User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 9

How this works
Feel free to leave a message below. Use this link to add a new discussion. I will usually reply both here and on your talk page. This keeps discussions unified, which is much easier for everyone, plus we both get those nice orange boxes.

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

---

Eve Ensler

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 Her relationship status was out of date, but she was living with someone for about 15 years prior to a messy breakup.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)

Hi, I'd appreciate a response. Thanks! Jokestress 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Without divulging anything specific, yes there was a complaint with respect to the article. The main issue was the unsourced statement. If you can replace it with adequately sourced material, that shouldn't be a problem. --bainer (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse. Jokestress 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Request reasoning

Sorry, was hoping you could provide some reasoning for your decision here. Your close-out with no reasoning has left some people mystified. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#TortureIsWrong (talk • contribs). --bainer (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

At DRV now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the right thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer (2nd nomination). The deletion was endorsed upon review. --JWSchmidt 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

Hi there! I noticed your recent edits to WP:OFFICE. Would you please be so kind as to stop in at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions#Major revisions to who is authorized? There's a bit of a tempest brewing there (probably in a teapot, as usual). I think some commentary from the actual contributors would clear things up tremendously. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions#Source of the policy. --bainer (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! With luck, that will clear things up for everyone. —DragonHawk (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cite_Case_AU

Noticed that you're the original creator of the above template. Just a quick FYI to advise that i've updated the template and associated documentation yesterday to do Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) citations. Have tested and works correctly. -- thewinchester 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, that's good stuff. AustLII has a stack of databases there that could still be included, I obviously went just for the major ones to start with (federal courts and state superior courts), but there are many sources, particularly tribunals, which can be added as needed.

By the way, have you seen the WikiProject Australian law yet? If you're interested in working on articles in that area, you might like to consider joining up. --bainer (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Just rolled back one of your edits by accident [1], pressed the wrong button! I've corrected my mistake now though. Sorry about that, hope there's no hard feelings Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I saw, no problems. We're taking bets on IRC as to how long it is before all of these get reverted as a clearly rouge abuse of power :) --bainer (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it......  :) I assume there was a discussion on this somewhere that I missed? Hopefully on RfA talk rather than somewhere off in template space? Newyorkbrad 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say discussion. Whim, perhaps. There was a positive reception on IRC, and so this can be considered a trial run. The idea is to diminish the impact of the count as the very first thing that someone sees in each RfA, and to encourage people to read the nomination and any statement instead. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw that was "okay, someone's annoyed at the vote totals, rv" but upon further viewing of it I actually don't mind it, there's really no reason to have that running total at the top. Though the scheduled to end tie should probably remain bold at least.--Wizardman 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having the count as the very first thing that is visible in the RfA is, IMHO, a significant psychological factor. Rather than reading the nomination and the statement/questions and then the expressions of opinion with an open mind, with the count there, people read them with the numbers already in their head. It's certain money that this has some prejudicial effect on people. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, it might also be a good idea to bullet, not number the comments.....Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also started to revert one, but noticed who it was and assumed I missed a discussion somewhere. Perhaps a note should be placed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship so editors who are IRC ignorant like myself know what's going on? -- Satori Son 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not like we implemented some policy there :) I'm just trying this out to see what the response is. See WP:BRD. So far the response seems pretty positive though. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...and re-order them chronologically. Especially on longer noms, people would have to spend time vote counting to see which way they should vote so as to appear to be voting the right way. Might encourage them to actually *read* what is said. --Durin 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I mooted that earlier but I figured it would be better to start with baby steps. If there's someone who's willing to have that done with their RfA then it could certainly be tried out. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and I also believe as per Wizardman to leave the schedule to end tie in Bold which I did for Moralis..--Cometstyles 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It stayed bold in most of them, must have just accidentally changed one of the bold tags in one of them. --bainer (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, after a revert, you're supposed to discuss, remember? :-) --Kim Bruning 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bah! WT:RFA is filled with (in toto) mindless ramblings. Discuss discuss discuss. Yes, I've lost faith in WT:RFA :) --Durin 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moralis' RfA has been refactored away from support/oppose/neutral sections. --Durin 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent! One bold action leads to another. We'll have to see how that RfA goes, and maybe then consider changing the template to match that form if it's successful. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Gahh... For a moment there, I thought I was at WP:AFD! Using bullets instead of numbers might be OK, but may I suggest leaving "support", "oppose", and "neutral" comments in their respective sections? Regardless of one's position on the extent to which RFA is/should be/can be/must be/is divinely decreed to be a vote, I don't think anyone wants RFAs to look anything remotely like this. -- Black Falcon 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm ... I guess you can close the betting windows now. I've reverted all of them except on Moralis' RFA. However, I didn't revert them as a "rouge abuse of power" by an admin. Quite frankly, I didn't know that you were an admin. I just looked at the RFA page and saw that there was no notice of a change. I then looked at WT:RFA and saw no consensus or discussion for the change (I should note in advance that I didn't and still haven't checked WP:IRC). Along with the edit summary of "not a vote", it seemed rather WP:POINTy. I'm not opposed to the change in principle, but think it ought to be done through consensus-building rather than a "let's try it and see what people say" strategy. Also, I do not think the format should be changed for RFAs that have already been started. Perhaps it's appropriate to change it for the newer ones, but I think those that are already in progress should be left alone. -- Black Falcon 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one method to build consensus starts with a bold edit, and then you talk. Basically what's happening here, eh? --Kim Bruning 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose. I've started a thread at WT:RFA so that the discussion is at a more centralised location. P.S. I really don't care for or about the tallies, but don't think they should have been removed from RFAs that had already begun.-- Black Falcon 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries Black Falcon, it's called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It often works well to break a deadlock or to start the ball rolling where there is otherwise too much inertia. I made a bold change, it happened to be reverted and now the discussion has been kickstarted and is running healthily. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA tallies

Just because it isn't only a vote doesn't mean it isn't also one. The numbers incline but do not necessitate, to paraphrase Leibniz. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For my expression of that principle see my notes at the top of this page, for example. It just so happens that "not a vote" is a convenient shorthand :) --bainer (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to put the tallies at the bottom of the discussion; those who use them now would still have them, but they wouldn't encourage gross generalizations about someone's RfA progress right off the bat. ➪HiDrNick! 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • RfA isn't a vote. The vote tallies support something that RfA isn't. People are addicted to the tallies because they've been there forever, but they are worthless to what RfA is supposed to be. --Durin 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Veiled legal threats???

Question regarding potential block needed on a user, and the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats - subsection, Veiled legal threats ???. Please comment if you have a chance. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Policy work group?

Hello, since you seem to have thought through the policy situation on Wikipedia, I nominated you for this work group, I hope you are okay with it. Please move your name to the declined section, if for some reason you don't have time to take part in this. Thank you! --Merzul 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you go to bed for a few hours and something like this springs out of nowhere. Ok, sure, why not. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA tally

My understanding is that the tally removal was only on the Moralis RfA as an experiment & nothing more. This already has adopted huge objection to it, & I see no other guideline or piece of info that states that there can be no more tallies. If you can provide some info supporting your claim, I'll accept, but if not, I'd like to reserve the right to relocate the tally on that RfA... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue of tallies and the issue of the formatting of comments are two separate issues which got a little conflated on the talk page because people put some comments in the wrong section. There is some discussion earlier on my talk page, and some more discussion over at WT:RFA, in which only one person disagreed with removing the tallies and they didn't provide a reason. --bainer (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of info there that I can't be bothered sorting through - everyone I've spoken to about it including Moralis himself, said that the RfA was only a guinea pig situation - a one off - & that it probably wouldn't become a rule. Adding to my argument - everyone since Moralis has used the tally (this is actually the first RfA not to have one his RfA, probably because the user forgot to add it in). Please provide diffs, as I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one - I don't recall anyone saying "We're not using tallies now" other than you... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I get kinda grouchy when other users place both my & your comments on my user talk - you can just place your own if you want... Thanks.

Yeah, the formatting thing is separate. It came later. The other day, I took a bold action and removed the tally from the template and from all of the open RfAs. These changes were reverted, prompting discussion (the bold, revert, discuss cycle). You can see the discussion earlier on my talk page, the sections "Sorry" and "RfA tallies". There's also discussion at WT:RFA#Current attempt at RFA reform. Since there was no disagreement (other than from Everyking, who didn't give a reason) I re-implemented the change at the RfA template, and this is the first RfA that has begun since that time.

The main reason for removing the tallies is because they have a potentially prejudicial effect on anyone coming to the RfA. A lesser reason is that they also encourage the misconception that RfA is only a vote (and not also a vote, as Kelly Martin observes above).

The question of formatting of opinions is a separate one, which arose later. --bainer (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should be messing with the template without conscent from the site - I don't anyone really nkew this discussion was going on until the Moralis RfA, and you can see how many people when they did find out there started complaining! Unless it's a guideline or rule, I think we should create a straw poll or something? I'd happily support any descision made by a certified straw poll, if you could create one... Thanks, Spawn Man 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't vote on everything here. I've identified a couple of reasons why including tallies is harmful; perhaps you'd like to address those reasons or offer some reasons why the tallies should be kept? --bainer (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Persona designata, 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.

--Carabinieri 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you an AMA member?

Are you an AMA member? If so you may wish to check the AMA membership list. --CyclePat 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

About Image:Gracenotes dancing.png

My sister told me that I could release into public domain. I'm sorry for not indicating this; I rather hurriedly licensed it, for I merely wanted to upload an image for testing a script. Too bad you didn't list it at WP:PUI or WP:IFD. Wait, I have an idea! You could have told me to list it at on of those venues, and I would have used my script to do so.

If you want, I could claim to have created it against evidence to the contrary (indeed, I was merely confused earlier); and there really wouldn't be any difference. Maybe my sister should email permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Otherwise, I could use {{PD-because}}, if you undelete it. I do respect Wikipedia copyright policy. That's why I uploaded the image. Sorry if you're flabbergastingly indignant regarding the manner in which I did so. Thanks, Gracenotes^T § 13:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting is a piece of cake. Just provide the appropriate permissions and it can be done. --bainer (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How, in this case? Gracenotes^T § 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I created a new image myself and released it into the public domain. Thanks for your help. Gracenotes^T § 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

Have sent you one. Orderinchaos 07:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

uncontroversial image deletions

Hi Stephen,

Could you please delete these four images: Image:Dear Landlord argument map.jpg, Image:NASA Stardust Mission inference objection.jpg, Image:Stardust Mission Inference objection with co-premise included.jpg and Image:Condorcet method argument map.jpg? I have uploaded png versions of those files and no articles now link to the jpegs. Thanks - Grumpyyoungman01 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon.

Hi, could you please restore the page you deleted? I, and many others, find it very useful. (Please ignore this request if there was a recent MfD I am not aware of.) · AndonicO ^Talk 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it under the first speedy deletion criterion for templates, divisive and inflammatory templates. Please comment at the discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Wdefcon. --bainer (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware before you deleted it, but over the last year and a half there have been four discussions as to whether or not Wdefcon should be kept, and the consensus has been universally to keep it as it is useful. Please restore it. Deleting it simply because YOU think it's divisive and inflammatory or promotes militaristic views of editing is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is never a valid reason to do that sort of thing. Kuroji 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's been a consensus that a template that can inform people about current vandalism issues is useful. My perspective is that we can have an informative template which is not militaristic and inflammatory. Please comment at the discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Wdefcon. --bainer (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your perspective is clearly not shared in this instance. Deleting it out of hand is uncalled for. But it's going through the proper channels now. Kuroji 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore it or you can try start another afd.(ugh, that would be a bit tedious) Felixboy 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you deleted the Wdefcon template, as I use it to help me gauge my level of vigilance concerning vandalism. I find it a good tool to see the overall vandalism views. Abyssoft 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it under the first speedy deletion criterion for templates, divisive and inflammatory templates. Please comment at the discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Wdefcon. --bainer (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored the template (oh boy, what fun I've had since...), but I didn't know that a DR was open. I'm watching that; if it turns out that everyone agrees that it should have been deleted, it'll be gone and I won't restore it. However, I still think it was bullshit for you to sweep it under the rug with a T1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attack sites

You may be right about this proposal not likely to gain community support, but I would prefer if you would discuss the matter on the proposal talk page before rejecting it. Thanks.--MONGO 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally it would be fine to let discussion about the proposal proceed onwards, but some people are starting to cite this as if it were a policy already, and so I think it's necessary to act now. I have suggested rejection here. --bainer (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

meetup 5

Hey, how was it?

I was totally intending to go, but I got some unexpected bad news yesterday, so I didn't really feel up to it this morning. pfctdayelise (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It was good. Jimmy riffed on some of the usual topics, particularly Wikipedia and wikis in schools (I believe that's what the conferences have been about), but also some of the recent Australian press coverage - the Ellen Fanning thing, but also a similar incident with Karl Stefanovic. Most of the people there seemed to be interested in the broader issues than the mechanics of the projects, but that was ok. Someone took a few photos, they should be up later in the day :) --bainer (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Sorry for the delay, but I have now responded to your question posed in my RfA. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Legion of SuperHeroes picture

If there was a notice that the picture named "01._Man_of_Tomorrow.JPG" was going to be deleted due to lack of a tag, I missed it. I would have added the following to the description:

{{Non-free television screenshot}}

Copyright DC Comics, Inc. and/or Warner Bros. Animation

Can you restore the file so I can add that text? -- Wizardimps 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't be sufficient. For unfree images, in addition to source and copyright information you need to provide a fair use rationale for every use of the image (ie, a rationale for every page that the image is used on). You can find advice on preparing fair use rationales at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. --bainer (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons images

Hi, I noticed that you deleted a lot of Simpsons episode images, saying they had no FU rationale. I was wondering if next time, you could inform myself or the Simpsons WikiProject and we would be more than happy to add some rationale. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The images can be undeleted if rationales can be provided. There's no need to inform WikiProjects - really they ought to be proactive and make sure that images they use are not speedy candidates just waiting to be deleted. --bainer (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Stephen Bain, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That 09 DVD string page deletion review

Re the deletion review article, closed, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review
headed:

"09 9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 – the community doesn't vote on what is or is not legally problematic (and it's been oversighted anyway). – bainer (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"

I note that the discussion is apparently closed, hence my comment here.

I appreciate there is some cause for legal analysis, but as a lawyer I would prefer to see a solution that encourages debate, rather than just shuts it down in fear (which is the apparent intent of the DMCA, regardless of assessment of that law's actual operation in the specific circumstances, or of free speech, fair use or other potential countervailing principles).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it is important that readers can somehow, through heading to a page with at least part of the number, discover the wide debate about it, and its history.

The failed legal moves that seem to have triggered removal of this page (while the number and title are widely propagated through Wikipedia and the web) are historically significant in their own right. As is the attempt to get Wikipedia to make the postings or numbers disappear (and thus make discussion or research about it harder to find), at the same time they are proliferating on various media, including T-shirts and internet domains, around the world.

The phenomenon of the now apparently unsuccessful attempt by a copy-maximalist industry body to use the US DMCA law to suppress a tiny string of digits is not a passing legal technicality, but an important moment in the struggle between various protagonists.

My preferred outcome would be something like re-opening the deletion review, and looking for a solution that was technically compliant with whatever part of the DMCA is actually applicable here, if any (ask for legal advice on this), but enabled perhaps a locked version of the page that referred people to a discussion page.

At present if you seek to go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:09_F9_<delete this spam-filter-confusing filler string>11_02_9D_74_E3_5B_D8_41_56_C5_63_56_88_C0
and click on the link at the ensuing pseudo-page you just get a 'deleted and locked' message.

Better would be "deleted and locked, but go <here> to see the history".

Thanks for your efforts. David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dv13 (talk • contribs).

The preferable approach is a cautious one, given the risk involved and given that it's entirely possible to write an encyclopaedic article about the key and the controversy without actually using the numbers (HD DVD key controversy or something like that). The project doesn't suffer by not having the number, but there's a very real possibility that it will suffer by having the number. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a comment on the deletion review page, but it was apparently removed without the courtesy of contacting me. The AFD was closed ignoring Wikipedia AFD process, then the Deletion review was closed ignoring Wikipedia Deletion review process (no 5 day period was allowed). Did the Wikipedia Foundation receive a demand the article be removed instantly, so as to prevent normal processes to be followed? Did the legal counsel of the foundation tell someone to remove the article and AFD forthwith? You stated that it had been done by oversight. Do you yourself have oversight authorization? If not you then who erased the AFD and all comments in the AFD debate? Is there a log of oversight actions? Does it seem like a good idea when oversight makes something "go away" to explain the action on the talk page of the AFDs for the day? There could be an explanation without repeating the secret squirrel number itself. Thanks. Edison 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Process is a tool, used to alleviate the tedium of having to repeatedly work out methods of dealing with common, repetitive situations. The less typical a situation, the less useful the typical methods of dealing with it become.

No I don't have oversight access. A log is kept, but for obvious reasons, is only available to those with oversight access. It can only have been one of these people. You might like to make a game of guessing who. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD string deletion review

When you closed this deletion review, you must have known that people might message you about it, as heated and controversial as that debate was. I understand the legal paranoia that some may have in this case, and accept the fact that it was closed relatively quickly in favor of a deletion, although I must say that I expected the reason for the closure of the debate to be a bit more satisfactory. What you did was scorn the editors for "voting on what is or isn't legally problematic"; it ignores the fact that there was a debate going on—not a simple vote—and says nothing about the accusations of censorship. Lots of people in that debate felt that Wikipedia was censoring that number, as it is certainly notable enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion and compliant with the rules. It has been argued that it is only WP:OFFICE's job to amend such articles, should a complaint or DMCA takedown notice arrive (we've received them before). Subsequently, the number was added to the blacklist and editing the debate was impossible for some time, until the number's occurrences were modified slightly to not be caught by the blacklist. I don't just speak for myself when I say that I find the admins' hysteria unfounded, and that a lot of good points in favor of undeletion were ignored entirely. You addressed none of these claims or thoughts when you closed the debate. You are an admin, and I understand that you find it important to protect Wikipedia from possible litigation, but I find it reproachable that you would do so without at the very least acknowledging the dissenters have a valid point, and that this case is exceptional. I'll ignore all other issues, but hope that you find it at least reasonable that I'm telling you this. —msikma (user, talk) 19:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the foundation currently has no stance on the issue User_talk:Bastique#HD_DVD. 142.68.40.44 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said to Dv13 above, the preferable approach is a cautious one, given the risk involved and given that it's entirely possible to write an encyclopaedic article about the key and the controversy without actually using the numbers. I don't care about cries of "censorship", or "paranoia", or whatever, because at the end of the day the situation involves a legal question, and legal questions are answered by lawyers. Until we get an answer, we take the least risky course. --bainer (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I just mentioned in my original message: I certainly understand the cautious approach. What bothers me is the way you went about it—not just you, but many admins. You seem to have ignored the biggest part of my message, which dealt with the way this "cautious approach" sprang up. Again, I'll say that I condemn your stance of not finding it appropriate to concede to the fact that the other side had very good points, and that it's solely the bizarre nature of the situation that caused you to act this way. I still find that the admins acted very hostile and unfair here, even though I understand that this was a very logical decision for you to make. Perhaps you should read the last part of my previous message again. —msikma (user, talk) 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What I think was not important with respect to closing the debate. If it was important, I would have stated that in my opinion the "dissenters" don't have any valid points. See here. --bainer (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Fontaine Maury High School

Hi, just a quick question:

(cur) (last) 07:45, 9 February 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Matthew Fontaine Maury High School: article has been the subject of offensive vandalism, OTRS request made [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Is this intended to be permanent? Thanks – Gurch 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you're following up on lots of page protections, good stuff! Yes, this one can probably be unprotected now. It was just schoolkid vandalism, but of a particularly personal type, so protection was warranted. But it's been long enough now that they'll have moved on, so I've unprotected. --bainer (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)