User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200404

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived talk from April 2004

• Building Janitor[edit]

So apparently I'm not very original.  :) moink 16:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not to worry -- you're original here... :-) BCorr|Брайен 16:32, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Removing nonsense[edit]

Hi! Thanks for editing my user talk page, but it's probably best to leave stuff that people put for me there, even if it's weird nonsense (as this was), because if I overlook it, I might miss something important. Jimbo Wales 04:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo -- thanks for the nice note -- will do! BCorr|Брайен 12:33, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Paul Voguel requests...[edit]

Brian, quit POV reverting the cosmotheism article without first discussing it in the TalkPages. Thanks! :D

Hi Paul. I've discussed it on the talk page first this time as you requested.
Thanks, Bcorr, but, the POV nonsense and the POV "invented" terms are NOT Wiki NPOV and these will be deleted and reverted. Thanks again! -PV

• Blocking T of N[edit]

-> User talk:The Trolls of Navarone

• Michael Luther King, Jr.?[edit]

These seem like reputable sources to confirm what I have stated about Martin Luther King's birthname.

Hi Darrien -- the Snopes page you listed has the following quote from MLK's father:
I had been known as Michael Luther King or "Mike" up until I was 22 . . . when one day my father, James Albert King, told me: 'You aren't named Mike or Michael either. Your name is Martin Luther King. Your mother just called you Mike for short.' I was elated to know that I had really been named for the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, but there was no way of knowing if papa had made a mistake after all. Neither of my parents could read or write and they kept no record of Negro births in our backwoods county . . . I gladly accepted Martin Luther King as my real name and when M.L. was born, I proudly named him Martin Luther King, Jr. But it was not until 1934, when I was seeking my first passport . . . that I found out that Dr. Johnson, who delivered M.L., had listed him in the city records as Michael Luther King, Jr., because he thought that was my real name.
To me, this is not enough to say that he was born Michael King. Snopes is usually quite definitive in its statements, and in this case they basically say that they don't know. And the BBC article clearly confuses MLK with his father. So for me this still falls into the "urban legend" category. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 04:11, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

are you around ? :-) ant

• sand dunes[edit]

Like the sand eh? Suddenly all my arts have an inbound link count of +1... (-: +sj+ 21:16, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Um, sorry, I don't understand: sand? inbound link count? Did I edit something you're referring to? I'm such a doofus -- yep -- it's totally cool!
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:21, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


Could you put the name for Kalmykia at the page in Russian? I think it should be in Kalmyk too... Dagestan

Калмыцкая Республика Российской Федерации is now there. And I don't know where you might find the Kalmyk script (an example here: [1]) -- or even a transliteration. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:34, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Kalmyk is officially written in Cyrllic. The example you have is not the official script. Dagestan

If you find it somewhere, I'm happy to generate it for use here. Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 02:16, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Kalmyk is the same language as Mongolian. I'm sure we'll be able to find stuff on Mongolian. Dagestan

• the IRC cabal[edit]

Hi Bcorr. This is supposed to be the Wikipedia, not the IRCopedia. I deeply resent the IRC cabal, and wish that there was a way to require Wikipedians to discuss things openly where all contributors have equal access. Alas, I don't think this is possible or practical, so those of us who prefer not to dabble with evil protocols like IRC will have to remain second-class citizens and put up with it.

With that said, the reality is that Wik's nomination is never, ever going to succeed, not while Wik have a long, long list of dedicated enemies - many of them people I respect a great deal, I might add. It's quite pointless, and serves only to risk stirring up and antagonising a contributor who, whatever his faults, is a human being just like you or me. I am not going to get into an edit war over it - thjat would only make things worse - but, honestly, what is the point of subjecting Wik to this public humiliation? There is no point.

Best regards -- Tannin 03:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your points on all of this, and although I like the fact there are a lot of levels, layers and aspects to Wikipedia that serve different functions, I have to admit that could just be because I take part in many of them. In any case, I'm still not sure if the nomination should be reinstated or not, but understand your position, and think it's reasonable. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 03:35, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you from Cecropia[edit]

Thanks for setting an end time. This has been a strange journey with my nomination. We're getting close to the time, and I'm one vote under that 80%, but this is going to have to be a judgment call on some Bureaucrat's part anyway, I guess. I'm think I'm running for "Wikipedian with the most positive votes who never became an admin." :) But we shall see... Thanks again for your help. Cecropia 03:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's no problem -- and if that happens, I'm sure you'll be nominated again soon! -- BCorr|Брайен 11:22, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Admin Nomination[edit]

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chris -- First, I have to say that I don't feel that enough time has passed since I last felt the need to make comments on your behavior to feel comfortable with your nomination. Second, I have real questions about the motivations of the user who nominated you. In addition, I'm strongly opposed to lobbying for one's own nomination. If you have to organize people to get the votes, it means to me that the community isn't ready for you to be a sysop yet. Please just relax and wait for the time to be right. Thanks, and please keep up the good work -- it will pay off. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:50, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
What is wrong with asking people to vote? There have only been a handful of votes, therefore I wanted to get more folks involved in the vote so I posted it on their talk page. That is not spam. It was simply a invitation to vote in the nomination process, hopefully in favor of me. But thanks for the advice. ChrisDJackson 02:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I rest my case. sigh -- BCorr|Брайен 02:16, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
What "real questions" do you have about motivations of me? --Lst27 20:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have no answers, only questions, I guess? -- BCorr|Брайен 00:05, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

User:Ryan524's nomination at WP:RFA[edit]

You are right on the money with regards to one thing: I indeed justified my removal of the vote based on the precedence of Wik's case. -- Dissident 02:19, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And you have to admit that Wik has a much better claim to adminship than Ryan524, right? -- Dissident 02:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your point is correct, Dissident, but it's a very different situation. As I mentioned, it's almost never a good idea to remove a nomination (self- or otherwise) before the usual week has passed -- although I know it's been done recently with User:Wik. Leaving it for a week gives the community time to see it, think about it, and comment on it. If, for example, Ryan renominates himself or someone else nominates him, most people wouldn't even know about this one after such a short time. Wik is a very well-known editor, and people are familiar with him, but User:Ryan524 is man unknown quantity, and often people who make unusual or unlikely requests on RfA reappear there or somewhere else, and it's good for people to know the history. And again, I realize that you were just trying to save some embarassment and/or contention, and please don't take my reversion of the page personally. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:30, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Jeu de quelques canards et les fleurs[edit]

I am OK :-)
The operation was around 8h30. I woke up a good hour later. And actually... went back to sleep for most of the day :-) Except lunch that was really a nice moment :-) I felt ravenous.

I came back home at the end of the afternoon, walking through the local park, a bit staggering (still a bit sleepy, and low blood pressure). There were many flowers, beautiful blue sky (after so many rainy days...), and two males ducks playing with a female one. So I sat there for a while, warmed by the sun. All was so clear.

Everything went well, and news are very good. So, soon, I guess, it will be just memory :-) I feel relieved. While I was sleeping, I decided (that was a rather curious sleep, and last night was a very bad sleep) to try to go working on the mediation FAQ soon, and to work again on biodiversity as well. The ecoregion project is working well, so I am glad. I hope my mood is better now and that I do not hurt anyone feelings :-) (but Stuart :-))

Thanks for your thoughts Brian :-)

(PS : there is a problem with the top of your user page; all is messed up).


D'accord -- et je ne sais pas qu'est ce le probleme avec ma page d'utilsateur -- en mes browsers c'est pas de probleme. Et je suis très heureux tu va bien. -- BCorr|Брайен 00:05, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Augusto Pinochet[edit]

I have create a poll at talk:Augusto Pinochet on how to describe the CIA's role in the coup against Allende. Please vote and/or comment. --Uncle Ed 14:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

D'accord, mon frère -- BCorr|Брайен 14:50, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

• CBC[edit]

Please disambiguate CBC on your User page. Thanks. RedWolf 01:10, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I never expected CBC to become a disambig page! -- BCorr|Брайен 12:06, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for supporting my nomination as an admin...[edit]

...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome -- see you around! -- BCorr|Брайен 12:06, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Ashkenazi[edit]

Bcorr, just wondering, how can you justify keeping Ashkenazi#Intelligence, as it does not even link to a study or anything meaningful to support this controversial statement? It seems like a very appropriate thing to strike, or at least rewrite carefully citing an actual study, metrics and particulars of any study. Fuzheado 15:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fuzheado, I'm sorry -- I in no way intended for my leaving the #Intelligence section in to mean that I thought it was correct. I guess I was just trying to be "generous" in leaving something of the edits, and I was sort of assuming that someone else would remove it.... Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 04:02, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Sanctions & exclusions[edit]

Hello Brian. Incidently, would you come and vote on this

Merci Ant

d'accord -- B

• Steward: Thanks :-)[edit]

Hi Bcorr,

I have not yet had the chance to get to know you more, but thank you nevertheless for the trust you gave me by giving me your vote for Steward. I feel very honored.

If you ever see me doing something you disagree, please let me know. I always want to learn, to improve.

Thanks a lot :-) Fantasy 20:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome – thanks for the note and your openness to suggestions – I appreciate it -- BCorr|Брайен 21:14, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Oil For Food[edit]

Hi, Brian. Thanks for showing up over at Oil for Food. Unfortunately, this issue is unlikely to be resolved on talk without outside intervention. Would you mind stepping in with an outsider's perspective? The situation so far is that there are three active users working on this article: myself (Rei), Get-Back-World-Respect, and TDC. Both Get-Back-World-Respect and myself are advocating for an article about oil for food which is at least *half* about the program; certainly with no more than half of the article about allegations that are currently under investigation. TDC wants to make the article 4:1 about the allegations. Get-Back-World-Respect and myself find this completely unreasonable; at least until the allegations (who are being pushed by Ahmed Chalabi, hardly a reliable figure) are investigated (it's only going to take a few months); otherwise, it is smear. We're perfectly willing to leave a whole half of the article not about the Oil For Food program (which a real encyclopedia would be all about), but about the allegations. But 4:1 just seems ridiculous. Would you mind stepping in with your opinion on the subject? I don't think TDC and our differences will just get resolved on their own; we've been trying to resolve them for a long time, and it hasn't gotten anywhere. --Rei

Hi Rei -- since I protected the article, I think it's best that I not get involved in the discussion, although I understand your frustration. I have a couple of suggestions: first, I think that you should try listing the article's talk page on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes -- usually people will weigh in and bring some new perspective and fresh ideas to the article. If that doesn't work, you could bring it to the WikipediaMediation Committee at the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page.
I hope this helps. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:02, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. I would appreciate if next time you protect a page you check before which version would be wisest to keep. TDC started his allegations based on an entry from clearly partisan "free", and he is known to be an abusive user listed as a vandal. Thanks anyway for pushing the resolution of the problem.

I saw that you have versions of your page in other languages. The German one does not quite make sense, and I neither speak Russian nor Maori, but the French one is good, so I thought maybe you would be interested in a vocabulary project I am starting with some people from here and wikibooks? Please check my page and let me know. Get-back-world-respect 23:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi GBWR (if I may be so bold as to call you that) -- no matter which version one protects, someone will believe it's The Wrong Version, so our general rule of thumb is not to try to pick a certain version, and then wait until it's current before protecting the page. In fact, that would really be a back-door way of getting involved in the dispute, and you aren't allowed to protect a page in which you're a party to the conflict.
Also, thanks for the feedback on my deutsche benutzerseite -- I learned my German from some of those Berlitz records, so I know lots of useful phrases such as "Ach, schau all die Autos!" and "Ich habe ein hund. Er ist sehr klug" and "Entschulicht mich kinder, Mütter ruft!" Please feel free to fix my malformed German. Danke schön, BCorr|Брайен 01:46, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I agree that you should not pick what you like best, but when one user is listed as a vandal, told others to "suck their own dick" and such, I guess it is a clear case. Also you were not involved in the conflict and your mediation seems to show you work in the interest of wikipedia and not because you want to make a case about your beliefs about oil for food.
Regarding German it should be "Ich habe einen Hund." and "Entschuldigt mich Kinder, Mutter ruft!" What were you trying to say with that phrase on your Benutzerseite? I wish someone corrected my English once in a while. I especially have problems with prepositions and when to use gerund and when infinitive after another verb. Get-back-world-respect 21:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

• SAT vocabulary words[edit]

Hi Bcorr, I found those SAT words on this site ( It says the words are "free for individual and classroom use". Texas Instruments also have a freely downloadable pdf with the words and definitions. As well as this I have seen the words in numerous other places. That's why I added them to Wikipedia. Thanks for your comments and sorry for any trouble I caused. User:, 13:51, Apr 29 2004 (GMT)

Well, they've since been removed for copyright violation, and from what the site says, I don't think that the permission given would cover what Wikipedia needs, since we use GFDL. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 03:27, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

• BJAODN/WikiSex[edit]

Hi. Since I deleted this article this evening according to wikipedia policy, someone has listed it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Please pay a visit and vote for it to stay deleted. -- Graham  :) | Talk 03:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Graham. BCorr|Брайен 03:27, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Oil for Food 2[edit]

Hello Brian :-)

Re : your comment for reviewing and participating to the oil and food proposal. I think your proposal is very good indeed, but I see not what I have to do with it. I think removal of basically all the original article was way out of line, but these guys are not fighting upon the removal of my participation, since nearly all of it is gone already. They are fighting upon things they added themselves and to which I understand little and feel unconcerned. I am not gonna add to the confusion :-) Better that they fixed their issue first, and later I will come back....or decide not to spent time trying to write english words on a matter which is potentially hot so likely to result in edit war and removal of my input. I only spent about a week on this article, I can learn my lesson :-) Amicalement, I hope you succeed on this one :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Mais oui, ant. Puisque tu avais édité l'article récemment, j'ai voulu toi offrir la chance de participer -- et pour me faire étais inclus et juste. J'ai également invité Edmond le Pauvre. Et, oui, je conviens que tu devais éviter cet article pendant un moment. Et merci pour tes compliments! BCorr|Брайен 11:22, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Oil for Food 3[edit]

Bcorr, may I suggest you do with Oil for Food what was done pretty successfully with Terrorism. Protect the page and refer editors to "Oil for Food/Draft." When everyone agrees that the Draft is in reasonable shape, then transfer the agreed material and Unprotect. I don't think it serves any purpose to leave the live article unprotected and asking people not to edit it, because if someone does, it would only have to be reverted anyway, with lack of agreement. -- Cecropia 14:30, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cecropia. Thanks for the note. I appreciate your suggestion and understand, but part of my goal in unprotecting the article is establish some good faith and respect of process and agreement among the people involved -- if not towards each other, at leat towards me as mediator. If people can voluntarily agree not to edit the article, I think that helps to change the attitude of people towards this process. Rather than taking every opportunity to make a point or try to win the argument, people will voluntarily forgo that -- at least in a few specific ways. I hope this makes sense, and if someone does edit the original article, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but hopefully we won't have to.... Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:14, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)