User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 8

Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you want to continue a discussion, copy the old discussion, then post it on the current talk page along with your reply.

Please do not edit archived discussions.
Oct 2004 - Aug 2005 • Sep 2005 - Dec 2005 • Dec 2005 - Mar 2006 • Apr 2006 - May 2006 • Jun 2006 - Aug 2006 • Sep 2006 - Oct 2006 • Nov 2006 - Dec 2006 • Jan 2007 - Mar 2007 • Apr 2007 - May 2007 • Jun 2007 - Sep 2007 • Oct 2007 - Jan 2008 • Feb 2008 - Jun 2008 • Jul 2008 - Dec 2008 • Jan 2009 - Jan 2010 • Jan 2010 - Dec 2012

---

Re: "Unfree images" on user page

Hello there, just a note to say thank you for alerting me to the above issue with regards to my userpage. I had been hitherto unaware of the exact stipulations of the fair use policy, but can see exactly how user page presence would fail to constitute fair use; a user page is not encyclopaedic! Many thanks for sorting out the necessary images, and allow my apologies for not having checked this up beforehand. I appreciate your undestanding! The Geography Elite 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

G'Day Bainer

Hi Bainer. It's me (Neoballmon). Do you remember me? I sure hope you do because I still remember you quite well! If you don't, here's a refreshing of your memory.
-I made a few joke edits (portrayed by you as vandalism)
-You blocked me
-I appealed numerous times for unblocking
-You rejected me numerous times
-You blocked my talk page
-I seemed to have left the site
-I returned, assuming the form of an IP Address, so resume my appeal
I guess that pretty much sums it up. (and it seems to have been a while since i've been here so I can't remember coding properly) It's a new year, and I will make a new years resolution to you, that if you unblock me, I will NOT vandalise Wikipedia again. Please just unblock me Bainer --203.173.45.223 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Please do not completely revise Wikipedia policies without extensive prior discussion and explanation on the policy talk page. I've reverted your changes to this policy and look forward to hearing about why you think it needs to be changed, and in particular why you thought it should be so dramatically shortened. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 16:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message here: Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#My recent revision. --bainer (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please give the process a couple of days; if the wording of the policy has been a problem for a while, a few more days won't make much difference. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What on earth?

There were only like, 35 or 6 people, who wanted it merged. Most others wanted it either deleted or kept as it was. I have reverted - I can't understand how you came to this conclusion!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to find a peaceful solution before anyone (you or Nick) gets in any more trouble. But if that's not what you want, then that's ok, I really don't care either way about the debate. --bainer (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think it's OK to go around ignoring consensus?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say "result". As in I don't really mind what the result turns out to be, I was just making an effort to reach a reasonable solution that would avoid further problems. In case you didn't notice my reasoning for closing the debate as I did, it's in the big box marked "Closer's notes" just under the heading. You should look at the second paragraph, where I say that in the end, the case for merging as presented by Carcharoth, Mindspillage et al struck a good balance between having the useful information around and concerns about keeping it all together on a page about vandalism, which were in fact the arguments raised by almost all the participants in the debate. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is now going to happen, in all likelihood, is that the material will be merged (how on earth they will do that, I have no idea) into articles where people don't want it merged into. Then it will get reverted, and hence your merge will become a delete. Thanks for nothing, I suppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what the merge debate is for. The way I see it, MfD have passed the issue on to become a merge debate on the chosen talk page. I suggest at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia in the media. Carcharoth 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now this I don't understand. Are we now saying that I have to argue that we shouldn't merge the article? If so, then isn't that a way of bypassing Bainer's closing decision? I'd also like to know if the previous AFD was taken into account when the deletion decision was made. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Legal request

Would you be able to locate any legal documents relating to a multiple murder which occured in Ceres, Victoria some time ago, mid 90's if I recall correctly? I think the name of the family was Wettenhall, and they were involved in farming (perhaps wool?) activities on their farm. If any more info is needed, feel free to ask. It'd be great if you could source anything on this. There doesn't appear to be much information online about the case unfortunately. -- Longhair\^talk 12:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly give it a try. Wettenhall is the name of the victims? --bainer (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The spelling may be slightly off, but it's a popular name in Geelong, just that my memory is fading somewhat. It received a lot of press at the time. A family of three were killed if my memory serves me correctly. Thanks a million :) -- Longhair\^talk 12:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Their farm had a unique name, which I forget also, but there wasn't many cases of this type in Geelong's criminal history, so if there's anything about, it'd be easy to spot. Come to think of it, late 80's might be closer to the mark, or very early 90's -- Longhair\^talk 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanbury. I did a newspaper search since I wasn't getting anything useful just with "Wettenhall", and there was a piece in the 'Tiser about the 14th anniversary of the murders just a couple of weeks ago, which has the name of the suspect (Walton) which is extremely useful. It actually went to trial, so there could be some material about, although the guy was acquitted so it won't necessarily be available easily. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the acquittal comes as news to me. I knew the defendant, but only as a passing aquantaince (friends of friends etc), but never heard the end of the story. How does Stanbury fit in? I might look at the 'tiser when I'm down home next week. -- Longhair\^talk 13:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It must have been a large spread, the article's in about 7 parts in the database and it's hard to follow it. It's all in the January 10 edition this year. Turns out I misunderstood one part, the guy hanged himself in his prison cell before it got to trial. I doubt then that there are any publicly available documents from the case that they prepared. However there was a coroner's inquest so there may be documents from that. The guy's full name was Wayne Walton, by the way, and Stanbury was the name of the farm, that seems to be where the murders happened. --bainer (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're on the mark. I knew of the hanging, which is why the acquittal came as a surprise... If you do manage to find anything worth a read online, I'd appreciate if you could email it over to me. If not, I'll visit the Addy next week and see what I can uncover. If I make the next Meetup, I owe you a beer :) -- Longhair\^talk 13:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I found one article from The Age, from about 1993, and emailed that. When you're in Geelong, try going to the Coroner's office, they work out of the Magistrates' Court down there in Geelong, right next to the station. You might be able to get a copy of the findings in that inquest, that would be gold in terms of source material. --bainer (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's not true what they say about lawyers you know, even up and coming ones... cheers :) -- Longhair\^talk 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is ok, and just what I was after. The lad sure was a drifter of sorts, and trouble to the extreme. Luckily, Geelong has seen nothing like it since... I'll visit the courts next week and do some more digging as you suggested. -- Longhair\^talk 13:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How?

How could you delete my comment Bainer? I thought we were friends, or did you just say that? Neoballmon II 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring my Mr. Bainer? What did I ever do to you? Neoballmon II 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

I hope you're enjoying your uni break =) I'm stopping by to ask you to see if you would be able to give a third opinion on the discussion at Talk:University_of_Sydney#Anti_democratic_action_.2F_Threats_against_students. It's a long discussion so I'll summarise it for you. A user, User:JUBALCAIN, had inserted a section into the University of Sydney article, and this was reverted by User:JPD; JUBALCAIN then brought it to the talk page for discussion. The problem that User:Sumple and I have with this section is that it is unreferenced (JUBALCAIN has attempted to provide evidence for the section, but we believe that they are at best, indirect, in that they prove a general problem with the medical students scheme), and adds an unsightly bias towards the article. In support of the section, JUBALCAIN has put forward arguments based on the Australian Constitution, and the supposed need for students to hear about the blasphemy that has been performed by their uni. After a lot of talk, he's starting to come around and found some stuff in Hansard, but it still doesn't prove the specific incident alleged. I was wondering if you would be able to help by commenting on the merits of the paragraph and the evidence provided by JUBALCAIN, as well as provide some guidance to the editors in the dispute. I try to be objective, but I am very well aware that both Sumple and I are at the University of Sydney, so an outside perspective would be good. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:University of Sydney#Outside view. --bainer (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

clarification please

I replied to your warning.

I'd appreciated clarification over your interpretation of "original research".

I looked at your User Page, and your history of contributions, because I found the tone of your message accusatory and domineering.

So I saw that you are an administrator.

Now, your warning — did you mean for me to interpret it as a specific warning that you are about ready to apply a block. or other sanction, against me?

If so, I think I am going to need you to spell out, in greater detail, what kinds of edits are going to trigger this sanction. Should I be concerned that your use of bold, and scornful terms, like "blatantly innappropriate", and "woefully lacking", signals your plan to apply a sanction, without any further warning, or discussion?

Your warning to me — this was the first communication between the two of us, wasn't it?

I gave myself 24 hours before I replied, in order to calm down. I am going to allow myself to offer just one piece of advice to you. May I suggest you consider continuing to feel obliged to try to be civil, and assume good faith, even though you have been entrusted with administrator privileges? — Geo Swan 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I specifically asked User:Garzo for his opinion — about conflating "Yakub" and "Yakup". I see he has already left a note. In fairness, you should see it as a comment on the "Yakub" == "Yakup" issue alone. I know I still have to address your other concern. Geo Swan 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a general comment to whoever would wish to edit the page that unsourced controversial material in biographies of living persons is unacceptable, as is original research in any Wikipedia article. As someone who has been editing for almost exactly as long as I have, you are undoubtedly aware of those policies, but I felt the need to outline them to other readers of the page who seem intent on reverting without considering what they are doing. There are further comments on the article's talk page.

Please also note that I did not say that I would block anyone, and that I have not used administrative tools in a content dispute. --bainer (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

BenBurch RFC

I see you've closed it and I don't disagree with you based on the rules of RfC. I believe there are clearly issues with the approach of BenBurch and FAAFA to articles beyond Free Republic. Do you have any observations while reading through the comments? --Tbeatty 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problems with the RFC were twofold:

1. There was no evidence presented that at least two people tried and failed to resolve the dispute. This step, referred to as "certifying" the basis for the RFC, is necessary to ensure that conflict is not needlessly escalated.
2. There was substantial canvassing by both sides of the dispute. While it is acceptable to announce the existence of an RFC, the appropriate place to do it in this situation would be Talk:Free Republic. The amount of canvassing, which was acknowledged by many of those offering external opinions, indicated that this was largely a dispute between two individuals who need to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes between themselves before involving the community at large.

--bainer (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I understood the rules and I agree with your decision. But, as others on AN/I said, there appears to be a train wreck coming and this is spilling over to other articles and growing. I certified it not because it strictly conformed to the rules but because there is a problem here that needs to have community comment and visibility. The parties are refusing mediation and the issues are too broad to fit in the defintion of RfC as we have seen. Do you have any observations about the comments others made on the RfC that might address this train wreck and help stop it? Anything stand out as an issue that can be adressed? I'll watch your talk page so you can keep discussion here if you choose to. --Tbeatty 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good decision. Derex 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock

The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.

• Husnock is desysopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship.
• Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.
• Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.
• Husnock, who has been desysopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
• Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#Death Threat Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation (such as this sockpuppet [1]) rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome back, bainer - hope your holiday went well. Had any more thoughts about those native title articles you were talking about in December? Rebecca 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this when I saw it. I haven't really finished any articles that I've started since I got back, except for this one, which I only finished yesterday. I should really get working on that, there aren't many weeks left until I'll be busy with uni again. In terms of the native title articles, I'm still struggling with dividing up and organising all of the material, so if you have any ideas I'd appreciate them :) --bainer (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to "huh"...

The article was just undeleted, and I neglected to remove the tag. *whacks self*-Amark moo! 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, I guessed that was probably what happened. --bainer (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Moore you do...

Hey, I just checked out your article from New Articles (OZ). Gotta say, great article for an academic / lawyer.

Having said that - it's in "obvious" need of a copyedit to introduce some section headings and breaks in line with the MOS. Currently it sorta-kinda looks like you threw four different obits into the same article (I know you didn't but it's kind of how the three screenfuls in one section looks).

Having said all that, there are heaps of ppl around who can and do do copyedits, which are comparatively easy compared to doing the research and getting the info into the article. Well done! Is Society of Comparative Legisaltion worth creating as a redirect to British Institute ... ? I'm amazed that Corowa Conference is a redlink! Hey, when they took the second photo - was it the Old Law buiding then or did it get that name at a later date? I bet at some point it was just the Law Building. Then some bugger came and built the new Law Building, but people get sick of calling things New XXX (except, Newtown, because calling Nettown, Town, is just plain stupid!) Garrie 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I typically don't include section breaks in most new biographical articles that I write, simply because most of them are merely cobbled together from the immediately available sources and so usually lack a thematic structure, instead being mainly chronological. Next chance I get to visit the library, I'll be able to get access to some better material to flesh the article out more; I'm hoping to get access to some reviews of his published work, for example.

As to the other points, the Society of Comparative Legislation was one of two bodies which merged to form The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, so a redirect wouldn't really be appropriate in this instance. As for the image, "Old Law building" is indeed the current name, it has had several others, because it was originally the only building in the University. I'm not entirely sure what it was called when Moore was around, but if you can find it out then it would be a good addition to the caption. --bainer (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, Why did you delete my page?

Cocoaleche2 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted several pages recently, may I ask which one you are referring to? --bainer (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Xiaolin Showdown Techniques one

Cocoaleche2 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

Cocoaleche2 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I gotta go to bed. I'll continue this tomorrow. But I just want to let you know I worked my fingers to the bone making that page, and I just started it this morning, so I hope you feel good about yourself. Really, I do, ya jerk.

Cocoaleche2 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the page, I changed it into a redirect. The old versions of the page are still available in [page history]. I changed it into a redirect because it seemed to be quite an incomprehensible list of what appeared to be moves in a video game, with no explanation of what they are, and since the part that made sense already existed at Xiaolin Showdown#Techniques learned I thought it appropriate to redirect there, where the information was at least somewhat in context. --bainer (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugly Hill

Just wanted to say good job closing an ugly AFD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD 2006 Victorian election campaign

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign. Grumpyyoungman01 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Hi. As you closed the discussion on WP:AN, could you explain what's going to happen on the 21st? While the discussion may not have been getting anywhere, there does need to be a plan for what to do. Many thanks. Trebor 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's going to happen. This silly business caused so much disruption the first time around that we can do without the whole thing being re-hashed again and again. Until someone can come up with a new version of the article with consensus backing across the community then there's no point simply repeating the drama. As far as I am concerned, it can stay protected and deleted forever. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't around for the "original" drama, so I can't tell how bad it was. However, Jimbo did say it can be discussed in the future if anyone still cares (which evidently, they do). Requiring a new version of the article with consensus backing across the community before it can even be discussed is essentially giving it no chance (how will you get the consensus?). And while you may think it should stay protected and deleted forever, others have different views, so you shouldn't simply stifle discussion on the matter. From the subsequent comments on WP:AN, others seem to agree, so I would ask you to reconsider whether you're acting objectively. Thanks. Trebor 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm acting to achieve the objective of limiting the harm to the community as much as possible. If you're not familiar with this particular issue, I strongly suggest that you read some of the mountains of previous discussion on it. You can get a good sense of the issue just by glancing at the log for the page. From there you can progress to the articles for deletion debates, all six of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. You'll note that they've all been protected and blanked (debate available in history), as a courtesy to the subject to prevent the text of the debates appearing in search engines. Try also reading some of the mailing list discussion on the subject. As you're not an admin you won't be able to see the article or the talk pages (they have all been deleted) so you won't be able to understand the issue fully, but the basic precis is that the article was little more than an attack page, repeatedly recreated by vicious trolls from various joke sites and shock sites. Every time an honest Wikipedian tried to fix the article, or gave people a chance to write a reasonable article, it was soon overwhelmed by said trolls. Finally, Jimbo intervened for the sake of human dignity, and of sanity, and deleted and protected the page.

I realise my stance is unusual, but my objective is to do what I can to limit further drama here for the good of the community, and to that end I really don't care if I'm "stifling" discussion. I urge you to familiarise yourself with the history of this matter before commenting further. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bainer on this. Anyone who knows me has probably observed that although I don't wear it on my sleeve, I am probably more toward the "inclusionist" side of the spectrum. My bias is strongly toward creating and preserving rather than deleting content. If I feel as strongly as I do on this issue you can be assured it's for solid reasons. I hope that after you do the reading Bainer has suggested you will agree. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused; after the last AfD (no consensus), did Jimbo delete the article anyway? But as I have no strong views on the matter, and can think of far more enjoyable (and useful) ways to spend my time here, I'm not going to keep on about this. Thank you both for your considered responses . Trebor 07:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Rbj

I don't agree that Rbj restoring a deleted comment of someone else (who made a legal threat) to his own user talk page is the same thing as him making a legal threat himself. Far from it. --Jimbo Wales 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, then what is WP:BAN supposed to mean?: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." Rbj is fighting to ensure that legal threats remain on Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know

Per request of User:Coelacan, I semi-protected your talk page. You can unprotect it at your leisure. Apparently the page got hit hard by various sockpuppets. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............

Nice work on the Daniel Brandt RfAr evidence page. Thanks for going through so much work to put together the timeline. ~Crazytales !!! 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. NoSeptember 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't really that much work! It's worth it to present the evidence well because it makes it so much easier for people analysing the evidence. Tra also deserves thanks for having the brilliant idea of using the MediaWiki API to sort out the precise order of certain events, since logs and history pages are only precise to whole minutes. --bainer (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

At 16:32, you might note that I also confronted Yanksox regarding his personal attacks. —freak(talk) 08:28, Feb. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Right, in this revision. Sure thing. --bainer (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Great timeline! It makes everything much clearer (even more now that you also added the messages between the administrators). Thanks for the hard work. --cesarb 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Ideally I'll have my analysis finished soon (my assessment of what people did and how responsible they are for various things), and I'll be able to post that too. It may not be for a couple of days however, I'll be quite busy this week. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Detective barnstar.png		The Detective's Barnstar
		For your outstanding detective work in compiling the timeline discussion on the Daniel Brandt deletion controversy. You've helped to make it far easier to understand what was going on. -- ChrisO 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see UninvitedCompany has copied the timeline to the workshop page with an added discussion column. NoSeptember 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pile-on thanks for that - certainly informative, and you obviously share my love of Wikitables :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to convey thanks as well, although I'd also intended to confer membership in the Wikitable Hall of Fame, to which D.B has more or less beat me; just more evidence of the pervasive Australian conspiracy here. In all seriousness, though, very nice work. :) Joe 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bah, tables are easy. I should have done it as an EasyTimeline. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion archive template

I noticed you used the discussion archive template on the Fuzzy Zoeller talk page for a certain thread; what is that template? You substed it so I couldn't determine what it was. I've wanted to use that before and didn't know what the template was. Thanks, JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The templates are {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}. All the different sorts can be found at Category:Archival templates, there are some slight variations which are useful for particular types of discussions. --bainer (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Compliments

Dear Thebainer, I just wanted to compliment you with the way you closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt. This undoubtely will turn out to be one of the more complicated DRV discussions and decisions ever and I think not many editors would have been able to close this debate with so much clarity and tact. We can only hope the upcoming AfD discussion will be as rational as this closure, whatever the outcome will be. Keep up the good work! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I second these sentiments. Even though, as full disclaimer, I supported the decision you eventually took, your summary of the positions and the relations among them was very well done, and given that, I would have supported any decision you made there. My compliments. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for closing it. I really wasn't looking forward to being the closer, and agree fully with the way you have closed it. GRBerry 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Others beat me to it in complimenting and thanking you. I really like how you emphasized the areas in which consensus did exist. Kla'quot 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say the same! Excellent summary of the debate. Jokestress 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Let me pile on with the support. A great example of treating these as discussions, not votes. William Pietri 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to bainer in recognition of good judgement in a volatile DRV debate. Borisblue 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sold by your outside-the-box solution. Though, I doubt such a sensible resolution will occur. Derex 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to the voices of support above. At some point we need to rethink the way we close highly controversial AfDs and DRVs like this, but you did an excellent job under the circumstances, providing a well reasoned rationale with an outcome that should be acceptable to all (I haven't heard much noise about the issue since). I'm sure the AfD will pose a similar challenge, but I'd be deeply uncomfortable had the speedy deletion been endorsed. I'm not sure about the mergist approach -- it seems true for anyone except those who are born to fame, that they are famous for what they do; that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a biography. But that's a discussion to save for the AfD, I guess. :-) --Eloquence* 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks

Speaking as an Arbiter, I wanted to express my personal thanks, and let you know how extremely useful I, and I'm sure the other Arbiters, found your timeline in the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war case to be. Again thank you. Paul August ☎ 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a timeline?

There has been a request for a timeline similar to your Brandt wheel-war one to aid discussion at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay. I'd been thinking that you might be a candidate with the proven ability to put one together. Could you? GRBerry 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I could, but you should be asking would I. I doubt there will be much necessity for it since Jimbo has asked him to resign his positions of trust and I have little doubt he will comply with the request. I also doubt a timeline would offer any insights over, say, a thematic grouping of data, and indeed the opposite would probably be true. --bainer (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt AfD

I know your DRV close notes indicated this would go through AfD in a week, but the article was turning into a battleground of speedy deletion nominations, WP:IAR stub/protect actions and other related editing that was, at least in my fairly outside opinion, a deteriorating situation. That said, I've gone ahead and nominated it for AfD as a procedural action with a request that the AfD be allowed to go the full 5 days with no WP:SNOW or other early closures. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers!--Isotope23 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok! Don't mind that so many people seemed to agree with my close, they're probably just silly! Some people might have worried that starting the debate right in the very middle of, as you say, an ongoing "battleground" and "deteriorating situation" might not have been the best idea, but don't worry about that either! I'm sure you took that into consideration and decided that it wouldn't be a problem. And it's really no big deal that recent events have done nothing but underline that rushing things and taking unpredictable action is what causes all the trouble. It's no big deal at all! Cheers! --bainer (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia Review

Pursuant to this dif I hope you will not close this . Also, please don't assume that people who disagree with you are somehow not being moral- you aren't the only person with a moral compass and disagreement about what you think is or is not moral doesn't mean other people aren't thinking about morality. Furthermore, even if they aren't thinking about morality, it isn't obvious that that is a relevant concern. JoshuaZ 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you to read all pertinent discussions in full, because I feel that several people don't have the full picture. I'll supply the links for the things you should read:

• the full text of the DRV close;
• the full WR thread, including my reply to Everyking (be sure to read this after you have read the closing notes, or you will not understand where I have paraphrased myself);
• the full text of the Gregory Lauder-Frost AfD, particularly my closing notes;
• the full text of the subsequent deletion review of my close of that debate.

I heartily suggest that you (or anyone else who feels tempted to comment) familiarise yourself with that material before commenting any further. --bainer (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read all that (in fact, I had read most of that before) and I think it looks disturbingly close to you having pre-judged the results you want and then constructing a long seemingly impartial analysis to get it. Please also remember that an appearance of impartiality is almost as important as impartiality itself. Incidnetally, who the heck is Somey? JoshuaZ 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand your assertion. My stated preference (which I have been open about) is for merging the contents of the article elsewhere, since it is really Brandt's work that is notable more than he is. If I had "pre-judged the results [I] want" to obtain my preference, surely the article would have undergone a merge?

Your basis for deducing that I want the article deleted is faulty. You have clearly misunderstood what I said in my post. I suggest you read it again, and if you still misunderstand it, then I can explain to you how you have misunderstood. --bainer (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said that you wanted it deleted did I? I am in fact about equally concerned that you had decided in advance to delete or merge the content without regard to the prevailing consensus. In any event, having you close it is not a good idea at this point in time. JoshuaZ 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

list improvements

thank you! If it's ok I will cross post what you wrote on my talk as a reply to the section on the talk page (more visibility). - Denny 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. --bainer (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, trimmed down. I left two in, you'll see on talk on Brandt. - Denny 05:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Sysops should respect WP policies, pls dont run your own agenda

You violated Help:Minor_edit#When_to_mark_an_edit_as_minor. Please respect policies and don't run your own agenda. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to rant randomly on my talk page, but I would appreciate it if you would identify what you're ranting about, for the benefit of the non-mindreaders in the room. I admit, I am curious to know how one can violate a help page. --bainer (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for welcoming randomly ranting. I would appreciate if you and other would not do so. Even without mind readers it should be possible to see, that I did not mean you violated the help page, but you violated the rules that are written down there. As the headline said "Also Sysops should respect WP policies, pls dont run your own agenda" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to contact me on my talk page at any time. On the matter at hand, I realise you were asserting that I had broken some rule, I was just wondering how that is possible with a help page, which is a technical guide to using the MediaWiki software. Also, I still don't understand to which edit or edits you are referring. --bainer (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Help pages are not policy. Only these pages are policy; anything on a help page is a guideline at best, and officially not even that – Qxz 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ICAC and the CCC

Have you got any ongoing projects at the moment? I've been just looking around some of the law articles, and came across our decidedly sucky articles on the Independent Commission Against Corruption (NSW) and Corruption and Crime Commission (WA). ICAC has a pretty interesting history, and the CCC is very much in the news at the moment with the ongoing corruption hearings, so they might be interesting projects to undertake. I'd like to give them a go myself, but they're probably a bit difficult to try and cover on my own. Rebecca 11:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They both look like good topics. I'm a little busy at the moment both on- and off-wiki; uni obviously just started again and I'm very busy with that, and my current project is rewriting Commonwealth v Tasmania to featurable grade (which is a more manageable task than working on the native title subjects!). I can certainly help you out with research though. --bainer (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dili_airport_aust_troops.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dili_airport_aust_troops.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now removed my listing from the volunteers and status pages. --bainer (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my asking directly, but I'm looking for admin coaching. It was recommended that we directly contact coaches. I have been with wikipedia since july 9th 2006 and have 2 (almost 3) featured pictures. I'm aiming for my first attempt at the RfA around june/july time. Probably on july 9th when it's been exactly one year, as that gives me a good 2-3 months to get up to standard. I'm looking for guidance on where I can be more active and where I can plug any potential holes in my RfA. I shall endevaour not to be much of a burden should you agree. All the best: WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry WikipedianProlific, but I won't be able to coach you because I'm not doing coaching anymore. I had meant to withdraw my name from the list when the message came around before, but I didn't get around to it. As you can see from Transhumanist's message, the coaching system recently changed; when I joined it was about helping editors learn how to do more complicated things, now it's about coaching people for RfA, which is not something I want to do. I hope you can find someone else to coach you! --bainer (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Melbourne meetup

The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.

Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.

Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Eve Ensler

Hi there! I saw that you removed some info from the Eve Ensler article with a fairly official-sounding notation. Does that mean there was a complaint? The statements about her father are widely reported and often a topic in her work (NYT,Lifetime, NPR). Her relationship status was out of date, but she was living with someone for about 15 years prior to a messy breakup. I wanted to check in with you before adding this stuff in, since the link to OTRS doesn't explain anything, and I don't know how to view the original ticket. Thanks! Jokestress 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate a response. Thanks! Jokestress 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug Wead

The links I posted are all clearly related and link. The reversions are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer (talk • contribs).

The problem is that I have searched through a number of newspaper databases indexing the Washington Times and I have been unable to find any articles about Wead on the date that you specify, or indeed on any similar dates. It may be that the article exists, but I am unable to find it with the information that you have provided. If you could provide the title of the article, that would allow me to verify the source. --bainer (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this sentence?

Not only was the article archived on Washington Post website but the title article number was right there. How can this be an unbiased article with no mention of why he left the Whitehouse in the first place? The reasons why he was fired are well-documented and were well-covered in many media outlets in 1990. The same information was revisited by all the news organizations in 2005, when he released the tapes of President Bush.

Why is that bad, but then you let the following statement stay? "In 1995 he helped reopen Canyonville Christian Academy, [5] a private boarding school for teenagers in southern Oregon originally founded in 1924. For three years, Mr. Wead personally subsidized the school’s monthly budget." I checked with the school and they've said that Mr. Wead did NOT subsidize their budget and they were curious why he would make this claim. Where did you find it? As I could not find any reference to this at all. This is a double standard on your part and definitely biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42946 http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1992-06-10/news/the-tangled-roots-of-doug-wead/1 http://www.houstonvoice.com/print.cfm?cid=1919 http://www.sovo.com/print.cfm?content_id=3363 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=a965408b4c9b3780&ex=1266555600&partner=rssuserland http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/conspiracy/amwaybush2.shtml http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0412/S00154.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/politics/24wead.html?ei=5090&en=9d51f213706023f3&ex=1266901200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position= http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9113

Jim Bakker actually has a full chapter dedicated to Doug Wead in his book, "I Was Wrong."

If that's not enough to meet the requirements, then please let me know and I can find some more. I'm curious if the superintendent knows about Mr. Wead's arrest warrant for his shady business practices in France.

"After receiving numerous complaints about GEPM (Mr. Wead's business venture), French authorities moved in to shut it down, but this time it issued criminal arrest warrants, 13 for the company's distributors, and 2 for Godzich and Wead. Godzich took all the cash and fled the country and Wead never returned to France." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00279.htm

All this information shows a dramatically different story than what's posted on Wikipedia now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I have no interest in Wead, I just have a general interest in making sure that all content in articles on living persons are adequately referenced and verifiable. I couldn't find the source that you mentioned in either the Washington Post archive, or in the LexisNexis newspaper database. I have subsequently found an article from that date in the Factiva database, however, which is presumably the one you are referring to: it's by John Elvin, and the article's title is "Weaded out". Was this the article you had?

You just need to make sure that, when you add material to an article, other people are able to check your sources. Information like the author and the title of the source is crucial because not everyone will have access to the sources in the same way that you do (I'm presuming you have a subscription to the Post's archive since you provided the number of the article). This page offers some instructions on ways to cite sources.

One last thing you might want to consider is the way you express statements in articles. Particularly with opinions, it's a good idea to attribute statements directly to the sources you are using. You do this here to some extent when you say that "The Times reported..." but you should take care not to come to conclusions yourself ("Mr. Wead was fired for his anti-gay agenda..."), instead simply neutrally state what the sources say. --bainer (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on Doug Wead

Tigerlil74 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)We have been watching with some interest the evolving biography of the president of CCA. I saw a comment that someone had contacted our school and was told that Mr. Wead had not subsidized our school's monthly budget. This is a false statement. I am the superintendent of the school and can be reached at www.canyonville.net or by calling the CCA offices when they open next week. No one has contacted me and our offices are closed for Spring Break.

I know of no one in a position to know at CCA who would make such a statement to this person. If anyone has made such a statement to this person, it is false. In the first years of our reopening Mr. Wead did indeed subsidize our monthly budget donating personal funds and ever since continues to help raise funds for the school. He also uses his many foreign speaking engagements to promote the school and help us attract students. Mr. Wead has helped us arrange scholarship money for students in tragic circumstances around the world. We are grateful for his work.

Sincerely, --Tigerlil74 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Superintendent, Canyonville Christian Academy, Canyonville, Oregon.

So anyone who donates to your organization can claim that they've subsidized your budget? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer (talk • contribs).

Battle Frontier userfication

just wanted to say thank you! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug Wead

I am troubled that this particular contributor, Thetruthexplainer, keeps stripping the article of sources such as Time Magazine, etc. This takes a lot of work and is suddenly lost to everyone. If there is some personal issue here then he or she should contact the person directly and resolve it and not use this bio as a posting board.

As to the article about Mr. Wead being fired, I actually have no doubt that something like this was published. Thetruthexplainer is probably right and I too am trying to find it. I live in Arizona and I think it was raised as an issue here when Wead ran for congress but as I remember, it was one day because of the lack of substance. My question is what did the White House say? Either he was or he wasn't. If he was it would surely have been a major issue in his run for congress but it is not mentioned anywhere. It certainly does not warrant a major part of his bio if the White House doesn't acknowledge it and his political opponents never mention it. Has anyone thought of checking with the Presidential Library in Texas?

What was especially odd was the constantly inserted statement that Mr. Wead has an anti gay agenda. Does the article say that? I doubt it. A search on Mr. Wead brings up thousands of pages, heck, he has written 30 books, and there is nothing anti-gay. For almost 20 years I shared the same literary agent with Mr. Wead. It was Jed Mattes, who was a leader in the gay activist movement and was the most prominent gay literary agent. Mattes was thrilled with Wead's career and bragged on his bestseller about Presidential children. I think this anti-gay business is a perception based on Wead’s evangelical religion, as well as word-of-mouth myth.

I guess I am confused by the venomous attitude of this person. Does he or she KNOW Doug Wead? I have known Wead for 20 years and have been amazed at how much he gives of his life and energy and intelligence and substance to worthy causes. Please, sir, if you have issues with him, contact him directly and work it out. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merryjaz (talk • contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

____________________________________

"Venomous" attitude? That is an extremely strange statement. My goal is not for this to turn into a message board. Obviously you have a very close relationship with Mr. Wead. I find it somewhat hateful and possibly anti-gay yourself that you would jump on that portion of the bio, as though that was the point. Its funny that you consider a comment that is possibly gay-sympathetic as "venomous"? I am not pro-gay or anti-gay, however, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Wead was dismissed from his position as liason because of his "anti-gay" actions. It was well documented and should be included in his biography. One does not leave a prominent role in the Whitehouse for no reason. (Pursuing the Arizona run has no relevance to this matter). If you read closely, you'll see several articles from ARIZONA printed during Mr. Wead's run there discussing the facts of his dismissal. Mr. Wead was FAMOUS for his close EVANGELICAL relationship to James Bakker and therefore, I feel Bakker's chapter on Mr. Wead in his book "I Was Wrong" to be extremely credible. His recounting of events was extremely similar to the other news articles of the 1990s and includes a lot more detail into why Mr. Wead constantly promotes himself the way he repeatedly does.

As for stripping article sources... I have done no such thing. I merely added the paragraph about his departure from the Whitehouse. I have no ill feelings towards Mr. Wead. I did not add any of the other news articles about his business deals or his tumultuous personal life. Mr. Wead's personal life is his own.

My main concern is that this particular Wikipedia biography reads like the promo on the back of Mr. Wead's own books. It is not neutral in anyway and any neutral comments that are posted are quickly edited off. It would appear the page was either written/maintained by Mr. Wead himself, or it was written/maintained by his publicist. Is Wikipedia about self-promotion? Or is it about factual relevance?