User talk:Bcorr

Click here to add a new message at the bottom of this page (I always check starting at the bottom and then work my way up...)

Welcome

Hey Bcorr :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:
• Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers
• Wikipedia:How to edit a page
• Wikipedia:Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page

Nice work on Sovereignty association! However, don't forget to bold the title in your introduction. You can use three 's, like '''bold'''.

Keep contributing! :) Dysprosia 04:44, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Archived talk

May 2004

• Mediation issue

So, no response from anyone else on the Anthony mediation. How do you think we should progress from here? I really don't see how we can mediate without another party. Perhaps we should make a statement that we are willing to mediate if anyone comes to us with a need, and leave it at that? We might need to talk about this further with the rest of the committee I think. Regards -- sannse (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in complete agreement, and think that we can draft a statement and bring it to the committee. If the ArbComm hadn't sent this to our committee, I doubt we'd be playing a role in this, but I think it would be good to get the full committee to look at the request and the draft statement, and see if there are other ideas about how we might best fulfill the request. I hope I don't seem like I'm too focused on the process, but it seems like it's important to be thoughful and deliberate whenever we are in uncharted territory and may be setting long-lasting precedents. I'm not sure whether it's best to do that on the RfM talk page or on the message board, however. And would you like me to draft a statement? Perhaps this could be our first task as co-chairs of the committee? (That's assuming that the committee wants us to play that role).

And speaking of chairing the committee, what do you think about staggered terms? If you approve of the idea, I'm completely open to either of us being the first to rotate out of the position, and as to whether the person staying on should have a longer than average term, or the first to rotate out has a shorter one.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 00:11, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would be good if you could make a draft statement. This is the sort of thing that works best on a Wiki I think, so how about using a sub-page which we can move elsewhere or delete as seems best - User:Bcorr/mediation statement draft or something would do.

About chairing the committee - I think that we should probably leave messages on talk pages or on the mediation committee page checking that there are no objections to us taking the job. I'm not sure that everyone checks the message board enough. But yes, I think staggered terms are a good idea, I don't mind which of us rotates out first either, I'm happy to do so. What sort of time were you thinking of? I think Tuf-Kat did about four months? That seems quite good. Perhaps, if the committee agrees, I should do four months and you six. Then we can have a change over of one chair every two months, rotating so each person takes on four months. If this seems too fast a turn-over, then perhaps six months with a stagger of three?

-- sannse (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'll work on a draft either late tonight or tomorrow on the subpage above. And the terms you suggest sound right -- perhaps we can ask other people about the four-month vs. six-month period when we leave messages for them. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:28, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Pinochet protection

A good decision to protect this page, but... could you either revert to an earlier, stable version (without the controversial claims) or add a {{msg:TotallyDisputed}} message to the top while it's under protection? This is the second time 172 has managed to "win" protection for this page with his disputed claims flatly stated in the intro. His gaming of the system like this is not right. -- V V 00:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, I didn't even know which version I protected since the reversions were coming so quickly. I also said that "I hope no one accuses me of protecting The Wrong Version." Oh well. However, to respond to your requests, the protection notice indicates that there are disputes, and so it would be outside of the norm to note that it's especially disputed. And my understanding of protecting pages is that we do not pick a certain version, and then wait until it's current before protecting the page -- or revert to a "stable version". In fact, that would really be a back-door way of getting involved in the dispute, and if someone is to protect a page, that person musn't become a party to the conflict.

And please get some community input and figure this out as 30 reverts in 30 minutes is completely unacceptable, and I'm surprised that you would be a party to such behavior. BCorr|Брайен 00:36, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've seen admins revert to the "pre-war" state of an article before. Anyway, I don't know if you know what's gone before, but I'm really at the end of my rope with 172. At times he's been practically stalking me, reverting even random edits (e.g., Susning.nu, Caldera). The other day he called me "RickK's little bitch". (And he previously told Michael Snow to "fuck off".) On this article he's (rudely) going against the wishes of several users who had been collaborating; there has been a long and laborious attempt to work with him, which has just resulted in more abuse and belligerence and reverting. As for the aforementioned community, it has been notably apathetic. Direct action - counter-reverting - is all that seems to be left (a tactic used in the past against problem users). If you haven't witnessed this, it might be hard for you to understand my frustration. -- V V 06:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VV -- thanks for the reply. First, I want to apologize for coming on so strong. I have to admit that I haven't followed this carefully (although I knew there was sme sort of long-standing conflict between you two, and that 172 has been in conflict with a number of others), but looking back a little I see what you're talking about -- and I much better understand your frustration. I still think revert wars get us nowhere, but I'm sorry to have placed the burden on you. I'll work on figuring out what can be done to achieve some real relief. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:28, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the generous response. Let me know if you figure anything out, because I sure haven't. :) -- V V 00:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

• Mediation committee

What are the goals of the mediation committee, and how, in your opinion, are you not sure I'm up to meeting such goals? Also, my "arbitration page" is not intended to be about Paul Vogel, it's intended to be about controversies in general. Mr. Vogel is merely the first to come my way, and, well, I had an opinion or two to say about this. Rickyrab 04:09, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky -- I think it would be better to have this discussion at the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee page, so if that's OK, I'll crosspost your question and this over there, and then respond so that other folks can follow and participate in the discussion. Please let me know. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

• German page

Oh, the e-mails are just sent like normal emails, I thought it was something fancy 8^( So you have a page that says something you do not understand? That would scare me. What if someone changed it to "I am a big fat idiot with bad breath." and told you it meant "Hi, please leave me a message at my English page." If you want to say "I am a user at the English Wikipedia. This page was created when I fixed an mistake I found on the English site." it should be "Hallo, ich bin ein Nutzer der englischen Version von wikipedia. Diese Seite habe ich erstellt, als ich einen Fehler auf der englischen Seite korrigiert habe". I have to admit I do not quite see why you would create a German site when fixing a mistake on an English site, but at least now you have the translation. If you were asking for people to feel free to correct errors in your German it should have been "Wenn Ihr mein Deutsch korrigieren möchtet tut Euch keinen Zwang an." Currently your text is something like "I am a user of Wikipedia's in the english language. This page is about an mistake to my page in the english language." Get-back-world-respect 21:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen dank! :-) I'll make the corrections now. And I created an account (I don't like just being an anonymous IP) to make the edit to a page on the German Wikipedia, so I just made a rudimentary user page too. My French page is more of a real page.... Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 21:54, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Rei, TDC, and GBWR

Hi Brian, just checked what you told Rei about Oil for food, which you gave as the reason why you vote against her adminship. I do not blame her for not checking the discussion because I did not want to waste five days fighting with TDC either. Someone who characterizes himself as "the most stubborn prick on earth" is just a shame to this whole project. He started the Oil for food allegations when his attempts to smuggle his defamations into 2003 invasion of Iraq, created the article again when the vote had decided to merge it with Oil for food and tried to retaliate by listing The United States and weapons of mass destruction for deletion, where it got a 17-0 keep vote. Originally he based the allegations on a "free"republic article, then kept including disparaging remarks and speculations and always tried to present them as if they were all credible because Kofi Annan saw himself forced to start an investigation. He twisted a "father Benjamin" from his Al Mada list into "high-ranking representatives of the Vatican", and the list of a couple of dozen firms from more than a dozen countries into "French and Russian corporations". After that whole history and his perfidious tactics I have a lot of understanding for Rei to call it a smear campaign. Get-back-world-respect 02:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I do not quite understand why you do answer my question about Rei. In the meantime, TDC has shown again how well he understands the policies of wikipedia. He created the "crybaby of the year award" for me on his page. I have no idea how such behaviour should be dealt with. He already got banned once for telling someone to "suck his own dick". I saw you are a mediator, so could you please mediate? I also asked Sannse. Get-back-world-respect 17:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GBWR -- I just hadn't gotten around to it yet -- as it's not clear what I can say that is new. In short, despite TDC's behavior, as I said on Rei's talk page, "All I can do is ask you to moderate your remarks as you keep working on it, as I don't think that calling the content a 'smear' or saying that you cannot accept this will ever do anything but provoke a strong reaction from TDC -- however justified that characterization may be." And as far as adminship, it's not that Rei can't ever be one, but IMHO, she's rather too quick to jump on people and uses language that's stronger than necessary. I think she will make a great admin...after some seasoning. For now, it's just too soon. BCorr|Брайен

You may have noted that I did not vote on Rei, I only think that her treatment of Oil for food was perfectly reasonable and the word smear justified, even if not very diplomatic.

I listed the crybaby image for speedy deletion, could you please do this? Get-back-world-respect 22:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't because it wasn't clear why the image should be deleted, whatever it has been used for. BCorr|Брайен

It is an orphan page that was solely used in an attempt to personally attack someone, what is unclear? Get-back-world-respect 01:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of what I was talking about below (i.e., what I wrote on your talk page and that you moved here). You could have made exactly the same point by saying, "It is an orphan page that was solely used in an attempt to personally attack someone. Thanks" and left out the what is unclear? I think this goes beyond differences in manners and is separate from what you describe as how we tend to just call things as we see them. I don't think you are actually interested in what was unclear to me, and since you explained what was unclear in your response, there is really no need for the question. I'm cross-posting this to your talk page, as you may apparently prefer that way of answer things on talk pages. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:31, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I added "what is unclear" to stress that I really do not see why you asked that question. The policy is straightforward, it is an orphan page. Ahm, just wondered, had you checked speedy deletion? Only from what I wrote here of course you could not know why the image should be deleted. It is now listed at Images for deletion.

I do not prefer to continuously move sections from here to there, but I have not figured out how to talk here best. I do not want to watch all users I talk with. And I want to keep "Vocabulary Project" as the last section of my talk pages since it is the project I attach most important to and it is easiest to add to a discussion at the bottom of a page. Get-back-world-respect 01:40, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

• Some friendly advice...

Hi GBWR. I noticed your exchange with sannse on her talk page. A piece of advice: I don't think that you are going to get much support by repeatedly quoting TDC's profanity and insults and copying-and-pasting the same material from Wikipedia:No personal attacks (or any other page) more than once into discussions. Also, you often sound somewhat strident and, I think you should work on not coming across as so defensive. The way you ask questions comes across as pretty accusatory -- and it makes it harder for people to discuss things with you. From what I've seen, you are editing here in good faith, but you seem to be arguing with people an awful lot of the time, and you often sound like you feel like people aren't acting fairly. Maybe all of this is what you intend to do and you feel it's important and necessary, but you seem to be more and more confrontational, and I don't think it's a very effective way to communicate with most users here. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 23:40, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Writing about TDC looks acusatory just because he misbehaves. I have not argued with any other users but TDC and Cecropia. TDC because he continuously misbehaves, Cecropia because he made one edit I considered grossly partisan and he did not accept the claim, and because he often uses talk pages in order to expand on his personal opinion, which I often countered instead of just telling him that article talk pages are not the right place for such things. But what else to do? I am not allowed to strike his comments out or delete them. While Cecropia is a guy who can be reasoned with I do not see any way to deal with someone who behaves like TDC. I know you have different manners in the US. Here in Germany we tend to just call things as we see them. Both attitudes have their pros and cons. Get-back-world-respect 01:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

• N'hésite pas

Je n'ai jamais été dans une élection...euh...sauf comme représentante des éleves (quand j'étais à l'école) et représentante des parents (quand mes enfants sont arrivés à l'école). Je ne sais pas comment on fait :-) N'hésite pas à me conseiller :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Of course - BCorr|Брайен 23:48, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

• X (band) - dispute over improper page move

A couple of days ago you voted for my position in the VfD dispute over whether X (band) was improperly moved. Unfortunately, the discussion devolved into pointless arguments between 3 people, so I removed the page, condensed my reasoning into one paragraph, and started a new VfD page.

I'll have to accept the results (It's not like I have a choice). The problem is, so far the votes and comments aren't very thoughtful. I'd like this dispute to be voted on by some people who are knowledgable about Wikipedia policy. Can you suggest somewhere to post it where veteran Wikipeans are likely to see it? I feel pretty strongly about this.

Mike Mackerm 22:50, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure what you mean about removing the page. Once something is listed on VfD it's best to let the process run its course -- many of us don't think it's a good idea for anyone -- even the person who originally listed it -- to interfere in the process once it's been brought to the community for discussion. And more generally, I think that the best thing is to discuss it on the article's talk page, and if the discussion gets heated, you can add a listing to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but if most people don't think it's a big deal, it's unlikely to go anywhere. Hope this helps, BCorr|Брайен 23:48, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

By removing, I mean I edited Votes_for_deletion so the first MediaWiki sub-page I started no longer appears. The current, active sub-page is at: MediaWiki:VfD-xaband. I think the top paragraph there will answer any other issues (I hope). Mackerm 01:38, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I checked out the discussion on the old page and I think that this part is a good example of what I was talking about:

Well, It's not getting fixed.Reading the above comments, what would you recommend I do? How do you prevent people from arguing on the VfD page and just vote?Mackerm 03:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Errrr *scratches head* ... Mackerm why bother putting the X (band) page up for debate if you are then going to make unilateral changes, as you have just done? I created the disambig page because I happen to own records by both bands and I didn't like seeing them confused and sharing a page. The disambig expanded Wikipedia with correct information, which you have just deleted.

If I had envisaged that it would even upset one person so much, I would have suggested the disambig on the X (band) talk page before I did it. But my experience is that talk pages are watched by few people. There is no point in having a note about the Australian band at the bottom of the US band's page, so I've moved it to the top. Please feel free to delete it entirely and restore the disambig page at the same time Grant65 (Talk) 04:44, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

OK. I finished up a revised introductory paragraph which I hope will produce more votes and fewer arguments. I'd prefer to use THIS page, which would mean I would erase almost everything which isn't a vote. (This page WAS intended for voting) Let me know if that's a problem, in which case I'll start a blank page. Mackerm 07:09, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

So overall, I think that you are interpreting our "wikicustoms" in a narrower way than most folks. It's pretty normal to have discussions and debates on VfD in addition to (or in lieu of) votes. I don't think that you're going to be able to find a way to get people to do as you'd like in this case. And I would highly recommend that you not make changes like this in the midst of a vote in the future -- even if it seems like no one is voting, only discussing. Thanks, and I hope this is helpful. BCorr|Брайен 02:00, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. Thanks for looking. Mike. Mackerm 02:35, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Request for mediation

Hey I need someone to act as a mediator for me. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation. thanks. GrazingshipIV 02:05, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I responded there as you've requested. Please note that I edited your request very slightly -- from I request Bcorr as my mediator to I request Bcorr as mediator -- so that it wouldn't sound like I was only working on behalf of one party to the conflict. If that's a problem in any way, please feel absolutely free to change it back and I will clarify that in my response -- I just thought that this was a less obtrusive way of doing that. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:22, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

No problem Bcorr. I know you will be fair to my and my accusers side, thats why I asked for you, as well as the success of last time.

This is the source of the conflict Bcorr X

Thank you.GrazingshipIV 02:27, May 10, 2004 (UTC)