User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 5

'Categorizing' supercentenarians'
Greetings,

Why is it that people enjoy barging into areas for which they are not expert, to dictate terms to others, when the end result is less for all of us? Wikipedia is proving to be a major disappointment as some people are so obsessive with 'order' that they have 'lost sight of the goal.' Just like the IAU trying to come up with a 'one size fits all' definition for 'planet' (that approach was abandoned as references to extra-solar systems were deleted), so there is no one Wikipedia 'rule' that can be thought up that best applies in every situation.

Regarding 'categorization': categories are set up to make it easy to find articles that are similar or of like kind. If, to satisfy the need of some, someone wants to make a subcategory, that doesn't make the main category redundant. We don't say that a category like 'American' is redundant because we have a category about 'Tennessee.' Also, consider this: some benighted individuals, focused only on their own parochial world view, have created 'subcategories' like 'British supercentenarians.'  But doesn't the 'world's oldest person' include the entire world? To try to fit everyone into one nation is like trying to dissolve the UN. It's not helpful and it's actually harmful. Is Betsy Baker British or American? Or both? And is Jeanne Calment of local, or UNIVERSAL, interest? The answer is 'UNIVERSAL.' Hence the need for a 'UNIVERSAL' category.

→ R Young {yak ł talk } 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that people continue to destroy and tear down, rather than build up? We see people remove images of Christina Cock, Joan Riudavets, etc all because of some alleged 'unsourced' claim, when in fact the images were sourced.

Now people extraneous to the field are going around, tearing down the 'supercentenarians' category which was THERE FIRST.

I did give Wikipedia 'first go' on information in the past. I may not so in the future. → R Young {yak ł talk } 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual dispute
Thanks for userfying Factual dispute. --Uncle Ed 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your assistance re: User:SirIsaacBrock and User:Liftarn
Just a note to say that your diligence in pursuing User:Liftarn's report and subsequently User:SirIsaacBrock's report was greatly appreciated. Thanks for your assistance! Netscott 01:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems. It's always nice to put the blocks in the right place. --bainer (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
''Bonjour I'm Russell (Jim Bart), I'm trying to make Wikipedian friends.

G. Patrick Maxwell RfD and Midgley - HELP
Thank you for the comments on my talkpage.

Please help me on the comment page of Rfd. Midgely falsely accused me of removing his comment, then went on a rant about my alleged bias (as if he and Oliver don't have one). He threatened me, and insulted, and frankly, defamed me. Ian is being very timid in correcting this. HE did say that he moved the comment but that is all. He feels he is too 'involved' to admonish Midgely. If this is allowed to continue, Wikopedia will suffer and Gfwesq and I will continue to b e defamed. Gfwesq has proven to Ian that he and I are not the same person. This is unbelievable and it is worse that it is allowed to continue. PLEASE HELPMollyBloom 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is only a part of what Midgely wrote in his accusation of me, and this is Ian's response: Deletion of comments One of the pathognomic features of advocacy in pursuit of an agenda rather than an effort to write an encyclopaedia of general use seems to be deletion of other people's comments from for instance AFDs. Mollybloom dleted this comment of mine, and therefore affected what subsequent participants might know of the background. [15]

Note: Right, that diff shows it moved down, if you scrool down, you see it reappears, it seems that just a linebreak was added. Unfortunatly, this comment did manage to vanish when I moved a rather big chunk to the discussion page (since it wasn't all directly relevent), unfortunatly, I wrongly took that comment with it. [16] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Please may I ask you try and WP:AGF, especially when you are involved in a dispute, it helps keep everyone happier, and prevent disputes getting out of hand. Good luck! Ian13/talk 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please help with this. This can't be allowed to continue without someone putting a stop to these outrageous insults.MollyBloom


 * Molly, I'll advise you now to not make any more comments to Midgley or to the deletion debate, at least for the time being. There are several admins who are informed about the situation and are more than capable of keeping an eye on things. I'm going to warn Midgley to stay civil, but you both need to stay away because you're only getting each other riled up and you're not achieving anything. --bainer (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I already edited before I saw your comment. Would you like me to delete what I wrote, or do you want to revert?  I have really had it with this Midgely and his continually insulting me.  He is on an unbridled scream and nobody is stopping him.MollyBloom 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed all of those comments. Please try to leave the AfD alone for now, and ignore Midgley: I've already warned him to be civil, and that will do for now. I'm going to bed, but I'll remind some other people to keep an eye on this. --bainer (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but it is hard to be continually insulted, and watch an endless rant....MollyBloom 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IMpossible, apparently. I'd be obliged if that advice, which I'm following, could develop teeth, I've needed to archive my talk page ahead of time.  FOr the record, I asked if we are sure that Molly and the other user are entirely separate.  The answer is that they are n the same IP address, and are married.  The question, and actually IMO the degree of separation, are being misrepresented, and it is very tedious and tiresome.  Midgley 16:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Midgely, Gfwesq and I are separate users. The comment about marriage was withdrawn. You don't know if it is true or not. And even if it were, are you saying that husband and wife cannot have separate thoughts, or are not individuals, or cannot think for themselves? Are you completely under the domination of your wife? Or visa versa? This is very 1950s thinking, Midgely and it says a lot. I would like to presume you are of good faith, but it does not appear so, considering you know that this comment was withdrawn. I am very tired of this onslaught of personal attacks, Midgely, and I hope that the administrators will finally do something about it. This is inexcusable.

And finally, you are NOT following that advice, Midgely, by your very insults here. It is utterly astonishing that you continue to personally attack me and Gfwesq. How can you possibly say you are "following" that advice?

I would like to ask the administrators to please put an end to these personal attacks. Midgely did not apologize either for falsely accusing me of removing his comments and viciously attacking me. I think he owes an apology to me for that, and to Wikopedia and to the administrators. Furthermore, he owes me and Gfwesq an apology for continuting to insult us and impugn our character.

The only misrepresentation here is that you are pretending to be 'civil'. IF this is civil, I would hate to see you out of control.MollyBloom 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

character assassination
What midgley is doing is rank character assassination. It violates the spirit of assuming the editor (in this gfweq or Molly Bloom) is behaving in good faith. If you don't have an argument that Maxwell is notable, attacking the messenger doesn't improve your empty message. This line of argument of Midgely's has nothing to do with the discussion. Its a transparent attempt at bullying and intimidation. You've picked the wrong party to try that on, in my case and from what I've seem of Molly Bloom's spirited writing and intelligence, you've picked the wrong party there as well.

Ian issued a warning to Midgely already regarding civility in the Maxwell "keep or delete" discussion. Hopefully a reminder is sufficient. But, if not, hopefully an administrator will take whatever action is necessay to put a stop to this. Insults are not argument. Character assination is not behaving in good faith or in the spirit of Wikipedia civility. I shall not and need not further comment on Midgely  at this time.Gfwesq 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of National Merit
I've looked at your userspace for the first time since I started editing seriously and I thought it badly needs a lot of decorating. Why are the Australian editors so stingy?



I also have experienced my first kerfuffle as an administrator - two users, pro and anti- Chinese Communist Party, strongly appealing for the other to be banned on my talk page.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers! Alphax did give me one back in February (User talk:Thebainer/Archive 3) so I might move them out together now, it would have looked a little odd on its own. Perhaps we should create an Australian barnstar? Maybe it's tall poppy syndrome.
 * As for the dispute on your talk page, you should advise them to take it somewhere else, someone else's talk page is not really the appropriate place for a dispute. You also might like to advise them that Wikipedia doesn't want personal disputes that started elsewhere and you'll block them all if they don't grow up. But that's kinda harsh, so you could try looking for someone who knows something about the subject area. --bainer (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I blocked one of them for NPA (swearing and aggressively editing an opponent's user page), and then a couple of his allies and enemies turned up and started saying that the other lot should be blocked for 3RR and socks also, and then started arguing a lot. His ally got blocked for 3RR, so one of the sides is out of action - at least for a day. They appear to be stalking around WP reverting everything, so I had to lock a few of the pages .Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Midgely - Request to Ban
I am requesting at this time that Midgely be banned from editing, since he has continued to make personal attacks on me. He has already been warned, I have repeatedly asked him to stop, and he does not. Please help with this. MollyBloom 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WE USERS MUST TAKE ACTION SINCE ADMINS CAN NOT OR WILL NOT
It does not take an Rfc, or a formal complaint as I have made to the Mediation committee, for an administrator to stop ongoing abuse and incivility. I am well aware of this, and have asked repeatedlly that it be stopped. I am a professional. I also am a human being, and do not deserve such abuse. This baiting and relentless abuse (and falsehoods) really border on cyber-stalking (illegal) and libel (tortious). I am shocked that after my repeated pleas for intervention, not one administrator has had the courage to stand up and tell Midgely (forcefully) to stop it, or ban him. No wonder Midgely ignores warnings. In his case, they never seem to be followed through with. No reputable organization would tolerate this kind of abuse. I'm shocked that wikopedia would.>

I was initially banned (which was later removed) partly for being uncivil by saying, "Let me guess. You are a doctor" - this was what Ian said to me on my talk page. Yet Midgely has consistently and unrelentingly abused and insulted me on the Rfd for G. Patrick Maxwell. He has been warned, but he evidently knows the warning means nothing, at least in his case. He even added a large table with a 'hand count' of all my edits in all the articles. This was to show that I did more edits in 'Breast Implants' than in any other article. (Yes, this is true, because there was an edit war there.) He also implied that an article I edited (Lochner v. New York) was somehow a breast implant case. Lochner marked the beginning of an era that ended with the New Deal. It was a case about wage and hour laws that involved bakers. Had nothing to do with implants. HE also said I edited "connective tissue disease" because implants are claimed to cause them. I edited connnective tissue disease because I have lupus. Nothing in my edit even mentions breast imlants. He used this 'chart' to continue to attack me, instead of dealing wtih the merit of the Rfd. This Rfd has become pages and pages of personal attacks. I have pleaded and begged someone to do something. All I get is mild posts suggesting that while I did not start or cause the incivility, it might be better if I left it alone. And in the interim, nothing is said to Midgely (or he deleted it on his talk page) and the abuse continues. I finally deleted that chart. If the administrators cannot or will not do something to stop this onslaught of personal attack, I will continue to delete the personal attacks, and encourage others to do so. NO reputable or legitimate organization would tolerate such abuses. I have not been on Wikopedia very long, but I can say from this experience, that I wonder about the professionalism and legitimacy of it - not to mention basic fairness and decency.

This is what I wrote, finally, on the talk page: PERSONAL ATTACKS

SINCE ADMINS CANNOT OR WILL NOT REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS OR SANCTION THE OFFENDOR, IT IS INCUMBANT ON THE EDITORS WHO ARE ATTACKED TO DO SO. THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. I REMOVED THE TABLE WHERE MIDGLEY TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THE NUMBER OF EDITS I HAD IN GIVEN ARTICLES. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS RFD, IS A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO MALIGN AND INSULT. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS UNCHECKED WAR AGAINST ME, BECAUSE MIDGELY DOES NOT HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH WHAT I EDITED. IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT SOME ADMINISTRATORS START ACTING FAIRLY, AND EQUITABLY. NO OTHER LEGITIMATE ORGANIZATION WOULD TOLERATE THIS KIND OF ABUSE. IF WIKOPEDIA DOES, THAN THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH IT.MollyBloom 01:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Counting contributions, I went on the edit sumary for that new york case which says "...Plastic surgery...". This isn't healthy.  Midgley 02:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The New York case has NOTHING to do with plastic surgery or breast implants. The case is about wage and hour law, involving bakers (you know the guys that bake bread).  Nothing whatsoever to do with implants.MollyBloom 06:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick legal question
AUSTLII doesn't hold information on cases pre-1997 online for the VSC or VSCA. I'm wondering where I'm able to find information relating to several cases of murder that occured during the 80's and perhaps before. I was thinking the State Library may be able to help, or is there another database I'm not aware of online? Hoping your legal mind can assist. Thanks. -- Longhair 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lexis Nexis would have it, but that is a subscriber service. Xtra 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the cases were unreported you might be able to get them from the Supreme Court Library website, which has PDFs of unreported cases since about the 1950s. If the cases were reported (in the Victorian Reports) then you'll have to go to the hard copies (at the State Library, or at university libraries, or in the Supreme Court's library by appointment). They're available online but only through the subscriber services (Lexis Nexis, as Xtra said). Some public libraries do subscribe to them, at least the State Library does.
 * On the other hand if you know the name of the case I can probably get the judgment and email it to you, although I'm not really supposed to do that because of copyright reasons. --bainer (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IANAL. Thanks a million, both of you. I decided to reply via email to Stephen for reasons of privacy. Feel free to share that email with Xtra if it helps anything progress. - Longhair 03:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Court cases, while copyright, can be copied, if a reasonable amount and where for legal research. It should not be a copyright problem. Xtra 03:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Still need help on G. Patrick Maxwell
Midgley has been cooperating of late. Rob Oliver still has not. This is the latest. I am so tired of this.

This is what Oliver wrote to badger a 'delete' vote, after all had been asked NOT to argue with the Rfd votes. He is indeed notable, signifigant, and world-famous within his field IS the point. You don't have that many publications, acclaim in both the professional and lay press, and featured speaking engagements around the world if you're not. I'm not sure what it is that you'd look for establish that for you. If being a featured speaker in meetings in Korea, Mexico, Sweden, China, Canada & Italy + the major American Plastic Surgery meetings within the last calender year don't establish his credentials as someone of distinction in our field, I don't know what will short of being on Dr. 90210 (which ironically has approached him about coming to Nashville to film a show)Droliver 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I wrote: Please do not argue with those who 'vote'.

I have been told I have done this. I stopped. Please see what Oliver wrote (which, by the way, is still unsubstantiated claim), to argue with a 'delete' vote:

Everybody else here has agreed to hold back from this type of baiting and arguing and let the Rfd process take place. I suggest that DrOliver do this also. Furthermore, admins have requested that nobody start blanking and reverting sections of the article. Oliver is still deleting the section on "legal precedent" with comments like "SHut up or put up" that is totally out of line. This has been discussed at great length.

ONce again, I ask that all of this STOP.MollyBloom 04:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE RESTORE BLANKED SECTION
Thats's fine, but please restore blanked section, It is not right that Oliver was able to blank it and now leave it that way. Midgely and I had compromised, Gfwesq was happy, and another editor said it was ;'excellent;'. MollyBloom 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please respond. ThanksMollyBloom 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to the version before you and Droliver started edit warring. It is not an endorsement of that version in any way, other than that it seems to be supported by most editors on the talk page. --bainer (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Droliver and Jqwlaw
These users are both blocked for 31 hours, I thought I would let you know since you and I both warned them. Ian13/ talk 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Technical High School
I was wondering if I could ask for your opinion on this edit - some users have been trying to insert a link to the class of 1984's website. I think it is most unencyclopedic, and there has been some heated discussion on my user talk page at User_talk:Enochlau, where no-one is budging. What do you think? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments on Talk:Sydney Technical High School indicating what circumstances (all of which are absent here) would make the link worth adding to the article. Hopefully that sort of illustration will be better than simply rejecting the link. --bainer (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment - your suggestions are quite useful. enochlau (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If I could just chime in and say... wise words. --Sumple (Talk) 12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal request regarding STHS
Yes, I know, you're probably sick of hearing about this, by now. But. I'm here to let you know that someone has requested that the Mediation Cabal attempt to calm down the situation. If you're not interested, feel free to disregard this message. If you are interested, I'll ask that you try to put any harsh feelings behind you, and remember that you and all of the editors around you are all trying to build the best Wikipedia possible; disagreements in how to do so shouldn't get in the way of our good faith towards each other. Wikipedia is not particularly accessible to newcomers, and as beneficial new users are arguably our greatest resource, we would do well to remember that they can have thin skins. Likewise, I've known firsthand how tiresome it can get, reverting vandal after vandal, and I see that this article in particular seems to have a bit of a history with that.

Now, the link in question does have some issues, for and against it; I find things to sympathize with and things to fault in all parties, here. For the time being, my interest is in calming things down. I would appreciate it if you (along with any other involved editors) would agree to set aside hard feelings in the pursuit of a better Wikipedia -- our reputation on an encyclopedia depends heavily on interactions between editors. All that much better if we can all agree to work side-by-side, and do so in a public, transparent forum for all to see. Let's try to make this a positive experience for everyone.

I have nothing but respect for your intelligence, your experience, and your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for the time you've taken to read my message, and any subsequent time you might put into this case.

The particular case page can be found here. As you're probably aware, the cabal has no official authority, but in this case that may work to everyone's advantage. Luna Santin 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes dvd covers
Why did you remove the dvd covers. List of Simpsons episodes, which is FA, has dvd covers and I used thesame fair use rationale for the Lost dvd images. If you delete the images on this page then you shoudl delete them everywhere. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 18:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

merge Black iron Prison with VALIS
there is always the chance that a spontaneous anamnesis will occur in a person, whereby they might remember the name of the Black Iron Prison without knowing the name/book VALIS. i think it should still have its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elklove (talk • contribs).


 * When a merge is performed, then the original page can be turned into a redirect, which means that anyone visiting the original page will be sent to the new page instead.
 * Also, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ) which will leave your name and the date and time of your message, like so: --bainer (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaudron
I'd already read it! Hee.

I keep your contributions page on my watchlist these days. :) Rebecca 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered :) I also liked the story about how she was hired for the second equal pay case. Now, I guess the next question is, who on earth is up editing at 5am? --bainer (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I came on after the soccer, and some things came up. Eh. I'll be off very soon. Rebecca 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the adrenaline rush from those last few minutes has kept me up until now. Although I'm in the process of hitting the wall, so I'll say goodnight. Can't be too tired for the meetup tonight. --bainer (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during June 27 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This fortnight's ACOTF
Any chance you might have some time to help with this fortnight's ACOTF, the History of Australia series? It's looking quite pitiful at present, so it'd be nice to have all hands on deck on this one. :) Rebecca 04:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll certainly lend a hand. I noticed it was selected this morning, and I had a quick look at it, but I have no idea where to start! The series is certainly something I've had on my to-do list for a long time. I think I'll get my Manning Clark's History of Australia out later and start making sure we're covering the basics. --bainer (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"deprecating improper image format"
FYI, you broke the templates. &mdash;David Levy 09:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or one of them, anyway. (That's why I rolled back your edits.)  &mdash;David Levy 09:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, on one of them I forgot to constrain the image size. On the point of the image formats, why do you insist on using GIFs? There may be some problems with the current implementation of SVG (perhaps rendering SVG as 16-bit PNG rather than 24-bit would be a better option) but we have both Image:X mark.svg and Image:Red x.png to choose from - what's the problem with the PNG version? --bainer (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:IAR (endorsed by Jimbo). It makes absolutely no sense to switch to a file that's 3.86 times larger and broken for 85% of users.  The SVG -> 24-bit PNG issue was reported long ago, but there's no indication of an impending fix.  Regardless, this particular SVG contains alpha-transparency, so it would render as a 24-bit PNG anyway.  Additionally, it doesn't match the checkmark icons used in related templates.  (The dimensions and styling are different.)


 * The PNG file is larger and has a solid background. We could update it to match the GIF, but it still would be slightly larger (without providing any advantages).  &mdash;David Levy 09:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And in case you haven't read my reply from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, CSD I1 applies to "a redundant copy, in the same image file format" (emphasis mine). &mdash;David Levy 09:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just about to update that PNG myself but I see you've beaten me to it. Surely it's now much preferable to the GIF (the only difference now is about thirty bytes, which cannot possibly make a difference to anyone who has enough bandwidth to view a wiki page). I'm familiar with IAR of course, but it makes good sense to use image formats consistently (to allow for easy manipulation by the software, for example) and moreover PNG is a free format, whereas GIF is not. There is a reason why every Wikimedia project is moving towards standardising media formats. Seeing as the PNG version is updated, I'll switch to that now. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no advantage to using the PNG. There are only disadvantages.  For example, it's incompatible with some older browsers.  (I'm not saying that we should compromise the site's integrity for the benefit a small minority of users, but we shouldn't go out of our way to mess things up for them.)  GIFs are every bit as easy to manipulate as PNGs, and the Unisys LZW patents have expired.  As of next month, GIF will be a 100% free format.


 * PNGs usually offer superior performance, but this is an exception. As you're familiar with WP:IAR, you should realize that this swap makes no sense.  &mdash;David Levy 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if you're really that worked up about PNGs (and I see you've had several discussions about replacing PNGs with GIFs) you should take this to a wider audience - as far as I am aware all of the Wikimedia projects have decided that PNG is a better format than GIF, if for no other reason than standardisation (which is surely a good thing), and I really don't feel like questioning that on an image-by-image basis. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, I'm quite fond of PNGs. They usually are better than GIFs, but there are exceptions to every rule.  Please explain how we benefit by blindly adopting a single format.  What's the harm in using PNGs in some instances and GIFs in others?  &mdash;David Levy 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally think that using file formats consistently across the whole project is a good idea (to make manipulation by the software easier, for example). If you want to change the policy of using SVG and PNG over GIF then this is really not the place to do it, but since you want to debate the point, could I ask now what are the problems with the particular PNG image in question? It is 37 bytes larger to the GIF version, which is utterly inconsequential. Are there any display problems with this particular image? It works for me in all my browsers. If the only consequence is that someone running IE4 sees a white background instead of a transparent background then I really think that there's no advantage in breaking consistency. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Again, GIFs are every bit as easy to manipulate as PNGs.
 * 2. I would like to change the policy, but this is not a requirement. As you're well aware, we don't follow the rules purely for the sake of following the rules.  When the application of a rule doesn't make sense, it should be ignored.  Again, this philosophy is endorsed by Jimbo.
 * 3. Yes, the size difference is inconsequential. My point is that the GIF isn't larger than the PNG (as often is the case).  As such, the PNG provides absolutely no advantages.
 * 4. The PNG version displays properly for most users, but it fails to display at all in some older browsers. I realize that this is a condition that must sometimes be tolerated, but not when there's absolutely no positive tradeoff.  &mdash;David Levy 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just thought of a better way to put this: what is the advantage of GIF? If the size thing only affects a handful of very small images, which of course are very small, meaning a small increase in size is not a problem, then how is it useful to break consistency? --bainer (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have two images from which to choose. Both are approximately the same size.  The GIF is slightly smaller and compatible with 100% of graphical browsers.  The PNG is slightly larger and incompatible with a small number of graphical browsers.  The differences that exist&mdash;however minor&mdash;point to the GIF as the more logical choice.  There's nothing to be gained through blind "consistency."  &mdash;David Levy 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll )</b> 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Courts
I have to admit you do have a good argument. But seeing other articles about High Court judges do not use this style, for example Brennan CJ, and the fact that articles on justices of lower Australian courts do not use this style then I stand by my edit. Until all such Australian court articles are changed to reflect this my opinion stands. 13:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioBu (talk • contribs)


 * I find it interesting and rather coincidental that the three judges that AntonioBu seems to be continually reverting happen to be the same ones as I list on my user page and it has happened just after AntonioBu has engaged in a dispute with myself. Xtra 22:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User Page
Hello Stephen,

I think your fair use rational is well reasoned (I became aware of you because of Fair use images in lists). What I really want to talk about, though, is your user page. I think it looks really cool and I'm copying it for my own user page, I hope you don't mind. The problem is that I don't have or don't understand the pages for the commons, workspace, or email me links. Could you explain them to me? I know how to code in a few programming languages so don't hold back in any explanation. Your workspace page looks really cool but I have no idea what its purpose is. Same with the commons page. I can probably figure out the email stuff on my own if I have to so don't sweat that part too hard.

Thanks, Peregrinefisher 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I have a sattelite photo of Australia in the middle of my user page!


 * Cool, Thanks! - Peregrinefisher 09:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Commons" link is to my user account on the Wikimedia Commons, which is not going to be any use to you unless you have an account there too. The "Workspace" page is just a place where I can list drafts of articles or templates I'm working on, and similar stuff. Email is a duplicate of the "E-mail this user" link that appears in the toolbox on the left of the page of every user who has entered and confirmed their email address.
 * It's fairly common to borrow other people's designs, and it's also generally customary to mention who you borrowed a design from, although it's not necessary. As for the picture, you can pick any (free-licence) image you like for the centre. --bainer (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks again. - Peregrinefisher 09:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Help using your code.
Hey Stephen,

I've been customising the code I got from you. Check it out here. I put a cool linked current time in the top left if you want to copy it (although it wants to stay cached damn it). I also cited you as my source for the wiki code I "borrowed."

I've created a monobook.css page (as you know) with the code from your page but I don't understand it. It seems to be setting tabs. I don't know css yet but I want to tackle that part of wikipedia. Could you explain it?

Anyways, it's a little strange because we're on the opposite sides of the LOE debate but I like your user page so I was hoping you could hook me up with some good wiki tips.

- &lt;span class=&quot;user-sig user-USERNAME&quot;&gt;Pergrinefisher&lt;/span&gt; 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All that's active in my CSS at the moment is the line at the top turning off the Sitenotice. The rest is commented out, it's some styling for the tabs at the top and side (to give them rounded corners in Firefox) and some styling for duplicate tabs at the bottom, which goes with some code I no longer use in my monobook.js. You can probably delete it all if you want, it's only useful if you want rounded corners. See the French WP for an example of this in action.
 * The other thing is that you need to check the "raw signature" box in your preferences if you're going to use HTML in your signature. Also keep in mind that styles in your monobook.css display for you only, and noone else. You can hardcode the styles in the signature instead, although some people disapprove of overly complicated signatures. --bainer (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Skafbilal.jpg
Hi Thebainer. I've added source information for this image. The image quality is quite poor. I'd be happy to see it replaced with another of higher standard. -- Longhair 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Danby vs Southwick
I accept your wording - that is much more objective than the previous. But it is also worth mentioning that it is the first time that two Jews have ran against each other in Federal politics.CatonB 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind?
Do you mind telling me where you got that shirt from?

P.S - I thought it was formal wear not casual (for the dinner). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Bischoff (talk • contribs).

Edcuation Meeting
Hey, we're kind of overdue for having a meeting for the WMAu Education Committee. Can you pop over to the committee page and let us know when you're free? Confusing Manifestation 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt
Bainer, could you please look at User:- 40, User:- 41 and User:- 42? They're User:Pnatt socks/impersonators. I reported it at AIV, but no one seems to be around and as you can see, he's rampaging through Australian articles converting CBD > downtown. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed those, and figured they were all socks of each other, although I didn't know who the puppeteer was. I've blocked those three for the time being, and there's a case now filed at Suspected sock puppets/Pnatt (2nd) if you have any more to add. --bainer (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I just added and . - 39 has been blocked but -38 hasn't yet. I hope he doesn't have another 37 of these to cycle through. :/ Thanks, Bainer. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That one's blocked too now. Hopefully the autoblock will hit him soon, although given the sheer number of socks he probably has a dynamic IP. A checkuser may be in order. --bainer (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can You take this one
Since Steve is out I have taken over assigning cases. There is a Request for assistance by OrbitOne (talk) on Hwacha Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." Thanks Æon  <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now! <sub style="color:green;">EA!  06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)