User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 10

Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you want to continue a discussion, copy the old discussion, then post it on the current talk page along with your reply.

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

---

Re: Be bold

Hi - Though I can understand the reasons you downgraded the comments on templates and categories on be bold, I feel that it is still necessary to highlight the fact that be bold should rarely if ever apply to them, and have altered the article back accordingly. The principle of being bold is a good one in general, and works very well with articles. It works far less well in other namespaces, however, and that is why the "Be bold" page has evolved over the years to reflect that fact. As someone who spends a lot of time clearing up damage caused by people being bold at TFD, SFD, and CFD, I can tell you clearly that being bold has little if any place in category or template space. It causes nothing but considerable amounts of cleanup work for others.that is the reason why the "Be bold" page has evolved over the years to specifically call attention to the fact that they need special care. Suddenly undoing the gradual changes which have taken this page from a rough guideline to something actually workable is a Bad Thing, and one which is likely to cause far more harm than good to Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

People who break things are typically not being bold, but being reckless. Sure, we should make it clear that editing certain types of pages can have more significant consequences, and thus it's important to take extra care not to be reckless, but discouraging people from editing is too excessive. --bainer (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Discouraging people from being bold in making changes to templates and categories before finding some form of consensus for the changes is not discouraging editing, it is exercising common sense. Discouraging people from editing other people's comments on talk pages and from editing other people's user pages is also exercising common sense. I've no objection to people being bold in correcting and adding to articles - that is what this page has been about all along. I'm just trying to reduce the work on clean-up, which is largely caused by people who don't find consensus before editing items that clearly need a consen. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to talk pages are a red herring since that is covered in other policies and guidelines, so the issue is templates and other such pages. In that respect, I think you're still conflating boldness with recklessness. Yes, reckless actions are easier to make there, but your paragraph is moving in the direction of suggesting that it's not possible to make bold improvements to templates.

And how does one define "items that clearly need a consen"? Surely that can apply as much to articles too. What's so sacrosanct about templates? --bainer (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a red herring at all. Your average new user learns "Be bold" just about before learning anything else about Wikipedia and regards all other policies and guidelines as an add-on to it. Stating from the outset that it applies only in certain cases is vitally important to the smooth working of Wikipedia. As I said before, as one of the "wikignomes" who spends most of his time on the various cleanup pages, I see a lot of this from the coalface, and it is often not a pretty sight. As to templates, they cause major server-load problems if they are used on multiple articles, as many of them are. As such, editing them can cause serious problems to Wikipedia, as can the need to revert any unnecessary changes. This is the primary reason why some heavily-used templates are deliberately protected to prevent editing. Categories also cause problems, since redirects do not work properly with them, so any creation of problematical categories or moving of category pages from one name to another can cause major headaches. That is the main reason why I have mentioned them frequently, though I have also mentioned User pages and other non-article-space pages frequently. Recall that, up until a couple of days ago, the text of the "Be Bold" page specifically concentrated on being bold with articles alone. This was for very good reasons - and those reasons don't change just because someone decided to alter the text. (Oh, and as to "needing a consen", I was having problems with WP refusing to save pages, giving me edit conflicts with myself, and all sorts of other problems. The fact that my comments were readable at all is a miracle!) Grutness...wha? 07:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD I6

Evidently, from your comment in talk CSD, you don't agree with suspending I6.

But the locus for this discussion has been WT:FAIR#Way forward, and there does seem to be consensus that this suspension is the appropriate thing to do, while attempts are made to clean up the tag mountain in ways that will minimise collateral damage, and bruising inflicted on ordinary Wikipedians.

If you don't agree, please enter into the discussion at WT:FAIR#Way forward.

In the meantime, it would be appropriate to suspend I6, pending this discussion.

Will you back out your revert, and leave I6 suspended, at least for the time being? Jheald 11:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to alter the criteria for speedy deletion, you ought to propose any change at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; many editors who are concerned with the business of deletion will have that page on their watchlists and expect to see proposals suggested there. If you really want to propose a change, I suggest you do one that is confined in operation to the images that BetacommandBot has been tagging. --bainer (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to be away from the net for the rest of the weekend. I simply cannot be online any longer. Please, can you draft something that you think is appropriate? There are 30,000 images BCbot has tagged, most of which can be legitimised - given the time to do it. Starting now deleting them all blindly cannot be the way to go. See also the depth of controversy and discussion at WP:AN/FURG. This is not (yet) the time for starting a mass deletion. Jheald 11:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't be drafting anything because I think I6 is working fine. These images have had plenty of time already to be "legitimised"; the requirement for rationales has been present since the first processes to deal with non-free media were developed, and I6 was introduced more than a year ago. It's not the end of the world if images are deleted before someone gets to preparing a rationale, since image undeletion has been available for a year now. --bainer (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just some time to avoid the pain and aggravation this is going to cause. For the Project's sake as a whole. Is that so much to ask? Jheald 12:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Convincing me won't be any use; if you want the policy changed you need to build a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I'll carry on carrying it out until it changes, and if it does, I'll carry out what it says then. --bainer (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi. Can I ask why you reverted my addition of a proposal tag to WP:OTRS. As I have noted on the talk page, and at the pump, the page is not policy, and OTRS volunteers do not have special powers here. If you want them to have special powers, you need to run this through as a proposed policy to be discussed, or get the Wikimedia Foundation to officially appoint you all as special super-users on this project. --Barberio 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:OTRS. --bainer (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

I instruct and direct you to read Meta:OTRS/introduction, specifically "Remember that you do not and cannot speak for Wikipedia or for the Wikimedia Foundation". If in the future any OTRS volunteers continue to claim they represent the Foundation, I will request that they be removed from the OTRS. --Barberio 13:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks a lot!--Rambutan (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. --bainer (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Mee

Thanks for doing that...I had been trying to figure out how to get rid of that non-notable bio (just because you're in the news, doesn't make you worth having an article about you), and the redirect worked perfectly. Just hope the "We must have an article of every person in the news ever" crew doesn't notice. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shh, they'll hear you! I am pleased that mergism is finally becoming popular, especially in the context of biographical articles. Of course if one were to find a source for some young person who has been hiccuping for even longer, then there would be no editorial reason to retain information about this person at all. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Split discussion from WP:AN

Splitting some rather off-topic discussion to here:

I just checked some articles on US hurricanes. Why don't they have a comparison against the other international standards? --bainer (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because only the United States issues warnings on them, and no other agency provides readings on them. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center (which is U.S. run) monitors all tropical cyclones, so there's a way to make a comparison against the U.S. scale using their info. – Chacor 12:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but it still seems unusual that people would war to include a sentence like that; I mean, on Hurricane Katrina, for example, it isn't stated that classifications under all the other systems are not available. By the way, why does the infobox on Cyclone Larry give the SSHS classification if it isn't available? --bainer (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that and therefore corrected the prose. It seems that manual observations at 1-minute intervals (1-minute wind speeds) were not taken, which is what the sentence was meant to mean. However, the JTWC uses other methods of determining the wind speed in their advisories. It was poor wording in the prose. But there definitely is an available SSHS classification. – Chacor 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sig

See this: [1] I happened to be looking at the move log when he did it. Viridae^Talk 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not just for monobook, it's for all the skins. But yeah, it should only be used for skins. Perhaps I'll code something to prevent it being used in other ways. It would probably be a good idea to look for other people doing this too. --bainer (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

consensus poll on Universal Wiki Edit button

Have you seen this? http://www.aboutus.org/UniversalWikiEditButton

and this? http://www.aboutus.org/Portal:ConsensusPolls

There's active work happening right now with and on Consensus Polls. Thought you might be interested after your work on this last fall here at wikipedia. peace, Tedernst | talk

Yeah, I'd spotted some discussion of that on the mailing lists or somewhere. That sort of thing seems like an ideal situation for consensus polling to be applied, although it doesn't seem clear from that page exactly which design is being considered. I might go participate if I have some time. --bainer (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more difficult to use consensus polling for an image than for text. In any event, we've made a lot of progress and are now focusing on the reasons why a UniversalWikiEditButton is a good thing. If we can agree on what it's for, and the fact that this is version 0.1 of the icon, we're hoping to be able to come to agreement without worrying too much about having the "perfect" icon. Tedernst | talk

School violence

Hi, I think that the full protection of this article was a good shout, since it has bought us some time. However, we cannot leave it fully protected for much longer since we want the rest of the article to be developed. Also, whenever the protection is lifted Dezidor is going to come straight back and put the name in. The problem is not with the page but with the user. Consequently, my suggestion is that I place a formal warning for disruptive editing on his talk page and lift the protection at the same time. If he continues to reinsert the name then I suggest a final warning followed by a short ban, with escalating bans if necessary. What do you think, please? TerriersFan 16:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be the best approach just yet; the situation is being discussed on the OTRS mailing list at the moment and I'll let you know what happens. --bainer (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, School violence has now been fully protected too long, it is hindering much needed article development - have you come to any conclusions in your consultations, please? TerriersFan 23:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Garran

Congratulations on getting the article on the front page! Rebecca 08:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I took a printscreen for posterity :) --bainer (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano's block

Qué? THAT sentence[2]? Blocked for incivility? I don't get it. Please explain what's uncivil about it—it may be moderately tactless, perhaps, but blockably incivil?—becaue I'm very much inclined to unblock. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

It appears that Giano moved my comments out of line in the preceding paragraph and into its own paragraph, presumably to remove the context. Here is the full thread as it was before my comment was moved. --bainer (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry I am unblocked already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giano II (talk • contribs).

Very disappointing, Thebainer. Very. That's not what you were given the tools for. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said to Bishonen, Giano moved moved my comments out of their place in the preceding thread and into a new paragraph, presumably to remove the comments from their context in the prior discussion, presumably to achieve this precise effect. Here is the full thread as it was before my comment was moved. I don't know why you are referencing this edit; as I explained to Giano, I have not used IRC for some time, and I noticed his initial post to WP:ANI since that page is on my watchlist. --bainer (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm having trouble believing my eyes here. He moved it "presumably to remove the context"? To achieve what effect? What kind of assumptions are you making? What kind of example of civility are you setting? And what kind of logic is that, for that matter? You supplied a link to an edit of Giano's—this one and you said that you're blocking because of that edit. Are you now claiming you didn't know where your link points, because Giano had moved your block message from your (I have to say very poorly conceived) placement of it in the midst of a thread? And as Geogre points out, you didn't even post on ANI before blocking an established editor for (non-existent) incivility... I think I must stop talking here before I say something I'll regret. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

See my reply to Geogre below where I lay out the full course of events. --bainer (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No I moved it so it could be clearly seen and responded to, as you slipped a little thing like a block in mid thread. You did not post it on WP ANI either, I can understand that you were ashamed of it but hiding it like that was a bit naughty. Giano 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Geogre

This is in reply to Geogre's comment here.

Geogre, Giano moved my comments out of their place in the preceding thread and into a new paragraph, presumably to remove the comments from their context in the prior discussion. I suggest that you read that discussion. I first politely asked Giano not to make comments that could be construed as being uncivil or personal attacks, saying "even if that is not what you intended. We must be sensitive to how others will perceive what we say, even if we are commenting in good faith." After several more comments in which I reiterated my polite exhortations not to make remarks that could be regarded as uncivil, Giano made these edits, following which I said to him that "The problem is not what you are saying but the manner in which you choose to say it... you make the accurate observation that there are no formal processes relating to access to the channel, but you do it while making snide remarks about David Gerard." After all of that, Giano then made this edit, following which I blocked him. The block was not for making that edit alone, but for making that edit after all of the ones preceding it, and after my having warned him - patiently and politely at first, and explicitly acknowledging that he may not have intended to be offensive - not to make further such edits.

I invite you, Geogre, to explain why, in this context, you have chosen to unblock Giano. --bainer (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the block reason. The block reason provided a diff for its explanation and a characterization of it as being "incivility." It carried with it a 24 hour block. In cases of entirely out of line blocks, especially if one believes that the blocking administrator is engaged in a content dispute, an unblock without consent ahead of time is justified. Additionally, though, the need for discussion is on both the unblock and the block. A review should have taken place on AN/I. Indeed, a review should have taken place of the editing of the page on AN or AN/I, and we should have opted for that instead of blocks of any sort.

The diff cited in the block showed no incivility, nor even a "personal attack." It was factually accurate, although it was most assuredly unfriendly. Let's be honest: I am no more friendly or kindly disposed toward that page than Giano, or the now maligned Friday, but the authors of the page showed enormous hostility and derision toward all outside views as well. So, if we've got pot and kettle (and I'm probably some form of cutlery), then our position ought to be "slog it out in a proper venue" rather than block.

If we need only feelings to justify a charge of "incivility," then I should speak up and say that I found the page as it was frightfully uncivil, in that it simply could have no effect but to reignite a fire or fuel a firestorm. I could see no usefulness to it, if it were not going to have a single word (ok, a phrase) of limitation on the behavior on the channel, was going to be closed to adversarial points of view, and was not going to contextualize the channel (with some of the unflattering information Giano added), and, on the other hand, I could see some bad effects of its existence. Friday moved it for deletion, and that was handled with viciousness and derision. There was ugly met with ugly, and I can't see any justification for a block.

I am sorry, though, that I did not investigate fully enough to see the dialog between yourself and Giano and that I did not talk to you before unblocking. Geogre 18:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that, because the thrust of that discussion was important to understanding the block. The essence of that discussion was my attempts to explain to Giano that the problems were largely not with what he was saying but the manner in which he was doing so. The comment about access to the channel is a good example - he was correct in saying that there are no formal procedures for access, but he said so by way of a comment that could easily be interpreted as a snide insult to David Gerard, even if that was not what he intended.

Another admin might have simply blocked Giano for the initial edits to that page alone, instead I chose to politely warn him, and assume, where others may not have, that he may not have intended to cause offence though his edits could easily be regarded that way. The block only came after Giano pointedly made further edits of the same calibre not once, but twice.

Finally, would you consider explaining why you believed that I was engaged in a content dispute? I have never edited the page to which Giano's edits were made. --bainer (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• No I moved it so it could be clearly seen and responded to, as you slipped a little thing like a block in mid thread. You did not post it on WP ANI either, I can understand that you were ashamed of it but hiding it like that was a bit naughty. Giano 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My Thoughts

I feel it is appropriate that I address you directly, here, rather than responding on individual pages elsewhere.

First, I apologize up front, for my very decided attitude on admins blocking in situations where they are personally involved. It is a subject about which I am very positioned. So, to the extent that I may seem to be overreacting in this situation, please understand that is the reason. It sets a bad example. It gives a non admins a poor perception of admins. It perpetuates the idea that admins can consider themselves gods and do what they please without asking anyone. Note that I'm not discussing your specific situation, but rather I am describing the consequence and effect of admins using their tools to block when they are personally involved.

You may very well have felt that there was sufficient cummulative incivility to warrant a block. And, from my perspective, you should have opened an AN/I and requested an uninvolved admin to review the situation. Taking shortcuts, by blocking yourself, casts suspicion on the entire process and makes it harder for other admins when they block.

I appreciate that you felt there was incivility, and to the extent that we can call it harsh, I would agree. I truly do not believe it rose to the level of incivil. Calling someone a fucking arrogant asshole with not enough common sense to blow their nose would be uncivilized. In Giano's case, although they were pointed, and harsh, his comments did rise to anywhere near incivility.

In all fairness, your warning was a bit broad:

Please try to maintain civility, and please do not make comments that could be viewed as personal attacks. (highlightnig mine)

"..this could easily be regarded as a sarcastic aside against Kelly Martin, even if that is not what you intended. We must be sensitive to how others will perceive what we say, even if we are commenting in good faith"

First, just about anything could be taken as incivil or personal attack. It is not a matter of whether it 'can be taken' as a personal attack, it is whether or not it is a personal attack.

Second, sarcasm is not necessarily incivil nor is it necessarily a personal attack. It is sarcasm. For example, I made a sarcastic reply on Bishonen's page. It could be seen as cutting and pointed sarcasm, but I'd hardly consider it a personal attack or incivil.

Third, your warning conflicts itself and is wrong. You said 'we must be sensitive to how others will perceive what we say'. I say *bs*. Certainly I should be aware of how my words might be received. And if the words are emotional to me, I should read them twice before clicking Save Page. But I am not required to word things in such a way as to never offend anyone. And I am not required to word things so that nobody can ever preceive an attack. Yet that is what your warning suggested.

What I am required to do is "not make personal attacks" and "not be uncivil". Sometimes a violation of those is clear, othertimes it is perception/opinion.

And, lastly, "even if that is not what you intended" speaks volumes. If someone did not intend a personal attack, or did not intend to be uncivil, then they should 'not be blocked'. If they were truly incivil or truly violated NPA, then they should be talked to 'in a separate conversation', and probably 'by a separate party', in order to be made aware of how their words violated policy/guidelines.

For what its worth, I don't know you. I don't know anything about the #channel that is being discussed. And, I don't know Giano.

Hopefully something I've said makes sense. Peace in God. Lsi john 17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to have strong opinions about "admins blocking in situations where they are personally involved", but would you care to explain how that sentiment came to be aroused in this instance? --bainer (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, john is very kind and gentle with you, and is clearly either less appalled than I, or better at gentle handling of appalling behavior. I'm thinking, you decide this edit is uncivil, which I'm already thinking your definitions are off - and then, despite no consensus for blocking for personal attacks, even, you decide this is sufficient for blocking? I've tried to stay out of this mud-fest, and have managed well for the most part. But this takes the cake. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are entitled to have strong opinions about "admins blocking in situations where they are personally involved", but would you care to explain how that sentiment came to be aroused in this instance? --bainer (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an assumption that I came to, based on the conversation that you had with him on his user page. I read the links which you said were 'incivil' and your promise to block if he made another. In my opinion the edits he made were harsh and of poor editorial quality, however I did not feel they came anywhere near the level of incivil. Based on that, I incorrectly concluded that only someone with a personal and emotional attachment to the subject matter (i.e. involved) would react as strongly as you did. Other contributions to my conclusion were the fact that you sort of buried the block notice inside a chat, when most blocks are very visibly displayed. And you did not open it up on AN/I for discussion or review, even though there was an active discussion on the entire subject.

After doing a somewhat deeper check, it appears my conclusion about your involvment was wrong. I'll assume, based on you having not edited the article, and your question above, that you do not participate in the IRC channel and have no involvement in it, and no strong opinion about it, and don't personally know the admins who were being written about. For jumping to the wrong conclusion, I apologize.

I still believe you over-reacted, and then followed up in bad faith on Bishonen's (and other) page(s) by providing a bad-faith reason for his moving of the block notice. As an outside observer, when I saw where he moved the block notice, my first thought was.. "well duh, I'd have moved it too...so people could see it."

I do understand that you'd want people to see the warning as well. And to that, I'd suggest that you make your warnings more visible as well. Hopefully you realize that you were a major contributor in how this has played out. And, as I've pointed out to Giano: "When we act (or react) poorly, it tends to distract from the real issue."

And, as Ive posted elsewhere, perhaps this may be what was needed to shed light on something. At this point, I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion, so it's still a maybe for me.

Hopefully this answers your question. For me, I hold no ill will. I call them as I see them, and I put it behind me. Peace in God. Lsi john 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting set for another Giano block...?

Thebainer, I did a double take when I accidentally caught sight your new block warning in the history of Giano's page today, before the discussion above was well over.[3] After your first bad block only yesterday, you really ought to get off his case. Yesterday, you acted as if you didn't know that "Assume good faith" is official policy (though I'm sure you must), and obliviously kept repeating your bad-faith assumptions about Giano's motives—in this case, his motives for moving your badly-placed block message on his page, something for which a good-faith explanation was actually staring you in the face. When other users,, who had no trouble seeing the obvious explanation, unanimously criticized you over this, you gave no further explanation, let alone an apology to Giano. (You would like to see more civility from him; how about trying to lead by example?) You blocked an established editor for incivility, and the diff you gave as a reason showed, on any reasonable reading, no incivility. You didn't post on ANI. I mean... sheesh, there was just a lot wrong with that block.

Today (in my timezone) you begin by planting a warning template on an established user, a deplorable practice. If Giano needs blocking, don't you think that will occur to somebody else among our 1,000 admins? Do you credit yourself with unique insight into Giano's editing, so that you alone are capable of monitoring and upbraiding him? Or, if warning and blocking him doesn't occur to other admins, could that possibly be a hint that he doesn't need blocking? You took one shot; it didn't go well; now please consider leaving it to the rest of the community. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

What are these comments (1, 2 - the ones I referred to in the warning) if not uncivil? --bainer (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thebainer... sorry, I don't understand. It's like you haven't read my post above. My message made lots of points, and asked questions. You address none of the points and answer none of the questions. Instead you address just about the only point I didn't make. For the record, and since you bring it up, I don't think those posts of Giano's are very civil. (He's under some provocation, but that doesn't interest you, apparently.) But you shouldn't be the one to warn him; you shouldn't use a template; and it sure wouldn't hurt if you acknowledged that your first block was both unwarranted and badly executed. Now I'd really appreciate it if you'd reply to what I said. You'd be doing us both a favor. I do believe it would be good for your adminning to take my messages seriously, and take them on board to the extent of doing some self-reflexion. If you have no faith in me, please consider taking the matter to ANI and inviting other input. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

You should read this conversation on Geogre's talk page if you haven't already. He was also under the impression that the block was made in response to that one diff, and not after all of the ones preceding it and my discussion with Giano. --bainer (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider Thebainer's activities rather incivil. He should bring his apologies to Giano, there's no second opinion about that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page for another purpose, and I rather like and certainly respect Giano ... but will you please stop your campaign for giving him a free pass, Bishonen? It's bringing you into disrepute and not helping the situation. Metamagician3000 04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence?

User:Thebainer24 is currently listed at WP:UFAA --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetup 7

I've created a page to discuss Melbourne meetup 7. It's a pity we had such a small number last night at meetup 6 after meetup 5 went so well. Metamagician3000 04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anderson

Thanks! I've just started on a little project to get decent, properly referenced articles on all the incumbent state and territory MPs who lack them, and Anderson was one of the first off the bat. How's the case article coming along? Rebecca 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

		Thank you for your support and comments at my RfA
		Hi Stephen, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VS talk 00:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article D'Emden v Pedder, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Swan by-election, 1918

On 5 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Swan by-election, 1918, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

nogallery

Hi, I saw you added the nogallery again because of non-free content reasons. This is one of the very few exemptions to that policy. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. Already decided a while ago when nogallery was implemented. See somewhere in the archives of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It makes deleting (or possibly saving) images so much easier when you can already see the thumbnails. Garion96 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall ever seeing anything about this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and I can't see anything about it there now. I also can't find a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions, it seemed that some people just decided to go ahead and make all the administrative image categories exemptions. Why exactly is it necessary to show the thumbnails? --bainer (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To already give an indication of what to do with the image. It's so much more practical. IMO of course. It has been like this for a while, until suddenly recently the nogallery was added. I just found the discussion here. I think I am quite strict with our non-free content criteria, but this exemption, unlike the mainpage, does make sense. Garion96 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's "more practical" though. What are the benefits of having thumbnails? All the problems are on the image description pages. --bainer (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote from somewhere. "thumbnails make it much easier to prioritize and recognize closely related deletion candidates". For instance, if you feel like adding rationales, you can recognize easily all album covers etc. Depending on the deletion category you're working in. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

i know it's not a good idea, but what to do? i dont know. Pak21 wont talk about it on any of the image talk pages but insted he is trying hide what he is doing. now he is tring "pad" the consensus by having his mates back him even tho thay have never edited on the DDM page before. could you speek to him about it? ~LG~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.7.53.146 (talk • contribs).

If you want to attract more attention to an article or a discussion, there are a number of ways to do so without resorting to canvassing. Ask for a third opinion, make a request for comment, or notify relevant WikiProjects. Just make sure to do so neutrally (your goal is just to inform people that there is a discussion happening). --bainer (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot

I think it's absurd that the fair use criteria applies to logos. And I'm the guy who started deleting masses of TIME covers unilaterly. However, I blocked indefinitely while it got sorted out. That's why I put the comments on WP:AN - for full and transparent action, to be reversed if the decision was wrong. I then discovered my wife is pregnant (truly!) and so to be honest I forgot all about the issue... probably not the greatest moment to have blocked a bot.

I should point out that the bot did this.

One last comment: should we be allowing a user to run a bot when they disguise their signature, and don't respond to messages about their bot? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is an example of the bot malfunctioning, which is a good reason to block a bot. Disagreeing with the policy under which a bot is operating, however, is not a good reason to block a bot. You need to have the policy changed first. The last point probably relates more to the bot approval process, but if you thought it was relevant, you really should have brought it up at the time you made the block; all that people reading the WP:AN discussion had to go on was what you said there. --bainer (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I would have, but things took a most unfortunate (for fortunate!) turn for me, so didn't get a chance. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cover art, and Template:album cover fur

Please join in at WT:FAIR and WP:AN/I if you want to join in the discussion of this template. As those discussions specifically relate to the template as it was being applied yesterday, and specifically instance such uses, please don't modify the template while those discussions are running.

On the question of permissible use of cover art, see WP:FAIR on acceptable uses. "Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items." Note: "about the items", not "about the cover art". This has been longstanding consensus, based on US law and the Foundation guideline, discussed extensively at WT:FAIR in the last several months, and recently explicitly re-affirmed to be correct in talk there. Jheald 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I finally found where that was changed, in this edit buried amongst a swathe of others just three days ago. I cannot find where there is any consensus for this and I cannot believe that it has attracted a consensus. Using an image only for identification has never been acceptable, even for album covers. The widest understanding of the acceptable standard has always been to accompany critical commentary.

Aside from that, this is not a template to assist in the crafting of a rationale (like {{Non-free media rationale}}, which I think is very useful) but a template which seeks to provide a boilerplate rationale, which is not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact a widespread "using image for identification is OK" cnsensus. Please don't be damaging templates in this manner. Georgewilliamherbert 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been no discussion to support that. Asserting that there is consensus does not make it so. --bainer (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection against vandalism

I have semi-protected your page to deal with further vandalism Pfan 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for caring but protection is not really necessary, and secondly, only administrators can protect pages, which is done by using the protection interface, and not simply by adding a protection template. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot redux

That bot keeps playing up. I only recently got told that the L.J. Hooker logo was an orphaned image when was is not. See my user talk page. The bot seems to have stopped now, but seriously: this bot is far too disruptive. It often plays up and people have to go cleaning up after its mess. I blocked it for a short time this time for disruption, Sir Nicholas seems to believe that it's not going to reoccur so I have unblocked. Still... I'm not particularly impressed.

The other thing I'm not impressed with is Betacommand's signature. For someone who runs a bot that tags so many images, you'd think that he wouldn't disguise his signature. It confused me the first time he replied to WP:AN (I didn't realise it was him), so I wonder how many new users or at least inexperienced users he's confused.

Overall, things don't look too good in this department. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be some issues with identifying orphans when the bot was first approved for that task, see this. I just noticed the current ANI thread; I suggested there that the bot stop using dumps (which seems to be the cause of 99% of problems with orphan tagging, since the data is just out of date) and use the API instead. --bainer (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre‎

It has been more than three weeks since the last edit, comment, or request on this page. I think it's safe to remove the protection now. HokieRNB 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that any consensus was achieved over the article. My concern is that edit warring will commence again if the article is unprotected. --bainer (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say give it a shot. Whereas when you protected in mid-June it was only two months since the massacre, another six weeks have gone by and any discussions will have the benefit of perspective. We can look at the news coverage and see what it tells us. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I remain wary but I suppose watchlisting will serve to address that. Unprotected. --bainer (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hi! It just occured to me that there was an old image of Smederevo fortress floating around here, Image:Smederevo 1940.jpg specifically, which was deleted quite a while ago for lack of a fair use rational. I know deleted articles can be recovered if need be, are deleted images also stored somewhere and recoverable? If so, could you undelete it and I'll add a rational? I'd like to use it, if possible.

Oh, and feel free to just reply here, I check often enough anyhow for duplicates to be a little silly. -Bbik^★ 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely possible for deleted images to be undeleted. If you get back to me once you've prepared your rationale, I can undelete it right away (or you could ask another admin if I'm not online then). I presume you'll focus on how the photo shows what the fortress looked like before it was damaged during World War II? --bainer (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationals I've ever seen are generally along the lines of "this is a low resolution copy of the original; its use isn't expected to cause any harm to the copyright holder; its use is justified solely to illustrate the subject; it's an image of a historical location or event, and as such cannot be replaced" so I was figuring I'd stick to something like that. Even aside from the time difference, yes, the damage makes any current pictures very different, and it's also one of the clearer pictures I've seen of the full fortress, rather than just sections (not that that's anything resembling an acceptable rational, but it's a reason nonetheless). -Bbik^★ 02:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for advice on preparing rationales. Your rationale needs to explain why we should be using a non-free image, especially since we already have quite a few free images of the fortress. To illustrate descriptions in the text of what the fortress looked like before it was damaged would certainly be an acceptable purpose, and one that can't be served by the available free images. You would just have to make sure that the image is used that way in the article. --bainer (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, a specific version to be copied to the page directly, rather than just cleaning up the bit above when I can get to the page. With {{Non-free historic image}}:

The use of this image in Smederevo fortress is covered by fair use laws because:

• It is a historically significant photograph, and as such cannot be replaced with a free equivalent; any modern photographs show the fortress in a very different condition.
• The use of the photograph is not expected to cause any loss of value to the copyright holder.
• The image is of a lower resolution than the original, so any copies will be of inferior quality.
• The image is used only to depict structural differences.

And my plan for it in the article was to add it in the history section, around the paragraph about WWII. The current condition section may perhaps be better, as a side-by-side comparison, but that section has plenty of images already, and both sections discuss the damage caused during the war. Will that work? -Bbik^★ 18:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Any feedback? -Bbik^★ 03:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, I've undeleted the image and you can go ahead and add the rationale. Make sure to write a good caption to tie the image in with the text. --bainer (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. Are fair use images allowed to be cropped, or does that violate the rules? I don't remember seeing anything about that during all my perusing of fair use links. -Bbik^★ 16:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can crop such images. In fact, fair use will almost always be better justified by cropping to show only that portion of the work that is being used for the fair use purpose. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No apparent consensus to delete "Rape victims" category

Frankly, there was no consensus arrived at for this, considering that the positions, most of which were explained well, were about even. Also consider that the tail end of the process looked like an organized flood. I hope you will investigate this. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you think WPs processes are more important than the privacy of the victims.12.216.240.94 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given a pretty comprehensive explanation of how I closed the debate in the notes there. If you disagree you are welcome to challenge the decision on deletion review. --bainer (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not trump BLP. --Kbdank71 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And this was an excellent call, SqueakBox 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the wikiblogplanet feed list

Hi Thebainer, and thank you for fixing the feed list! I got some messages from people saying "please fix it! We want to get all the blog posts from Wikimania", and by the time I looked it was okay because you had fixed it - Yay, and thank you! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a roundabout way you can thank Blogger instead of me. They apparently sort feeds by update time instead of post time by default, and when I updated some of my old posts they all came to the top on the aggregator, so I edited the config file to hide my feed for a while so that everyone wouldn't have to scroll past a dozen of my old posts, as a consequence of which I had the config page on my watchlist and noticed the change that screwed it up. --bainer (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cpoll participant

A template you created, Template:Cpoll participant, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia:Consensus polling is inactive, would you mind moving Template:Cpoll participant to your user space? I'm trying hard to clean out the Template namespace, as it has over 25,000 unused templates. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What would be the advantage in moving it out of template space? It's unlikely to be a title in demand. --bainer (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The template has been around for a year; if there are no foreseeable uses of it, it would be nice to be able to remove it from Special:Unusedtemplates. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well there we go, I used it in the example at Wikipedia:Consensus polling, so it won't appear on Special:Unusedtemplates anymore. --bainer (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --MZMcBride 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merle Terlesky

I've raised this on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Merle_Terlesky. You may wish to comment. Reginald Perrin 01:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Thebainer,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S.:Please allways remember that hosting of the picture itself is not possible for legal reason (a few secounds to let Facebook cache it would be ok of corse).

Ok, email sent. Apologies if my earlier explanation wasn't clear enough; in terms of images, the script simply generates the appropriate URL to the image on Commons and passes that URL on to Facebook. The image itself is not stored or even loaded on the script host. --bainer (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Source for Barton quotes

Hi there - I noticed your comment on Edmund Barton's page and linked us to http://www.peo.gov.au/resources/immigration_bill.htm for a source on Barton's comments which by today's standards would be viewed as quite racist. Unfortunately the PEO seems to have made some site changes and as such I am unable to locate the source of the comments made. Are you aware of where they may be found? Thank-you for your time. Timeshift 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello... How are you ? Are you fine ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.123.76 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello... How are you ? Are you fine ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.123.76 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:RfA

First you removed the counter, directing users to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Counter as if some kind of discussion decided it should be removed. Now, you've removed the counter again, stating the very same discussion is referring to a different counter. Please stop removing the tallies, as there has never been a consensus for its removal, and very many people have expressed a desire for it to stay. - auburnpilot talk 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Hi, I reverted your removal of the discussion about Betacommand's RfA, which was mostly a discussion of whether it was canvassing, in which most of the participants felt it was not. I myself feel it qualifies as a "friendly notice". Rather than deleting it, would you please join the discussion? (Not that it will make any difference to the doomed RfA, but I'm not wild about having a valid discussion deleted summarily like that.) Thanks much. -- But|seriously|folks  04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)