User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 3

Scree
You obviously use a form of slang that is unknown to the rest of the world. Scree cannot be found in any of the most concise slang and colloquialism dictionaries.

I have no problem if you plan to continue rebuking me using your own slang, as long as you follow it up with a definition. This would make conversing with you alot easier.

--Conrad-14 year old boy 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To Arms Comrade
Comrade Thebainer

The time has come. The worker is restless. Join us in overthrowing the filthy capitalist pigs.

No Longer will i be referred to as Conrad-14 tear old boy. You may adress me as Comrade Tzan Tsu

Any articles that you wish to contribte to the communist newspaper are most welcome.

HAIL LENIN

--Comrade Tzan-tsu 00:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishes
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 17:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Royal Commission referencing
I asked about the above on the talk page for List of Australian Royal Commissions. Paul foord 10:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a note on the talk page about the source I used to create the list. Sorry for the slow reply, I've been on holiday for two weeks. --bainer (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
I notice that you have a lot of fair use images on your user page (according to this report, 229 of them). You should know that, in accordance with Fair use, you can't display these images on user pages. I suggest that you either remove them from your user page, or write the link like so: Image:Somefile.jpg (note the colon at the front) so as to link to the image without displaying it. --bainer (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I had no idea we weren't allowed to display such pics on user pages. I guess that would be my main criticism of Wikipedia - there's so many help pages and guidelines, pointers and projects, policies and preferences, that it can be easy to miss important info. It's a real shame cos it made my life easier and made my user page look nice, but I guess rules is rules. I've removed them as per your suggestion. Gram 11:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a sort of legal-technical thing, which I won't explain here, you can read about it at WP:FU. Basically, we can only claim fair use if we are using the images fairly according to the fair use laws, and 99% of the time a use outside the main article space is not legally fair.
 * If you want to keep them as links (adding a colon at the front), that's fine. And you only have to not display the ones labelled fair use, all others are fine to have on user pages. --bainer (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gram, but I've done the same. -- Elisson • Talk 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned to the others who replied, the reason is a legal one, which basically overrides all the policy on the subejct. The legal stuff is discussed at WP:FU, if you haven't read that, I suggest you do, it's very useful. Thank you for removing the images though, remember you can link to images without displaying by putting a colon before Image in the link ( Image:Somefile.jpg ). --bainer (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also commented mine. --YUL89YYZ 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. The reason is a legal one, otherwise I wouldn't be interfering in user pages. WP:FU offers a pretty good treatment of the rules on this subject, if you haven't read it yet it's really helpful. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

HELLO Conrad- 14 year old socialist (formerly Conrad- 14 year old boy) Says HI --Conrad-14 year old socialist 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2
Then go ahead and merge. The whole point of my long discourse on "no consensus" was to discourage "OMG SEE IT WAS CLOSED AS 'NO CONSENSUS; KEEP' DON'T REDIRECT" and encourage being bold to do just that! :) Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The merge is already done, so no need. The clarification was mostly for other people, eg DreamGuy. cheers, --bainer (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
My belated reply to you for your welcome message on my user page. I'm not really so new as all that, but it's still nice to see your cheery note everytime I check my talk page. Thanks for being a welcomer. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

admin nominations revert
Hi. Excuse me if I am a bit slow, but what do you mean by "unaccepted"? I admit being so bold as to put forward my own name, so I certainly agree to my nomination. And the rest of the procedure should be the voting process by the community, as I understood it, which of course can not take place if the nominations are not put up on the respective page. What is going wrong here? -- Kku 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies, there were a large block of nominations added by another user which had not been accepted by the nominees, and yours happened to be in the middle. I've unhidden your nomination now. --bainer (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia AU
elements cross-posted


 * Done; you're now a chanop (and channel alternate contact). Good luck. If you need anything, just shout.
 * James F. (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers! --bainer (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Helen Mayo

 * Woot, finally my first barnstar! Cheers! --bainer (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

protected Henri Poincaré
Hi, Thebainer. You (and later Splash) ed the Henri Poincaré article to stop an edit war there..

Most of the editors participating in that edit war have attempted to achieve a consensus (e.g. ), but one anonymous editor wants to keep the article locked and instead continues minority POV-pushing and personal attacks. That anonymous editor apparently uses multiple IP addresses, perhaps to attempt to influence straw polls.

Although I did not attempt to represent myself as an administrator, one anonymous editor has the false impression that I am an administrator. Perhaps that is the result of my archiving and refactoring the talk page and my unsuccessful attempt to educate the editors about WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK. Please advise at to whether I should correct that assumption.

Anyway, the POV-pushing anonymous editor is committed to the position that Wikipedia state facts, regardless of controversy, so it is unclear how to unprotect the article page without restarting the edit war. Would you suggest WP:MEDCAB or, perhaps, an RfC? The Rod 02:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've tried to follow the developments on the talk page since it was protected, without much success. I don't see how any of that discussion is relevant on that page, it belongs on Talk:General relativity if it belongs everywhere. I think a good place to start would be for the anons to get an account each (point them to WP:REG) so that the talk is easier to follow. Another good step would be to leave the page protected but fork a copy to a subpage (something like Henri Poincaré/draft) to work out a wording which can satisfy everyone. Remind them about WP:NPOV also. Give that a couple of days and see how it goes. Would you like me to handle all that or do you want to do it? --bainer (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. Feel free to handle that if you'd like. Otherwise, I'll do so tomorrow (I'm at GMT-8), as I have to leave now. Cheers! The Rod 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The new account Licorne appears to be the anonymous editor who took your advice and registered, but he or she will not directly say whether that is the case. Instead, the editor replies to simple questions with exclamations of "false accusations". Thus, I don't know whether to continue encouraging the anonymous editor to register. As you may already know, the Henri Poincaré POV editor(s) have been pushing the same POV on the Albert Einstein page. The talk pages thus fill quickly with non-productive posts. The talk pages need considerable summarizing for anyone new to participate, but I hesitate to do so since I am now involved.
 * In any event, since the only registered editor doing so seems unwilling to engage in civil conversation on his or her talk page, I see no alternative but to file a user conduct RfC. Do you have any further suggestions? The Rod 05:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I kind of think the protection has outlived its usefulness.... the other page in the dispute, Albert Einstein, is unprotected, and Licorne's edits get reverted pretty quickly when they're undocumented or POV - as is the case most of the time. The protection has also made it impossible to insert a link to Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories, which I think is where the discussion belongs. But if we have to wait until Licorne gives up, I don't know when one can unprotect the page. Thoughts? --Alvestrand 20:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I suppose that now the RfC has started, continued bad editing will just provide more evidence. I'll leave a note on the talk page, and if there are no objections in 24 hours or so, I'll unprotect. For future reference, WP:RFPP deals with unprotection requests aswell as protection requests, if the protecting admin is not available. --bainer (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Josiah Symon
Great job on that article. If only we had more articles like this on the early politicians. :) Ambi 10:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers! I'm working through that Dictionary of Biography list of yours at the moment, and I was doing his entry and just kept finding more stuff to add in. --bainer (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh
I have edited this article removing unverified stuff and adding stuff from verifiable sources. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 10:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

About your outside view on the userbox deletions
Please try to remain as civil as you can please. M o e  ε  20:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne University Student Union
Thanks for the heads up, added in a different perspective as you suggested and disclosed my interest in the edit summary. DarrenRay 09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Darren, I've left some comments on Talk:Melbourne University Student Union. It may also be useful to add a description of each link, since plain links are inherently ambiguous. --bainer (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ten-million pool
The Ten-million pool is open now! Can you place your vote?? Georgia guy 23:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 02:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

AWB Spelling etc
Thanks for your honorable note :-). In British English "honour" is the spelling of "honor", but "honorary" is just the same as in American English. Best wishes, --Ian Pitchford 07:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: ContrvAusHist
Yeah, I came in a bit late through the right-side door (as view from seats). And yes I had my hair cut. I will make an effort to get there a bit earlier next week and look out for you. I guess you're not in my tute :P (10am Wed, room 205)

Anyway, you might have noticed that the wording of the middle part of the lecture was basically taken straight from my work at Myall Creek massacre!


 * goes to read article* Wow!!!!! Hah, you're so right! "The memorial was vandalised in January 2005, with the words "murder", "women" and "children" chiselled off, in an attempt to make it unreadable." -- straight in the lecture. That's so funny! She's my tutor, maybe I'll say something tomorrow. Hehe. I'll bet she had no idea she was sourcing material written by her students!

I guess now we can make as many copies of the lecture as we want, since it's GFDL licenced.

Oh, I'm sure it was only a fair use excerpt, don't get carried away (or so hopeful that even academics would read the fineprint on WP). *grins*

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the next one...Eureka? No, the Maritime strike? Are you writing that up as we speak? :) I will probably say something minor, just have a slight dig at her. Not too embarassing. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now if you catch Stuart Macintyre cribbing off WP... Signpost-worthy! pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

R v Davidson
Fantastic work. :) Ambi 03:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

AMA
Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Help
Bainer. Can you help me out with User:Lefty on campus and user:PSYCH who's one year personal attack parole is up. Thjey are harrassing me and making personal attacks against me, especially on User:Lefty on campus's user page. I have tried to have him stop and Mark Gallagher has told him to stop, but he keeps doing it. Xtra 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Xtra, I'm having a look at this now, gimme a minute to look at the relevant pages. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm the chappie that made the mistake of giving a 3O a few days ago, so am keeping an eye on what happens. I gave the original 3O to Lefty, saying that it did look like a PA to me, and recommended its removal) (Lefty removed the 3O from his talk page). This resulted in an edit war between Xtra and Lefty (I did suggest to Xtra that the best response was to let it be removed by someone else but I can understand that's easier said than done! I see they are both blocked now, one for NPA, and one for edit warring (both justified imo, btw). I see Xtra is concerned that PSYCH and Lefty may be the same person as requested on User_talk:Tim_Starling (which you see Lefty replied to). I can see why the question was raised, the coincidence of PSYCH reappearing for the first time since July just as Lefty is pushing Xtra to remove a link seems a little unusual. I see the edit that Xtra objected to (and both myself andn Mark Gallagher thought was a personal attack has been re-inserted, so it's not looking like it's been resolved yet, alas. Just thought I'd fill you in from an outside obsever's view. Regards, MartinRe 02:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NSW v Cth
Thanks. I'm planning to do pages on the three cases referred to at the end - Re Wakim, Bond and Hughes. Also I think the s51(xx) page needs some significant work. Shadow007 01:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for closure
Just like to say "well done" for your masterly closure on Articles for deletion/Artbox: if all closures were as detailed and indeed reasoned as that I suspect things would get happier all round. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I find that many of the problems arise when people can't understand why the closer chose a certain action, that's why I started putting these notes on all the controversial or complicated closures I do. Hopefully the reasoning will help the decision to stand, aswell, although I wouldn't mind seeing this go to DRV, as it would be an excellent example to illustrate that AfD is about debating, not voting. --bainer (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bechna.com
Hi, how's it going. You closed this AfD as no consensus. Did you mean to? The few votes to keep were backed up by nothing more than the weakest rationales while many of the greater no. of votes to delete were from long standing editors with reasoned rationales. Admins have to do more than count votes and apply their own basic math formula when making decisions, in the spirit of holding admins accountable for their actions I have to say I find this decision strange. Do you consider votes such as "Weak keep, looks like possibly notable in India" to be significant? Have you seen the article and site? I´ll be taking this to deletion review. Hopefully you'll have a chance to look at the article in question, the site and the AfD debate and join me there, Cheers.  Dei z io  11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Deiz, as you may have seen from the previous message left on my talk page, about my closure of Articles for deletion/Artbox, I do indeed take closures very seriously. I appreciate that you may consider the comments of the people who supported keeping the article to be weak, but on the other hand, the rationales of those who supported deletion were fairly weak also ("advertising/nn website", for example). Samir did offer a good reason, however I can't consider that the people who contributed before him agreed with him. As a final factor, the comments of Bluesargam tended to weigh against Samir's comments. Also note that an article reading like advertising is not a problem requiring deletion. So ultimately there is no consensus here. That said, I have no objections to another nomination in a week or two which is based on Samir's argument from the beginning. --bainer (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do see that and I appreciate your reasoning and prompt reply, a quick sniff around also tells me that you're a solid admin. I still don't see what's good about this page, and there is absolutely no verification that this subject is notable. I also don't know what value a "Conditional keep" vote has, that's just indicriminate inclusionism. I am constantly frustrated by the ability of a couple of people with vested interests in an article, and a couple of blind inclusionists to be able to keep through no consensus something which so blatantly doesn't belong. Admins have to be guided by policy as well as the AfD debate. However, per your reply I will hold off on deletion review and see if anyone can verify this articles worthiness. Nice one  Dei z io  12:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC).


 * You're welcome. On the subject of "conditional keep", it is essentially a message to the closing admin to interpret the person's comments in a certain way depending on what happens between their comment and when the debate closes. For example, it is quite common for people to say something like "Conditional keep, if someone provides some sources. Otherwise, delete." Thus, if no sources have been provided by the time the discussion is closed, the closer can interpret the comment as supporting deletion. This is useful because most people only visit an AfD once during the time it is open. --bainer (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

ACOTF
You voted for Rum Rebellion. It has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration. Please help to improve the article. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 12:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAR
I have submitted an arb request against Resid and named you as a minor party as you helped mediate the original situation. NSL E (T+C) at 11:51 UTC (2006-03-21)


 * I was wondering what you were talking about there, but I see you've removed the request, in favour of RfC. I see no entry in the list of user RfCs, however, did you decide against proceeding any further? --bainer (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have maintained the whole way through that any RFC would not be started by me. I dropped in in favour of an RFC that could be started by another involved party, and I would then participate in it, but I have no intentions of initiating something I feel to be useless. NSL E (T+C) at 06:15 UTC (2006-03-23)

Bornman Article
Good afternoon, my name is Dom Perignon and I was conducting research into a criminal investigation is being conducted in British Columbia, Canada. You have indicated some problems with source, however, the sources listed in the article are all from reputable well known newpapers in Vancouver and Canada. Additionally, the information that these newspapers rely on is from an "Information to Obtain" that was released by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the Public. Is it the opinion of administrators (you) that an Police Information to Obtain is not a verifiable source? Is it also your opinion that information optained from maintream newspapers is not a proper source for information about an ongoing police investigation?

I was the person that emailed you anonymously to indicate that the content had problems (interceptor_of_fleas@hotmail.com). I am also the person responsible for most of the content.

As an additional project, I am looking into censorship process on Wikipedia. Is it the opinion of the administrators that information pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation, that has been made public, is not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article? If this is the case, it would seem that Wikipedia doesn't have much relevance as a source of information on ongoing political events then. So much for freedom of expression.

Thank you,

Dom Perignon —This unsigned comment was added by Domperignon (talk • contribs).


 * I have reviewed the postings of “Domperignon” and noticed that he has overlooked two important facts:
 * 1.	The Information to Obtain referenced by “Domperignon,” which was drafted in 2003, was finally released in mid 2004 with a clear statement from RCMP and Crown Prosecutor that Bornman (along with many other politically active British Columbians named in the 2003 Information to Obtain) was NOT a subject of the ongoing investigation.
 * 2.	The investigation mentioned is now complete (as of December 2004) and three individuals have been criminally charged in relation to that investigation (none of which are Bornman).
 * “Domperignon” has pasted together a creative, but inaccurate collection of blog entries and opinion pieces to support his proposition. To what end?  We can only speculate. —This unsigned comment was added by MildlyAnnoyed (talk • contribs).


 * Dom, see my comments at Talk:Erik Bornman about where to go from here, with regards to the content.
 * As to the issue of your email saying that the article had problems, in the future, please do not do this. Wikipedia has an extensive dispute resolution process which is where you should go to resolve content disputes with other editors. I find it somewhat disingenuous that you phrased your email as if you were an uninvolved party, or even as if you were the subject of the article himself. Libellous content in Wikipedia articles is a serious problem, which is dealt with seriously by the volunteers who respond to public emails. I find it particularly disturbing that you have done this seemingly as an experiment to test "censorship process on Wikipedia". You are forgiven this time, but in the future do not abuse the good faith of Wikipedia editors, who want nothing more than to improve the encyclopaedia. Certainly do not use well-meaning editors as the subject of experiments. The assumption of good faith is what keeps Wikipedia running, please respect this in the future. --bainer (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am more than a little upset at your suggestion that I did not act in good faith in submitting the article to be reviewed by the administrators. This was done initially in response to an assertion by an unknown poster that what was contained in the article was "possibly libelous". Again, the sources for the content on this article in relation to the raids are well known Canadian newpapers and one newer online newspaper. My concern over censorship related to the almost complete elimination of anything in the article that related to the raids, even though, again, Bornman is or was a central figure in the raids - a central figure being someone whose residence was searched by the RCMP and who was named in the Informations to Obtain. I could have started with a general article on the raids, however, this decision was not made simply for expediency - the idea initially was to finish this article, then move on to the next article on Mr. Basi or other key players. The idea was never to focus just in on Mr. Bornman. Frankly, the more interesting article deals with the other principles...this one was supposed to be the easiest and the most straightforward. Anyways, I am not contributing anything more to Wikipedia... When information is drawn from reputable sources this is simply erased or glossed over. Its a nice experiment, but overprone to revisionism...at least in regard to political actors. Dom 3:03, 25 March 2006 EST

series (mathematics)
Please note that mathematical series is a redirect page. One should link instead to series (mathematics). Michael Hardy 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes sorry, I did note that when I looked at series, and I linked to the correct page with some I did earlier, but I must have forgotten. I should probably change the disambiguation page so that it doesn't use piped links. Thanks for reminding me! --bainer (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian sportspeople and WP:AUSSPORT
Hello bainer. I see that you have created Kerryn McCann and Danni Miatke. Good work. Care to join us at WikiProject Australian Sports?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India
I wanted to thank you for you very thorough closing of this AfD. It wasn't on my watchlist, so I didn't think to check back until now. Although I voted delete on the grounds of original research, I was slightly uncomfortable with the prospect of this article being the deleted the way the AfD discussion had gone down. Many administrators would have closed the vote as a simple no consensus, but you took the time to go through and glean what had been accomplished and I wanted to let you know that your effort was appreciated. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that one of the problems with AfD is that the close or complex debates often don't reach a satisfactory conclusion, especially when the result is "no consensus" (in the sense of there not being a majority for any given option). Providing an explanation hopefully helps spur some action in the future. Unfortunately it seems that nothing much has happened with these articles. The problem with them is that they are indeed original research, since the facts are verifiable but editors are drawing their own conclusions from those facts. I think a good merge is in order for all of them, and I might go ahead and do that shortly. --bainer (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)