User:Bcorr/new articles

Here's some highlights of what I've done so far...

A listing of the articles that I started

Here

Sovereignty association • 01:02, 16 Sep 2003 • (Sovereignty-association proposes that Québec be politically independent state, but would maintain a formal association with Canada)
United Auto Workers • 00:16, 17 Sep 2003 • ("United Auto Workers" page created -- need Gompers page)
Candlepin bowling • 09:56, 17 Sep 2003 • (New page -- could be cleaned up -- based on Ten-pin_bowling)
Black Bottom • 14:38, 17 Sep 2003 • (New page)
Urban renewal • 22:03, 27 Sep 2003 • (New article (as promised...))
Rockport, Massachusetts • 18:32, 28 Sep 2003 • (New article -- was listed on Requested Articles page)
Dukes County, New York • 09:38, 10 Oct 2003 • (former county of New York)
St. Johnsbury, Vermont • 21:24, 26 Oct 2003 • (new article)
Rutland, Vermont • 00:53, 27 Oct 2003 • (new article)
Rutland City, Vermont • 00:54, 27 Oct 2003 • (New article)
West Rutland, Vermont • 00:54, 27 Oct 2003 • (New article)
Paul Simon • 17:53, 9 Dec 2003 • (died today)
Daniel J. Boorstin • 08:41, 2 Mar 2004 • (new article -- died Feb. 28)
The Cowsills • 12:55, 24 Mar 2004 • (new article on the Cowsills...)
Mary McGrory • 08:34, 22 Apr 2004 • (McGrory died yesterday)
Mary Dyer • 14:26, 29 May 2004 • (New article from meta list of articles that all wikipedias should have)
Rosey Grier • 18:30, 20 Jun 2004 • (new article)
Dulce Pontes • 11:26, 4 Oct 2004 • (New article on fado artist)
Right to die • 16:18, 4 Apr 2005 • (new article)
W. & J. Sloane • 18:18, 14 Nov 2005 • (replace incorrect stub with full article)
Mayra Andrade • 15:53, 3 September 2006 (New article on fado artist)
Mustafa Olpak • 13:15, 28 Aug 2008 • (new article on activist from African diaspora in Turkey)

French

Nouvelle Angleterre • 12 déc 2003 à 05:53 • (Traduit du Wikipédia anglais -- sentez-vous libre d'offrir des corrections à mon Français, svp)
Acadie • 12 déc 2003 à 19:14 • (Traduit du Wikipédia anglais -- sentez-vous libre d'offrir des corrections à mon Français, svp)

And pages that were stubs or facing deletion

Lift Every Voice and Sing • 13:18, 15 Oct 2003 • (Added history and context -- it had just been part of the lyrics)
American Friends Service Committee • 17:21, 14 Dec 2003 • (was a stub -- added detail, history, and links)

Self-defined projects

Adding dates of formation, parent counties, and county seats to counties:
1. List of Maine counties • 18:15, 11 Oct 2003 • (added county seats and dates of formation)
2. List of Massachusetts counties • 18:45, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
3. List of Rhode Island counties • 18:47, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
4. List of New Hampshire counties • 18:50, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
5. List of Connecticut counties • 18:52, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
6. List of Vermont counties • 18:54, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
7. List of New Jersey counties 18:57, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
8. List of Delaware counties • 18:59, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
9. List of New York counties • 19:08, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
10. List of Maryland counties • 19:01, 11 Oct 2003 • (added dates of formation and county seats)
Fixing Rambot problems with New England towns (differentiating towns, villages, townships, gores, and census divisions) in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire -- too many to list here -- see my contributions.
Reformatting Wikipedia:Current polls -- see here
Addressing the campaign to uncover the systemic bias within Wikipedia -- see here

To-do list

Poco -> What links to Poco
Lowell, Massachusetts -- history section needs some work.
Cesar Chavez -- just a stub
Brighton, Massachusetts -- I live there.
fr:Boston -- c'est un stub

Adminship

My First Reversion: Godhatesamerica.com

My First Deletion: 05:33, 19 Dec 2003 Bcorr deleted "Implementation" (content was: 'jlkho')

Mediation Proposal for 2002 Gujarat violence

This just here so I can keep a copy for quick reference

Here's my proposal for moving forward:

First, I'm proposing a three-day period for working on a new version of the article that will be based on common agreement – it won't be comprehensive or final, but the goal is that it will serve as the core around which future editing and writing can take place. I will place that article on a temporary page. During that period, I will ask that people continue to refrain from editing that article and instead work on the new article.

Assuming feedback on this proposal is generally positive over the next 24 hours, the three days will begin tomorrow at this time (1 p.m. EST/18:00 UTC/23:30 in New Delhi on 12 Nov 2003) At the end of the three days, I will more the new article to 2002 Gujarat violence and begin with that

Second, in the new article, I am asking that contributors only add content that they believe that all contributors will agree with. If there is disagreement, I am asking that contributors discuss that on the talk page for the temporary article -- not on this page -- Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. I am also asking that contributors refrain from removing content that they disagree with, but instead allow me to make suggestions about how to handle disagreements -- remembering that my goal is to create something that we can all agree on as a basis for making progress on this article. I will note that this will involve some judgment calls on may part when it comes to deciding how much of the article is devoted to the "some people say X, while others say Y" content -- I ask that people go along with me for the time being. I will add any disputed facts, sources, or links to a section of the talk page for the temporary article.

Third, I am proposing the following guidelines for editing and for the talk pages and the WikiEN-l mailing list:

Editing

Sign all posts to the talk page.
Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of material added to the article. Simple explain what you disagree with and why you disagree based on accuracy or that it disagrees with your point of view and then explain briefly what yours is.
Avoid extrapolation of the above, e.g., "X supports Y, so if X says ___, it must be…"
Work from the assumption for the three-day period that no one has a monopoly on the truth, even if one is certain that facts or evidence is 100 percent clear.

Talk pages/Mailing list

Refrain from personal attacks.
Refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of other contributors.

Obviously this is all voluntary, but I believe this is a way that we can all move forward and create an article that is NPOV, factual, informative, and still reflects the differences in opinions and the interpretations of the facts.

Please respond below this line. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mediation Proposal between GrazingshipIV and Kingturtle

This is just here so that I have a copy for quick reference

Thank you for being willing to work with me to mediate your conflict. Let me restate here some information from Wikipedia:Request for Mediation:

The common aspects of mediation, that seem to apply to all the fields of application, could be concisely summarised in the presence of these basic factors:

a controversy, a dispute or generically a contraposition, a difference of positions between (or among) the respective parties;
the free and not conditioned will of the parties to find a positive solution to their problem and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives;
the intention of achieving a positive result through the constructive help of a third person, usually independent, neutral and in no connection at all with any of the involved parties (as opposite to the intention of achieving respective goals in a conflictual way);
the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a per se long lasting agreement.

And also:

Mediation is intended to achieve a way for people to keep working happily together and build better articles, while themselves growing from the mutual exchange.
It doesn't need to produce mutual amity between the disputants, though more tolerance and respect is welcome.
It is not the purpose of the mediation framework to make policy decisions. If the conflict is over something not covered by current policy, the matter should be returned to the wikipedia community as a whole.

Therefore I am proposing that we conduct this mediation using the following four points as a basis for our work together:

First, my goal is not to investigate the past, or to assign blame or fault, but to restore the ability of both users to coexist in peace and continue to contribute to Wikipedia.

Second, I am asking each of you to state briefly and specifically what your goal(s) are for this process: An apology? An explanation? An agreement between both on points of fact?

Third, once you both do that, I will post a summary of what I think happened. You are encouraged to respond, but please only describe if I got any facts wrong -- and not the motivations or intentions of the other user. Please refrain from characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of each other. If necessary, I will add any disputed facts, sources, or links to a special post on this topic. I will note that this will involve some judgment calls on my part -- so I ask that you both go along with me for the time being.

I do not believe it will help us to discuss or debate who knew what when, or what the other person intended. We will have to take each user's claims about what they knew at face value if there is no clear direct evidence to the contrary (as opposed to circumstantial evidence or suppositions).

In this mediation I am asking that both of you only discuss your own positions, and not those of the other person. If there is disagreement, I am asking that contributors discuss that on the talk page for the temporary article -- not on this page -- section of the talk page for the temporary article. I am also asking that contributors refrain from removing content that they disagree with, but instead allow me to make suggestions about how to handle disagreements -- remembering that my goal is to create something that we can all agree on as a basis for making progress on this article.

Fourth, I am proposing the following guidelines for this mediation:

Please only use this topic (thread) for any discussions related to this mediation with each other or with me.
Do not edit your posts -- even for typos, etc. Repost the information on its own. Unlike a wiki, there is no page history here -- a trade-off for not being able to edit other people's posts.
Avoid characterizing the politics, motives, POV, or objectivity of any posts made as part of this mediation. Simply explain what you disagree with and why you disagree -- based on factual accuracy or because it conflicts with your point of view -- and then explain briefly what yours is.
Avoid extrapolation of the above, e.g., "X supports Y, so if X says ___, it must be…"
Work from the assumption during this mediation that no one has a monopoly on the truth, even if you are certain that either the facts or the evidence is 100 percent clear.

Because this is all voluntary, I believe that this is a way that we can all move forward and come to a point where you may disagree with each other and still respect the differences in opinions and the interpretations of the facts.

Thank you in advance for your work with me.
_________________
Brian (BCorr¤Брайен)