of) any policy, please don't edit anyone's comments but your own, not even to fix a typo. It tends to upset people, and I don't want to upset people over my talk page. Thanks.
If you cannot reach me here because you're blocked, you can e-mail me instead. You need an account and an e-mail address configured in your preferences for this to work, however.

Quick proxy unblock	edit - history - watch - purge
If you are "somewhat" blocked because you're one of those unfortunate AOL or NTL users who shares a proxy with a blocked vandal and you can still edit this page if you try hard, post the block message below and, if I'm in, I'll unblock you immediately and notify you on your (that is, whatever you signed with) talk page.	I'm out.

Archives

–December 14, 2004: /Archive1
December 15, 2004–March 11, 2005: /Archive2
March 12, 2005–April 10, 2005: /Archive3
April 11, 2005–May 31, 2005: /Archive4
June 1, 2005–July 31, 2005: /Archive5
August 1, 2005–August 24, 2005: /Archive6
August 25, 2005–December 3, 2005: /Archive7

A rose is a rose is a rose

You're around! Have a rose! Bishonen | talk 17:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhogg move request no consensus

I put this already on that talk page, but am putting it here as you were the one who left comments there. If there was no consensus this article needs to be moved back to Nidhogg -- It had no consensus to be moved then either, and it was only through an editor moving it against consensus and then mucking with the redirect to prevent it from being moved back that necessitated a vote on the move request to begin with. He should have put in a move request tomove it here, but did not, therefore it should not stay here. The whole concept of needing a consensus to do something is completely turned on its head when someone does it without consensus and then demands consensus to undo it. The editor in question simply gamed the system and gets what he wants without consensus, going against the longstanding placement of the article at Nidhoogg -- this is fundamentally an abuse of the way things are supposed to work. Please move it back until such time as there is concensus to overrule the Use English rule, which will hopefully be never. DreamGuy 04:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no. My reasons for leaving the page at its current location and requesting that discussion take place instead of any moves remain valid regardless of where the article originally was or whether procedure was properly followed. Any other admin is free to override my decision, though I would be surprised if they disagreed.

That it had no consensus to be moved originally may very well be right. Wikipedia does not require consensus for many if not most things that can be done; this is not "turning things on their head" but business as usual. However, what the vote clearly established is that there is no consensus for any title; this is irrespective of exactly what moves and move requests were and were not properly handled to get the article there.

Much like The Wrong Version, it appears there is such a thing as The Wrong Title. In either case, consensus should be reached before anything more is done, regardless of what originally triggered the discussion and what the status quo is. This is especially true in light of the fact that, apart from an independent problem with how Wikipedia handles its indexes, the title is of little to no consequence to our readers. There is no problem with neutrality and redirects are in place.

If you have a particular problem with the way the editor who moved it originally acted, you should take it up on an RFC. The title of the page is not what should determine who is wrong and who is right in this. JRM · Talk 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Seeing you on my watchlist brings warm feelings to my heart. [[Sam Korn]] 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm happy to be back, too. JRM · Talk 12:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

I fail to see your point you made on my talk page. Besides I am not even an admin. Olorin28 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Rare RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

JRM:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. Now that I have admin access, I fully plan to become drunk with power, indulging in my merest whim, and lording it over the...

...but perhaps I've said too much.

In all seriousness, thanks for your confidence in someone you'd only known for a few days at the time of your vote. I shall endeavor to make sure that confidence is not misplaced.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 03:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Criticism of Wikipedia

Done. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 14:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back from vacation

YAY! The wiki is a brighter place with you around again! :-)

Kim Bruning 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You little hooligan!

[1] Do you know, I was actually quickly searching around trying to find out what happened. Sheesh! People seem to be leaving like crazy here, but that one came really out of the blue. :) Don't ever leave again. Or I'll call you a "germ." What's that smell...? Dmcdevit·t 00:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, but it all just was too much to handle. I honestly didn't know if I was coming back or not. Lucky for you, I reconsidered. JRM · Talk 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kudos on Nature of the ArbCom

Very, very nice and thoughtful writeup.

I unfortunately have to agree with your closing assessment that it contains "no suggestions or advice", but it does contain much truth, and indeed several important clues for those with the sense to notice.

Steve Summit (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found it useful. I was a little surprised that nobody commented on it so far, one way or the other, but it's in a fairly obscure corner of the wiki. Either that or it's too obvious to be interesting. :-) JRM · Talk 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

The Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax is all about telling a one side truth about water only calling it something chemically sounding so people unthinkingly are against those bad chemically thingys. So I don't get why you single out one of those truths to point out yes it is true. So are the other items you didn't grace with a "oh, it's true" note. Will singling out that one from the others produce doubts about the veracity of the others??? I don't get why the article is better after your addition than before. WAS 4.250 23:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, you're misunderstanding the purpose of that note. I didn't single it out because it's true—I singled it out because most people, on reading it, will go "ha ha, that's funny, it's talking about peeing, of course water's harmless". In fact drinking excessive amounts of water is not harmless; this is what the note is talking about (and it's a note because this information is interesting, but not directly relevant to the topic.) JRM · Talk 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell, I failed at communicating. I also didn't know anyone thought "ingestion" meant peeing. In any case, I dealt with the problem with the addition of two sentences to the article. Cheers. WAS 4.250 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Excessive ingestion may cause various unpleasant, though generally not life-threatening, effects;" The "unpleasant effects" alluded to doubtlessly include a full bladder. JRM · Talk 17:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Doubtless" is inaccurate, as I not only have doubts, it in fact never occured to me that anyone would think "excessive" meant "not peeing". Drinking water WHILE peeing is not a circus stunt only performed by the amazing "I don't have to wait for a full bladder to pee man". i'm enjoying this conversation for some reason, even tho I feel I have been completly unsuccessful in communicationg! WAS 4.250 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, I've got the same feeling over here. :-) I'm slowly starting to have no idea what you're getting at. Drinking lots of water ("excessive ingestion") will fill up your bladder ("unpleasant, though generally not life threatening, effect") and that, we can suppose, will sooner or later make you pee (this ultimate consequence is itself not mentioned). I suppose we can agree on these basic facts of biology? I don't know why focusing on what "excessive" and "ingestion" mean is relevant; the meaning of the sentence as a whole is, and it seems pretty obvious to me. JRM · Talk 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking lots of water WILL NOT fill up your bladder. WILL NOT. WILL NOT. not peeing causes a full bladder. WAS 4.250 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unable to pee with a half filled bladder??? WAS 4.250 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* You're quite right. You want to explain this fine distinction to the creators of the hoax? Drinking lots of water will fill up your bladder faster than usual. Assuming a person pees only when their bladder is telling them to, it is reasonable if slightly inaccurate to claim drinking lots of water was the cause of their discomfort (it only caused it to occur sooner). Feel free to ask anyone you know if they think "drinking lots of water will make you pee" is a false or misleading statement, and more importantly, think about whether the creators of the hoax would have thought this.
PS. If their is an award somewhere for weirdest talk page discussion, this one should at least get an honorable mention. JRM · Talk 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urine.jpg

This "you're a real pisser!" award for strange and disturbing talk page discussion is awarded to JRM and WAS 4.250, for making me unable to hold in my laughter.

Ask and ye shall receive. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was ALWAYS under the impression the creators of "excessive (water) drinking can kill you" knew the medical facts and were not talking about a bladder. You, on the other hand seem to have just discovered this medical fact (fairly well known among those that care) and reasoned the creators did not know either hense they had to be referring to something like peeing, so you thought it useful to add what to you was an "unkown" perspective that hey this REALLY does kill. We know. We've known for decades. This is not news. ALL the items are factually literally true; not just almost true. WAS 4.250 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My head hurts. Now you're shifting focus again. We were talking about what the creators of the hoax were thinking when they wrote the effects of excessive ingestion where "unpleasant" but "generally not lethal". Did they mean:

"Usually drinking water won't kill you, but we know water intoxication can kill you", or
"Drinking water, even in large quantities, is harmless; at worst you'll have to go to the bathroom some more."

I'm now going to make the case they clearly meant #2, and could not have meant #1. If they had meant #1, they would have said so. In fact, they would have exaggerated the possibility of water intoxication, because the purpose of the hoax is to make water look as bad as possible. They would indeed have said "excessive drinking can kill you", not "the effects are unpleasant but generally harmless", since this doesn't serve the hoax as well.

Of course, the only thing that can really settle this pissant debate is if we ask the creators what they meant, but it's unlikely we'll get a response any time soon. We can hold a poll to see what other people think, if you really want. (I'm kidding. We are not going to do this. We will agree to disagree if must, but we will not hold a poll.) JRM · Talk 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are at the point of understanding each other. "generally won't kill you" means sometimes it will kill you. This refers to what you put in the footnote. Some phrasing refering to "Drinking water, even in large quantities, is harmless; at worst you'll have to go to the bathroom some more." undoubtedly (that word again) played some role in someone's hoax until the known medical fact you point out in the footnote was brought up by the geeks involved in this hoax (the same geek conversations happen everywhere; everyone trying to prove they know more and the other was inaccurate) so the word "generally" had to be added. I'm sure someone wanted to put in "Drinking it can kill you" but as in wikipedia, compromises get worked out and in THIS example the compromise is the word "generally". The sentence clearly indicated drinking (water) can SOMETIMES kill, so "Drinking water, even in large quantities, is harmless; at worst you'll have to go to the bathroom some more." is neither true nor what it says. .... This conversation takes the cake! WAS 4.250 18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense? WAS 4.250 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I'm not deleting this. JRM · Talk 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"they would have exaggerated the possibility of water intoxication" None of the items are exagerations. You thought some were, apparently. So you point this actually is factually true - not an exageration. The others aren't either. WAS 4.250 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The items are not exaggerations, but the hoax as a whole exaggerates by leaving out context. Take "water is a major component of acid rain", for example. No exaggeration in that, water is a major component, but the implication is that because acid rain is bad and water is a major component, water is bad. Pile on a few of these things and behold the DHMO hoax, which exaggerates not in the statements themselves but what it chooses to draw attention to. The "excessive drinking has unpleasant effects" falls in the same category. My theory was that had the original hoaxers thought of water intoxication, they would have stressed the possible lethal effect more, in a statement that is still not exaggerated ("excessive ingestion of water can be lethal" is not exaggeration).

Here is an example before the fact in the footnote is revealed to the hoaxers forcing the word generally to be added. "unpleasant" due to pissing/bladder ... "generally" due to th footnoted item. I guess we were mostly focused on different parts of the sentence. WAS 4.250 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're getting somewhere. Your theory sounds plausible: originally the hoaxers really did think excessive drinking caused no worse than a trip to the bathroom, then someone pointed out that's not true, and "generally" was added. The reason they didn't go all out and state "drinking extreme amounts of water can kill you" is probably because people who are ignorant of water intoxication would have considered this false after the hoax was revealed, which would have reduced its effectiveness. JRM · Talk 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need something to properly finish this bizarre exchange. I nominate " I encourage women to retain urine in the bladder for a quick orgasm. Here is why? The urine in the bladder will produce a hydrostatic pressure against the Epicenter (the female prostate) and cervix, where the pressure (stress!) relays a signal to your brain for production of the orgasm hormone Oxytocin that can initiate the orgasm contraction in the uterus. That is why male and female wet dream occurs in the early morning (3-5 o'clock AM) when the bladder is full and the testosterone level is at it absolute maximum of the day. Under this situation, a small disturbance in the sympathetic nerves in the urethral, bladder, prostate (men) and Epicenter/Cervix/uterus can ignite the orgasm contraction." from [2] as a comment about the assertion a full bladder is "unpleasant". HA! This was soooo weird. Cheers. WAS 4.250 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racists at Islamist Terrorism

They do this thing all the time. Anything that they don't agree with, sourced or not, the islamist cabal just chain-revert.

I'm calling them on it.

Anon vandal

JRM, The anon vandal adding biased commentary to Islamic terrorism is not performing ordinary editing but is pushing an agenda. I consider this to be vandalism in the absense of any other edits and in conjunction with his personal attacks on myself and others. I have reverted him three times and will take no further action on the article today. He has refused all discussion and I don't expect that to change. - Tεxτurε 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is doubtlessly pushing an agenda, and he's doubtlessly calling people names. Neither of which warrants vandalism reverting, as you well know. Let's see if we can straighten this out a little more permanently than by blocking folks. JRM · Talk 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have asked for a review by another administrator. I was not involved until he began his personal attacks but I don't feel I should be the one to block him. - Tεxτurε 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 16:55, 14 December 2005 129.7.35.213 (rv censormonger racist)

(cur) (last) 16:47, 14 December 2005 129.7.35.213 (rv jackbooted censor racist)

(cur) (last) 16:40, 14 December 2005 129.7.35.213 (rv censorship)

(cur) (last) 14:58, 14 December 2005 129.7.35.213 (rv racist censormonger)

(cur) (last) 14:39, 14 December 2005 129.7.35.213 (rv racist censorship)

(cur) (last) 16:48, 14 December 2005 129.7.35.213 (don't hide it, racist censor monger)

The funniest thing in all this is being called an "islamist cabal". - Tεxτurε 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a vandal and the only thing I'm interested in is the truth.

I posted information regarding sourced articles, which is relevant to the page. This racist insists on reverting it and won't give any reason on the talk page. It follows that he's just another of the nonsensical cabal like LeeHunter and ANONYM and SVEST who hold that article and keep it an apologist nightmare with no basis in reality.