Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Formeruser-81 (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 9 July 2004 (→• Mediation request: [] and []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please click here to add a new message at the bottom of this page (I always check starting at the bottom and then work my way up...)

Welcome

Hey Bcorr :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:
• Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers
• Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page

Nice work on Sovereignty association! However, don't forget to bold the title in your introduction. You can use three 's, like '''bold'''.

Keep contributing! :) Dysprosia 04:44, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Archived talk

• September 2003 archive
• October 2003 archive
• November 2003 archive
• December 2003 archive
• January 2004 archive
• February 2004 archive
• March 2004 archive
• April 2004 archive
• May 2004 archive
• June 2004 archive

July 2004

• Thanks

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

Thanks 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)

• 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)

• Question from new reader

Dear Bcorr,

I just came across Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment and the subsequent steps laid out on Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, including bringing a requestto the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee.

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

• Quakers pages and qualifiers

Hello BCorr,

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation and either accept Danny or suggest another mediator? Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 12:12, 7 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages. And for more info on the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

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