User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 9


 * 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)

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

Cornell Sun Column
Hey, James Rosenzweig. Thanks for your comments in the Sun's feedback forum. First of all, how did you happen upon my column? Was it just a staggering coincidence that the same wikipedist who reverted one of our tags also reads the Sun?

In any case, I gather and hope that you're not too offended by the column or our edits. Wikipedia is an impressive project, to be sure; it simply always amazes me just how much time people are willing to pour into a project which will win them neither acclamation nor utility. Some of these people are doubtless driven by an altruistic desire to spread knowledge. Some of them are driven by an imbecilic impulse for contention. Some are bored losers for whom Wikipedia provides an illusion of accomplishment. Most probably fall into more than one of those categories.

To a certain extent, by the way, my column was self-consciously tongue-in-cheek: the only bigger loser than the guy who spends all his time adding to the Internet, is the guy who spends all his time complaining about the first guy.

Anyway, thanks for your response, which was long enough and intelligent enough that I figured it deserved reply. Best-

-JS


 * Thanks for the explanation, Jim -- I was the fellow who spotted John Adams' bogus visit to the Congo. It was slightly more inventive than our usual edits from vandals (in case you run out of ideas next time, "penis penis penis" is a favorite, as well as speculating as to the sexual orientation of a close personal friend), and I therefore wondered what college's columnist had run out of story ideas. I therefore appreciate your clearing that up for me.


 * On another note (and a more serious one), just keep in mind next time that what you're doing is spraypainting a free resource with the can of spraypaint we hand you. It doesn't prove much about anything or anyone, other than its suggestion that you personally don't have a lot of respect for the idea that factual information about the world can and should be free. Yeah, we've got articles on Pokemon. We've also got some decent articles on medieval literature, the civil war in Congo, Ukranian presidential elections, and the failed OK Soda brand. A lot of us (some of us geeks, sure, and some of us housewives, and some of us professionals, and some of us teenagers) believe that people all over the world deserve to have the facts about just about anything without having to pay for it. This project exists to make that possible, and it only survives because guys like you happen on our site and ignore the impulse to vandalize (which, as I say, is trivially easy) because they recognize that maybe they know something that other people shouldn't have to pay to know.


 * Sorry to be long-winded. Maybe you don't care much. But I thought I'd give you the courtesy of an intelligent (and hopefully occasionally humorous) reply. If you ever find your way to Wikipedia again, I hope you'll pay us back a little by leaving behind a couple of real facts you know. Good luck getting a column idea for next week.

--J. Rosenzweig

James Rosenzweig High School Teacher

Ha! I love the reply! I suppose I see the point of the tongue in cheek now, and maybe I'm a little close to this project. Good to see a rational response to the author. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words
a rose petal

sweetest from the rose

growing anew


 * JRM 23:03, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

I should really break out the more serious edits,

as ungrateful a lot that may be,

at least my orange-tinged potpourri

needs no more attention, it's had its.


 * (Ouch.) JRM 23:03, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

One question
In most legal situations, policemen whose conduct is undergoing criminal investigation tend to be temporarily suspended from duty.

Since Fred Bauder is currently undergoing arbitration himself as to his neutrality or accurate reportage, should he actually be allowed to take an active part in other cases?

CheeseDreams 18:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * CD, we've never suspended an arbitrator in the past. If you feel that the accusations against an arbitrator are sufficiently severe that major consequences are likely, you can always request that the AC place a temporary injuinction on the user.  We have imposed injunctions on editors in the past barring them from editing or from using sysop privileges.  These injunctions (because they come before a case is decided) generally are only used if a party is so obviously at fault that the injunction is necessary to prevent the person doing further harm to the Wikipedia.  I can't say that I think the allegations concerning Fred make a temporary injunction likely, but if you made a good case for it, I promise I'd consider it.  Jwrosenzweig 19:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do feel that Fred is not acting in a neutral manner.
 * Reading the "proposed decision" section, it seems that he has taken absolutely everything out of context, and totally agreed with my accusers as soon as they suggest something. Further, it seems as if absolutely no account has been made of my defence.
 * Am I being paranoid, or is this a fair summation of the case?
 * P.s. note that the choice of arbitrators was made by John Kenney selectively leaving notes at the arbitrators talk pages. CheeseDreams 18:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair Play
According to the RfAr against me, these are the arbitrators


 * Accept Fred Bauder 18:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. →Raul654 19:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 21:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. Delirium 23:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

so why is James F voting on the proposed decision? CheeseDreams 19:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply
As one friend to another, and I am happy to have you call me friend, I am willing to accept that I may not be unbiased in my responses to the CD issue, but what I see is a user, rather ineptly, trying to add information that I consider to be neither weird or controversial to the article and those additions being reverted rather than edited by those who disagree.

Your long, considered post on my page has given me pause to consider some of the words I used, and I would certainly not consider you as part of a caucus, but I think you must be able to see that it would seem that way to CD. Even in such a considered posting, language like But when your house needs remodeling, it doesn't mean that someone can walk in off the street and start knocking holes in the walls with a sledgehammer... and We know that there is still work to be done on the Jesus articles. implies a kind of ownership (whose house? which 'we'?) that I find somewhat inappropriate. And yes, there are worse arenas of POV conflict, but this one is the one that came to my attention. And yes, I'm an atheist (not especially devout), so I also have a POV, which I am trying to be aware of. And I will go away soon and consider overnight. I note Ta bu shi da yu's efforts to solve this on the talk page, and may drop by there tomorrow to assist. Meanwhile, let there be no bad feeling between us. My main concern, as always, is to have the best Wikipedia we can make. Filiocht 16:10, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sometimes a sledgehammer is necessary. CheeseDreams 01:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What on earth does that mean? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying to you. I have decided to keep out of the debate for a while, having come to the conclusion that the article could reasonably be boiled down to a single paragraph along the lines of: The claim that Jesus is an actual historical figure is primarily based on the evedince provided by the New Testament. WHile this evidence is widely accepted, particularly in the Christian community, many historians have cast doubts on their reliability. Other critics have drawn attention to the similarities between the story of Jesys and a number of common mythological archetypes, including the Mythic Hero, the Dangerous Child and life-death-rebirth deities, claiming that Jesus is at best a semi-mythical figure the question of whose historicity can never be answered. However, I don't for one moment imagine that this will ever be accepted by those involved.


 * I was sory to read that you are ill at the moment, and wish you a speedy recovery. We'll be celebrating a secular, vegetarian Christmas, and I'm looking forward to the break. Wishing you a Happy Christmas and a great 2005. Filiocht 12:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I'm keeping out of this debate, but here is a partial list of useful reading:


 * The Story of Christian Origins, Martin A. Larson
 * Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, T. W. Doane
 * Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus by William Harwood,
 * Jesus: God, Man, or Myth? by Herbert Cutner,
 * The Myth of the Resurrection by Joseph McCabe,
 * How Did Christianity Really Begin? by Howard Teeple,

Filiocht 10:06, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Bias
Re: Fred Bauder

How come 90 days for me and only 30 for TBSDY for the same percieved offence (particularly as the offence TBSDY is accused of is more severe than that of the percieved offence by me) (at /proposed decision) ?

That seems totally POV, like he is trying to find some little thing to ban me totally.

I think he is seriously biased (on religious grounds).

I also ask a formal investigation into potential conflict of interest by Fred Bauder (as I am entitled to according to the Abitration policy)

Also see WP:AN where this injustice is discussed by other parties CheeseDreams 01:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite -- I seldom lurk anymore, but do check in on rare occasions. My teaching load is a bit heavy at the moment, so I just don't have the energy to play where I have to fight with amateurs over things that I've spent the last 15 years working on. Thanks, though. JHK

Wouldn't tempbanning me be a case of blaming the victim (or at least punishing the victim?) Why would anyone bring any matter to the ArbComm if doing so puts them at risk of being tempbanned for simply being a disputant? What, exactly, have I done to justify a tempban from *any* and all articles related to vexillology, fascism or Canada? If I've done nothing to justify such discipline (for what else would one call it) then how can the ArbComm justify such an act?AndyL 23:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision

Three editors have already voted for the temporary injunction so if you can intervene quickly that would be helpful. At the very least if there is a "temporary injunction" it should be restricted to the articles Red Ensign, Flag of Manitoba and Flag of Ontario as those are the only articles that have been the subject of dispute or, at most, all articles dealing with flags. Including any article related to Canada is excessively broad and bans me from editing thousands of articles indefinitely and is uncalled for. As for fascism, the disputants have not been involved in any dispute on articles on fascism so having a temporary injunction on those articles makes as much sense as having one on all articles related to toxicology. AndyL 00:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein RfAr
Sorry, why am I not allowed to make an RfAr against Slrubenstein? That is patently unjust.

I do not have interest in adding it to my case to "have my actions seen in contest"

I want Slrubenstein's actions questioned. Independently of mine, and without ad-hominem references to me (as you will have seen Pedant commit, for a start). I specifically framed the RfAr without including issues against me specifically, so that it was independant of me.

I have absolutely no idea why you have recused yourself from it. I do not see how you could be seen to be pro- or anti- Slrubenstein.

Once again, people trying to turn RfCs that I make, and RfArs that I make into issues about me, rather than addressing the charge I actually make.

I want Slrubenstein's actions questioned. Is that clear?

CheeseDreams 01:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC
Can you provide me with the diff? If so, I'll add this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get well soon
Sorry to hear you're sick :( I hope the medication for your cold helps you out. Colds/Flu are never fun. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please consider making a counterproposal restricting the injunction to flag-related articles in the absence of evidence supporting a broader injunction. AndyL 13:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams 00:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein
I do not view you as biased about Slrubenstein. That case is about him not me. I do not see why your interactions with me have an influence on your opinions of Slrubenstein. I fail to see what the justification for recusing yourself from his arbitration is.


 * By the way Fred Bauder and James F are behaving, it appears that they have absolutely no interest in considering, or even trying to find out the accuracy of, anything for the defence. Thus, if I put the anti-Slrubenstein RfAr there it will be ignored.


 * This is a seperate issue.
 * It isn't a counter claim. I don't do ad hominem attacks.


 * It is an entirely seperate matter, that happens also to involve me and Slrubenstein.
 * Having it only with respect to me denigrates the case. In that situation it would be easy for Slrubenstein to claim that it was only in response to me, and start up Ad hominems.
 * IF you read the RfAr, you will note that I explicitely AVOID making it me vs. Slrubenstein. I explicitely point out that he is abusive toward Amgine and FT2 merely because they oppose him. And explicitely do not mention interactions with me, bar the little note about his accusation of racism.

According to the arbitration policy, I have every right to present the case seperately and independantly. And Fred and Co. have absolutely no right to demand that I attach it to mine. Their grounds for refusal are "it should be part of the other case", not "it is not sufficient abuse for arbitration", which is an invalid ground for refusal according to the arbitration policy.

To go "im going to dismiss it irrelevant to whether it warrents arbitrable abuse, or whether earlier dispute resolution failed" is an abuse of the position of arbitrator.

CheeseDreams 00:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whiter than White?
If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.

Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality

Arbitration
You may or may not be aware that there have been significant developments in the case Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, which you might refer to. While it would be redundant to refer again to my rebuttals to the misguided "findings of fact" against me, I urge you to reconsider the harsh parole provisions being considered. WP:3RR refers to "the Arbitration Committee, which has sometimes placed such users on a probation that allows them to be temporarily blocked from editing whenever they violate the rule". That is the announced remedy, admin enforcement of exactly the 3RR. It is clearly meant to be corrective rather than punitive, but the direction being taken now is not that announced. This is especially troubling in light of this being the first time the ArbCom has considered my case. On another matter, I might also refer you to my comment directed to you on the Proposed Decisions Talk page, in case you have not seen it. Very Verily 11:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ciz
The main evidence page is now completed. I note that Ciz was been told (Dec.17) he is expected to add evidence or a statement. FT2 05:03, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
It is an honor to be elected to the AC, and I hope that I can be as fair and just as you have been. It brings to mind what Thomas Jefferson said upon taking Benjamin Franklin's place as the American minister to France. The French foreign minister asked, "It is you who replace Dr. Franklin"? Jefferson replied, "No one can replace him, Sir; I am only his successor." Warmest regards --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I came here tp say somethimg nice to you. But I see Neutrality has beat me to it, and said something far nicer than I could have thought of myself. So I'm just going to add me too. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz case
James - can you do me a favor and go vote to close the Gzornenplatz case? →Raul654 23:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Seattle
I think I've addressed most of your issues over Seattle as featured article (but added 4K to an already long article in doing so). Anyway, have a look. Ridley Pearson you are going to have to follow up yourself: I don't know his work, and our article on him doesn't mention Seattle, so I have nothing much to work with and I assume you know whereof you speak. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) If all that's needed on Pearson is a mention, just add it. But we would also, then, do well to mention Seattl in the article on Pearson, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

name, meetup
I'm sorry, I actually caught your name wrong! Mea maxima culpa (trans: "I really f---ed up").

Meetup. Even if we get only half a dozen people, I think it's worth doing. Yes, notes on people's talk pages would be a good idea. Do you think we should just unilaterally pick a date? Can you live with January 15, which you sad was 90% make-able? It had the larger number of yesses if you are in.

Yes, notes on people's talk pages again. I figure on hitting up everyone on the Wikipedians lists for Washington, Oregon, or BC, plus everyone whose name I have as having attended last time even if they are not on the lists. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather just say now that it's on the 15th and then let the chips fall where they may. If a ton of people say "No" then we can deal with that. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:06, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Meetup/Seattle

Vote totals
About your question to Danny: I'm afraid the voter list from this election seems to have overwritten the list from the last election, so I'm not sure of the exact count anymore. My recollection, however, is that you were just over 50% and Raul654 was just under 50%. Given how these elections play out with a large slate of candidates and many people unfortunately still conditioned to vote for only one candidate per position, I think you had an impressive amount of support, and I don't think this would have changed much had you run for reelection. It also means that voter turnout more than doubled, which I think is fairly impressive. --Michael Snow 05:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me revert the massive vandalism by 68.197... I blocked that address for 24 hours, and reverted the rest of his contributions that you didn't catch. They were all the same EScrew nonsense. Academic Challenger 11:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Closing a few ArbCom cases
One thing I'd like to do as soon as the new band of arbitrators take office is try to get our caseload down as quickly as possible by closing some of the older cases which have grown stagnant and where there's really no more work to be done.

I had a bit of a chat to Mav before, and he agreed that it's probably time to close the Turrican/VeryVerily, VeryVerily and Shorne/Fred Bauder cases. They're all fairly straightforward, I think (two are moot by users leaving, and the third was superseded by the Gzornenplatz et al verdict). Would it be possible for you to drop in and vote on these ones? It'll just make it easier to get them out of the way as soon as possible after Jan 1. Ambi 12:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
You're very welcome. My strong recommendation is based primarily on the calmness of our interactions throughout. I do not want you to promise to avoid certain subject areas! You have strongly held opinions - good thing! - but taking on mediation in an area you feel strongly about will generally not result in a mediated resolution or neutral monitoring of the resolution.

One of the issues I have observed with the mediation committee is a general misunderstanding of what mediation is. Mediators do not solve or resolve conflicts. They allow the participants to develop agreement on goals, and compromises to achieve those goals, and then monitor compliance with those compromises. Mediators should not even suggest possible compromises, but rather talk particpants 'round to mentioning the obvious option (this isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but agreements tend to be stronger when they come from the participants than from a third party.)

I think you would be a strong addition to the MC and can keep in mind the goal of developing a written statement of goals and process by the parties, and not by the mediators (and of course keeping an honest self-evaluation of your personal involvement.) [My, isn't Amgine being arrogant and wordy? and writing in the third person, too!] - Amgine 16:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dispute
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You're quite right about everything, really&mdash;the dispute between users here is much greater than the dispute over article content. I've always been open to compromising with them and to making concessions, and I've tried to do so; I've said I'll discuss any proposals at all. I would even be willing to accept having the article in a state completely contrary to what I think is right, if that's the outcome of a fair discussion and I am clearly outnumbered. I'm deeply, deeply hurt by what I feel are attempts to get me banned or placed on some kind of editing restriction just because I am stubborn in defense of my opinion, and as a consequence I have at times gotten far too worked up and overreacted out of worry and panic. I only want to edit in peace, and I feel like I am being driven out. Everyking 02:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Jwrosenzweig
I would like to wish you a happy new year! MusiCitizen 19:19, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your ESP entry
I think it a conceptual mistake to call it ESP. It is more correct I think to call it Ultra Sensory Perception USP. --KirkMcLoren

Regarding the Republic
Happy New Year. I hope all is well with you. Kim Bruning, way earlier, said I could move the Classical definition of republic into the Republic article. I live in Battle Creek with no university library and I am tooo poor to afford Loeb editions to buy outright so I am at a loss to further research but all the evidence is very clear.

I think it time with Cicero calling Sparta a republic to move forward and move this into the republic article because this is the true meaning of the word. The Spartan government had no specific name because it was a peculiar institution amongst the Greeks that they never named it. Thucydides named in aristocracy and oligarchy interchangeably. The Spartan Government is truly mixed government and that is the true meaning of the term. "Not with a monarch" is not the definition of the term republic. Sparta had kings and Cicero called it a republic so this "modern" definition is very wrong. Plato's The Laws definition of an actual Spartan talking is the real meaning. Many people and classicists never read the Laws and therefore miss this info.

Please talk to others and let me know. The Republic article has several errors in it.WHEELER 01:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
I've been waiting for a mediator between Noisy and me for over a month now. I have been advised positively about your capacities on this point, so would you like to step in? - Andre Engels 09:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
You're clearly not the only one who thought more prose was needed - I'm glad to be finding a generally positive response to this project. Naturally, it faces the same challenge as Wikipedia itself, of turning readers into writers. But while your help would certainly be valuable, I won't assign you a beat as yet. Maybe we can discuss it more at the meetup on Saturday, assuming you still plan to attend.

And yes, NPOV may be a little challenging, but it can be done by those people who are able to take a step back and consider how an outside observer would see things. Hopefully I've managed that somewhat acceptably so far. --Michael Snow 23:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Too bad, you'll be missed. If you would like the more personal interaction, I could offer to try and meet you somewhere on the Eastside (since we're both that side of the lake) on the 29th, as I recall that date was more convenient for you originally. It doesn't have to be a big group to be worth getting together. --Michael Snow 23:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Drat, and I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you meddling kids. (thanks) --fvw *  22:38, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Question:
Have I wikified this correctly, or should I link the entire thing up?
 * Progesterex

No, I sure don't know if there is a website debunking that myth, although I imagine there is. I didn't write this article, somebody else did and I saw it while doing an RC Patrol. Thanks for your help!*Kat* 17:58, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I have a problem. Davenbelle is systematically removing every edit I make on the basis I am a "troll" without actually specifying what that means or addressing the edit. I have one and a half matters in arbitration and think that another one would not be a *good thing*. What do you suggest, if anything. My edits - mostly - I think are pretty reasonable but this is making it hard to continue, which I assume is the idea. I believe Davenbelle is a sockpuppet of Radicalsubversiv who initiated the RfA against me. Ollieplatt 23:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do the RfC thing and hope that doesn't further inflame things. Ollieplatt 00:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt
Ollieplatt is a known troll. Not only has it been surely established that he has used many, many, many sockpuppet accounts, but he has been edit warring, 3RR violating, and deleting an ifd header from an image under discussion. He also runs around harrassing people who bring him up short in his activities -- voting to oppose sysop nominations solely because somebody Rhobite voted to support, and voting to keep on VfD solely because Rhobite nominated the page. As seen above, he also accuses anybody who opposes him as being a sockpuppet of everybody else who opposes him. RickK 00:09, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt
Thanks for your advice re the reverts. I have reverted a number of Ollieplatt's edits; many others have been reverting them, too. I also have submitted edits to Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence; in fact, I was preparing another when I got your message. &mdash; Davenbelle 00:21, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to better phrase my summary of any reverts. I was sincerely thanking you for your advice &mdash; not just re the summaries. I would urge you to look into a few of Ollieplatt's "contributions" and do whatever you feel is appropriate. The following is an interesting example. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:00, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

re: Campbellton, New Brunswick.
 * 15:47, Jan 18, 2005
 * On Jan 17th, I made several minor edits to Campbellton, New Brunswick. On the 18th, Ollieplatt changed "bring much needed" to "'attract" w/ comment "salmon don't "bring" tourists, unless they are big salmon". Seven minutes later, I changed it to "attract much needed" w/ comment "first rule: do no harm". Four minutes later, Ollieplatt reverted it back to "attract" w/ comment "much needed" is an opinion, your opinion I presume, it has no place in an encyclopedia article". The phrase "bring much needed" was in the article before I ever edited it; I have never been to Campbellton, New Brunswick; Ollieplatt had not previously edited the article.

Help?
An anonymous user has made several edits to the college soccer article. Most of the changes have to do with the schools where certain players graduated. This is a subject I know nothing about, and my attempts to verify the information on Google have come to nothing. But this is the first time I've ever thought about listing an article on one of the WP:PNA pages. I'd really appreciate it if you would take a look at the article's history and determine if it should be listed on the PNA or not.*Kat* 09:21, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just discovered the RC Patrol, so I posted the article there.*Kat* 09:40, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle
Good morning, James.

I thought I'd mention that I've taken a different approach to Ollieplatt since your messages. This User_talk:Blair_P._Houghton, for example, was quickly followed by this: Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence.

I'd also like to offer you several examples of the sort of contributions I prefer to make when not noticing contributions such as Ollieplatt's:

Gagauzia: mini infobar; history table, too

Brichany: timeline table

World Vision: External links - WorldVision.org & link to their videos

and Gleebruk (new).

Best,

&mdash; Davenbelle 19:20, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Another situation
Could you, or someone you think appropriate, look at something? I have plenty on my plate &mdash; non-wiki stuff, for example &mdash; and do not want to get involved in this one. The Free Papua Movement article was recently changed. I don't think a revert is appropriate, but it probably should be toned-down a bit. The anon user has been on a roll for the last three days. Thanks. &mdash; Davenbelle 17:52, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation committee
Anthere and I indepenently and almost simultaneously decided we wanted you on the committee, and because we couldn't think of reasons why there would be objections, it was made so. Hope that's ok. Pcb21| Pete 14:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need comment
I have been added huge content onto Classical definition of republic and I would like your criticism and/or suggestions. I don't know, without some oversight, what looks good or not, and I would enjoy some constructive criticism, suggestions, ideas. I am still working on it and I need some feedback. Strange, that nobody has gone in and changed anything. Can I get some help please.WHEELER 14:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
In honor of (finally) your appointment to the Mediation Committee:


 * The pressure for speed
 * May it have less impact here
 * And patience win out

--Michael Snow 18:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2nd need for comment
I have added to the post Romanitas in conjuction with a new article titled Culture defines politics. Can you comment on it for me or do you have any information for pertinent to the new article.WHEELER 01:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the "project"
Oh, gosh. My agent wants to know the same thing. He has threatened to "call my mother" unless I get him the revised proposal I promised because some editor really is interested in the idea. That was two weeks ago. I'm so backed up. Basically the idea is going to be slightly different that I mentioned before--less about the "mothership" and more about the technology, although I hope to have at least a whole chapter devoted to the madhouse in there too. Things are developing. I'm glad to be reminded again...How's it going with you? -- Decumanus 05:18, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Great job!
Great work on writing a new article on the Treaty of New Echota. You seem to know your stuff -- if you want any suggestions for articles that need to be written regarding U.S.-Indian history, by all means let me know. ;-) There are so many topics in that area that are inadequately covered. --Kevin Myers 06:00, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comments have prompted me to start a "red link" list on my user page. Perhaps something on that list will catch your fancy. For instance, Christian missionaries to the American Indians are barely covered on Wikipedia, including John Heckewelder, someone whom I admire greatly. With any luck, maybe I'll see some of those red links turn to blue before I get to them! --Kevin Myers 01:01, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Learning styles
Learning styles has been nominated for Collaboration of the Week. You might be interested. --Westendgirl 04:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce
Hi James. I hope that you don't mind my approaching you directly. I'm following with interest the RfA against Robert the Bruce, and I noticed your comment. I'm concerned that the usual Wiki dispute resolution process appears to have been skipped in this dispute, and I strongly feel that some kind of mediation should be attempted. I have mediated in an unofficial capacity in an unrelated matter, but I cannot do so here due to obvious reasons. What I was wondering was whether you would be able to locate a suitable mediator (or volunteer if you have the time), and propose that the ArbCom make an initial decision to refer the matter to that mediator, at least as an initial step. What do you say? - Jakew 16:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi James (again). Thanks for your response. I think that mediation could work, with a couple of provisos: 1) a skilled mediator were to take on the job (my attempt was the first time I've ever tried in my life, which I don't think helped), and 2) suitable goals were identified for the process. I'm not sure that everything can be resolved to everyone's complete satisfaction, but maybe the situation can be changed to one in which the parties can grudgingly work together. Perhaps you could ask on the mediators' notice board (or whatever is the water-cooler equivalent for you guys) and see whether anyone might be willing to help out? I believe that Robert has approached the Assoc. of Member's Advocates; not sure how that affects things. Thanks. - Jakew 17:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changed Title
I changed the title of "Culture defines politics" to Cultural imprint on politics. I think this is a winner of a title for the subject material. I hope you agree. Let me know what you think? Thanks for your consideration and time. WHEELER 19:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

marrowstone
Thanks for the follow-up on my editing of the Marrowstone and Fort Flagler State Park pages. The changes definitely allowed me to grasp proper formatting quicker than I otherwise would have.

I'll see you around, I'm sure.

AR

Chris 73
You are right but... I was on many mailing lits, message boards etc. and i never saw an Admin offending users.

Chris 73 not only call Space Cadet a moron, but also makes fun about the Polish culture, thats rassistic.

Its unfair when Admins breake rules on wikipedia, but have no consequences for that.--Emax 18:51, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have added Chris 73 to Vandalism in progress (offending is vandalism i guess) but it was removed 3 times from the list. Do you see what i mean? Other admins support him - if Chris 73 would add me to "Vandalism in progress" for the same reason, no one would removing it from the list, and i would be banned. Is that fair?--Emax 20:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jwrosenzweig . FYI, I realized that my comments were not appropriate shortly after I made them on the page User talk:24.7.179.169/Archive Emax helpfully pointed out to you. For both instances I apologized to SpaceCadet and Halibutt, both of whom seem to have accepted the apology. For me this case is closed. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 23:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont think that your apology was serious - you apologized after i showing Halibutt your rasistic comments, and he asking you for that. (what would happen if i would not show Halibutt your comments? I guess no apology)--Emax 23:49, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. In cases like this where a disgrantled user tries to accuse me of everything but the kitchen sink I am very glad to receive some nice comments from you and other admins that I do more good than harm :) -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Book of Kells
Hey, hold on, if you look at my change carefully you'll see that I have not removed any of the text. Please don't slander me. I have simply rearranged the sentences into two paragraphs rather than one. GeorgeStepanek\talk  21:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No harm done: the slip-up forgiven and forgotten. The text flow is still a little rough, but I can't see how to improve it further. I was thinking of dividing it into 3 or 4 paragraphs, but that then wouldn't match the rest of the article. Do you want to have a go at it? GeorgeStepanek\talk  22:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scoops
Coming here, I see that nobody bothered to leave you a note to inform you. It's somewhat symptomatic of the problem that people sort of expect each other to use their watchlist if they want to keep track of things that affect them, even though for many people even watchlists are inadequate to the task. Which is partly why something like The Signpost is necessary in the first place. Anyway, good luck with mediation! --Michael Snow 00:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation meeting
Template:Mediation-meeting Please edit the side box here (be brief) to update when you might be able to attend. Thanks. -==SV 22:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ? Is there a problem? You changed from yes to no - I was removing the comment to talk as separate. Do you have problems with IRC - dont want ip to show, etc? We can get you a cloak... -==SV 22:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN
I see you have decided to treat your position as chair of the mediation committee with respect, upholding neutrality, and not taking sides, by posting to WP:AN a tirade against me. Nice work. Your position is no longer tenable - resignation please.

CheeseDreams 14:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Being chair of the mediation committee does not mean that I can cease to have any opinion about a user whose personal attacks, disruptive editing behavior, and inability to be a productive member of this community has made them the subject of two separate arbitration cases. I would never act as a mediator on a case involving you, and in my actions as chair, I would do all I could to see to it that any mediation involving you was given a fair process from a mediator not biased towards either side in any way.  Judges have the right to vote, you know, and even to express political opinions, as long as they do not then abuse their position as judge by pretending impartiality in judging cases where their opinion will bias them.  Trust me, I will never abuse my position as mediator by carrying out any kind of vendetta against you.  Now please stop leaving me your impolite messages -- your bullying does not frighten me in the least. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Whilst that is true for a magistrate, should a judge take part in any political action (aside from hearing a case), the bar council would force their resignation and failing that have them struck off in disgrace. CheeseDreams 19:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't much matter to me what your interpretations or opinions are. I will continue to act as a contributing member of this community, both as a contributor and as a mediator.  There are many good users at this site who will let me know if I am overstepping my bounds, and if they make any remark to me, I promise you, I will take it seriously.  If the only person who has a problem with me is you, then I'll chalk it up to your being angry at me because I believe you to be a bad faith user of this site.  I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I'm sure you understand -- after all, I've informed you that I thought you were out of line before, and you never paid a moment's notice to me, nor did you remedy your behavior.  Let's call it even and stop trying to change each other. Jwrosenzweig 20:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit wars in the Caucuses
Hi, James. I edited the infobox on the Nagorno-Karabakh article awhile ago, and an edit war has broken out there and I was asked to join the talk. I expect this mess will continue and thought you might want to take a peek.

FYI, last week I cleaned-up the infoboxes on all of Spain's Autonomous communities pages and visited all of the province pages, too. &mdash; Davenbelle 00:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, James. I have made what I think is a good effort at working with the disputants at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. I have stopped the edit war, for the moment, and I have gotten them talking -- the talk page is now at 40+ pages with maps! I do, however, feel that I am in over my head. I tried to create a baseline version of the article by excising the bits they disagree on (less than 10% of the article) and asking them discuss just what to put back, and one user, Tabib, objects to this approach. I would appreciated if you could advise me on my mediation techniques and invite you to wade in on this issue. I will stick with it, but expect that this will end up moving up the ladder your way soon. &mdash; Davenbelle 00:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at this please?
Freedom and Solidarity Party I'm not certain this is encyclopedia material, nor that it is actually original. Its definitely not npov. I'm not entirely sure what to do with it though. Advise please? *Kat* 12:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Classical definition
The Wikipedian community has saw fit to delete The Classical definition of republic. I found more corraborating evidence and, on the Votes for Undeletion, They are still voting to keep it deleted. I think this is highly unfair. Is there a cabal going around voting things off that they don't like? I have put external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and they delete that also. It has been deleted twice from Republic. What's going on here? Wikipedia is not "Free and Open-Content". There is a group controlling what gets said around here. I have been reading about "Republics" all my life. I even quote from a Modern Scholary work that used the term "Classical Republic". And they still delete. Something is not right here. WHEELER 14:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seattle FAC
I just thought I'd let you know that I've put Seattle, Washington up for another featured article nomination, in case you want to comment. See Featured article candidates/Seattle. --Michael Snow 17:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tabib/Rovoam
Bah, that's what I get for trying to help. I am not currently representing either of them, BTW, I was just trying to help complete that step of the process. I can't tell whether or not he is agreeing to stop editing on the article. He certainly hasn't stopped visiting and logging into WP and being vocal on the matter.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ [ AMA ] 20:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Need Help
Since Wikipedia is a democracy, I have to farm for votes. Two articles are up for deletion: one is specific for Classical studies, Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos and the other is Votes_for_deletion/Family/State_paradigm. Can I ask for you help in these matters. Thanks.WHEELER 15:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change
Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Need Help Again.
I have put [Classica definition of republic] at Votes for undeletion because new information I have gotten and asked up for undelete. User:Snowspinner deleted it immediately. What gives? WHEELER 21:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)