User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 8

Welcome to my talk page

Please leave notes/questions/chastisements/haiku/concerns for me here. I will usually respond on your talk page for your convenience. Thanks, and happy editing! Jwrosenzweig

James: Unfortunately, I've never come across anyone by the name Brian Thorn. I'm known as a bit of a recluse in the Queen's University Department of History, and I don't know everyone in the department -- although, looking over recent student lists, it seems unlikely that Mr. Thom was ever here at the same time as me (if he was here at all).

As to the Moderator's position ... frankly, I can understand the concerns being raised by Grunt and others. My current "project" on Wikipedia hasn't involved much in the way of controversy (Manitoba politics seldom gets many people up in arms), and it's probably a fair objection to note that I haven't contributed much on the maintenance side of things (yet). My response to these concerns is simply to note that I've striven for basic neutrality and fairness in the articles that I've written -- and that I managed to negotiate a fair compromise (before things degenerated into name-calling, a flame-war, or calls for arbitration), in the one "semi-controversial" experience that I've had on Wikipedia so far (on the Talk:Paul Wolfowitz page).

I'd appreciate your support if you decide to offer it, and won't be offended if not. CJCurrie 00:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. It's always good to be reminded that people appreciate your work. My near-absence here has nothing to do with any lessening of my enthusiasm for this project. It's mostly because of my internet connection. I'm writing this from a 10-year-old Macintosh with a dial-up connection, and frankly I'm amazed I can edit at all. This computer is mostly limited to email, and Wikipedia is one of the few sites that will run.

I've written a couple original articles in recent weeks (something I hadn't done in a while) but the connection is too slow for lots of editing.

Hope your new job on the arbitration committee is going well, and isn't too draining. Dealing fairly with Wikipedia's most difficult personalities is a task worthy of Solomon, I'm sure. Isomorphic 03:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Haven't completely disappeared

No, I haven't completely disappeared, just very busy with other stuff, taking a break, I check in once and a while to see if anyone is making a request at the AMA, helping the Board behind the scenes with some stuff. — © Alex756 05:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan

What is happening with regard to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan? It's been nearly a month. Mintguy (T) 17:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of the update. It is most appreciated. Cheers. Mintguy (T)

Template:PD-USGov

Hi Jwrosenzweig,

Can you temporarily unprotect Template:PD-USGov? I'd like to turn it into a pretty box as I've done with Template:PD. Thanks, Cow

Cow, sorry, that will have to get approved at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It appears to me that someone had to "clean" your work at PD -- I don't know anything about these templates, and so I can't say for sure if it's approved for the USGOV template to be boxified. You seem nice and so I'd like to help, but I try hard to follow the rules, and I feel like in this case, I want to make sure you're acting with consensus. If the template's talk page showed editors were agreed about a change, I'd unprotect, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Thanks for your hard work, Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reminder

Jwrosenzweig, I wanted to say that your comment on the above matter was right on target: Jimmy Wales owns the site, and can do with it what he wants, but User:Jimmy Wales is a user of the site, and I've always respected Jimy Wales for making that explicit, and I respect you for saying the same. That said, I think that you are also correct that arbCom doesn't have jurisdiction in the case Xed wants to bring. -- orthogonal 02:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"my faith involves an all-encompassing personal commitment to treat all humanity with love, to deal honorably and charitably with all I come into contact with, and to reserve judgment for God, the one true judge. I take that commitment seriously."-Jwrosenzweig

The above is simply a reminder.--Xed 22:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lance6Wins and Zero0000

You would probably have found it soon enough, but I wanted to let you know about my response to your suggestions of how to proceed in this case, as a courtesy. It's on the talk page, of course, since the decision page itself is reserved for the arbitrators.

By the way, though you talk as if you're still feeling your way into the job, and I suppose that's natural, I think you're managing quite well. I don't think it's that different from learning to edit Wikipedia - you have to mix "being bold" with the give-and-take of negotiation. But if everyone just sits around and waits for somebody else to go first, the arbitration process would be completely dysfunctional. I don't know if I can actually make your job less thankless, but thanks for doing it anyway. --Michael Snow 23:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is hardly being too bold - if we cannot call each other friends by now, I truly don't know what we would call each other. --Michael Snow 00:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section

If you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systemic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the birthday greetings. RickK 22:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)



re:advice

Hi. I appreciate the tone of your message and I hope that my reply doesn't sound in anyway offensive. I do wish to explain my actions and perhaps you may judge if I am really on the borderline here. There was a minor incident some months ago regarding Naryathegreat who was a new user at the time. When he kept changing several pages in contravention of an agreed policy and ignored pleas to stop doing so, I blocked him for 10 minutes and then unblocked him 4 minutes later. This was the first time in nearly a year of being an admin that I had ever had need to use that power on a named user, but it seemed like a fair thing to do at the time on what was basically a vandal.

Now on to more recent events. What we have here are two different cases that have become intertwined. You will I hope note that when I ended up in a revert war with Kenneth Alan and exceeded the three-revert rule; Kenneth Alan had himself already exceeded that limit. When he chose to continue to keep reverting I blocked his account. I now left this message for Maveric149, asking what I should do about this situation. I had not been through this procedure before and was ignorant of it. Kenneth Alan came back and left this message for me [[1]] where he says "FUCK YOU AND YOUR MOTHER TOO", so I blocked him for 48 hours. It was several days before I got a reply on Maveric's page. Saying that I should seek arbitration (see here). So this is what I did.

Now we come to the involvement of Netoholic. From my perspective it appears that Netoholic has decided to make it his personal crusade to get my admin status revoked. This all started on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). This has a tortuous history but essentially I believe that Netoholic has been acting very badly against the wishes of the community. You will find many other users who agree with me on this issue. It is all in the archives of that page. I appealed to Angela and Arwell Parry to help sort this out. (see here) Netoholic was moving pages against the wishes of many users and defending that move by quoting a policy which he drafted himself the same day, he took offense at my questioning of this action. If you look at the discussion on [2]. you will see where I tried to get Netoholic to stop reverting the page to state incorrectly that a consensus had been reached, when in fact people were still voting and the so-called consensus was actually losing the vote. Netoholic accused me of reverting that page three times. At this time I must admit that I didn't even know that my reversions against Kenneth Alan had exceeded the three-revert rule, which is why I stated "Aggressive reverter, for sure, someone has to be with people like User:Kenneth Alan around. You might want to look more closely at those reverts. But I don't break the three revert rule. Mintguy (T) 01:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) " - so I actually invited Netoholic to look at my history and see why I had reverted Kenneth Alan. Rather than judge this as me acting in defence of Wikipedia against trolls and vandals. Netoholic chose to use this as ammunition against me in his personal crusade. If you look the other "so-called" charges he levelled against me in the RFC, you will see that that are all complete nonsense. Netoholic has gained a reputation with several other users for acting unilaterally against the wishes of the community, and this is why he now has an RFC against him (I have not contributed to this RFC). I ended up blocking him because he was continuing to disrupt the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) page once more against the wishes of the community. I warned him (see here) of the consequences. I was acting to give other users a chance to vote on an issue that Netoholic had taken over. He was imposing his will over the will of the community. I was not acting in any kind of personal interest, but only to give everyone the chance to vote on an issue. I have tried to give Netoholic advice on how to behave, with respect to his fellow editors (see here) but he has ignored this. You only have to look at the history of his talk page to see the number of users who have had a problem with him acting unilaterally. He accused me of trying to get back at him. All I have wanted to do is give users the chance to vote on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Throughout, I have appealed to other users to assist, when my appeals met with sympathetic words but no action, I took steps, because no-one else was wished to, and I did not want to allow Netoholic to get away with sweeping aside the community's views in favour of his own for the third time on that page. I see little distinction between using a rollback and manually reverting to a previous version other than speed. I certainly didn't have an issue with it before I was an admin. This whole business has been needlessley stirred up by a disruptive user for his own reasons. Perhaps you should be talking to Netoholic about his behaviour. Mintguy (T) 10:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been spending less and less time editing articles because of this business, and now I am taking a wiki-break only looking in occasionally and checking up on this situation, but I will not be dirven away by trolls. Mintguy (T) 12:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Netoholic

Yes, I still check the user talk page. I'm sockpuppetting atm to avoid my fanclub, as it were.

Netoholic's on-Wikipedia activities have been mild. The worst I can find is [3], which isn't a big deal at all.

This is, of course, why I proposed IRC be admissable when it is relevent to Wikipedia conduct for the arbitration policy - because I figured a situation exactly like this one would come up, whereby someone engages in low-grade "needling" on Wikipedia, while fanning the flames in IRC.

That said, the personal attack was the part of my claim I knew was kinda dodgy. I think Netoholic's refactoring provides a much stronger case - he is continuously removing all comments that are critical of him from pages as off-topic and irrelevent. This is bad, and he has been warned about it previously. Snowspinner 22:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

A good point -- I had only seen two examples, and (for some reason) hadn't registered mentally the thought that this is a frequent occurrence. I'll do a little more digging, though it's difficult when one doesn't know exactly where to look. I'll give the IRC question more consideration, also. Thanks for the prompt reply, Jwrosenzweig 22:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re Thanks

Hi, I've never been to SFU myself, but I have played against their quiz bowl team (when they came over to this side of the continent for a tournament). I'm not working on anything specific at the moment, but since I studied history as an undergrad, I'm taking everything I can to help with future history work - Latin (although that's required anyway) palaeography, "materials of medieval history" (which is where my post on the reference desk came from), and medieval violence. I'd like to work on the period of the early crusades and their interaction with the Byzantine Empire, so I will have to learn Greek at some point as well. There are some Early Modern English people here, I think...the Centre for Medieval Studies works with the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, and there is also a Centre for Research in Early English Drama. Adam Bishop 22:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn't mind that...I get kind of overenthusiastic about what I'm studying, and go on and on about it in inappropriate places (like the reference desk :)), so if anyone was actually interested in what I study I wouldn't mind explaining it. I actually wish I could help out with renaissance and early modern English stuff more often, along with you and geogre and others - it's interesting, but I don't know as much about it as I would like. Ah well! Adam Bishop 22:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proslogium

I noticed you began the Proslogium page. Anselm of Canterbury and Ontological argument both refer to "Proslogion." Do you happen to know if these refer to the same thing? --Allissonn 01:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts on Dispute Resolution

Jw, thanks for your response on User talk:Ambi/Thoughts on Dispute Resolution. I don't mind at all - as I said there - the system may be in trouble, but I'd like to think that with dialog, at least some of the kinks may be worked out. For that matter, I've responded to your post, as well. Ambi 16:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Revisiting a meetup

You once mentioned the idea of doing a Seattle-area meetup, and inspired by the pending Chicago meetup, I was wondering if it would be a good time to try and organize something. I don't know how big of a crowd we might get - hopefully people might consider traveling from the Vancouver or Portland areas, although the event probably wouldn't have the same draw as Jimbo's star power. But even if it was nothing more than the two of us, I think it would be rewarding nevertheless. --Michael Snow 22:25, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saturdays sound best to me; I think basically all meetups so far have been scheduled for weekends. At least a few weeks lead time is probably called for, so October 16 is the earliest date I would even consider possible. At the other end of the window, I think getting it done before Thanksgiving weekend would be best, which leaves November 20 as the latest possible date. In between those, October 30 is a probable conflict for me and likely not an ideal choice due to competition from Halloween-related events.
The other major competition that I can think of, given Wikipedia's skew towards a college-age male demographic, is college football. The Husky football schedule for the relevant weeks is:
  • October 16 Oregon State, 12:30 PM
  • October 23 at USC, 1:30 PM
  • October 30 at Oregon, 12:30 PM
  • November 6 Arizona, 12:30 PM
  • November 13 California, 12:30 PM
  • November 20 at Washington State, 5:00 PM
Of course, I don't know if any of our potential attendees go to the games or care about them (less likely given the current state of the team), but if nothing else it might be a consideration for traffic and/or parking, depending on the time and venue we choose.
Speaking of venues, do you have any ideas or preferences? Presumably indoors at least, in light of the season. Various possibilities would include restaurants, library or school/university spaces, other community facilities, or private homes. --Michael Snow 16:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Date: I agree, let's shoot for November 6th, and then we can use November 13th as a fall-back option in case people have lots of scheduling conflicts or if venue availability is problematic. No need to try and take on the Apple Cup (I'm glad to discover the article already exists).

Place: The downtown library would be the perfect choice, in my opinion. Appropriate to our mission, a worthwhile destination as a building, an easy landmark for people traveling in or unfamiliar with downtown. Although I haven't been inside yet (for my sins), I will try and find some time this Saturday to scout the location, just to be sure there will be enough space for the kind of group we anticipate. From checking out the library website, the cafe area is small (seats 20), which may be enough anyway but I'm not sure what the competition from other patrons will be like - and since it is a library, minimizing disruption to other patrons seems like a sensible courtesy. There are some study/project rooms we could also use if one is open. The website says the larger meeting rooms aren't available until 2005, and start taking reservations in October (are the rooms not finished yet?). The smallest holds 29, which is probably larger than we need anyway, but something to consider if we want to have future, larger Wikipedia events in Seattle.

Time: If it is the library, hours are 10-6 on Saturdays. I would suggest 2 or 3 o'clock. Late enough that people can sleep in and/or get other things done, miss Husky pregame traffic, etc. Still would give us plenty of time before the library closes, depending on how long people want to stay, and then if anyone wants even more, they can move on to another location for dinner and so on into the evening. --Michael Snow 21:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've left messages on Jmabel's and Lukobe's talk pages about this, so if they want to come but can't make the 6th then we can change the date. As far as a page to organize it, we can probably use Wikipedia:Meetup or create a subpage thereof. I'll wait until after my scouting trip before making a general announcement, which will give them time to respond as well. Based on my experience, I would try to advertise in as many places as possible, because there really isn't any one place where people look for things. --Michael Snow 22:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'm for this. Let me know when you have a precise time. By the way, there is also great space on the 10th floor of the library, east side; other than the lack of refreshments, it may be a better meeting spot than the cafe. Can you set up a page for planning this, so we can all watchlist it? -- Jmabel 22:22, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle with the provisional details on the page, and also copied most of our initial discussion to the talk page, so we should be able to plan everything in a single location now. --Michael Snow 22:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice; the 6th looks as though it should be OK. I live in Richmond, a south suburb of Vancouver. Seattle is quite a reasonable place for me. I'll follow the rest of the discussion on the special page that you've set up. Eclecticology 10:46, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
My thanks, too, for the notice. I haven't decided whether to drive up from Portland (yes, I still live here, with a view -- weather permitting -- of Mount St. Helens from my computer desk), but the chance to put voices & faces to names is very tempting. I'll let you know my decision soon. -- llywrch 05:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Thanks for the invite. I'm a relatively new and meager contributor, but I appreciate the invitation and am going to try to make it.--Jkiang 06:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email. Thanks. --L$T27 22:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Puns

My roommates in college and I used to get into theme pun-wars. Everyone would try to work words that fit the theme (I remember doing country names once, and vegetables another time) into the conversation. Great fun. Always willing to give tribute where it's due. Anyway, I'm signing off for the evening and hope you have a good one. Isomorphic 00:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re:User_talk:Sam_Spade#For_You

last night while I slept
a snake slid into my lung
tobacco is bad

I have returned. As far as my hat, I haven’t been wearing any since my move, altho it rains pretty much daily here, and would thus be relatively appropriate. I am considering purchasing a leather fedora, but I'm not yet sure where from. As my Haiku suggests, I had the misfortune to smoke cigarettes last night, which I now have the unpleasant results of. Fortunately that, combined w my having lost my wallet behind the stove, inspired me to begin the "negative calorie diet" (I suppose I'll have to write the article now...). If your curious as to where I am, feel free to send an email or something and I'll tell you, but I think I have decided to pursue increased anonyminity here on the wiki proper. Thanks for thinking of me, Sam [Spade] 18:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sam_Spade#For_You

more tea is healthy..
a gallon or three a day?
thats alot of tea!

;) Sam [Spade] 20:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted you to know I've reconsidered (due to the VfA) and have added my name and location to my deatils. Prost, Sam [Spade] 19:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#You.27re_kidding.21 Sam [Spade] 20:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Othogonal

If 2 arbitrators recuse themselves it only takes 3 to take the case. But I did all that and set up the pages before I discovered he is actually gone. I'll do a motion to close the case anyway. Fred Bauder 23:25, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

This isn't written anywhere, it's just common sense, 3 of 6 is equivalent to 4 of 8. I still will move to close the case. His user page carries a rather definite message, User:Orthogonal Fred Bauder 23:34, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sweet

Thank you for your lovely message. :) In fact I went away for a while because I was feeling good. I'd been using wikipedia as a way to manage my severe depression (it gave me something to focus on), and a few months ago I finally settled on the right medication and felt normal and happy again. I just took some time to do different things (leave the house!) although I have enjoyed writing articles in the last few days. :) I'm starting full time work soon so I wont be around as much as I used to be, but I should be around some. Anyway it's really nice to be welcomed back so warmly by all of you whom I remember fondly as little breaths of sanity and good humour earlier this year. :D fabiform | talk 23:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:

  • From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
  • Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing" [4]
  • Attempts to sugarcoat racist views [5]
  • The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim [6].
  • Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
  • Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
  • From Talk:Socialism:
    • "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism#protection). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
  • More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
    • Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
  • Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking [7].

No, you can't help

Not as you advertize in your user page! You can only disturb the process of editing, and we have ALL the files to prove it. Now if you want to "arbitrate" again, be careful as I learned how to deal with it legally using your own mistakes here as an administrator. Will come back to you soon with the necessary details. In the mean time if you want to file my activity - don't lose your time - call my lawyer and you'll get the full list of trusted third parties who log "our" case :O) - irismeister 20:27, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Please do not leave any more comments on my talk page, especially when you choose to comment in a manner that insults and threatens me. Jwrosenzweig 20:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hiho

First of all: apologies for not answering your first message... ... ...

Second: yes, from time to time I visit RC and pop in the anonymous contributions to see what they are about. Really surprising: most of them are vandalism... You'll probably see me around doing that kind of job, but I am not too eager to do real editing these days. This may change, obviously.

Thank you very much for your support and friendliness.

Let me congratulate you for your job here at the wikipedia and especially for your commitment to help other people. Pfortuny 08:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

debureaucratship

Ah, you disagreed nicely - I can't say that about certain others. However, my decision was based mainly upon Cecropia's accusations, which seem to have been corroborated by several others, and my inactivity as a bureaucrat. Anyway, you've been nice to me (and other users), and in no way do I fault you for taking that stance. Unfortunately, those who have disagreed... disagreeably (lol)... have led to my rethinking the "merits" of the bureaucratic position, and I have therefore asked those privileges to be removed. ugen64 15:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username

Urm.. I'll see if I can get around to doing some of these (and maybe Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit) later today. — Kate Turner | Talk 22:36, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Hi

Username is a long story: people who know me as a poet were asking me to write about them here, so I thought I'd disappear my real name and go anon. I'm aware of History of Literature and hope to get to it one day, but I'm currently on a project which is to get the generation of Irish writers who emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century up to FA status, So far I've done Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, William Butler Yeats and the Abbey Theatre. John Millington Synge is currently on WP:FAC (maybe you'd look at it and suggest improvements?) and I'm working on Lady Gregory and George A. Moore. That leaves 3 or 4 more (Wilde, Shaw, AE, O'Casey). After that, maybe I'll have some energy for the history article!. Anway, thanks very mush for the message and keep in touch. What are you working on these days? Filiocht 07:44, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind calling Curtis Krueger?

  Hi James, thanks for the note you posted yesterday. I have not been overwhelmed with responses -- 
  in fact no one has emailed me directly. If you are at all interested in talking to me I would be 
  happy if you could call me toll-free at 1-(800) 333-7505 ext 8232. Or leave a number and I'll call 
  you. I will be in the office until about 5:30 EST this afternoon (Thursday Oct. 14) and all day 
  tomorrow. Based on the information on your personal page, you have more than enough experience as a 
  WIKIPEDIAN for me to interview you. By the way, do you think I posted my note in an apporpriate 
  place on the Village Pump? Is there someplace else it should go?
  Thanks,
  Curtis Krueger
  St. Petersburg Times
  krueger@sptimes.com

Motion to close on RK

Two of the currently active arbitrators are recused as to this case. I believe 4 votes is enough to support a ruling. --Michael Snow 16:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RK / case closure / imposition of sentence

With past cases (e.g. Kenneth Alan) a member of the Arbcom has imposed the sentence directly. If you want to do that, go ahead. If not, you should probably contact one of the other arbitrators to do this. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:57, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Admin nomination

G'day <insert unpronouncable username here>, thanks for your support on the request for adminship page! It's good to see another Christian on this site :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

explanation-guide (http://explanation-guide.info)

You made a comment [8] on Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (low degree of compliance). I think they are now OK, but would be grateful for your thoughts before I move it from low to high.--Henrygb 13:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Wise advice sought

For some reason I always drop by you when I need some wise advice. Sorry to bother you if you're busy.

User:FeloniousMonk is certainly an odd sort of fellow, and he's making insinuations left and right. I certainly don't like this talk I had with him after the closing of an rfa here (under his oppose vote): Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hawstom.

I explained a bit on his User Talk.

Notice how he's also causing quite some trouble for User:Rednblu. See especially User talk:Rednblu, most of the page is devoted to trouble stirred up by Feloniousmonk.

I'm not quite sure what to do with this person, he's kind of getting me angry.

Any advice on what might be the wisest course?

Kim Bruning 19:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for bringing that info to my attention... I changed my vote to neutral afterwards. [9] 172 02:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I sent you a message through the Wiki e-mail feature. Please let me know if it comes through... I've found it not to be reliable, so a confirmation will be appreciated. Thanks, 172 16:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at uc's comments on Martin's page. [10] Thanks. 172 07:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

JWR - Thanks for the advice. I think you're right in that the nomination is not going to pass, and this is not much of a surprise. I feel though, that its very important that I use this as a "bookend" to my work here. Unfortunately, unless I give this opportunity for those who feel I have wronged them, I'll never be able to move forward nor have any specific point-in-time to refer to that says "after this point, he has been a consistenly good editor". I actually regret not doing this a month ago, since all my early missteps were before then, and I feel like the last month has been an over-all very positive one. I hope that there might be a few people who will evaluate my actions and value based on my record, and not just vote based on someone else's comments. Thanks again, and happy Halloween to you too. -- Netoholic @ 23:02, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Anger toward God / Jesus

I admit I don't respond well to the self-righteous attempt to impose atheist values. I revile atheism, it is true. That said, I think I handle the subject in a remarkably amiable and impartial manner considering the extent of my feelings. User:The Rev of Bru, sockpuppet or no, is a type of user I have encountered a few times already in my time here. Relatively few total edits, all of them controversial, and an axe to grind (much like spleeman for example). While that description doesn't strike me as a new, or positive contributor, I have no proof other than the obvious, the edit history, that they are creating havok.

Normally when I have a conflict on the wiki, I back down and wait for things to cool down, and then go back to work. Those who bring insult to God create a very untenable predicament for me. Backing down (even temporarily) is unacceptable. I hope you can understand my distress. Sam [Spade] 23:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ha, I can't imagine you being more modest if you were confucious himself ;) Of course you havn't perturbed me (in this instance at least ;) I also understand that even as an arbiter (or perhaps especially as one) you can't do everything, always. I only wish there was some "wiki-911" to call when I feel things are going badly. Next time Jimbo is looking for volunteers, make sure I'm not forgotten in the "wiki-cop" nominations!
Users w few edits, and lots of conflict... make me uneasy. And don't worry about me getting too worked up, I've been able to handle everything from Nazi mysticism thru atheism, and several dozen or so weird debates w extreme lefties regarding the cold war inbetween. I've lasted a year now, due only to the combination of the beauty of knowledge, and the serenity that creates within me ;) Sam [Spade] 23:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anger towards imaginary beings? How do you imagine that that works? Jwrosenwig; I came to your talk page to indicate that (perhaps erroneously) I have been attempting to discuss the edits I have made on the Jesus page(s) in the section on 'Historicity of Jesus.' And as far as I'm concerned, deleting valid NPOV sections of an article, as I think Cheesedreams has accused you of with some justification, is vandalism. Please debate the issue. And please, don't take any notice of certain cranks with an anti-rationality agenda. The Rev of Bru

I'd appreciate your thoughts on Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus, especially concerning my differences with Cheese. Thanks, Slrubenstein

It's just the Cultural and historical background of Jesus page, there is a link from the Jesus page. Thanks, Slrubenstein

I notice Slrubenstein is trying to bring people who he sees as supporters of his POV into the discussion (see his contributions list). I do not think this is a very NPOV thing to do. CheeseDreams 00:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meetup

James--Great to meet you today. It was a pleasure to finally put a face to your name. I hope we can all get together again in the near future. It was nice to rant about things and have people understand just what you're talking about, if you know what I mean. I put up some pictures at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, including one of you, by the way. Best wishes -- Matt Decumanus 09:07, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Allow me to return the compliment. Ever since I started on WP, your signature seemed always a mark of calm and wisdom to me, often in the midst of bitterness, and I take great pride and motivation from your vote and kind words on RfA. dab 16:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re:

User_talk:Sam_Spade#I_have_been_asked_to_speak_with_you_2

Sam [Spade] 21:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A new reply is @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#I_have_been_asked_to_speak_with_you, and I would point out that out of respect for you (and you alone) I have extended an olive brance to FM, stating that if he requested mediation with me, I would not decline. That is certainly more than I ever would have done w/o your involvement, so I would hope you feel you have had some measure of success. Thank you (as always) for your thoughtful nature, Sam [Spade] 16:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


On a lighter note, please join in @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Jesus, we need the likes of you (badly)! Sam [Spade] 16:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haiku

Are we not Judas
When we forget Christs message
And live without him?

Sam [Spade] 16:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please take note of my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172/Proposed decision, my first detailed response to the AC. I am disputing the premises of the first proposed remedy and asking that the AC reconsider it. Thanks. 172 21:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

rex arbcom decision

Hi, I was wondering if you could in any way help expediate the process at Rex's arbcom hearing to reach a decision? Because of his continued presence, yet another article has been protected, one which is personally very important. I think 4 months of gathering evidence and Rex's recent behavior from his IP account is enough to warrant a decision. --kizzle 23:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) Filiocht 08:41, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

172 arbitration

I appreciate your comments on my talk page. However, my pledge to voluntarily follow the "three revert rule" is not the principal reason that I am concerned about the proposed "revert parole." The Arbitration Committee may not have taken pledges of good future conduct in the past; but neither has it accepted such an unreasonable and flawed case in the past. 1) This case ignores the complainants, who are among the most notorious problem users on Wiki. The complainants are chiding me for breaking policies that they themselves do not follow on a daily basis. 2) The committee imposed no limitation on the evidence. As a result, a couple of users with an ax to grind were able to cheery pick anything out of roughly 15,000 edits over nearly two years to present to the committee. (see Marin's acknowledgment of this problem [11]) I was effectively convicted from the start-- despite the fact that there was no evidence of an ongoing conflict in need of arbitration-- when the committee accepted the case on such broad terms. 3) On that note, here's an interesting hypothetical example... If cases on similar terms were heard against the some of the more senior arbitrators, considering every edit since the very first one in their user histories, all of them would have to be sanctioned following the precedent of my case. As I kept on stressing earlier, revert wars were commonplace before around early 2004; and a number of users who now happen to be arbitrators were involved in their fair share of "revert wars" in the past. Judged by the standards of the norms of Wiki today, these reversions from months ago simply look worse today than they were months ago.

However, there is still room for discretion within the terms of the case accepted and the guidelines of the committee, which will allow the committee to make a fair ruling. Since the case was considering some "general tendency toward revert wars," the judges ought to prioritize recent patters over edits made before there was even a well established conflict resolution process. If this is done, the committee will be able to distinguish me from the users brought to arbitration by Michael Snow, who are really the ones who practice reversions as their modus operandi. 172 13:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is some justice in what 172 says, as earlier, before we had a dispute resolution process, repeated reversions were the only method of dealing with conflict when dealing with someone who insisted on their point of view. If it was just nonsense, Jimbo would step in and ban them, usually indefinitely, but it took a lot more than differing points of view for that remedy to be invoked. As Sam Spade points out, 172's POV is legendary and while his behavior has recently changed to more of a support role for those who share his point of view, I have added some evidence of a more contemporary nature, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172/Evidence#Additional evidence. I think the proposed ruling is now very weak in view of a long history of notorious POV edit warring and if it is to be changed should be strengthened. Fred Bauder 14:23, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

The only thing recent in Fred's "additional evidence" is an alleged comment I made to him in a private correspondence by email off Wiki-- outside the AC's jurisdiction... Even so, I think that my response was pretty temperate, considering the tone of the statements Fred has been making about me for nearly two years: "He is just a teacher, and perhaps he is, but his work here is not not teaching but pushing the political line of a discredited regime that once did call anyone who disagreed with them crazy and had the power to abuse them by hospitalizing them." (a comment taken from his "additional evidence" page) Frankly, his charges are even more blatantly political than Sam Spade's; and Fred's hardly one to talk when it comes to having "a long history of notorious POV edit warring." 172 14:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at Talk:Sam Spade

So is it now your official position that Sam Spade was justified in sending me an vulgar email through wikipedia systems consisting of (edited): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard"?

And what is your official position on Sam repeatedly leaving personal attacks in edit summaries?

You've publicly characterized the discussion of Sam's dubious past activities at Talk:Atheism as an "organized smear job". That's a serious allegation, but without evidence that it was indeed organized or an intended as a smear job, it is just your opinion. For those who actually were participants in the discussion, it was a good faith effort of many respected users in discovering that Sam Spade has an extensive history of disrupting Talk:Atheism and the Atheism article opposing all progress that does not align with his personal, but academically unsupported POV, and of making disruptive edits in the namespace, exactly as he did yesterday resulting in the immediate re-protection of the article. I'm surprised that a sysop of your stature would make unsubstantiated characterizations like this without some evidence, particularly in support of someone who admitted to flagrantly abusing the the wikipedia email system to send insults to other editors, habitually leaves insulting edit summaries, and has an extensive history of intentionally obstructing progress and consensus on a topic that is counter to his very public ideology.--FeloniousMonk 18:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FM, I've made no "official statement" at any time about what behavior is or is not acceptable. Every conversation I have with a colleague here is not intended to be dissected as evidence of universal truths I espouse. This is especially true when my comments are clearly directed to one user only, on their talk page -- obviously those comments are meant as a personal note fro me to them, and not as a pronouncement to the wiki community or anything like it. Nevertheless, if you want some official thoughts from me to you, here are a few. I think you mischaracterized your behavior in your emails to me -- I don't know that you did this intentionally, but I have found it most embarassing, as, because I trusted your remarks and assumed good faith in your emails, I made some very broad statements to users here that I have discovered were unfair to them. Your conduct on Talk:Atheism has most certainly not been in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia:Wikiquette -- you have been forcefully combative, and I have seen a number of comments by you there that were clearly intended solely to provoke Sam into anger. That you should complain once he has lost his temper, after so openly seeking to anger him, is the height of impudence, in my opinion. I grant that Sam is not easy to discuss some things with, especially when they involve faith. I disagree, however, entirely with your tactics, which look to me very much like an attempt to bully or discredit someone into silence so that your preferred version of a page is triumphant. Perhaps you didn't see your actions in this way. I can assure you, I do.
I don't think Sam should have spoken harshly to you, but I think harsh words are understandable (though still wrong) in light of your provocation. I have continued to insist to Sam that I think it best he not mistreat you in response to your mistreatment of him -- I don't condone Sam's behavior. But I understand what it's like to be goaded into losing one's temper. Personal attacks in edit summaries are also against Wikipedia policy, but again, they cannot be taken out of the context of your comments to Sam, many of which I find needlessly rude and combative. I don't think Sam is without blame in this. But I think the larger share of the blame goes to his opponents at Talk:Atheism. I'm not saying he's right about the article. I am saying that his opponents were wrong to use the strong-arm tactics they did against Sam's version.
You're right, the assertion that it was an "organized smear job" is merely my opinion -- I never said it was otherwise. I can say, though, that it was a smear job -- comments were obviously not related to the article, but rather to Sam's character and his past. The apparent goal was to discredit Sam and box him out of the discussion. How organized it was, I cannot say, but there was remarkable consistency in the way that several of you attacked Sam: if it wasn't organized, then all I can say is that you all appear very good at collaborating when the object is maligning an opponent. I have no idea what my "stature" is -- I try not to think about it much. All I do try to do is be fair to others, and follow Wikipedia policy. If you feel I have unfairly accused you, all I can say is that I'm not publically accusing you of anything. I'm not opening proceedings against you or anything of the kind. I'm just personally offended that someone would mischaracterize their behavior to me in an effort to get me "on their side" against two Wikipedians that I consider friends (although I do not necessarily agree with them merely because they are friends). I'm doing my best to apologize to them about my comments. If you decide that it is your place to monitor my conversations with my friends and take offense at my comments to them, I'll simply ask you not to enlist me in your battles in the future. You may be a very good Wikipedian most of the time -- I can't say. And I won't doubt that Sam started some of what went on at the Atheism talk page. But what I have seen of you recently is an editor who intentionally misleads, who stalks editors from page to page in order to harass them and malign their character, and who is entirely unrepentant. I hope my impression of you is wrong, and that I see another side of your character someday. At the present time, all that I can do is act on the impressions I have been given. Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you feel that I mislead you in enlisting you to deal with Sam's nasty email (which was not his first instance of trolling his history shows), then I apologize, it was not my intent. But rereading my original emails to you and how I described the problem to you (which I'm presenting below) I fail to see how you can claim that I've mislead anyone. Reread my original description of the situation leading up to Sam sending me the email:
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:57:38 -0800 (PST)
From: <FeloniousMonk>
Subject: Re: Another wiki request
To: <jwrosenzweig>

"That brings us to the issues with Sam. The Talk:Atheism page was going just as I said above, until another user, The Rev of Bru, stated that Sam made a bigoted comment about atheists. I asked Sam to clarify, knowing that abject bigotry may indicate trolling or editing in bad faith, meaning we should ignore Sam's insistence that his unique, personal definition was the correct definition (despite the 10+ academic references I presented saying otherwise). At that point, the user UVwarning indicated that Sam made a number of other bigoted comments as well. Again, I asked Sam to clarify if this was indeed true and if so, what he meant. In the meantime I decided to read up on Sam myself and discovered that Sam had gone under another username, JackLynch, that had a extensive history in the Talk:Atheism pages that was characterized by other respected users like (username) and (username) as a troll. These same users alleged that Sam/Jack had cynically abused the RM process to bring actions that were frivolous and without merit, intended simply to harass and/or silence opposition. I then asked Sam and others to clarify this and expressed concern about the appropriateness of Sam continuing to contribute here in good faith and ability to maintain some level of objectivity if this were indeed true. That's when the email from Sam arrived (which I'm including below). I can only guess that he is angered that my discovery outed his past identity and history, which he wanted to keep secret."

Considering that how I originally described the situation to you here aligns precisely with, and is backed up by, the discussion record now at Talk:Atheism, how it is that I mislead you? If a person has a long history of trolling and obstructing progress, as Sam does, and it is part of his wikipedia history/record, it is only fair and natural that current editors, upon discovering that history, will determine if that person is still continuing their past habits. Particularly if the editor in question is currently obstructing progress and derailing the patient efforts of good faith contributors, as many editors will attest Sam has been, perhaps best evidenced by his actions yesterday requiring the Atheism article being re-protected. Your opinion on both the nature of the discussion that took place about Sam at Talk:Atheism and of my honesty is based solely on you assuming my intent that and others. You've seem to have made up your mind that we all intended to malign Sam with his own trollish history (all of which is factual and supported by record and so not in question, BTW), and that I intended to mislead you in some conspiracy to shut out Sam. It's pure conjecture. There is no evidence, no premise, only conclusion. The conversation was completely impromptu, look at the timestamps. And I remind you that it is within the rights of editors to determine if a particularly disruptive and troublesome editor has a history of obstructionism that prevents them from now contributing positively. That Sam finds his past history burdensome and frustrating when people discover and raise it is in no way a justification for sending insulting emails or absolves him of having done so, despite your tacit granting of it here with your reversal of opinion. Or is it now your position that insults made to other editors in violation of policy are to be tolerated as long as they were provoked? Please clarify this, because if that is indeed the case, then I have a few choice phrases to share with one editor who insists on bullying me and I'd like to get it off my chest.
Your entitled to maintain your opinion that I intentionally mislead you, even in light of the text above showing I did not; that is your right. But your opinion that I'm stalking other editors to harass them is unfounded, unsubstantiated and particularly sad and disingenuous considering it is I who have been stalked and harassed, first by bullying and badgering from Kim Bruning, which continues unchecked even though it was you who I came to you for assistance on that matter as well, and second by Sam Spade by wiki email. What is sad and disingenuous about it is that you failed to keep Kim in check though you yourself said that he abused his administrator position in his interactions with me to some extent. Kim this very minute is bullying me on Jimbo's page, right under your nose. Or perhaps it is with your blessing now?
As to your charge that I am unrepentant, indeed I am. Why should I be? I've violated no policies in any significant way. I am not the one who sends other wikipedia editors insulting vulgar emails. I've not stalked anyone, indeed I am being stalked and bullied. You did not require repentance of Sam for his concretely transgressing the policies with a wiki email stating "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard". Why should I then be expected to be repentant of supposed transgressions that are far less concrete? It's a double standard you're employing.
I selected you to talk to Sam (after Kim Bruning failed to act) precisely because you are his friend. I intentionally select a friend or acquaintance knowing that they will 1) be more aware of their relationship, and so make an extra effort to remain neutral, 2) that their relationship may be able to better reach the target. You'll remember that I also mentioned to you in my email that I am disappointed in amount of cronyism that goes on at wikipedia and that I trusted you to not engage in it. More than I am disappointed in your new opinion of me or my recent questioning of the bona fides of those sysops I previously held in high esteem, I'm saddened most by your support of a known troll, one who cynically manipulates the very systems of wikipedia to send foul-mouthed insulting (and certainly not christian) emails, and to engage in bad faith obstructionism, and whose sneering, jeering attitude is evidenced below. Nevertheless, I do thank you still.--FeloniousMonk 01:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do feel that you misled me (again, I think quite possibly unintentionally), by claiming (on more than one occasion) that you had done nothing that required you to apologize to Sam. I feel you did -- that you treated him rudely and attempted (successfully) to rally editors against him. I wish that you could see this in your words, but I know this is a matter of opinion on which we will disagree. I will say no more of it at present -- I doubt it will do either of us any good.
Re: Kim and your "stalking" other editors, I do maintain that Kim is behaving appropriately now (at least in his behavior at Jimbo's talk page). I asked Kim to remain calm, and to seek the advice and help of others, rather than confronting you directly (and risking breaches of etiquette). Kim's comments to Jimbo seem to me entirely in accord with this. He's not saying "Ban FM!" He's not even saying "Deal with this troll." He's asking Jimbo to talk with you about policy matters that he thinks you are unclear on. I think that's quite reasonable. That you jumped onto Jimbo's page attacking Kim for these statements and accusing him of bullying, I feel is you harassing Kim. There's no need to confront him in that way. Kim has decided to leave the matter of discussing your work here to others -- isn't that what you wanted? I would think that an editor who feels they are in the right would welcome the chance to chat with Jimbo about policy -- I know I would be happy to have even an enemy invite Jimbo to talk with me. Even when I disagree with Jimmy, he's always fascinating. So I feel your comments there are more clearly an attempt to follow Kim and attack him, rather than self-defense, as you seem to feel your comments are. I hope you will give Kim the benefit of the doubt and not continue to challenge him on Kimbo's talk page, since I don't believe Kim went there with the intent to attack you. He's just trying to get out of the conflict while still feeling that someone will keep an eye on things: I hope you can accept that as a reasonable course of action.
I don't believe it is acceptable to personally abuse or attack someone if provoked. I believe it is understandable (a key difference). I still think Sam was wrong, and I still think he should apologize -- I haven't backed down from that. But I think he should apologize in the knowledge that his actions were intentionally provoked. If I make fun of your mother and your children until you punch me in the nose, I am sure you have still committed an assault. But I think most people would understand why you had -- not that it justifies the punch, but it mitigates the fault of it somewhat. I hope both you and Sam will be civil to one another in the future, regardless of provocation.
I disagree that I'm employing a double standard. I would like you both to apologize to each other. I doubt either of you will. I believe, though, that Sam's comments to me indicate he knows he shouldn't have said what he did (although he still feels the anger that led him to say it)....perhaps I'm wrong. I haven't seen a similar indication from you, though I still hope to.
I don't know if I'm being accused of cronyism above. I hope that I'm not, but if you feel that way, I don't know that I can dissuade you. I'm not defending Sam's comments as correct. I'm admitting that I understand why he would be angry enough to make them. Because of this context, while I personally believe that he violated Wikiquette, I see it as a minor violation, roughly equal to the provocations on talk:atheism that led him to his remarks. I promise you, I will continue to do what I can to urge Sam not to lash out at you or any other user. I believe it is wrong to attack someone in that way. I see your opinion of me is somewhat diminished by all this -- perhaps you and I will both come to think of each other more highly in the future again. I hope so. I see much that is good in your work here, and it seems you have seen the same in me. We are both disappointed in each other over this dispute, but perhaps that is because matters of faith are too important to us both to remain as calm as we would like (though for different reasons). Or perhaps I am wrong. Thank you for being generally polite and calm in talking with me here, even though I am sure you are upset with me. I hope you can adopt the same approach with Sam, more or less. And I will urge him to do the same with you. If you both continue to personally attack each other, I promise, I will hold you both to the same standard. And I am sure I won't get involved in an official capacity with either of you: I'm too tied up in this to even think about rendering a verdict as arbitrator, of course. I hope our paths cross again in Wikipedia in a happier way, and I look forward to a more productive and less contentious conversation at some time in the future. Best wishes, sincerely, Jwrosenzweig 06:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your actions and sharing your opinions about mine. I want to be clear on two final points:
One, it remains my position that my discussion on Talk:Atheism with other users regarding Sam Spade was in good faith and was not intended as a personal attack. Nor has it been established as a fact that indeed it was a personal attack. I stand by my statement that it was an earnest discussion and sharing of relevant facts about a disruptive editor in a good faith effort to understand that editor's repeated refusal to work toward consensus on that page, which I should mention, still continues. It is within the rights of editors to determine if a particularly disruptive and troublesome editor has a history of obstructionism that prevents them from contributing positively and requires some official action to address. Such a discussion can only be perceived as a personal attack if you don't assume good faith but do assume intent. That aside, since my discussing with other editors Sam's behavior and past history offended Sam, he has my apologies.
Two, Kim Bruning has a past history of bullying me, that much is fact. Kim has failed to justify (despite repeated calls to do so) exactly what policy I am so unclear on that it requires Jimbo of all people, and exactly why it's such a pressing matter that he had to go to Jimbo less than one week after badgering me on my Talk page. During that same badgering Kim sneered: "I'd really love to see what'd happen if you had a short debate with Jimbo Wales on wikipedia policy. If you're feeling shy or so, I'd talk with him first if you like.". So his efforts on Jimbo's page now a week later seem little more than follow-through on a previous threat. You'll have to grant that from my perspective it looks like continued badgering and bullying. Considering that there's now 1/2 of Jimbo's page memorializing Kim's effort, I'm certain I can make a case for harassment should I choose.
Anyway, I do appreciate your previous efforts, and am indeed sorry that we have very differing perceptions and opinions of what actually transpired at Talk:Atheism with Sam Spade. Since you're unlikely to take my word for it, I will just say that time will tell whether I am a troll or a trusted contributor at wikipedia. I'm confident that left unmolested, it will prove to be the latter. But if I do find I'm being harassed, particularly by any editors I've previously sought assistance in dealing with, I have the right employ whatever measures wikipedia provides me to protect my good name and will certainly do so.--FeloniousMonk 08:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your name is a stick

I think this is a particularly apt summary given your position. While arbitrators may not get much respect in a useful way (such as excess of politeness towards them, or reverence from defendants) their statements (as well as those of other important wikipedians) do carry alot of weight, even when misused. A bit like how an american supreme court justice can be misquoted to sensationalist effect in the media. Sam [Spade] 23:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WP:LCOTW

Filiocht 10:36, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Jesus

Could you please comment on the scope and goals of the project? It is likely this project will become the meta-mediation point for many of the currently uncoordinated discussions, which is why Mpolo suggested it in the first place. - Amgine 18:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Assistance

No problem. What a tantrum that user threw. I'll certainly keep you up to date on that project. It's nice to have someone in the know about it actually. It helps with motivation. I just sent a one-page proposal to my agent yesterday finally, although I'm dubious if the editors he will send it to are the right kind for this topic and the particular readership (I think I mentioned he deals in computer how-to books, mostly). But we'll see. I'm hoping some editor will get as excited about it as I am. Should have some feedback quickly (fingers crossed). :) -- Decumanus 18:46, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible

Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to Template:In the news, I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 17:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Simple: thanks

Thanks very much. I'll watch the wiki more closely today, but I'm not sure about protecting it, unless it happens again. -- Netoholic @ 23:06, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Simple's main page. The reason it's not protected is because the benefit of allowing people to edit it far outweighs advantage of preventing a small amount of vandalism. There are very few admins, and changes would rarely be made to the page if normal users couldn't edit it. It's not a high profile page like the English Wikipedia so keeping it vandalism-free is not as important, at this stage, as having it freely editable.

I am sort of still active there, but less so that I was due to other commitments. The days when I used to check every edit that happened on Simple: are long gone unfortunately. Angela. 23:10, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

(copied)

Well, protecting or not protecting is your call. :-) It's such a crying pain to have to fix interwiki redirects that I can't imagine you risking it, but I don't know squat about who update simple's main page, and I guess if they're not admins, protecting it would be bad. I feel nervous myself about an unprotected main page since it's what everybody sees, but I'll keep my nose out of it -- I have enough to do on en without trying to add responsibility for simple. :-) Best of luck fighting the vandal, Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm usually watching Simple: closely (checking all the edits ala Angela). I agree on protection, but not just for this incident. Is there any way to prevent cross-wiki redirects? -- Netoholic @ 23:17, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

help?

I have made my own proposal for the "new messiah" section, and would appreciate your comments (on my proposal, and perhaps on the whole discussion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph -- thanksSlrubenstein

Barnstar!

I, Lst27, award you this barnstar for your kindness.

I award you this barnstar. Enjoy. --Lst27 (talk) 17:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic's poll

Look, I'm getting sick of Netoholic. That poll was pure harrassment of users. I struck it out so that others wouldn't participate. I have added it to the evidence page, but c'mon! I've never seen a user generate so much controversy, and I've seen some beauties in my time on this site!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take it easy, if you can. :-) I have hope that Netoholic will see our side of it. I think the poll, while misguided, was well-intentioned -- that is, I think he honestly thought it was a good way of avoiding taking people to arbitration. It's not the right thing to do (I agree with you 100% there) but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, at this point, at least. Maybe I'm a little too forgiving. :-) Anyway, do your best to stay cool and we'll all hope for the best. Thanks for standing up for what's right, though -- I appreciate it. Jwrosenzweig 03:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ass to Mouth

Ok, here's the structure we need. Anal sex links to Anilingus, and Anilingus links to Ass to Mouth. Anilingus and Ass to Mouth aren't the same sex act -- in Anilingus there is toungue-anus contact and in Ass to Mouth there is not. Don't treat them as the same act -- they're not.

xianpingowu

Could you take a glance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/xiapingowu? Basically, I've complained about his abusive comments, and all that he has done is respond in a manner that demonstrates the ground of my complaint. I've never before raised a formal complaint against a Wikipedian, and I have no idea where one goes from here. Thanks in advance for any advice. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:23, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

How I've avoided this type of thing so long is that I usually let things slide.
For whatever it's worth, I am raising this because xiapingowu's incivility has been so out of proportion to the substance of our disagreement. I have now taken more abuse from him over issues about disambiguating "Wesleyan" and "Wesleyan University" than I have from all sides during major disagreements about Romanian history, Israel/Palestine issues, miscellaneous topics related to the political spectrum, issues related to Basque history, etc. I understand why someone can get heated and say some regrettable things in area like that, and I've taken back or apologized for a few remarks myself. However, bringing such venom to a trivial matter like this seems to me to be something else. Someone who can make such attacks over such small things seems to me like a serious hater. I do not believe I should have to put up with being insulted like this over almost nothing, and I particularly resent the attacks on my competence and ability.

-- Jmabel | Talk 23:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Avala case

Please vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Avala/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies. --mav 21:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar

It wasn't for anything in particular. It was just for your kindness in my past RfA's. That's all. Thanks for asking. --Lst27 (talk) 23:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something Awful Forums

Finally protected, thank you, might wanna look into last couple hours edit history, some obvious blocking candidates. Cheers, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:21, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Temp Injuction

You know I could just go and copy and past the stuff I wrote on other moderators pages, but since they never responded that's probly not the best idea.

Why'd you give me the exact same temp injunction as Reithy when I've merely been revert warring and he's out and out vandalizing(even the rest of the users who called for a temp injunction on the page agreed that I deserved a lesser injunction). Although my edits might look bad out of context, if you realize the person I was revert warring was doing even more absurd edit summaries(example: [[12]])) and thus I feel my edit summaries were valid. I don't see how I'm any different from the other group of users (verilyverily, shorner) I, along with them would post stuff on talk page and keep posting till people stop responding, while revert warring(my revert warring was just with one aol anon ip that for some reason didn't get temp injunction against.

I believe the purpose of a temp injunction is to prevent Wikipedia from any harm: and noting by my creation of several articles/minor edits and the fact that the other user I was revert warring is not temp injuctioned against, refuse to talk with me on the talk page until I apolgized to him and thus by doing that provoked me into all of this edit wars, that A complete injunction against me causes more harm then good. Chuck F 03:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Thanks for noticing my multifarious edits and for taking the trouble to mention them kindly! Man vyi 12:11, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus

This page was un-protected today. FT2 then did a basic revision of the article. Using that as a basis, I have been working on the page all day. At one point CheeseDreams reverted it to FT2's version. You can see his explanation for yourself on the talk-page, but my sense is that he simply will not tolerate anything I do on wikipedia (he didn't make any substantive objections). I am about to clock off and am leaving the article in what I think is a pretty good state. I assume that whenever CHeeseDreams is active again, he will revert it. In any case, I would appreciate it if you would look at the version I worked on. Do you see any NPOV or verifiability issues? Can you see any way to improve the organization or style? Could you look at the version CheeseDreams favors (the one basically done by FT2 and, to my mind, obviously a rough draft calling out for work)? I'd appreciate any comments, Slrubenstein

Endorsements page

Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. --Michael Snow 01:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to see you're not running for re-election. But thanks for your service. I appreciated your efforts to get arbcom moving. Wolfman 01:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Dear Jwrosenzweig:

Thanks for your courtesy, but I'm not interested at this time. Maybe in the future I'll feel able to contribute and moderate diverse points of view. Right now, I prefer to share my feelings and experiences to peers who have common interests. If my ideas and descriptions will add knowledge and pleasure of wikipedians, I shall be delighted; if not, I'm always open to an alternative interpretation, suggest or comment. "Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element ? direct observation" (See Hajor). My regards, and thanks again. :-) MusiCitizen 16:00, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

The DataRat

Jwrosenzweig, I'm not sure where to report this, but it seems that The DataRat may be using a bot to repeatedly link his external theological dictionary to the Wikipedia (cf. his contributions on Calvinism among others). You'll also see a rather vigorous NPOV debate on User_Talk:The DataRat about an article that he apparently added and says he will revert if anyone changes (with a bot, pehaps?). --Flex 15:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Your opinion please

What do you think I should do about this Should i revert or leave the page as it is? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 00:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi there. I noticed you accepted the arb case against me (Gzornenplatz et al.) but haven't been around so much in the ensuing process. Of course, there could be many reasons for that. I bring this up because I know you from that flap over LibertarianAnarchist a year ago, where (just as now) I was under relentless attack by an extremist with multiple sockpuppets (although ironically in that case a fervent anti-communist), and you jumped in to defend me over him based not on the editing patterns the ArbCom is focused on now but by the content of his edits and comments. This perspective could really help here, as the ArbCom is about to make a very senseless and destructive ruling on superficial grounds. (Of course I'm running the risk you will merely support them outright, and the risk you will just ignore me as the others did, but such is life.) VeryVerily 00:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Life has scrambled me everywhere -- I'm afraid I'm not a very good arbtirator these days (hence my not running -- good luck, btw). I will do what I can tomorrow to look things over and provide my opinion -- I hope that will not be too late. Sorry to be of so little immediate help, Jwrosenzweig 00:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for responding. RL is scrambling me as well, but I'm also having to fight for my Wikipedia life all the while. VeryVerily 00:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

moved from user page

James: I am Terry Elliott, live in Minnesota, but my wife is from Kettle Falls. I am very new to Wikipedia, worked on articles such as Yield Management and a few others. I have been on a project in Germany since July and am home for a week, so I want to spend some time learning my way around here. TLE 00:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Happy holidays for you as well, I hope all is well for you and your family, and wish you glad tidings in the holiday season.

If snow falls or not
If the gift is right, or no
We make thanksgiving

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration process

Since Pnikilov has refused mediation and continues to insult me, I have no idea what I am supposed to do. In a year on Wikipedia, I've never had anything like this happen. I would very much appreciate advice on how I can proceed. Do I ask for arbitration? Can I do that unilaterally when he is obviously unwilling to participate? Is there some other way I should proceed? Thanks in advance for any advice. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Wikifun round 4

Hi, I noticed that you competed in a previous round, so I just wanted to tell you that Round 4 of the Wikifun trivia quiz is now running... -- Eugene van der Pijll 22:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Compromise discussion

Jwrosenzweig;

Slrubenstein has said he will not further discuss compromise unless others are involved. Would you care to read or comment on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Compromise discussion? - Amgine 20:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More Confirmation

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation! WHEELER 23:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

your version

Can you point me at a version of [Cultural and Historic background of Jesus] that is close to what you think is a correct version? And what parts of that version you think don't belong? Pedant 00:22, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

You have the right to a defense

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig CheeseDreams 00:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AMA

What do you know about the AMA? Is it caput, or is it still actually functioning? -- user:zanimum

Zani, good question about the AMA -- based on the activity at their requests for assistance page (I forget the name exactly, but it's linked to from WP:AMA) I think it's crawling along at a snail's pace. It would appear that someone called Keith Tyler (I don't know him) is handling most of what few requests arrive. I imagine that it, like the harmonious editing club and dozens of other voluntary associations here, didn't have sufficient gravity to keep itself together. Perhaps it will revive one day. I think it was little used, though, for the basic reason that most people who need help with dispute resolution have already decided who they will trust to give them answers, and so they don't go looking for an "organization" to provide help. The few I ever saw go to the AMA mistakenly seemed to believe that they were acquiring a mediator (and one who would be favorable to them) -- most of them seemed to abandon AMA assistance once they discovered the "actual" dispute resolution procedure. Sorry for the long answer. Did you ask for any particular reason, by the way, or just curiosity? :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks JW, I was curious because you and I had run the inaugural (and possibly only ever) election for the AMAs. Do you think there should still be an election, being six months after the initial one? -- user:zanimum

Replying to message

O.K. Thanks for your message. I'm just going to write the missing bits to the page and try to get it to where it looks complete-ish.

--wayland 09:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too much Jack the Ripper

Please see talk Talk:Lewis Carroll, Talk:Patricia Cornwell, Talk:Walter Sickert and most particularly Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence [unregistered user]

I'm not sure why the unregistered user came along and put this here, but then I suppose he or she wants help trying to move off all the information that was split from the original Jack the Ripper page back onto it, against the wishes of the various editors involved. He or she is sure being pushy. DreamGuy 23:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I reall would appreciate it if you would take a look at Talk:Patricia Cornwell. Thanks IVoteTurkey 11:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From a fan

Hi! I've noticed your eloquent, insightful, and intelligent responses occasionally to disputes and other issues that may arise in relation to Wikipedia, amongst the other great work you do, and this attitude is refreshing and absolutely commendable. Keep up the good work you do, may it never change! :) Dysprosia 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

You made me laugh for the first time in days. Thank you. Slrubenstein Thanks too for the Holiday wishes, as I am indeed lighting candles this evening. I looked over your case -- you never did anything ad hominem and I really don't think the complaint is just frivolous; it is the act of someone not fully in control of themselves (a state I am on the brink of, alas!). Happy Holiday,s S

help, again

Would you mind commenting on this discussion: [13]? Would you also look at the history: [14]? I believe Stirling Newberry has violated the three revert rule, but my hands are tied. Also, he is I must admit starting to irritate me. I genuinely think my version of the openbing paragraph is NPOV and accurate, and his is neither. I honestly believe I tried working with him in good faith, but don't see any sign of that on his part. Slrubenstein

Herschelkrustofsky

Hi, I'm writing about a decision made by the Arbitration Committee regarding activism on behalf of Lyndon LaRouche in Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision.

If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision? Herschelkrustofsky, who is one of the LaRouche supporters the decision involved, has initiated a query of the Arbitration Committee for clarification of their ruling. I agree that clarification is needed, because I feel the wording of the ruling has left loopholes that the LaRouche supporters are exploiting. I have therefore written up a long response to Herschelkrustofsky's query and have requested clarification from the Committee on three specific points, as I feel this is an opportunity to put the matter to rest. I wondered whether you'd be prepared to comment on the page. If you don't have the time or inclination, however, don't worry about it. Many thanks, Slim 05:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi