User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200409
• CVA reply to Bcorr
[edit]Dear Brian
We respond to you but hope this is not a protracted affair as our computer resource time is restricted.
This matter is quite ridiculous and ended a while ago as far as we were concerned. When silly comments were posted regarding the ‘Partisan’ talk page, and bizarre claims of statement - when what was actually said was there to be read - we did not respond but left it to its own devises. It was also clear it was attracting people who appeared to have little idea (and perhaps interest) and were just climbing on some sort of bandwagon.
As said, we left the page alone and did not comment further and see no point and do not wish to engage in any further dialogue. Matters went quite for a while until someone posted a fragment under Italian Partisans. We never commented on this page yet Halibutt decided to continuously harass our individual talk page, demanding we do comment on this page?
In respect of our individual talk page, we would have thought this is ‘our’ talk page? As such, we husband and maintain it as we see fit and look forward to questions where we can be of assistance. We understand this site is an ‘open encyclopaedia’ and not designed to be a common internet forum, in which we hardly every take part, though I’m sure some individual members do. When chit-chat occurs on our talk page which is of no relevance or use to general readers, we delete it from time to time to keep the page to a minimum and leave only questions and answers that may benefit the general reader. In our opinion we do not invite anyone to edit our individual page, just because the system allows it, and regard it bad manners. If we post a question to another talk page and get no response, quite logically we believe the person chooses not to reply - end of matter. Halibutt seems to have a problem with this concept and appears to take great affront if ‘hints’ are made? Surprisingly, he also appears to feel at liberty and justified to affront others whenever the mood takes him?
We have no time or great interest in resurrecting old matters and ask you please advise Halibutt and his confederates to ignore us as we have nothing further to discuss. We will of course reciprocate. Hopefully a simple solution.
Regards CVA 00:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Dear CVA -- thanks for your reply. I believe that Halibutt considers the matter resolved (see above).
- Apparently CVA has declined to either respond to your proposal or state a simple "I'm sorry" to me. ([1], [2]). Perhaps I was asking for too much. Anyway, do you know what can be done? I really wouldn't like to propose a ban on that user, but I was offended and I still demand some reaction. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:51, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Dear Halibutt -- my sense is that after all of this time, there really isn't much to be done that will result in your getting an apology from CVA. I would urge you to move forward, and do your best to avoid CVA in the future if possible -- and to accept that, in the end, none of us here can make someone else apologize (see m:Apology for more on this). I understand that you were clearly offended, but it's really not possible to "demand" a reaction, IMHO. Ultimately, you could make a request for arbitration, but I strongly doubt that the Arbitration Committee would take the case.
- You're right, we can't force anyone to behave in a civilised way. I withdraw from my demand of an apology. However, I warned CVA that any further racist or derogatory remarks will result in an immediate RfA. Thank you for your patience and sorry to trouble you for such a long time. Regards, [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:53, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
• 33451/Mr. Grinch
[edit]I just wanted to let you know that it looks like we've managed to resolve this matter without resorting to mediation. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. Thanks for your assistance and good luck resolving the rest of the disputes you're dealing with. --Michael Snow 20:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note -- I appreciate it and your work to resolve this matter. BCorr|Брайен 13:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Main Page link
[edit]Are you still seeing the link in "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" as red, underlined and bold? If so, have you tried clearing your browser cache... or are you using a non-MonoBook skin? Thanks, Tom- 15:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note -- I actually edited the template so that only the workd "Wikipedia" was linked after my comments, so I think that it's all fine now. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 15:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Er... yes, but I'd like to link "the free encyclopedia" too, but not have it display as a link. Are you still seeing "Wikipedia" as non-normal text? Tom- 16:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm... -- it works fine, except on my watchlist all I get is "From Wikipedia" in bold, w/o a link and w/ no other text... -- and my skin is a custon skin based on Monobook User:Bcorr/myskin.css and I'm using Mozilla 1.6b http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.6b/ ...
- Okay, it's just your skin making it red and bold. You can copy this from the main stylesheet to make it look like regular text (which is how it'll look for just about everyone else)...
- #bodyContent #siteSub a { color: #000; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; padding-right: 0; }
- Cheers, Tom- 22:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Objection to something on your user page
[edit]Hello Bcorr, I just want to record a minor objection to something on your user page, which states "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists ...", with wiki-anarchists linked to Anarchism. According to the actual anarchism article, anarchy (as the term is used by anarchists) is "a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends "anarchy" to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained." As far as I can see, voluntary co-operation of free individuals is an excellent description of the Wikipedia ideal, which includes typical anarchist concepts like mutual aid (voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit), community-driven self-management and shared, public use of resources rather than restricted private property. So I would argue that the best Wikipedians could be called "wiki-anarchists" and that trolls and vandals have nothing to do with wiki-anarchists. - pir 10:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hi pir -- I have to respectfully disagree with you. If you look at the Anarchy section of the page, you will see the following lines which fit my sense of how anarchism applies to some individuals at Wikipedia: However, in anarchist philosophies, anarchy means an "anarchist society", that is, a society where individuals are free from coercion. This is followed by, Anarchist theories have a fundamental critique of government, a vision of a society without government, and a proposed method of reaching such a society. I don't agree that at Wikipedia we are "free individuals" and I do believe in a government of sorts here at Wikipedia. For an example of a similar project which embraces a more anarchic philosophy along the lines you've laid out above, see Wikinfo.
• MC application
[edit]Hi Brian. Just in case you didn't see, Grunt has applied to join the mediation committee. It looks as though few of the committee have noticed the application though (at least, few have voted so far). Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Snowspinner/orthogonal
[edit]I'm sorry, I don't think I would be the best person to mediate this as my views on the matter are far from neutral. Angela. 21:17, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
- No need to apologize, Angela :-) I was just following up on the request. I'll let them know. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен
• Bush
[edit]Since you protected the page on the wrong version ;), could you remove Gzornenplatz's inane "notice" at the top of the page when you put in the {{protected}}, which I assume you're going to do? Since it's not part of the article and just an attempt to score points off me, I don't think it's inappropriate to nix it. Also, while this page does get a lot of vandalism (which is dealt with easily enough), it's important to note that what Kevin baas calls vandalism is just content conflict. He is reverting to the point of restoring the link to a mirror of the Wikipedia article. VV 14:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No problem, VV -- and I hope that we can all work this out. Many thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Mediation
[edit]Update from Rex071404, here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 
]] 21:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support
[edit]Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 23:43, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• The Orthogonal-Snowspinner Mediation
[edit]I noticed you contacted Danny about doing this, but don't appear to have got a response. I've just been talking to Orthogonal, who's wondering what's happening with it. It'd be good if this could be taken care of - any ideas? Ambi 23:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• How'd you do that?
[edit]I entered my first page on Herman Wells. Whithin minutes you snagged it, eddited it and reposted it. So do you monitor these additions constantly? Very Impressive non the less.
- Hi, User:155.201.35.53 -- if you register, you too will be able to move pages like that one -- and monitor new changes as well. Peace, and I hope you stick around. BCorr|Брайен 15:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I registered as Jamtexas.
• Offensive "(Wiki)Nazi" "logo"
[edit]Please review the offensive File:Wikinazi.png created by User:Guanabot. Thank you for looking into this as it casts Wikipedia in a terrible light. IZAK 10:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Maps
[edit]They're not mine, sadly. I'm just updating the license details. Even that's a big job (more suited for a robot). Rgds. Rich Farmbrough 15:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, then, thanks for doing something as tedious as that! Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 19:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Multilingual
[edit]A personal request, I see that u are multilingual. Would u be kind enough to list my name in the languages u know on my user page? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Thanks!
[edit]Dear Bcorr Hi! Thank you for unblocking me so promptly. I appreciate it greatly.
I see you have a link to the AMA on your user page. Are you a doctor? What are your views on boxing?
I love that sport, but many times, I tend to agree with the AMA in their stanid about it. If not banned, and God forbid that they do, at least some drastic measures need to be taken to make that sport medically more secure.
Well, once again, thanks and God bless you!
Sincerely yours, "Antonio Bullfighter Martin"
- You're welcome! I'm not a doctor, but I play one on T.V. Actually its a link to this AMA for quick reference. I truly don't like boxing -- as a Quaker it's not really my cup of tea, but I did grow up watching Muhammad Ali all the time, as he represented a lot at the time. Otherwise, I just find it weird and brutal.
- Anyway, I've see you and your ever-changing sigs since I got here, and I'm glad we finnaly got to meet, even if it was under such regrettable circumstances.
• Need admin help re: Andrzej Golota
[edit]I'd like the article on Andrzej Gołota be moved from Andrew Golota. The problem is that there already is a redirect at Andrzej Golota and I don't want to erase the edit history by copy-paste-moving myself. For details see Talk:Andrew Golota. Could you help? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Dzien dobry, Halibutt. I waon't help you do this because RickK is correct. If you go to Golota's official website at www.golota.pl, while the graphic has Andrzej Golota on the top of the English section, he is listed as Andrew Golota throughout the text. Therefore, the page is in the correct location as it is -- it needs to stay at Andrew Golota with a redirect at Andrzej Golota. It is not the same as John Sebastien Bach by any stretch of the imagination.
• Christianity edit
[edit]Hi, Bcorr. I noticed your recent edit on Christianity, and commend you for removing the non mainstream blurb about the cross.
However, I would say that removing the part on Jesus judging humankind is problematic - it's clearly there as part of Jesus' own words in the New Testament. (I know western culture currently has a major problem with divine judgment. . . and the word - and term - is not currently in vogue these days.) Since this is a featured article, I thought I'd express my concern to you in a kind and conciliatory manner, as one would hope for from a Christ follower. If you'd like the citation, just let me know! (smile)
I also notice you removing the Protestent belief in the Priesthood of all believers. While this may not be mainstream to all parts of what is considered Christianity, it is mainstream in Protestant circles. Would you please reconsider and reinstate this statement? Thanks for all the hard work you do around the Wiki - it has not gone unnoticed by me. Happy Trails, --avnative 16:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Hello avnative -- and thanks for the kind words. I'm certainly not an expert on Christianity per se, but those edits were all by the same person and seemed more like a somewhat dogmastic view from a specific denominational perspective, as opposed to a neutral point of view. However, I also assumed that someone with more knowledge than me would add it back in, if those points were really universally accepted as accurate descriptions by those who consider themselves Christians -- and those who would not. I hope that clears things up, and I'd ask you to do what you think is best.
- Good evening, BCorr. Divine judgment and Priesthood of all believers are added back in. Believe me, these topics can be badly misunderstood (the televangelist's finger pointing at the television viewer comes to mind) but among those who consider themselves Christians, they do ring true as universally accepted, IMHO and knowledge of the Bible. Again, the caveat about the Priesthood of all believers - allowing each individual believer to have the ability to go to God in prayer without the help of a Roman Catholic priest - is recognized as universal among Protestants. Obviously our Roman Catholic friends at Wikipedia would disagree with universal Priesthood, hence the caveat. Wording is so important, eh? (smile)
- I left out the part about the cross being seen by some groups as idolatrous. These beliefs belong to a very few marginals within what the article terms Christianity, in my considered viewpoint - fair enough, I hope. Also left out was the part about the Nazis performing the Holocaust - I saw another Wikipedian make that request of you, and I do very much want to honor that very thoughtful request. Thanks for caring about NPOV in this article. I knew there was a noble reason behind your edit, and trust all is well with the article now. If not, please contact me, and I will work with you to make it acceptable. --avnative 05:54, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you removed Fleck Up from VFD after I had nominated it, and I wondered why. DJ Clayworth 18:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hi DJ-- I wasn't trying to be presumptious, but it (along with another page it linked to) seemed so clearly to be candidates for speedy deletion, as they referenced the usage of the terms by some specific individuals, rather than by the "user community" for the game. If you think I overstepped my "authority," I'm happy to undelete them and restore the VfD listing. I'm heading out to lunch now, but just let me know, and I'll take care of it when I return if you think I ought to.
• mediation
[edit]Hey BCorr, just wondering if you could take a look at the Request for Mediation page whenever you have some free time, thanks :) --kizzle 17:19, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Kizzle -- since this seems to have begun as an article content dispute, before I go any further, I want to ask you you have listed the page on requests for comment and mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to bring in more people to help resolve the dispute amicably? I realize the the sockpuppet issue is also there, but bringing in more editors might well defuse that issue as well. Please let me know.
• Redirects
[edit]Dynamic IPs? I didn't know that. I'll change them all back right away. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• this
[edit]I think you may be looking for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (though I'd be more sure if I knew what you meant when you wrote "I didn't know this about dates"). If it's not helpful, let me know. I'm sure our "dates" rules are spread out in lots of pages. - Nunh-huh 21:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry about that -- I meant your note in that edit that talked about dates being formatted so that they show up in the manner that each user specifies. And thanks for the link. BCorr|Брайен 21:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Discussion
[edit]I will not discuss with that ... guy! If you people want to know something or proffs about something please tell. I think he should be banned. He is using wikipedia because he dislike Portuguese people. For god sake, he said that "conosco" Google hits: 3.960.000 was archaic, the Brazillian movies were successful in Portugal, there were no dialects in Brazil, and there was a large differences in grammar between Portugal and Brazil. And I've only read a bit what he said. He is obcessed with me. He is CRAZZY! Any issue please you talk to me, I will not talk with that ignorant... But I do not want to loose my time with that filipino. He even translates expressions that only exist in Northern Portugal into English, and theorizes that it means "fuck off". -Pedro 20:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK, Pedro -- I'll let him know that you've declined the request. Please note that according to Wikipedia's despute resolution policy he may choose to take the matter to Requests for Arbitration. Muito obrigado, BCorr|Брайен 21:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi Bcorr,
For the record I am confident about all of the votes and comments I removed having checked the edit histories of the users involved.
All I meant was that if I actually did make a mistake - which I'm pretty sure I didn't - please just fix the mistake instead of reverting the page into its previous, more chaotic form.
--Node 16:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Mark -- Sorry if I seems overly sensitive. I won't revert you again, but please leave a more accurate edit summary next time. BCorr|Брайен 17:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Hello Mr. Cyrillic-jumble
[edit]Hello Mr. Cyrillic-jumble, I don't have an exclusive right to the IP 80.225.55.228. Someone else may have it tommorow. I can't log in due to cookie problems. I suggest you stop redirecting this IP, least of all because I will have no idea if someone posts something in 80.255's talk page! 80.225.55.228 20:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Good point user:80.255. I've corrected the problem. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I have done as you suggested and listed the PNAC discussion page at "requests for comments", and hopefully it will bring some results - although I must say I doubt it will. Wikipedia seems very vulnerable to people who just don't care about NPOV to this newbie - I had assumed there would be some kind of heavier response to propagandists like this guy. Oh well! Thanks for your help anyway. CK 02:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)