Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jwrosenzweig

Jwrosenzweig
I hate to nominate myself for things -- it always makes me worried I'm acting out of pride. But I've realized this is the sort of thing that one has to volunteer for, and risk negative commentary. I just looked over the list of bureaucrats and realized that it is generally a group of names I don't see anywhere much anymore -- therefore, in spite of the fact that we obviously have some very fine names below, I thought I might be a welcome addition. I may not seem all that active at times, but I check this page every weekday at the least, and I have several times noticed someone needed promoting and wished I could do something about it. If there are obvious reasons I would be a bad choice for this that I'm unaware of, I'd appreciate it if someone would leave me a discreet note on my talk page so that I can pull this down quietly. :-) I don't have much stomach for a fight these days, and likely won't until my arbitration ends.  Oppose votes, though, are of course welcome, especially if there's something about my actions as an admin that needs correcting.  Thanks for your consideration, and for reading this too-long explanation.

Support
 * 1) "D ICK " C HENEY  19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) RickK 19:50, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &#8212;No-One Jones 19:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I would be hard-pressed to name a user better-suited to the job.
 * 4) Cecropia | Talk 20:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Agree with Mirv.
 * 5) Finlay McWalter |  Talk 20:37, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Angela. 21:27, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) older &ne; wiser 21:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Gerard 22:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) moink 23:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 00:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Mirv did say it best. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) jengod 01:29, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) James F. (talk) 01:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Cribcage 03:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) James is an extremely trustworthy and reliable contributor. &rarr;Raul654 03:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Zw 09:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) theresa knott 09:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) 172 09:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Acegikmo1 11:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) john k 17:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Merovingian &#8597; T@Lk 17:55, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Warofdreams 18:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) The explanation is long enough to show he will be a good bureaucrat. :) Pfortuny 20:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Neutrality 21:13, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Of course. Isomorphic 00:34, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Danny 01:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) I trust James. Muriel G 17:17, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Viajero 19:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) Has shown good leadership skills. It's a pleasure to receive his advice. --Uncle Ed 22:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 31) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 32) Secretlondon 01:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) pir 08:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) --Woggly 12:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 35) Sam [Spade] 18:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 36) Decumanus 17:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 37) Michael Snow 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Echo Mirv's comment above)
 * 38) I know Jwrosenzweig to be competent. Kingturtle 01:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) P.S. and that is fully and only a compliment :)