User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 6

Turn It Up (Ben Bailey-Smith song)
Hello, I noticed you just deleted Turn It Up (Ben Bailey-Smith song). I visited the article from Special:NewPages and managed to catch the original editor adding CurrentSingles to the page. Since music on the charts is notable, you may want to undo the deletion and replace db-context with expand. Of course, if you did see that change and still feel justified in deleting it, don't bother and let it stay deleted. --DavidHOzAu 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll wager that it's not actually a charting single. It's part of a web of articles I just speedied, all about some band supposedly discovered by a talent search TV program, and supposedly with an album and singles out. However the TV program doesn't exist, nor does the company that is said to have made the TV show, nor does the record label they are releasing their album on. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, okay, you obviously know what you're doing. The article can stay deleted. --DavidHOzAu 02:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AMA
Good day bainer. I have noticed on the AMA notice board, Æon has asked you to handle my case. You can read my description of the case at User_talk:OrbitOne. I hope to see you on my talk page soon so we can discuss the case. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 09:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that the other day but I've had little time until now. I've accepted the case, and I'm ready to help. Firstly, I ought to ask whether you're happy to communicate on talk pages, or whether you'd prefer email. --bainer (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * E-mail is best for me. I am not on Wikipedia all the time, but I always get emails straight away.--  Orbit  One    [ Talk 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of GFDL on Uluru images
Hi on the Uluru talk page you mention that you would check out the legalities of releasing images under GFDL type licenses, has there been any progression Gnangarra 13:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't forgotten about this, although I haven't had time to do much on this front, unfortunately. By next week I hope to have made contact with one of the copyright experts at my law school, I should be able to get some answers there. --bainer (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, let us know when you find out more. I have flagged this as a concern on Commons where most of the images are stored and in worse case will need to deleted from. more point of information.
 * could it be retrospective in application,
 * by publishing post 1999 an image taken prior to the law change would that be a problem.
 * To define publishing say I took an image in during a holiday(no commercial intent in 1980) then uploaded it to wikipedia today, as such I have published it and made it available for commercial use by tagging the image with GFDL & CC-by-2.5 the standard licensing being used for most commons images. Could I as photographer or Wikimedia as publisher be in breech of the law.
 * Also as a disclaimer I understand the information you get is theoritical until tested through the courts. And that you and the people with whom you discuss the matter arent liable for any incorrect interpretation. Gnangarra 15:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 East Timor crisis
Hello Thebainer! Fine, you are updating the article 2006 East Timor crisis. I am the editor of the German article. If you are on search for sources, just check the references at the German article. Most of them are in English and updated until today. ;-) --J. Patrick Fischer 17:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks alot, I was maintaining this article from its creation, until my semester exams came a while ago and I ran out of time to work on it. I've been trawling through archives to catch up, though your selection of sources will be very helpful! --bainer (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arms of Jesus Children's Mission
You deleted The Arms of Jesus Children's Mission, which was just a stub. I had tried to add a hangon message so that I could add the references that I found at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Arms+of+Jesus+Children's+Mission%22

The Canada Revenue Agency web site confirms that this is a registered charity with business number 128201845RR0001. If you think that the article could be expanded into a useful one, could you please restore it? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The only content there was an external link to the mission's site, and the talk page's content was an attempt to contact the mission. This made them deletable under the third speedy deletion criterion for articles. Checking the history now, I see that you edited the page only seconds before I deleted it, apologies. If you can write a valid article on the subject, feel free to do so, simply by creating a new article; if you really need the previous edits then I can restore them. --bainer (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus

 * John Reid 06:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop spamming, or I will have to block you. If you have a point to make, then make kindly it in an appropriate forum. --bainer (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He's spammed that message all over the place. Would it be appropriate to revert those which are still the top edit? If it would be appropriate, would you do it? As the deleting admin I don't want to inflame the situation. --kingboyk 11:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We're working on the same case. (references included)
your OrbitOne case is tied to my HappyApple case, I'm acting as HappyApple's advocate. Just to let you know, In my opinion, OrbitOne has been trying to 'manage' a vote on this issue, and has characterised a 3 to one vote against his position as being consensus for his position. He's also tried wikilawyering (though he says its me that's doing that... I've tried to point out the actual policies he's referencing, which he seems to not understand, or is intentionally misrepresenting, I'm not sure there...) using WP:NOT and characterising the pop culture section as a 'game directory'. There have been multiple votes, against him and now his talk on the Village Pump shows he is plainly using this article to make a point and change the policy and custom of including cultural referents in articles. His intent seems to be to wipe game references (which he refers to as fancruft) and articles from Wikipedia.

here and here and here is my discussion with my advocee... and here, here, and from here to the end of the page is the relevant talk page discussion.

The text in question is here (the text OrbitOne wants to expunge).

User:HappyApple (my advocee) is not a native English speaker, so he has trouble with expressing himself clearly in English when under stress, but he understands English pretty well, except for subtle nuances of idiom.

My recommendation to all parties was to disengage for one week, and we all expect to be discussing this again Monday the 4th, (tomorrow). The dispute seems unresolvable, since it's pretty clear that this sort of references to games are common on wikipedia, so my advocee doesn't want to budge from inclusion of the material in some way, and your advocee wants it removed badly enough to get angry about it, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&oldid=73944126#Should_articles_reference_games.3F_Pull_the_Plugs. try to draw the wikipedia as a whole into it], on the proposal page of Village Pump, 'behind the backs' of the users on Hwacha's talk page who were having a good faith discussion... Two of the 'remove the games' editors churned the discussion Astroturfing style in an effort to keep the discussion going, and dismissed opposing comments as 'irrelevant', while actively misstating policy and calling the pop culture sections "veiled game directories".

So we may need to escalate to the next appropriate step after the discussion phase, I think. Let me ::know your thoughts, when you get done reading up on it, I'll be in and out all day today and am resigned to spending some time tomorrow on discussing this as well. If you want to reach me off-wiki for a private exchange, I'm at... water AT dr.com. Feel free to talk there or on my user page. User:Pedant 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. Somewhat tied up off-wiki for the next day or two, but I'll have plenty of time to devote to this after then; in the meantime more cooling-off is probably not a bad thing.
 * I think it's not too late to resolve this simply with a little discussion (broader questions, if it is still desired to pursue them, can be put on hold for the time being). My advocee's key problem with the pop culture section, to express it in the words of jpgordon, is that "The 'popular culture' section in lots of articles add very little to the understanding of the subject." . My advocee would be very happy with a well worded pop culture section which actually contributes to the reader's understanding and knowledge about hwacha (hs view being that if it doesn't so contribute, it probably belongs only in the article on the game).
 * The paragraph about recent TV historical dramas popularising the hwacha again is an example of the kind of thing he is thinking of: it contributes knowledge about hwacha, without seeming merely to promote a TV show. Obviously some cited sources would be desirable. I'm not an expert on hwacha; is your advocee aware of any sources which discuss their role in popular culture? If you put that question, I'll ask my advocee the same thing. I'm sure we'll be able to find something. --bainer (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

sketch of proposed paragraph
This is HappyApple's sketch of a paragraph:


 * Hwacha's historical and particular siege habilities like advanced bombardment and devastating arrow attack upon infantry among other characteristics had been emphasized in many games, in Civilization series, Play the World and Conquests, Hwachas are antipersonel weapons where they can reduce significantly the health of their opponents (mostly infantry units) and even kill them (1). In Microsoft's game Rise of Nations, Heavy Flaming Arrow unit (a hwacha homologue) emphasizes Hwacha's effectiveness on siege (2). On Stainless Steel Studios Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, Hwachas lethal bombardment is seen on one of historical campaigns.(3) /
 * Sources:
 * -1.-Firaxis Games Civilization III Official Website: http://www.civ3.com/ptw_prof_koreans.cfm
 * -2.-Microsoft Rise of Nations Official Website: ::http://www.microsoft.com/games/riseofnations/nations_koreans.asp
 * -3.-An excerpt from Wikipedia page Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires:_Dawn_of_the_Modern_World#Campaigns

And some more material sent by my advocee:


 * "A resurgence in popularity in regards to the classical Korean weaponry involved in Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is seen specifically in modern South Korean society where historical dramas and soap operas aired in major private terrestrial networks such as MBC and public networks like KBS have popularized it."


 * "I think it should be there because, the resurgence of popularity of classical korean weaponry is part of the Korean Wave, i am trying to state on the paragraph (to tell the reader) that Hwachas haven't stucked in the past, there is like a reanissance about classical weaponry involved in the chosun dynasty, most of this can be seen in the korean soap opera Dae (Great) Jang Geum (a.k.a Jewel in the palace) among others."


 * "i have found a webpage which has more information about this historical wave (http://www.jp.paulus.com/koreandrama.html) actually it is a fan-made website."


 * "In Korea (particulary South korea) there has started a historical wave, actually motivated by KBS (South Korea's version of PBS), which aired many historical soap operas that grossed high number of audience from 2001-present, and on many of these tv shows, Hwachas appeared as part of the reenactments of many of historical battles in Middle ages Korea. My idea was to let know readers or let them to recall that Hwachas played a major role at the time in Korea. "


 * "I think more sources (and probably a restructuration) would be required to properly reference that paragraph."

Needless to say, I would be happy to help HappyApple to rewrite the paragraph in good English, etc. If OrbitOne would allow it, I think the paragraph could be a helpful addition to the article.

Thing is, though, that there are more folks on that page who have been rallying behind OrbitOne (well maybe only one, not sure) so this may still need something more, and maybe an RfC would be appropriate, I just don't know... I've seen this issue come up before on other pages, but never a real resolution that could be referred to wikipedia-wide. You have any input on that? User:Pedant 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly apologies for the delays.
 * My advocee is generally happy with the direction these changes are moving in. He would stress that he prefers that the number of games mentioned be limited to as few as necessary to illustrate the points being made, namely that the hwacha has experienced a rise in popularity, that the hwacha is seen as emblematic of the Korean military tradition, and so on.
 * Further rewording of the paragraph would be most welcome. Particularly, the draft paragraph you outline at the start of your message really ought to be integrated into the discussion about television historical dramas. This way the discussion of computer games would be another side of the same coin, and the discussion would be tied much more strongly to the hwacha and not to the TV shows or games.
 * As to an RfC, I suggested to my advocee that you and I frame the terms of an RfC (in the appropriate language and style) and then submit it to our respective advocees for approval. Does this sound appropriate? --bainer (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think my advocee would be happy with no RfC, if the section could stay, rewritten as suggested above, and I don't see anything wrong with that. But if we are going to do an RfC, I'll go with it, and my advocee would as well. You know me, I prefer not to do anything 'officially' if we can fix this another way. (It's the 'rat hairs in candy bars' thing. Common sense would say that rat hairs cannot be an ingredient in candy bars.  They do exist in candy bars however... Because someone insisted that there should be a law that no rat hairs belong in candy bars, eventually legislation was enacted in that regard: Candy bars shall have no more than a certain percentage of rat hairs.  Now it is the law that a certain percentage of the ingredients for candy bars can be rat hair.)

None of us want that kind of a solution. At this point my advocee and I would probably accept any reasonable solution to the debate, as long as its fair and in line with our policies. What do you suggest? RfC or no RfC? User:Pedant 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lazydork
Hi, you recently deleted my article on lazydork, please explain why this artical was deleted? i dont see what reason you have for deleting him. He is the biggest star on youtube, he has been in several newspaper articals across the globe. 98smithg2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98smithg2 (talk • contribs).


 * The article was deleted under speedy deletion criterion number seven for articles, "article[s] about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The article made no claim as to why the subject was particularly important or notable. If you would like to contest the deletion, you can ask for the deletion to be reviewed at deletion review. You might like to see this page for advice if you wish to write a new article on the subject.
 * In case you didn't know, you can leave your signature on talk pages by typing four tildes after your message. --bainer (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Australia
Hi Bainer. When you have a moment, would you care to take (another) look at my proposed re-write at User:Sumple/Constitution of Australia for the Constitution of Australia article? Just wanted to get some authoritative comments before I make the change. Thanks, --Sumple (Talk) 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks very solid, and an excellent base for more comprehensive child articles. A few points though:
 * You mention that the High Court can interpret it, you should also mention that the Federal Court can too (plus, I'm pretty sure, the Family Court), I think the relevant section is s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903;
 * One paragraph at the top of the history section (above "Federation") would be nice, aswell as a link to Constitutional history of Australia as the main article (another article which needs improvement);
 * A few more references would be nice.
 * Otherwise, the rest is good, it can be expanded later where necessary. But you've certainly covered all the bases. --bainer (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA
Thanks, Stephen, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. Onwards to Victory! JPD (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Al Kateb
Congratulations for achieving featured status! However, I do hope that my suggestions are still implemented. michael talk 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in getting this into the article; now that essays are out of the way, I've had some time to sit down and start a section on the academic response to the case: Al-Kateb v Godwin. There are one or two more articles on the case which are fairly influential, but I don't have access to them electronically, so I'll include those later. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The new section compliments the other nicely and is an excellent solution. michael talk 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Neoballmon
User talk:Neoballmon abuses categorization templates again and continues making noise. Talk page protection? (unless you'd like to unblock this fellow...) Femto 10:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that he apparently still wants your attention on his talk page. Femto 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left a message, pointing him to the options available. I suggest that you don't respond to any more messages on his talk page. I've also advised that if he abuses the unblock request templates again I'll protect the page. --bainer (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Checking in
I just wanted to check in on the case. I haven't heard back from you since my last email. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied in email. --bainer (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

help requested
Any ideas of how to resolve the dispute with ScienceApologist? I'm fed up. Suggestions welcome. Eric Lerner

Re:My Girl
''Hi there Húsönd. A few people have noticed your reverts on My Girl, removing the attempt at a marriage proposal. Of course this isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia, and you were correct in removing it. But might I suggest that next time when you're removing content which is inappropriate, but obviously added in good faith, you avoid the use of the default warning templates? They're a little unfeeling, and can give the wrong impression sometimes. Remember we should try to turn good faith misguided contributors into good faith well-guided contributors :) --bainer (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)''
 * Yeah I know. I could have used something more personal and less hostile. I discussed my attitude shortly after posting the warnings. Next time I won't be so cold-hearted. Best regards.--Hús ö nd 16:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't realise you'd discussed it already. I should congratulate you on your attitude towards self-improvement! As Kyoko said, don't stress out, and good luck with your editor review. --bainer (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-) --Hús ö nd 16:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

St Christopher's arbitration
Now that the case is resolved, I wanted to compliment you for the great job you did organizing the evidence in the St Christopher's RfAr. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. I see plenty of RFARs with horrible evidence pages, and I thought I'd better make this one nice and clear just to ensure that ban was upheld. The ArbCom seem to like the way I organise the evidence, they've linked to my section from the final decision now in all three cases I've added evidence to. --bainer (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What were the other two cases? Maybe they should appoint you chief prosecutor. :)  The committee reacted very sensibly to this case, albeit a little more slowly than I might have preferred in getting the voting done and the case closed, and I'm sure you helped.  I'll remember your format in case I'm ever involved in another case.  Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The other two are Internodeuser and DarrenRay and 2006BC. I think the format works firstly because there's plenty of whitespace, and secondly because it's quite obvious, with the little subheadings, exactly what breach of policy each diff is illustrating. --bainer (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bainer
Hey Stephen, I want to thankyou for supporting my RfA. It closed with an absolutely amazing final tally of 160/4/1. It was just fantastic having the support of so many really respected Aussie administrators and editors. Your comment was extremely kind and generous and I just to thank you for supporting me so solidly. I hope you'll give me a quick tap on the shoulder if you notice me making any mistakes. :) Thankyou so much for your support, Stephen. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes
Please use the talk page to discuss the changes to this page. The way you are handling the situation right now is starting another edit war. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:[[Image:Iowa Armament.JPG]]
Ok, CSD is criteria for speedy deletion, but which number 1 and 4 are you refering to? I do intend to upload a better picture of the weapons system at some point in the future, so I need to know which of the criterias were used to delete this in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the shorthand was confusing: that's the letter "I" and then the number 4, as in the fourth criterion for images, lack of licencing information. Specifically, the image was tagged as an image with unknown copyright status for longer than a week. Note that I can undelete the image if you can determine its copyright status. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of db tag on Mongolian Jesus
I think this confirms it's nonsense:


 * ''For all the love of Mongolia, I hope one day you’ll read the KJV of the Bible and read that verse. But, even though I attempted at saving your souls, I have failed. Forgive me, father, as I have failed to convert these savage peoples. I’ll finally be at peace now, and hope that humanity comes to me for guidance in trouble. If they don’t, then fucking screw them… Fucking screw them.


 * -Mongolian Jesus''

It's a hoax and nonsense. –– Lid(Talk) 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it's not g1 it's speedyable under WP:SNOW. –– Lid(Talk) 10:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all for interpreting the criteria widely where appropriate, but WP:SNOW is not a reason for deletion. The reason I removed the db tag was that you tagged it as "patent nonsense", which is a phrase with a specific meaning, and doesn't apply to this article. Using the tags accurately makes it much easier for us admins to clear out CAT:CSD and delete what ought to be deleted. Just let the prod run its course, and try to use the deletion tags correctly.
 * (See also User talk:Lid.) --bainer (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with prod tags, largely on new articles, is that you find the user or the logged out user as an ip either removes them forcing an afd irrelevent of the contents of the article. WP:SNOW is in itself not a reason for deletion true, but the clause exists to bypass situations and steps if there is no chance in hell the result of the consensus would be one or the other. Having nominated many articles for deletion it seems odd to me that such a blatant hoax article, with no basis in reality (and a possible basis in vanity) could be maintained for five days on a prod to "fix" the article. Per your own argument of policies the prod tag states "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so." There is no way any of those could be met in any way whatsoever. Prod tags should, in my interpretation of policy, be used on articles that could be improved. Not as a five day long delay on an article that has no way of ever being kept. –– Lid(Talk) 11:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it's almost certainly a hoax, but hoaxes are still not speedyable. Prod tags are used to get something deleted when they're outside the criteria, and when there's no point wasting space at AfD. I considered deleting this as A1, but I got a few Google results for archaeologists named Brian Jones, so this may be a parody of something real. Just let the prod run its course; I have the article watched and will make sure the creator doesn't come back to remove the tag. --bainer (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

AMAIRC
Hi - I've given you autovoice on #AMA-Wikipedia - per your request. Thanks :) M  a  rtinp23  13:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice close on Lauder-Frost
Thanks for the thoughtfully-worded close of the Lauder-Frost AfD. It's always nice when an AfD is closed on more than a quick numerical tally, and especially nice when the closer takes the time to explain the reasoning. If I ever pick up the mop and bucket, I'll take this one as a model. William Pietri 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The controversial ones really need plenty of attention in closing. It was especially warranted here since, as I said in my reasons, there were many people involved and the nomination came jointly from you and Ed and Guy, and a no consensus wasn't going to be a tenable result. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder Frost on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gregory Lauder Frost. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. User:Tmalmjursson Posted 28th September 2006 - edited and signed in accordance with WP Policy at 14.09 BST 29th September 2006

hi my company is under attack
Dear Thebainer

I am a director of Tiraspol Times Newspaper.

We publish in a conflict zone in eartern europe where political games are played.

Our newspaper and its online editor are being caught in the crossfire and we are getting a very unfair press and some fair balance.

It borders in not is libel.

We are a western europe owned news agency and have no connections with the kremlin as the site satates.

Can you help please, we are prepared to travel to the US next week if this requires it, also available for video interview to establish the truth.

Mark Street —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkStreet (talk • contribs)

Unblock template
If you transclude the template what you get is this:

This blocked user ( [ block log] | autoblocks | [ unblock] | contribs ) has asked to be unblocked. Request reason: "lengthy spiel blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah." Blocked editor: Please paste the contents of the block infobox (screenshot) below to help administrators locate your block in the logs. Administrators should not unblock without attempting to discuss with the blocking administrator (see the blocking policy). If this request is declined, it should be replaced with:  

In other words, the spiel is reproduced twice - the second time in fixed space. This is not necessary since the reviewing admin does not actually need to copy & paste the second version, merely change to

Why is it better to have the unblock spiel twice? What technical purpose does that fulfil, please? Guy 08:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's awkward with a long reason, but the idea is that the unblock_reviewed template has two parameters, one for the blockee's reason for requesting an unblock and one for the reviewer's reason for denying. Someone thought it would be nice for the reviewer to be able to copy the necessary wikitext straight off the unblock template, whereas I used to have it as a link. If you think the link is better then return to that, it would be a fine solution. But I doubt it's any good to have the partially completed syntax there. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What I do is edit the talk page section, add " reviewed" at the beginning and the pipe and decline= at the end. What I had, tells the reviewing admin how to do just that (which is not hard).  I'm not going to make a Federal case of this but it does seem that the duplication of the argument is a bit unnecessary. Guy 08:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Cabals
Hello. I know it's a joke page, I added the totallydisputed as a joke, too. That's why I took care not to include it to the category with npov disputes. I mean, see the edit summary! Well, since you didn't get it, I guess it was a lame joke, so, well done! (Or I could start edit warring over this... it would make it to WP:LAME in no time!) Take care :) --Michalis Famelis (talk)  17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) By the way, I thought that putting the box under the joke notice would include the dispute in the joke section. Well, whatever. --Michalis Famelis  (talk)  17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley
nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me
Don't block this IP address. Mine is allocated by a proxy server so I didn't cause this IP to be blocked. Basically I'm being punished for something I didn't do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.250.6.247 (talk • contribs).


 * I can't help you if I don't know who you are. --bainer (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lazydork!!!
Hi, I created an article about Lazydork, a huge internet star and you deleted it really quickly - even after I tried to dispute it on the talk page. This is really unfair. I'll repost what I wrote on the talk page since you apparently didn't bother to read it.

"Hello, I created the Lazydork page and was stunned to see it had been marked for speedy deletion because the subject was "unremarkable." As seen by the links I added, the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC and youtube itself all disagree this is an unremarkable person. I wish I could also add a link to his live interview on CNN's American Morning. It is absurd that Emmalina would have a Wikipedia page and Lazydork would not since 1) he is an active poster and 2) has now surpassed her in popularity. His relevance to the internet video sharing phenomenon has been recognized by all outlets of major mainstream media, and Wikipedia should allow the article to stand.

His journey from prosecutor to internet star to professional poker player has captivated the attention millions, and deserves to be recognized on this site." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gigicat (talk • contribs).


 * As you can see from the deletion log, I deleted the page on 2 September and 3 September. The references you cite are all from late September and early October. When I deleted the article, there was no assertion of notability, other than that he was some guy on YouTube; indeed, here is an excerpt from the article as posted by :
 * "'Lazy Dork Is a famous you-tube enternainer/rabi/philisopher who inspires new content as well as reviewing old. Known throughout the lands as rick or el-dizzel or lazyDork he has become so much of a legend some even doubt his existence, although some fables put lazy dork as so clever he counted to infinitely ...twice.'"
 * If you can write a proper encyclopaedic article on this "Lazydork" fellow then please go ahead. What I deleted was not in any way encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all good and fine, but I wrote a very straightforward and "encyclopaedic" article on him yesterday, 10-12-06, that was "speedily deleted" even though I tried to dispute the process. The article I wrote was totally distinct from the nonsense written by "98smithg2" on the 2nd and 3rd and I have no connection to him at all. Can you please undelete the article I posted yesterday, as I'm sure it will pass muster under your requirements for encyclopaedic writing and factual accuracy? Please look into it, I'd hate for someone's nonsensical rantings to stop an informative and relevant article from being posted.
 * Gigicat 16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can also see from the deletion log, your version was speedily deleted by . I suggest you either take up the issue with Brookie, or take the article to Deletion review where it will be given the appropriate consideration. --bainer (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alabama Theatre interior.jpg
I saw that you removed the link to Image:Alabama Theatre interior.jpg on the Alabama Theatre page because the image had been removed. Did you also remove the image itself? I just wanted to know why it was removed. Although it was copyrighted, I had received explicit permission to use the image on Wikipedia from the copyright holder and had posted such in its description (I believe). I thought this was acceptable. Am I mistaken? --Lkseitz 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two broad categories of images which are allowed on Wikipedia: free content images (GFDL, the free content Creative Commons licences, and so on), and in certain limited cases, images claimed as fair use. 'With permission' images, as they are known, may only be used on Wikipedia if they are claimed as fair use in the normal way. The reason is that if only Wikipedia has permission to use the image then downstream users are restricted, but if we use the image under a claim of fair use, then downstream users can evaluate their own position and use the image if they can make the same claim of fair use.
 * In this case, I deleted the image (Image:Alabama Theatre interior.jpg) under CSD I6, images claimed as fair use but without a fair use rationale. See Help:Image page for details on what is required in this respect. If you can provide a good rationale then you can upload the image again, or I can undelete it if you don't have a copy. Note however that satisfying the fair use criteria is unlikely here given that the building is still there, and so it should be possible to create a free content photo of the theatre. --bainer (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

ADFA
CUO Bainer,

I understand why you thought it would be a good idea to change back the additions to the ADFA page, but one of them was important. The ADF are trying to downplay a very serious incident that happened at the Academy last Wednesday and we can only let people know through Wiki. We will make the changes more encyclopaedic next time, please don't alter them.

From Someone You Actually Know And Will Probably Have A Beer With In The Coming Months —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.160.71 (talk • contribs).


 * I'll point you to No original research to start with. We can't accept any of this information unless you can point to a reliable source of some kind. And if the Man is not allowing any information out to be published, well that's too bad since Wikipedia can't accept any original research.
 * You'll note that an attempt to add it was simply reverted by another user, for the reason that it was not sourced. The edits I deleted were not deleted because they were unsourced, but because they contained potentially personally identifiable information and libellous statements. The door is closed on that content as far as I am concerned, but if you can find a good source for the other stuff then you can certainly add it back to the article.
 * Now I just have to remember which of the CGS guys are still at ADFA. --bainer (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking in again
I havent heard from you for some time and you haven't answered my email, so I guess wiki would be the best medium to discuss the case (Hwacha). I thought about the case some more, and my main concern is the possibility game publishers would use wikipedia to boost advertisments for their new games. An alternitive though, is to list only games no longer sold. Thus, if the game was truely notable for featuring the weapon, then its notability would not change if the game was discontinued. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists
Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

State of the Victorian election campaign
Hi Stephen,

If you have some spare time, could you please cast an eye over the 2006 Victorian election campaign, which I split from the parent page Victorian legislative election, 2006. There is a dispute about how the article should be structured and whether it needs to be significantly altered at all. I think that the article is suffering from a lack of diversity of editorial opinion, which makes consensus appear impossible. There is of course a dialogue to follow on the talk page as well Talk:2006 Victorian election campaign. Thanks, Grumpyyoungman01 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's exam period at the moment so I don't have much spare time to help you with editing the page, but I can offer a couple of suggestions that will hopefully be of assistance. Firstly, the chronological structure doesn't work. It's horribly messy and invites POV. Sorting it by party (but not by topic) would be preferable in my opinion. Secondly the page is much too long. I would suggest limiting the article to cover only significant events such as campaign launches, and include only a brief summary of policies put forward.
 * Hopefully these suggestions will be helpful. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)