User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

I'm gone right now[edit]

See my user page for a brief detail. I'll be back in a couple of weeks. Have a great time, edit a lot, and don't feed the trolls. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations and I hope you and your new wife have a lovely time in Rutland. :) Angela. 21:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"our normal country" - heck, there's nothing normal about it. Congratulations on your wedding (I'm just back from one myself, and editing drunk) but commiseraions (hmm, that ain't spelt right) on choosing Rutland (nay, England) for your holiday. W.F.McWalter, Piedmont, CA, 11th July 2004

Thanks for your well-wishes -- my Internet access will be spotty now that I've moved, but I'll be lurking around via library access even if I'm not editing much for a while. And maybe I'll get more chances to edit than I'm suspecting. I have some additions to make to Rutland and Oakham, at least. :-) See you around the Wiki. Jwrosenzweig 17:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Welcome back, your much needed and appreciated here :) Sam [Spade] 17:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. Good to have you again. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:34, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

I am glad to see you back and hope you enjoyed your travels. The timing of your return is impeccable, as it looks like we're about to have elections for a couple arbitrators, in case you haven't heard yet. I know you had expressed some interest in that - if you are still interested, I would strongly urge you to be a candidate. --Michael Snow 17:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


At the moment I haven’t been wearing a hat, and have precious little hair. The sun doesn't bother me too much however, what with my blublocker sunglasses. On the wiki things have been interesting, I have two wikipedia:requests for arbitration, and I've nominated myself (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements) as a potential arbitrator as well (good luck on that, eh? ;). I recommend you give some thought to nominating yourself, you'd prob have my vote. Also there is a rather important policy proposal I've helped work on a bit, have a look Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll. I think it will be a much needed check and balance, giving admins a proper foundation with which to work when dealing w troublesome folks. Glad to see you, Sam [Spade] 17:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

all is lost and gray

until the cleansing rains come

washing stains away

Welcome back[edit]

Hi! *blink* you weren't back yet when I got on the train just an hour or 2 ago? Welcome back to Wikipedia.

Kim Bruning 18:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


If another person would also want to nominate me, I wouldn't be able to get away with a no I suppose. Fortunately I'm not *that* great, so it'll probably take a while before that happens. ;-)
Nice to see you back on wikipedia! :-) Kim Bruning 19:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right then. If you still want to nominate me for admin, I'll accept. I have made some small mistakes left and right, as well as done some good things. Let's see what people think. Kim Bruning 19:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I changed your pronoun references to Kim, since based on the pictures of self on Kim's homepage, Kim seems to be male. If Kim prefers otherwise, or if you know something else that I don't, feel free to change it back. --Michael Snow 19:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating me! :-) Kim Bruning 23:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The election[edit]

There is no firm deadline for candidates to enter, because the whole timeline is still being discussed. On my initial reading, your statement seemed pretty good to me, but I'm generally predisposed to find your statements intelligent and reasonable. I'll take another look to see if I have any suggestions.

I appreciate your suggestion in return, but I've already decided not to run this time. For one thing, this election is ultimately an outgrowth of my idea at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and when I made the proposal I committed to not running in the election myself. Also, even though I might feel qualified for the job, I think that for the time being my participation in the project needs to have a different focus. I'm hoping the arbitration process can function well enough without my serving as an arbitrator, since I think there are other people (notably yourself) who could do the job at least as well, and quite possibly better. --Michael Snow 21:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After rereading your statement, I'll share this impression with you. One of the above dark purposes seems to imply some unstated list of "forbidden" purposes; I can figure out that it's referring back to the motives mentioned in the previous sentence, but the language might be tightened up a little. In general this passage gives your statement a literary flavor, which is natural enough given your background, and quite enjoyable for me to read, but perhaps not the best style of communication for this particular purpose. --Michael Snow 21:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Christian Sentiments on Wikipedia[edit]

I've probably said this before, but I do find there to be an unacceptable degree of anti-Christian rhetoric at Wikipedia, a view you may share based on your comment at Talk:Blankfaze. While the articles, by and large, are fairly neutral because of the NPOV policy, user pages, talk pages, and IRC discussions all provide examples of users who share a personal disdian for Christianity and its adherents.

The majority of Wikipedians who express a religious affiliation declare themselves to be atheists. At most, there are but a handful of Wikipedians who are members of what are sometimes called "mainline Christian churches," since those Wikipedians who are not atheists subscribe to a wide range of belief systems.

I have no problem with the range of beliefs. But the community's greater insensitivity to disparagement of Christianity than to disparagement of other belief systems is troubling.

What to do? Probably nothing. Your ideas would be welcome.

Maybe we should start a club. :-)

UninvitedCompany 22:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Yes, I talk to Hadal on a daily basis. I like him very much. He's very professional about all he does. Look at his user page history. Apparently someone got angry at him recently for some edits he reverted on cannabis. Mike H 23:15, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

AC vote endorsements[edit]

Just wanted to say that I agreed with all that you said on that talk page. :) Ambi 22:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

not much[edit]

Well, it's always nice to see some messy writing corrected. There's so much good info in Wiki, but so much of it badly phrased, that it would be a fulltime job for hundreds of people to try to sort it all out. You've obviously done a ton of it -- I try to do a little from time to time. And, of course, I am enjoying myself here, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it.... I wonder what sort of impression Canticle would make if it came out today for the first time, rather than 45 years ago? Anyway, it's a fine book....All the best,Hayford Peirce 23:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Thanks for the welcome, James. I appreciate it. Even when we disagree I've always had a high regard for you. That is what makes Wikipedia so special. There are disagreements, sometimes strong ones, but you get one helluva range of people on wikipedia, including people of extraordinary talent. I look forward to seeing you around. FearÉIREANN 17:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To my opponent[edit]

I wish you the best of luck in this month's Arbitration Committee election. May the best Wikipedian win! Peace Profound! --MerovingianTalk 10:37, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yesterday (song)'s candidacy for featured status[edit]

I've dusted off the thesaurus and rewritten much of the article (for the third or fourth time). I'll understand if it's not up to featured level yet, as I'm not exactly the budding writer, but I hope you'll agree that it's far from atrocious as it used to be, with a mass of semicolons replacing full-stops, mucking up the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's been about six weeks since you asked me to on IRC, but I finally got around to expanding Great Galveston Hurricane. Now my head hurts and I'm going to have nightmares. -- Cyrius| 06:05, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions[edit]

A quick - OK, actually, probably a long question regarding your candidacy for the arbcom. How do you think you would have ruled/would rule in the following cases?

Thanks very much. Snowspinner 17:43, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, long and tough question, but a good one.
    • As party to the Irismeister 2 arbitration, I would have recused myself.
    • Regarding MNH, I would have supported the 3 months ban (in fact, I would likely have supported a longer ban...up to 6 months, I think...had other arbitrators felt it was warranted), I would have opposed the sanctions related to offering to proxy for Irismeister (while I think MNH's offer was in bad taste and violated the spirit of the ban on Iris, I don't think it was sufficiently clear that offering to make changes Iris requested was a violation of Wikipedia policy), and I would support placing MNH on personal attack parole.
    • Wik2 is easier with the benefit of hindsight. I would have at the time supported the "revert parole" being indefinitely extended and the enforcement of his use of edit summaries and talk pages -- I would also have supported allowing the AC to ban him for anywhere between a month and a year (if a majority so moved) should he violate the requirements placed on him by the AC. At this point, I believe there is sufficient evidence that Wik was behind the vandalbot attacks, and would support an indefinite ban on editing, to be lifted only if Wik privately contacts Jimbo (or the AC) and satisfactorily makes an apology and a pledge of future good conduct.
    • Paul Vogel -- I wholeheartedly would have supported both the one year ban and the note that Wikipedians were instructed to remove his inflammatory and abusive commentary from talk pages. I also would have supported the minority opinion that personal attacks are not to be allowed at Wikipedia.
    • Mav v. 168 is a tough one to talk about, since the AC never seems to have proposed any remedies. I think it sad we lost a good contributor like 168. I do, however, think some consequences for 168 would be appropriate. I would suggest that 168 should have been put on probation for 3 months -- in that time, had he taken an action that a majority of the AC felt was an abuse of admin privileges, he should have been desysopped. In my opinion, while mav may not always have been on his best behavior (there is a _lot_ on that page and I can't make sense of half of it), I see nothing to indicate he was deserving of sanction. I think, however, this was the kind of case that mediation would have been much better for.
    • JRR Trollkien is tough in a different way. I didn't care for that user at all, but I think existing policy (and the AC can't create new policy) is fuzzy on some of the things JRR did. I don't think his username fits under the "offensive username" policy, nor do I think it ought to have been changed by force (though I believe some names can and should be - in this, I supported Delirium's "other" opinion). The user's behavior might have deserved sanction, but no evidence seems to have been submitted (or else it wasn't accepted) -- on the limited question of names involving "trolls", unless the usernames also knowingly slander existing users, I don't think they can be involuntarily forced to change. I am a little shaky on this point, though, and would have preferred to focus on that user's conduct rather than the username.
    • Regarding Cantus, I agree with the findings of fact, the revert parole, and the instructions given to him by the AC. I would have added a ban of 1 week to 1 month, given his personal attacks on Wik -- 1 week if all he'd done was attack Wik in a few instances, 1 month (or perhaps even more) if it was demonstrated that Cantus was behind the vandalism to Wik's user page and subpages.
    • I was very peripherally involved in the ChrisO and Levzur case -- I think I could have made an unbiased decision, but out of a concern for avoiding all appearance of bias, I likely would have recused myself.
I hope this addresses your questions adequately, Snowspinner. :-) Thanks for asking. Jwrosenzweig 18:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More thoughts for futher slow simmering[edit]

I believe the roots of the problem are in the international nature of Wikipedia. Most non-U.S. western nations, that lack a tradition of independence between church and state, have gone through a far more painful transition towards secular government than is the case here. Also, many nations lack more liberal denominations, or at least such denominations are not as strong as in the U.S. In some parts of the world, Christianity equates to intolerance or at least a fairly inflexible set of lifestyle expectations.

Another possible root is this. Gay men make up a considerable share of Wikipedians, in a greater proportion than in the general population. Perhaps many, most, or even all of them have suffered intolerance or hatred in the name of Christianity. This may be the root of Wikipedia's tolerance towards anti-Christian statements.

So, what to do.

I think part of the answer may be for each of us to show our pride in our faith through suitable statements or images on our user pages. To the extent there exist Wikipedians who are both a) Christian and b) accepting of gay and lesbian people, we should state that to the extent we feel comfortable so doing. Maybe I'll make up a .PNG of an Ichthys with a blue-and-yellow equal sign.


Hi there, sorry to butt in, and I hope that I have not misunderstood your argument, but it seemed to me that you were making the case that:
  1. in non-U.S. western nations the church and state are less separate than they are in the U.S.
  2. non-U.S. western countries lack liberal denominations, or they are not as strong as in the U.S.
  3. Christianity, or society in general, is less tollerant of homosexuality overseas than in the U.S.
Without wanting to generalise too much, given that both the US and the rest of the west are extremely diverse, it is my impression that:
  1. In the U.S., separation of church and state is pretty much a paper affair, with the church being far more actively involved in politics on a day to day practical basis than the UK for instance, which has an established church.
  2. U.S. churches are far less liberal than most western european counterparts, and far less accepting of homosexuality.
Just my .02 Euros! Mark Richards 21:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hello, both of you. :-) UC, I've posted a statement on my user page. Maybe you can give it a look, tell me how you react? I think Mark does make some good points, btw, but I would make a couple of responses. First of all, Mark, I'd say that yes, the U.S. has more church-state ties, I think because there has traditionally been a separation (is this making sense?). In Europe, because the break was more forced, I think the gap is now wide between church and state, and that there is generally more hostility against the church because of this...a theory, of course. And perhaps a poor one. I haven't studied this much -- it's based on impressions gained through moderately extensive travel. I do think Mark is correct about the liberality of the American churches, especially concerning homosexuality -- we do tend to be more conservative than European Christians, I think. Interesting. Food for thought... Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think one issue here is the difference in the U.S. between the idea that no one church is formally aligned with the State, but the assumption that religion in general has a huge part to play in the public sphere, and the more european idea that although the state is aligned with one church on a nominal level, perhaps because of this, religion has a very moderate role in the public sphere. Consequently, US churches feel quite free to openly lobbey US government on issues of what people can do with each other in bed in a way that european established (or non established) churches would be much more reluctant to do.
There is also a huge schiztophrenia (forgive me, I am about to hopelessly characature!) which comes into being because the pilgrim fathers came over to the US in order to have the freedom to establish religious communities that severely restricted freedoms in a way that was becoming unpopular in Europe at the time, essentially asking for the freedom to restrict freedom. This gives you the bizzarre spectacle of a body politic that wants minimal state interference in people's rights, wanting to control people's alchol consumption, sexual behaviour, entertainment choices etc. The 'separation' of church and state seems like it was always intended simply to prevent churches which were powerful at the time from taking control of the state. Mark Richards 22:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I just re-read that - it sounds very harsh! Sorry! Mark Richards 01:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Statement of faith[edit]

Since you were interested in a comment (Re: User talk:UninvitedCompany) I thought I would mention that I think the sentance:

"If you ever see me saying something here that you believe perpetuates the stereotype of intolerant, hostile, or judgmental Christianity, please tell me so that I can remedy the fault, and grow personally"

is unnecessarily defensive, esp. since you are so very amiable so very much of the time. It seems an out of place insinuation that you might do something wrong. Just a thought, feel free to ignore it if you like ;) Sam [Spade] 22:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another haiku[edit]

That we may share life
Christ has died, Christ has risen
redeeming sinners

Hey, let me know if you get tired of the haiku, otherwise I'll write you another every time I'm on your page ;) Sam [Spade] 22:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, I think the new paragraph on your user: page reads fine. I think I will add something similar.

Mark, consider these facts:

  • I attend a small (100 members) church that has at least one openly gay couple in the congregation, who is openly accepted and fully participates in the church.
  • My church is a member of a nationwide denomination that has ordained GLBT ministers for some decades. This occurs routinely and no longer generates much press.
  • In a nearby community, Luthern and Episcopal chuches have both ordained openly GLBT ministers in the past year.

Social issues in general and GLBT issues in particular have been a divisive issue for many churches both in the U.S. and worldwide. There are many churchs in the U.S. with an extremely conservative social agenda -- the ones out there fighting to be sure kids don't learn about condomns -- but they do not speak for all of Christianity.

UninvitedCompany 22:54, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But only 8 endorsements have been made public, and I've managed to lose two of them the electorate trying to send me a message? Ah, I'm starting to feel bad. I really liked Sj's idea of allowing automatic reversion of a user's edits to certain topics. Oh well. With such a strong field of candidates, the electorate can be a bit fickle. Best of luck to you too, 172 00:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)'

Oh, I knew that you were just kidding. I said that I felt bad half-jokingly myself. It's kind of hard to communicate on Wikipedia, given that we can hear each other's tone of voice when communicating with each other. 172 15:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


IMO the mediation committee should be called in, to attempt to explain policy goals to WHEELER, and find out where he is coming from and what his goals are. IMO he has alot of potential to do good here, but is having a great deal of trouble adjusting. I would like to see a greater diversity of community members interact w him. To be honest, some of the people he has spent the most time interacting with are just the sorts of people I would prescribe if i wanted there to be trouble. 172, andyL, hyacinth, expolodingboy... frankly I am downright shocked and amazed that there hasn't been an explosion. For being who and what he is (I think we all have gotten an idea of where he is coming from by now ;) the fact that he has been as PC as he has been around these particular editors astounds me. It is very important that the project learn to adapt folks like wheeler into our fold, especially since he has so very much to offer (Wikipedia:Cite your sources Wikipedia:Verifiability). Isn't there a welcoming committee? Can they be called in to help? Sam [Spade] 19:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(p.s. I am going to copy this onto Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WHEELER2.) Sam [Spade] 19:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm very open to mediation. I recall WHEELER refusing it, but that is likely my bad memory. You're right, it is surprising there hasn't been an explosion....but given the amount of patient work people like you and Kim Bruning have gone through, it is also stunning he has made virtually no progress (and that is my honest estimation). I think he has _something_ to offer....I'm afraid I wouldn't call it a huge need, since his dedication to sources and verifiability occurs only when the sources verify his version of events (recall the Mussolini debacle -- despite overwhelming sources against him, he still clings to the one version of events he likes). But he isn't a pure troll, and may well not be a troll at all, and I have a small hope left that he can do good things here. The Welcoming Committee is a group of volunteers who promise to do what they can to welcome new users. I don't think they're well equipped for this situation. Besides, he's been here for months and months, and has had plenty of time (and plenty of people pointing to them) to read our policies. He's still pretty uninterested in NPOV, or seems to be. I think mediation is wise, but hesitate to be the person calling him there. Do you think he would accept an offer? Jwrosenzweig 19:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I actually don't agree that people need to consent in order to be mediated (I know thats how its written, of course), my thought was for the mediation committe to look into the matter and take turns talking to him ;) Have you read User:WHEELER#Bio:? Its very insightful. Sam [Spade] 19:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, if they're willing, that sounds like a good idea. The Bio....yes, I've read it. I'm afraid it's one of the reasons I've lost a lot of hope for changing the way WHEELER operates -- I don't think his dislike of NPOV, discussion, and compromise are simply to do with the fact that he hasn't learned how. I think his dislike is based on the fact that his philosophy explicitly demands that he reject them. And as a Protestant, I don't much care for a philosophy that is based on the belief that all the church's reformers did was to create Marxism and Fascism. But I certainly don't have to care for his philosophy. :-) I do, though, think his philosophy is opposed enough to the aims of this project that it is unlikely any amount of intervention can make him adapted to this place. Jwrosenzweig 19:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my estimation the healthiest conclusions would be either: a) WHEELER realizes certain truths about the project, adapts to them, and begins to edit in a way in which both he and the community are comfortable, or b) WHEELER realizes certain truths about the project, understands that this is a place where presenting the absolute truth w/o opposition is not the goal, but rather that this is a place where numerous "modernist's" will make numerous edits to his truths, and he decides to amicably depart. I do not think that WHEELER exploding with hate speech and non-PC pejoratives and personal attacks is either likely, nor preferable, and I get the impression that certain camps have been expecting this to be the resoloution to the situation (specifically, I feel andyL was baiting WHEELER for some time, hoping for just this result, and slrubenstein has attempted to create a hate speech policy based entirely on a statement by WHEELER, not a method of legislation I agree with). As far as the side topic of WHEELER's theology and politics, I admit they simultaneously confuse and fascinate me. I had never imagined such things ;) Sam [Spade] 20:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'm glad you appreciated it. I was worried that 1) you might think I was presuming too much or 2) you might be offended by some of the other content on that page. I'm sure your strong belief in Christianity means you have quite a different opinion than mine on such topics as open marriages, for instance. I really hope that you get on the AC; you have the courtesy and fairness that the position requires. moink 21:02, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind offer! I'm sure you'll be able to do a better job than me; I don't know nearly enough about the subject to write a decent article, though I'll be happy to help however I can. As I see it, the article right now is divided into two sections, each of which have problems. The top half (the first three sections, up to and including "Opposition to homeschooling") have problems with setting up straw men, imputing motives to critics of homeschooling (e.g. "they're all teachers' unions", etc), and assuming that homeschooling is best (as opposed to the NPOV that some people claim it's superior or comparable).

The bottom half ("How to do it" and "Freedom of Instruction") are inappropriate because they're more of a how-to. There's good material in them, but it would have to be reworked into something more encyclopedic.

It's a fascinating topic, and we could have a really good article on it. Of course, if you don't want to do all this, I understand; this article would need a lot of work to get to a good level. Feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do (grunt work, copyediting, etc.). Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:53, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

PS Good luck on the Arbcom elections. I certainly hope you get in; you're a perfect fit for the job. Here's hoping.

PPS I might lay out a possible outline and start some introductory work on Talk:Homeschooling.


Thanks for the comments. User:KevinBot has been on Wikipedia talk:Bots for over a week and I've put in a request to User:Angela to mark it as a bot. The "deluge" you saw was just the final test. I was testing to see if it worked properly from two computers (it does). The bot only make 3-4 edits a minute but you saw it during the test and it was making 7-8 edits. I ended the test as soon as I saw your message, and I hope it didn't inconvience you any. Anway, I'm not planning on running it again until Angela or someone marks it as a bot. Kevin Rector 22:15, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, suggestions, etc. The bot is running well. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know that I was going to vote for you for the AC, but apparently since I've only been here 68 days, I can't vote. Nevermind the fact that I've edited over 2,000 articles and written a bot that's edited over 3,000 (in the last 24 hours). Oh, well, here's wishing you good luck in the election. As far as writing the bot goes, it wasn't too hard for me, but I'm a professional computer programmer, so I would hope that it wouldn't be. Have a good day. Kevin Rector 19:16, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome and encouragement. I have been a long time user of Wikipedia and felt it was about time to start contributing to it. As a baptist, the Baptist page had always bothered me because of its unreadability and lack of solid information about the origins of Baptists. I look forward to continuing to improve whatever articles I can, especially many of the religious ones. I have this nasty habit of inconsistently capitalizing in my writing so feel free to correct that one way or another. Gold Dragon

Sorry about that. It has been corrected. Danny 22:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not that I am particularly worried either way, but I noticed you changing some of the spelling for Bruegel in this article. Was this for consistency of naming within the article or some other reason. Pieter Brueghel the Elder used the name Bruegel following 1559 (which applies to the two paintings re-labelled). The trouble is that Bruegel is unambiguous, whilst Brueghel on its own is ambiguous and really needs to be further qualified with 'Pieter ... the Elder' to avoid confusion with the rest of the Brueghel hord. (Not that I'm an expert, I've just been reading a bit about Bruegel recently) -- Solipsist 20:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I defer to you on this one. I'm familiar with Breughel in a very general sense (I do love his work), and when I saw the question at the help desk, I noticed the questioner called him Breugel. I thought "hmmm, did I have the spelling wrong?" and checked the article...the title seemed to bear me out. So I thought I'd fix the captions while I was at it. It seems to me that it would be better for the article to call him "Pieter Breughel the Elder" for the sake of consistency with the title, but I do see your point about his name change. I haven't checked our practice on an article like Muhammad Ali to see how he's referred to, given his famous name change. If you think there is a useful distinction to be made there, by all means, revert my edits. :-) I just find it confusing to operate with two spellings for a last name within one article, but if it appears to be a conscious change on Pieter the Elder's part, and not merely a consequence of the loose attitude to spelling in that time period, then it does make sense. Sorry to have caused the trouble, although of course any trouble I may cause is merely the chaos you choose to will within your universe of one, in which case perhaps no apology is necessary. Peace. Jwrosenzweig 20:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree its a messy one. There doesn't seem to be much of a preference in art circles. My Oxford Dictionary of Art lists him primarily under Bruegel, but then makes the (presumably) mistake of saying that before 1559 he was Breughel, with the h, but also with the ue the wrong way round. They get the sons spelt right though.
Anyway I blame Bruegel for causing the trouble in the first place. -- Solipsist 20:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


They're both just sad losers. RickK 22:41, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

you sly dog[edit]

jwr, While perusing the fac nom page, I blundered across the article on holy prepuce and got interested in making a change. It seems to have stuck, finally. We'll see. Many of us seem to have been a little amused at the relic antics in connection with the topic. But I just this moment really noticed your comment of support. Shows how small the attention this boy pays can be!

On another subject, you may perhaps have noticed the list of articles proposed for inclusion in the WikiReader cryptography. Should you feel the urge to dip a NW toe in that swamp, those may be reasonable choices for a review. Did you notice how much good work your comments at Talk:Enigma stimulated? Thanks again. ww 16:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for that nice message you left me on my user talk page. --Plato 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for that nice message you left me on my user talk page :) The good Nick will win out!. --Plato 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I just wanted to be the first to wish you good luck in your new role on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Congratulations! Angela. 00:29, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


  • Angela beat me too it. Congratulations! Danny 00:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. In the absence of my preferred ticket (the Heph and RickK wikideathsquad) y'all make the perfect additions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Congrats Rosenzweig! I wish you luck--Plato 01:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I am tremendously pleased that you were elected. I hope you manage to keep your sanity over the next six months in such a thankless job. Remember to seek out pleasant experiences on Wikipedia to balance out the negative. --Michael Snow 02:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I voted for you, Jwrosenzweig! Keep up the good work, and may you never forget the Wiki Way! Neutrality 02:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm very very happy that you're on the arbitration committee. I think you're exactly the type of person needed. moink 03:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! --MerovingianTalk 05:07, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I congratulated Raul654, so, in the interest of NPOV, I will congratulate you as well! Stay cool and try to enjoy your new "job". --Slowking Man 07:42, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!! theresa knott
Thanks to all of you for your congratulations -- whether you voted for me or not, I promise to do what I can to make this a better place (as I hope I have already striven to do thus far as a simple editor). I am having weird Internet troubles and likely will continue to do so for the next week, so if I don't comment, it's because I'm using my precious Internet time at the library to avoid dereliction of duty as an arbitrator. :-) Thank you all very much again, Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto, hadn't realized the vote was over. Good luck using up all that time you already didn't think you had. You are a real trooper :). マイケル 21:01, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Iris DeMent[edit]


We both started an article on Iris DeMent at about the same time. I only found out when I was checking what linked to the page. Your spelling was Iris Dement, so I combined info from both, deleted yours and redirected to the combined version. You may like to check that my version includes what you want to have in the article. Tiles 07:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi, congrats on winning the arbitration election first of all! I was shocked at getting the votes I did get, and even happier to see one of the people I voted for won (and no I'm not telling who else I voted for ;)

Anyhow, the situation at hand is very simple in my eyes. 172 is a pretty good editor, great at producing bulk content, not great at NPOV, and pretty darn bad at communicating in talk pages and observing wiki-policies (revert wars, civility, talk page archiving and all sorts of other exteraneous troubles). I think he should be carefully desysopped, in a manner not too offensive to him. I want him to stay here on the wiki, and learn from his past mistakes, perhaps being voted back as a sysop at some time in the future, or perhaps taking comfort in the reletive flexability non-sysophood provides. But I want most of all for the community to be aware that rules apply to sysops too, that they arn't just for "trolls" (unpopular or newbie users). Thats where I'm trying to go w my part of this. You can see some evidence here User:Sam_Spade/Clients. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade's request for arbitration is in the same league as all the dubious requests for arbitration by Lir. See He stalks just about anyone whoever expresses a disagreement with him. And if any user is in no position to broadly attack my contributions in sum it is Sam Spade. His above comments above are hypocritical and disingenuous to the extreme (See the listings complied here along with the archives of Danny's withdrawn arbitration case against him.) 172 23:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


strain, stress, toil and woe
theres so many ways to go
lets stay here instead

Sam [Spade] 22:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the AC[edit]

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, welcome! All our tasks are tracked at Template:ArbCommOpenTasks and some members of the committee find it useful to put {{ArbCommOpenTasks}} on one of their frequently-visited user pages.

Detailed (and possibly slightly out of date) arbitration policy is at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. But a typical case follows this procedure:

  • A user requests arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
  • All major parties in the matter give a brief summary of the events
  • ArbCom members vote on hearing the matter at the ====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sub-section. An absolute of 4 votes are needed to formally accept or reject a case.
  • If the case is accepted, then any ArbCom member can use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template to create a subpage for the case (all the comments in the request section for that case should be moved to the appropriate sections on the subpage).
  • That same AC member informs all parties involved that the case has been accepted and for them to place evidence at the evidence subpage for that case (see the template).
  • After at least a week (oftentimes more), any AC member can propose Principles (general re-affirmations of existing policy that pertain to the case), Findings of Fact (what the AC has found to be true by a preponderance of the evidence), Remedies (what should be done to rectify the situation), and Enforcement (guidance on how the community should enforce the ruling - this section is not always used). This is done on the Proposed decision subpage.
  • In rare cases a user may be so disruptive that a Temporary Order may need to be enacted. This most often is an order to one or more users to not edit one or more articles that are the focus of conflict while the matter is in arbitration. It is especially important that all AC members vote as soon as possible on temporary orders. This is done on the Proposed decision subpage.
  • Then as soon as any item receives a simple majority of Active AC members (see that number and keep your status up-to-date at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee), then any AC member can declare that item passed. To do that, copy the ruling from the Proposed decision page to the ==Final decision== section on the main subpage of that case. Do not copy the votes, but do indicate the number of votes for the item out of the number of active AC members. Also write the date and mention that voting is still going on.
  • If a ruling affects a particular user, then inform that user of the ruling that affects him/her.
  • If some type of sysop-action needs to be conducted, then request that that action be conducted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Do not perform these actions if you are an Administrator. Let somebody else do it.
  • Any arbitrator could then propose a Motion to Close the case on the Proposed Decision subpage. An absolute number of 4 votes in favor are needed to close a case.

I look forward to working with you. --mav


Yup, first week on the job and here I am, making your life difficult. Sorry about that. :-/

I'd like to point out that there are quite some misgivings about en.wikipedia on polish cities under polish type people. The best endorsement I've gotten so far is "it could have been a lot worse". :-(

Polishpoliticians is simply more towards the um, center of this distribution I think. See here [1] for opinion on this matter.

have a nice day! :-) Kim Bruning 17:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kim, never worry about sharing opinions -- I value yours, even where we disagree. I am fully aware of the Polish city dispute (I have been involved before....many months ago, and not with PP), or at least I know the lack of polite behavior on both sides. I don't exactly know what you're asking of me, though -- do you feel I'm judging PP too harshly? I think it's reasonable enough to say PP has made personal attacks and needs to stop, regardless of how PP may feel about Poland and articles about it. Maybe you could clarify? Jwrosenzweig 17:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My point is basically that we were the ones who (inadvertantly of course!) started it, and to a degree are still causing distress to a number of people. It's a bit unfair to punish the vicitims I think. :-/

A lot of people say "I think you're behaving like a nazi", and they really just mean "you suck". And that's a personal attack.

That's unfortunate here.

Now we have some people saying "I think you're acting like a nazi", and they mean something else.

Based on stories from their parents or grandparents (or maybe in rare cases personal experience) they see behaviour that is similar to the real nazis. Fortunately over IMHO a minor matter (phew), but still enough to cause some (hopefully infitesimal) amount of discernible distress to them. (ouch! very ouch!)

See especially also the linked discussion at [2]. Kim Bruning 21:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi, Jwrosenzweig: Thanks for your vote of support. I am now officially an admin, though so far I haven't heard any angelic chorus or received any magical powers. Anyhow, I take everyone's vote seriously, and will strive to be as judicious, evenhanded, and responsible in my duties as possible. -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 17:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hah, hah! For a testing ground, hopefully it'll be more Wilderness than Purgatory! -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 17:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Grinch[edit]

Thanks for backing me up there. --Michael Snow 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Grinch[edit]

Thanks for your help with suggesting a mediator (Man is my syntax bad today). I'm hoping that I can put this behind me without having to drop User:33451 and get another name. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 18:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow up, Jwrosenzweig! BCorr|Брайен 21:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Dear Jwrosenzweig,

Yes, I will "treat the keys to the mop closet well".  :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in support of my nomination for adminship.

-- PFHLai 01:03, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

Hockey project[edit]

Considering your interest in ice hockey, I'd like to invite you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey. The only thing done so far is the player pages format. I'd completely understand if you'd be too busy. Kevin Rector 16:26, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Kevin, right now I'm too busy. :-) Thanks for the invite, though! I'll definitely try to keep an eye on the project, and on those occasions when I have time to contribute, I'll do so. Good luck! Jwrosenzweig 16:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Galveston Hurricane of 1900[edit]

I took Great Galveston Hurricane off your User:Jwrosenzweig/Projects page in the course of fixing up the redirect links caused by moving it. I think it's been expanded enough. :) -- Cyrius| 00:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I wasn't aware that I was catching "semi-regular" flak for the link on my page. As it stands, it is part of a commentary that is a criticism on courtesy AS misogyny. I don't believe that merely mentioning a topic means I believe in it. So far only one person has commented on it, and it was quite clear that the person did not speak English as a first language. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

33451/Mr. Grinch[edit]

Thank you again for your contribution to the dialogue regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. After some further discussion, Mr. Grinch has acknowledged his vandalism and committed to make only good-faith edits in the future. I'm not seeking any further action, and I think we can consider the problem resolved. Hopefully we will be able to look back on this case as an example of the dispute resolution system's glowing successes. --Michael Snow 20:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

33451: May I have your vote?[edit]

I was wondering if you would please make your vote here. I don't care if you support or oppose it, I just want your participation. Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

English Renaissance[edit]

Good article! I just noticed you were working on it, and it's an extremely important time period and concept (though somewhat disputed as you note). The way the Italian and English Renaissance was most similar was in music, and I'll add a bit to the article as soon as you are done editing (see the English Madrigal School article I wrote as an example). In the vogue for madrigal, in the early 1590s especially, Italy and England were the two most similar places in Europe. Happy editing! Antandrus 21:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to second Antandrus's comments. Thank you for creating the page! It's very good. I cleaned it up a bit, catgeorized it, and added the article to the British history template (which I also put in the article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, I started reading this article and found myself scratching my head. It seems to be full of the authors' speculations, opinions, and conjectures. (Not that I would ever do that in any of my articles ;-) Anyway, I am not a Bible scholar, but I think this article needs the help of one. Perhaps I could prevail upon you to use your diplomatic skills to arm twist a competent person into cleaning up this mess. Oh, and I see here you recently got married. Congratulations. My wife and I got rid of our TV for almost the entire first year of marriage. I recommend it. We celebrated 14 years of marriage this summer. --H2O 20:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration: Gene Poole[edit]

Hello, I noticed your tentative support of the above on RfA. Please be aware that this is a spurious arbitration attempt resulting directly from a campaign waged against one article Empire of Atlantium by Gzornenplatz and Samboy. These two editors failed in an attempt to have the article deleted, and have effectively been stalking me ever since. I refer you to the edit history of Samboy in particular [3] - virtually all of his edits relate to me. I also refer you to personal abuse about me Samboy has published on a public website [4]. I have no desire to waste my time on spurious arbitrations with these editors, as they are clearly motivated solely by malice. If you take a look at the alleged "content disputes" that Gzornenplatz and Samboy claim to have been engaged in with me, you will note that I have always cited 3rd party sources in support of my position, which in all cases they have either simply dismised out of hand or ignored. As for GeneralPatton I have no idea who he is, and he himself states that he has no dispute with me, so I cannot see the point of arbitrating anything with him. I would therefore like to ask that you reconsider your position. --Gene_poole 23:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a custom that all discussions over arbitration and arbitrators votes be done at the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration, and not on the arbitrators talk pages. GeneralPatton 23:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xed v. User:Jimbo Wales[edit]

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

Weimar Timeline[edit]

Can I have your input on the present crisis between AndyL and myself. I created and did much work on the Weimar timeline. This guy splits it into two different articles. The purpose of the timeline is to give context of what happened when; to put things in persepective. I find Andy's actions to be overboard. I do not see the problem of why all the events can not be made into one article for German national socialism formed under the aegis of the Weimar Republic. Early Nazism is clearly a part and parcel of the Weimar Republic. Do you agree with me? I think that this is so stupid and I believe that anytime I get close to putting Nazism in perspective or give it clearer meaning, AndyL can't stand the heat.WHEELER 14:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since Xed seems determined on trolling that article, and inserting dubious info, I’d protect it for now. GeneralPatton 20:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) This is a situation where I wish I did not refuse my admin nomination, anyhow, I’ve now requested protection. GeneralPatton 20:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. Out of all the support votes I received, I was pleasantly surprised to receive yours because I felt very happy that I had sufficiently proven my style of dispute resolution to you. Again, thanks. Mike H 03:54, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your kind message and support for my nomination for adminship. I will definitely continue to write and edit articles, particularly about politicians, and I am also ready to expand my role on Wikipedia, especially by ehcking New Pages that need speedy deletion or expansion. Happy editing, Academic Challenger 23:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in[edit]

Thanks for stepping in on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks, and no offense taken. A longer version of this response, with yes, more whinging, can be found in my talk page. -- orthogonal 23:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Checking up[edit]

On my Talk page I promised you that "I have been checking things with others who have less of a history with Snowspinner, and I'll make a point of checking with you as well.".

In fulfillment of my promise, I will gratefully accept any corrections you care to make to User talk:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line; aware that I am biased in the matter, I know that my summaries may be unintentionally misleading or my conclusions unwarranted. Of course, you are under no obligation to even look at it, and I will certainly understand if you wish to wash your hands of the matter. -- orthogonal 17:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Er, sorry, Snowspinner moved the page and deleted the old page with the redirect, so it can now be found at User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line.

Further explanation[edit]

here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

I very much appreciate your defence of me against Cantus's thoughtless remark that I need glasses. The reason I had not complained was because I was cooling off after reading his ill-tempered comments but now I think I'll let it go and make no reply beyond what you wrote. Doubtless others will judge Cantus for themselves.

The lizard pic is certainly in poor focus, not a lot but enough to make it not a candidate for a Featured Pic. It was a particularly annoying remark because I wear glasses always! I can recognise an out-of-focus image, particularly since I've worked only with images since I discovered WP in January 2003. Thanks again, you are a gentleman - Adrian Pingstone 15:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome![edit]

Appreciate your kind remarks, see you around, Mark Mark Richards

Thanks for the welcome and advice J :) AmyNelson