Howdy Bainer. Is there any chance that more inline refs could be added to this article? There are some paragraphs with no inline refs at all. I did a survey of Australian FAs at User:Blnguyen/AusFA and I some articles would be better off being improved now rather than face the hassle of an FAR down the track. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a take-home exam this weekend but after that I'll have some time to work on this. I haven't done anything on that article in quite a while actually; really not since I first added it back in June 05! It certainly needs some footnote love :) -- bainer ( talk) 08:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've got a book with a chapter on it :) I'll have a look tomorrow (our time...). Daniel 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Would just like to say your question has been answered, and I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to express a better self-description. Regards, Rudget Contributions 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to my answer to your question, I would also like to second User:Phoenix 15's point on the subject of IAR. I would also express my viewpoint, that it would be a good idea for an editor to bypass policy if it improves the overall quality of Wikipedia, and does not retract from the real purpose of the site. Regards, Rudget Contributions 19:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know, there was an article in last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald paper about Mr Al-Kateb. Apparently he's been given a permanent visa and is now allowed to stay in Australia indefinitely. There was a lot of info on the court case and so on that might be good to expand the article even further. I'm on a wikibreak, but if you didn't get the article I'll keep it and do some work on it later. Just reply to this here - I'll read your reply. JRG 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up; I still have the Saturday Age around here somewhere, I'll have a look when I get the chance. -- bainer ( talk) 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article is found here. Hope it's helpful. JRG 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I became involved at R&I early in the year through merging another article from an AfD (forgot the name), which had much interesting research but was not appropriate as a stand alone. This merged data was later broken out and ended up as an appendix table to the Test Data (child article). An example of the post merge pre-breakup R&I article is here: [1] (including the merged table). This might be a good reference in your endeavor to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Good luck! -- Kevin Murray 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS: If you do think that a history of how this broke apart is useful in your mending, the discussion seems to start here: [2] -- Kevin Murray 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
|
Melbourne Meetup
|
 | |
Hello Thebainer! The Melburnians are having another meet-up! Please consult this page if you are interested to participate in the discussion! Thanks! Phgao 03:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that merge--- it didn't look like fun! futurebird 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am asking you to protect the current reversion of the R&I article which reflects your compilation of the various articles, for a period of a week and then semi-protection for an additional two weeks. With the best of intentions too much has happened too quickly including additions in a time where we are trying to consolidate. As the massive amount of recent micro edits was impossible to evaluate, I've reverted to your lat version. We really need some time to evaluate and form a plan. I like the KISS overview approach, but this is an emotionaly charged topic and there will be no clear path. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see Guy has already protected the page. I think it's important to point out that while I tried not to duplicate any material when merging the articles together, there are some sections which significantly overlap; there are two sections on stereotype threat, for example. I would encourage people to keep chopping and changing things around to see how it looks, though in draft copies if not everyone's happy with it being done to the main article. -- bainer ( talk) 10:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Though I did not express a "merge" opinion but rather "Strong Keep", I approve of the way you merged the material, and do not object to your assessment of the AFD consensus. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
If you do decide to create the tool we discussed on #wikipedia-en-admins, could you let me know on my talk page? Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2007-11-13 17:29
The nomination was to redirect to Mad Men. Besides my nomination, three additional !votes were to redirect per the nomination or to the more specific Mad Men#Episodes. Only two said to redirect to a separate list article. Additionally, the list was separately AFDed and the outcome was to redirect to Mad Men because there was no content for a list article. There is little or no support for a separate list article and undoing that redirect so as to redirect the episode articles there ignores the consensus of the episode list AFD and the strong majority of the collective episode AFD. Please redirect to the main article in line with the expressed consensus of the community. Otto4711 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then, I didn't see you had made a completely separate nomination for the list. Feel free to redirect it then, don't forget to repair the double redirects. In the future, when you want to merge or redirect articles together, you should use the method outlined here rather than nominating them for deletion. Also, try to avoid multiple nominations on the one topic, it makes it hard to keep track of things. -- bainer ( talk) 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Current fiction template
Thank you for your message. I have left a reply on my talk page. -- Pixelface 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your comment on the {{ Current fiction}} dustup
Hi Thebainer,
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your comment on my talk page regarding my conflict with Pixelface. Your point is well-taken, and although my comment intended both to ask Liquidfinale for help and let Pixelface know that revert-warring would get him nowhere, I understand that it does not add to the discussion at hand and will avoid similar comments in the future.
However, I also wanted to double-check a couple of things with you to make sure I am interpreting WP:3RR correctly. My understanding is that the purpose of the three-revert rule is not only to prevent two editors from engaging in an edit war, but to provide a source of relief when one editor reverts the changes of multiple editors. That is, if changes made by a single editor to an article are disagreeable to a group of editors working on that article, the fact that the group as a whole can revert the changes more than three times means that the current consensus will be preserved and the topic will be forced to the talkspace, as the sole editor going against this apparent consensus can only revert it three times in total without being subject to a block.
To that end, I've seen several instances of editors asking for backup when dealing with edit warring on other users' talk pages. So if you could, I'd appreciate any guidance you could offer regarding 1) whether or not my interpretation of WP:3RR above is correct and 2) whether or not recruiting other editors for help is acceptable under the same. (Given your comment on my talk page, I assume that if the latter is all right, help should be sought on the talk page of the user you are seeking it from rather than the talk page of the user you are in disagreement with.)
Thank you in advance! -- jonny-mt( t)( c) Tell me what you think! 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that. Redirects from page moves are never deleted unless they're nonsense titles, correct? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redirects in general are not deleted unless they're nonsense titles ("implausible" is the word that the speedy deletion criteria use). This is particularly the case for redirects resulting for pagemoves because although we can track down internal links to the redirect, we have no idea about external links to the redirect. Removing it may well break incoming links, which is not very user friendly! -- bainer ( talk) 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, will you be coming along on Sunday? cheers -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 11:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged with 'needing sections' so I added some. Hope you do not mind. It's a very well written article. Thanks for your work on it! Awotter ( talk) 12:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
- What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
- Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
- In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
- Why do you think users should vote for you?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Answered at User talk:Ral315#ArbCom questions - bainer's answers. -- bainer ( talk) 14:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For taking on and fixing David Southall on short notice. east.718 at 13:08, November 27, 2007 |
Great rewrite on this article. It had been on my radar for a while, being in poor condition, but I had not moved into doing anything on it. It's looking a lot better now. — BillC talk 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've repiled to your comments on your e-mail. Please let me know if this is disabled, and we can set up a private covnersation aontehr way. It explaines why I've removed your warning, and why in this case they are inappropriate. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here's one you can revert and block, if you'd like to try to help. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are right to smack BillCJ. He is just a nasty, petty little fool who has pissed off one person too many with his silly reverts and non edit edits. Signed Dufus the Dog, beloved and ever faithful pet of the banned user Wikzilla.
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the links! — Sebastian 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)
Please do not remove content my userpage. If you have concerns there are avenues with which to discuss them, where you can provide examples of policy to support your contentions which can be challenged and discussed. I contend that I am permitted to warn other parties that I will disclose material if I feel that they are in violation of the principles of Wikipedia, or the law. I have read WP:Userpage and note that, per WP:Userpage#Removal of inappropriate content, that it requires the communities consideration of what is inappropriate. You may wish to bring up the matter at WP:AN, but you are not permitted to remove content that you personally disapprove of. Should you continue to remove content without consensus then you are edit warring and are thus liable for sanction. This is not yet a warning, just a reminder. LessHeard vanU 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bainer, can you explain to me how to interpret the results from a WHOIS report? You remarked on ANI about 203.109.223.1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'd like to know how you can tell that it is a a dynamic dsl address and such, thanks. - JodyB talk 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The WHOIS will tell you who owns the IP address; the WHOIS for this IP shows that it's part of a block of IPs with the same details (the "inetnum" field shows the range of the block), the "netname" is TIG, which is The Internet Group. You can see from the "status" field that it is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE"; this means that it's not a static IP. The reverse DNS for this IP resolves to "203-109-223-1.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz" - which indicates it belongs to the ISP ihug, and that it's probably part of the dynamically allocated ("dyn") DSL pool ("dsl"). You obviously can't tell for sure just from the publicly available information, but everything indicates it's not a static IP.
- Was that helpful? There's no shortage of IT people around to ask if you need some more detailed information, I'm no professional :) -- bainer ( talk) 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi I have Commons:Commons:Project scope concerns on this image. Also the license is problematic as it needs to be GFDL per screen capture. -- Cat chi? 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- See
commons:Category:Lolcats. I'm just joining in the party. --
bainer (
talk) 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- How is any of that in the project scope? --
Cat
chi? 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a question for Commons. As I said, they seem to have a number of these and I have no idea what's been discussed with respect to them over there. --
bainer (
talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I happen to be a commons admin which was why I was inquiring. I'll drop this issue for now since this is a non-critical issue and can be resolved later, preferably after the conclusion of the arbcom election. You may want to rename the image given some people may use it in a less than ideal manner. I'll keep you posted on this since I feel you'll have valuable input. -- Cat chi? 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a question for Commons. As I said, they seem to have a number of these and I have no idea what's been discussed with respect to them over there. --
bainer (
talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- How is any of that in the project scope? --
Cat
chi? 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for moving Charles Kingston (politician) back to Charles Kingston and fixing the DAB page at Charles Kingston (disambiguation). I really should have done that originally, and I think I was on brain-freeze when I did the DAB-ing. I agree that the Australian politician justifies primary usage. Snocrates 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know, when you update Did You Know you're supposed to send out credits to the authors/nominators. Thanks. Red rocket boy 13:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Protection on List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Remove it please. I give up. The fair use inclusionists have come up with a contortionist explanation for how this article is not a list of characters at all, but instead is an article about characters and thus it's ok to have a fair use image for every character or even a few hundred for every character for all I know. I give up. I've been worn down. Wikipedia isn't a free content encyclopedia, and our m:mission be damned. They want as much fair use as possible, let them have it. I argued ad nauseum at [3]. I give up. They win. Please let them put as much fair use onto the article as possible. I recommend a few hundred images. Maybe even a few thousand. I'm quite sure it'd be a featured list then. Don't worry about the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria which clearly make this out as a list. That's wrong too. THIS article is UNIQUE! It's a non-list of characters acting as an article about the characters including all the characters...or something. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
You concluded a AfD five weeks ago on a list of articles that had been spun off from the original. The result was split between delete and keep and you reccomende merge. The article was redirected, but the content was never merged (the same applies to all the other articles), and the editors who nominated it are now claiming treating the article as though it had been deleted. The parent artcile is a complete shambles now, because nobody can agree to merge any of the things that you recmmende to be merged back into the article. Thus every section now has a "see main template" that links back to the top of the article.
This is in no way your fault. However, there was no consensus to delete, yet that is the net effect, an extraordianry thing considering the amount of careful sourcing that went into these 8 articles, perhaps 1000 sources. Lobojo ( talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it was merged. That one was merged in this edit. The final result after all the merges is this revision. Not all of the child articles were merged in their entirety; some duplicated parts of each other more or less word for word and I tried to eliminate this duplication where it occurred. Otherwise, the merger was complete.
- As you can see from the page history since then, it's been altered somewhat since. Note that it's not necessarily a bad thing that not every single word remains in the article; as I remarked at the time, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an entire library, and the function of our articles is to provide an overview of topics, not to repeat every word that has ever been said about a subject. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As the closer of the "Race and intelligence (XXX)" series AfD, I was wondering if you would care to explain the matter to User:Lobojo; this needs an uninvolved perspective. See here and here. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh...missed the section above this one. Guettarda ( talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a call on WP:AWNB to try and get some style guidelines for our pages on individual parliaments. I know you've created a few of these, so I was wondering if you might have any suggestions. Rebecca ( talk) 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
re block of User:Rklawton
I have unblocked following a request. I had previously commented here regarding the request, the details of which are in the history. Sorry about the flip-flopping. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge notice on Wikipedia:Private correspondence
I notice that you turned a merge notice on this article into a template. I'm not really sure that a merge has been discussed seriously for some time now. It may be worth checking the talk page with a view to removing the proposal as moribund. -- Tony Sidaway 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey there bainer. Just letting you know that the article's GA nomination is on hold, with comments at User:Miranda/SuevHill. I can help out to some extent, but I figure it's good if you (as the nom) set the ball rolling. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide ( Review) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giano_II. John254 04:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your new appointment as Arbitrator! Good luck, and don't wear yourself out :) Majorly ( talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!!! I'm sure you will do well, serving on arbcom. -- Aude ( talk) 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. :-) FloNight ( talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Kirill 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats! Hopefully, there won't be an case over this image. :-D miranda 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice table in the evidence section! Let's hope that sort of thing catches on. Do you think the contributions made to talk pages and user talk pages could be worked in there at the same time, or would that bloat it too much? My evidence section has some links (some outdated) to talk page discussions, which give a flavour of what was happening outside the page itself. There are other steps as well, for instance, requests for page protection, the ANI thread, and so on.
Carcharoth (
talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- That must have taken you quite a while - it presents the information very nicely. I hope it's appreciated by the arbcom. violet/riga (t) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've raised some points from that timeline
here, in case you are interested.
Carcharoth (
talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- You might also want to keep an eye out for people editing that table. Someone added something at the end. For some reason, tables like that encourage collaborative editing much more than normal evidence sections. Sometimes I think a collaborative evidence gathering session to build a table like that might work well. Do it on a separate page (maybe link from the evidence page), and copy over when finished. FWIW, some of the block and protection links could be more specific - do you have the patience to do the time-limited method shown at Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide#How to link to a log? The page protection request is here, and the response is here. Do you think there is any chance the page protection can be extended for longer? It would be horrible if this started up again during the arbcom case. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that API method is neat! I hope it won't make the other arbitrators' heads spin. I'm sure you'll be able to explain it to them. I had one other thought while looking at that table. One of the page protections expired naturally. The one that ran out at 21:38 on 25 December. Maybe you could add a row to the table to make it clearer that: (a) edit warring didn't start up again straightaway; and (b) the next edits were to an unprotected page (some might take the absence of an unprotection to mean that the page was still protected). Carcharoth ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a handy method, you just grab the oldid out of the URL. On edits while protected, the far right column has a little red indicator for edits made while the page was protected. Around the middle of the timeline there are some there so you can see what it looks like. The expiry time is also in the protection summary which is quoted. -- bainer ( talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking, though, that you could try and come up with a different colour for "automatic Mediawiki actions" to show the automatic expiry of the protection. It took me a while of scanning up and down the table to work out at what point the protection expired, and I thought a row showing that could help others. The colour could also be used to show automatic expiry of blocks, except that didn't happen in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to thank you for putting up your table of evidence in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. It reminded me of a similar submission made years ago by one of our very best—it too was exhaustive, neutral, and fair. Submissions to /Evidence and /Workshop pages often make for difficult reading; quite apart from their often painful content, they are by their very nature partisan. I imagine it must be difficult sometimes for neutral third parties to form fair conclusions from the evidence at hand. Your work should go some way in making this a little easier in this instance—and it's good that it does, for it's a fairly important case. Kind regards — Encephalon 11:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Reminder, there are two more days in order to address the issues raised in Sue v Hill GAC. miranda 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- See talk page for assessment. miranda 04:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, congrats on the Arbcom election. Unless you let me know otherwise I will assume you are not planning to be significantly involved in chapter planning stuff, e.g. writing model rules. Although your assistance would of course be welcome. -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 13:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election to Arbcom. That's a good outcome. I'm sure you'll be a fine arbitrator. Metamagician3000 ( talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I really didn't think that a simple request for a civility strikethrough would turn up as arbitration evidence. Please remove it; it's trivial. Or if you insist on using it please include the entire exchange. Durova Charge! 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's only there to provide context for AzaToth's comment to Giano, and his reply to you giving his opinion of the comment, which is the real object of interest. --
bainer (
talk) 07:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the interest from your perspective, but once burned twice shy. I was trying in a small way to turn down the heat on that situation. I hoped a few words from me on behalf of civility toward Giano would be accepted as totally impartial. It didn't work at all. In spite of the fact that I never used IRC, a meme has linked me so closely with the idea of cabal that I cringe to see my name appear on the evidence page. Please respect my wishes: either leave me out altogether or post the whole thing so it's clear what I'm doing. A lot of people construe anything about me in extraordinarily bad faith. I'm trying to rebuild a reputation. Thank you. Durova Charge! 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- No need at this point; I've posted evidence of my own. Things have gotten so tetchy that I was accused of practicing favoritism for nominating the Angela Beesley bio even though I had previously nominated the Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt bios for exactly the same reasons. Most of my statement was for the benefit of people who see my name and think zomg! cabal!, although I added on another part today and a workshop proposal that might actually be of use to the Committee. Discussion on that proposal, plus a rewording of my evidence per your post, will probably be it for me. Happy new year, Durova Charge! 02:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might like to note in your evidence section that I apologised to Giano for the use of inappropriate edit summaries in removing his attacks from my talk page. [4] -- Tony Sidaway 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been waiting for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence#Analysis! :-) That individual analysis is kind of what I was trying to do before I ran out of steam. I was also trying to tease out the idea that some reverts were early on in an edit war (like the reverts by you and John Reaves), and that this is generally OK (especially with the advice given) when compared to reverts at the end of a 14-stage edit war (Ryulong), but it is difficult to do that comprehensively like you have done. I did have some thoughts though: (1) Some people are missing from the list, most obviously Tony Sidaway (involved at the start with Giano) and Phil Sandifer (the second block); (2) You don't cover yourself in this list - would it be best to link to your statement somewhere, as this covered your stance on your own revert in all this? Carcharoth ( talk) 04:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take a look; I questioned a piece of your analysis over here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Evidence#(2)_Geogre_edited_a_protected_page?. Thanks for all the work. Jd2718 ( talk) 04:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've also formalised my suggestions above in an evidence section at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence#Suggested additions to the timeline. Feel free to add stuff in from there as you wish. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Hello Thebainer, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests and arbcomming....;) All the best!.... ~ Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
Hi Bainer, Thanks for considering the issue. Just a quick question before I present some info. Where do you want the discussion to proceed? On the talk page of the RFARB page? Or should I add another comment under previous one? Or under your comment?-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- To expand your statement the best way is just to add it below your existing one, possibly under a subsection (as you have already done with that first expansion). For general discussion about the request itself (rather than about the dispute that is the subject of the request) then the RFAR talk page would be the best location.
- Since I last posted FT2 and Sam Blacketer have added their opinions; I substantially agree with what they are saying, that is, there doesn't seem, at least on the face of the matter, to be anything immediately warranting arbitration, and it doesn't look like there have been any recent attempts at dispute resolution, which we like to see even if it has failed since it helps to identify exactly what the issues are. -- bainer ( talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read here Please reconsider.-- MONGO 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for your time on this. As I've noted at RFARB, I've decided to withdraw from Wikipedia. I only have time to contribute very narrowly to the site, and this apparently raises suspicions about my motives, which in turn causes much more grief (for myself and others) than my contributions justify. I have many good ideas about how situations like this could be dealt with, of course, and what is wrong with MONGO's approach, but I can see now that what I want is for the community's culture to change quite radically. Working to bring that about presupposes a commitment to WP that I have so far not had an occasion to form (mainly because of MONGO and his supporters). WP is not all bad, in my view, but the cons have simply outweighed the pros. Once again, thanks for your time.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted. I'd quite forgotten those interactions, which in retrospect make me ask a chastened question: what on earth got into me? Getting upset isn't a good reason to act nastily. For more evidence of my shortness of temper which led to minor disputes becoming exacerbated, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4. -- Tony Sidaway 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure that's relevant in general terms, but it's a bit outside my scope for the moment. I was asked to put together some evidence specifically on your past interactions with Bishonen and Giano, so as to provide a clearer picture of the background to all this. Thanks anyway for the pointer. --
bainer (
talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The aggressive, dismissive snippishness is what horrifies me. I am not aware of any wish to provoke, but that kind of reaction (removing Irpen's request for instance) is obviously going to escalate in the long run by storing up bad feelings that are difficult to reconcile. -- Tony Sidaway 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I see that you closed this AfD at the end of October, but haven't cleaned-up the related articles, yet. Any idea when you'll be able to complete the process? I've never seen an AfD abandoned like this, and I'm tnos ure what to do about the involved articles. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to the blocking policy. It does not address the indefinite options, so I have addressed it with this edit. Lets discuss. M-ercury at 11:39, January 10, 2008
- My problem is with the duplication. If you want to repeat what is said in the section on unblocking in the section on proxies for clarity then do so, but please repeat it exactly. There's nothing special about TOR nodes over other open/anon proxies, they get unblocked when they are no longer open/anon proxies. There's nothing special about TOR nodes that are dynamic IPs either, they are only blocked for short periods, as with all dynamic IPs. With that paragraph you've created special rules for TOR nodes as opposed to all other proxies when there is no good reason to do so. -- bainer ( talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did create a special rule with regards to the consensus on Tor nodes in the Tor node discussion. Consensus with regards to blocking (not unblocking) was that we will not be blocking indefinitely. Please review that discussion, and let me know if you want/need clarification? Best regards, M-ercury at 13:00, January 10, 2008
- I don't see a consensus here for the change you made. You have two people agreeing with you and four people disagreeing with you. The comments of 1 != 2 and Mr.Z-man are in line with current policy, that is, we block the open/anon proxies, and unblock when they're no longer open/anon, bearing in mind existing policy on blocking dynamic IPs (dynamics aren't going to be getting indef blocks anyway, TOR or not).
- I also don't understand the fervency to have a different rule for TOR. Other open or anon proxies get turned off sometimes too. -- bainer ( talk) 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I was soliciting for views on whether to apply the probation without any further warnings. Hopefully they're now aware that any more silliness will result in sanctions straight away. BLACKKITE 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed last night that we don't have any article on Frank Galbally. It'd be a pretty useful one to have, because he was such a well known figure, but I've got a to-do list a mile long already and I probably won't get around to it for ages, and I figure it's more your area than mine. Any chance you'd be able to whip up something on him? Rebecca ( talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I probably won't have time to do much just now; I'll be away for a fortnight from Saturday. It would be a good one to do when I get back though, when I can get into the newspaper collections at uni. There should be plenty of material on him in there. I get some stuff back to the late 80s through Factiva, but some 60s/70s stuff would be good. -- bainer ( talk) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Howdy Bainer. Is there any chance that more inline refs could be added to this article? There are some paragraphs with no inline refs at all. I did a survey of Australian FAs at User:Blnguyen/AusFA and I some articles would be better off being improved now rather than face the hassle of an FAR down the track. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a take-home exam this weekend but after that I'll have some time to work on this. I haven't done anything on that article in quite a while actually; really not since I first added it back in June 05! It certainly needs some footnote love :) -- bainer ( talk) 08:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've got a book with a chapter on it :) I'll have a look tomorrow (our time...). Daniel 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Would just like to say your question has been answered, and I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to express a better self-description. Regards, Rudget Contributions 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to my answer to your question, I would also like to second User:Phoenix 15's point on the subject of IAR. I would also express my viewpoint, that it would be a good idea for an editor to bypass policy if it improves the overall quality of Wikipedia, and does not retract from the real purpose of the site. Regards, Rudget Contributions 19:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know, there was an article in last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald paper about Mr Al-Kateb. Apparently he's been given a permanent visa and is now allowed to stay in Australia indefinitely. There was a lot of info on the court case and so on that might be good to expand the article even further. I'm on a wikibreak, but if you didn't get the article I'll keep it and do some work on it later. Just reply to this here - I'll read your reply. JRG 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up; I still have the Saturday Age around here somewhere, I'll have a look when I get the chance. -- bainer ( talk) 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article is found here. Hope it's helpful. JRG 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I became involved at R&I early in the year through merging another article from an AfD (forgot the name), which had much interesting research but was not appropriate as a stand alone. This merged data was later broken out and ended up as an appendix table to the Test Data (child article). An example of the post merge pre-breakup R&I article is here: [1] (including the merged table). This might be a good reference in your endeavor to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Good luck! -- Kevin Murray 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS: If you do think that a history of how this broke apart is useful in your mending, the discussion seems to start here: [2] -- Kevin Murray 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Melbourne Meetup
|
| |
Hello Thebainer! The Melburnians are having another meet-up! Please consult this page if you are interested to participate in the discussion! Thanks! Phgao 03:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that merge--- it didn't look like fun! futurebird 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am asking you to protect the current reversion of the R&I article which reflects your compilation of the various articles, for a period of a week and then semi-protection for an additional two weeks. With the best of intentions too much has happened too quickly including additions in a time where we are trying to consolidate. As the massive amount of recent micro edits was impossible to evaluate, I've reverted to your lat version. We really need some time to evaluate and form a plan. I like the KISS overview approach, but this is an emotionaly charged topic and there will be no clear path. Thanks! -- Kevin Murray 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see Guy has already protected the page. I think it's important to point out that while I tried not to duplicate any material when merging the articles together, there are some sections which significantly overlap; there are two sections on stereotype threat, for example. I would encourage people to keep chopping and changing things around to see how it looks, though in draft copies if not everyone's happy with it being done to the main article. -- bainer ( talk) 10:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Though I did not express a "merge" opinion but rather "Strong Keep", I approve of the way you merged the material, and do not object to your assessment of the AFD consensus. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
If you do decide to create the tool we discussed on #wikipedia-en-admins, could you let me know on my talk page? Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2007-11-13 17:29
The nomination was to redirect to Mad Men. Besides my nomination, three additional !votes were to redirect per the nomination or to the more specific Mad Men#Episodes. Only two said to redirect to a separate list article. Additionally, the list was separately AFDed and the outcome was to redirect to Mad Men because there was no content for a list article. There is little or no support for a separate list article and undoing that redirect so as to redirect the episode articles there ignores the consensus of the episode list AFD and the strong majority of the collective episode AFD. Please redirect to the main article in line with the expressed consensus of the community. Otto4711 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then, I didn't see you had made a completely separate nomination for the list. Feel free to redirect it then, don't forget to repair the double redirects. In the future, when you want to merge or redirect articles together, you should use the method outlined here rather than nominating them for deletion. Also, try to avoid multiple nominations on the one topic, it makes it hard to keep track of things. -- bainer ( talk) 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Current fiction template
Thank you for your message. I have left a reply on my talk page. -- Pixelface 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your comment on the {{ Current fiction}} dustup
Hi Thebainer,
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your comment on my talk page regarding my conflict with Pixelface. Your point is well-taken, and although my comment intended both to ask Liquidfinale for help and let Pixelface know that revert-warring would get him nowhere, I understand that it does not add to the discussion at hand and will avoid similar comments in the future.
However, I also wanted to double-check a couple of things with you to make sure I am interpreting WP:3RR correctly. My understanding is that the purpose of the three-revert rule is not only to prevent two editors from engaging in an edit war, but to provide a source of relief when one editor reverts the changes of multiple editors. That is, if changes made by a single editor to an article are disagreeable to a group of editors working on that article, the fact that the group as a whole can revert the changes more than three times means that the current consensus will be preserved and the topic will be forced to the talkspace, as the sole editor going against this apparent consensus can only revert it three times in total without being subject to a block.
To that end, I've seen several instances of editors asking for backup when dealing with edit warring on other users' talk pages. So if you could, I'd appreciate any guidance you could offer regarding 1) whether or not my interpretation of WP:3RR above is correct and 2) whether or not recruiting other editors for help is acceptable under the same. (Given your comment on my talk page, I assume that if the latter is all right, help should be sought on the talk page of the user you are seeking it from rather than the talk page of the user you are in disagreement with.)
Thank you in advance! -- jonny-mt( t)( c) Tell me what you think! 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that. Redirects from page moves are never deleted unless they're nonsense titles, correct? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redirects in general are not deleted unless they're nonsense titles ("implausible" is the word that the speedy deletion criteria use). This is particularly the case for redirects resulting for pagemoves because although we can track down internal links to the redirect, we have no idea about external links to the redirect. Removing it may well break incoming links, which is not very user friendly! -- bainer ( talk) 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, will you be coming along on Sunday? cheers -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 11:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged with 'needing sections' so I added some. Hope you do not mind. It's a very well written article. Thanks for your work on it! Awotter ( talk) 12:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
- What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
- Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
- In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
- Why do you think users should vote for you?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Answered at User talk:Ral315#ArbCom questions - bainer's answers. -- bainer ( talk) 14:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
|
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For taking on and fixing David Southall on short notice. east.718 at 13:08, November 27, 2007 |
Great rewrite on this article. It had been on my radar for a while, being in poor condition, but I had not moved into doing anything on it. It's looking a lot better now. — BillC talk 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've repiled to your comments on your e-mail. Please let me know if this is disabled, and we can set up a private covnersation aontehr way. It explaines why I've removed your warning, and why in this case they are inappropriate. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here's one you can revert and block, if you'd like to try to help. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are right to smack BillCJ. He is just a nasty, petty little fool who has pissed off one person too many with his silly reverts and non edit edits. Signed Dufus the Dog, beloved and ever faithful pet of the banned user Wikzilla.
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the links! — Sebastian 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)
Please do not remove content my userpage. If you have concerns there are avenues with which to discuss them, where you can provide examples of policy to support your contentions which can be challenged and discussed. I contend that I am permitted to warn other parties that I will disclose material if I feel that they are in violation of the principles of Wikipedia, or the law. I have read WP:Userpage and note that, per WP:Userpage#Removal of inappropriate content, that it requires the communities consideration of what is inappropriate. You may wish to bring up the matter at WP:AN, but you are not permitted to remove content that you personally disapprove of. Should you continue to remove content without consensus then you are edit warring and are thus liable for sanction. This is not yet a warning, just a reminder. LessHeard vanU 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bainer, can you explain to me how to interpret the results from a WHOIS report? You remarked on ANI about 203.109.223.1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'd like to know how you can tell that it is a a dynamic dsl address and such, thanks. - JodyB talk 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The WHOIS will tell you who owns the IP address; the WHOIS for this IP shows that it's part of a block of IPs with the same details (the "inetnum" field shows the range of the block), the "netname" is TIG, which is The Internet Group. You can see from the "status" field that it is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE"; this means that it's not a static IP. The reverse DNS for this IP resolves to "203-109-223-1.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz" - which indicates it belongs to the ISP ihug, and that it's probably part of the dynamically allocated ("dyn") DSL pool ("dsl"). You obviously can't tell for sure just from the publicly available information, but everything indicates it's not a static IP.
- Was that helpful? There's no shortage of IT people around to ask if you need some more detailed information, I'm no professional :) -- bainer ( talk) 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi I have Commons:Commons:Project scope concerns on this image. Also the license is problematic as it needs to be GFDL per screen capture. -- Cat chi? 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- See
commons:Category:Lolcats. I'm just joining in the party. --
bainer (
talk) 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- How is any of that in the project scope? --
Cat
chi? 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a question for Commons. As I said, they seem to have a number of these and I have no idea what's been discussed with respect to them over there. --
bainer (
talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I happen to be a commons admin which was why I was inquiring. I'll drop this issue for now since this is a non-critical issue and can be resolved later, preferably after the conclusion of the arbcom election. You may want to rename the image given some people may use it in a less than ideal manner. I'll keep you posted on this since I feel you'll have valuable input. -- Cat chi? 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a question for Commons. As I said, they seem to have a number of these and I have no idea what's been discussed with respect to them over there. --
bainer (
talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- How is any of that in the project scope? --
Cat
chi? 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for moving Charles Kingston (politician) back to Charles Kingston and fixing the DAB page at Charles Kingston (disambiguation). I really should have done that originally, and I think I was on brain-freeze when I did the DAB-ing. I agree that the Australian politician justifies primary usage. Snocrates 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know, when you update Did You Know you're supposed to send out credits to the authors/nominators. Thanks. Red rocket boy 13:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Protection on List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Remove it please. I give up. The fair use inclusionists have come up with a contortionist explanation for how this article is not a list of characters at all, but instead is an article about characters and thus it's ok to have a fair use image for every character or even a few hundred for every character for all I know. I give up. I've been worn down. Wikipedia isn't a free content encyclopedia, and our m:mission be damned. They want as much fair use as possible, let them have it. I argued ad nauseum at [3]. I give up. They win. Please let them put as much fair use onto the article as possible. I recommend a few hundred images. Maybe even a few thousand. I'm quite sure it'd be a featured list then. Don't worry about the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria which clearly make this out as a list. That's wrong too. THIS article is UNIQUE! It's a non-list of characters acting as an article about the characters including all the characters...or something. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
You concluded a AfD five weeks ago on a list of articles that had been spun off from the original. The result was split between delete and keep and you reccomende merge. The article was redirected, but the content was never merged (the same applies to all the other articles), and the editors who nominated it are now claiming treating the article as though it had been deleted. The parent artcile is a complete shambles now, because nobody can agree to merge any of the things that you recmmende to be merged back into the article. Thus every section now has a "see main template" that links back to the top of the article.
This is in no way your fault. However, there was no consensus to delete, yet that is the net effect, an extraordianry thing considering the amount of careful sourcing that went into these 8 articles, perhaps 1000 sources. Lobojo ( talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it was merged. That one was merged in this edit. The final result after all the merges is this revision. Not all of the child articles were merged in their entirety; some duplicated parts of each other more or less word for word and I tried to eliminate this duplication where it occurred. Otherwise, the merger was complete.
- As you can see from the page history since then, it's been altered somewhat since. Note that it's not necessarily a bad thing that not every single word remains in the article; as I remarked at the time, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an entire library, and the function of our articles is to provide an overview of topics, not to repeat every word that has ever been said about a subject. -- bainer ( talk) 11:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As the closer of the "Race and intelligence (XXX)" series AfD, I was wondering if you would care to explain the matter to User:Lobojo; this needs an uninvolved perspective. See here and here. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh...missed the section above this one. Guettarda ( talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a call on WP:AWNB to try and get some style guidelines for our pages on individual parliaments. I know you've created a few of these, so I was wondering if you might have any suggestions. Rebecca ( talk) 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
re block of User:Rklawton
I have unblocked following a request. I had previously commented here regarding the request, the details of which are in the history. Sorry about the flip-flopping. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge notice on Wikipedia:Private correspondence
I notice that you turned a merge notice on this article into a template. I'm not really sure that a merge has been discussed seriously for some time now. It may be worth checking the talk page with a view to removing the proposal as moribund. -- Tony Sidaway 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey there bainer. Just letting you know that the article's GA nomination is on hold, with comments at User:Miranda/SuevHill. I can help out to some extent, but I figure it's good if you (as the nom) set the ball rolling. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide ( Review) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giano_II. John254 04:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your new appointment as Arbitrator! Good luck, and don't wear yourself out :) Majorly ( talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!!! I'm sure you will do well, serving on arbcom. -- Aude ( talk) 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. :-) FloNight ( talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Kirill 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats! Hopefully, there won't be an case over this image. :-D miranda 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice table in the evidence section! Let's hope that sort of thing catches on. Do you think the contributions made to talk pages and user talk pages could be worked in there at the same time, or would that bloat it too much? My evidence section has some links (some outdated) to talk page discussions, which give a flavour of what was happening outside the page itself. There are other steps as well, for instance, requests for page protection, the ANI thread, and so on.
Carcharoth (
talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- That must have taken you quite a while - it presents the information very nicely. I hope it's appreciated by the arbcom. violet/riga (t) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've raised some points from that timeline
here, in case you are interested.
Carcharoth (
talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- You might also want to keep an eye out for people editing that table. Someone added something at the end. For some reason, tables like that encourage collaborative editing much more than normal evidence sections. Sometimes I think a collaborative evidence gathering session to build a table like that might work well. Do it on a separate page (maybe link from the evidence page), and copy over when finished. FWIW, some of the block and protection links could be more specific - do you have the patience to do the time-limited method shown at Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide#How to link to a log? The page protection request is here, and the response is here. Do you think there is any chance the page protection can be extended for longer? It would be horrible if this started up again during the arbcom case. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that API method is neat! I hope it won't make the other arbitrators' heads spin. I'm sure you'll be able to explain it to them. I had one other thought while looking at that table. One of the page protections expired naturally. The one that ran out at 21:38 on 25 December. Maybe you could add a row to the table to make it clearer that: (a) edit warring didn't start up again straightaway; and (b) the next edits were to an unprotected page (some might take the absence of an unprotection to mean that the page was still protected). Carcharoth ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a handy method, you just grab the oldid out of the URL. On edits while protected, the far right column has a little red indicator for edits made while the page was protected. Around the middle of the timeline there are some there so you can see what it looks like. The expiry time is also in the protection summary which is quoted. -- bainer ( talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking, though, that you could try and come up with a different colour for "automatic Mediawiki actions" to show the automatic expiry of the protection. It took me a while of scanning up and down the table to work out at what point the protection expired, and I thought a row showing that could help others. The colour could also be used to show automatic expiry of blocks, except that didn't happen in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to thank you for putting up your table of evidence in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. It reminded me of a similar submission made years ago by one of our very best—it too was exhaustive, neutral, and fair. Submissions to /Evidence and /Workshop pages often make for difficult reading; quite apart from their often painful content, they are by their very nature partisan. I imagine it must be difficult sometimes for neutral third parties to form fair conclusions from the evidence at hand. Your work should go some way in making this a little easier in this instance—and it's good that it does, for it's a fairly important case. Kind regards — Encephalon 11:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Reminder, there are two more days in order to address the issues raised in Sue v Hill GAC. miranda 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- See talk page for assessment. miranda 04:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, congrats on the Arbcom election. Unless you let me know otherwise I will assume you are not planning to be significantly involved in chapter planning stuff, e.g. writing model rules. Although your assistance would of course be welcome. -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 13:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election to Arbcom. That's a good outcome. I'm sure you'll be a fine arbitrator. Metamagician3000 ( talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I really didn't think that a simple request for a civility strikethrough would turn up as arbitration evidence. Please remove it; it's trivial. Or if you insist on using it please include the entire exchange. Durova Charge! 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's only there to provide context for AzaToth's comment to Giano, and his reply to you giving his opinion of the comment, which is the real object of interest. --
bainer (
talk) 07:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the interest from your perspective, but once burned twice shy. I was trying in a small way to turn down the heat on that situation. I hoped a few words from me on behalf of civility toward Giano would be accepted as totally impartial. It didn't work at all. In spite of the fact that I never used IRC, a meme has linked me so closely with the idea of cabal that I cringe to see my name appear on the evidence page. Please respect my wishes: either leave me out altogether or post the whole thing so it's clear what I'm doing. A lot of people construe anything about me in extraordinarily bad faith. I'm trying to rebuild a reputation. Thank you. Durova Charge! 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- No need at this point; I've posted evidence of my own. Things have gotten so tetchy that I was accused of practicing favoritism for nominating the Angela Beesley bio even though I had previously nominated the Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt bios for exactly the same reasons. Most of my statement was for the benefit of people who see my name and think zomg! cabal!, although I added on another part today and a workshop proposal that might actually be of use to the Committee. Discussion on that proposal, plus a rewording of my evidence per your post, will probably be it for me. Happy new year, Durova Charge! 02:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might like to note in your evidence section that I apologised to Giano for the use of inappropriate edit summaries in removing his attacks from my talk page. [4] -- Tony Sidaway 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been waiting for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence#Analysis! :-) That individual analysis is kind of what I was trying to do before I ran out of steam. I was also trying to tease out the idea that some reverts were early on in an edit war (like the reverts by you and John Reaves), and that this is generally OK (especially with the advice given) when compared to reverts at the end of a 14-stage edit war (Ryulong), but it is difficult to do that comprehensively like you have done. I did have some thoughts though: (1) Some people are missing from the list, most obviously Tony Sidaway (involved at the start with Giano) and Phil Sandifer (the second block); (2) You don't cover yourself in this list - would it be best to link to your statement somewhere, as this covered your stance on your own revert in all this? Carcharoth ( talk) 04:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take a look; I questioned a piece of your analysis over here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Evidence#(2)_Geogre_edited_a_protected_page?. Thanks for all the work. Jd2718 ( talk) 04:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've also formalised my suggestions above in an evidence section at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence#Suggested additions to the timeline. Feel free to add stuff in from there as you wish. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Hello Thebainer, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests and arbcomming....;) All the best!.... ~ Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
Hi Bainer, Thanks for considering the issue. Just a quick question before I present some info. Where do you want the discussion to proceed? On the talk page of the RFARB page? Or should I add another comment under previous one? Or under your comment?-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- To expand your statement the best way is just to add it below your existing one, possibly under a subsection (as you have already done with that first expansion). For general discussion about the request itself (rather than about the dispute that is the subject of the request) then the RFAR talk page would be the best location.
- Since I last posted FT2 and Sam Blacketer have added their opinions; I substantially agree with what they are saying, that is, there doesn't seem, at least on the face of the matter, to be anything immediately warranting arbitration, and it doesn't look like there have been any recent attempts at dispute resolution, which we like to see even if it has failed since it helps to identify exactly what the issues are. -- bainer ( talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read here Please reconsider.-- MONGO 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot ( talk), at 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for your time on this. As I've noted at RFARB, I've decided to withdraw from Wikipedia. I only have time to contribute very narrowly to the site, and this apparently raises suspicions about my motives, which in turn causes much more grief (for myself and others) than my contributions justify. I have many good ideas about how situations like this could be dealt with, of course, and what is wrong with MONGO's approach, but I can see now that what I want is for the community's culture to change quite radically. Working to bring that about presupposes a commitment to WP that I have so far not had an occasion to form (mainly because of MONGO and his supporters). WP is not all bad, in my view, but the cons have simply outweighed the pros. Once again, thanks for your time.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted. I'd quite forgotten those interactions, which in retrospect make me ask a chastened question: what on earth got into me? Getting upset isn't a good reason to act nastily. For more evidence of my shortness of temper which led to minor disputes becoming exacerbated, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4. -- Tony Sidaway 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure that's relevant in general terms, but it's a bit outside my scope for the moment. I was asked to put together some evidence specifically on your past interactions with Bishonen and Giano, so as to provide a clearer picture of the background to all this. Thanks anyway for the pointer. --
bainer (
talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The aggressive, dismissive snippishness is what horrifies me. I am not aware of any wish to provoke, but that kind of reaction (removing Irpen's request for instance) is obviously going to escalate in the long run by storing up bad feelings that are difficult to reconcile. -- Tony Sidaway 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I see that you closed this AfD at the end of October, but haven't cleaned-up the related articles, yet. Any idea when you'll be able to complete the process? I've never seen an AfD abandoned like this, and I'm tnos ure what to do about the involved articles. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to the blocking policy. It does not address the indefinite options, so I have addressed it with this edit. Lets discuss. M-ercury at 11:39, January 10, 2008
- My problem is with the duplication. If you want to repeat what is said in the section on unblocking in the section on proxies for clarity then do so, but please repeat it exactly. There's nothing special about TOR nodes over other open/anon proxies, they get unblocked when they are no longer open/anon proxies. There's nothing special about TOR nodes that are dynamic IPs either, they are only blocked for short periods, as with all dynamic IPs. With that paragraph you've created special rules for TOR nodes as opposed to all other proxies when there is no good reason to do so. -- bainer ( talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did create a special rule with regards to the consensus on Tor nodes in the Tor node discussion. Consensus with regards to blocking (not unblocking) was that we will not be blocking indefinitely. Please review that discussion, and let me know if you want/need clarification? Best regards, M-ercury at 13:00, January 10, 2008
- I don't see a consensus here for the change you made. You have two people agreeing with you and four people disagreeing with you. The comments of 1 != 2 and Mr.Z-man are in line with current policy, that is, we block the open/anon proxies, and unblock when they're no longer open/anon, bearing in mind existing policy on blocking dynamic IPs (dynamics aren't going to be getting indef blocks anyway, TOR or not).
- I also don't understand the fervency to have a different rule for TOR. Other open or anon proxies get turned off sometimes too. -- bainer ( talk) 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I was soliciting for views on whether to apply the probation without any further warnings. Hopefully they're now aware that any more silliness will result in sanctions straight away. BLACKKITE 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed last night that we don't have any article on Frank Galbally. It'd be a pretty useful one to have, because he was such a well known figure, but I've got a to-do list a mile long already and I probably won't get around to it for ages, and I figure it's more your area than mine. Any chance you'd be able to whip up something on him? Rebecca ( talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I probably won't have time to do much just now; I'll be away for a fortnight from Saturday. It would be a good one to do when I get back though, when I can get into the newspaper collections at uni. There should be plenty of material on him in there. I get some stuff back to the late 80s through Factiva, but some 60s/70s stuff would be good. -- bainer ( talk) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)