User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 10


 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive1 Jwrosenzweig 00:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 2 Jwrosenzweig 18:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 3 Jwrosenzweig 21:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 4 Jwrosenzweig 19:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 5 Jwrosenzweig 15:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 6 Jwrosenzweig 21:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 7 Jwrosenzweig 20:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 8 Jwrosenzweig 20:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 9 Jwrosenzweig 01:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

RFA
I'm sorry, and more than a little puzzled, to find that your impression from my contributions to wikien-l is that I have shown unwillingness to compromise. I've not debated many topics on that list; perhaps you're thinking of the debate arising out of autofellatio. I've made it plain that I have no problem with linking the autofellatio image (although I prefer inline). I pointed out some technical problems with some of the suggestions about content labelling but als stated that I didn't think they were killers. I described an argument that possibly NPOV was violated by the concept but also made it plain that I wasn't fully convinced by this argument.

I also put a very forceful case that all users already have the capability to perform all the proposed content filtering they want, and more, under their own control, using the facilities in their browsers. I think the proponents of server-based filtering based on content labelling will probably find that it works less well than they had hoped and is unusable by the very people, technologically naive users, for whose use it is intended, and that it would be better to recommend that people make better use of their browsers. Perhaps you mistook that for unwillingness to countenance server-based content filtering. It isn't; however I did note that the last time a survey was taken (very recently, in December/January) the overwhelming consensus seemed to be that no policy changes should be made for now.

I also suggested that some of the reasons given for implementing filtering of this kind--namely those based on appeasement of sociopolitical groups that have some power in the United States, also applied to textual content, and in any case would probably only satisfy those groups if we changed the nature of Wikipedia itself. As an alternative I suggested an idea that isn't a million miles away (although I didn't know it at the time) from Wikipedia 1.0.

It is possible that you're blaming the messenger for the message. I repeat here that I have no principled objection to the proposals of content labelling and server-based mechanisms that would permit it to be used by end-users to avoid displaying content that they would not like to see. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't find your note unsettling or anything, but I did want to set things straight if, as you seemed to be, you were basing your judgement largely on a few emails on wikien-l.

Of those who have expressed opposition, the case seems to be down to:
 * 1) Do I see eye to eye with them about fundamentals such as consensus?
 * 2) Do I do enough editing/maintenance/whatever?
 * 3) Am I inflexible, uncompromising, negative and aggressive?
 * 4) Am I likely to be heavy handed?
 * 5) Do I knowingly perform edits that are anti-consensual?

As far as I'm aware Cool Hand Luke and I have the same views on consensus, but express them differently. I speak of an edit being or becoming stable as it becomes recognised as a useful part of the article.

I'm not knowingly heavy-handed; I often challenge page protects and am generally opposed to application of WP:3RR. Nor am I given to making provocative edits in the face of significant opposition. Someone who describes me as aggressive, well I'm not sure which edits he's referring to. I absolutely do not edit war, ever. On my editing, well I do a lot of discussion compared to most people, but I do a lot of article-space editing too. A large proportion of my edits are maintenance--adding cats, tweaks and the like. Moving, disambiguating.

The claim that I'm likely to be heavy handed came, I think, from someone's opinion of something I wrote on the mailing list. He doesn't seem to have looked at my edits.

There are more replies to criticism on my talk page. But if you want to know the real Tony, look at my edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for taking the trouble to look at my edits. I'm honored to have your support. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical works. I have got to make a case for Classicism because this is getting out of hand. Classical definition of effeminacy is next on the chopping block. Is there going to be "Classical Studies" on Wikipedia?

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can I get your help in this regard?WHEELER 14:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why, hello there!
It's amazing how much one can learn about the Australian Constitution in such a short time here. --Michael Snow 00:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would be a great favor to me if you could do an article about The Recycling Troll situation. I'm willing to review it and supply facts, but since I've contributed significantly to the unfolding of events, it would probably be best for somebody else to write it and have their name on it. It's a big task, I know (and if it leaves you with too little time for grading papers, please turn me down), but at least you can be fairly confident that events are pretty well wrapped up already, to the extent that anything will happen before the next issue gets published.


 * And I don't mind your bringing my name into discussions with others, since I trust you not to abuse me unless I deserve it. --Michael Snow 01:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edmund Wilson
I agree, and rather like small portraits in the upper-left hand corner next the name in bold on bio pages, but people have the habit of automatically moving them back to the right. :( -- Viajero 01:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Playing Games
If you look at s101 of the Australian Constitution, you will see that it states quite plainly that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. This was of some use earlier in our history, but it was abolished some time ago. That's a clear case of "shall be" demonstrably not meaning "is". Using the same construction to say that the Governor-General is now the representative of the Queen is not justified, especially considering that the relationship has undergone many changes since Federation. Typically s2 is used by those with partisan viewpoints to downplay the role of the Governor-General, in order to imply that he is only a deputy or agent of the Queen, exercising powers that are not his own. This is not the case.

Changing "shall be" to "is" also downplays the historical sense of the Constitution - it is a favorite trick of partisan barrow-pushers to pretend that the UK-Australia relationship has undergone little change since the time of Federation. The document certainly hasn't changed much, and is full of spent and transitory provisions that nobody has bothered to remove because it's such a hassle, but the relationship between the UK and Australia, and the Queen and Governor-General, has changed immensely.

It might seem like a small and unimportant matter, but using the incorrect wording slants the article in a way that it really shouldn't. Skyring 02:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chief?
Hey, we're equals here, and while I certainly have been editing other people's work as they write articles for The Signpost, ultimately it needs to be something you're willing to have your name attached to. At least that's the standard I've been using for this endeavor in original reporting. But since time does matter, herewith your deadline: Sunday at noon PST. (I usually publish around midnight; obviously, feel free to edit my editing even after publication.)

My summary of the facts coming by email in an hour or two. --Michael Snow 03:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've done some editing, hopefully without disrupting the flow of the article too much. I generally aim for tight lead paragraphs that give the story in a nutshell, so I moved some of that content into the body. And for the aftermath section, I thought quotes would do the positions more justice while keeping the article as objective as possible. --Michael Snow 05:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, when adding the article to The Signpost I moved it by cut-and-paste to Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-14/Recycling Troll. To the extent that the niceties of licensing are involved, the byline still has you as the author and my edit summary pointed to your "Current project" subpage as the source. But since that subpage has a lot of edit history unrelated to this article, I figured this option was better than using the page move function, history and all. --Michael Snow 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls
I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? -- R yan!  |  Talk  05:17, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

hi!
the silly student, he writes really bad haiku, readers all go mad.

(Just so I'm not tempted to put more haiku up :-P)

Saw a post by you on vfd today, and noticed I hadn't actually had any communication with you in ages, hence: Hi! :-)

Kim Bruning 01:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Night (book)
James, I saw you commented on Talk:Night (book) recently. This is to let you know that I've just put up a rewrite. Please feel free to revert or edit as you see fit. There are still a couple of things I'd like to add to it. I've left a note on the talk page saying what. Best, SlimVirgin 02:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support and your kind words on my adminship nomination. I very much appreciate the confidence you showed in me. Currently I'm carefully exploring my new powers :).  &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you help me?
Hi, I got a message from you awhile back, and you said if I needed assistance to drop you a note, so here is a note. I'm a seminary student and I started out here frustrated with the poor scholarship on the disputed Pauline Epistles Authorship article, so I left some comments there. I am a busy student, but I will have some time this summer to add some writing here, but I am so overwhelmed that I don't know where to start. As I started to go through even just the Biblical stuff here, I cannot believe how academically irresponsible and polarised the writing is. Can you give me some advice on getting started without getting overwhelmed? Thanks. --Shanneranner 05:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You Thanks for the talk you left for me - very helpful. I don't have time to dive in quite yet, but I will start making some choices of where to start. It is nice to hear that you studied at SFU - I live at the bottom of the mountain, near Lougheed Mall. VST is a good school with some distinguished professors and I will see about maybe working my articles on wikipedia into some kind of project I could get credit for. I also have one professor in semi-retirement who might be coaxed into doing some writing as well. Thanks again for your feedback, it is much appreciated. - Shannon ---Shanneranner 21:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I goofed! Can you tell me how to fix it?
Okay, I thought I had a brilliant idea when I decided to create a category for Queens who had ruled in their own right. I called the category (logically enough) Queens. However, I discovered today that the correct term for Queens who rule in their own right that category was Queen regnants, and that there is already a category by that name, (with all of two entries in it). I had seen the category but I thought that regnants was a spelling variation on regents. Anyway, is my goof up fixable and if so, do you think it is worth the effort? Thanks!*Kat* 01:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Check it out
Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mediation: Armenian Genocide
I've been asked to step in regarding this article on several occasions, and I'm also interested in learning how to make sure mediation results in an agreement and how you get users through a succesful mediation. Please keep me informed on this case. Mgm|(talk) 23:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Seattle and barnstar
Thank you very much. I had made a similar effort (tho' less contentious) when San Jose, California was an FAC a few months ago, even tho' I lived there less than two months (altho' I've been in the general area about 5 years), so I figured I should be willing to do the same for my hometown. (FWIW, if you were curious, the only Seattle contrib of yours I noticed was adding somebody to the 'notable natives' section--Paul somebody if I remember correctly.) Niteowlneils 22:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request to remove personal attack
Hi James,

I ask you to remove a message with personal attack by Rovoam in Requests for mediation page, Safavids message.

As you probably know, my case against Rovoam is in ArbCom now and I hope ArbCom will soon make its final decision. But in any case, his punishment by ArbCom is just a formality, considering that Rovoam has been completely discredited and was already blocked several times for his disruptive actions.

My concern about this particular message in which Rovoam calls me "seriously sick [who] needs to visit his psychiatrist" is that being slanderous and posted out of context, it may damage my reputation.

As you know, Rovoam had no affiliation with Safavids discussion whatsoever, and the only goal he had in mind when posting this personal attack (btw, much afterwards the Safavids discussions were over) was just to discredit me. I watch carefully all other messages posted by Rovoam and certainly I am not interested in their removal, since all of them are evidences for ArbCom's consideration. But the one I am requesting you to remove is simply posted out of context and also, is repeated in ArbCom page, so I do not have to worry about loss of that particular evidence of personal attacks on me by Rovoam.

Hope you will remove that personal attack soon. Thanks in advance. --Tabib 15:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks James!--Tabib 12:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFM
RFM doesn't look very active. How many active mediators do you have? Mgm|(talk) 15:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Committee Membership
Hey James, I put a request to become a member of the Mediation Committee, just want to check on status and how they usually proceed. Best regards! --Wgfinley 01:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stick it out
Hi, just noted that my nomination of the Winslet image seems to have caused some stress. I just wanted to encourage you not to give up on Wikipedia just yet. You've always been one of the best here, and I hope this won't cause you to leave. Best as always, Meelar (talk) 06:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Your efforts on the MC are very much appreciated so please don't feel otherwise. All I did was archive some of the easy cases, whereas you're the one who has been looking after the page for months now. Don't let wikistress get the better of you. :) Angela. 02:40, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Take Heart
Take heart. You've been a voice of sanity and one of the reasons that I haven't given up on Wikipedia yet. Thanks for all your good work. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:26, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

My ideas for the MC
I wanted to bring this to you before I threw it to the wolves. Basically I want to restore the MedCom and remodel it somewhat more to resemble the ArbCom, except no votings and (almost) no enforcements. The way I vision it is that the MedCom should be the final instance of mediation cases, not the ArbCom. The community is more and more getting used to just filing an ArbCom case and it is quickly becoming the first instance of mediation, rather than the extreme last. Hence my proposal.


 * The MedCom should have limited authority. If two parties agree upon a set of promises during a dispute and they break them, the MedCom should be allowed to recommend some form of imposement. . This allows the MedCom to be taken much more seriously than previously as people needs to be taught that the arbcom is not the first place to go.
 * All Mediators who are accepted on the committee have a right to comment on any particular case until a mediator is assigned or assign a case to themselves.
 * The mediation pages will be changed. See below.
 * There will be no chair anymore. All mediators are now individually responsible of updating information and archive their cases.
 * There will be a new mediation policy. See below.

The important thing to remember is that MedCom is not the ArbCom, nor will ever be. However, without some form of authority, people will skip it and go straight to the ArbCom who have started to express concerns that they get cases which shouldnt have been filed in the first place.

The proposed pages I will show you reflects the more formal process of the ArbCom without being the ArbCom. They are very preliminary and this will probably be a controversial change and I fully expect to be if not beaten down, at least thoroughly shaken and stirred.

I would really apprechiate your input on this, especially if you agree on something like this or not. Like I said, you being the chair, I want your opinion on this before anyone else. Thank you for your time.

Please respond on my talk page or on the discussion pages for the proposals.

Keep in mind I just want to help. So if all this is preposterous, tell me. :>

Preliminary pages: Inter\Echo 08:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Inter/Requests for Mediation
 * User:Inter/Mediation policy

Your apology
You're a model citizen. Thanks for a lesson in how to be a good Wikipedian.

Yes it is a complex issue and I don't think we'll find a solution soon. After all the nonsense, someone came up with what I consider to be a better picture--a relatively high resolution still showing Rose's head and shoulders, so you can see the jewel she is wearing, and the hands-over-head pose is clearly a classical nude pose. There are no nipples in shot but I didn't want the picture there just to gawk at nipples anyhow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

email
I sent you an email last week. If you have no comment on it, that's fine, but I did want to make sure you'd received it. Please let me know. Thanks, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

historical digital projects
I’m an historian working at the [Center for History and New Media] at George Mason University and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu

The Storyteller
Isn't it GREAT?! I love all of them, and the Greek Myth ones too... although John Hurt was clearly a better narrator than Michael Gambon. Curiously, when Richard Harris died, I thought that John Hurt would have been a marvelous replacement for him as Dumbledore... had he not already been used as Olivander. Then they got Gambon. Small world. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:29, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

disrupting wikipedia policy vote
You voted once for the policy at Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions,. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article.Slrubenstein  |  Talk  15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia
I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed policy position is this:
 * That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:
 * 1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy
 * 2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia
 * 3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.


 * That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
 * Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)