User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200407

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived talk from July 2004

Contents 1 • Thanks 2 • Note from User:Vacuum 3 • Question from new reader 4 • Thank you for your support 5 • Mediation requested 6 • Quakers pages and qualifiers 7 • Mediation request: Herschelkrustofsky and AndyL 8 User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL 9 • Not obvious 10 • User:172's bizarre behavior 10.1 • User:Bcorr's bizarre behavior 11 • What are the rules? . . . 12 • Mediation 13 • Requests for mediation: User:AndyL and User:WHEELER 14 • Mediation stuff 15 • Talk:Childlover 16 • About what you wrote 17 • Why is conflict between church and state POV 18 • Thanks... 19 • Request for review 20 • Protection 21 • Away again 22 • 23 • The MC and AC 24 • Whazzup?

[edit] • Thanks

Thanks. Secretlondon 18:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. BCorr|Брайен 19:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello. On my user page User:24.78.125.95, you claimed that I was an incarnarnation of the banned user User:Paul Vogel. I am actually User:Vacuum. If you need me to prove that I am User:Vacuum, I will gladly do so. Vacuum 19:36, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Note from User:Vacuum

I also just left this note at User talk:24.78.125.95. I assumed that this IP probably was, based on this IP's user contributions which in the last few days included some of Paul Vogel's favourite articles, such as Pantheism, Cosmotheism, Racism, and National Alliance, and that you were concerned with the phrases White supremacist and White separatist, as was Vogel. Did you make those edits, or is that a non-static shared IP? Also, do you consider User:24.78.125.95 to be your user page? Unless you are the only one who can edit from that IP, it (and the associated talk page) aren't really "yours." Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Question from new reader

Dear Bcorr,

I just came across Wikipedia and have found it on the whole balanced in presentation. Unfortunately, I found the entry on anti-semitism http://www.fact-index.com/a/an/anti_semitism_1.html misleading and more harm than help. I have checked the procedure for criticizing articles, and found the talk page and your discussion, and I'm turning to you for assistance.

I've written up a few criticisms (use of 19th c term for the age-old problem of anti-Jewish sentiment, no mention of the REAL sources of anti-Jewish sentiment, i.e., the racist and anti-Christian elements of the Talmud and the role of Jews in their host countries) if you are interested.

This unbalanced presentation of a very delicate issue feeds a dangerous misunderstanding of the role of Jews in their host societies at a time when the world is descending rapidly into world war prompted in the view of many authorities (including the likes of Finkelstein and Chomsky) by the actions of Israel.

It is telling that in other articles dealing with Jewish matters (Schneerson, anti-Zionism) the entries are qualified with "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Curiously the entry on anti-semitism is BOTH protected and free of this qualification, though I see there is at least some discussion going on the talk page. I'm not interested in engaging in online polemics, and I understand this issue is perhaps the most explosive in Wikipedia, but I see no reason why 'the other side' should not be fairly presented, even if the pro-Jewish POV gets the final word. Can you suggest how I could proceed? Thanks.

Eric Walberg
eric@albatros.uz
User: 207.44.136.51

Hi Eric – I'll also leave a more detailed comment on the talk page for the IP address that you're using (User talk: 207.44.136.51), but in short, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and while I understand the points that you are making, I find some of them rather POV, so the best thing to do is to gently and gradually get involved in the discussion on Talk:Anti-semitism, and make sure to follow Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Civility when you do so. And just FYI, people here tend to consider it spam when one leaves the same message for a number of people at the same time, and it is rather frowned upon. Oh, and Вы живете в Узбекистане?!

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Thank you for your support

Hello there! Just a short note to thank you warmly for your vote in my favour in last week's sysop poll. It is a privilege to be able to take part in building this fantastic resource, and your vote was very much appreciated. I look forward to working with you in the future. David Cannon 10:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I'm looking forward to working with you as well. BCorr|Брайен 15:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Mediation requested

Bcorr

Angela has declined to get involved in a silly squabble at Meta. talk I am an English Catholic and a member of the Church of England.

I am a little tired at some Roman Catholic friends who keep moving the Church of England, and me, into a list of "Protestants". The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Church of England is a Protestant church but that is not NPOV.

The Church of England's official position (e.g. on its website etc.) is that is upholds the Catholic faith and is a Catholic church. Although there are 70 million members of the Church of England apparently WikiPedia apparently boasts only two against at least 50 listed Roman Catholics but I don't think things shold be decided that way

--BozMo|talk 15:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I feel too strongly about this to be involved as an ad-hoc mediator. I think what would be most helpful is for you to do is to provide links that explains the position that why Anglicans are not Protestants -- rather than why that are Catholics -- on M:Talk:List of Wikipedians by religion. This page -- http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/neale/prots.html -- is the only one I could find that explains why Anglicans are not Protestant. I'll note it's a transcription of something from 1852.

Also, I moved your editorial comment from the article header to the talk page. Please continue working on the talk page to achieve more of a consensus, rather than trying to explain why you are right. In my personal experience, arguing that one's religions says somrting is thus-and-so is a singularly ineffective way to get people to understand your point regarding religion -- let alone to accept it.

Finally, if you are still dissatisfied after continuing work on the talk page, you might list this page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment and the subsequent steps laid out on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, including bringing a requestto the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Quakers pages and qualifiers

Hello BCorr,

[Regarding the Quaker pages]

I'm happy for you to propose that they should be removed again as the Articles themselves should probably give more information on the individuals. I thought I'd fill out the ones that I knew as some of the entries already had captions and some not (which seemed uneven in itself).

I would hope that, whilst there's isn't a conflict they could be left; but if it does start being a conflict I would agree with your suggestion of removing them as being a good remedy.

Thanks for the welcome message too :)

Sladen

Thanks for the reply -- and that all seems very reasonable. I look forward to working you. -- BCorr|Брайен 12:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Mediation request: Herschelkrustofsky and AndyL

Nothing personal, but your comments at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#text_changes, regarding "how LaRouche is commonly perceived", make me hesistant to accept you as a mediator. If you wish to discuss "perception", make generalizations about LaRouche's stature world-wide, in which case you arrive at an entirely different result than if you only go by the English-speaking world. And what is more, we really aren't discussing "perception" at all, but rather how LaRouche is depicted in the big media cartels. Even that has changed -- the days back in the 1980s, when LaRouche's name could not be uttered in a broadcast or mentioned in print without the obligatory prefix, "political extremist," are gone. I think any attempt to second-guess public perception is hazardous, and it were more useful to discuss, what is the truth about LaRouche.

Also, I confess that I am hesitant because you were Andy's first choice, and his animus toward LaRouche is somewhat extraordinary. So, I would prefer, under the circumstances, that you recuse yourself. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will note this on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Also, AndyL suggested that if you didn't wish for me to act as mediator would you approve of Danny. Could you reply at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and either accept Danny or suggest another mediator? Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 12:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now that I've seen some more of your editing, I'm certainly thankful that I didn't accept you as a mediator. Why do you keep inserting that phrase about the "Promethean elite" into Lyndon LaRouche? It is a complete fabrication. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact, everything about your recent edits seems off-the-wall. You never heard of "Dirigism"? And where on earth do you get the idea that LaRouche espouses Corporatism (which in fact he vehemently attacks)? --Herschelkrustofsky 20:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that if you log in instead of editing as User:172.197.96.137 and User:172.199.130.148 you will be less likely to find your contributions edited mercilessly. BCorr|Брайен 20:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And this justifies your insertion of propaganda, how? --Herschelkrustofsky 23:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, I would like your reply to the above question. You are a administrator, right? In addition to being on the mediation ctte? So, unless I am sorely mistaken, you should be setting an example as a model Wikipedian? --Herschelkrustofsky 19:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines propaganda as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." The deliberations on the Talk:Lyndon LaRouche pages, in conjunction with Adam's admission on the Arbitration Evidence Page ("It is of course true that I and others editing here are hostile to LaRouche."), leave little doubt that what we have here is a lynch mob of sorts, editing at cross-purposes with Wikipedia policy as stated. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it shocking that you would suggest User:Danny to mediate in this situation. I find it far more shocking the you and he are mediators at all, but thats another subject. Sam [Spade] 00:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I am very dismayed that you would make such ill-informed and inflammatory comments without reading the relevant section at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and that you would be so eager to do so days after it seemed that we had reached an apparent détente. I am hoping to receive an apology for your untrue allegation that I suggested Danny as a mediator after you read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL.

Regretfully, BCorr|Брайен 02:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad at least that you’re regretful. I assume you see some important distinction between your reiterating of the request and the making of it. If you are sincere than I would say that you are failing in your duties as mediation committee co-chair by acting merely as a courier when so much more is required of you. All of the mediators have separate temperaments, POV's, and abilities to interact w diverse opinions. I should think you'd make some effort to recommend and coordinate rather than simply repeating the suggestions of others. When you repeat someone’s request, it at minimum suggests an acceptance of it. This request by Andy was clearly not acceptable. Sam [Spade] 20:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why not? isn't the whole point of having a list of mediators so that the parties involved have indivduals from which to choose? Why is it unacceptable for me to suggest someone from the list and who are you to deem someone I suggest as unacceptable? Herschel hasn't asked you to be his advocate so I don't think you're in a position to presume to speak on his behalf or dictate what is and what is not "acceptable" since, last time I checked, you are not a party to this dispute. AndyL 13:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well User:Sam Spade, you've sunk to a new low. Just for the sake of anyone else who reads this, when I said "regretfully" I meant that I was regretful that you destroyed the détente we had seemingly reached. I won't do what I feel would be wasting my time by arguing with the points you make, as a simple reading of Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Mediation Committee would point out the error in your assertions and judgments about acceptability. And again, for the sake of others visiting this page, what follows is the section from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation as of 17:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC):

BCorr|Брайен 16:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] • Not obvious

It doesn't strike me as obviously Michael, but it's certainly possible that it is. Angela. 23:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK -- and thanks. BCorr|Брайен 02:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • User:172's bizarre behavior

This person deletes communication from me and then badmouths it. As this person is listed as an active moderator I'm worried. This is clearly not consensus building which is integral to Wikipedia. I think this is a warning flag of Sysop abuse. How do I request User:172 be removed of his moderator status? I do not enjoy being called a spammer or my contributions garbage. I do not trust him. Thank you for your attention to this matter. - Sparky 05:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sparky. 172 is, IMHO, one of the more agressive administrators (also known as "sysops" but not "moderators", as we have no such role or position here, FYI) and has been involved in a number of conflicts, but has not beed "de-sysopped." You can look at this page and this page for more information on specific conflicts that 172 has been involved in and the reaction of the community. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment and see if, according to the guidelines, 172's conduct ought to be reviewed -- and if so you can request that there. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:39, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr, Please stop the mudslinging. There's no need for us to be pointing fingers at each other and digging up dirt on each other. The issue is the Ronald Reagan article, not disputes that took place as far back as February. You gave your opinion, and IMHO the tabloid garbage that Sparky wants added to the Reagan article speaks for itself. 172 12:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172 -- I was asked a question on my talk page and I answered it. The pages I cited are there for everyone to see. FWIW, I don't think that the additions on the alleged rape belong in the article, but that's not what Sparky's was asking about. Your agression, accusations, and self-righteousness are the issue that I'm concerned about, and your edits to this page, including refactoring the header that Sparky wrote, just add to my feeling that your behavior -- not the content you propose to add or delete -- is a problem. If Sparky wants to pursue that, it is his option. BCorr|Брайен 16:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • User:Bcorr's bizarre behavior

Pot, kettle. What, do you get off on acting like a cop around here or something? If you don't have a problem with my edits, don't concern yourself with matters that don't involve you. 172 17:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Funny -- that's exactly what I would say to you -- since this is my talk page we're discussing. BCorr|Брайен 17:14, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The tone of your responses, which makes evident a presumption of bad faith, is unwarranted, and especially unbecoming of someone who is supposed to be a "mediator." FYI, I dealt with User:Sparky in the same fashion as other users working on the Reagan article. It might have been misguided, but I did have a reason for dealing with Sparky the way I did. Before I got involved in this dispute, I noticed that User:Jiang had removed the rape section, writing "Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer." He too left no comment on the talk page after removing it. So, combined with the nature of the material in question, and what seemed to be unanimous opposition to his work from other editors chiming in on the subject, this led me to conclude that this issue would be widely recognized as a vandalism matter, and thus an appropriate situation for automatic reversion. Perhaps I made the wrong calculation, but I was acting to prevent what arguably appeared to be vandalism at the time. 172 18:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your agression, accusations, and self-righteousness are the issue that I'm concerned about, and my feeling is that your behavior -- not the content you propose to add or delete -- is a problem.

And as far as my bad faith? You said just above, "...mudslinging...pointing fingers...digging up dirt on each other...You gave your opinion...tabloid garbage" and then "Pot, kettle. What, do you get off on acting like a cop around here or something? If you don't have a problem with my edits, don't concern yourself with matters that don't involve you." I rest my case, to quote Perry Mason.

So that's all I have to say. I have grown weary of this discussion and my attention will no longer be focused on it. Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 19:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I posted my last message hoping that you'd be able to see where I was coming from, so that we could start dealing with each other on a cooperative basis. Instead, you responded with your most vehement personal attack yet. Still, I'm ready to start off with a clean slate with you if you are willing to do the same with me. 172 19:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • What are the rules? . . .

What are the rules? (Where are the rules?) Who can post? How many editors are there? What is the mediation committee? Why allow someone to edit a page, if they are not logged in? (As I wasn't re: Chiasmus, etc.)

More specifically, why not allow chiasmus examples on the chiasmus page?

Thanks...

Hi Vanatter -- I've left a number of useful links to info about policies and rules on your talk page but you didn't do anything "wrong", and we welcome your edits, whether logged in or not, but we also do "cleanup" on articles. If you have some something (relatively brief) that you have analyzed and that you want to add to Chiasmus as an example, that would be great, but we generally frown upon people adding links to their web sites to articles as it seems too close to advertising.

I hope this helps clarify things and that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. And for more info on the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Mediation

Sorry, I won't have time to mediate with AndyL and WHEELER. I am still trying to finalise things between Charles and Kevin (see archive 6. Also, following my experiences there, I'm not convinced I am really the right person to mediate anything. :/ Angela. 20:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"And just FYI, there has also been quite a bit of chatter on the WikiEN mailing list about similar issues." Thanks for the note; although I have avoided the mailing lists of recent lateness, both for lack of interest and for lack of being interested. Sincerely,-Stevertigo 22:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Requests for mediation: User:AndyL and User:WHEELER

So what's next. I am having the same problem the other guy is having with AndyL. I agree with mediation.WHEELER 18:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will indicate your agreement at the requests for mediation page. One of the mediators will contact you to propose next steps. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed was involved in disputes on pages related to Nazism/fascism some time ago - I'd prefer someone who has no history of editing in these topics. AndyL 19:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A reasonable request. Thanks for your quick replies. BCorr|Брайен 19:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Mediation stuff

Yes, please can you follow up on User:Herschelkrustofsky / User:DJSupreme23, that would be a great help right now. I'm also going to be away visiting family on Thursday and Friday - and a considering taking a wikibreak for a while too. Perhaps we should notify all the mediators and ask them to keep an eye on requests? -- sannse (talk) 19:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, sannse -- I'll do it as soon as I can. BCorr|Брайен 00:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Talk:Childlover

Hi Brian, thank you for seeing my point at "childlover". Please read [1] for more details about the whole issue and tell me if I am panicking or if there really is a problem. Get-back-world-respect 23:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

HI GBWR -- at this point I'd say that enough people will get involved through Wikipedia:Requests for comment that it should be under control. And just a word for the wise -- perhaps it is a language difference, but many of your posts do come across as angry and somewhat personal -- I think that if you try to assume good faith a bit more and make your comments and edit summaries less confrontational, you will find people much more receptive to your positions and arguments. And just remember that if you find something to a be a problem, probably many others will too, and so you don't need to feel like you are the only thing that stands between you and incorrect, biased, or bad articles.

I hope this helps. Peace, BCorr|Брайен 00:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • About what you wrote

You wrote that we don't need template messages like these. How will people know what pronouns to use when referring to a Wikipedian?? 66.245.23.108 00:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, your idea is:

True or false: we need {{guy}} and {{girl}} reading the following texts:

• "I'm a guy, in case you want to know what pronouns to use to refer to me."
• "I'm a girl, in case you want to know what pronouns to use to refer to me."

as messages to put in Wikipedia User pages so people will know what pronouns to use.

I don't think we need a template for this -- people can usually manage to say somthing that gives it away -- and they can just tell people if they want to.... Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 00:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is this something?? 66.245.23.108 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I honestly mean that they could just write "I'm a guy, in case you want to know what pronouns to use to refer to me." if they want to -- the template is more complicated than is needed for this. Templates tend to be more of a shorthand for something that a user will use repeatedly, rather than something that a few users might just use once. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 00:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, why isn't there a rule that says that Wikipedians must write messages like this?? Messages like these are good because they allow people to know what pronouns to use. 66.245.23.108 01:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because we don't force people to reveal their identities :-) Chao, BCorr|Брайен 01:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Why is conflict between church and state POV

This is a valid reason to reject religion, IMHO.

It's not the conflict that's POV -- it's what you wrote, to wit, Corruption of Government: Seperation of Church and State is a prerequisite for democratic governance. The will of the people is, in civil society, pre-eminant to the will of a putative deity (and its self-appointed spokespeople). Modern states threatened by fundamentalism include Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States of America.

It is POV to state that the U.S. is "threatened by fundamentalism" as it is not an indisputable fact, and many would argue that separation of church and state is not a prerequesite for democratic governance, and that it is not inherent in civil society that the definition of the will of the people might not include religious elements or beliefs.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

toned it down some and linked to separation of church and state -- though I think the fundies in the US are out of control (or rather in control of Bush's Brain -- that's just my POV :-)

[edit] • Thanks...

Thanks for your message Brian- it's appreciated! I do still dip in from time to time (the look of the pedia has changed a bit lately hasn't it???), but seem to be so busy lately that I just don't get time to do alot of editing and stuff... I still think it's a great project, but I sort of started to find myself being sucked into the 'politics' of it all and since I've got enough hassles in my 'real' life thought it est to step back for a bit... Cheers for now quercus robur 22:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Request for review

Bcorr: In order to avoid arbitration, Anthony and I have worked out an agreement and it looks like the arbcom is going to endorse it - Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony. Every 6 months, we need 3 members of the mediation committee to review Anthony's behavior to see if he's reformed, or if his "probation" should continue. Angela has agreed, and we'd like you to agree as well. →Raul654 18:43, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to be part of that group. Thanks for asking. BCorr|Брайен 15:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Protection

Pls comment Wikipedia:Protected page/Draft -SV 03:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll go have a look today... BCorr|Брайен 15:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Away again

Hi Brian, just to let you know I am away again for a few days. I expect to be back on Wednesday. Talk soon -- sannse (talk) 18:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- yes, let's talk soon. Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 15:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] •

Oh, my wikithanks have been pollinating :-) nice :-) I am glad. For the other point, I am sorry, but have a whole pile of things to do in the next few days, and fear I would not be able to give appropriate attention to this :-( my best SweetLittleFluffyThing

J'entiends, ma amie -- ce n'est pas un problem. Nous chercherai des autres médiateurs. J'espère que tout est très bien avec toi -- et que nous pourrons parler bientôt. BCorr|Брайен 21:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • The MC and AC

Thanks for your note, advice and helpful links. I'll go register at the boards soon. I've added a footnote to my arbitration committee candidacy, noting that I'll resign from the mediation committee if elected to the arbitration committee. I'm not doing that beforehand, however, as I think my odds of actually getting elected are fairly low. Ambivalenthysteria 23:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca -- I think that your edit to your statement will address any concerns, and I think that you're following a quite sensible course. Many thanks, BCorr|Брайен 23:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] • Whazzup?

Whats going on with Cimon Avaro? Hes ignoring WP:RFM, his talk, and his email, but hes still editing. -SV 19:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure -- you can also try his alter ego at User talk:J-V Heiskanen.... Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)