User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 1

Hello, I'm Spartacus!/archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ginkgo100 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David coderre

A tag has been placed on David coderre, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why David coderre is really notable, you can contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on Talk:David coderre, explaining how David coderre is notable. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Seraphimblade 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are quick. I barely had time to save the first draft, view the page to make sure that I had my links working, and check it again before you added the speedy deletion note, which I am disputing. David Coderre is the major figure in this emerging field of Audit work---as is notable based upon the numerous articles and books he has written.

NOTE: The following response is in reference to a comment on Seraphimblade's page Balloonman 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for your advice, I am unsure as to your complaint. I in fact am the one who withdrew the speedy delete nom on David Coderre, after seeing that I was mistaken and he was likely to meet notability. I don't go googling for notability-establishing it is in my opinion the job of the page's author, at least if the person is not clearly and obviously notable (an Einstein or a Roosevelt). However, I will take your advice under consideration and thank you for providing it.

I do place a lot of speedy tags, as I was reviewing new articles. Most of these are on "John is the greatest person in the world" or "Jane is a bitch" type articles, and I'm not a bit sorry to see those go! Of course, some of the nominations might be more controversial, but that's why we have administrative review-if the administrator thinks there's any chance it can stay, he/she should not and generally will not speedy. Seraphimblade 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at your edits/contributions and you have a knack for adding speedy within minutes of a new article being posted. Looking at the people who make a lot of these posts, they are often newbies or inexperienced users (such as myself) who are not familiar with utilizing Sandboxes.

Let me share my reflections on your readiness to place speedy deletion tags on a post within minutes of an articles creation.

As an inexperienced wiki, I attempted to create an article on David Coderre. I saved the article in a rough draft form to view the page. I notice that the links/published works on the page are wrong. I edit the page, and view it again. This takes me 3 minutes. During that 3 minute period, you have already tagged the page for Speedy Deletion and placed a tag on my user page.

As I am inexperienced, this put a sour taste in my mouth. Suddenly, I'm trying to figure out how to save the article I'm working on rather than improving it and finishing it---because you've marked it for Speedy quicker than I can edit it.

What I'd like to see is that if an article has been completed in the last 10-15 minutes rather than placing a speedy deletion on the page, put a normal 5 day deletion tag on the page. That way if the user is writing a new article in the 'live' article realm it doesn't get deleted before they finish. It also alerts the user that unless the article is improved, that it will be deleted. This is particularly true with articles that make ANY reference to notability/publications/etc. My original post included notes about several books and a request to write the GTAG on Continuous Monitoring.

If the article has sat there for 10-15 minutes, it probably isn't a person writing an article in the live setting or the newbie has finished the article. (This does change if the person simply is writing "X is the greatest/bitch," but give us newbies a chance.)Balloonman 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I understand your concern a lot better now. I will take that under consideration and take some time before placing the tag on questionable articles. (Of course, "John is the greatest guy in the world" still gets speedied ASAP.) :) Thank you for your feedback. Seraphimblade 08:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I'm just glad things worked out... on an unrelated note, there is a problem with "notability." A lot of people are notable, without being "the greatest," "most influencial," etc... but I notice that on Wikipedia, almost everybody is the "Most" or the "Greatest" something. It kind of devalues Wikipedia that everybody gets such a label to be "notable."Balloonman 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about articles in progress

I saw your comment in the AfD for Military brats and I agree, it is a problem that some people are quick to leap to deletion, and I find it annoying myself.

Anyway, there are some occasional solutions, though they depend on a given editor recognizing them and refraining from action.

For example, you can add a stub-template to an article Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types or you can add a template like some found here Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance or you can add a message to the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FrozenPurpleCube. I liked the "Underconstruction" tag as I don't mind people helping out with the update. I also appreciate your assistance in defending the article. I think the Dark jumped the gun in nominating this as an AfD, but oh well. It looks as if it will easily survive it. His comment about "Brat" being an opinion makes be believe that he thought the term was a subjective term and that the list was thus slanderous.Balloonman 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

Further to your comments on my talk page, I did not remove any tags on the above noted pages Afd, I simply applied a category to the ongoing discussion. The discussion is still open and will be closed by an admin once a concensus has been reached about deletion or not. The AfD notice should remain on the article until it has been closed. As a final note, it is customary when placing a note on a talk or discussion page, to end your comments with four tildies (~~~~) to sign and date your note. If there are any other questions please let me know on my talk page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I usually try to remember to put the (~~~~)... must have forgotten... I'm still somewhat new....Balloonman 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a link

Hello, Balloonman. I live in China & only just got access to Wikipedia this week when The Great FireWall of China allowed it in! I was very excited. I posted a link to a website I designed for global nomads which you deleted. You cited that it was a personal page. Though it was created by me, it is a database with definitions regarding GNs, various information & a forum as well as profiles of members. Please elaborate on your reasoning for considering it a "personal page". As I said, I am brand new to the Wiki so please forgive me for any errors in this coding! I'm trying to copy from those who have come before. I look forward to hearing from you at my talk page... --User:Expatstef (talk) --Stef 10:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Beijing, Nov. 6, 2006[reply]

Responding on EXPATSTEF's userpage.Balloonman 18:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your feedback. In fact, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my site & give me feedback on it, too. I believe you are a global nomad & I like to hear what fellow GNs have to say about it. Ruth Van Reken (TCK), Norma McCaig (GNI), Brian Lenius (GNVV), Charlie Stevenson (Geolinks) & Joe Condrill (Overseas Brats) all contributed to it to various degrees & yet it hasn't caught on. One day perhaps it'll be as big as the other pages, but it takes word of mouth within the community or it's doomed. --User:Expatstef (talk) --Stef 10:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

When using the speedy deletion templates, don't forget that automatic reasons need a "-", whereas manual ones take "|". For example, use "db-bio". Thanks for helping out on deletion patrol! yandman 10:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good... last night was the first time I did any "patrolling." It was also my first time to nominate anybody for deletion!

Military brat

Can you expand the acronyms for DoDDs and DoDEA? I know they're DOD schools but i don't know more than that. --AW 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoDDS = Department of Defense Dependent Schools

DoDEA = Department of Defense Education Activity

DoDDS appears to be the older acronym (the one I grew up with) while DoDEA seems to be what is used today. It is a thing that needs to be cleaned up in the article. It is something that I learned about while updating the page.Balloonman 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just put Department of Defense schools. No reason to put in an acronym where it's not really needed. --AW 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Kosher with that... I liked the DoDDS because that's exactly what you were saying... I'm not a big fan of the DoDEA---although that is probably because I'm not use to it... but DoDDS is explicitly talking about the schools ;-) Balloonman 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article you might want to look at

I created an article with the unwieldy title of List of Roman Catholic organizations not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, which I thought you might be interested in helping with. Cheers! <3 --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, but I really don't like the title... it might be viewed as POV as the groups may not agree with the categorization that they aren't in full communion. What about Roman Catholic Sects and Movements with a sociological definition of what a sect/movement is?Balloonman 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. ticker symbols (2nd Nomination)

Hi, User:Balloonman, and thanks for commenting on this propsed deletion! Unfortunately, we are currently having trouble establishing a rough consensus so I encourage you to comment on the lengthy debate and help make Wikipedia more encyclopedic and verifiable! Flying Hamster 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Brat

Response at my talk page. --Rifleman 82 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Military brat

I've fixed it; you actually have to add the request to the list by hand—it doesn't update automatically! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I was wondering about that... I thought when you clicked on the banner that it took you to where the request was going to be. Thanks.Balloonman 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but when you finish writing up the request, you also need to add a link to it to the main peer review page. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your assistance.Balloonman 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanting to let you know that I'm taking a look at the Military brat article. I'll leave my thoughts on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I appreciate the review... it's reaching the point where other than copy-editing, I'm not sure what else to do.Balloonman 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Apart from minor grammar editing ('oftentimes' isn't usually written as one word in formal writing) I think it's good. The major point that's already been adjusted is the id of the article as focusing on US brats. The experience of a Soviet child growing up in Eastern Europe or a British kid in BAOR would indeed have major differences!! Good work.Buckshot06 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help... grammar and spelling are my weaknesses, so when I see somebody fixing my mistakes, I am always appreciative.Balloonman 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing good, hang in there. In a day or two, if they haven't changed there vote, leave msgs on the talk pages of the remaining objecters if they have remaining concerns and if they'd change their vote. Rlevse 12:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

happy Turkey Day!!!!!

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandizi^ŋ! --Randfan _{please talk talk to me!}

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Rand fan !!

Cheers! :) —Rand fan !! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Military Brat (Krako)

I responded to your message on my Talk Page. --Krako^Contribs Talk 16:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lei tai

Thank you for your comments. In regards to the one about the "??? sections", I believe you may need to format your computer to read Chinese font. If you go to the Lei tai page, you will see a gray box below the opening paragraphs that links to a page that shows how to complete the procedure.

Also, I'm afraid there is not enough material to flesh out the "bullet-point" material into separate paragraphs. The "Dimensions" section was provided to show that different sources consider it to be different sizes. (Ghostexorcist 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

that makes sense...Balloonman 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mil brat

Balloonman:

I didn't know I was that well thought of-;) Thanks.

Well, I saw your posts on the FAC and thought your suggestions were solid and worth listening to.

Re: Military brat (I'm one!)

Ditto... Patch American HS class of 87...

Why is the homosexual bit in there? All it really says is mil brats may not have a lot of contact with homosexuals. Not that big a deal as I see it. It's like saying "living in Florida, someone may not get to experience snowfall". It just doesn't seem relevant to me. Now if it was shown MBs were more or less likely to become homosexuals, then I'd see it as relevant. While these things can be hard to predict, I think it may get beat up on this on a FAC, but maybe not. We'll see.

The Duty, Honor, Country external jump needs to be a wikilink if it has an article or made a footnote.

Change made

FN 24 needs to be at the end of the sentence. FNs come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence.

Somebody else already moved it.

Overall, I think this is very well referenced and written. I fixed some minor things for you.

Thank you... the details are where I'm the weakest... I'm a decent writer, but grammar and spelling are my weaknesses...

Fix the refs that have spaces btwn them and the period (or whatever).

looks like somebody else did it already... I'll check to see if I see any that were missed.

I'm an MB and I never saw separate Scout troops for O's and E's. Maybe this doesn't occur anymore.

Ditto, I'll make this past tense---I remember my dad (who was also a brat and an eagle scout) told me that that there were two troops when he was in scouts.

You have no See also?

I had one, but the peer review process said to incorporate the "see also" section into the text, so I killed it.

WHen it's a FAC, the best way to get it through is to respond quickly to feedback.

I try to... it's only fair that if somebody takes the time to read what I wrote to respond right away.

I've asked a MILHIST project member to rate it.

Cool, I appreciate it...

My suggestion: fix my concerns and then list for FA.

Do you think it's ready for FA?

r/ Rlevse 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS- see User_talk:Rlevse#Military_brat_assessment Rlevse 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready for FAC now. When you get FA, the GA tag goes away. I'm a GA reviewer too, so in 2-3 days ping me and I'll GA it as what I just did was the equivalent of a GA review. Nice work. ERcheck, who did some editing on this, is one of my good MILHIST project buddies.Rlevse 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to think that less than a month ago, when I started working on this article it was nominated for deletion! You should take a look at what was there to begin with here Balloonman 08:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could start the article List of military brats with all that info that got cut.Rlevse 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you mean like: List of famous fictional military brats and List of Famous Military Brats They were in my "See also" which I was told I should kill... and they are now linked in the introductory section.Balloonman 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping

I offer this in a constructive vein and am glad to see you're trying to improve articles. This is about your on hold of the South African article. I have no problem with it being on hold, but see what you think:

1) It needs more references/citations---particularly in the history section. There were a lot of places that I felt you needed citations. I'll try to go through the article later to note those places.
- 22 is more refs than some FAs of the same size have, unless a section is short. So asking for more in a section is okay, but I think just saying "it needs more refs" is overdoing it a bit.
2) This article cries out for pictures. The pictures you absolutely have to find are: a-The beeds referenced of Kind Dinizulu, b- the uniform designed by Powell for the police c- the uniform that is now used that is based on b. This article HAS to have pictures!
- It has pictures. Pictures are nice but not actually required even for an FA. They don't absolutely have to have any. See Wood Badge for pictures of WB beads. No pic exists of the originals that I know of. The police uniform pic would be nice, agreed, but not required.
3) I know this is written in British or possibly S.A. English, but is Learnt the correct spelling? I didn't want to correct it, because I suspect that it's just a linquistical variation, but be forwarned that it looks and sounds very akward for American English speakers.
- Scouting WikiProject policy is to use the English dialect of the country in question. I should know, I'm the project lead coordinator.
  - Hope this helps and again, I'm trying to be helpful. Rlevse 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rlevse 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am open to comments/criticisms/advice as I am still learning... the hold is on there for other reasons as well... I'm currently working on a more detailed review, I just wanted to throw some things out that somebody could start working right away... I agree, I wouldn't stop it from being a GA for just those reasons... but I had some other concerns... I should be done in the next few minutes. again, this is a VERY good article.Balloonman 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faten Hamama

Hi Balloonman. I withdrew the nomination for FA status for the above article. I haven't finished work on the article but Meno25 went ahead and nominated it without asking me. If you have any feedback or advice, you can forward it to me. Thank you and have a nice day. ← ANAS ^Talk? 09:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: military brat

My pleasure, Balloonman. Anything I can do to help! I'm not totally perfect with the grammar and punctuation of course, so there may be other things I didn't catch, but I fix things when I see they need fixing.

Excellent job on that article, by the way. I never knew there was that much to write about brats. I learned a lot, including why I am the way I am today. It's kinda creepy to see so much of myself there. :) Nice to meet another brat, by the way! --ScreaminEagle 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I didn't realize that there was that much either! I decided to make this an FA quality article when it was nominated for deletion less than a month ago and found out how much there was to our common culture/heritage.Balloonman 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, you have really impressed me with your perfectionism (it's a trait my wife has, but she hates to review my work for some strange reason ;-) )Anyway, I know that you are opposing the Military Brat article for FA, but I was wondering how close you thought it was? I know you said it needed to be copy edited and had concerns about the references, but beyond that anything else?Balloonman 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several thoughts: the hardest thing to overcome on FA is poor referencing. You've largely surpassed that hurdle, so on that score, the article should make FA - if not this time, at least on a future try. In terms of prose and copyedit issues, I don't consider myself an expert in that area, and I rarely support an article that doesn't have the "blessing" of several of the really good copyeditors on Wikipedia. I suggest that you canvass people who are good copyeditors and try to find someone who will help. Spangineer, Rlevse, Outriggr, Gzkn, Hoary come to mind, or ask for help on the Military WikiProject. I do think it's close — and in far better shape than some articles that get the star because a lot of "fans" come on board to support, in spite of problems. Good luck, Sandy (Talk) 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rlvese was the person who recommended that I bring it to FAC ;=) I had asked him to take a look at it before I nominated it.I will check with the others you mentioned. Thanks for the advice.Balloonman 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balloonman

From one FAC to another, if you want to have a look at my FAC for Russian Ground Forces and leave a comment, I'd much appreciate it. Regards Buckshot06 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing "Billy Sunday"

I appreciate your comments. I'll get Rocketj4 on those baseball questions, about which I'm totally hopeless.--John Foxe 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketj4 has now corrected the baseball stuff, and I think I've fixed everything else you suggested including writing some summary paragraphs at the beginning.

I'm not sure what you meant by the following comment, but I'd be glad to help correct the problem: "I personally don't like how the notes hide the references and external links. I'd like to see them brought to more prominence. But that's a matter of taste I guess." Do you just mean dividing up the footnotes and having more citations per paragraph?--John Foxe 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the article, you had the footnotes in two columns. At the end of the second column, embedded with the footnotes, the references and see also could be found. I didn't like how they appeared that way. I'd rather have it Footnotes in two columns. Then a break, then references. Then a break, then see also. Or whatever the proper order is for these categories, but as it was the references/see also were hidden.Balloonman 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for promoting the article to GA status. What you see on your screen doesn't appear on mine, but I'll try to fix it. (Unfortunately, I seem to be one of the few on Wikipedia whose computer literacy can often be improved by the advice of seventh-graders. When I'm in computer trouble, IT seems to send up these little kids just to prove the "old dogs-new tricks" proverb.)--John Foxe 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your baseball questions on the Discussion page of the Billy Sunday article.--Rocketj4 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

There is a project. I have tried to move it forward and several people have helped tremendously along the way. I think most of the work will be focused on copyediting from now on, so any help will be greatly appreciated! WikiprojectOWU 20:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing is my biggest weakness... I am not a good copy editor... Balloonman 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That makes two of us, then. ;-) Let's find someone who will be willing to help us out from previous FA Article candidacies. WikiprojectOWU 23:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Clough Holmes

I have expanded the lead to give a quick summary of Holmes's life. Tell me what you think. Lovelac7 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already promoted the article to GA... it looks was a good article to begin with, now it's (IMHO) better. Good job.Balloonman 09:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the comments. I'd take care of some of the suggestions that you brought up. It was kind of annoying to read through a myriad of typos but the comments were generally helpful. WikiprojectOWU 08:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's late and I was tired... when I review I'm not focusing on *my* writing ;-) But over all, it's a good article... I hope it passes. But we'll see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

- Hey, no problem. I totally undersand, it happens to me as well. It does not matter if it passes, at least we will get some feedback and we'll improve it. I like some of the factual suggestions that you brought up. I'll have to do some thinking where to include them. Some of the other suggestions that deal with political matters are more tricky. For example, your point about the Activism section being liberal and the political districts. You are right that most activism that is happening on campus is by people with left leaning politics. If we exclude, the section, we will pretty much say that that it is not important part of life at OWU. And it is, so it becomes POV, not-NPOV. If we do drop it, we have to think how much of campus activism is initiated by Republicans on campus...my guess is not much. So, it is Catch 22 either way.

Overall, very helpful suggestions that give me some food for thought how to make the sentences more clear and to improve the state of the article! WikiprojectOWU 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question (not disagreement)

On the Billy Sunday article, your review indicated some POV concern. As you may have noted in the previous discussion about the article, I also had a POV concern. My concern has not been addressed, and I am curious as to whether yours has been. The article as it stands now, which you passed as a Good Article, has only been changed by one phrase in the sections applicable for POV review. Was it only that one phrase that you thought was POV? I don't disagree with the GA selection; the article is well-written and informative. I'm trying to evaluate my own take on this (my own POV perhaps) by learning what Wikipedia reviewers regard as POV. So: what was it in the article that made you say in your review: "Incredible as it may seem--POV??" Thanks for your time.--Rocketj4 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're busy, and that the Billy Sunday article doesn't represent a strong interest of yours. But, if you could spare a few minutes, would you let me know what your original POV questions were in that article? As I said above, on the discussion page for that article, I have a concern that has not been addressed to my satisfaction. If I'm the only one who cares, well then, so be it, and I'll let it rest. But--are you completely satisifed by the small revisions made to achieve to GA status? Thanks for responding.--Rocketj4 21:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was a busy weekend... I didn't have much time to respond to anything. To answer your question, *I* didn't see too much in the way of POV, but I'm only one person. GA has a lower threshold than many articles and, like you, I'm still learning. It may be that you are correct and it has too much POV... I don't know. What I'm going to do is post a question on the GA Review Talk page and ask somebody else, with more experience to give it a read over, that way we can get somebody with more experience to chime in.Balloonman 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Balloonman. I have been "watching" the GAR and I saw the one review so far. I'm hoping there will be one or two more. but this is exactly what I need--feedback from folks who aren't as involved as I am. (Maybe I have a POV problem; hard for me to diagnose.) Anyway, thanks--I appreciate your assistance.--Rocketj4 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should goto the GAR and ask them about your specific questions/concerns? Identify yourself as the person who inquired with me about the process and then express your concerns directly. Indicate that you aren't necessarily disagreeing with the rating, but you are trying to understand the criteria better. It is always possible that we might be missing something, but do remember that GA has a different level of tolerance than A/FA. At the A/FA level ALL POV should be removed, at the GA level you are simply indicating that the article is "good" and on it's way to being an A/FA article.Balloonman 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I stated my concerns on that page. You've been very helpful, and I appreciate it.--Rocketj4 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Brat FAC

Although I didn't support it for FA, I want to thank you for writing the article. It is needed. There are a lot of articles on military subculture that need written or need researched. My first contribution to Wikipedia was Kitchen Police. I will add specific comments to the talk page for Military brat to help the article along, in the ways that I disagree with it. You may not agree with my comments, but I hope you consider and are able to include research and information that gives an overall feel for the culture, and a viewpoint that does not focus on the negative aspects. KP Botany 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Brat

Hi Balloonman. I have edited the lead of the article. I have to admit, finding what I would call an "encyclopedic" tone is tough with this topic. Maybe you'll find the changes too drastic... I was going for a lead that follows the guidelines of WP:LEAD. For example, the third paragraph went into details about popular culture, but there is no pop culture section in the article, so it's not exactly doing the "summarizing" that the lead is meant to do. You'll see I commented out some sentences. I'll see how much I can do - it's a slow job - if you want to continue! –Outriggr § 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outrigger... I haven't looked at it yet, but I really appreciate your assistance. As I mentioned above, this is a collaborative process... and I'm learning about the "wiki standards." While I may be the main contributor to the article, other eyes/expertise will make it better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

On a similar note, I noticed a "term paper" tone when I first read through it, too. I've been trying to find the time to go back over it and find specific examples of this to remedy, but I haven't been able to yet, hence why I haven't voted for it yet. But I didn't want you to think I'd totally forgotten about this. When does the voting end again? --ScreaminEagle 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think FAC's are open until there is a consensus one way or another, I don't think they have a time limit. Right now I think the consensus is moving towards passing the FAC. I think if Sandy changes her vote to a support that this will pass. One of the two other opposes was from the first day, his concerns were addressed and nobody else has reiterated them. The other oppose I suspect will change to a support as well, he wants this to be an FAC... I think I incorporated enough of his concerns to get him to vote for it. So in otherwords, IF Sandy votes to support, it would not surprise me if it passes in a day or two. She had legitimate objections that until they are addressed her object would be (IMHO) strong enough to have it fail.Balloonman 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I see no problem with the article now. When it was nominated for deletion it appeared rather poorly sourced, hence my "delete" vote, but this has obviously been remedied since. In fact the article moved from AfD to a Good article and even FA Candidate in quite a short time, good job! -- Ekjon Lok 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Let's stay away from the debate on this. In fact, I suggest withdrawing your comment on the page. I think both users have strong arguments and I asked 3 administrators to review the page and tell me what they think. I think we shouldn't politicize the issue because, it will be difficult to reach an agreement that will please all. What do you think? WikiprojectOWU 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of removing all of these responses. I think Fariah's outburst could sink the FAC. Her response wasn't appropriate for an FAC where you're trying to gain respect/trust of others. So, you have my FULL support in deleting everything up to Indrian's objection.Balloonman 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Sounds good. Removals are better viewed if initiated from their own editors. WikiprojectOWU 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I decided to delete it all... probably overstepped my authority, but I didn't think the response from Faria was appropriate... and that got the ball rolling.Balloonman 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I see your point. I think we shouldn't use politics as an argument against it here. I think historically, most activism comes from progressive-minded people who tend to be liberal. If that's the state of affairs at OWU, we shouldn't change that fact because then we definitely make it POV. Perhaps a broader historical context will improve the section. I've asked a few people around to see how to handle the issue. I don't think it is an easy one and I don't think we should point fingers to either user:Faria or user:Indrian. They both have strong arguments. I think what will help is to be consistent with the current policies of Wikipedia and follow the advice that we get from administrators. Political debates are not uncommon on politically charged topics. WikiprojectOWU 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

most activism comes from progressive-minded people who tend to be liberal that's POV. Pro-lifers are definately not liberal, but they are very motivated and activist. There are a number of groups that are activist for their causes that are not liberal. Activism takes many forms, standing on a street corner/marching in a parade are only two forms of activism. But I digress; I think the article will be greatly enhanced if you could show a history of strong activism as compared to a few recent issues of picking and choosing. The article also becomes stronger if you focus on issues that most people can agree to/support or that has had time for wounds to heal. EG activism RE Slavery/Apartheid/gay-rights/anti-Vietnam War/ etc. By presenting current issues with a side, even if the students believe it, it comes across as POV. You don't want the section titled Activism to appear to be a case of activism. I'd pick no more than one or two current issues and use them, get rid of the rest. And then try to flush out the section looking at historical cases.Balloonman 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I applaud your removal of the tangent begun by Faria. I almost did so myself rather than respond, but I felt people would see such an action motivated by bias rather than concerns for integrity of the FAC. I am sure you do not want to get bogged down in what has been a constant source of anger and annoyance for me (Faria hurling baseless accusations about my character at me and distorting and even changing what I have said on various issues), but when every time I post a comment about OWU anywhere on wikipedia I am immediately accused by Faria (who has not made any edits on wikipedia not directed towards libelling me in over half a year) of various prejudices and agendas, I have to respond, as my reputation is being damaged. I have never started a row with Faria. She is always the instigator, and it was never my intent to bring our differences to the FAC. That was Faria's decision. I think your idea above is a sound one, as long as everything is referenced. You appear to be a reasonable person, so I do not want you to get trapped by Faria's rhetoric. I am actually liberal myself and am not concerned if the activism section on OWU consists primarily of liberal issues. I am only concerned that the article adequately and neutrally presents the issues it discusses so that a comprehensive picture of activism at OWU results. That does not mean every last group should be discussed or every last angle on an issue be presented, but rather that the article gives an idea of what concerns OWU students. Faria takes this as a slight to activities I suppose must be very close to her heart, but this is only an appeal to wikipedia policies of verifiability, accuracy, and neutrality and not a partisan row. Indrian 23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted a response to your latest comment to me on WikiprojectOWU's talk page. Let me extend my apologies here as well for any inadvertent offense I caused and reiterate that if you do not want me to talk to you about an issue then you should probably not post on my talk page about the issue first (if you already saw the other post, I apologize, but I suddenly realized you might not be keeping track of the other talk page). If you want to respond (I certainly do not feel you need to if you do not want to), I suggest that we continue the conversation here or on my talk page so we are not needlessly spamming WikiprojectOWU's talk page. Indrian 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I posted on both your page and Faria's page as kind of a warning. Her attacks against you were simply wrong. I sided with you because I felt that she was out of line. You defended yourself, aggressively, but I couldn't fault you for doing so on the FAC. When you go to other pages to attack her, that's where I believe you are crossing the line. I don't mind talking to you about it, but I do believe that you are perpetuating the problem by continuing the problem elsewhere. Balloonman 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough, that answer makes complete sense. I did not see it as an attack because it is true, but I can certainly see how it would be regarded as one and at the very least could stir up trouble where there was none initially. I reiterate that this was not my intent and offer a complete apology. Indrian 02:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        no problem... again, I side with you, but if an outsider observer comes in and sees you going to other pages in response to her atacks, then you are going to been as equally guilty.Balloonman 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Balloonman, your work for the Military Brat page is incredible. I, Sharkfae217, am honored to present to you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar for going that extra mile and really make the Military Brat article shine. Sharkface217 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Colorado

No, I'm in Maryland right now, but I grew up mostly in Colorado, in Golden (ah, memories of driving past the Coors factory every day and choking on the fumes...good times). In fact, my parents still live there. I had no idea you were a Colorado Boy! Go us! --ScreaminEagle 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be moving soon...Balloonman 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame--CO's so nice. Why? (If you don't mind my asking) --ScreaminEagle 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a military brat and your asking? Actually, its because I have a speciality that isn't in demand here... but is in Texas. So my job is pulling me away.Balloonman 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Scouting

I've put up this FAC, would appreciate input. Rlevse 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do...Balloonman 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the support. If you have specific tweaks, please let me know. Rlevse 13:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it and see if I can see some specific tweaks. For the most part the guy right above me pegged what I noticed... but there was something about the article that I didn't like, but couldn't put my hand on. It wasn't enough to vote no, so I'll take another look.Balloonman 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you guys get around to nominating the African Scouting Association, definately let me know... that one was an EXTREMELY interesting read.Balloonman 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Brat FAC withdrawal

Well, there are a lot worse articles hanging on for FAC, and, imo, some that made it to FA. Anyway, I'll keep commenting. It's topical whether you're a brat or not, also. KP Botany 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have little doubt that this article would pass, given time. I think with your support, screamineagle, and the others who have supported it that we could push it through. I get the impression that Sally and Outriggr MIGHT vote weakly to oppose (or not vote at all,) but I don't think they would kill it per se. I just want to make the article a little tighter... I've noticed some things that they pointed out (and you've pointed out) that will make this better. And I want to make those changes and renominate. I DEFINATELY want your input, you've made some EXCELLENT recommendations. (Although I don't completely agree with you that it's negative.)Balloonman 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balloonman. I came here to mention that I've emailed you. Re the above - I don't presently participate in the FAC system, so you are technically correct that I won't vote at all. :-) That doesn't mean I'm not interested in helping with FAC articles, however. –Outriggr § 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User subpage

I have nominated the user subpage which you (probably accidentally) created in the Main namespace (Balloonman/TCK Notes) for deletion - I have noticed its content is now in your User space (User:Balloonman/TCK Notes). Silver Nemesis 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're right... sorry about that...

Response

I think the issue of whether someone is extremely famous or not will invoke investigation of two issues. One is the issue of perspective and who makes the judgement call and the second issue is one of values and how we, as impartial observers, value different aspects of life in general. Third, and very likely the most important issue, is how society values them? Peale is currently in the Alumni section and I think it is only fair to keep it that way. It might be interesting to pose for discussion whether his contributions in the spiritual world are more important than other people's contributions in the worlds of science, politics, education and so on. This, without a doubt, will generate an unambigously political discussion and a very controversial one as well. If you are a deeply religious person, you might say that religion is very important. On the other hand, if you are a humanist, you very likely will disagree. Most people will opt for the middle ground on placing a judgement call. I think focusing on his work without redundant characterizations will reduce debate on the controversial topic of religion and its importance of life. WikiprojectOWU 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear template

It just makes sure that the header will be the full width of the page, and won't be forced to the side by an image above it, as was the case in that article with Image:ProtestOWU.jpg. You can see the code for the template at Template:-, but there's not much to it. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks...Balloonman 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brat round 2

Hey, there. It's getting better, but it still needs an awful lot of work (mostly on the prose, advocacy tone, and editorializing rather than encyclopedic reporting.

Still would prefer a different article title
- being a brat is part of our cultural identity, I don't anticpate changing that any time soon.Balloonman 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hate the Table of Contents on the right - thought it was fine before
- moved to top left, I don't like the white space created by toc... but I didn't like it where it was either. Hopefully this is better.Balloonman 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Williams refs were all messed up and need to be checked. If Williams 2001 points to Special Breed website, there were several different named refs pointing to it (breed and special). I changed them - pls check them all, including whether Williams 2001 vs. 2002 refs are correct..
- reviewedBalloonman 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This phrasing is unencylopedic and weasly: I changed it, but you should comb the text for similar wording. This is the perfect example of the kinds of changes that the text needs throughout - simply report the research and what the sources say, without editorializing.
What is this ref?
- fixedBalloonman 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I read another sentence that starts with "while", I'll scream :-)

While I empathize with your feelings.... ;-) Balloonman 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of WP:MOS on section headings.
- ok
Marine Hymn http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?pageId=/page/Detail-XML-Conversion.jsp?pageN This is still a dead link in the refs
- Fixed

Because ref and other cleanup took me almost an hour and a half, and because I saw prose problems (still needing a copyedit) while I was in there, I didn't read the entire article. I'd rather read it after the structure, references, etc. are all cleaned up, and you've been through it one more time to try to improve the tone. I looked at the prose in the last section, and saw a lot of problems:

Because they identify so strongly with other brats, they are curious about famous brats and the depiction of military brats in fiction. (The grammar in the sentence isn't correct, but more, the sentence is editorializing and not encyclopedic - the article still needs more distance from this sort of commentary. The same can be said for *any* group. The sentence should be completely cut.)
- CutBalloonman 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As adults, brats are trying to reunite with their brat heritage. (Again, wording needs tightening up - all brats? some brats? most brats? trying how? Are trying is a strange tense for an encyclopedia - try to )
- reworded Balloonman 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations such as MilitaryBrat.Com and Overseasbrat.com have attracted over 100,000 members attempting to reconnect with their youth. (Again, same can be said of most/any group, and the grammar isn't tight - reconnect with their youth? Also, article shouldn't be an advert for certain sites - should just mention they seek to reconnect via the Internet.
- DoneBalloonman 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A recent study by sociologist Karen Williams and LisaMarie Marigala identified several reasons why military brats, as adults, are seeking out brat organizations. (Encyclopedia readers don't care who the reserachers were, and reasons why isn't good grammar: A recent study^{[citation needed]} found that brats feel a sense of euphoria when they discover that other brats share the same feelings and emotions, and thus many join to find "Others Like Me." What is join to find ? I can't even really figure out what this sentence is saying. Others Like Me is a list of brats. so why is it capitalized, and is that what Williams found?
- It was placed in quotes and capitolized because that is how Williams used the term.Balloonman 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brats share a common bond with one another through common experiences; this bond transcends race, religion, and nationality. Brats have more in common with each other than they do with non-brats. (Brats share a bond with one another through common experiences, transcending race, religion, and nationality; they have more in common with each other than with non-brats.)
- doneBalloonman 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another common theme behind people's joining brat organizations is to stay connected or reconnect with their old friends. Others join brat groups because they feel disconnected from civilian culture or want to be able to share their story with other brats who can appreciate their story. (They join brat organizations to stay connected or reconnect with old friends; others join because they feel disconnected with other brats who appreciate their story.)

It still needs work; I still suggest that you set it aside for a number of weeks, and come back to it, for a fresh view - it's very hard to write this sort of thing without some distance. I'll be glad to look at it again, anytime. Sandy (Talk) 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worked on.

Now this is the kind of feedback someone can work with, unlike the objection-bot Tony (I've never ever seen him support a FAC), who just objects, tells you how to fix one paragraph and says the rest of the article is garbage, leaving you hanging.Rlevse 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, that's why when she had reservations about the original article, I decided to pull it... eventhough I think I could have possibly pushed it through... I've gained too much respect for her insight to do that.Balloonman 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Military Brats article

You're quite welcome for the Barnstar. You really deserved it.

I have seen the massive expansion of the Military Brats page. It's quite good, although I honestly do not think it is up to FA quality yet, per some of the reasons Sandy brought up in your talk page (see above). Sandy did fix some of the problems, so you're well on your way.

However, I do think you shouldn't rush this into FA. It's possible to get this to be a featured article within a few weeks, but Wikipedia isn't about speed; it's about properly presenting information to the masses. You could build this article to front page material if you are patient. The page does have many sources, but there is still some original research.

To improve the page, I suggest expanding the "See Also" section to include more relevant links to other Wikipedia articles. There should be a "Military Brats in fiction" page that isn't a list. Rather, it should be describing how these fictional characters behave and react to their environment. You should also make that a main page due to the fact that "Military Brats in fiction" can easily have its own article. This one's a biggie: more on military brat life outside the US armed forces. Remember, Wikipedia and the world as a whole is not Ameri-centric. I'm sure there's tons of info you can dig up about British Military Brats (after all, they might have the longest continuing tradition for military brat life). Sharkface217 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some of the criticism from the professionals is that there isn't anything outside of the US realm. Ender in his introduction discusses how the research is US centric and other countries haven't researched the subject [9]. And [10] is a British sociologist who is researching the subject that is lamenting "It is sad to note that there has been no significant literature written in the UK on this issue." As of right now, from all I can determine and experts have said, studies into brats is strictly a U.S. phenomenon. It was from discussions with German and Brit on the military history peer review that I realized that it would be impossible to do justice to non-US brats---thus the deliberate intention to go the other way, make it explicitly about U.S. brats. Perhaps I should ephasize more the fact that authoritative literature on non-U.S. brats doesn't exists.

As for the rest of your comments, thanks, I really do appreciate your taking a look at the article for me. While I would love to see an article on the portrayal of fictional military brats, I'm not sure how to do it without it being OR.Balloonman 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources criticize the lack of research/input from non-US brat studies, then you can make the article more global by mentioning that fact (maybe you already have - I didn't get to read it all yet). Before I went to FAC, I added in info about research on Tourette syndrome from other countries, organizations around the world, and I added a section on the criticism and controversies of the research. It's good insurance :-) (Don't tell Rlevse, but Tony supported my FA :-) Sandy (Talk)

It was probably the only time-;). Rlevse 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have higher standards than Tony ;-) But I'll definately add a piece about how there is no research outside of the US. I will probably mention it in the TCK section of the research. The US is the only place that has sponsored research specifically on US brats, but TCK research has had a more global perspective and the funding comes from different sources. But even there, when reading TCK research, the researchers will say something to the effect of "the military brats section is composed almost exclusively of US brats." I've seen TCK research that discusses the different classes of TCKs, I've seen it where it discusses the differences between nationalities, but I've never seen it where it does both.Balloonman 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Actually, I think I've seen (but didn't read)comparisons between different countries looking at specifically business families.Balloonman 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did run a scholar search on "military dependent" and a few articles showed up about military dependents in countries other than the USA, and a lot of articles on military dependents, not all children. Also did a pubmed search, quite a few there. Have you run through these articles already? KP Botany 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look through it again. I saw two articles previously that "dealt" with non-US brats... but they were misleading. Both were reviews of U.S. research speculating on how applicable U.S. literature might be for non-U.S. brats. EG, "The research in the US shows X, but I don't think that will apply to brats from our country because our military doesn't move as often as US military." Or "The US research shows Y, but most of our military personell live off base so it would be safe to assume that it isn't as true with our brats." Balloonman 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANd I looked at one that said, since military dependents live on bases in the US, it might impact the future of the (Brazil I think) military in country X, if they should change policies and allow families to live with their soldiers. But I did think of another way to go about this. When I lived on Marine Corps bases we had neighbors who were joint service members from the Australian and the British navy living on our bases, and they had families. So, why not try to do a boolean search on military dependents of these countries? I would find the military government pages for these branches of the UK forces and start there. Good luck. I realize you may have tried this already, but just in case. KP Botany 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWU

Hi Balloonman,

Since the article was on WP:GA/R, I presumed that the person who brought it there was responsible enough to put a WP:GA/R warning on the talk page. I didn't look; I presumed. Is one there? If so, then there's no reason to be amused. That is precisely the sort of notification that I was talking about. If not, then someone screwed up, and we should fix that. I will go look now.

So no reason to be amused at my words; they are entirely consistent.

Does that make sense?

[totally unrelated PS: one of my favorite poems is the one about "the goat-footed balloonman whistled far and wee." ee cummings, I think.]

--Ling.Nut 13:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I thought you were talking about a special notification... yes, the person who did bring the article up for GAR did make a note on the talk page---which is how I know about it and kenyon09Balloonman 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bach

My reason for SNOW was simply because the editors themselves very strongly said they did not even want GA. I thought, "Why are we wasting time here?" Please don't assume I'm "washing my hands of it"; please assume good faith. --Ling.Nut 19:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, one process should be independent of the other. If the article is deserving of GA, then it should remain GA. If it isn't deserving of GA, then it should be removed. If it is removed and the authors don't care about the GA designation, then that is their perjogative. I do not believe that ambivalence of the authors is grounds for delisting. The label of GA/A/FA isn't solely for the editors ego, it's also supposed to be a semi-objective evaluation of the article. As for assuming you're washing your hands, I had to ask the question. If it's not true, then I apologize. But when you announce that you are no longer watching the talk page after butting heads with Sandy/Tony, then immediately declare that you are pushing for SNOW, then I feel like I have to ask---and I have to ask you to step back and reflect if the observation may or may not be true. Again, if it isn't true, then I am sorry; but it appeared that you MIGHT be tilting.Balloonman 20:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole GA thing has been one long exercise in wall/head/butt. There are indeed many egos involved. I am so very shocked that egos are clearly more important than the encyclopedia is. But I probably should not have been. --Ling.Nut 20:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think GA needs to be have a tougher standard. For example, in order to be passed as a GA, you need to have 2 or 3 people review the article and pass it. Right now, it only takes one person to say, "This is a good article" and voila it is. It is upon that basis that Tony/Sandy don't see it as having any value. If the requirements were to get 2 or 3 people to agree that it is of GA quality, then it might have some value.Balloonman 21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Activism at OWU --- removing section

Dear Balloonman,

Could you point to the part of the GAR review that allowed you to remove the entire section? user:Indrian was one of the users who felt that it would be better if stayed. WikiprojectOWU 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University home page there is an announcement that the article is being GAR'd. You can find the discussion here. But basically the consensus is that the entire article is POV, poorly written, and the passing by user:Kenyon09 is highly suspect. Just out of curiosity, is Kenyon09 and Indrian the same person? They have very similar approaches---attack the messenger instead of dealing with the issues. Also, the GAR didn't allow me to, but I'm using it as support of independent reviewers that they view it as POV... Balloonman 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have known you responded to my question had I not come here to post another question regarding the Rock. I don't think they are. I don't really pay too much attention to who posts what though. My sense is that Indrian wants thorough references for every point made in the article and that's about it. This has resulted in everybody commenting how well-referenced the article has become. Balloonman, I truly think that it is not constructive to escalate arguments over things that users can easily reach agreements about. Going too far in sticking to your own opinions without listening to what others have to say might not be the best idea. We have our own biases. Some match with reality, some do not. As tempting and as hard as it is, I try not to speculate who might have a bias and what it is. I probably fail at the end anyway but at least I am trying to keep an open mind about it. I am worried that arguments that shouldn't start in the first place will only scare outside contributors who are otherwise willing to help and come to provide useful comments. WikiprojectOWU 04:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whereever the conversation begins is where I respond, I don't like those conversations that jump from page to page. Thus, I put the note at the top of my page that I'll respond where the conversation begins unless told otherwise. As for escalating things, I'm not the one who started the GAR. But I fully support it. I've read through the history of the OWU page and the history is not one of accepting dissenting opinions. When a tag identifying OWU as a Methodist University is killed because "it doesn't matter to students." Over the fact that the school proudly wears its heritage, that doesn't speak well for facts. Likewise the issue that the school originally produced a number of missionaries. But the people who post Faria/Kenyon09/Chicoco (sp) tend to attack first and try to drive off people who care about the school/university. They represent one position and think being rude is the way to win arguments. I'm sorry, but I'm not playing that game. Balloonman 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I am curious when I have ever attacked a user instead of a position. Also, why would I use a sock puppet to attack a position of yours that I agree with? Are you confusing me with someone else? I am confused. On another note, I see you have removed the activism page and will go to RFC if it is put back. I don't know if you looked at the history of the article, but I also removed the activism section long ago, after which Faria reverted, an admin, Calton, reverted Faria, and then Faria began the series of attacks directed at me that have continued off and on ever since. I tell you this, because Faria may return and take this up with you now. If you need to go to RFC, you can count on my support and I will be happy to lend help in gathering evidence, composing complaints, etc., etc. Indrian 09:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmmm.... "Is this a joke" or "I find it amusing..."--- Rather than dealing with the very real issues concerning the problems of the footnotes in the OWU page, you took it to the personal level. I've seen you attack other people, rather than the position. And for the record, you agree that the Activism section is full of bias? Particularly the section surrounding the Campus Crusade for Christ? A group I personally hate, but was given undue weight and had facts misrepresented? Balloonman 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have confused me with Faria!!!! This is Indrian, the guy who has been suffering attacks by Faria for months on end. Faria is the one that responded to your footnote comments. Of course I agree the activism section is full of bias. I voted to oppose the nomination for featured article because it was full of bias, remember? You've got us backwards. Look at the talk page and FAC page again. As I stated above, I have tried to get rid of the activism section for its biases before, and that is when Faria began attacking me. It takes two people trying to resolve an issue for an RFC to go forward, and I reiterate that I would like to be your number two and help in anyway I can if it comes to an RFC. This issue goes back over a year before you got involved, and I have memory of the whole affair and can quickly find the appropriate parts of the talk pages. Let me know. Indrian 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - D0h!!!! LOL!!!! OOOOPS... you're right. You have my sincerest apologies. I was wondering why WikiprojectOWU described you as she did above... it didn't make sense... but that's because I was thinking of Faria. As for an RfC... there are significant problems with the article. I'm hoping that the comments in the GAR get people to listen. I think WikiprojectOWU leans towards the Faria camp, but I also think that she is openminded and willing to listen. She does want these articles to be generally accepted, thus I hope that the number of people who criticized the article as being POV on the GAR will get her to be more active in promoting other positions. So before taking this to RfC, I want to wait and see what happens. Balloonman 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Apolgies accepted without hard feelings of any kind. In complex issues like this one, it is hard to keep the players straight without a program. To clarify my comments above, I am not pushing you to initiate an RFC unless you feel it absolutely necessary and agree that it is best to let things play out a little more first. I just wanted to make you aware that if it comes to that drastic measure, I am at your disposal. Indrian 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        DittoBalloonman 02:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

File:Julekort.jpg

Wishing you a Happy Holidays
from S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked archive

The archive in question has been blanked as a courtesy by the WP:OTRS team. Please don't revert. Thanks.--Doc^g 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this [1] is what I was referring to. No big problem, I just wanted to let you know that we had good reason for the blanking.--Doc^g 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

On December 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donnie Young (police officer), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Donnie Young is a MOH recipient, why can't I find him here: [2] ? I was going to add his MOH citation to the article. If this was a POLICE MOH, the article needs clarified and the link changed.Sumoeagle179 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a very good question... I didn't know about that website... I just took the news articles from the local press as gospel. Balloonman 14:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more research, and apparently the local press dropped a key word: "Police" he apparently received the "police Medal of Honor." I didn't even know such a beast existed. Balloonman 14:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

I loved your military brat article...never before have I been so drawn in to an article on Wikipedia that wasn't my own. ;) I've been reading "concerns" from outsiders, mainly on the title of said article, and I think the people who want it renamed suffer from a case of "don't speak on what you don't know." If you are not a military brat, of course you're going to think it sounds weird! I appreciated the work you put into making the article FA...tell me when it goes up for vote again and I will definitely support. From a former military brat who lived at Jax, Atsugi and P-Cola, I send my regards. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

will do. Balloonman 14:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiprojectOWU/DoctoralOrigins

Thank you for your comment! I was (and still am) afraid that my capacity to get other editors to help us in improving the article will diminish if my own contributions are questioned. I was wondering if you could do me a favor? Could you take a look at User:WikiprojectOWU/DoctoralOrigins and let me know what you think? I would like to clean the main article from some of details about further graduate study. Any bias in the article? Anything to add? I will greatly apprecite your input. WikiprojectOWU 19:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do... it might be a while, I'm kind of on a wikibreak right now... my parents are in town and I'm preparing to sell my home. So it might not happen until this weekend. IF you don't see anything before Monday, ping me again. Balloonman 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Sandy beaches LOL !!! Sandy (Talk) 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Military brat

The second half of WP:MHPR#Requesting a review might be helpful. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Sounds good! I saw it was changed already. WikiprojectOWU 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

I just saw your note to Sandy and hoped on it. I tweaked your comment to say Support/Keep as technically, Support-ing a CFD means you want it deleted.Rlevse 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right...Balloonman 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. I don't see any serious deleters when folks are calling for you, an obvious hard-working, fact-checking editor editor to be blocked for creating the category, or for someone else. When one side that is calling for something to be deleted, doesn't bother to learn what it is, it's not much to worry about. KP Botany 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that worried about it, I figure if they do vote to 'block' me that it will be easy to get unblocked. It's a couple of people who don't know anything about brats and think "wow, 'brat' that's offensive" let's get rid of it. Balloonman 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just amended my comment - you weren't the creator, so they probably weren't suggesting a block of you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been included as I am the one who actually placed the category on 95% of the people it is on. But even so, I wouldn't support the block of the user who did create it. The term is not offensive and does have a bearing on people. It is more verifiable than many categories out there. Balloonman 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad, maybe they did look at the creator and it was appropriate. Sigh. KP Botany 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through List of famous military brats - some of them were referenced to Wiki or to Wiki mirrors - those aren't reliable sources. Maybe you can make sure they're all well referenced to deflect doubts about the category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC) PS - I'll help look for references - if someone else starts at the top, I'll start at the bottom of the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced everything I could, but found/saw many problems - take Martin Lawrence as an example. His article says his father was in the military, that was copied all over the internet via Wiki mirrors (one of which was used to source it here - circular reasoning), and the only independent verification I could find said that his *mother* was actually in the military. In other words, before adding any person to the category, you should verify the veracity of the information in the person's article, and make sure it is sourced in the article - not just on the List. Doublecheck that the sources you're using aren't Wiki mirrors. And, I'm not sure IMDb is a reliable source - I think it's also a Wiki. You should really locate real, WP:RS sources for anyone being added to the category. If you want people to take the cat seriously, you should be as rigorous about documentation as I was on Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome - Wiki can't just be claiming any ole person has TS. The stronger the source the better - for example, Priscilla Presly was not referenced on the list, and I found it in her own words on a Larry King transcript. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military Brat (Category vs Article)

The fact that the subject is well chronicled is what makes for such a fine article. It has no bearing on the notability of the category. Individuals in the category must be notable as individuals not for belonging to a notable category. I probably placed the wrong argument. WP:NN is really an argument against articles. What I mean to say is that all of the introductory info in the category is malplaced. A category should not require an essay of introduction. You should not have to cite a category with references (IMO). I am a strong supporter of the article. This does not mean a category needs to be created or that I should support one.TonyTheTiger 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the info on the category to try to avert this discussion. It is actually from the article itself, but I knew that people who are unfamiliar with the term would nominate it for deletion. Thus, I tried to stalve off this discussion by explaining the term. I agree, it shouldn't be necessary, and I would be happy to delete it after the discussion. But I included it in an attempt to avoid a CfD. Balloonman 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's only me, but I'm still not gleaning Tony's reasoning? Of course, anyone added to the cat must have established notability in their Wiki article, and the fact that the article info was wrongly placed on the cat page is a strawman. ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely.Rlevse 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is actually one of the reasons why I want to get the article to FA... I want to educate people that it is NOT an offensive term. I personally find the notion that it is POV to be offensive. It isn't. Balloonman 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the category will lend credibility to people of questionable notability. They will say I am a member of this category which will slightly increase their perceived notability. It will eliminate a WP:NPP tag for articles in need of attention because it will keep people from placing a {{Uncategorized}} tag on an article. TonyTheTiger 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually want the category in part to increase the viability of the military brat label... it is an accepted term, the problem is that too many people don't know that. They see the word "brat" and stop thinking. I want people to realize that "brat" when used in this context is not derogatory.Balloonman 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Properly placing the category with the proper parentage and other orders of categorical lineage (grandparentage, etc.) will be helpful to making the category a valid one. You should probably have a single line at the top of the category saying something like The Main Article for this topic can be found at [[]]. Good luck with cleaning this category up. You seem to be making progress. TonyTheTiger 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... this is a subject I am pationate about... but I try not to be unreasonable... I have studied this subject for almost a year now ;-) Balloonman 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 0.02, and a comment

I voted for a Keep but with a slight rename suggestion (if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's deletion setup, it's all politics. Sometimes you need to be a bit give and take on some issues). I should also note that informing me of this vote might count as canvassing, which is a violation of WP:SPAM. Just a heads up. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I mentioned on my Keep that I had been informed, and was previously involved with the article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to make sure that people who are familiar with the subject are involved... I also contacted everybody who voted for the deletion back in July. So, my contacting of people was done on both sides of the aisle. ;-) Balloonman

I originally blew my stack when it seemed like you were the object of the block, but even the idea of blocking the category is outrageous ("mine is okay but yours is of no value"), considering the crap that is allowed or even encouraged. (WikiPeopledia). I made my argument to keep.--Buckboard 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD

I may have to bow out of future discussions in this article...I'm just too personally invested in it for someone who knows nothing about the military community to tell me that the way I was raised wasn't valid, or doesn't exist somehow. It gets me very aggravated. Very. I've been here for 2 1/2 years and I have never been so plain ol' pissed off at people who don't know what they speak...totally out of their asses. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did notice you got a bit snippy with me, too :-) CfDs take a long time - maybe people should push back for a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I told Sandy once how pissed off she made me for some of her comments... but I don't want to see people saying "what an ass" and vote against an issue because of personality. I'm trying to use authoritative sources to rebut the original research used. I've provided several authorities on the subject that MB is not the same as SB... it is up to them to show that it is.Balloonman 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I usually know better about those things, but my angry response to that is "So what if I said they were asses? They are." So I think that's a very very good sign that I should just leave the argument. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I want to say that, but it's not the way to win friends... cooler heads are sometimes necessary. I love your support, but just remember, don't make it personal.Balloonman 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, on some of the deletion debates, some of the regulars get P-O'd if you fight back, so it can backfire. Reasoned, steady, calm presentation of facts - and it's not good to refute every single delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken ;-) Balloonman 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brat

You have made a proposal where? Note that nobody is proposing we abolish the term "military brat" or articles on the subject. People are arguing against the category because (1) being a military brat is not an assertion of notability, i.e. just because someone is a brat doesn't mean he gets an article, per WP:NOT; and (2) categories are used for what people are, not for what their parents are; we don't do Category:People whose father was a baker either. >Radiant< 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from agreeing with the above, I'd also reiterate that categories with slang terms like "brat" and "kid" aren't desirable. This is an encyclopædia, and its style should be encyclopædic, not slangy journalism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's also true. That's why we have Category:American computer criminals rather than Category:American hackers - the latter is slang. >Radiant< 13:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the above is that Military Brat is not merely a descriptor of what one's parent's do. It is a descriptor of a group of people who are shaped/formed based upon their parental occupation. To quote Morton Ender, a sociologist who specializes on Brat Culture, "Most of the professional research on growing up in military families has contributed to the perpetuation of the 'brat' label.... It is no wonder that the label endures and is as popular as ever."(In "Growing up in the Military" p 128.) One belongs to this sub culture because one's parental career, but it is not a describor of one's parents profession. It is a describor of one who experiences frequent moves, authoritarian family dynamics, a high degree of patriarchy, the absence of a parent, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit... As for it being a slang term, that is not true either. A sociological term might include the word "Kid" or "Brat", but that does not mean it is a slang term. Third Culture Kid is a perfect example. TCK is a studied term used in sociological circles. So too, is "Military Brat." Yes, it started as a slang term, but is now used in professional research to describe one who grew up with their parents in the military. It is not slangy journalism, but an accepted term among researchers! If it was merely slang, I would agree with you completely, but since it is the term used by researchers/academians, it is no longer just a slang term.Balloonman 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's slang, we simply do not categorize people by what their parents are. We don't do Category:Orphans or Category:People with only one parent either, nor do we have Category:People who grew up in the slums or Category:People who were spoiled during childhood. I'm sure there are terms, official or otherwise, for all four of these conditions, and it is relevant for articles, but it's not useful categorization. >Radiant< 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't about what their parents did. It is about what effects that has on them as an adult. Military brats are shaped by their experiences and what they go through growing up. The military is the vehicle that shapes the individual and has thus become a studied group. It is every bit as a valid subject as people from XXX. The Military Brat label doesn't describe what the parents did, but rather who the individual is.Balloonman 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do Category:People who grew up in the slums or Category:People who were spoiled during childhood. It is relevant for articles, but it's not useful categorization. >Radiant< 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me any studies on Category:People who grew up in the slums or Category:People who were spoiled during childhood? Are either of those categories researched? No. But the affects of growing up in the military culture has been. We do have categories indicating that.Balloonman 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. Developmental psychology, start from there. >Radiant< 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't talk about being spoiled or growing up in slums as a definable subculture. Military brat is a recognized subculture.Balloonman 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]