Jruderman

Memory security

Hi, Jesse. Can you help me flesh out the Memory safety article?

It's not an area I'm very familiar with. Josephgrossberg 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar'd

		The Original Barnstar
		For this excellent rewrite of Fuzz testing. Great work! FlyingToaster 16:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

You're doing excellent work, including vandalism revision, and you deserve better tools. Per your request, I've granted you rollback. FlyingToaster 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Nightly userbox

Hi! Mind if I change the category of the userbox to the subcat Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Nightly? --illythr (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jruderman/Userboxes/FirefoxTrunk? Sure, go for it. --Jruderman (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Firefox article needs you!

Your edits have been dearly missed at the Firefox article. Come back! Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Enjoy this as you hunt more security bugs! →Enock4seth (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

July 2024

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks for your open-minded and careful attempts at balancing the various bioethics articles I've been working on for the last few weeks. Sometimes I don't recognize my own bias, and am unironically thankful when someone like you helps me reflect on it it more. Biohistorian15 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to state that, as far as I am concerned, you are hereby exempted from any accusations of Wikihounding that may arise if you edit more in the content area; something I've normally been very critical of before. Biohistorian15 (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For making a few minor but necessary edits to Political parties in the United States. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 CrowdStrike incident

Can you elaborate on what you meant at Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident#Poll for best new name by "X/10"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have given each title a rating out of ten and I encourage other participants to do the same. Range voting Majority-judgment voting is the appropriate method when some choices are similar to each other, when very different options may be good for different reasons [added], and when participants trust each other to be honest regarding the strength of their convictions. It is okay if some participants decide to indicate which is their favorite, instead of or in addition to writing "10/10", because this is the fuzzy consensus version of whatever voting method we choose. Jruderman (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - Don't forget to state that "10" is "best". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

   Done I edited my comment there to say "on a scale of 1 (terrible) to 10 (perfect)" Jruderman (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I can make incorrect assumptions about what other people will find familiar or obvious. I appreciate your help in ensuring that I write in a way that is clear to the intended audience. Jruderman (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - YW, in some countries, multiple choice means ALL correct answers, in others, it means the BEST answer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You have earned this my friend. Thank you for setting up the poll and solving this disaster. FloridaMan21 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It was actually Jax 0677 who created the poll! I only hijacked the poll, asserting that it would be conducted cardinally instead of each editor only listing their name under their first choice. Jax not only allowed me to do this but also helped make sure the instructions were understandable. — Jruderman (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I sent him one too. However, I see many people are saying wait on the page because they want a Microsoft included title. FloridaMan21 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Squarefree

I only realised after reading your user page properly (coming from the Great 2024 CrowdStrike Incident Renaming Incident) that you run Squarefree.com. I must have used htmledit.squarefree.com a billion times over the years. I think I was 13 when I first began using it, and I'm now ...older. It was instrumental in helping me learn HTML and CSS, and later realising I wanted to make it my career. So, thanks! Small world. GhostOfNoMeme 16:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I used it this week to make {{User:Jruderman/CrowdStruck_200px}}! The diagonal lines were very fiddly. Jruderman (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Saved by the Poll

Blue Screen of Life

Ṯ̵̡̨̢̨͎͇̳̳̱̼͎͎̠̭̭̠̯͇͍̲͓͍̹̭̝̰̣̭̰̮̯̩̺̞̾͐̀͌̐͒͒̃̂̍͛̿̇͜͝h̸̛̛̙̖͊͊̈́͆͆͌̂̄̎̈́̀̾́͊̉͆̒̇́̈́̿͆̅̈́̈́̕e̴̡̢̧̛͖̤̞̗̫͉̣̲͓̗̺̲̠͙͆̀̄́͗̐̊̔̐̂̀̓͆͊̐͗̏͒͛̆̇͌̿̂̒̂̿͊̕͝͝͝ͅ ̸̧̝̺̲̪̞̝̥̲͓͓̜̥̬̦̲̠̯͎͎̟̘̟̗̣̯̪̞̭̗̯̬̝̹̱̠̇̈́̆͛͗͌̐̑̀͊͆͊̆̎̀̔͘͜͝͝͝ͅf̶̛̛̖̺̹͎̰͈͇̟̩̫̱̲̞͌̀͑̐̓͑̿̈́̽̂͊̆͒̔̈́̾̎͂̈́̈̀̏̀̐́̉͗̽̉͐͠͝͠ị̷̢̡̛̠̂͒̏͂̀̎͆͂̊̂̌͒̂̆͋̾͋̃̒͗͘ȑ̴̡͇̥͚͕̺̺̙͇̙̻̭͎͖̬̣̟̭̼̠̬͔̫͖̪̟͍̳̥̯̭̏̄́̓̃͊̒͒̈̿͆̀̎͆̀̋́̋̃̈̂̄͂͂͂̆̎̿̀̅̄̓̆̈́́́͂͋̕̕̚͝ͅͅͅs̴̨͉͎͕̦̦̱̰̳͓̯͓̞̬̊̈́͋́̂̚t̶͚̱̹̼̱͒͐̈́̂̆̐͒͂̌̈͒͛̑̈́̿̇̂̍̈́̆̕̚̚ ̵̢̱̗͇͈̰͉̜̯̤̲̱̘̀̿̊̃̋̐̉̿̀̽̋̑̍̐̓̏̐̑̔̓̀̂͗̆̍̈́̾͜o̶̧̧̧̡̧̲̫͔̗̮̝̞͖͉͍̣͇͈̟̫͔͕͉͇͓̘̟̟̮͚̞̗̩͇͙̤̒͌́͆̓͜͜ͅͅf̶̫̣͚̦̥̩̬̲̂̔̈́̈́̒̈̑̄̇̒͜͝͝ ̶̡̛̝̖̩̥͕̱̣̟̰̜̥̘̪̭͓͉͇̬͓̱̠̻̱͙̝̪̟͕̦͖͔̗̩͍̹̗̬̟̥̐̍̓̀̿͌͐͆̾͛͘̚̚͜i̶̛̘̒̊̓̑̆ͅt̶̢̜͇̯̐̓͂͂̓̏̔̔̅̇s̷̡̛̰̙̟͉̙̒̿̋̈́͋̍͌̏̓̀̃̃̐̿̌̅̐̀̿́̎̆̐̇͒̈́͊͛̉̕͘ͅͅ ̶̧̨̛͓̬̰͈͔͕̬̼̞̜̞͉̝͍̜͉̟̖͔̠̗̞̗̯̣̞͜k̶͕͎̳̭̗̖̣͚̫̓̓̎̎̂̈͜į̸̛̛̟͍͎̱̰̩͕́̿͑̊͆͛̄̎̌̐̀̆̒̊͐́̌͆̋̌̍̿̔̈́̉̆̅̈́͛̓͊͑͐̄̅̈́̌͂̍̕̚͘̕͜͝n̸͚̝̥̤͒̈͗̍́͐̑̆̒̾͗̋̈́d̵̨̨̢̛̪̱͚̭̖͕̣̱̰͓̻͎̭͈̻͓͈͉͔͚̮̗͊͊̍̐̔̾̇͗̌̇̉͋̐͑̋̂̀̽̈́͂̿͘͝ͅͅͅͅ FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow that's an impressive level of zalgo Jruderman (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A note about talk pages

Could I suggest using talk page discussions (or at least the main sections) only for article related discussions? I feel like shouting all of your thoughts into the void is a great way to muddle all discussions about the RM. It definitely made gauging consensus a fair bit harder for me, simply because it was not clear everyone understood what the discussion was for.

I have hatted your comments other than the main RM itself. While I cannot dictate anything to you, I do encourage you to make further comments at least in a subsection (or better yet, somewhere else) so new people finding the discussion can follow along. Soni (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct about what you are saying here. I will reply in more detail shortly on your user talk page. Jruderman (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is my detailed response. Jruderman (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also, could you please try to reply to everything you want at once? It makes reading talk pages impossible because everyone who watchlists or subscribes to a discussion gets constant notifications about you refactoring and adding more and more comments to your previous ones. And it clutters the discussion for future readers because you keep adding additional replies instead of one longer comment. See Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident#About_RM_structure, it's a lot harder to parse the discussion because there's 10 comments from you and 6 from everyone else.

I personally love brevity, but that may not be your thing. But I think it'll be more helpful for everyone if you figured out how to collect all your thoughts and comment them at once.

Soni (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree completely and I apologize. It's hard for me to get everything in order while I'm still hypomanic. I'll try for now, and I know I'll do better when my emotional state becomes more stable. Jruderman (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's understandable. Pobody's nerfect, I've done similarly in the past. A trick I used to do was to draft up my comments in a Notepad and leave them be for half an hour or so. Any excess energy or instincts at editing and fixing them would then be directed towards said notepad. That way, you have one comment, especially if you keep to no editing at all once it goes live. Ideally it'd have another final pass of edit before you post, but even without, it's still an improvement in terms of building the right habit. Soni (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A good suggestion. Thank you. Jruderman (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by The Nth User

Firstly, is there a particular reason why Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident#Requested move 30 July 2024 does not explicitly mention the option about whether to make "outage" singular or plural?

Secondly, I am planning to mention this argument that you liked in Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause, proposing to mention it in Wikipedia:Snowball clause#A cautionary note. Do you have any input before I do so?

Lastly, while the redirect Northeast blackouts of 2003 did grant me a brief (and appreciated) chuckle, I suspect that humor is unfortunately less important than not creating a redirect just to prove a point. I don't mean to drag you down or anything, which is why I am telling you this instead of requesting deletion without telling you, but now that the fun is over, I think that WP:R3 might be in order since I couldn't find evidence of anyone referring to that in the plural.

By the way, thank you for all of your work to help to facilitate the renaming discussion. It is very much appreciated! Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 07:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Omitting the question of "outage" vs "outages" was an error on my part. Please update the orange box.

Opening a discussion on talk-snow sounds like a great idea. Please do. On that talk page, we can also discuss whether and when it's a good idea to have a "snow vs wait" discussion section; whether the relevance of a "snow vs wait" discussion section changes after seven days; how to prevent circular reasoning (e.g. others want snow therefore snow); and when to go ahead with a rename even if some small details are undecided.

I don't even remember creating the Northeast blackouts of 2003 redirect, so I can't tell you what I was thinking at the time. Maybe an RfD will keep it as "non-harmful", maybe not. I trust your judgment as to whether to list it at RfD.

You're welcome! Many people have praised my efforts to shepherd the discussion, but I was a little hurt when one editor recently criticized what I did, so it's helpful to hear some praise again. (I've since partially made up with the other editor, I think.) Jruderman (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't even remember creating the Northeast blackouts of 2003 redirect, so I can't tell you what I was thinking at the time - I think your edit summary shows it was in good humour:

Creating this redirect just to rib at User:The_Nth_User. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident#c-The_Nth_User-20240729032100-Jruderman-20240725060500

(I'll stay out of the discussion as to whether or not the redirect is merited.) GhostOfNoMeme 14:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Miligram" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Miligram has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 5 § Miligram until a consensus is reached. Tevildo (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As you might have guessed, I am interested in this RfD and in possible typo-squatting in general. Jruderman (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cat (kitteh)

A tag has been placed on Cat (kitteh) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay 2600:8802:6900:332:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Love your username btw. So this template doesn’t include a link to the deletion discussion? I guess there just isn’t one for speedy (it’s “discussed” by BRD removing the tag, then listing at RfD). 2600:8802:6900:332:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered ADOPTion?

I notice that you have a ton of enthusiasm for our projects. I think you could benefit from having someone experienced guide you through the more tricky ropes, help you understand certain policies and why we have them. Have you considered something like that?

It would allow you to better contribute your ideas and energy. While all improvements are changes, not all changes are improvements. I notice that you have a particular style of approaching Wikipedia things. This is very much needed, but I think it'll help everyone if you get some of the nuances between "Not changing ever" (Say, the entirety of WP:CONSENSUS) and "Could use streamlining with some energy" (How we reach said consensus).

Overall I think it'll be helpful for you, and also make it easier for others to collaborate with you Soni (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am interested in discussing the nuances of consensus-shepherding on Wikipedia. I'll email you some contact info, or you can find me on Twitter. Jruderman (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I expanded Wikipedia:What is consensus? (explanatory essay) with new sections and subsections.

I also made a small change to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy (policy), clarifying the role of straw polls, based on my experience and on the underlying policy at WP:CONSENSUS.

— Jruderman (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You have nowhere near enough experience with Wikipedia to unilaterally change one of our policy-adjacent pages that drastically. Calling out yourself in that document was already a red flag, if not for the other red flags.

I'll be frank-er here Jruderman. Your understanding of consensus as we do it on Wikipedia is severely lacking. And I wanted to recommend you try ADOPT so you can get someone else to show you the ropes and tell you all the things you should know. I replied back to your mail, hoping you'd actively engage and learn from asking, but that didn't happen.

I am not saying your ideas are all terrible. I am saying that it's impossible to judge them fairly when you currently don't understand how the processes work, and so make some simple blunders. Someone who's not well versed in computers can't become a white hat hacker. Similarly, if you think you can improve our current processes and make people adopt better methods, the very first step will be to make sure you actually understand them.

I suggest again, please consider getting adoption or another way you learn consensus and our other policies. It'll make things much less of a timesink for other editors; and also help you become better at all aspects of editing. Soni (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Missed your email because it landed in my spam folder. Thanks for mentioning it here; I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

Can you be more specific re what I'm missing about how consensus currently works on Wikipedia? I'll work with you to discuss my edits on the essay's talk page when we both have time. Jruderman (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You have already figured out that your extra sections were much better suited for your own userspace essay than the actual page there. They are untested ideas that have been unproven in front of the community, and have no place in a "Here's all the main ideas that explain consensus to others".

Other than that, you also seem to constantly consider WP:BOLD changes that skip consensus. On two move discussions, you have suggested or outright done WP:IAR and just do things your way (instead of where consensus is heading). This, again, could be made via one of the Village Pumps (probably idea lab) where you first propose your ideas, then convert editors to try your different "consensus shepherding" or "straw polling" methods. I personally think your methods actively made consensus much harder to achieve, but that's not the point. You will never convert others to trying the straw polls or whatever messy discussions you have if you are constantly trying to enforce them.

Ultimately, people need to know you actually first understand the current system at all, which I am not convinced you do. There's enough orange and red flags throughout your changes where I can already tell "Yes Jruderman needs a formal adoption style lesson in this" because it's just too divorced from how Wikipedia does thing. Sure, I could point out how "Let's try again but with only confirmed non-sockpuppets" is a violation of WP:AGF but also is already done when people do WP:Closures, but that doesn't fix your main holes in understanding across the rest of Wikipedia policies.

This should be specific enough that you can tell where and why I come from there. I am not really interested in giving this a much longer conversation than this. Either take my advice and get someone to guide you, or don't. Any more time explaining consensus again in more words will be too much time opportunity cost for me. Soni (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone watching from the sidelines, I'll also be blunt. I think you don't quite "get" Wikipedia fully, yet. Nobody with a firm grasp of how Wikipedia works would edit such a significant essay to include their own thoughts, and especially not their own name which was truly bizarre. What did you think a new user would make of that? 99.99999% of Wikipedia users won't know what "Jruderman" means, and trying to find out who you are and why it's relevant to the essay would be a significant journey into a rabbit hole (for no real benefit).

You edited an essay on consensus ... without a consensus for your additions. Without even starting a discussion first. I think it's a perfect illustration of the fact you're missing some key elements of how Wikipedia works and what is expected of editors, by policy and by convention. I have no doubt you mean well and have positive intentions, but I would hold off on the WP:BOLD changes until you better understand things. Unilateral moves and major (confusing) additions to years-old essays are just not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I would suggest you observe other editors closely and seriously consider ADOPTion as suggested above. This is not a personal attack by any means; like I said, you clearly mean well. I just think everyone would benefit if you avoided some of these drastic moves and had someone guiding you, and someone to ask when you're unsure. 92.40.196.70 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Anchors in section headings

About this edit: You probably want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#SECTIONANCHOR and the documentation for Template:Anchor. We really ought to send a bot around to clean these up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

{1} Thanks. I've changed that header anchor to use the subst'd style recommended at Template:Anchor for use in headings.

{2} Regarding a bot to fix this kind of thing: I'd prefer a semi-automated method that lets a human decide whether each anchor actually belongs to the section header or to the first paragraph.

{3} What we really need is dedicated wiki markup that creates anchors and shortcuts, at least for common spots such as headers and list items. There are too many placement rules to remember when we rely on a template: always subst in headers, never insert an extra line between two list items, etc. (As evidence that it's hard to get it all right: the same section of MOS you linked to violates the list rule at least twice.) Jruderman (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking more about a bot that subst:s the ones that are already in the section headings.

And, yes, I agree. It's too complicated. I looked up the docs because I had seen an above-heading one earlier that day and saw below-heading ones, and then discovered that the actual rule was something I'd never even heard of (though I've seen the results occasionally and had no idea why they were there). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)