User talk:Balloonman/archive 23

DYK for Ardi

On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ardi, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats^(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balloonman. Thank you. NW (Talk) 00:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMFAO!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser was run, and it cleared you conclusively of being related to those other accounts. I apologize for suspecting you of sockpuppetry. I found it suspicious that several new WP:SPA accounts would be created to make exactly the same edit, introducing material violating WP:BLP. However, your relation to those accounts has been shown to be purely coincidental, and blameless in that regard.

Moreover, I think with the additional 3rd-party source you found, WP:RS is satisfied, and thereby the WP:BLP concern, at least for a presentation of a toned down version of the statement of criticism of Churchill by the national AIM leadership. Thanks for you cooperation in this editing matter. LotLE×talk 06:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I accept the apology... and apologize if I came off harsh in my response to the accusation.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIHSD

Hello, I know you are retired, but I also know you check here as well. I find your essay very useful for my CSDing and I often point other editors it's direction when they CSD with the wrong tags or when they mark things that don't meet criteria. Would you be willing to expand a little on CSD G2? I've been seeing articles that are marked G2 like Muhje_Malueng_Hai and Ek_Raaz that I don't think qualify. I would have marked them A7 or PRODed them. I think expanding your essay would help others understand the criteria better. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Why did you retire? Now I can only nag Xeno. Thanks Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happpened, Ballooman ? Just noticed this ( your retirement tag :( ) ! Hope things are ok. And yes, I hope you will rethink on your decision to leave wikipedia...Have a great day! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per DGG and SoWhy

Just placing this here so you understand my reaction to those opposes.

I think DGG's argument is flawed on one ground: I have become so disgusted with AFD that I generally participate only in articles that I nominate, WP:CRYSTAL problems, and claims of hoax vandalism. There are exceptions, but not many: probably under 10% of my AFD participation (I could dredge through the log and give you a precise number if you want). I think it would be surprising if I voted to keep more than 1% of hoaxes and articles that I had nominated for deletion. Can I suggest that a more reasonable measure of dogmatism would be "If presented with new evidence and changing conditions, does Kww change his mind?"

Given that as a basis, I will point out

This sequence:

The whole (somewhat long) recent discussion over Latvian charts at WT:Record charts. For context, I had placed Latvia on the WP:BADCHARTS list, and Contains Mild Peril is trying to persuade me that I had done so prematurely. I

The recent discussion over Hit 40 UK, where I

I won't deny that I am a rules and evidence-based person. It comes from having an engineering background, legal training, and being raised in a military environment. I'm not persuaded that any of that is necessarily a bad thing.

As for the Charlie Harper AFD, the question comes down to what to do with unsuitable content: my position (and one with which others obviously differ) was that none of the current content of the article should be kept, and that none of it should be merged. The two likely targets (the show article and the actor's article) already had all the necessary information. In such a situation, I don't think that voting "delete" betrays any lack of understanding of policy.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination). Thank you. Eastmain (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Collier Books

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Collier Books. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and restored it... you should add some references and ideally add a reason beyond the fact that it was swallowed by another company that went on to be swallowed by another company that become a notable company.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosities

Hello! I'm curious as to why your userpage consists only of the RETIRED message. Do you just admire the template and continue editing here, or is it something else? Schfifty3 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's a reminder not to spend much time here... I consider myself more or less retired, but do keep an eye on things... I think most people who "retire" do so to a certain degree, but that most do so under a new name or an anonymous IP.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could always use Template:Semi-retired! Smithers (Talk) 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive usernames

Hi. Sorry to pop up out of nowhere like this, especially given your (semi-)retirement, but I can see that you had some involvement with this issue before and I hoped that one brief conversation with you might save me many hours of trawling through diffs or perhaps looking for something which may not exist. In brief, I wondered what you could tell me, please, about policy concerning usernames like Yuckfoo.

(Still trying to be brief but yes I do have a horrible tendency to fail!) I'm personally not offended by it; I can see that it breaks current policy and would not now be allowed as it is technically offensive; I am confused as to whether there is some historical getout (does the term "grandfathered" apply??) especially given that this clearly is/was a legitimate, productive user. I am concerned that, if such a getout was applied, it should be documented somewhere, otherwise it seems to me we're just giving ammunition to the next person who wants an offensive name. If such documentation exists, I have failed to find it. Is there somewhere a "List Of Otherwise-Dodgy Usernames Deemed Acceptable For Historical Reasons" or something? Or is it just a question of let sleeping dogs lie, which would surprise me as there are so many instances where we do not let them do so! :)

I should perhaps add that despite the apparent youthful vigour of this account (slumps over, snoring, in corner) I've been around much longer than that so I remember, for example, the furore over TMC and his previous username. Sorry to bother you with this and please do not think that I am on some sort of extremist campaign or crusade here: I am genuinely curious, and a little confused, and I hoped that you might be able to clarify this for me a little. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck Foo has been a problematic user name for years. It is one that I used to ask about when I did admin coaching. The challenge with Yuck is that his name is an obvious spoonerism that would not be allowed today if it were a new account. He is an established editor who has a solid history of positive contributions to the project and as such we don't want to loose his contributions to the project. His case is made more complex by the fact that he has long histories of absenteeism. He edits a lot then disappears for a few weeks. There have been at least two RfC's that I know about and several ANI discussions about him that I know about.

The general consensus is that while we would normally encourage or even force somebody with his name to change it, that we don't want to do so without getting his input first, and by the time somebody has noticed his name and wants to do something he has disappeared again for one of his breaks. Could we force a name change? Probably. But the consensus has been to leave it as a grandfathered in name. He has been around longer than the current naming policy.

There are other names that violate current policy, but have been grandfathered in so it's not unheard of. Although, I will be honest, the other names are not as potentially as offensive or flagrant disregards for current policy as YuckFoo. Still, Yuck has been a long term contributor, with a solid history, thus in every discussion I've seen, the sense has been not necessarily to condone it, but to let it be. If he were disruptive or other issues arose, there probably would be zero tolerance for his name, but as his long standing record attests, he's a solid contributor. Furthermore, the fact that there have been RfC's and ANI reports, the consensus seems to be to let this one slide.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the interesting and thoughtful reply. It's pretty much how I thought it must be, because it seems eminently challengeable but patently doesn't get (successfully) challenged. In a way, I feel it really would be better if this was publicly recorded somewhere as, perhaps, some kind of appendix to WP:U or something, so that what was "agreed" was out in the open. I feel that the current situation undermines our credibility a bit if we can't easily explain or defend it. I'm far from sure, though, that I have the energy to pursue this idea. Thanks again for taking the time to explain, best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notification

I have nominated Military brat (U.S. subculture) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Admin Coach templates

Hi Balloonman! Long time no speak to! I appreciate that you have retired, and you might take a while to see this request... but I'm patient (grin)

I'm currently mentoring a user, and I thought it might be a worthwhile exercise in doing some of the tests you set for your coachees (brings back memories for me!) Would it be ok to make use of them? If so, could you please remind me how to post them on a page? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the excercises by looking at old versions of my user page, as for how to get them to post, use double brackets with the subst prefix. This will copy the material while allowing you to make edits as it will literally copy the page to where you have it. Here is an example:

{{subst:User:Balloonman/Admin Coaching AfD excercises}}---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Stephen! ^Coming... 12:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Smosh

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Smosh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NihonJoe

Hello, Balloonman. I understand, but especially in light of recent complaints at WT:RFA, I felt it important to close this request as soon as I could. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand which is why I didn't edit the RfB itself... but just put a note on there "for what it's worth." This is a very close call that will probably garner opposition (and support) however it ends up being decided.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retired?

???

Regarding a recent "slim to none" comment I thought Slim left town years ago. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting elections

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on Nihonjoe's talk page

where you said your support came too late. I read the 'crat discussion fairly carefully, and I beg to differ. I think your position helped sway a close call to the right decision. --SPhilbrick T 16:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it probably played a role in the final verdict, but I would have liked to have made the support "official". "Officially" my vote was to abstain. Unofficially, it may have become a major influencer... it probably received undue weight because it was late.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

"as having a history of positive interactions with just about everybody on WP with the exception of Ottava"

Only one time I could remember out of a long series of interactions that ever went sour. There could possibly be more, but I can't remember any nor do I have any problems with you. Quite the contrary, I was wondering what the hell happened to you! (Perhaps it was from me giving up on trying to ensure problematic editors and possible sock puppets didn't slip through RfA) And are you back to Balloonman from Spartacus something or other? That would be nice, as I always did enjoy this name more. :) How have you been? Where have you been? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've had two interactions that went sour... the most notable being the one on MF's page about the Featured Topic that you wanted. Then there was another one where you made some negative comments/threats as well, but it didn't get nearly as out of hand as the one on MF's page... but there have been two times (besides the DMHO rfa) where *I* have found myself acting in a manner that *I* didn't like the way *I* behaved... and in both cases you were involved and had pressed the right buttons to get me to act in a manner that is outside my norm. I remember the other case more because when the MF page dispute came up, I remember thinking, "This is the second time Ottava's gotten to me like this and the second time that Ottava's acted this way towards me within a few weeks." I don't remember what prompted the first time, but I do remember you making some snide comments about my failed RfB---which you later pontificated upon on MF's page.

Personally, I hold no grudges and probably would not have said anything on the ArbCOM case if it wasn't for the fact that I think that the proposal would be a complete and utter disaster. I know that you and a few others like to talk about "double standards" for admins and unfortunately it exists. At the same time, there is also a double standard for some of our highly valued/effective editors, which is a category I put you in. Your content contributions are so valued here that most people turn a blind eye to other issues.

As for my name... I went back to BM in June/July, people continued to call me Balloonman, and the novelty of "I'm Spartacus!" wore off. I did keep the "No I'm Spartacus" as my talk page link.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't realize you felt that way and I am sorry for causing it. And I am sorry about the RfB - Number 17 was a statement that I truly meant. By the way, I don't remember talking about double standards when it comes to admin - it may be an association I picked up from hanging about Malleus's talk page. If anything, there is a double standard simply by who people know, but I've seen many admin get the boot just as quickly. Your RfB, for instance, shows a double standard where you (like Juliancolton) got the short end of the stick for reasons that are best not to really discuss. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that goes to how you can sometimes pick barbs... while I do believe you when you voiced your support at 17, you twice used the RfB as a means of attack.... once threatening that if I ever ran again that you'd ensure it failed. (Heck, you threatened to oepn an RfC to have me stripped as an Admin... but that went nowhere.) But I have seen you accuse others of being too dense to see what is perfectly obvious to you, eventhough nobody else sees it your way. Earnestly disagreeing with somebody does not make the other person unintelligent or insincere. From my observations of your debating style (and it's been a while since we've interacted so this might be dated) you prefer to go after those qualities when you butt heads. You often go about it in a more elegant manner than others might. Which to you might not feel like a personal attack, but to the person on the other end, it clearly feels like one. A person attack doesn't have to have profanity or name calling in it, in fact that usually just makes the speaker look dumb. A person attack is more personal when you attack their credibility/sincerity/objectiveness/etc---and those tend to be your targets. Might they be justified? I'm sure they are sometimes, but not always. Take the Featured Topic discussion. You saw the subject one way and everybody else saw it 180 degrees differently. When everybody else saw it differently from you, the discussion strayed away from the merits of the proposed topic, but rather became, "You guys clearly are not as educated as me otherwise, you would see what is obvious." It was a condescending tone that put others on the defensive, and it spiralled downhill from there. And I see that pattern in other areas where you get involved. Rather than addressing the issue in a neutral detached manner, you have a knack from making the discussions personal... thus, while you may not say, "John is stupid" you make it "Only an idiot would believe that." Does that make any sense?

The admin abuse association is definitely from hanging around Malleus' page, but yeah a double standard does exists; and it exists because people see the value in certain people who make certain contributions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the previous stuff because it is long ended and I apologized back then and again today, so, there is no need to analyze it further. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in detail, but it got edit conflicted, but I will just state, that I'm sorry for what happened then as well... things got a little carried away and there is no need to rehash it now. That's anceint history.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You never did explain where you went and why the change back to the old, better name. :) Plus, it says you are retired but your contribs are happily full and show activity, whats the deal? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

Remember our interaction over two years ago when I was still editing as Southern Texas, and I called you an "anti-semitic troll." We can look back and laugh about it now, but lately I've found myself at the other end of similar sentiment. I guess things just happen that way. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered what had happened to ST... but yes, if you are doing your job properly, you will probably be accused by both sides of bias at one point or another.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Hello, Balloonman! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.

KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Yo ho ho

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Glad to see that retirement hasn't stopped you editing here;) Ϣere SpielChequers 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tiger Woods (dog)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tiger Woods (dog). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Woods (dog). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poker-Babes/2005

<blanked as totally inappropriate and against WP:OUTING. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please just tell me where to go on Wikipedia to start the discussion about removing all of the poker-babes.com external links and citations? I don't know where that sort of thing goes. Thank you DegenFarang (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, seems like you guys have had some fun while I was gone... it looks as if you have received some guidance on where to go. IMO, Poker Babes should be avoided as a cite. It isn't the worst cite out there, but there are much better references available, and when those are available, P-B shouldn't be used. Ultimately, it is a poker blog, it is a respected poker blog, but it does not have oversight.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

There's a word choice concern I raised here (also discussed here) that you may want to take a look at. –xeno^talk 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feelin' groovy

Got to make the moment last--Tznkai (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...wow that response was so fast that it isn't even funny!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I didn't actually read much past your edit summary.--Tznkai (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't have... when I hit return making the post, my computer hung up for a moment, when it finally refreshed (which was a matter of seconds) I had a message from ya.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the Wikipedia servers like me better.--Tznkai (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated

I finally have seen your reply here. I can't argue against it. Chelydra MAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When can we start?

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Balloonman.2Ftechnical_option

When can we start? Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List for you

I am not participating in the train wreck of a RFC, but I though you may be interested in this list. Advertise and/or copy it wherever you want. Rettetast (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've shared the list with WP:POKER and will start on the list.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Series of Poker Europe FTRC

See here, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much expected that to happen. If I decide to come out of retirement and really get involved, I might try to salvage it or renominate it... I'll have to think about how much effort I want to put in here...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Replied to you on my talk page. Thanks. DegenFarang (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I'm not sure if you saw or not, but if you are interested in continuing our conversation, I have responded on my talk page. If you feel that our conversation has reached its natural end and do not wish to continue, that is perfectly with fine with me as well. NW (Talk) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to have you as a volunteer

Whaddaya say? I don't think this will take long. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on Rvt

Good catch here [1]. You may also wish to start watching National Defense Service Medal. We've had some problems with some negative edits regarding this medal's award to entry level status veterans. See the talk page for further details. The editor in question is probably headed for a block due to some very uncivil comments in the past towards other editors - no reason at this stage to think the behavior is going to change. For sure something to keep an eye on. -OberRanks (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_MZMcBride

Thanks for catching my misplacement and advising me I meant "Oppose" will fix that RomaC (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NP that was pretty clear, or I wouldn't have notified ya.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

I would really love your opinion balloon.

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi Balloonman/archive 23, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at BLP II

Hi Peripitus:

You wrote, "Support - I cannot see why this is so controversial. We do this for images many times each day. Images with no source are tagged for "speedy deletion" after 7 days and biographical articles can be the same. I have always regarded that speedy-delete refers to the decision process, not the timeframe." You do realize that is not what speedy deletion is? Speedy deletion is wherein somebody can unilaterally delete the article within minutes of it's creation---some do so without any notification whatsoever. What you are describing above, is the PROD option described earlier in the RfC. BLP-PROD deals allows for a 7 day "clean up" period.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

er yes and no. This is how CSD for articles is applied now but is not how CSD is applied in all cases; See speedy deletion criteria F4, F5, F6 and F11 (Files are usually where I work). All are set up to have a grace period, 7 days in most cases, and from my experience this works well; the files are tagged and, if the problem is not corrected, after the requisite time the file is deleted. Whether you call it CSD (a-la WP:CSD#F4) or some form of PROD, you can still have a 7-day or longer delay between tagging and deleting. Peripitus (Talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that - I've added comments to the debate. I must have read Kevin's proposal below the commmentary and assumed it was part of the proposal. Thanks for pointing that out - Peripitus (Talk) 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I wouldn't have brought it up if it wasn't for the fact that what you wrote seemed to have a serious disconnect with what you were supporting.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before condition

See my comments here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Part_1_Disagree

Although I disagree with the consensus conclusions. I would possibly be willing to support this proposal if it included WP:BEFORE conditions. This may also get the support of the 19 editors who supported a WP:BEFORE condition above. Okip 12:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Thanks much. Maurreen (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

Hi Balloonman, you recently wrote on the BLP Arcom: Should an admin unilaterally decide that an active RfC did not reach the conclusions that said admin desired, and started acting contrary to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, then said individual should be stripped of his/her adminship. The threatened action, if carried out, will be a willful premeditated action that could not be tolerated.
Is there a Wiki shortcut to that bit of policy? I'm asking because in another, totally unconnected discussion, there appears to be sysop who although no consensus in his favour has been reached, seems to continue on, what might appear to be, a systematic series of edits to many pages in preemption of the matter under discussion, and in the face of some opposition. --Kudpung (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal, there is policy supporting breaking the rules, WP:IAR, if there is a compelling reason to do so. BUT they have to be able to defend their stance and it may end up at ANI/ArbCOM. IAR is intended to take care of issues that need to be taken care of wherein the rules don't really address the scenario or you truly are dealing with an exception to the rule. IMO it is intended to avoid wiki-lawyering ("I know you're right, but the rules state..."). IAR is not a license to break the rules, especially when the majority says you are wrong. In the comments at ArbCOM, the community has explicitly rejected the stance that is being threatened. It doesn't matter if you (or I) agree or disagree with that stance, willfully breaking faith with the community is IMO grounds to emergency desysop.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what I thought already. Thanks for reinforcing my interpretation of the policy.--Kudpung (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftboating and stuff

Hi, Balloonman. Can I please ask you to revisit the Swiftboating talk page? I disagree with an edit you made, and your talk page comment implied that you may not have the article watchlisted. You appear to share the position of another editor there, and I think you could explain that position much more clearly than him, and without all the name-calling and abrasiveness. I'd appreciate it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't watch that page, it was the first time I'd ever been there... but that sentence was reap with POV. I think it's heading in the right direction, but it still needs to be stronger IMO. Right now people can still read it and say "That's not true" or "that's a POV." I would prefer something beyond reproach, but I spelled out my reasoning more on the page in question.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sticky prod

Hi Balloonman/archive 23 ! The template workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Motion

Balloonman, I've proposed a motion to ArbCom.

It is intended to get the most acceptance by the most people. It mentions the closing you proposed in the RFC.

ArbCom member Carcharoth has asked me to "ask those involved in these discussions to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed, especially those you have mentioned in it."

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot's

Hello, Ballonman.

I've got rollback and TWINKLE. Is there anything that would help me cove more ground? ANything to better use the time I have. Dloh cierekim 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have to copy and paste warnings from notepad because I can't type well enough to make those warnings make sense-- TWINKLE takes care of that for me.

Talk to Xeno and NW, they use bot/tools a lot to do automated admin work.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(did somebody give a little whistle?) Well from a script perspective, there's mass rollback, the rollback summary script and easyblock. (See my monobook). There's also an AFD helper script, but I don't use that one because I don't work in the area too much. In terms of other tools, there is the pywikipedia framework which can be used for mass deletions, protections, etc., but it's rare that you come across a task needing those. –xeno^talk 20:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What tool did you use to clean up (move/delete) the pages when I changed my name back to BM?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

m:Pywikipedia (m:movepages.py, m:delete.py). –xeno^talk 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Y'all. Dloh cierekim 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-retired

Are you really even semi-retired anymore? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... it's the reminder to keep things under a 100 edits per month!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not working. Useight (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just think of how much time I would waste here if I wasn't semi-retired!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much as I waste when I'm in college. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, nice to see that you've given up on that. :)
Cheers & Auf Wieder-Bye-Bye, Amalthea 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had to pawn that gold watch... found out that it wasn't gold after all, but rather iron pyrite.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-retirements only grant half-gold watches. What did you expect? You'll get the needed protons to turn in into gold when you fully retire. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Finally got to it. Was there anything you needed to say that was discouraged by the sheer volume?—Kww(talk) 16:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but when I saw how big it was... whew 278K!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First edit day!

Happy First Edit Day, Balloonman, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

File:18th Birthday.jpg

--œ ^™ 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... what an April Fools Day prank that must have been...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol :) -- œ ^™ 11:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long live the Rebellion

No! I'm Sparticus! 71.161.202.164 (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming

I was wondering if I should go ahead and rename my account. I have been told by two others that I should, mainly because people won't associate my signature with my username. I agree that this is a possibility, but I have also seen people refer to me by my username when my signature has been my name. I'm kind of unwilling to go about renaming myself, but I was hoping for a third opinion, and then I would go from there. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Can you please explain your comment on my talk page? I only made one edit there and that was a mistake, hence my reason for roll backing it. Your comment on my talk page will be removed because it is irrelevant. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through and warning all of the people who were involved in the edit war there on the Pope page. I was going through all of the people who had made the various reversions to warn them to take the discussion to the talk page and stop warring... I made the same warning to all parties involved---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t an involved party, really. I reverted my own edit which was a mistake (I had the wrong page up). I also in no way even came close to violating 3RR, and I was not edit warring! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an ongoing edit war... my apologies as you did self-revert. But when I first looked at it, it appeared as if you were involved in the string of adds/deletes of the same material.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

Hopefully it will get things back under control. As I'm sure you noticed, I was struggling to do so myself. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I have that page on my watchlist and jump in on occassion when I see the edit wars flaring up... but try not to be too involved there... too much drama. But IMO, Jeanne was in the good in this instance. The addition of the material was a FRINGE perspective that was a clear violation of UNDUE, and on a BLP that would be unacceptable. The person wanting to add the controversial material would need to demonstrate that the material is not only reliably sourced, but material/relevant/neutral. Having a source is not enough when dealing with a fringe stance.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted a response to this Rutger person[2], he posted a fake "personal attack warning" on my talk page[3]. I don't think I'm interested in dealing with that person anymore, he's not contributing in a productive way and just trying to cause disruption. I don't know what to do. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate closure

Thanks for that. I don't suppose it'll be the last time I get flak. But if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing thoroughly... :-) Deb (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen, I think the vitriol that you experienced (especially from that website) was unwarranted.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we go, they've started already, doing just what I expected. Look at recent contributions for User:81.132.190.92 (his only contributions, in fact). A clear case of stalking, but is there any point in bothering to take it further? Deb (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you, but I'm feeling sick right now, so it might be a while before I can look at this... perhaps another person who watches my page might step in?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at User:81.132.190.92's contributions. If the IP is only adding "notability" tags, that is odd. But I didn't see any talk messages to the IP.

Balloonman, I hope you feel better soon. Maurreen (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Simmons Sirens

Hello Balloonman, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Simmons Sirens has been removed. It was removed by UninvitedCompany with the following edit summary '(An official college group with a 20 year history and several albums - probably should be kept - rming prod)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with UninvitedCompany before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPT

Hello Ballloonman. First, I would like to thank you for the time you took reviewing the discussion on the merge, it takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude to try and referee some of these discussions. But, before I lavish you with more praise, I would like to ask a question. I raised the possibility of an article on the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" itself in the discussion. Do you think that such an article, provided of course there are enough sources discussing the actual term and its history, would be acceptable? Cheers, nableezy - 21:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would never say never, but I personally do not see it right now. The fact that it is widely used, is irrefutable. BUT it has political connotations---and yes, not using it also has political connotations, which is why I literally spent an hour crafting my closing statement and several hours debating it---I wanted to make sure that which ever way I went was sound. My first draft actually was in favor of the "Occupied" name and I was actually reviewing your links when I realized OPT wasn't ideal. Believe it or not, it was your links that shifted me to the other camp! The two articles cover essentially the same subject. It would be very difficult, to write an article that would not be a POV fork. Any such article would have to clearly deliniate that it is not the same area/subject as "Palestinian Territories." Based on what I saw in the discussion, that notion is not clear---in fact, the notion to merge was easy. An article on the term itself, is possible. But it would have to clearly talking about the term.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request

Thank you for closing the discussion and gaging consensus about Palestinian territories. It's been long overdue and nearly forgotten with the discussion concluding quite a while ago but with no action... even though it's pretty important because it's one of the main articles about the conflict. Is there any chance that you will go ahead and merge the articles? I would do it myself but there are certain editors who make a habit of reverting my bold edits so I would prefer if an admin dealt with a controversial merge like this (even though as you said, the consensus is to merge). Breein1007 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick and dirty merge. I know it's not perfect, as I am not overly familiar with the subject (having just encountered it today) but suspect that if I didn't make the edits, then it might have sat there for a few months before somebody else did. This will likely get the ball rolling and will likely bring out the voices that disagree with me.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Closing

Hey there, thanks for all the AFD closures. Just FYI, the {{AFD top}} template should go above the heading in AFD discussions. Otherwise, the bot won't count them as closed. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the note...will keep that in mind in the future... been a while since I've closed a lot.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of voice actors

Hi. Could you please share your rationale for the decision on this, either here on your talk page or by adding to the AFD? Thanks in advance. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank spam!

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]