User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200310

Archived talk from October 2003

• Etymology of the word Jew
I know it is a little lame right now because I do not have thereferences offhand, but I do know that they etymology was totally wrong. Jew comes from Hebrew not Juda. Perhaps another reader will understand the reference I am talking about & correct it. If you want to re-word what I have written be my guest. :) I just wish I could remember which language French borrowed Jewrey from but I know it was an eastern influence.

• Thanks for the comments
Thanks for taking time to write your thoughtful comment on RK's talk page. Im sure he will erase them, but thats a matter of course, since you actually disagreed with him, and stated yourself reasonably. Anyway-- I had'nt said "hello" to you yet so: hello! :-) --&#25140;&#30505sv 17:13, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ¡La lucha continua! Bcorr 17:15, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Spock's Beard
Hello Brian

>Am I in some sort of parallel universe? yes

>RK is flat-out lying and attempting to "plant evidence" -- as silly as that seems when anyone can go back and look at the history. ''yes. silly :-) But most of us know it is not even worth looking. RK can be a great editor, but in his outbursts, he just "plants" evidence (I love that expression).''

>Can't someone do something about this escalating conflict! ''yes. You !''

Congratulations for your energy :-)

• Spock's Beard, pt. 2
On Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation, you stated that no one had ever added the comment that RK accused Stevertigo of adding. This turned out to be incorrect; I have posted a link to the relevant "diff". Cheers, Cyan 23:43, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cyan -- I apologized on that page! -- BCorr -- &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; &#1080;&#1079; &#1044;&#1077;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081;&#1090;&#1077; 00:10, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Fear and Loathing
Brian, I hope you know that by posting your physical address you may be receiving information from individuals over which Wikipedia has no knowledge or control. A lot of online service providers do not allow individuals to post their addresses, of course here at Wikipedia your user page is your realm and as long as you do not break any laws (and maybe some Wikipedia policies) you are allowed to do whatever you want with it. Just want you to know that you don't have to post your snail mail address if you don't want to and I am sure if you decide it is a bad idea that Anthere and I (and probably a few other people as well) will advocate for having your current user page deleted (as if it were a subpage) and replaced. Hope you stay a while! Great to see an American around who has accurate knoweldge about Canada. Alex756 02:31, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- all taken care of! -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; &#1080;&#1079; &#1044;&#1077;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081;&#1090;&#1077; 17:33, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You know it is still there? Alex756 03:31, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I'm not worried about people who know enough to search there -- anyone who'd do that could easily find me through the web anyway... Thanks again, BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; &#1080;&#1079; &#1044;&#1077;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081;&#1090;&#1077; 04:20, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Piano
You're right that social history of the piano is a great article, but I'm afraid I can't take credit for it! I think you want to direct your praise at User:Opus33. All the best, Camembert

• Donisthorpe, pt. 2
Hi Brian, perhaps I shouldn't edit so late and things might make more sense, but I don't get what you're saying on VfD on September 27 about the Horace Donisthorpe pages. Which pages exactly need deleting? It isn't clear and I don't want to deleting the wrong things. I would appreciate it if you could clarify. Thanks. Angela 00:58, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was confused about whether you were suggesting the other pages in the "what links here" were also meant to go, but it seems not. I have deleted the one that Oliver agreed on. As there was a 50-50 split on the votes for deleting the rest of them (ie - you and Oliver), and the fact that redirects are usually kept because they are useful, I can't really delete those (see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects), so have delisted these from VfD. Hopefully that's ok. I realise that the user in question may have been a problem, but if the article is being kept, then really the redirects should too. Angela 01:26, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- absoultely fine -- the whole process seems to have curbed the "Donisthorpization" of the 'pedia, which I guess was what I was hoping to do. And I appreciate your asking ;+) BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; &#1080;&#1079; &#1044;&#1077;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081;&#1090;&#1077; 03:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Newbie No More -- with apologies to Vonnegut
I saw your post about RK on the mailing list, and I want to say that in my opinion, your record of contributions is all the standing you need to say whatever you want. Keep on like this and someone will eventually nominate you for adminship. Cheers, Cyan 03:02, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cyan -- it's nice to be liked :•) BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; &#1080;&#1079; &#1044;&#1077;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081;&#1090;&#1077; 03:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Why, indeed?
Why did you vote to keep Dmgice? I'm not challenging your vote - rather, I want to know if there's something you've thought of that I haven't. Cheers, Cyan 22:05, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, this is sort of embarassing, but I was feeling that I had been becoming a bit of a deletionist, and decided to give the thumbs up to something that was on the edge of being encyclopedic. I certainly don't feel strongly about it, and after just looking again at the site the page refers to, it probably should go after all...perhaps I'll go back and change my vote the next time I edit that page. - BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 17:39, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Don't let other people's labels stick to you :-). I don't consider myself either a pack rat or an axe murderer &mdash; I'm a Wiki-Hero! Cheers, Cyan 22:27, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I think reading the mailing list the last few days has raised my worry level a tad. I'll just take a deep breath... BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 00:17, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• How do you solve a problem like Teresa?
I think you're right. I do like to jump right in to issues like this, because I learn a lot about the process by doing so, and sometimes learn to change my views in the process. You give good advice. I have taken a second look at the main article, and I do think there is more hope than I previously thought that this debate can be handled in the main article. Paul Klenk 04:03, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul -- glad to be helpful. Keep contributing! BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 04:17, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Baseless accusations and suchlike
Dear Bcorr-cyrilic-jumble, would you kindly explain why expressing a coherent and reasonable opinion on the votes for deletion pages amounts to "trolling", and furthermore explain what could possibly be wrong with my correct and factual posts regarding Donisthorpe over which you seem so keen to cast aspersions? 80.255 03:56, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Dear Partial IP address, well...hmmm...let's see...I'd say once one starts voting for deleting things becuse they appear to you to be from the 'homosexual lobby'' -- whatever that is. OK, that's quite enough feeding for today. BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 04:04, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * The fact that - whether you want to use that particular term or not - the Pro-Homosexual Lobby (or "Gay Power", etc. if you prefer) are responsible clearly renders the article not NPOV in intent, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to object to it for that reason. The reason I suggest that such a "lobby" was responsible was that reason I mentioned on the VfD page - i.e. the allegations that several of the people mentioned were homosexual are highly debatable, and stating that they were as an accepted fact is clearly misleading and POV. What is it about this position that you find so hard to comprehend? And I'm still waiting for you to explain your silly sniggering regarding my Donsthorpe contrinutions... 80.255 04:19, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Beet-red :-*
I am sorry, you sent your message to someone with a beet-red face :-* I rolled back the changes I made to Recent Deaths and the main page. I must have misheard who it was that died. I've got the beeb on the telly in the backround. I'll pickup who it was on the next news cycle, unless somebody else beets (pun intended) me to it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
 * Don't worry -- it made me smile! BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 05:47, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• J'ai essayé de répondre à votre question
I tried to answer your question. Sorry, I was a bit irritated. a "fight" between a non-registered bot, a role account, and a problematic user on the fr pedia this evening is a bit too much at the same time :-)
 * Merci -- I'll answer you via email... -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 02:27, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• WikiProject Computing
I noticed that you commented on some controversial computing issues. There's now a new WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Computing/Controversial articles to help form consensus on computing topics. Please consider watching the talk pages there and using them to let others know of issues you believe merit peer review. JamesDay 15:38, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I'll check it out... -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 16:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• #506BBA
the white police font around =, does not seem to work on all computers or skins; so all what was written in blue background was invisible to me (all headlines were in the same color than background). Don't know where the problem is. So I put a lighter color, that is pretty as well. I do not know how it appears on those cases where the white police work though. Anthère 07:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Aha! Je cache le premier titre, "Table of Contents" de sorte qu'elle apparaisse seulement une fois -- mais seulement ce titre doit être invisible.  Peut-être il y avait un plus grand problème?  Maintenant la couleur apparaît-elle correctement, après mon dernier changement? -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;  14:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

euh...non. Je regarderais la semaine prochaine. Bon week end Brian. Anthère