User talk:Voxhumana/Archive

Hello there, Mr. Humana. Seems he's had quite an interesting life so far. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. so what do you remember, doctorwise? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I quit medicine 15 years ago and have so far managed to forget which drugs are indicated for which condition, and am also blithely ignorant of any changes to standard pharmacological practice since that time. I could probably still perform a tracheotomy, but you'd *seriously* want to have exhausted all other options first.

My favourite thing (that I still remember) is the fact that about 84% of people have a muscle in their arm that doesn't do anything - palmaris longus. This muscle is responsible for exposing the claw, in such mammals as actually have claws to expose. Given that we are all created by God (as I am reliably told) his reasons for including this useless muscle are somewhat mysterious (but then I am also reliably told that he's a mysterious dude). His reasons for not including it in a small percentage of people are even more mysterious - clues of a "master race" perhaps? (For the record, I possess this muscle in both arms, so it would appear that I have been excluded from the master race. Dammit!) Voxhumana (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe God just forgot to add claws? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Heretic. I'll be adding that to my list of "Things to not say to God during the Rapture". Voxhumana (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Really interesting that muscle.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find out if you have it.

• Turn your hand palm up.
• Make a fist.
• Now try to point the knuckle of your index finger at your nose.

One or two tendons will appear in your wrist. If you have two tendons, then the thinner one (closest to your body) is palmaris longus. Most people have it in both arms, a small number are missing it in one arm or the other, and a very small amount are missing it in both arms. The other tendon (or if you only have one tendon, that one) is flexi carpi digitorum - this pulls your fingers in to make a fist in the first place.Voxhumana (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence that Voxhumana is a werewolf

Since Voxhuman has revealed that he has muscles to control his claws, he MUST be a werewolf. Could a moderator please rule on site membership for the lunarly other-abled among us ? I will remind them that we have several deities , and demi-deities already. :)

PS After receiving lots of spam email my male member although tightly wound around my waist still drags on the ground. Can you recommend an ointment? I also pass out when I get an erection, any suggestions ?

welcome to rational wiki. Hamster (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your questions:
After receiving lots of spam email my male member although tightly wound around my waist still drags on the ground.

Try discovering the joys of bipedalism by walking in an upright manner. And let's be honest, The worm is a seriously unfashionable dance move.

Can you recommend an ointment?

I recommend ichthammol ointment, also known as Ammonium bituminosulfonate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your condition, but I enjoy watching people try to say it. (bonus points are awarded for prescribing it to people with speech impediments.)

I also pass out when I get an erection, any suggestions?

Try to have erections more frequently than annually. This will diminish the "shock" factor which is the cause of your fainting. If you are heterosexual, try imagining either Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. If homosexual, same. If you enjoy "Magic, The Gathering", then forget everything I just said. Voxhumana (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I KNEW it , not once does he deny being a werewolf. And C28H36S5O6(NH4)2 is a know cure for mange. Hamster (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Undo my revision would you?

Take this! --MtD^{Prematurely Indeterminate} 03:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That was wildly irresponsible of you. I presume that with all this extra power I am now entitled to free hookers and cocaine? Voxhumana (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the RWF lacks the funds for that many hookers for every sysop; and it's reserved for the higher ups only. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a long record of making terrible decisions. I have no intention of changing that for the likes of you. --MtD^{Prematurely Indeterminate} 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My link collection

A list of links I want to have on hand for future reference:

Noah's Ark 1

June perhaps

Thank you. I should not edit while drinking :) Desmond (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I maintain that drinking heavily while editing should be a pre-requisistethingamajig standard practice. Voxhumana (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Another glass then! Desmond (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Humana

Ace^Moderator 04:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Arrgh. Feckin' doof-doof. Proof there really is a Satan. When the revolution comes all DJs will be put to death. That's not fundamentalism, that's based on an objective assessment of their suckworthiness. (And yes, I've been a professional musician - as in 'real' instruments - most of my life, so I hold people who call themselves "musicians" just because they can press "play" in no small amount of contempt :-)

Having said all that, I appreciate the thought behind the gesture! Cheers VOX^HUMANA 04:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just pressing play? I have seen DJ's juggle 3 turntables, 2 CD mixers, a 909 synth and a drum machine at pretty much the same time. Using a tiny sample from each to create an entirely new track basically on the fly....and doing so consistently for 4 hours straight.....Ace^Moderator 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Death to them all. Deytookairjawbs! VOX^HUMANA 05:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hell, Jeff Mills mixed 90 records in 60 minutes. That ain't easy. Ace^Moderator 05:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeru_Kobayashi VOX^HUMANA 07:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Touche. Ace^Moderator 10:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Voxgoatana

sterile^{no new information} 05:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Um

You okay? Тy^talk 14:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'm moving along, and in WP land it's bad form to leave an account with sysops rights still attached. I didn't know if it was the same here but I thought I'd err on the safe side. All the best. VOX^HUMANA 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, no it isn't a problem here. Тy^talk 15:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason for moving on? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, well yeah, but I'm not established enough here to have the right to raise it, and seriously, nothing is more pathetic than some newbie going "Wah, I'm unhappy". All the best. VOX^HUMANA 01:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Go right on ahead. Тy^talk 01:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've turned email notification off now, so I won't be aware of any subsequent comments. VOX^HUMANA 01:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Was it something we said? --MtD^{Prematurely Indeterminate} 01:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the site has had a hissy fit and 'left' at some point or another, it would be rather hypocritical for them to call it "pathetic." Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 01:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What Peter said. Plus, we're lax with "drama" if there's a problem. Frankly, I'm impressed with your contributions and your integration into the "society" of RW. Presuming you're not a sock-puppet of an existing user (hell, I have to cover all bases here!!) we need more people of this calibre and it's awesome. So, fuck the drama elsewhere, a lot more of us than you'd expect are above and beyond that. ^postate 01:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I used to make a fuss whenever I'd LANCB (it's been maybe three or four times now) only to have to slink back with my tail between my legs. It's better to just make your LANCB unnoticed, I finally realized. So Vox is actually quite a bit more astute than most of us who've LANCB'd with Parthian shots and drama. Blue (pester) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no hissy fit, no drama, I'm not angry at anyone or anything. You all have a groove here that works for you, it doesn't work for me, that's all. I had actually achieved most of the departure more than 24 hours ago (deleted essays and user pages etc) and no-one noticed, so I thought I had LANCB'ed successfully :) To Armondikov, thank you for the kind words and as to your sockpuppet comment - that's always a fair question in wiki land, so here's a WP edit to confirm my real identity. Take care all. VOX^HUMANA 02:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to LANCB successfully, you don't delete your essays and userspace, you leave it and just fade, because deleting it and stripping yourself of rights is rather noticeable, and what others who do want a visual LANCB would do. Announcing with a "Goodbye" also tends to be a hallmark of a unsuccesful LANCB. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for not doing it in a manner you approved of. I do not recall making any 'goodbye' announcement. As for the deletions, I did not want my writing to be here if I wasn't. I asked about the policy on essays before I deleted anything. Regards VOX^HUMANA 07:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Sorry i didnt meet your standards" you mean the ones i stole from observation and reading the LANCB articles?--il'Dictator Mikal 07:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC)What happened was that everyone saw your deletions and waited for the sound of the explosion to reach them, but heard nothing. After a while the curiosity overwhelmed Ty, at least, and he directly asked you what was up.

If you wanted to go that route you probably would have needed Ninja rights, but then I've never seen anyone successfully pull that one off.

Anyway, have fun back at wikipedia. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 07:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ukelele

Since it's more or less completely off topic in the SB, I figured I'd just come over here and say excellent job on your ukelele version of "Let's make the water turn black". It's always nice to come across another Zappa aficionado. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 13:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Zappa is the only god I'm prepared to acknowledge :) FWIW, there's a profoundly horrible version of me playing the Black Page, and a tolerable version of Echidna's Arf there as well. VOX^HUMANA 13:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Coolest ukelele evah!

--PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. Here's another strong contender, and this one has an oscar-winner in it.

--VOX^HUMANA 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, I still can't really take the old 'hipster guitar' very seriously as an instrument. DickTurpis (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Try this guy, if he can't change your mind then I'll admit defeat. :) VOX^HUMANA 14:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that one has changed my mind on the "hipster guitar" for potential. ^theist 14:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternately, this girl's got it goin' on. Jump to 13:19 for the really amazing bit. --Kels (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright those are pretty good. But if they're not going for the gimmicky thing, I think I'd have been more impressed if they'd just played a guitar. In general I see a guy with a ukelele and I see some souvenir his mom bought him on her last trip to Hawaii he's desperately trying to prove is a real instrument and not basically a toy. Then again, I (sort of) play mandolin, so I have a prejudice when it comes to small, portable stringed instruments. Also, Armond, did you get the "hipster guitar" thing from me or have you heard that elsewhere? DickTurpis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're after something very specific, but aren't very clear on what that is. There's good music being played in all these, but that doesn't seem to cut it. So what the hell ARE you looking for, given my mindreading seems to be on the blink at the moment. --Kels (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really looking for anything at all, really. I just have trouble taking the ukelele seriously, especially watching all these hipsters these days buying one for $20 and pretending they're these cool musician types. With a few exceptions, when I see someone playing rock music on a ukelele I sort of think of it as the equivalent of this sort of thing. An amusing gimmick, but not terribly serious music. There are exceptions. A dozen middle aged guys playing one of The Clash's most mediocre songs, however, is not among them. DickTurpis (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds kinda no-win for uke players then. How about something written specifically for uke, like the following (bonus points for working Keirkegaard into a song). --Kels (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess it sort of is. That's basically the point: I don't much like the uke. Though the "can't take it terribly seriously" aspect is part of, but different than, a plain old dislike of the sound, I have to admit. I mean, hell, it ain't all that bad, but you put it next to a mandolin or something and it sounds so weak and feeble. The hipsters don't help either. The more quality ones sound quite a bit better. The While My Guitar Gently Weeps guy clearly sounds a lot better than most, and having a quality instrument is part of that. Likewise Vox's video. Yeah, if you're listening to Don Ho or something a ukelele is a perfectly appropriate instrument. If you're playing a Minor Threat song it's a novelty, no matter how good a job is done. DickTurpis (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah, while the first time you hear Metallica done on a uke can be worthy of a chuckle, the joke wears thin awfully fast. However, it IS an instrument that can be played seriously, and it can have a beautiful, delicate quality to it. As far as the mando comparison, well yeah, there is music that suits it more and music that suits it less (much like a steel-vs nylon guitar comparison). The vast number of $30 ukes made by Pakistani four-year-olds doesn't help matters much, they have a thin, plinky sound which is aurally offensive. VOX^HUMANA 00:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Metallica on cellos, however, still doesn't get old for me. ^sshole 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Freakishly talented kids

Following on from Kels' uke video above, and segueing on the "kids" aspect, here a 12 year old Hungarian kid named Andreas Varady playing jazz. I'm a guitarist, so I just died with envy when I saw this outrageously talented little bastard. VOX^HUMANA 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing with the small stringed instruments, here's Ricky Skaggs playing with Flatt and Scruggs when he was 7: --Benod (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Data analysis

Hmm, that would be interesting to see. Тy^talk 01:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've nearly finished it for the last round. I'll post the results asap (a couple of hours away, I have to accompany the wife on Sunday morning errands first). VOX^HUMANA 01:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It was done for the previous two, when things were a little more volatile, but it's a pity that nobody bothered to do it last time (I think it took a while for Trent to be persuaded to post the raw ballot. He had made a mistake on his first count and probably wanted to check it twenty zillion more times before he was confident that nobody would pick up on any more mistakes.). As Ty said, this will be interesting. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 02:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's a quick start on the Jan 2012 figures, just showing total votes received and average rank. NB: I'm looking at other ways of interpreting the data, and I have NOT attempted to verify the actual voting method used. I wasn't going to unless someone thinks there is any reason to do so. VOX^HUMANA 02:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidate	Votes	Avg rank
Ace McWicked	26	4.35
AD	28	4.54
Genghis Khant	27	5.56
Blue	35	5.74
Armondikov	30	5.8
Pi	36	5.81
ListenerX	26	5.96
DickTurpis	31	5.97
WaitingforGodot	27	6.00
Reckless Noise Symphony	22	6.36
Stabby the Misanthrope	25	7.60
Ty	26	7.62
Psygremlin	22	7.73
Nx	17	8.00
Weaseloid	27	8.11
Sterile	17	8.88
Human	22	10.14
Colonel Sanders	11	10.73
CRIMINALIZE MARATREANISM	10	11.70
Lumenos	11	13.91
Titus Atticus	8	14.00
Maratrean	10	17.00
Tolerance	10	17.10
Cretinous incompetent	10	17.70
Le législateur	7	17.86
Yuppie	7	17.86

Human's that low, is he? Wow. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 02:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I did better than I thought, maybe I'll toss my hat in the ring again next time. Тy^talk 03:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you add the little arrowy thingies that let you reorder the list by column? (Sorry if my jargon is too technical for you.) DickTurpis (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. Further question. How do the averages factor in the cases where each person wasn't voted for at all? DickTurpis (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean how it factors in the fact that different people got different numbers of votes? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 04:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize I worded that very poorly. I mean when calculating the average rank, what number is given for a candidate when a voter doesn't vote for him at all? For instance, if candidate X gets 3 votes, ranked 1 by one voter, 2 by another, and 3 by a third, his average would be 2, but that ignores the fact that every other voter didn't give him any rank at all, so his true average should be very high. I assume this analysis doesn't ignore that or it would give very skewed results indeed. Does a non-vote count as a 26? Am I explaining this well? DickTurpis (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

To calculate the average you need to divide the sum by the number of voters. I'm assuming that when a person does not vote for a given candidate nothing is added to that candidate's score but the sum is only divided by the number of people who actually voted for them (such as in your example). Let me test that a minute on Yuppie... Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 04:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Yuppie's 17.87 is found with ${\frac {18+20+12+19+20+17+19}{7}}=17.857$ (close enough, I may have a slight mistake in there). Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 05:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you are correct. Yuppie should have read as 17.86, my original value was 17.8571428. Not sure what I did when copying the data over, but mea culpa anyway. I've since checked all the others and they match my original figures, so you've caught my only apparent screw-up. VOX^HUMANA 05:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. It does seem flawed then. If someone votes for himself first and gets no other votes from anyone, he'll have a rank of 1 even though 98% of the people didn't vote for him at all. Seems there should be a separate average rank weighted for non-votes. It might be a more significant figure (though I guess the only really significant figures are the number of votes each person gets in the end, once the single transferrable votes trickle down to their eventual recipients). DickTurpis (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @DickTurpis - as noted above, this was a very quick and dirty rundown, because I had to go look at curtains. The first tally is nothing more than "actual votes cast"/"ranking given". It ignores non-votes, and could easily skew if someone had a low vote tally and a high average vote. (However enough people cast votes for all 26 candidates to diminish this effect).

I'm redoing the actual voting calcs now, not because I dispute them in any way, but because I want to use them as a basis to get an analysis of the "votes that didn't count". IF anybody wants any other perspective of the voting, let me know (ditto if you want my restructured data to throw into Excel yourself). VOX^HUMANA 05:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You're doing a good job. I'm a rank amateur at this sort of thing, so throwing it into excel myself will only get me a hollow, likely flawed version of what you're doing. I did go over the results longhand after the vote last year, and my results seemed to jive with the official ones (if they hadn't I'm quite sure the error would have been mine anyway, but I was pleased to see they did), and seemed to confirm what I suspected in that I was made mod by the skin of my teeth. I would be curious to see ranks weighted, but I'm not sure how significant such figures are. It's also interesting to see how the top vote getters and eventual winners aren't so much in sync, but that's how the system works. DickTurpis (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The chief purpose of the analysis is to cause unnecessary discussion. Here's the restructured raw data if you (or anyone else) wants to play along. http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/User:Voxhumana/rawdata201201. VOX^HUMANA 05:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary discussion? That shit's my bread and butter. Mission accomplished, I'd say. DickTurpis (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly was Human elected a mod then? Based on these figures? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Four #1 votes, plus a handful of #2's and #3's is all you need. All the 20+ votes don't matter at all. DickTurpis (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So despite having fewer votes and an overall lower ranking? Sounds like a fucked up voting system if you ask me. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It has its advantages and disadvantages. I admit I sort of like a method based more on overall number of votes, but that's partially because I do much better under that method. One problem with this method is it seems it makes it easier to cheat. Now, I want to be clear I'm NOT accusing Human or anyone else of cheating, but if you look at how it's turned out in these elections it really only takes one or two #1 ranked votes to swing an election. A single sockpuppet could do that in certain situations, and many of us have a second enfranchised account. Using a more "total votes" system would make it more difficult for an extra account or two to make a difference. I have no idea if socks are voting (I would hardly be surprised if at least one has at some point), but it has the potential to be a problem. I was in favor of listing voters, just to keep the process more open and to see if there are some obvious problems emerging, but I think I was decried as a fascist or something for that, despite the fact (in many states at least) lists of voters are public here in the States. Anyway, I could probably boost my chances of being elected substantially if I used my other enfranchised account, but I don't plan to. DickTurpis (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ With a small voter pool, it is extremely easy to swing this form of election, as DickTurpis correctly states. It's worth noting that Armondikov did not earn a single vote under this method of election, despite his high number of rankings and very low average. Every vote he could have had got snaffled by someone else first. VOX^HUMANA 12:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That is kind of fucked up. So despite receiving more overall votes than anyone except 3 others, and being placed pretty highly (but clearly not highly enough) by those who did vote for him, he didn't get a single vote? Well, he should have voted for himself, really. Can you run the results through and see how'd they'd have turned out if there had been one more voter who voted only for Armondikov? DickTurpis (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but not tonight. It's an amazingly complicated system to assess the results of, and there is (IMO) an alarming degree of ambiguity. I got the rules from the WP article, so I presume that's the method being used. However I'm still uncertain how excess votes are being allocated - eg. In the first round, Ace had two excess votes (9 votes and a quota of only 7). Between the nine they had seven second choices. AD and Reckless got 2/9 each, and five others got 1/9. If you give a full vote to AD and Reckless, because they were the two leaders, this negates the second round vote of everyone else, and it also alters Reckless's standing in regards to the "lowest number of votes" eliminations which follow. If you give a fractional vote, then ... (argh, it's bedtime and this explanation is about to get even more complicated...). VOX^HUMANA 13:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We use the Scottish system, which I'm pretty sure breaks the votes up into tiny fractions and let's them trickle down to whomever. It is confusing, which is another flaw in the system. The other elections had a rundown on how all the votes were finally allocated, round by round, but that didn't happen last time. I sort of wish there had been more community input on what voting system was being used, but it seems we're stuck with this one for the time being. DickTurpis (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. But transferable votes are aimed at trying to get a system that is fair in the broadest sense while maintaining the simplicity of a simple majority and a the one-person-one-vote method. If you try to take into account second, third, forth (etc.) preferences even by people who have voted for a winner in a higher preferences then you run the risk of penalising people who vote for fewer candidates. An STV system avoids that by giving precisely one vote to one voter, but simply transfers it around based on these preferences - as if the election was held in several rounds, and the preferences say what your voting behaviour would be. If you start introducing ranks and averages then you run a severe risk of introducing more mathematical quirks than you need. ^theist 14:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I get this system, and I'm not completely opposed to it either, but it does have the disadvantages of being confusing, relatively easy to manipulate, and favoring (or at least not disfavoring) the more polarizing individuals who might not be the most suited to moderation (though now we're getting into personal opinion territory here). I wouldn't want to introduce ranks and averages, but having those stats here to look at is a bit illuminating. A "7 mods/7 votes per person, all of equal weight" system might be worth considering, though I wouldn't specifically advocate for it without looking into it more. Then again I'm cherry picking the system which favors me the most, so there's really no reason anyone should take my opinion too seriously. DickTurpis (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it not running on a one-vote-per-position IRV? ^pathetic 17:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It is. I'm just suggesting that there are other methods which have potential. They may not have the scientific validity of STV, but elections aren't a one size fits all thing. DickTurpis (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, one vote per position or one vote per person? Everyone gets one vote, regardless of the number of positions being filled. DickTurpis (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one vote for one position only. VOX^HUMANA 21:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ukelele

Since it's more or less completely off topic in the SB, I figured I'd just come over here and say excellent job on your ukelele version of "Let's make the water turn black". It's always nice to come across another Zappa aficionado. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 13:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Zappa is the only god I'm prepared to acknowledge :) FWIW, there's a profoundly horrible version of me playing the Black Page, and a tolerable version of Echidna's Arf there as well. VOX^HUMANA 13:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Coolest ukelele evah!

--PsyGremlinParla! 13:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. Here's another strong contender, and this one has an oscar-winner in it.

--VOX^HUMANA 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, I still can't really take the old 'hipster guitar' very seriously as an instrument. DickTurpis (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Try this guy, if he can't change your mind then I'll admit defeat. :) VOX^HUMANA 14:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that one has changed my mind on the "hipster guitar" for potential. ^theist 14:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternately, this girl's got it goin' on. Jump to 13:19 for the really amazing bit. --Kels (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright those are pretty good. But if they're not going for the gimmicky thing, I think I'd have been more impressed if they'd just played a guitar. In general I see a guy with a ukelele and I see some souvenir his mom bought him on her last trip to Hawaii he's desperately trying to prove is a real instrument and not basically a toy. Then again, I (sort of) play mandolin, so I have a prejudice when it comes to small, portable stringed instruments. Also, Armond, did you get the "hipster guitar" thing from me or have you heard that elsewhere? DickTurpis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're after something very specific, but aren't very clear on what that is. There's good music being played in all these, but that doesn't seem to cut it. So what the hell ARE you looking for, given my mindreading seems to be on the blink at the moment. --Kels (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really looking for anything at all, really. I just have trouble taking the ukelele seriously, especially watching all these hipsters these days buying one for $20 and pretending they're these cool musician types. With a few exceptions, when I see someone playing rock music on a ukelele I sort of think of it as the equivalent of this sort of thing. An amusing gimmick, but not terribly serious music. There are exceptions. A dozen middle aged guys playing one of The Clash's most mediocre songs, however, is not among them. DickTurpis (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds kinda no-win for uke players then. How about something written specifically for uke, like the following (bonus points for working Keirkegaard into a song). --Kels (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess it sort of is. That's basically the point: I don't much like the uke. Though the "can't take it terribly seriously" aspect is part of, but different than, a plain old dislike of the sound, I have to admit. I mean, hell, it ain't all that bad, but you put it next to a mandolin or something and it sounds so weak and feeble. The hipsters don't help either. The more quality ones sound quite a bit better. The While My Guitar Gently Weeps guy clearly sounds a lot better than most, and having a quality instrument is part of that. Likewise Vox's video. Yeah, if you're listening to Don Ho or something a ukelele is a perfectly appropriate instrument. If you're playing a Minor Threat song it's a novelty, no matter how good a job is done. DickTurpis (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah, while the first time you hear Metallica done on a uke can be worthy of a chuckle, the joke wears thin awfully fast. However, it IS an instrument that can be played seriously, and it can have a beautiful, delicate quality to it. As far as the mando comparison, well yeah, there is music that suits it more and music that suits it less (much like a steel-vs nylon guitar comparison). The vast number of $30 ukes made by Pakistani four-year-olds doesn't help matters much, they have a thin, plinky sound which is aurally offensive. VOX^HUMANA 00:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Metallica on cellos, however, still doesn't get old for me. ^sshole 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Freakishly talented kids

Following on from Kels' uke video above, and segueing on the "kids" aspect, here a 12 year old Hungarian kid named Andreas Varady playing jazz. I'm a guitarist, so I just died with envy when I saw this outrageously talented little bastard. VOX^HUMANA 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing with the small stringed instruments, here's Ricky Skaggs playing with Flatt and Scruggs when he was 7: --Benod (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Benod - that's awesome, thanks for the link. I loves me some bluegrass. Cheers VOX^HUMANA 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

voting explanation

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the explanation of voting that you posted over at RWW. It really made the process so much more understandable for me. Also wanted to say I'm sorry to see you archive your talk page so quickly, as I enjoyed the video you posted of Andreas Varady playing jazz. Refugee^{talk page} 11:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry. One of the longer term members here took offence to something I said on RWW, so they vandalized my page with an offensive image. Hence I removed it to the archive. Anyway, you can still get to Andreas via the link above. Cheers VOX^HUMANA 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I figured out how to respect RW rules on talk pages while expressing my own contempt. Hence I've now restored the archived material for collective enjoyment. VOX^HUMANA 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The moderator beauty pageant results

Candidate	Votes	Avg rank
Ace McWicked	41	5.78
AD	52	4.75
Andy Frankinson	16	14.44
Armondikov	43	5.65
Blue	42	3.74
DickTurpis	46	5.67
Dumpling	29	8.72
Genghis Khant	49	6.14
Human	25	10.68
Kels	37	6.54
LArron	33	7.64
ListenerX	32	7.72
Mikal	21	10.81
Nutty Roux	29	7.14
Reckless Noise Symphony	36	7
Sophie	36	7.67
Stabby the Misanthrope	30	9.27
Sterile	24	8.75
The Foxhole Atheist	28	9.39
WaitingforGodot	42	6.52
Weaseloid	42	7.24

As per before, this is merely total votes cast and avg ranking per vote cast. It has no real meaning. VOX^HUMANA 04:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

21 people put me on the list somewhere? Cool.--il'Dictator Mikal 04:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Vox, it's interesting to see (and slightly ego boosting as well, these figures make it look like I did better than I did). I have to admit I'm surprised my support from Brx didn't damage my campaign more. DickTurpis (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I offered to campaign against you if you'd just archive your talk page. A denunciation from brx is like an endorsement from Jesus--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate how long-suffering you have been about things. I'm glad you decided to stick around - I'm sure a lot of articles here could use the eye of a professional statistician.--^talk 06:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No dramas. Just for the record I'm not a statistician, I'm a data architect for large scale analytic systems. A real statistician would run rings around me. VOX^HUMANA 06:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh... Almost makes you think that a toxic site culture where people openly troll and flame each other is bad for the wiki in both the long and short term. But you wouldn't want to harsh your buddies' mellow, would you, AD?--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Waiting any day for this new super awesome non trolling culture of yours to take power brx. --il'Dictator Mikal 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trolling Vox, I quite like him. I just found his annoyance at what he deemed a "spam" campaign amusing considering he is so new and wasn't here to see the last mod elections. So thought I'd, you know, tease him a little. Meh. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 07:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you stayed off my page altogether, I'm simply here to write articles and to be helpful where I can. I know you are so committed to your own delusions of significance that you will be incapable of honouring such a request. Hence when you do leave your stench on my user page I'll simply either ignore you, or where I feel you have trolled, move your comments to the fucktard archive. VOX^HUMANA 07:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You're a rough teaser, sometimes, Ace. Plus that rapport needs to be built through familiarity - if you try to coast by on charisma, it can grate. Now that you know it's fractious, though, I'm sure you won't keep bugging him.

Brx: you are annoying. You annoy me. You annoy everyone. You are the platonic ideal of annoying, crafted out of pure unadulterated Annoytanium purchased from Farmer Terry's Discount House of Annoying.--^talk 11:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Brx - Fear not, I'm highly tolerant of abuse and trolling as long it is witty or entertaining. For example if AD's comment above had been aimed at me, I'd be just as entertained as I am now. Now, if you got anything to say to someone other than me, perhaps you could do it on their talk page? Thanks, VOX^HUMANA 16:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, now can't we all get along? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 16:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Step off, man, that's my platform! DickTurpis (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

LANCB

If your LANCB is like any of our usuals, you'll be back in a couple days, maybe a week at most, so I'll leave this here.

That the RationalWiki community is governed by groupthink has been a constant criticism of the site since the days of yore. When someone doesn't fit right in, there are tensions that escalate remarkably quickly from relatively meager provocations. Case in point: your refusal to let election posters stay on your talk page. That was the red flag that you were Not Like Us.

Whenever someone relatively new is driven off, people love to point fingers. One faction says, "Well, it's fine, really; they just didn't 'get' our community, we don't want them anyway." Another says, "This site is not welcoming to newcomers. We're too steeped in unwritten traditions and attitudes and relationships." The first faction then responds, "But look at all of us who registered and became upstanding members of the community! We felt very welcome. Nothing's wrong." It's a pervasive selection/observation bias that weeds out everyone who became an Other. What's even worse is that the groupthink only extends to the "community" aspect of the site. It doesn't matter how many real contributions you make to mainspace - what matters is how well you mesh with others.

But it's not all-consuming. I've been an Other since 2010, and I'm still going strong. You learn how to compromise if you stick around (if you don't, but stick around anyway, you'll end up like Brxbrx). I hope we'll see you back. Blue (pester) 03:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left some 2 dozen times by my reckoning. Come back soon! Тy^talk 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RW is like heroin. You say you're never going back to it, but it always draws you back in. And too much of it will kill you. DickTurpis (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say, this was a much better LANCB. Bravo! Now, lets see if you can do it without being spotted at all next time. Peter ^HFB2 04:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Less than a month from 5 years on RW and not one LANCB here. I must be doing something wrong. DickTurpis (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yah, me neither. Never LANCB or changed my handle. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Yeah, how did you ever make moderator? Peter ^HFB2 04:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hand jobs. Lots and lots of hand jobs. DickTurpis (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and they fucking sucked too. Next time take the rubber glove off, the lack of friction is annoying. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 16:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ace is busy elsewhere

He axed me if I would be so kind as to tell you to fuck off. Being that I'm such a nice guy, he knew I'd say yes. But I generally don't fuck with people until I've gotten to know them a bit, being a nice guy and all, so please accept this fuck off as if were coming from ace herself.

Fuck off.

Please have a super day/evening! 06:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

For old time's sake

File:2012-12-26 sterile mod.jpg sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 13:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Voxhumana / talk / contribs} 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Become a bot

It looks nearly as bad as Ken's messing up of RC GhostofTK (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Important Announcement

THE WIKIPEDIA GUY IS BACK!! Ignore all rules! --209.18.48.12 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)