User talk:Balloonman/archive 17

Ping!

You have mail. ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's DYK for Tiger Woods (dog)

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tiger Woods (dog), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contribution to April Fool's Day 2009! Royalbroil 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi, Spartacus. A new article I created, "List of Exalted comics" has been speedily deleted. I took the matter to the deleting admin, deletion review, and ANI. The consensus at ANI is clear, so I won't be taking the matter any further. However I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am critical of Nihonjo's closing the DRV on an article he deleted---even when the closure is apparent. I don't think it is ever appropriate for somebody to close a DRV about their own deletion (unless both sides agree.) Was it a good speedy deletion? No. It is clearly not an A7 because as Amalthea puts it, it is about a comic book---books are not purvue to A7. Is it A3/A1? No, it had enough content/context to know what it was about. Thus, it is a bad CSD. Failing to claim importance/significance doesn't matter. Would it be deleted via AFD? As it stands, yes. But we have a process for a reason---part of that reason is to give users such as yourself a chance to save the article and not feel as if an abuse of process occured---which is what happened. It's userfied now. Work on it there. From my experience, in 95% of the cases, you should always build articles in one's user space and then move it to the mainspace. I say this for several reasons. First, you avoid hasty CSD'ers. Second, you avoid AFD'ers. Third, you avoid taggers. Get the article to where it can stand on it's own then move it to the main space. Do I have questions about Nihonjo's actions? Not enought to make a stink about them. He didn't handle it the way I feel it should have been handled, but he did try working with you. The speedy was dubious, but he tried to rectify it by userfying---which in my book is acceptable. People will make bad calls, but he didn't blow you off. Userfying (IMO) is a preferable method to recreating---if it was improperly speedied once, you might end up wasting more time defending the article than building it against the next speedy deleter---which is what is happening now. He closed a DRV that he probably shouldn't have---but again, one that would have been closed by the next admin. He probably felt that since he userfied it to let you work on it, that the issue was resolved. Closing it was questionable, but not worth making a big deal out of. In short, work on the article and move on.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the article in my userspace. Do you think that it's okay to move to articlespace? If so, I would be grateful if you could move the page and delete my userfied page. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would try to give it a little more meat, just because it is a list does not mean that it doesn't have to have prose. Maybe include a sentence or two on who/what UDON comics is? Maybe explain why a series based upon a role playing game is significant? Maybe include a short synopsis on what the story arc was about? Where any of the artist/writers notable? Did any of them go on to become notable after the series? Even within the genre this could be added to give credence to the article. It was an ongoing series, but only lasted six issues? Why? As it is right now, it would probably get deleted ---possibly and incorrectly via CSD---but probably via AfD. If the list were longer, a small amount of prose might be enough, but the shorter the list the more prose is necessary to establish the importance. Right now, my thought on reading the list is that there should be a consolodated list of all Udon Comics, not individual lists...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep working on it. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gotchya Day

On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gotchya Day, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is Frakin sad

This is pathetic...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is. So what are you going to do about it? Need some suggestions? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Work harder, slave! You can enter of your own will, but you can never leave! — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But I'm semi retired... and still have over 200 edits in March... and took a whole week off completely!!! And I consciously didn't work on this thing!!!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Mr. Spartacus!, or may I call you I'm? Do you still consider yourself my admin coach, I see you have withdrawn from the program. If you do, have you a date in mind for nominating me? Presuming of course, that you think I am nominatable. SpinningSpark 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Spinning... sorry I haven't been as communicative as I usually am... I've "semi" retired... but seem to be unable to get away from here. Let me take a look over your edits... the last time I looked, the only concern I had was the issue at the start of December, but enough time has passed since then that I think that won't hurt too much. You will probably get some opposes from it, but if it is an isolated incident, then it shouldn't prevent you from advancing.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Advancing? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry MF, what I meant to say was "it shouldn't prevent you form becoming a member of the ruling elite." ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's much clearer, thanks. Just a reminder though; come the revolution admins will be put against the wall and shot in chronological order, starting with the most recent traitors and only stopping when I say so. Well, in my dreams anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason why I changed my name from Balloonman to I'm Spartacus!... I was going to change it to Zzzzz but couldn't remember if you were going to shoot admins in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical order.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: LOL, there really is a user Zzzzz! That was just a coincidence!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That was fast! I was not expecting that, caught me off-guard a little. Delighted to accept of course, and thank you for sticking with me. I am about to go on my weekly tour of the country so will not be answering people's questions till about Wednesday night/ Thursday morning (I should be loading the car right now instead of typing in Wikipedia). I will note that on the nom, but this is still a good moment to start it as it means it will end during the Easter holiday when I can pay it maximum attention. Once again, many thanks. SpinningSpark 06:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold off on accepting then until you can respond...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Too late, I already did. Should I delete the acceptance? SpinningSpark 06:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I really do have to leave now so this is my last post for now. I have struck my acceptance and explained that I intend to accept in a few days time. SpinningSpark 07:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Comment at AN

I have reversed Rootology's close and unarchived this discussion. Consensus is far from clear and you are invited to restore the comment you removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Training Institute

Hi Spartacus. Can you please help...My question is on the Timothy Training Institute Talk page:

Dear friends. Could any admin please indicate how much more editing must be done, in order to remove the "cleanup" tag? Then also, could someone also indicate how big the update and contribution must be from someone else, in order to move the "COI" tag? Is the COI really relevant in this case, seeing that answers were provided for R3ap3R.inc's "ideas". Please advise, what I can do? Is there any way in which to request other "wikipedians"to get involved in this page? I thank you for your support, for a newbie, such as myself. Kevincarldavis (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Can you tell me whether or not I may edit the Timothy Training Institute talk page? I entered a lot of things, which I didn't really want to put on the page's talk page...but I don't simply want to delete it, as I might just upset a few people. I had no idea that I couldn't delete the info the talk page, but I would appreciate it, if I could delete some of the messages...Your assistance is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincarldavis (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins aren't really the people you ought to be approaching, it's experienced editors you need. I personally wouldn't worry too much about the COI tag; wikipedia's coi guidelines are a joke, or at least the way they're too often interpreted is. The big problem you've got with this article though is that it looks just like a web page for the institute. That Curriculum list has just got to go, and you need to lay out more clearly why the institute is notable. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Malleus - This is what I have been searching for a while now - practical advice - not wikipedia mumbo jumbo... I will remove the "Curriculum"-part just now. Any more advice? I mean - what can I do not to make the page look like a "web page"? Would you be able to remove the "cleanup" and/or "coi" tag? or can only admins do this? Im still confused as to what admins and users can and cannot do... Thanks again. Kevincarldavis (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can remove the tags, but anyone else can just as easily put them back again. I hate those tags as well, they're just graffiti as far as I'm concerned, so I tell you what. The organisation looks like it's notable, so I'll help you to make sure that the article doesn't get nominated for deletion again, and we can remove the tags. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Melleus. I deeply appreciate your support. Will you be able to remove the "cleanup" and "coi" tags then? The "nominated for deletion" tag has already been removed by an admin (earlier today). In the meantime, I have made contact with people working in this field and who can also verify that this organization exists and is of importance. Its just difficult to find the info, as we are sitting with stacks of documents, of which none are online...What can I do with "offline" documents? How do I refer to them, when no-one can verify that even they exist? Should I scan them or something??? Kevincarldavis (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If the information in these documents hasn't been published, then you can't do anything with them, but if they're reliable secondary sources like books, magazine or newspaper articles then I'll help you with citing them properly. The firsrt thing that needs to be done urgently though is to make a clear case for this organisation's notability. We should probably also continue this discussion on the article's talk page, to leave Spartacus in peace. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Even pamplets/brochures can be cited if they were published, but those usually hold less weight as far as being reliable. Books/magazine/newspaper clippings are the best. THEN websites---unless the website is deemed reliable.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus, I was going to take a closer look at this article this evening... getting rid of that curriculum section was something I thought should be removed as well. It could be summarized in a short paragraph. I have to put my kids to bed so it might be another 2 hours before I log back on... but I too think this page has the potential of being worthy of an article. We just have to cross the chasm from being an advertisement to an encyclopedic article.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Evidentially not. :P

I'm curious, what sort of 'drama' is being talked about by you and GC? I'm not entirely sure, and I'd like to know, if possible. Always good to know where I could improve. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think I can think of anything specific, and it might be a false impression, but sometimes your actions/enthusiasm/words feel dramaful. It's not that I can point to a specific case, but rather that when I see your name, that is the sense that I get. I couldn't put my finger on what I felt when I thought of you, but GC's oppose was an "ah ha" moment. Where I said, that's it! Anyway, good luck. So far it looks promising. (I do have to say that your new user name is much better than the old one.) I'd rather have somebody who is neurotic than assinine ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My previous username was actually taken from a font family, this one, well, I was stumped for names. :D — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete International Diabetes Organization from Wikipedia?

Spartacus, please reverse the deletion of the International Diabetes Organization. I am the President of the organization and one of my staff created that page. You cited "copyright infringement" and linked my own webpage. This should not have been deleted, there was nothing wrong with it. Thank you very much

-Scott Edinburgh President, International Diabetes Organization, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runnersar (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of issues: 1) WP:COI 2) WP:COPY. It does not matter if you are the presidemt of the org, we cannot have copyrighted material on WP.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion

I have now accepted my RfA. Are you going to transclude it? I am assuming that I am not supposed to do that myself. Thanks. SpinningSpark 14:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No you can do it yourself---in fact, I think that is the best way. Just make sure that you do so when you have 2-4 hours to babysit it. While people aren't as demanding as they once were, there is sometimes a belief that candidates should answer questions right away. They usually expect candidates to be there to answer questions for a few hours after it goes live.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"He has almost 600 edits in the new file section"

I thought I should point out the mistake with this sentence - the file section is not "new", as I am sure you are aware, I believe the confusion stems from the fact that you seem to be saying that this means that he has made around 600 edits to the namespace since the File ns was implemented - this is incorrect, all edits made under the old image namespace would also be listed now as being in the File namespace (since they are technically the same namespace). Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, you weren't saying that he had 600 since the namespace changed name, you were saying that the name was new. Whoops. Sorry! — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nothing incident

Did you know that user:HoboJones had been blocked as a sockpuppet? I am utterly shocked. SpinningSpark 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow... maybe your allegations weren't too far off after all ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GedUK  15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA admin candidate

Hey, I've replied at my talk page. I wasn't sure if you were watching my page or not, so I thought I'd drop you a line. Cheers! —Cyclonenim | Chat  23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Balloonman. You have new messages at BigDunc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDunc^Talk 09:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA and socks

My rationale for the sock puppet report is to quickly alert CU about it. J.delanoy contacted Raul directly. Regardless - a protection will just keep people from being able to vote, which is unfair. Hopefully, they can be range blocked and stopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Thank you so much for the message,

I have been interested to become an admin, but not as much at the present (Since I have recently been elected as a Coordinator of the WikiProject Military History I feel that I need to focus on that at the present since I am a rookie Coordinator I still need to learn all of the ropes :)) On the other subject I would like not to compromise on my faith and beliefs as much as possible, but I can assure you that my relationship and my dealings with those who are non believers or have different beliefs will not be affected by my faith and trust in God. I will however defend myself if accusations or pure disrespect is driven towards me for my beliefs. Thanks So Much and I hope you Understand, Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Once I feel that I am perfectly capable of being both a Coordinator and an Admin I will Contact You. Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and I know that I eventually would like to become an Admin it is a matter of when I feel that I can uphold all of my responsibilities with the utmost ability, that is when I shall be ready for Adminship. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I left a note on my talk page, but I'd like to thank you for the review - all feedback is appreciated. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex Tong

Well, I am taking this right to WP:AFD, since there is the WP:POV issue of the user who created the article, the fact that ANYONE can join this football team, and it is not even semi-pro. Once I make the page for deletion, you can come weigh in if you would like. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, the point is that the article makes a claim to importance/significance and I don't know if we've really looked into the status of British American Football players. Is competing at this level notable enough for an article? I don't know and I don't really care, but regardless the article is not eligible for CSD per A7. Also, POV is not a criteria for CSD or AFD.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Understandable how you see those issues. I hope they certainly get answered in the future. Also, I know POV isn't a criteria, but it is a huge mitigating factor to the "idea" behind an article. The AFD has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Tong. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I commented there... I don't think we should keep the article, but it is not a speedy candidate. Also, I think you mean conflict of interest, not point of view. The article really doesn't have a blatant pov problem---perhaps the wording when describing his getting the offensive MVP award, but even then, you usually have to play outstanding to get an MVP award.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vampires Suck

The template I used (db-web) specifically states webcomic: This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Why do you keep removing it as A7? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad... I didn't see the webcomic... I'll delete it right now. My aplogies, Thanks.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh

This edit summary caught my eye. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

what's wrong with Follow-Up... BTW, did I ever tell you that I love playing with recent change patrollers ;-) I remember using the word "nigger" in an article with glee because it was a perfectly legit use of the term and I knew that the recent change patrollers would be flocking to the page in droves to see it!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite glad you declined the A7...

Because in its current state, thanks to a little kind attention, Coming Soon (2008 film) is now quite suitable. Might you rethink your delete? Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an unusual review requested

Hi boss. As you probably don't remember, next month, I will have been an administrator for around a year. You opposed me during the course of my RfA, and now I have come to exact my revenge, Bwuhahahaha! I was rather hoping you might pass comment on how you think I'm doing. This probably sounds rather indulgent, but it's like a very focussed Editor Review, trying to work out if I've allayed fears etc. and I'll be asking a few other people for this opinion as well.

I'm rather hopeful of a positive reply, admittedly, but I will take negatives into account - severe enough, and I'll hand in my tools! In admin terms, I've been involved in a little DR here and there, and in the domain of deletions so that should provide some interesting material for you! Hope you can help. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember ya... I remember that I opposed primarily due to lack of experience... I think you had only been around for 4 months or so? But I'll try to take a look at your edits... I have 1 person wanting me to look them over before a possible RfB, 1 for RfA, 1 for general CSD, and then you... so it might be a while.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Where is this consensus located? I'm not being sarcastic by the way. No one else is doing anything about his constant disruption at RFA, so I figured I'd give it a try. He doesn't even assess the candidate, and his comments only cause disruption, so why are they tolerated. Trolling is trolling and should be dealt with appropriately. I have no doubt that he is trolling, I know for a fact that is what he is doing. Landon1980 (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a whole long discussion about two weeks ago at AN around April 5-7 and MULTIPLE discussions at WT:RFA. Numerous people have approached him on his talk page... basically, the consensus is that he is currently the new "Kurt" and just as it took years before the community stopped Kurt, the community has not expressed a desire to silence Doug.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread you linked to had quite a few more supports than opposes. Does the simple fact that he nominated someone for adminship not tell you he is trolling? His comments add nothing to the discussion, and serve only to cause disruption. Look at all the threads that had sparked form his blanket opposes, and other behavior of his. All in which was simply feeding a troll. This needs nipped in the bud. Think about it, if he really felt this way he would be discussing it, and trying to convince other people. It is a clear cut case of trolling, and I'm astonished others cannot see that. Landon1980 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Having more support than opposes <> consensus, especially when it comese to topic ban. It doesn't matter what *I* think, the community has routinely defended the right of people like DougTech/Kurt. Until/unless we can get that view to change, the numerous discussions surrounding Doug is that he gets to keep putting up his comments.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIHSD

Saw this whilst perusing RFA's. I must admit I've never seen it before, and between that and 10CSD, I think those should both be mandatory reading for NPP'ers! I must also admit that I've probably been guilty of some over-use of G1, though I've tried to limit myself to the truly blatant lately, as even "no context" could also mean "the editor is clicking save after every sentence". But anyway: for producing such a powerful reality-check, YOU GET PIE!

		Have a Pie!
		You are hereby awarded ONE PIE for WP:WIHSD and all the wisdom it encompasses!

Arakunem^Talk 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for all the help you have given me. Your admin coaching was all that I had hoped for and more. This was obviously a non-trivial effort on your part so, well I'll repeat for lack of a better alternative, thanks. I need to confess that I was secretly dubious of your strategy of open honesty over the sock accusation. Left to my own devices I would never have mentioned it again and buried it as deeply in the archives as I possibly could. How wrong that would have been was brought home to me by the spectacular speed with which Neuro's RfA went down in flames. Boy, do they not like surprises!. I consider myself extremely lucky that you agreed to coach me. SpinningSpark 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No they don't... if there is a surprise at RfA, it almost means certain death. I'd rather address the issue and say, "despite this issue, I think the person is worthy of adminship because of XYZ." If it is an issue that I don't feel comfortable raising up front, then I shouldn't be doing the nom. And I suspect that 4 out 5 times it would come to light (5 out of 5 in your case because it was on your coaching page.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PS as for having me as a coach... thanks... I only wish people here realized that coaching does serve a value. They see the people who use coaching as a quick fix and/or means to pass RfA and judge everybody the same. I am a teacher at heart, and it is disenheartening to see Wikipedia as the only place in the world where seeking help/guidance or offering to help/guide others is a negative.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite true. I doubt that many would regard the instruction received by a terrorist at an Al-Qaeda training camp to be an entirely positive thing, but I know what you mean. I've done a fair bit of lecturing in my time, and I've never forgotten something one of the old hands said to me before my first gig: "Knowledge is the only thing you can give away but still have." Could be wikipedia's motto. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends... if you wanted to be the best damn terrorist possible, then yes the training received there would be worthwhile.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, admin training is an extremely bad idea and it would be much better if admin candidates were entirely untrained and allowed to learn by trial and error after having been promoted. I propose that in future only candidates that can demonstrate a complete lack of policy knowledge and procedures are to be deemed acceptable. SpinningSpark 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Query

For someone who is semi-retired, you're pretty active...like my father and father-in-law...

Since you're still around, I'd appreciate it if you could review User:BQZip01/RfA4 and give me some feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah... I know pretty sad... I should just remove that banner shouldn't I... I'm such a failure (at being retired.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hey you reviewed me here and although I'm thinking of a possible late Summer RfA I'd still like to know what I've got to work on and if I improved from my last review. Thanks.--Giants27 ^T/C 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD review

Hi, I noticed on ImperatorExercitus' RfA that you offered to do a CSD review. I was wondering if you could extend me that courtesy. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Low Edit Count RfAs

I was thinking more historically than recently when I said that. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aqwis last January came in at just over 2500 (2576), and I can point you to plenty "back in the day" that came in with what now seem like incredibly low edit counts. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BorgHunter back in 2005 with "just about right at 1000 edits" and only 2.5 months on the project, for example. The most recent RfAs I know of under 2500 were in 2007. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet with 2039 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William Pietri with 2462. I don't pretend to be the absolute authority on this, and I seem to remember one more recently that had about 2300, but I can't seem to find it.

If your point is that 2500 doesn't generally satisfy the community anymore, then I'd say you're right, but I personally hate editcountitis. Anyway, have a nice day. Cool3 (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to make it into an issue (thus why I asked on your talk page rather than rebutting your comment on the RfA.) I definitely do not think 2500 is anywhere close to the communities expectations today. I don't think a lot of edits says anything, but I think too few edits does. Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember somebody running with a low count as well... but everybody I can think of that had less than 3K edits has failed. ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Last December Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth succeeded despite the candidate having fewer than 60 edits. It was somewhat unusual and torpedoed the idea that nobody be allowed to run with fewer than 500 edits. I agree that the community expectation is now for 4,500 or more, and certainly wouldn't recommend anyone run with much less than that unless they could make as special a case as Lustiger seth; but I'm quite comfortable that in this respect my standards are much lower than the majority of RFA regulars. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say the expectation is quite at 4500. My personal standard is closer to 1000, but if you look through User:Majorly/RfA/Stats/2008 you'll find 13 successful candidacies last year at under 4500 edits. I'd say 3000 or close to it is really the minimum (although at that level most people won't succeed). Cool3 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seth is unique because he is an admin elsewhere and works in an area with a lot of cross over to EN wiki...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I took one for the team. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

About ImperatorExercitus's RfA

While reading through the RfA discussion I noticed you opposed due to Imperator's (mis)understanding of CSD policies. I'm just curious here, if Imperator said he'd stay away from CSDs, would you support, or withdraw your oppose !vote? And do you think CSD can make or break an RfA? I understand it can break one, but is good understanding of CSDs be a plus point, or is it just *looking for the right word here* normal? Antivenin 16:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I look at the history and the areas where people indicate a desire to work. If they have no history at CSD and don't indicate a desire to work at CSD, then I don't really care if they know or don't know CSD. If they have either a history or a stated desire to work there, then I will look.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate, I think CSD is the one area where an admin can do the most damage and have the least likelihood of being caught. Eg there are virtually no controls over the area of CSD, so when a person gets the bit, if they abuse it, it is unlikely that anybody will notice or say anything.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I understand. Thanks for clarifying. =) Antivenin 07:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for spending your time looking over my CSD contributions and your advice will be used in future. BigDuncTalk 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem. I am a teacher at heart and hope that my advice helps improve rather than disenhearten you.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, ...

... I initially didn't like your new name very much, but ending every statement with "I'm Spartacus!" certainly has its charm. ;)
Cheers, Amalthea 22:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about it... part of me wants to go back to Balloonman... but I've decided that I will wait until at least a year before making that decision.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Thought I'd mention that DYK does have a "no stubs" rule. The 1500 character minimum weeds out a lot of stubs, and for the rest we try to make sure they're at least up to start. Shubinator (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I consider 1500 to still be a stub, but I forgot that isn't a universal fact.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. By the way, would you be willing to do a DYK update in the future if none of the regulars are around? Shubinator (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to review the process... I used to update DYK's a year and a half ago... but that was before this new queue system. It used to be one queue. I'll take a look at the new process and see what's involved.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The most detailed instructions are at the bottom of each queue (for example, next update). I think the most drastic change is, as you said, a shift to the numbered queues. So Next update and Next next update are holding pens, and the names are kind of misnomers now, because updates shouldn't be going straight from Next update to the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Triple crown nom

Hello, can you please format your nomination at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations according to the instructions? See the other entries on the list for a model. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: A7

Apologies for my wording (feel free to remove confusion and call me out on it on the original page) - in context we were talking about his deleted company's page, but I admit how I put it was technically incorrect. ShakingSpirit^talk 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NP, the page is now deleted, I just wanted to make sure that you knew the difference. You had tagged that talk page correctly.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) As you know the policy well, could you take a look at my comments here and let me know if what I'm saying is wrong? I don't want to be laying down false accusations, and your second-opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ShakingSpirit^talk 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

did so---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Dalton (priest)

On April 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike Dalton (priest), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kwonqu speedy

Hi, I was watching Kwonqu to see what would happen to it, and it was deleted as G1. It seems like a neologism or misinformation rather than patent nonsense, but I'm not sure if it fits any of the CSD and deletion was an inevitable outcome. Would G3 have been a better fit? Should it have gone to AfD instead? Wronkiew (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

G1 was clearly wrong. The article comprised of a definition of a word and as such, I can tell you what Kwonqu "means." Since there were absolutely zero ghits, I would not loose too much sleep over it if it were deleted G3, but even that is probably wrong. AfD or PROD are probably the two technically correct options.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, now I'll know what to do the next time I see one of these. Wronkiew (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Second set of eyes

I would love to have somebody comment on the following section---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick review of deletion path chosen?

Hello, After spending some time over-using CSD during NPP, I finally found my way to your different comments and essays on the topic. It's certainly been an eye-opener, and I've been trying to re-think my approach to deletion since then. In this context, I'd appreciate if you could spare a moment and comment on the path I chose when opening this AfD: The article had only external links to its object and Call of Duty but claimed to be the largest CoD community forum out there. I interpreted that claim as an assertion of notability, and took it straight to AfD because I thought the article was way too out of line to warrant a simple PROD. How would you rate this course of action? Thanks for any advice you could give me. MLauba (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Took a quick look at it, and felt that it was handled properly all the way around. I am not opposed to snow closes at AfD. If an article needs to be deleted, do so. The article did make some assertions of notability---which were (barely) enough to avoid the A7 deletion. The fact that those assertions were shown to be false, is enough to get it SNOW closed. But sending it to PROD or AFD, either choice would be fine IMO.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:

OK thanks for the information i will do that. Cheers Kyle1278 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What do I need to do to prove ownership so that I can donate text/images

I am trying to create posts using my own content from the website rynersonobrien.com/mcdonald-mansion/01.html. I added the text to my company's website per the Wikipedia instructions, that allows the content to be re-used and modified by others. What more do I need to do to donate the information. The article on Mark L. McDonald was deleted with a message saying that I had to prove ownership of the content, but I'm not sure how to do that. I thought I followed the directions carefully by adding that text to the rynersonobrien.com website. Please help instruct me on how to prove my ownership so that the article can be posted. Thank you.