User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 2

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

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mungo Man, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Indigenous articles

I've just been reading your two new articles (Batman Treaty and Myall Creek massacre), and I have to say - they're the best new articles I've read in a while. Kudos. :) Ambi 15:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm enjoying having a break from uni and having the time to do some proper research. --bainer (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Batman's Treaty, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Note to self: that's the second in a month! I rule! --bainer (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

juanita neilson

Just an opinion on style. Usually films are conventionally denoted thus: 'Heatwave(1982)' (ie used in IMDB)and generally across wikipedia. But you've chosen '1982 film Heatwave'- which reads more easily, but is not stylistically conventional. I prefer the former. But its your baby, as it were, so I'll leave it there. Eric A. Warbuton 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It now reads Heatwave (1982). The change was made when I dabbed the link, which previously just linked to Heatwave. --bainer (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Thebainer. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I'm able to live up to the confidence placed in me. And I look forwards to the day when I can do the same for you. Thanks again, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot To Kill

Phew. Some sense at last.

I think X thinks he is being NPOV but oh my he annoys me when he won't actually listen to anyone who disagrees with him. IMHO of course. BenAveling

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not really agreeing with either of you. The new laws are less restrictive, in that they apply to people who have a preventative detention order against them aswell as people being arrested. But they are not unrestricted as some people seem to be implying, since you actually have to have an order against you to be subject. It's sort of a middle ground. --bainer (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply was pointing out that the assertion that you (the anon user) were making was false. The provisions aleady exist. They are not unusual, and are are only being used for political purposes by opponents of the Bill as a whole. If you read the Bill and compared it to present law you would note the exact same terms are used (they require a threat to life which would probably be encompassed by self defence in any event, but it is better to have things statutorised). Thus, it is wrong for you to remove the information about the laws being identical as I have provided an indisputable referrence. Xtra 14:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Sorry to drag this sorry conversation over here. I wanted to talk about Xtra, not to him. :-)

Bainer, I know you weren't agreeing with what I wrote, and I pretty much agree with the position you put forwards instead. I misunderstood the current situation, which I have already acknowledged publically.

Thanks for using the word please.

Regards, BenAveling 05:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Cameron

Love the photo - where did you get it? Adam 12:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the NLA: [1]. --bainer (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australians

You changed History of immigration to Australia to not use Australian Aborignes. What is your justification? (preceding unsigned comment by Mrmcgibby (talk · contribs) )

The page Australian Aborigines was recently moved to the parent article Indigenous Australians, creating a number of double-redirects, and creating many instances of inconsistent and inappropriate use of terminology. --bainer (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

batmans treaty

Look I truly appreciate your interest in this matter. But Ive been rudely, as usual, shafted by Ambi. How do I know that what I ever I contribute in the future will not get effectively censored by her? Whats the point. She wont neogiate with me. For some reason she is able to ignore wikiettiquette. Eric A. Warbuton 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with Ambi, I suggest that you discuss it with her on her talk page. Ambi is a very good editor and a reasonable person, and discussion would go a long way to fixing things. Calling her a "thief" does not help, nor does refusing to discuss the matter. If you have a serious problem about a pattern of behaviour against you, then I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process. --bainer (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miss 'Ambi' unilaterally and preciptiously chose to remove the text of the treaty. I was not asked for my opinion, negotiated with or informed in ANY way. If fact I was treated as though I dont exist. Why? You tell me? When she puts the text back where I put it initially we can negotiate and reach agreement. And I'd like an apology. How many wiki etiquette rules has she broken. If I had behaved they way she has she would of had me banned long ago. Not only is she a petty thief she's a hypocrite. Eric A. Warbuton 02:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the text back where it initially went. What a pity Miss Ambi didnt have the moral fortitude to do so and account for her actions. Unfortuately the source you have put at wikisource page is not accurate- I have know idea what the provenance of the library image is. Eric A. Warbuton 06:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well my first comment reads: Put the #### thing back please. I spent 20 minutes carefully typing the text. And its not an exact text anyway. There are at least five copies (not to mention the 'Geelong' variants) At the moment I not in the mood to a typological analysis of competeing texts. And why didnt you negotiate with me about the final resting place of this text? So put it back and we might discuss and come to a rational AGREEMENT. And stop stalking me. Note the word 'please'. How would you react if some one had deleted what you had spent a day finding the written text and twenty minutes typing (Im a slow typer)? Eric A. Warbuton 06:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said three times already, your text was not deleted, your text was, is, and will until the end of time be available in the page history. To see it, click on this link: [2]. I cannot make that any clearer. If you do not understand what a page history is, or how to use one, I suggest you read this page: meta:Help:Page history. --bainer (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You are a law student at Melbourne Uni? I studied law there for a year, ages ago (as an undergrad). I'm now located in Queensland. You are right, the Australian law section on wiki has not been to active. Perhaps we can work together, but Im so new to this website i don't fully understand how to get to everything, etc. Thanks for the message. --Never29 05:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: meetup

I study Arts/Science. Arts/Law, yeh? What's your Arts major?
My major's Chinese, but I've done a fair bit of linguistics too. Next year will be my 5th, my last, yay! --pfctdayelise 13:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't mention that next year I'm doing Controversies in Australian History. Might be the odd chance I'll run into you, yeh? :) pfctdayelise 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your email

Hi bainer. I was just typing a reply to your email. Expect the nom to be up sometime today. Sorry about the delay, --cj | talk 23:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't seem impatient at all. I'm setting it up now, ;-)--cj | talk 23:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again bainer. I've nominated you for adminship. Your RfA sub-page is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thebainer. Best of luck, --cj | talk 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich v The Queen

Hi bainer,

Sorry about my over-enthusiasm. i didnt know it had to be nominated through the community. I was reading all the High Court cases and found Dietrich v The Queen to be the standout for what a entry on wiki for a case should be. I will nominate it as a feature; perhaps it could also be noted on the WikiProject:Australian Law as a "template" or "example" of what to aspire to for a finished article about a case? --Never29 13:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cnwb's RfA

Los Bainer,

Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim Tam as a token of my gratitude. Good luck with your own RfA. Cnwb 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, bainer for your supreme support - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop

It's my pleasure to notify you that, consensus being reached, you're now a administrator. You may wish to read the reading list and how-to guide at your convenience. Most sysop actions are reversible, the exceptions being history merges and deleting pages (but it's a good idea to be careful with all of them). Again, congrats on becoming an admin. -- Pak aran 03:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contratulations! I think. :-) Ben Aveling 03:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations indeed. Well-earned, if you ask me.--cj | talk 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! If you have any questions about your new superpowers, feel free to ask! Grutness...wha? 23:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian 00:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and once again thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Enochlau 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, 46/0/0 is a very impressive vote of community confidence indeed. pfctdayelise 04:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, I'm sure you'll do great! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratualtions and happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome

Enjoy you new powers and thank you.--Dakota ^t ^e 01:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exams and such

Thanks for the note! I'm sorry I didn't nominate you earlier; I, like many others, thought you were already an admin. As to exams, well, I passed law; while I only passed, it wasn't quite such a borderline pass in contracts as I got in torts last semester. I'd had a disastrous semester anyway, so I wasn't too displeased with that, and now I get to never, ever, touch contract law ever again. How did you end up going? Ambi 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythics

How does 2 delete, 0 keep result in "no consensus"? —Cryptic (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After being nominated, the deletion debate attracted only one vote in five days on the list. Of course, 100% is above the rough threshold of 2/3, but when the sample size is two, that is hardly a significant enough sample to be deemed a consensus. Of course, I have no problem with it being nominated again, even this soon after closure, so feel free to do that. I just don't think that the opinion of two editors alone is enough to generate a consensus for deletion. --bainer (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I might make a suggestion as a disinterested observer who just happened to see this exchange on Cryptic's talk page: I've been relisting AfD discussions with low vote counts. I've even created my own standard relisting text which I can easily transclude into an AfD when I want to relist it. Relisting seems to be the option that generates the least amount of controversy and does the least amount of harm for AfD discussions with minimal activity. Just add the relisted debate to the current AfD/Today log, and remove it from the old log (I do this by commenting out the entries in the old log). And voila.

Just a thought.

→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Extreme Unction says, relisting is the best way to find a consensus one way or the other if you think that a debate falls numerically short. Do note, though, that there is no quorum for AfD debates and that if a brief debate covers all the material that is necessary, it can be fine to not relist at all. I see you've closed quite a number of pretty clear debates as no consensus, presumably because they had too few participants. The trouble with telling people to renominate immediately after closure is that people will see this and simply reject the new AfD as being "too soon". If you relist however, I know from experience that it frequently attracts quite a bit of attention because people seem to deliberately visit those debates just because they want to see a good result (of whatever kind). Anyway, your closure of the above debate is current on Wikipedia:Deletion review, where you might want to join the debate. -Splash^talk 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we've reached the right conclusion. Maybe next time you hit such an article, if you don't want to act unilaterally, just 'vote' on it yourself. Let the next admin do the delete/keep. In the meantime, good call. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi Stephen Bain/Archive 2: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005.

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

John Fullerton

Some users suggested that the page be moved into your user space. If you would like me to do this, then just ask me and I can undelete the page in order to complete the move.

Would it be possible to do so? Thanks.

Is it also possible to know why exactly you believed the article on Fullerton should have been deleted. I understand there was quite a consensus for deletion but a lot of this was due to the negative image as a result of the invasion of trolls who had nothing to do with me. I could hazard a guess that they were probably excitable pupils of Fullerton's who got word that he was on the site. When sources and evidence were produced they were ignored and overshadowed by the negative impact of the invasion. I went to quite an effort to find books which dealt with Fullerton in detail but this effort and the sources I provided seemed to be completely ignored. --Johnfullerton 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bainer Rocks

Hi, i was happy to support your RFA - just like many of the comments on you application your are a valued member of the community. Thanks for the wiki love! --Never29 14:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.

Ian ≡ talk 07:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Kung hei fat choi

Hi there! I was wondering if I could ask of you a favour. I know there's a huge backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves but would you be able to close the discussion at Talk:Kung hei fat choi in particular please? It's been much longer than 5 days, and some agitated users are still dragging it on... I won't say any more so as to not influence you. I'd close it myself but I'm involved. Thanks! enochlau (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion, there was no move. Feel free to ask for any more help in the future ;) --bainer (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx :) enochlau (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bolt and Mrlefty

Could you please look into recent edits on the andrew Bolt page, specifically by Mrlefty and 210.23.133.216 it appears at least that Mrlefty runs Boltwatch and is continually changing the description of boltwatch in the external links. I have reverted numerous times (have probably gone over 3, but I believe that Mrlefty's edits are a form of POV vandalism). Xtra 02:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you've seen, all I was doing was objecting to the inaccurate description of my site as "anti-Bolt". "Critical of..." is accurate and fine.

Of more concern, to me anyway, is an attempt by one user to identify me publicly. This is in violation of Wikipedia's policy against users using the system to attack other users, isn't it? I've deleted each of his attempts to name me in the "talk" section - in the case of malicious vandalism, isn't this appropriate? What's the alternative? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mrlefty (talk • contribs)

I've warned User:210.23.133.216 not to make edits to Wikipedia with the purpose of harassing other users. --bainer (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

shut up. Ill do what i want —the preceding unsigned comment is by 4.21.182.18 (talk • contribs)

hey dipshit

I made a contribution - "Wooden Ships" - so now I can make 3 vandalizations. After that I'll make another contribution - "cumfart" - with a picture of you (lololol) so i can make even more vandalisiziations. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Qpt (talk • contribs)

You're not entitled to a quota of vandalism. Continue to wilfully vandalise Wikipedia and you will be blocked. Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages. --bainer (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(comment out vandalism) --bainer (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scree

Another of my articles was recently deleted by you on the grounds that it was scree. You are obviously not familiar with the term. Scree, as defined in the oxford dictioanry and dictionary.com is " A slope of loose rock debris at the base of a steep incline or cliff." Or according to wikipedia's own definition: "Scree is a term given to broken rock that appears at the bottom of mountain cliffs. The term is generally used interchangeably with talus, though talus may be used more specifically to refer to scree in the context of a slope - that is, talus is scree accumulated on, or at the bottom of a slope..." If this has some deep metaphorical meaning, i would greatly appreciate it if you could explain it to me. Otherwise, I do not see how it relates to the topic. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Conrad-14 year old boy (talk • contribs)

It's slang, I believe the meaning is derived from the original meaning, which was landslide. Fairly rare though. I'll use more common words like rant in the future, if you prefer. Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages. --bainer (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]