User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 7
November Esperanza Newsletter
[edit]
|
|
|
Sir, I must once again state my disagreement with your removal of a second mention of Menzies from the template. While I see your point, my own argument is based on consistency. Are you willing to remove a second mention of Arvid Lindman from Template:SwedishPrimeMinisters? Of Olusẹgun Ọbasanjọ from Template:NigerianPresidents? Of Grover Cleveland from Template:USPresidents? Of Wilhelm Marx from Template:GermanChancellors? Of Jacques Chirac from Template:FrenchPrimeMinisters? Of Alexandru Averescu from Template:RomanianPrimeMinisters? Of William Lyon Mackenzie King and Pierre Trudeau from Template:CanPM? If so, that would be somewhat drastic. If not, why not? What makes Australia special in this regard? Biruitorul 22:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really mind about those other templates, but it just happens that this is the way all of the Australian templates have been done for a long time (cf {{VictoriaPremiers}}), and I think it works better. If you mentioned Menzies' second term, you'd have to mention Deakin's second and third terms, and Fisher's second and third terms, plus Hughes' second and third terms, which would get very complicated since they were consecutive, but are actually separate terms since he was leading three different parties.
- It seems much easier to keep all that information at Prime Minister of Australia#List of Prime Ministers, where there's space to fit it all in, and keep the template as a simple list. --bainer (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're right that it could get quite messy, but I do think there's reason to back my idea. However, if this is the stable consensus that exists for Australian templates, I suppose we can live with that. Thank you for your explanation. Biruitorul 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect I think I'll have to dispute your speedy of this one. Removing warnings is considered vandalism per VAND and it is a well known and accepted practice to block / protect user talk pages of users who constantly remove it. I must ask that you restore it..... -- Tawker 05:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eagle has undeleted them. As I said to him, I'm not going to delete them again, I'll just let my reasoning stand for itself and someone else can act if they like. I will have to disagree with you about these templates. I'm sure that blocking and protection can be used in many cases where a user is removing warnings, for example if a vandal is blanking warnings to confuse future RC patrollers (I'd block them myself in that case). But the problem with the templates is that they imply a universal approach, and policy status, when that is simply not the case. I've expressed these reasons here and here. How would you respond to those arguments? --bainer (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Undeleted the wr templates
[edit]I am sorry, but I undeleted these templates according to restoring ... speedy not in sych with this discussion. I don't think CSD was the proper avenue to get these deleted. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to delete them again, I'll just let my reasoning stand for itself and someone else can act if they like. I've done my best to explain my reasons here and here (including why I disregarded the outcomes of the TfD debates). How do you respond to those reasons? --bainer (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Bainer, I also agree with your reasoning, and have left a note to that effect on ANI and DRV, but I also want to mention that I think your actions in this have been exemplary, both by showing a perfect example of why IAR is offical policy, and then by just letting the reasoning stand, which I hope it will, given the ANI discussion. So this is just a short note to say well done, as I feel wikipedia has a tendency to be too negative, where people are quick to tell you when you've done wrong, but are silent when you do well, which is a pity. Regards, MartinRe 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Status of Victorian election campaign
[edit]- Thanks for your thoughts Stephen, the article hasn't been altered considerably since my message on your talk page though. The consensus at the moment is to wait until after the election before taking a surgeon's knife to it, although how that knife will be wielded has yet to be decided. Grumpyyoungman01 07:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ty for your advice!
[edit]Thanks for the advice! Now, can i ask you if there's any way to keep anyone except you, the administrators from editing my user pages? I'll try to write as many articles as i'll be able to, but i want my user page to be clean and under any circumstances, i'd like to keep it clean. I doesn't bother me if you, the administrators are gonna edit it, but i'd like to keep it clean from any other registered / unregistered user..
Thanks in advance, BC
Thanks
[edit]I wanted to use a preload in :fr, but I didn't know the includeonly trick, and didn't manage to do it.
Now, it works perfectly :
Jmfayard 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stephen, as you're a law student, as I was wondering what you thought of the discussion at this article - the issue is about the inclusion of a category. I'm seeking third opinions because I don't think either of us are budging either way. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, posted my view to the talk page. --bainer (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
UNFanatic
[edit]He was warned a few times, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UNFanatic&oldid=86593621
He also made sure to keep all the user pages that used the image up to date. see today's history on these pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joseph_Sanderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rubena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jewbask http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geam9111 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caligvla (talk • contribs) .
- I'm not sure this necessarily counts as a proper warning. He has a warning now from an impartial admin, so that should suffice. If he continues to upload the image he will be blocked.
- Don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages by the way. --bainer (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"Humourous"
[edit]Hi. I was interested that you reverted my edit to Robert Garran with the edit summary "not a spelling mistake - Australian English in Australian articles". I'd like to reassure you that I am entirely sensitive to national varieties of English, and that "humorous" is considered the correct spelling worldwide. The most recent occasion this was queried was at Talk:Cane Toad, and I think I was able to convince the objector on that occasion that this is correct (see User talk:Malkinann for details). Best wishes, and thanks for your interest. --Spellmaster 11:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- My mistake, I seem to have misread the diff as changing "humour" to "humor", and missed the "ous" :) I've changed it once again. I'm sure you know how it is when people see bot or AWB edits, there's a tendency to get parochial and revert without completely reading what the change is! For your reference, by the way, the typical standard for Australian English is the Macquarie Dictionary, and that gives "humorous" as expected (although some editions of the Collins Australian dictionary give either as acceptable) so that would be the reference to give other people. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Indigenous Australians
[edit]Thank you for posting a suitable response to the KW mention. I couldn't think of anything meaningful to say in response to seeing a polemist being referred as a "good read". :P Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've blanked it all anyway after finding where those quotes come from. As I said on the talk page, I think it's safe to simply remove further comments if they cannot provide anything beyond that material. I don't like to completely dismiss users, but they've shown an unwillingness to engage in a discussion about the reliability of sources and simply continue to post more of the same material. --bainer (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. And I agree - the person had a very arrogant attitude with regards to the enforcement of their own views, regardless of the fact they didn't even sign half their posts or used an IP: "wasn't discussed to my satisfaction, I'll certainly bring that back. And I'll keep on bringing it back too." Most sections I work on are not nearly this controversial :) Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 15:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Geez, they don't give up. And they've in the meantime created Walter Roth and edited it as both Premier and IP address. While I've got no objection to such an article existing, the reason for its creation appears to be to further his(?) argument. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- congrats on the 'sources'! (never thought i'd be amused by a n-nazi site) shld be more effective thn our attempts to rebut at least for other readers. on the persistance. reported him as sock, & he/they kindly used the ip i claimed is the sock on the roth page! so fingers crossed, just maybe... → bsnowball 10:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
guy with a grudge
[edit]You think that's Zordrac? I thought that Zordrac had a pretty consistent style, and this guy isn't following it. But then again, I think my sockpuppet-radar is a little out of whack lately. Zordrac did have a problem with Longhair, anyway. Hm. FreplySpang 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Zordrac was Internodeuser before he was Zordrac. Internodeuser was initially banned for legal threats (towards Longhair and others) during a dispute about Port Arthur massacre. I can't imagine how many vandals there are out there on Internode with a grudge against Longhair. Although all of Internodeuser's socks did eventually gravitate to the subject area which got him into trouble, which these haven't seemed to.
- I just saw that Longhair himself thinks they are separate so that's ok. Internodeuser was never computer savvy enough to do something like open proxy vandalism, so he's probably right. --bainer (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
[edit]Mate, check your history - I've just reverted your userpage from some nasty vandalism by a user who clearly takes issue with moderators.
cheers Sambo 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you feel about moving this to Indigenous peoples of Australia? For one thing that's the name of the category the article is in. It also looks like the article discusses a collection of different peoples, so I think this title would be more appropriate. Let me know. Zarbat 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Many thanks for your immediate action. huongthao 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. --bainer (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just what is it? - John McHale again
[edit]As I do not want to interfere with your handling of OTRS complaints I would like to inform you about this message by Rory55 at my talk page. Mayby you could have another word with this editor as I just could point him to edit the articles guided by the policies you mentioned in your message to me and to seek prior consensus for controversial edits at the articles talkpages. Thank you! --VirtualDelight 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Request
[edit]Hi Bainer. My FAC for Ian Thorpe appears to have hit a snag, in which Tony has discovered deficiencise in my writing style. He asked that I find a fresh set of eyes to check the rewritten prose. Since you have some peripheral interest...may I request your analysis please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll certainly have a look when I get the time, hopefully in the next day or two. From my previous look at it, I think it's mostly the very long paragraphs and the occasional awkwardly constructed sentence, or awkward grammar, like Tony mentions. --bainer (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Catera & Ziggy, etc.
[edit]The image in question was widely circulated by General Motors in conjuction with the Catera launch campaign - CateraOwners is simply the source. It was a promotional image, and the Catera advertising launch campaign is one of note for its largesse, etc. That was the reason for the image supporting the copy and link. What would have to be done to make it sufficient?
And more importantly, have you reviewed the dozens of images I've added and now marked for CSD including CD covers and images I spent hours obtaining and modifying directly from musicians for use on here? Do they meet the standard you set? I began adding images to pages, with considerable care, I thought, to be certain I was using either original images or those from press kits or clear promotional sources - There is a section on using publicity photos that says they should usually not be an issue, etc. I followed the examples on pages I was editing copy for that used images already, as well as trying to read and understand the various fair use criteria offered. I have not added images to any number of pages I've wished to because I couldn't find a clearly free promotional image, and in some cases I have spent considerable time and effort to obtain images directly from the artist. I will look for your comments - thank you. Tvccs 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- In terms of the source, you need to clearly state where the image came from. It doesn't necessarily need to be an online source. If it's a promotional image, then you can give some information about the press release, press pack or advertising material that it came from, such as the date of issue and information about the author and copyright holder.
- In terms of providing a fair use rationale, there is some explanation at Help:Image page#Fair use rationale. Basically, for each use of the image (for each article it is used in), you need to provide a rationale explaining why you think that use is fair use. To get you started, see Wikipedia:Fair use, and the article fair use, which has a good description of the four main factors in determining fair use.
- I don't know what other images you are referring to, although glancing at your talk page I suspect it is the same problem with all of them, namely lack of source information and lack of a fair use rationale. --bainer (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply - I'm glad to see you're willing to consider images from press releases are valid for use on Wikipedia - a few Wikipedians have taken the position that any press release photograph, totalling certainly in the thousands, of any living person should be deleted, and I have images under attack for dozens of persons now marked for CSD by one user who advocates a policy of total deletion. See Image:JayLeonhart-1.jpg as one of many examples. Nearly every other image listed on my user talk page is identical - the Cindy/Ziggy image was actually mostly unique in not having a specific clear and original source, and the promotional or promophoto fair use tag has been applied to all of them, many of which were also provided directly by the artist in question. I had already read the Fair use page(s) you suggested at some length, and have seen hundreds of images now under attack of any living person where the image is not a GFDL licenses image under the premise it could somehow be easily replaced - the only criteria for this approach is whether or not the person is still living. As far as the Cindy Ziggy image, I stated that GM was the original source, but the original press release materials sent out in 1996 featuring this ad campaign were never published online (and I am a member of GM's press-only Web site) and only a few examples, such as the one published, exist of samples from the 1996 launch campaign for the Catera, and the only source is the CateraOwners Web site. I think I met the criteria for the copyright owner (GM), fair use (promotional), and source (CateraOwners) to more than meet Fair Use. Or am I missing something? Tvccs 12:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
controversial deletion threatened
[edit]Hi Stephen, this is an assignment only to undertake if you have a lot of free time and patience. Please don't feel obliged to do anything about it.
User:Bhuston is threatening to delete Image talk:Iraq oil I'm entitled to my opinion fallacy.jpg and cites WP:NPOV as the reason. I have disputed this and stated my case but he/she has not addressed the substance of my objections and is continuing to use stand over/intimidation tactics. They have stated the policy it allegedly contravenes, but failed to explain how it contravenes it. Thanks in advance for any time or effort you spend on this matter, or any consideration you may decide to give it. The image links to the page I'm entitled to my opinion, where you can find more discussion on the talk page. Grumpyyoungman01 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use in lists
[edit]I'm not sure if you noticed or not but I had asked for your opinion on a particular case. I was wondering if List of The Sopranos episodes has the depth of episode summary that you've been requesting. If it does then the discussion will probably resolve quite quickly. Hope you don't mind my coming to your talk page rather than waiting for you at the discussion page, I'm sure you'd have gotten around to it. Jay32183 06:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for sparing the article. DM Ashura's fanbase thanks you, however, I disagree with your tagging of the site to be unreliable, as the sources meet reliability criteria. I explain more deeply (and with more passion) on DM Ashura's talk page. Thank you. Pumeleon 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Replied at the article's talk page. --bainer (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
vote pages
[edit]There are now two sets of vote pages (including all the subpages for each candidate). Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/vote vs. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote (note capitalization). I'll let you and Geni work it out :). NoSeptember 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've rediredted the small v page and removed the duplicates. should be clear now. would suggest unprotecting the voteing pages sometime before voteing starts to be on the safe side.Geni 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, must have missed those other pages, I didn't think of checking at the lowercase title. Noone else noticed that you'd started some either. Anyway, looks like it's all sorted out now. 00:00 UTC is 11:00 where I am, so I'll certainly be online to unprotect all the pages for the start of the election, and probably to protect them all at the end. --bainer (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
John Madden (jurist)
[edit]Hi. I noticed that you reverted my change to the page John Madden (jurist) here. My edit summary might have been confusing or misleading, but I made the change to help distinguish the intended links to the disambiguation page from the accidental ones. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation)). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones." I have changed it back. Please let me know if this is a problem. Thanks. Khatru2 08:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I hadn't noticed that section in the page before. You're right about the edit summary, maybe something like "clarify intention to link to the actual disambiguation page"? --bainer (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Protection of the arbcom vote page
[edit]Hi Thebainer. I've just come back from a wikibreak, and I was scrolling up and down Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote when I noticed an excessive amount of space between Daniel.Bryant's and Flcelloguy's candidate statements. I was going to go fix it, but the page was protected; you seem to have protected the page with the reason "main voting page for ArbCom election." Was someone disrupting it, or was this a pre-emptive protection? If it's the latter, would you consides semiprotecting? In addition to allowing copyedits from us non-admins, several candidates are non-admins, and if they want to withdraw, they should be able to edit the page. I'll crosspost this to the voting talkpage if you'd like. Picaroon9288 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- This was a pre-emptive protection, as was applied to the equivalent page in the last elections, which was done in light of the importance of the page and the desire to keep it absolutely stable throughout the elections. There is not really any need to edit the page other than to move withdrawn candidates to the bottom section; with respect to the candidates, the statements have been copied directly from the candidate statements page and should really be complete and stable prior to the election. I appreciate that some people may disagree with having the page protected, and I would encourage you to crosspost at the talk page if you would like to do so, it's a topic worthy of discussion.
- It seems Cyberjunkie has already noticed this request, shortly before I did, and made the edit. In the future you can use {{editprotected}} on the talk page and someone will be along shortly. Many admins have this page watched and there shouldn't be any significant delay in having edits made. --bainer (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm aware of {{editprotected}}, but eliminating whitespace is such a minor issue that it almost seems like a waste of time to use the template on the talk page (in fact, the only reason I cared about it at all is not because of the aesthetic purposes, but because I kept blinking whenever I scrolled by it.) I'll cross post this beginning of a discussion momentarily. Picaroon9288 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Just a bit of appreciation for someone who manages to do admin work and yet still churn out articles! Kylu 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
- Thanks! --bainer (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom protected page edit suggestion
[edit]Hi! this says you hold some of the keys to the kingdom. I was just purusing candidate statements and wanted to segue into a voting page, but there is no link. Twould be good if there was! // FrankB 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently I was coming in through the backdoor here... still seems worth doing. // FrankB 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've copied the "election status" box that appears at the top of the main page to the top of the candidate statements page. Most people should come in through the main page and they should see the link there, so noone thought to link to the vote page from the statements page. That should be sufficient.
- If you want the individual links you can see them alongside the statements at the voting page. --bainer (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, should do. And sorry on the unsigned bit. That's rare! Apologies too. I should have xposted you this. I'm afraid I got distracted by a Tfd. // FrankB 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Group-Office
[edit]I'm stunned by this close. We often here how it is "not a vote" but in this case there were several clear arguments for lack of notability and all the arguments for notability were strongly repudiated. What happened to "it's about the arguments, not the nose-count?" and all of that?
152.91.9.144 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- That reads on the second pass as way more strident than I intended. Can I re-do that as "Hi, this close seems to have been done more on numbers than arguments, can you re-examine it?" I think I'm wearing my cranky pants today, sorry. - 152.91.9.144 07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, I can assure you I don't close debates by the numbers (like here, or maybe here). The main thing I notice is that there really wasn't much argument raised at all in that AfD, it was mainly a bunch of people talking about verifiability or notability ("it is notable!" "no, I haven't heard about it, it can't be notable!") without actually referencing any real material (except for you). The closer can't draw out arguments where there aren't any, if you know what I mean.
- I'd suggest you either wait until this is sorted out and renominate it then, or just renominate it now but focus on showing how the existing sources given (from the looks of things they were brought in during the DRV) don't shape up, for example:
- that this isn't a source, it's just a list of links to and quotes from other material put out that week;
- how this may not be reliable because it's user-submitted and there's no evidence of fact-checking, peer review etc;
- how the only other sources are by the makers of the software themselves, or are primary sources (the SourceForge links) used to support OR.
- If you have any problems doing this because you're an anon, you can contact me again and I can give you a hand. --bainer (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Group-Office
[edit]Bainer, I don't know what your issue is taking sides here. I feel that I have already dispelled the argument that OSNews is unreliable because user-submitted. It is, in fact, peer-reviewed, and the author of the article has written 28 reviews for the site. All of this is in the second AfD nomination. None of the visitors of the site commented that the article was inaccurate. Are we going to re-run this AfD until the dissenters get the result they want, or I leave? What's become of WikiLove? And while we're on the subject of being nasty, looking through the contributions of 152.91.9.144, I see every bit of evidence that this person is just a perpetual complainant, and not a great content producer. So just make sure you know which side you want to be on. No regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi there Samsara. I was just chatting with Pschemp about this on email. As I said to her, I wasn't aware of any ongoing dispute, I was merely answering a question someone put to my talk page. Maybe the intent of my answer wasn't obvious, but I was trying to point out to the person why their arguments didn't prevail in the debate I closed, and then I was suggesting how they might go about reframing their own arguments to make more sense. I don't really have an interest in whether the thing is deleted or kept. Sorry if this has caused any bother.
- To the anon 152.91.9.144, if your intent was to try to draw me unwittingly into an ongoing dispute, then please don't. If you have a dispute then you need to engage in dispute resolution. Maybe mediation. --bainer (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to chuckle gleefully at the thought that someone would actually be insidious enough to try and draw you into a dispute in a round-about manner like that?
- I have no hidden agenda, nothing to this request but for exactly what was written. Thanks again for your considered response.
- I had asked for de facto informal mediation here and my understanding at 06:26, 13 December was that I would hear no more about it. (If I was wrong about that the suggestion box is open to anyone 24/7.)
- I can only speak for myself when saying I don't believe that you've caused any bother.
/*Sound of book closing on this chapter.*/
152.91.9.144 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to chuckle gleefully at the thought that someone would actually be insidious enough to try and draw you into a dispute in a round-about manner like that?
fair use
[edit]if you are unhuppy with situations like this please consider to visite from time to time Wikipedia talk:Fair use,where this insane policy was made and participate in the votes.Please also trie to atracte others to the isue.--Bootstrapping 14:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not canvas other editors on a large scale like this. Massive cross-posting of a message to user's talk pages is widely frowned upon except in certain limited circumstances. --bainer (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Blocking Husnock
[edit]First, your block of Husnock (talk · contribs) was excessive. Second, see this WP:ANI discussion. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was a little slow in drafting my post, it's in the section below the one you link to: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Husnock. --bainer (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes; I noticed and merged the sections. In my opinion, Husnock's behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive and his self-unblock was wrong, but a month-long block is a bit excessive and futile given he's stepping out of Wikipedia. If this were a normal user, I would have suggested the protection of his userpage, but I'm almost certain Husnock would defy that. So, I'll have to think about this one... -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, ok, I just grouped the sections together as subsections to preserve the links to them, and make it a little clearer where the various posts begin and end. You're welcome to comment on the block if you think it was excessive, I'm standing in a certain position and I may not have the same view as everyone else, that's the whole idea of reviewing significant blocks there :) --bainer (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is this a significant workaround the section / link dilemma? -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a good trick. The other reason though that I thought they would be better separate is just to make it clear where my post begins, but if you like it better as a single section that's ok. --bainer (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
US and Canada attack eachother
[edit]There was no reason for any of that to happen. If only we had talked about it, first. It kind of reminds me of Canada and the United States launching nuclear missiles at eachother. I should just leave this site completely. Now it seems the discussion on what happened is mutating into more charges of image copyright violations, something I thought was over and done with Anyway, I have revamped the user page so it does not openly dispay the message to which you had an issue (one must now go to the talk page to view it). I hope for goodness sake that is acceptable as we all know what kind of stuff is on talk pages. Think of me what you want, I'm acutally a prett nice person. Just had enough of whats going on, i.e. stalking in the real world, death threats against Morwen, people saying images are illegal, etc, etc. Not to mention where I am right now. I need a vacation. See ya. -Husnock 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Awesome hurricane dude
[edit]Just so you know...User:Hurricanehink Leon 14:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, you're right! What an awesome list of articles! I think the other person I was thinking of who I've encountered and has worked on many hurricane articles is Titoxd. And it turns out there's a whole bunch of them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. --bainer (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just think it's great that his subject of choice is in his username. (P.S. Did you just copy and paste this section between our talk pages, or is there a neater way to do it?) Leon 14:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing fancy, just copy and paste. There's no other way to do it - unless you want to use templates and transclude the conversation, which is simply too horrible to imagine. --bainer (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock arbitration case
[edit]An arbitration case has been opened here to attempt to resolve the dispute(s) surrounding recent actions by Husnock, yourself, and others. --CBD 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit protected request
[edit]There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006#Voting closed about editing a page that you protected, in case you wish to comment. Tra (Talk) 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Meetup
[edit]I'm sorry I couldn't make the meetup - I'm the process of heading back from Canberra for Christmas at the moment, and had arranged to go drop in on my aunt in Kyneton on the 18th on the way (didn't get your message until the night before). I really wanted to make this one - I'll really try and make the next. Rebecca 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply about my report of the Damaja
[edit](I'm not angry, I'm just grumpy and annoyed because I'm sick. Please don't take my harshness personally. I'm simply not of sound enough mind to put this into other words) Are we allowed to assume any intelligence at all? If all of my edits were being reverted, I was being called a vandal, people were telling me to read WP:PW, and I was actually trying to make good edits, then reading the entire page should have crossed my mind. I gave the Damaja more specific directions in a nice way, but in my opinion this is absurd. Honestly, I don't think that he is trying to screw stuff up, but when you are ignoring what people have been telling you it shouldn't be good enough to just make an effort to do a good job. The only way to improve is to learn from your mistakes, but this user is refusing to learn from his mistakes. If he ignores my directions, which are so specific a jellyfish which has no brain could find what I'm talking about, then will you block him? -- THL 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- To describe the situation plainly, this is quite clearly a case of a content dispute and not vandalism. It's common for WikiProjects to adopt stylistic guidelines for subjects in the field covered, but unless someone has had those guidelines explained to them, or at the very least specifically mentioned to them (as opposed to a general link to the WikiProject page), then editing contrary to those guidelines is in no way vandalism, and even if they had been informed then they would not necessarily be blocked for it. Remember, vandalism is any intentional attempt to damage the encyclopaedia.
- Please give the user clear instructions on those three points that I mentioned in my previous message, and in the future please use WP:AIV only for blatant vandalism. In other cases you need to use dispute resolution or discuss the matter at one of the other noticeboards. --bainer (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think I understand now. Thank you for your patience. -- THL 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Muralitharan page
[edit]Sorry to be a pain, but I would appreciate some assistance. If you consult the Mutiah Muralitharan talk page, you will see an ongoing dispute about the veracity of a BBC report. I feel my editing is fair, but given the size of Murali's fanbase, it is likely that any attempt alter the article will be met with obstinance, to an extent this has already started. What's your opinion, are my judgements fair, or if not, what should I do.
Regards,
Cragialist 14:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone trying to hijack WikiProject Gender Studies...
[edit]An anonymous user has edited Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and has edited its aims so that it reads (the following quote is taken from the talk page):
* Correct articles where the term 'gender' is overused, used incorrectly, or used pejoratively to pander to (what Christina Hoff-Sommers, Wendy McElroy and other more moderate feminists call) a "gender-feminist" POV.
- Correct articles where the term "gender" is used (without reference to NPOV dictionaries and other NPOV sources) to replace the term 'sex' as a ploy to pander to "gender"-feminist POV. Correct the usages so that the proper definition is used without regard to UNTESTED and often invalid 'gender theories', so distinctions can be made between 'gender' and 'sex', and so that the usage reflects some sort of NPOV take on a highly loaded term. Just because some widely criticized academic fields have used totalitarian tactics to force 'gender' and censor the usage of 'sex', in US humanities programs is no indication of the validity of this politically-loaded term. Consult NPOV sources such as dictionaries, opponents of "gender"-feminists and NPOV mass media sources to balance 'gender' POV with 'sex' POV.
- Correct articles where the term 'gender' is being used gynocentrically as a front for 'oppression'-feminist political, legal or cultural power plays. For example, in feminism (Status) there is no mention that for the male 'gender', military mortality is 98% compared to 2% for the female 'gender' (in Iraq)...but other forms of far less serious female "gender" oppression are implicated (covertly and most disengenously) as having something to do with the gender "oppression" of women. This kind of blatant, gynocentric "gender" bias is no less POV than the other forms listed here.
Said user has further edited the talk page suggesting that (the following quote is taken from the talk page):
I suspect this project was created to pander to the points of view of misandric, gender-ginning, 'patriarchal oppression' feminists (please see Women's studies, misandry and feminism ) who use the term 'gender' as a cunning, covert, and blatantly gynocentric weapon of war. Many other more moderate feminists and non-feminists have challenged these blatantly gynocentric, and often misandric "gender feminist" ideologies. I insist on a non-sexist, non-'genderist', non-reverse sexist project...otherwise this project is just the usual type of cunning totalitarian tactic we see so much in other politically correct channels. To revert the above content just because none of the orginal authors of this project page like it is a POV stunt to have ones cake and eat it too. I am going to reinsert the content. I insist that before it is reverted again good NPOV reasons be provided. My aim here is some kind of GENUINE non-sexist, non-reverse sexist, and non-'genderist' NPOV...as may be shown well in Sexism (drop in editor) 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea that the term gender (that is, the idea that at least some of the differences between the roles of men and women in society) is socially constructed, yet 'sex' (i.e. that any differences between men and women are essentially biological), at the very least, looks like misogyny|misoginist]] POV bias of the worst kind. Any assistance arguing against the point would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers, - AmishThrasher 08:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going on holiday in the morning for two weeks, so I probably won't be useful in any kind of extended argument, but I'll have a read after tea and see if there are some comments I can make. --bainer (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)