Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:23, 5 March 2007

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

Re: "Unfree images" on user page

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

G'Day Bainer

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

Your rewrite of Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule

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

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

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

What on earth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your support

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

Legal request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How?

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

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

Seeking your opinion

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

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

clarification please

I replied to your warning.

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

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

So I saw that you are an administrator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BenBurch RFC

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

The problems with the RFC were twofold:

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

In reply to "huh"...

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

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

The Moore you do...

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

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

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

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

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

Hey

Hey, Why did you delete my page?

Cocoaleche2 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The Xiaolin Showdown Techniques one

Cocoaleche2 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

Cocoaleche2 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Cocoaleche2 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Ugly Hill

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

AFD 2006 Victorian election campaign

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

Brian Peppers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblock of Rbj

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

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

Just so you know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion archive template

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

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

Compliments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much thanks

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

Can we have a timeline?

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

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

Daniel Brandt AfD

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

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

Comments on Misplaced Pages Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey Invitation

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

list improvements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICAC and the CCC

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