User talk:Stephen Bain/Archive 8

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

---

Re: "Unfree images" on user page

Hello there, just a note to say thank you for alerting me to the above issue with regards to my userpage. I had been hitherto unaware of the exact stipulations of the fair use policy, but can see exactly how user page presence would fail to constitute fair use; a user page is not encyclopaedic! Many thanks for sorting out the necessary images, and allow my apologies for not having checked this up beforehand. I appreciate your undestanding! The Geography Elite 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

G'Day Bainer

Hi Bainer. It's me (Neoballmon). Do you remember me? I sure hope you do because I still remember you quite well! If you don't, here's a refreshing of your memory.
-I made a few joke edits (portrayed by you as vandalism)
-You blocked me
-I appealed numerous times for unblocking
-You rejected me numerous times
-You blocked my talk page
-I seemed to have left the site
-I returned, assuming the form of an IP Address, so resume my appeal
I guess that pretty much sums it up. (and it seems to have been a while since i've been here so I can't remember coding properly) It's a new year, and I will make a new years resolution to you, that if you unblock me, I will NOT vandalise Wikipedia again. Please just unblock me Bainer --203.173.45.223 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Please do not completely revise Wikipedia policies without extensive prior discussion and explanation on the policy talk page. I've reverted your changes to this policy and look forward to hearing about why you think it needs to be changed, and in particular why you thought it should be so dramatically shortened. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 16:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message here: Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#My recent revision. --bainer (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please give the process a couple of days; if the wording of the policy has been a problem for a while, a few more days won't make much difference. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What on earth?

There were only like, 35 or 6 people, who wanted it merged. Most others wanted it either deleted or kept as it was. I have reverted - I can't understand how you came to this conclusion!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to find a peaceful solution before anyone (you or Nick) gets in any more trouble. But if that's not what you want, then that's ok, I really don't care either way about the debate. --bainer (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think it's OK to go around ignoring consensus?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say "result". As in I don't really mind what the result turns out to be, I was just making an effort to reach a reasonable solution that would avoid further problems. In case you didn't notice my reasoning for closing the debate as I did, it's in the big box marked "Closer's notes" just under the heading. You should look at the second paragraph, where I say that in the end, the case for merging as presented by Carcharoth, Mindspillage et al struck a good balance between having the useful information around and concerns about keeping it all together on a page about vandalism, which were in fact the arguments raised by almost all the participants in the debate. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is now going to happen, in all likelihood, is that the material will be merged (how on earth they will do that, I have no idea) into articles where people don't want it merged into. Then it will get reverted, and hence your merge will become a delete. Thanks for nothing, I suppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what the merge debate is for. The way I see it, MfD have passed the issue on to become a merge debate on the chosen talk page. I suggest at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia in the media. Carcharoth 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now this I don't understand. Are we now saying that I have to argue that we shouldn't merge the article? If so, then isn't that a way of bypassing Bainer's closing decision? I'd also like to know if the previous AFD was taken into account when the deletion decision was made. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Quit trying to piss people off Bainer. Let them have their way on the pages because they know better how it should look, and leave them alone. --Neoballmon II 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.