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)
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 Wikipedia again.
Please just unblock me Bainer --
203.173.45.223 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not completely revise Wikipedia 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)
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)
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
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\ talk 12:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
Good decision. Derex 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
The article was just undeleted, and I neglected to remove the tag. *whacks self*- Amark moo! 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
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!) Ga rr ie 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Why did you delete my page?
Cocoaleche2 05:46, 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)
Just wanted to say good job closing an ugly AFD. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign. Grumpyyoungman01 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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 Woohoo! 08:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
At 16:32, you might note that I also confronted Yanksox regarding his personal attacks. — freak( talk) 08:28, Feb. 25, 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)
File:Detective barnstar.png | The Detective's Barnstar | |
For your outstanding detective work in compiling the timeline discussion on the Daniel Brandt deletion controversy. You've helped to make it far easier to understand what was going on. -- ChrisO 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
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)
Dear Thebainer, I just wanted to compliment you with the way you closed Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
There has been a request for a timeline similar to your Brandt wheel-war one to aid discussion at Wikipedia: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 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia. 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) talk to me
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)
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)
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)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dili_airport_aust_troops.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!
Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...
If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.
If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.
Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.
Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw that you removed some info from the Eve Ensler article with a fairly official-sounding notation. Does that mean there was a complaint? The statements about her father are widely reported and often a topic in her work ( NYT, Lifetime, NPR). Her relationship status was out of date, but she was living with someone for about 15 years prior to a messy breakup. I wanted to check in with you before adding this stuff in, since the link to OTRS doesn't explain anything, and I don't know how to view the original ticket. Thanks! Jokestress 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The links I posted are all clearly related and link. The reversions are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer ( talk • contribs).
Not only was the article archived on Washington Post website but the title article number was right there. How can this be an unbiased article with no mention of why he left the Whitehouse in the first place? The reasons why he was fired are well-documented and were well-covered in many media outlets in 1990. The same information was revisited by all the news organizations in 2005, when he released the tapes of President Bush.
Why is that bad, but then you let the following statement stay? "In 1995 he helped reopen Canyonville Christian Academy, [5] a private boarding school for teenagers in southern Oregon originally founded in 1924. For three years, Mr. Wead personally subsidized the school’s monthly budget." I checked with the school and they've said that Mr. Wead did NOT subsidize their budget and they were curious why he would make this claim. Where did you find it? As I could not find any reference to this at all. This is a double standard on your part and definitely biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Tigerlil74 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)We have been watching with some interest the evolving biography of the president of CCA. I saw a comment that someone had contacted our school and was told that Mr. Wead had not subsidized our school's monthly budget. This is a false statement. I am the superintendent of the school and can be reached at www.canyonville.net or by calling the CCA offices when they open next week. No one has contacted me and our offices are closed for Spring Break.
I know of no one in a position to know at CCA who would make such a statement to this person. If anyone has made such a statement to this person, it is false. In the first years of our reopening Mr. Wead did indeed subsidize our monthly budget donating personal funds and ever since continues to help raise funds for the school. He also uses his many foreign speaking engagements to promote the school and help us attract students. Mr. Wead has helped us arrange scholarship money for students in tragic circumstances around the world. We are grateful for his work.
Sincerely, -- Tigerlil74 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Superintendent, Canyonville Christian Academy, Canyonville, Oregon.
just wanted to say thank you! - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am troubled that this particular contributor, Thetruthexplainer, keeps stripping the article of sources such as Time Magazine, etc. This takes a lot of work and is suddenly lost to everyone. If there is some personal issue here then he or she should contact the person directly and resolve it and not use this bio as a posting board.
As to the article about Mr. Wead being fired, I actually have no doubt that something like this was published. Thetruthexplainer is probably right and I too am trying to find it. I live in Arizona and I think it was raised as an issue here when Wead ran for congress but as I remember, it was one day because of the lack of substance. My question is what did the White House say? Either he was or he wasn't. If he was it would surely have been a major issue in his run for congress but it is not mentioned anywhere. It certainly does not warrant a major part of his bio if the White House doesn't acknowledge it and his political opponents never mention it. Has anyone thought of checking with the Presidential Library in Texas?
What was especially odd was the constantly inserted statement that Mr. Wead has an anti gay agenda. Does the article say that? I doubt it. A search on Mr. Wead brings up thousands of pages, heck, he has written 30 books, and there is nothing anti-gay. For almost 20 years I shared the same literary agent with Mr. Wead. It was Jed Mattes, who was a leader in the gay activist movement and was the most prominent gay literary agent. Mattes was thrilled with Wead's career and bragged on his bestseller about Presidential children. I think this anti-gay business is a perception based on Wead’s evangelical religion, as well as word-of-mouth myth.
I guess I am confused by the venomous attitude of this person. Does he or she KNOW Doug Wead? I have known Wead for 20 years and have been amazed at how much he gives of his life and energy and intelligence and substance to worthy causes. Please, sir, if you have issues with him, contact him directly and work it out. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merryjaz ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
____________________________________
"Venomous" attitude? That is an extremely strange statement. My goal is not for this to turn into a message board. Obviously you have a very close relationship with Mr. Wead. I find it somewhat hateful and possibly anti-gay yourself that you would jump on that portion of the bio, as though that was the point. Its funny that you consider a comment that is possibly gay-sympathetic as "venomous"? I am not pro-gay or anti-gay, however, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Wead was dismissed from his position as liason because of his "anti-gay" actions. It was well documented and should be included in his biography. One does not leave a prominent role in the Whitehouse for no reason. (Pursuing the Arizona run has no relevance to this matter). If you read closely, you'll see several articles from ARIZONA printed during Mr. Wead's run there discussing the facts of his dismissal. Mr. Wead was FAMOUS for his close EVANGELICAL relationship to James Bakker and therefore, I feel Bakker's chapter on Mr. Wead in his book "I Was Wrong" to be extremely credible. His recounting of events was extremely similar to the other news articles of the 1990s and includes a lot more detail into why Mr. Wead constantly promotes himself the way he repeatedly does.
As for stripping article sources... I have done no such thing. I merely added the paragraph about his departure from the Whitehouse. I have no ill feelings towards Mr. Wead. I did not add any of the other news articles about his business deals or his tumultuous personal life. Mr. Wead's personal life is his own.
My main concern is that this particular Wikipedia biography reads like the promo on the back of Mr. Wead's own books. It is not neutral in anyway and any neutral comments that are posted are quickly edited off. It would appear the page was either written/maintained by Mr. Wead himself, or it was written/maintained by his publicist. Is Wikipedia about self-promotion? Or is it about factual relevance?
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)
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 Wikipedia again.
Please just unblock me Bainer --
203.173.45.223 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not completely revise Wikipedia 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)
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)
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
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\ talk 12:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
Good decision. Derex 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
The article was just undeleted, and I neglected to remove the tag. *whacks self*- Amark moo! 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
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!) Ga rr ie 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Why did you delete my page?
Cocoaleche2 05:46, 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)
Just wanted to say good job closing an ugly AFD. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign. Grumpyyoungman01 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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 Woohoo! 08:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
At 16:32, you might note that I also confronted Yanksox regarding his personal attacks. — freak( talk) 08:28, Feb. 25, 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)
File:Detective barnstar.png | The Detective's Barnstar | |
For your outstanding detective work in compiling the timeline discussion on the Daniel Brandt deletion controversy. You've helped to make it far easier to understand what was going on. -- ChrisO 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
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)
Dear Thebainer, I just wanted to compliment you with the way you closed Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
There has been a request for a timeline similar to your Brandt wheel-war one to aid discussion at Wikipedia: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 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia. 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) talk to me
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)
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)
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)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dili_airport_aust_troops.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!
Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...
If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.
If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.
Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.
Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw that you removed some info from the Eve Ensler article with a fairly official-sounding notation. Does that mean there was a complaint? The statements about her father are widely reported and often a topic in her work ( NYT, Lifetime, NPR). Her relationship status was out of date, but she was living with someone for about 15 years prior to a messy breakup. I wanted to check in with you before adding this stuff in, since the link to OTRS doesn't explain anything, and I don't know how to view the original ticket. Thanks! Jokestress 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The links I posted are all clearly related and link. The reversions are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer ( talk • contribs).
Not only was the article archived on Washington Post website but the title article number was right there. How can this be an unbiased article with no mention of why he left the Whitehouse in the first place? The reasons why he was fired are well-documented and were well-covered in many media outlets in 1990. The same information was revisited by all the news organizations in 2005, when he released the tapes of President Bush.
Why is that bad, but then you let the following statement stay? "In 1995 he helped reopen Canyonville Christian Academy, [5] a private boarding school for teenagers in southern Oregon originally founded in 1924. For three years, Mr. Wead personally subsidized the school’s monthly budget." I checked with the school and they've said that Mr. Wead did NOT subsidize their budget and they were curious why he would make this claim. Where did you find it? As I could not find any reference to this at all. This is a double standard on your part and definitely biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Tigerlil74 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)We have been watching with some interest the evolving biography of the president of CCA. I saw a comment that someone had contacted our school and was told that Mr. Wead had not subsidized our school's monthly budget. This is a false statement. I am the superintendent of the school and can be reached at www.canyonville.net or by calling the CCA offices when they open next week. No one has contacted me and our offices are closed for Spring Break.
I know of no one in a position to know at CCA who would make such a statement to this person. If anyone has made such a statement to this person, it is false. In the first years of our reopening Mr. Wead did indeed subsidize our monthly budget donating personal funds and ever since continues to help raise funds for the school. He also uses his many foreign speaking engagements to promote the school and help us attract students. Mr. Wead has helped us arrange scholarship money for students in tragic circumstances around the world. We are grateful for his work.
Sincerely, -- Tigerlil74 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Superintendent, Canyonville Christian Academy, Canyonville, Oregon.
just wanted to say thank you! - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am troubled that this particular contributor, Thetruthexplainer, keeps stripping the article of sources such as Time Magazine, etc. This takes a lot of work and is suddenly lost to everyone. If there is some personal issue here then he or she should contact the person directly and resolve it and not use this bio as a posting board.
As to the article about Mr. Wead being fired, I actually have no doubt that something like this was published. Thetruthexplainer is probably right and I too am trying to find it. I live in Arizona and I think it was raised as an issue here when Wead ran for congress but as I remember, it was one day because of the lack of substance. My question is what did the White House say? Either he was or he wasn't. If he was it would surely have been a major issue in his run for congress but it is not mentioned anywhere. It certainly does not warrant a major part of his bio if the White House doesn't acknowledge it and his political opponents never mention it. Has anyone thought of checking with the Presidential Library in Texas?
What was especially odd was the constantly inserted statement that Mr. Wead has an anti gay agenda. Does the article say that? I doubt it. A search on Mr. Wead brings up thousands of pages, heck, he has written 30 books, and there is nothing anti-gay. For almost 20 years I shared the same literary agent with Mr. Wead. It was Jed Mattes, who was a leader in the gay activist movement and was the most prominent gay literary agent. Mattes was thrilled with Wead's career and bragged on his bestseller about Presidential children. I think this anti-gay business is a perception based on Wead’s evangelical religion, as well as word-of-mouth myth.
I guess I am confused by the venomous attitude of this person. Does he or she KNOW Doug Wead? I have known Wead for 20 years and have been amazed at how much he gives of his life and energy and intelligence and substance to worthy causes. Please, sir, if you have issues with him, contact him directly and work it out. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merryjaz ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
____________________________________
"Venomous" attitude? That is an extremely strange statement. My goal is not for this to turn into a message board. Obviously you have a very close relationship with Mr. Wead. I find it somewhat hateful and possibly anti-gay yourself that you would jump on that portion of the bio, as though that was the point. Its funny that you consider a comment that is possibly gay-sympathetic as "venomous"? I am not pro-gay or anti-gay, however, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Wead was dismissed from his position as liason because of his "anti-gay" actions. It was well documented and should be included in his biography. One does not leave a prominent role in the Whitehouse for no reason. (Pursuing the Arizona run has no relevance to this matter). If you read closely, you'll see several articles from ARIZONA printed during Mr. Wead's run there discussing the facts of his dismissal. Mr. Wead was FAMOUS for his close EVANGELICAL relationship to James Bakker and therefore, I feel Bakker's chapter on Mr. Wead in his book "I Was Wrong" to be extremely credible. His recounting of events was extremely similar to the other news articles of the 1990s and includes a lot more detail into why Mr. Wead constantly promotes himself the way he repeatedly does.
As for stripping article sources... I have done no such thing. I merely added the paragraph about his departure from the Whitehouse. I have no ill feelings towards Mr. Wead. I did not add any of the other news articles about his business deals or his tumultuous personal life. Mr. Wead's personal life is his own.
My main concern is that this particular Wikipedia biography reads like the promo on the back of Mr. Wead's own books. It is not neutral in anyway and any neutral comments that are posted are quickly edited off. It would appear the page was either written/maintained by Mr. Wead himself, or it was written/maintained by his publicist. Is Wikipedia about self-promotion? Or is it about factual relevance?