You're around! Have a rose! Bishonen | talk 17:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Seeing you on my watchlist brings warm feelings to my heart. [[Sam Korn]] 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. ( SEWilco 03:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
Done. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 14:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
YAY! The wiki is a brighter place with you around again! :-)
Kim Bruning 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
Are you unable to pee with a half filled bladder??? WAS 4.250 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense? WAS 4.250 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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.
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. - Tεx τ urε 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The funniest thing in all this is being called an "islamist cabal". - Tεx τ urε 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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. 129.7.35.102 ( talk · contribs)
Further discussion to the talk page of the article, people. I'm not interested in hearing who's been naughty to who. JRM · Talk 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to attempt a cleanup, to get rid of the objectionable language, but it seems obvious this Yuber character (from a bit of research on his RFAR and history) is not going to be helpful.
I'll go to the talk page if you like.
I fail to see how this is not notable. Please explain.
Well, I bet you got that from stalking me. Are you making a template I can use? Bishonen | talk 23:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have made a change and provided a little information that may interest you on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges. Demi T/ C 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, JRM. I apologise in advance for the unsightly title; it sounds like a command in some strange Mongolian dialect. As for the 'nt in question: maybe it's just because I'm not particularly adroit with some parts of linguistics, but I never did consider 'couldn't' as monosyllabic: to me, the second syllable, not, was just replaced with a different, uglier syllable: kud`@nt. I guess that you could argue that the American 'coulda' is just one syllable with a final explosive d... but in the case of couldn't, I always thought that the schwa split it into two syllables. I'm probably missing something, though.
As for 'couldn't've', the only time that I could stomach that was 'Catcher in the Rye.' Strangely, over here, pupils are (or were; this government has some really daft in the head when it comes to education*) taught that one cannot use double contractions, but they do not teach that 'couldn't've' is wrong, so to speak; from this comes the ungodly and now far more prevalent 'couldn't of' as a written replacement. I think that I can still, just about, say 'bah humbug.'
(*) This government's idea to education reforms is to give schools new 'marketable' names, and maybe give a bit of money to them so that they can look a little better. They believe that, thus, they will magically improve children's learning; while, at the same time, forcing most people in poor areas away from tertiary education, and, by extension, from teaching. However, if one peers into Britain's politics over the last sixty years, it has all been about putting paper towels over a stain, rather than mopping it out... Iinag 00:44, 02 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page. It's nice to see a summary of this ongoing problem. If you have no objections, I'll copy it to the top of my AOL archive page -- although I doubt too many people I contact actually look there. I'll try and provide the admin(s) with more information next time the autoblocker kicks in -- but I do think telling administrators about the AOL/IP problem in some fashion is a good thing. So many of the new admins I talk to don't initially understand the problem. Perhaps your summary could be distributed to the newly elevated? Thanks again. WBardwin 23:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested to hear that some new ID has yet again resurrected an article on this nonsense. -- Hoary 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.
Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeiets anders 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You are up for game 14. Are you still interested? Your next opponent has a high chance of not returning, and I just want to start the next tournament anyway, so if you are interested, you may have a walkover. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a thankless volunteer translator who is now translating civility to Japanese one. Do you remember the portion you've ever edited?. I'd like to beg your explanation about the sentence This makes praise and criticism of edits all the more pronounced when it does occur. What is the This? What does the it point to in when it does occur? I'm wondering how I should translate the sentence. Help me please.-- ComSpex 06:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You're around! Have a rose! Bishonen | talk 17:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Seeing you on my watchlist brings warm feelings to my heart. [[Sam Korn]] 12:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. ( SEWilco 03:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
Done. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 14:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
YAY! The wiki is a brighter place with you around again! :-)
Kim Bruning 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
Are you unable to pee with a half filled bladder??? WAS 4.250 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense? WAS 4.250 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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.
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. - Tεx τ urε 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The funniest thing in all this is being called an "islamist cabal". - Tεx τ urε 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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. 129.7.35.102 ( talk · contribs)
Further discussion to the talk page of the article, people. I'm not interested in hearing who's been naughty to who. JRM · Talk 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to attempt a cleanup, to get rid of the objectionable language, but it seems obvious this Yuber character (from a bit of research on his RFAR and history) is not going to be helpful.
I'll go to the talk page if you like.
I fail to see how this is not notable. Please explain.
Well, I bet you got that from stalking me. Are you making a template I can use? Bishonen | talk 23:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have made a change and provided a little information that may interest you on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges. Demi T/ C 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, JRM. I apologise in advance for the unsightly title; it sounds like a command in some strange Mongolian dialect. As for the 'nt in question: maybe it's just because I'm not particularly adroit with some parts of linguistics, but I never did consider 'couldn't' as monosyllabic: to me, the second syllable, not, was just replaced with a different, uglier syllable: kud`@nt. I guess that you could argue that the American 'coulda' is just one syllable with a final explosive d... but in the case of couldn't, I always thought that the schwa split it into two syllables. I'm probably missing something, though.
As for 'couldn't've', the only time that I could stomach that was 'Catcher in the Rye.' Strangely, over here, pupils are (or were; this government has some really daft in the head when it comes to education*) taught that one cannot use double contractions, but they do not teach that 'couldn't've' is wrong, so to speak; from this comes the ungodly and now far more prevalent 'couldn't of' as a written replacement. I think that I can still, just about, say 'bah humbug.'
(*) This government's idea to education reforms is to give schools new 'marketable' names, and maybe give a bit of money to them so that they can look a little better. They believe that, thus, they will magically improve children's learning; while, at the same time, forcing most people in poor areas away from tertiary education, and, by extension, from teaching. However, if one peers into Britain's politics over the last sixty years, it has all been about putting paper towels over a stain, rather than mopping it out... Iinag 00:44, 02 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page. It's nice to see a summary of this ongoing problem. If you have no objections, I'll copy it to the top of my AOL archive page -- although I doubt too many people I contact actually look there. I'll try and provide the admin(s) with more information next time the autoblocker kicks in -- but I do think telling administrators about the AOL/IP problem in some fashion is a good thing. So many of the new admins I talk to don't initially understand the problem. Perhaps your summary could be distributed to the newly elevated? Thanks again. WBardwin 23:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested to hear that some new ID has yet again resurrected an article on this nonsense. -- Hoary 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.
Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeiets anders 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You are up for game 14. Are you still interested? Your next opponent has a high chance of not returning, and I just want to start the next tournament anyway, so if you are interested, you may have a walkover. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a thankless volunteer translator who is now translating civility to Japanese one. Do you remember the portion you've ever edited?. I'd like to beg your explanation about the sentence This makes praise and criticism of edits all the more pronounced when it does occur. What is the This? What does the it point to in when it does occur? I'm wondering how I should translate the sentence. Help me please.-- ComSpex 06:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)