User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page[edit]

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

Thanks and THANKS[edit]

Thanks for reverting my page, the change was done under an IP so it was good of you to revert the edit (but as it was me anyway, I have unreverted you, though :).

And THANKS for the support. I know I may be ultra-over-reacting to just ONE person's comment, but if you had followed the mailing list discussion... And ... well, I am a bit over sensitive to nonsensical statements like the ones I quoted there, but you know, what can one say to that?

I'm not leaving, I'm just trying to cool down and get a better perspective of what contributing to Wikipedia may mean and how to do it (if I decide to) the best way...

Probably I'll have to say as T.S. Eliot (Ash Wednesday):

And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain

(...and a bit later, I think, as a prayer)

Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still.

Hope you like the quotations at least ;) Pfortuny 07:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I kept your note here after archiving because, even as you are in limbo concerning your role here, you say fine and wise things (with the help of Mr. Eliot) that I want to think on. I've left my own little Eliot quote on your talk page as a humble attempt to comfort, which I hope finds some measure of success. All my best, Jwrosenzweig 15:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Nice, that was a good remark (the one at my talk page), and yes, the quotation helps, yes. I keep on thinking.
By the way, I hope you, as a literate man on literature, do like Eliot (personally I'm mad about his work). Pfortuny 16:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Lst27[edit]

A general note to people who may be wondering whether this user is in fact Alex <last name removed for privacy>. You may observe that Lst27's decision to remove his self-nomination for adminship, after it had received considerable opposition, is entirely consistent with Alex Plank's behavior when nominating himself in the past. --Michael Snow 21:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Central Asia[edit]

Thank you ;) Mark Richards 22:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

New User[edit]

Thanks for your welcome for me to Wikipedia! And for your advice.

Cheers, RSvK


Thanks also for your welcome to me. The Wikipedia community becomes a reality! I've added the same sentiments to the 'New User' page. You must have been clairvoyant about Arno. Now how did you guess? ;-) --Tiffer 09:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I'm sorry to hear about more tensions from Irismeister. Don't let the Wikistress get to you! Best wishes, and good luck, Meelar 17:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course. If you ever need any help/support, you know where to reach me. Until next time, Meelar 17:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh my :O) The young lady was hurt. In the meantime John Gohde is sick and character assasinated and you come here with a litany of double standards! Didn't you know that admins are beyond critic while contributors are arbitrated for what they are competent enough to contribute ? What a shame! Duh ! - irismeister 20:22, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Given recent accusations on the "request for review of admin actions" page, I think I'm done for a while. I will check in to follow through my arbitration request, and perhaps to do minor maintenance to a page or two I particularly like, but otherwise I need a few days/weeks/months without harassment. I'm hoping it's only days (but make no promises), and I wish you all well who remain. Those of you who are here in the spirit of Jimmy's vision, you know who you are, and how much I respect you. Keep the faith. I'll be back. Jwrosenzweig 19:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

a comment in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks was removed

Peace. The door is always open and I think you'll find that many of us will be pleased when you do decide to return. I believe that 90% of the decisions make at Wikipedia are good ones, which is probably higher than the decision quality in most undertakings. I apologize for my role in the disaster at "requests for review." I believe I inadvertently polarized things there through a couple of well-meaning but ill-considered edits. I hope you'll consider some involvement in the related process issues when you return, perhaps joining the discussion on whether the "requests for review" page should exist at all, and the effort to draw a bright line for making block/ban decisions. Best wishes, UninvitedCompany 20:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
You have to promise to come back after your holiday. I simply will not allow another good editor to leave for good. Do you hear me! Take a break, it'll do you good. theresa knott 20:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC) (missing you already)

I wish you well, and hope you will return soon. Of all the editors here, you are among those I respect most. I find it extremely sad that this is happening. Isomorphic 22:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and support. RSvK 23:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Enjoy your break. I hope the things causing you wikistress are soon resolved and you return quickly. Angela. 01:16, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am consoled by the fact that you are only on wikiholiday - I can think of no contributor it would grieve me more to lose permanently. Take some time for whatever pleases you - a trip to Alki Beach or the Olympic Peninsula, a visit to Pioneer Square or the Fremont Troll, anything you like. I offer another amateurish haiku, as a way of expressing my wishes for you.

For you to find peace
because that is what you bring
to the rest of us

--Michael Snow 00:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well said. Come back soon. Mark Richards 00:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm risking being too pedantic, but when it comes to troubles...

I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love
For love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.

It is quite out of context (the verses deal with the supernatural), but sometimes they may give peace to a troubled (in the human sense) mind.

I hope to see you completely back soon, but I still keep on thinking... :) Pfortuny 11:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


jwr, I've just learned about your decision to rest as I arrive to leave a note for you. I'm truly sorry to hear about it, though I have no idea of what's behind it; I suppose I can guess, though. My interactions with you have been of the highest standards -- at least on your side. My terrors about littrachure are, well, mine.

But on to the reason for this note. Being another with tastes skew to the herd, I thought to notify you that there is a WikiProject Cryptography and just recently a discussion page there for cypher v cipher. You might find some interest or even an opinion on the question. You will surely find some relief from mundane concerns, as most all involved recognize it's a TT, and yet, in a donnish way, fan the waves without seemingly cooling them.

Hope you come back soon. My paralysis is waning (or maybe wanyng?). ww 18:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

jwr, It's Emmett Watson! And he's the one behind Lesser Seattle, too. Just blundered across it yesterday. Oh Frabjous day! It had been driving me nuts that I couldn't remember. Phew...
And welcome back! ww 19:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
jwr, My main worry was Alzheimer's. If your mind works (at least intermittently) and you think you're losing it, Alzheimer's might make it harder to find under the street light where you can see best. See what I mean? Anyway, the sort of review you did so outstandingly at Engima isn't going just swimmingly. Those who can do it (and who haven't fallen into the crypto swamp and so disqualified themselves) are scarce on the ground. Perhaps the best candidate articles are those listed under featured at WikiProject Cryptography. At least in my view.
There's also a WikiReader (boy does that ring evocatively in mind!) project underway on which your opionion is likely to be particularly valuable (until you ruin yourself by actually becoming an expert).
And, there's the ever present TT, cy v ci. Also an entry under discussion near the featured heading.
Welcome back again. ww 20:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration[edit]

Your request for arbitration has been accepted. Please submit evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2/Evidence. --mav 03:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm Back[edit]

For those who care, I'm back from vacation. I've realized I love this place in spite of the trouble some users provide. I can't not look at it (especially with the new look -- very nice), and I can't look at it and not edit, so I realized I can't legitimately pretend to be on vacation (as much as I might like to avoid the abuse I'm certain to attract). Thank you all who left such kind and flattering notes to me in my absence - I hope and trust you all know how highly I esteem you, and how much therefore your praise means to me (as much as I may think myself undeserving). I won't be around much for a couple of weeks, as I am looking for a job at present, but when I am, I will do what I can to leave you notes on your own talk pages to thank you more personally. My best wishes are with you all, and this project, which in spite of the trolls it attracts, is perhaps the finest site on the Web, and certainly one which I am proud to be associated with in any small way. Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back! It's nice to see you posting again. I'll be adding some evidence to the irismeister arbitration page in a few days, but I'm really busy IRL at the moment so it won't be for a few days. In the meantime take my advice, don't let his abuse get to you. Let it roll over your head, ignore it, make fun of it, do what ever you have to do but do not let it stress you out. theresa knott 00:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am immensely pleased to see you back, and your return is the only thanks I require for my kind note (there was no flattery involved). Be careful, though - even if you can't stay away, try to conserve and recover whatever personal reserves you draw on as a contributor. Whether you do that here, by finding some nice little edit-war-free article to work on, or through other forms of recreation in the world outside Wikipedia, this community needs you healthy and whole, not simply as a sacrificial soldier in the troll-wars. Also, good luck with the job search. --Michael Snow 00:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Wel-come back your dreams were your ticket-out.
Wel-come back You al ways could spot a friend. 
Wel-come  back to that same old place that you laughed about. 
Well the back and I smile when I think how you must have been. 
And the names  have all changed since you hung a-round, 
but those know what a scene-- you were learn-in' in.
Was there dreams have re-mained_and they've turned a-round.
some-thing  that made you come back a-gain? 
And  Who'd have thought they'd  lead ya what could ev - er lead ya  
back  here where we need ya?} Yeah, we tease him a lot_'cause we 
back here where we need ya?}  
Welcome back. Welcome back. Wel-come back! GrazingshipIV 03:07, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see you back, J. You're my favourite contributor. moink 17:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I'm sure your article edits are great, it's not those that make me like you so much. It's the politeness and respect you show in dealing with even the most challenging user, that you assume good faith so consistently. Your wikiquette is an example for all of us. moink 20:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'll second Moink. It's good to have you back. And good luck on the job search! Meelar 20:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It's great to see you've returned. Angela. 20:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm glad to see that you're back. If you find yourself looking for a bit of non-contentious work, Archibald MacLeish has long been wanting some attention from one who knows more about literature than I do. Isomorphic 22:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here I am, joining the chorus of thanks for your kind messages. This time, a reply really isn't necessary, otherwise we'll keep going back and forth and never get any actual work done. To answer your question, I would be happy to attend a meet-up in or around Seattle. As you say, perhaps later in the year; my plate is pretty full right now, and I imagine yours is too, but ultimately it's just a matter of finding a mutually convenient time for those interested. --Michael Snow 22:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know you'd left, but since you're back, welcome from me as well. Dori | Talk 13:41, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

First resort: talk to the other parties involved[edit]

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. - irismeister 22:52, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
DID YOU READ THAT, CHIEF COMPLAINANT ?

I did read it - I'm actually well aware of policies on dispute resolution. The reason we are now in arbitration is because, while discussing issues on various talk pages (see first sentence in your posting above), you committed serious violations of Wikipedia policy, in my opinion. These talk pages included the "talk page associated with the article in question". I did stay cool, and refused to mount personal attacks against you in spite of your abuse of me. I am sorry that other editors could not do so, but I am not responsible for their actions. I did take your perspective into account, but compromise is impossible when one editor (you) seeks to attack and deride another editor (myself, as well as others) with public verbal abuse -- there is no middle ground in which I will simply accept "some" abuse from you. The good faith principle, which I subscribe to wholly, is sadly inapplicable here because abuse as blatant as yours cannot simply be your honest attempts to communicate which are being misconstrued. I hope you will refrain from posting here again - it is awkward to discuss things with you here while in arbitration. I will, however, respond in certain cases (as I have here) in order to leave a public record of my response to the baseless charges you have made. Please, however, do not use bold text here, or ALL CAPS writing -- there is only so much rudeness I am willing to permit on my own talk page. I have de-bolded your comments above accordingly, but have left the all-capital-letters section. Jwrosenzweig 15:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words[edit]

First of all, thank you for your message on my talk page. I didn't think that I'd done enough to be particularly noticed by anyone other than the people I'd had direct dealings with. It's extremely kind of you to take the time to let me know that you think I'm doing a good job. To answer your questions:

  1. No, I am not an administrator.
  2. Yes, I think that I would like to become one, eventually.
  3. This is the difficult bit. I'm not certain that I feel ready for it yet, and I suspect that a number of other users would feel the same way. 1000 edits isn't all that much, and I need some more substantial contributions to content. It might seem paradoxical when talking about becoming an admin, but I think I've been too focused on administrative tasks - welcoming new users, eliminating spam, etc - rather than actually writing or improving articles. Also, I've got one or two bad habits that I need to kerb. I've dived into edit wars that I have no particular interest in, just because one side or the other seems more common-sensical - see for example these edits [1] [2] (and that's how I first got caught up in the whole Alternative medicine malarkey as well).

So... well, I'll leave it to your judgement. My instinct says to give it a few weeks more, but if you choose to nominate me in two weeks, I probably won't be able to resist accepting just for the selfish notion of seeing what other people think about me! -- ALargeElk | Talk 11:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

arbitration[edit]

Argh! I just typed out a long response to your comment about Irismeister and arbitrationand now all I've got left of it is this lousy message "Parse error: parse error [...] Warning: Cannot modify header information [snip]

Anyway essentially, I don't like the idea of filtering evidence through a party involved in the arbitration. That seems to me a strange idea and a set up designed to ensure evidence goes missing.

The concerns you have (ie the 'he's gay', 'he can't write' submissions) would result, if all things are working properly, in the user being censured for personal attacks. Particularly unwise to indulge in personal attacks in full view of the AC, surely?

To see the sort of submissions I would make please view: [3] and [4] - they are blow by blow accounts of all (or nearly all) edits made by a user to one particular article. The pattern of which reveals the extent of their disruptive behaviour and its habit of causing discord with a number of users. --bodnotbod 18:22, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page to comments you made there, can't say much more than I have, I think. :-) I do like your blow-by-blow accounts, although in Irismeister's case they are less easy to use -- the misconduct I allege has happened is rarely a series of steps, but normally isolated outbursts after periods of dormancy. And yes, users who misused evidence would be censured for personal attacks....but I worry that it makes arbitration too confusing. Party A and Party B's dispute is now confused by Party Q and Party R's personal attacks in favor of each side, respectively -- who is to blame for this? How does it prejudice onlookers? Are Q and R to be dealt with in A and B's arbitration, or in a completely separate case? Not unsolvable, of course. But complicating. But I agree with much of what you say, so I won't quibble any more. :-) Thanks for listening. Jwrosenzweig 19:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for the baffling duplication on my part. I genuinely thought I'd lost the post on my page in the error I described.
I think the best way to deal with arbitration is to be entirely blameless. That is to say, no matter how large the temptation, don't name call in any way (or at least not beyond a slight jibe). Ultimately one can suffer the brickbats and nastiness by knowing that you've got your own little record of what somebody has said to you. And if they persist you can ream them all out to a committe or sysop and have their immediate sympathy.
It should also be clear then precisely "who is to blame" for even if you have three people making personal attacks against you your halo will shine as you have all 3 of them censured. And if they're fighting each other - well, at least they're too busy to fight you ;o) I confess it's harder to do than say. And I'm too new to have put it into practice --bodnotbod 20:03, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
One quick comment - the situation I envision being trouble is when I am Editor A, and being quite civil, and then Editor R comes in thinking they'll help me, and bashes Editor B around. First, I think it lowers the level of discourse, making it more difficult for me to avoid being slammed (tarred with the same brush, so to speak). Second, I think many would naturally suspect Editor A of having hired a "bulldog" to come in and slander the opponent. Some people have said very mean things to Irismeister and concerning him. I wish they hadn't. It makes it easier for the situation to be dismissed as harm on both sides, when it is my contention that I have not attacked him, and he has vocally and rudely attacked me. I understand their frustration, and their desire to express it -- I feel it myself. But I like minimizing the ability of others to, er, bulldoze my moral high ground. :-) In this instance, at least -- perhaps I'm taking too narrow a view. I'll have to consider this at more length. Jwrosenzweig 20:13, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for chasing off the strange "inQuito.com" spammer. Of all the many weird things people do here, that may be the most insensible yet. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:32, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Re: Nomination?[edit]

First up, thank you for offering to nominate me. Okay, that's one sentance down.

I thought about it for a little while, hence the long time it took to answer.

Unfortunately I wouldn't really be able to do a good job of being an admin at this point in time, mainly due to time concerns.

So I would respectfully like to decline a nomination for admin at this point in time.

Though once again, thank you very much for the offer. :-)

Kim Bruning 12:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Thank you for you message on my talk page. I appreciate your comments, and respect the advice. I think you are right in many ways. I won't labour the point by repeating things here, but I think that we do need to revise policies - if we had a policy that supported banning these folks I would support it. My main issue is that we have a situation where someone is doing something that is disrespectful of community norms (trolling) and someone else who is reacting to it by doing something that disrespects the current community policy (banning people without following procedures). I don't think that this will help us to build a trusting community, but nor do I support letting disruptive users undermine it. Perhaps we need to step back from the debate about these individuals and look for a policy revision that we can all support - would you be able to help start the ball rolling on that? Yours, appreciating your tollerance, Mark Richards 17:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"would gladly use whatever small pull I have here to get people talking about it and supporting it"...small pull my hat. I know I'm not the only one here who has nothing but admiration for the way you've handled all this. If and when you do get a proposed policy rolling, please let me know--I'd be very interested in helping. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A good place to start talk about policy change is at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. More later. --mav 20:23, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

not really[edit]

but it was one of those situations where a ridiculous number of people voted, and the beurocrat just decided there was enough support. I know it happened (I actually think it was less than 60%) but as to who it was, I didn't even vote. I just like reading the why's and wherefores on VFA, and have been keping an eye on it almost as long as I've been here. Sam [Spade] 00:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Haiku[edit]

a girl, born holly
a fragile life that sprouted
her roots have found grasp

Rutland[edit]

Sorry, I don't know Rutland at all. [5] and [6] have some ideas on what to see. Regarding public transport, it varies hugely across England. I have no idea what the north is like. I've never been to Rutland, but I expect taxis will be cheap up there (compared to London at least), so you may want to take advantage of that. If you don't want to hire a car, have you considered hiring a motorbike? It'll be a lot cheaper petrol wise. Maybe not a great idea if neither of you is used to riding one though. National Express will be able to advise you on both buses and coaches. If you're staying in a small village, don't expect buses too often. You may have to plan your days quite carefully to take advantage of them. [http://www.rutnet.co.uk/transport/bus.asp Rutland County Council] has some bus timetables on its website. Trains are often not much more than coaches, and a lot quicker (maybe a third more expensive). See railtrack for UK-wide train timetables. I think the local trains are Central and Midland Mainline. There's also tfl for the tube when you're in London. Derby is only about 45 miles away, and that's a lovely area to spend some time. It's also close to Alton Towers if you like theme parks. Oxford's good if you want to travel that far, as is the nearby (to Oxford) market town of Banbury. I think Morwen is from Leicestershire, so she may be a more useful person to ask. Hope that helps. Have a lovely time. Angela. 02:13, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi, we haven't crossed swords lately and I wondered if you have dropped off the face of the earth. I have found a modern book with the right definiton of a republic: I have put it in the Miscellania section of the Classic Definition of Republic. I would like to write encyclopediac articles on like Parallels between Socrates and Hermann Rauschning and Parallels between Nikos Katzanzakis and Goebbels. Is this possible? Or is it possible within an article like a Miscellania section? Would like feedback.WHEELER 17:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations...[edit]

...on your marriage. I hope England is wonderful, and that you are treated to beautiful weather. Happiness always! Denni 18:53, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

Oh my congrats to you to. May you have many happy years! Thanks for your suggestion and I see what you see and the corruption of it also.WHEELER 21:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for my over-reaction - I consider RickK to be a witchhunter - and one of the reasons why I don't edit here any more. Secretlondon 00:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

This talk page has been targeted by a vandalbot, and is protected temporarily. If you wish to leave me a note, please do so at User talk:Jwrosenzweig/temp -- admins who have the right to edit protected pages may leave me notes here if desired. Thanks. Sorry about the inconvenience. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected for now. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratship[edit]

It's good to see you back. I think I've mentioned your name to at least two of the other candidates in the past 24 hours as one of the admins I most admin... Needless to say I am delighted that you are willing to take on this additional task.

Icelandic horse[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've finished translating Icelandic horse. Fuelbottle | Talk 22:50, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Need help. I made an article strictly called National Socialism. Andy L converged the article into Nazism. I want the article of National Socialism to stand by itself. It has a seperate history. Adolf Hitler did not coin the term nor the idealogy. This needs to stand alone. I want the article returned to its former self. Please, I need your help in this matter.WHEELER 14:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations on getting your degree! That's absolutely wonderful. It's nice to know that my alter ego/figment of my imagination is succeeding in the world. :) moink 17:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll make an excellent teacher. Of course I pay attention to your user page; you're my favourite Wikipedian and quite possibly my own invention, or I'm yours.  :) (I should stop writing things like this or I really will be accused of being your sockpuppet). And I like hearing about your life.
As far as your "brag sheet," I don't really have strong opinions either way. I choose not to have one, since I figure that people can look at my contributions if they really want to know what I'm up to. It seems to be a pretty common feature of user pages, so I don't think anybody's going to accuse you of excessive pride. So if it's useful to you, I don't see any reason to remove it. moink 18:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now why doesn't it surprise me that you got a *teachers* degree? ;-) Kim Bruning 22:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Disappointed[edit]

I'm fed up with the whole process here and I've only been here eighteen days. TheCustomOfLife 18:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you when you say that the article was nominated too fast and too early. I just wanted it to succeed, and I've bent over backwards for people who have never watched the show and couldn't care less about the characters on it. I'm sorry, but the characters make the show, not "before they were stars" lists or whatnot that the article is basically ground down to. I would rather you move the article to the featured article log than anyone else.
I feel the process I was put through was riddled with politics and that, deep down, no matter what I did, it wouldn't have been featured because some people had their minds made up from the outset that it was essentially shit. TheCustomOfLife 18:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's all very disappointing. I get chastised for writing the entire article myself but it's quite evident that I'm the only one at Wikipedia who's ever watched this show. TheCustomOfLife 18:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Read the comments in the archived log; I felt DropDeadGorgias was particularly tactless and rude. In the end, he or she was dismissive and struck the vote so he or she could "get on with their life". To be fair, the user did try to make it sound as if he or she was trying to be constructive, but the very first comment was "This just isn't a professional article," and that is something I take offense to. TheCustomOfLife 19:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I wonder what the point of my writing is. I'll be the first to admit that I do not take criticism well. But I happen to think my writing is just fine and I refuse to sit there while people essentially call it crap. TheCustomOfLife 19:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks[edit]

I gather from the posts above that I should congratulate you, both for earning your degree and on the news of your upcoming marriage. I hope your wife will be as tolerant of wikiholism as mine is.

Thanks also for your comments to me about the election. I am comfortable with the outcome, and will of course support the board in whatever way I can. I agree that perhaps I was too new for some people's tastes, but that's not something I have any control over. The opportunity to serve on the board may come to me in the future, or it may not. I don't expect additional openings immediately, though the community may eventually push to control the positions held by Tim Shell and Michael Davis if they don't participate in Foundation matters more visibly. I appreciate your encouragement for next year, though that's still far off and it will be a long time before I even think about whether to run in that election.

Incidentally, on a different election topic, I've noted your interest in running for a seat on the arbitration committee. I definitely think you would be a great choice for this. In fact, since the board election seems to have run fairly smoothly, I'm considering campaigning to have that election cycle started early. I'm concerned that without this, people may come to view the arbitration process as increasingly ineffective, partly due to lack of participation by several existing members. Some new blood might be helpful to get things circulating more effectively. --Michael Snow 23:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


WHEELER and Nazism[edit]

Please see Talk:Nazism and Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism AndyL 19:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


BTW what happened to GrazingshipIV? He seems to have been deleted.AndyL 19:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find Grazing's deletion baffling. Let me know if you find out what happened? :-) As far as those talk pages....I've seen them. What do you want me to do? He's impossible to reason with, especially when it comes to the Nazis -- he's also dreaming if he thinks we're going to put out an article that blames the French, and specifically Rousseau, for National Socialism. His original research simply isn't Wikipedian -- it's interesting, and occasionally I think he's found something of genuine worth, but regardless, it's not appropriate here. And normally I think he's simply hunted down quotes that he can use to further his own private ideology, of which I have seen glimpses, and which frightens me to no small extent. A shame -- he could have been a good contributor here, but I am despairing of the possibility. He wants to fight battles and expose new ground, and he doesn't get that these are not things that Wikipedia is supposed to foster. Jwrosenzweig 19:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree that some of the things that WHEELER writes are interesting. He's actually the best and sanest exponent of his, hmm, political and philosophical background that I've ever seen. That's not as big a compliment as you might think :-P , but still, we should somehow keep him writing. If it's annoying to have him on wikipedia, we should gently move him to somewhere where his comments are considered constructive (any ideas on that?), but he's got to keep writing. Kim Bruning 20:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly, Kim, and have attempted to advise him about this. Sadly, he seems to think that any such suggestions are my attempts to silence him -- I wish he understood that I in fact hope he keeps researching and writing, and know that he will be stifled in that attempt by continuing to post original research here as articles. He is looking, honestly, for a graduate school, or at least a university, where he can get in deep and prolonged arguments with experts who have huge libraries at their disposal. For example, the argument over Mussolini and "the left" -- despite evidence from all sides, including a researcher sending WHEELER a photobopy of a page from the Encyclopedia Italiana, as I recall, he still insists he won't believe what all authorities but his one book assert. This is the sort of thing that can't be dealt with here, since he's unwilling to listen to reason when his research has reached a conclusion. He should research and post that research and get into arguments over it -- it's what he desperately wants, or so I believe. But it can't happen here. And he won't believe me when I tell him that it will be much easier for him somewhere else. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe GrazingshipIV left, and requested the user page and talk page be deleted. I think GrazingshipIV's edits are now attributed to "A former user". - Cyan 20:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rutland[edit]

I'm afraid I don't really know much about the subject. I've been there like 2 or 3 times, despite living practically next door, by US standards. Rutland Water is very cool. There's a lot you can do there, especially if you like watersports. That effectively dominates Rutland's tourist industry, that I'm not really sure what else there is there. Its a pretty quiet county really, but its a reasonable base - the historic borough of Stamford is right on your doorstep; and Peterborough (old cathedral city-turned-new-town)'s not far away either. Morwen - Talk 19:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A pattern emerges: clearly Rutland is the black hole of middle england - a tractless waste from which no information emerges. Maybe that's where the erased-from-reality Grazingship has gone. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You might also try Oakham, the attractive county town, known for its collection of horseshoes. But as it is England's smallest traditional county, you'll probably spend most of your time outside it. Cambridge and Ely are within a couple of hours, while the large city of Leicester is not far. London and the North Norfolk Coast would make easy daytrips. Warofdreams 09:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The gardens at [Barnsdale]] (near Oakham), made by the late television gardener Geoff Hamilton are worth a visit.

I seem to have missed something...[edit]

Hi, all I know is that Tim Starling re-attributed his edits to "former user" and deleted his user page on June 15th. I'm not aware of it being discussed anywhere on the wiki. I just saw in IRC that Tim pasted his contribs link by accident. I don't think this should be problematic with the GFDL, but as we allow editors to be anonymous. It's just someone choosing to be anonymous after their edit rather than beforehand.

The issue of being unable to check his edits now is a problem though. I will find out if it's possible to assign edits to something which acts as a normal user. Eg "former user1", so they aren't mixed in with the next person who requests it, and have that "former user1" be an actual user with a contributions page.

Personally, I don't think it is an issue that should have been discussed. If a user decides they no longer want an account, I think it's acceptable to do that quietly, particularly if they have issues with wanting anonymity (just as an example, not that I'm saying that happened in this case). Angela. 23:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Admin recommendation[edit]

I have to tread lightly; I'm not prepared to respond to this suggestion. Wikipedia, for me, has been primarily a place to provide outlet for my passion for teaching. I approach a suggestion of adminship much as an active and enthusiastic field agent might approach an offer to fly a desk, with trepidation and the fear of being tied up by petty disputes, sub-sub-subclause bylaw issues, and phonecalls from superiors and subordinates who have chosen to yell at each other through you.

I truly appreciate your nomination, and would be willing to accept if it allows me to rub virtual shoulders with some whom I rank as gods and goddesses (being non-theistic, that's not as impressive as it might sound). But at the same time, I need the freedom to do what I most love, which is to write.

It would seem that the only way to test the temperature of the water is to get in. I do believe I have the option of stepping out if I feel I cannot fulfil the role. So I accept your offer of support, and await the next set of directions.

Denni 08:19, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

This happened a long time ago. Remember when it was called "Real defintion of a Republic" I first posted it a long time ago. I was gone for awhile, and I believe you deleted it. If I am wrong in this account I am sorry. I had to go around and search for it. It was put back up. Then it was changed to "Greek Philosophies on Republic". I was refering to long ago when it was first deleted. Remember, I tried to put it in the Republic article and it was all excised. So I just concentrated on that article. I had a devil of a time, now it has been accepted.

National Socialism is an idea that existed before Hitler and before Mussolini. The Nazi article is already too long. The Nazism article should concentrate only when Hitler joined that party and made it his own. National Socialism is not the creation of Hitler.WHEELER 17:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


You are really kind, thanks. Most of the time, it seems to me, I just wander around here aimlessly and stick my oar in now and again. Deb 17:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I am sorry it was slrubenstein. My bust. I will correct Bruning's page.WHEELER 18:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat[edit]

Congratulations! You're a bureaucrat. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats and m:Bureaucrat before making any new sysops. Angela. 00:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello...[edit]

Have you been working on anything lately? If not I wouldn't mind some help with this list: Noted_translators - suggestions and additions welcome! -- Simonides 03:34, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From bodnotbod[edit]

You're welcome. I had tried to read through the whole passage but the lack of para breaks and the (very quick) realisation that I wasn't going to be able to help made me relieved to see your comment and her reply to you. --bodnotbod 22:46, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

RD[edit]

I had an edit conflict with you on that one. I was going to leave it for someone more knowledgeable than me, but sighed and started writing after the alchemy comment. moink 22:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And I may know more about chemical reactions, but you know where New Mexico is! moink 23:03, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if you took my remark amiss. I am repeatedly reminded by responses that my comments can be read as sharper and less entertaining than intended. Every day I patiently explain "science-type stuff" to patients, but perhaps I too quickly assume that people here are conversant with basic science. The original query may not have suggested to you what it suggested to me: ephedrine is a drug marketed misleadingly to teenagers and adults as a weight loss aid or stimulant by the "dietary supplement" industry. A small percentage of the millions who take it suffer unexpected strokes and death, and when the FDA tried to regulate it a couple of years ago, the industry quickly contributed a few million dollars to our revered president's campaign and the FDA was quickly leashed. My response to the idea of publishing a "recipe" for home-made ephedrine was the same as earlier this week when someone posted a recipe for chloral hydrate in one of our articles-- it's hard to imagine a noble purpose for a home-made knock-out drug. That's my excuse for the flippant reply to the chemist manque'. I suspect you would have a chance to make a similar observation if I stray into a humanities topic but you are probably too kind. I admire your edits and admin activities. Alteripse 15:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I guess a big part of why I stayed away was that I was sick and tired of protecting, unprotecting, and yelling at people over things like Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and those German/Polish rivers/cities. It just seemed like I forgot why I enjoyed this place; I'm debating setting aside my adminship for a couple weeks. Anyhow, I'm back now, and trying to just let those things alone; I'm making a point of not editing the alternative medicine type articles in particular. Ditto Unification Church related articles. Pakaran. 16:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A favor?[edit]

Hi! In anticipation of a page move that preserves page history, I've listed a redirect page, DuMont Television Network -> DuMont, over on Redirects for Deletion for about a week now, without opposition. Before I forget, could you do the actual deed for me? Thanks. --Gary D 07:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and whoever did the deletion, "it's all good," as the young ones say. I'm having great fun. Well, my beaver hardhat's back on, and I'm off into the WP tunnels once again! --Gary D 18:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Check this out[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Early National Socialism/draftAndyL 08:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

You very quickly responded to my question about the Hollywood point system.--Wasabe3543 14:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER and anti-Semitism[edit]

From Talk:Early National Socialism/draft

And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because your relatives suffered under the Holocaust.
The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the island of Crete. My uncle, Sirodakis, was a great underground fighter. It was my island that lead a ferocious resistance to the Nazis. It was my co-religionists, Catholic priests that went to the camps as well. And it was Jewish communists that destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia. Many a Christian died in Jewish concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single Jew. So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my face.WHEELER 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER[edit]

Thank you -- I appreciate the support. At this point, I am not sure what else I can do. I'll have to check up and see how your own arbitration is going ... Slrubenstein

WHEELER complaint[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER I need one (or two?) people to certify the complaint. If you can attempt to resolve the dispute or intervene on Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and then document that would be helpfulAndyL 03:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: duncharris for adminship[edit]

I'm not entirely sure about this. I'm still kinda making mistakes and bumping into people and pissing them off. On the other hand, what would it mean apart from an ability to delete redirs in preparation for moves? Dunc_Harris| 16:19, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chicken[edit]

I think its the auto-summary feature. It somehow validates the vandal, gives a vague sense of security that whatever edit was made was valid, and we're lazy to check out what the edit actually was. Jay 18:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My User Page[edit]

Thanks ever so much for reverting my user page. Check User:TheCustomOfLife/Deleted to see screencaps of the joke. Mike H 19:10, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Chris Mahan[edit]

I don't know what his problem is, but as I said, I was offended by his blowing it off. RickK 19:46, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I know I should know this but where do I go to request that National Socialism be protected? WHEELER is trying to change it from a disambig page to an article despite the fact that his attempt to write an article Early National Socialism/draft is on the verge of being deleted. I can't protect it since I've previously been reverting WHEELER on that page. Do I simply ask a fellow admin to protect it or is there a formal request page? Thanks AndyL 19:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Montaigne[edit]

Thanks for adding the useful comment about Montaigne to the 'Essay' section of Literature. I remembered from my English 101 lectures about the french word 'essai' but had long-forgotton who first used the term in this fashion...! Mercurius 06:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support[edit]

Hi James! Just a short note to thank you - belatedly - for your vote in my favour in last week's sysop election. I have great dreams for the future of this project, and feel honoured to be a part of it. I was so grateful for your support. Thank you so much. David Cannon 10:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your vote in the previous VfD on Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies and wanted to let you know that I have reopened the issue and wish for you to please cast your vote at VfD--naryathegreat 23:46, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)