User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200406

Archived talk from June 2004

• Jew
Regardless of whether RK understands the length rules or not, shouldn't the default position on the article be "Not with huge sections deleted" until it's agreed that they should go? That is, isn't deleting whole sections from the article the sort of change that should be discussed and then made, instead of made and then discussed? (Especially since reinstating sections without reverting is much harder than taking them out, should any additional edits be made.) Snowspinner 17:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Mediation
I don't believe in the mediation process and decline to participate. RickK 19:10, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the reply. I've informed Sam Spade and left a note on RfM. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 21:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Not me, but thanks
No, thats not me. I do not edit the Wikipedia anymore, it is clear that there is no accountability for sysops, there is no due process, there is no working method of conflict resolution. Thanks for reminding me of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Action -- everytime you hear someone lie about how all i did was vandalize and "stir up trouble" -- try to remember that there are THOUSANDS of articles (like that one) which I have contributed to. I was not, and am not, the problem here at wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * Thanks, Lir -- I appreciate it -- see you 'round the wiki! Peace, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• GS4
Tim has re-attributed his edits to "former user" (see Special:Contributions/GrazingshipIV and this example). I don't know why or if it was discussed anywhere on the wiki. I just saw in IRC that Tim pasted the above contribs URL to #wikipedia by mistake when I think he was talking to GrazingshipIV privately. Angela. 22:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Angela -- I appreciate the info. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 23:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Vigilantism
The "vandalbot" posting does not belong on Wik's user page. A user page is typically the individual user's exclusive forum. When one user requests arbitration against another user, for example, the user requesting arbitration is not allowed to post a link to his/her request for arbitration on the user page of the contributor against whom he is seeking arbitration. Nor would you have been able to post a link on User:172 to the quick poll you had started against me. Jimbo himself affirmed this, asking that Wik's user page be left alone.

Please post a link to all the brouhaha about the vandalbot on requests for comment, requests for arbitration, conflicts between users, or vandalism in progress, which would be appropriate pages. 172 09:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * 172, Regarding Jimbo Wales wishes: Jimbo wrote this when Wik was trying to leave and a user insisted on harassing him -- not when Wik was running an automated script (bot) to vandalize dozens of pages automatically. Also, perhaps you didn't intend to sound condescending in your comment above about arbitration and user pages, but it came across that way to me. I think that when developers are making edits to a user page in a case such as this one regarding a vandalbot, it has clearly gone beyond the kind of example you cited. And finally, the reason this attracted my attention in the first place was your  attempt to act as the vigilante sheriff. I believe this is not appropriate, and that it is important to work towards consensus, rather than declaring your interpretation of the "law" and then imposing it on the whole community. Sincerely, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 13:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you could afford to stop acting as the vigilante sheriff yourself. 172 13:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Request for Meta adminship
I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account m:User:Bcorr. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Mediation
Hi - as you can see from my responses at Requests for mediation, I don't think that mediation is appropriate at this point - we've hardly even started to engage our substantive differences on the article, and so far really only three of us (and an anon) have actually been involved. I've listed on Requests for comment, and would like to see if we can resolve this without mediation. Herschelkrustofsky has shown a strangely intense desire for mediation which I find puzzling - he was already talking about mediation as soon as his version of the article was challenged at all. I don't think this is appropriate, and I think some effort should be made to resolve this without mediation before we turn to more radical solutions. john k 00:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with John - I have no objection to you or anyone else participating in the debate about the article, but I don't see why formal mediation is required at this point. You might suggest to Krusty that it's a bit strange to be simultaneously requesting mediation, engaging in discussions about the article, and periodically starting a revert war. He needs to decide which strategy he wants to pursue. Adam 01:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * OK -- thanks both of you for the rapid replies. I'll let User:Herschelkrustofsky know and move the long discussion to the more appropriate Talk:Lyndon LaRouche since it's already listed on RfC,. Thanks again, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 03:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Race and intelligence
I didn't check the history of the Race and intelligence article when I made some edits today. Now that I have, I see that I removed a paragraph that you had put back in. I didn't do this to revert your change; I was just trying to move some text from here to the main article on race. If you want that paragraph back, I have no objection. RK


 * Thanks, RK -- I appreciate the note as I just noticed this a couple of minutes ago. I will re-add it now. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Archiving of talk pages
(originally started at Talk:SamSpade)

Hi Sam. I'd like to ask you to please refrain from archive discussion that are currently active -- perhaps in the last week or two, depending on page size. On both Talk:Lyndon LaRouche and Talk:Race and intelligence you've archived so much discussion that there isn't much context for someone who hasn't been editing the article recently or even hasn't paid attention for a day or two. And I believe that most editors don't check the archive to see if there was active discussion in the last few days. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 20:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I found the way you placed a large block of text regarding mediation into Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to have been particularly unhelpful. There are a goodly number of editors who are unable to edit pages in excess of 32k. I have had them request of me (on my obviously short talk page) that I shorten them, in the past (not involving these 2 particular pages). Reviewing, and even editing the archives is by no means difficult, but if you notice, I brought the "POV" section of Talk:Lyndon LaRouche out of archive when I saw that it was active. Really, it would have been best if you put all that regarding mediation into an archive immediately rather than tossing it on top of what seemed to me to have been a productive conversation (promptly stiffled by the excessive page length). Sam [Spade] 21:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I find your un-archiving both pages to be particularly unhelpful, in case you are curious. Seeing as how you are not actively involved in the discussions on either page, I think you are a particularly poor judge of what is currently being discussed, and what is not. Sam [Spade] 21:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam. I'm sorry that you found these actions unhelpful, but I still maintain that the material you archived was too recent, and defend my bold decision to restore some (but not all) of the material you archived. I believe that we have a different sensibility about what to archive and when to archive it, as our personal talk page histories will demonstrate. I understand the problem with long pages, but I don't believe that it can always be avoided.


 * I became involved in the Talk:Lyndon LaRouche page when the discussion was spilling over into the Requests for mediation page and I moved it, and since the same people were having a discussion directly related to the current editing it seemed appropriate. And I do actively follow and do occasionally participate in Talk:Race and intelligence as well as editing the article.


 * In contrast -- from looking at the talk page historyand the article history-- you haven't edited the talk page except to archive material, and you've never edited the article, so I'm surprised that you believe that you are a better "judge of what is currently being discussed, and what is not," to use your own phrase.


 * Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 17:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Quite right, and there appears to be a complete lack of agreement w my position that Talk:Lyndon LaRouche needs archived, so I apologize for having been out of consensus, as well as for my insinuations regarding your involvement on Race and intelligence. Sam [Spade] 18:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sam. I appreciate your apology, and look forward to our working together on better terms. Peace, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 18:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• New User
Hi Brian, thanks for your message. I'm a new user and I don't understand how to use many of the Wikipedia features. One complaint I have is that on the Sathya Sai Baba article, the anti-Sais are editing out a lot of the positve info about Sai Baba and the negative FACTUAL info regarding backgrounds, and accusing me of slander, on those persecuting the holy man. In other words, they want to be able to censure anything which doesn't cast them in a perfect light. I have documentation to back up pretty much everything I write. I need to learn how to put links to articles for this if you could point me in the right direction please.

Lisa


 * Hi Lisa. You should definitely check out Policies and guidelines and Neutral point of view because there are ways to do what you'd like that are considered acceptable and some that aren't, and also, as I mentioned, discussing them on the talk page first is a good way to get feedback as a new user. Also, in articles we usually put external links in a seperate section at the very bottom of the article.


 * Overall, for an example of an article about a controversial religious figure (as well as formatting tips) see Mother Teresa -- and see Talk:Mother Teresa for the background on how the controversies were worked out in one of the most difficult cases I've seen in my time here. Hopefully the one you're involved in won't get anywhere near that level of conflict. :-)


 * Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 21:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian,


 * First of all I did create an account so I don't know why you are telling me I didn't unless maybe I thought I was signed in while editing. Personally I think the dispute notice should remain on the page indefinitly since Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime and I have dealt with these peoples' lies and deceptions and harassment for the last two years regarding Sai Baba so nothing is going to change with them. Why do you think the Indian government doesn't recognize them? They have their own sites where they censor and lie in the same way so it's not surprising. They already know what my info is, that's why they are censoring it. I won't waste my time with their games. They have ot live with themselves, I don't.


 * Hi Lisa -- sorry about the extra paragraph about creating an account -- it's from my standard boilerplate welcome message I just forgot to remove it. I apologize for any confusion. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 20:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• :-)
welcome back :-) ant
 * Merci!

• License
HI, you've uploaded on fr: wp one pic from you fr:Image:LexingtonMass20040207-09-s.jpg without telling the license. Could you tell me if it is really GFDL (or what is it ? ) Thanks in advance. fr:Utilisateur:Tipiac


 * Salut Tipiac. I took the photograph myself and I intended to release it under GDFL -- I apologize if I was not clear when I uploaded the photo. Merci pour votre attention. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 12:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick answer, good to have GFDL pics :) 193.55.10.104 12:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * de rien ;-)

I also have added GFDL license on onther images from you you had uploaded on fr: :
 * fr:Image:ArnoldArboretumBirch20040415-01s.jpg
 * fr:Image:Boston20040307-02.jpg
 * fr:Image:FirstChurchRoxburyMass20040313.jpg
 * fr:Image:Boston20040307-03.jpg
 * fr:Image:Boston20040307-01.jpg

Hope there's no problem. If ther's one, say it on my discuss page. Thanks fr:Utilisateur:Tipiac

And also : fr:Image:CôteDuSonomaACalifornie20040519.jpg


 * N'est pas du problem -- ils ont tout meme, et merci encore pour votre assistance. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 12:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup 193.55.10.104 13:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)