User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 14

Csd survey Results

Well, I've posted the results for the CSD survey---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found your survey - great idea! It's fun to go through the questionnaire. I hope I'm not too late. Sorry, I have been evading the CSD discussion lately, but I still support your initiative. Please let me know when there are any major things, such as new surveys, where you'd appreciate my participation. — Sebastian 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Wow. I just went through these, and I am stunned at how often the CSD are misused. Thank you for this very enlightening experience :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA-related request for more eyeballs spam

I'm asking a few RFA regulars (no offense intended!) to review two threads I'm thinking of posting to WT:RFA at User:Barneca/RFA sandbox and give me a little feedback on:

• Whether you think I'd be wasting my time
• If you can think of any drastic improvements I could make prior to posting this
• Which option you think I should pursue (I don't think proposing both, and having people "vote", is a good idea; far too easily sidetracked)
• If you think there's a good Option 3 that I haven't considered
• Any other feedback you're interested in giving me

I'll probably post something to WT:RFA next week, after my schedule eases a little bit, so no critical rush to reply; you've probably got 5+ days before I post anything anywhere. If someone comes up with significant changes I think are good ideas, I'll probably delay even longer.

If you're interested, please post to the sandbox's talk page. If you are not I'm Spartacus!, but one of his talk page stalkers reading this, you're welcome to comment as well; I'm not trying to hide this from anyone, just iron out any obvious kinks before it goes live, to prevent minutiae from sidetracking the discussion (that seems to happen quite often). I'm hoping against hope that this leads to actual change, rather than fruitless discussion, so I really want to try to get all my ducks in a row before springing this on WT:RFA.

Thanks in advance, and sorry if this spam is unwelcome; I won't bug you again. --barneca (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you e-mail

I've sent you e-mail. ayematthew @ 19:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I assume RfA is not in my future. :| ayematthew @ 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't said that yet... I need to go back through your edits and see if first impressions are valid impressions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many who don't see RfA in their futures, including myself. Would it bother you to be another one of those? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind at all. I don't really care, but with the apparent "shortage" of admins, it was suggested I run (but I wanted a review first). I don't really plan on running at this point. ayematthew @ 02:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no shortage of admins, just a shortage of common sense and an anally retentive mindset. Just a general comment, not one directed at you in any way whatsoever. I wish you luck with your RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC}

Ok, actually though I'm not running an RfA. Thanks anyways MF! ayematthew @ 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

Thanks for the review, I just wanted to see where I'm at cause I knew it would be a while before I should go at it. But as far as your last concern goes, I do not use a tool, all of my edits are hand done. But anyways thanks for the review!--Iamawesome800 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Balloonman :)

Balloonman, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Balloonman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

beautiful :) travb (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note

Hey B'man. I'm considering reapplying for adminship later this year (perhaps late Feburary-early March) and currently undergoing a form of admin coaching (more of an extensive review) by Malinaccier and in part by Lankiveil. That said, I appreciate how active you are at WP:RfA and you have a great degree of accuracy when you review candidates. I was wondering if you could place me on your list of candidates at the top of this page who are looking for a review, just so I can get your thoughts on my reapplication? I want to get this time right seeing as it's my third nomination and going past three is almost a point of no return. I don't think it's possible to get too much critique before an RfA. If you're interested, my 'admin coaching' page is located here. Many thanks in advance, if you're too busy then no worries :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll support you again; just like I did back in April ;) On a side note: I'm spending too much time on Balloonman's talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You and me both ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, many thanks Lazulilasher. I'm suprised that this page is becoming remarkably like Keeper's where you post something any many, many others will see it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's page will be quite like keepers for a long time.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do great minds think alike?

Check out the timing on this: my note to you and this. All done within one minute of each other. Wow. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

and I already responded there ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes of ...

Here's why all of this garbage needs to be done away with. See the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites. I hadn't even noticed this before - I just cleaned it up as an orphaned redirect to the page you deleted. This whole bit of nonsense is one user's intentional disruption, not a serious effort at encyclopedic articles. --B (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• While there may be merit to an article that gives an encyclopedic treatment to "white" people, e.g. Stereotypes of African Americans, that is not this article. There are reliable sources that examine the topic, including books that relate the phenomenon to stereotypes of other racial identities. Alas, I am glad that you closed that AfD, and thank you for that notice. • Freechild'sup? 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, although the word stereotype is a loaded one in and of itself. Academic articles on the subject would use a less inflamitory term, unless they were dealing with "African American Stereotypes of White People" or "Caucassian stereotypes of Asians" or "Asian stereotypes of blacks." As a demographic, there are attributes that fit African Americans, Caucassians Americans, Asian Americans, etc that have been studied and are worthy of an encyclopedia... but this wasn't it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • What term or terms do they use? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • They might use characteristics, attributes, generalities, etc. From my experience, when academics are talking about subjective attributes, they try to find terms that are less loaded and convey the sense that the attribute is neutral and based upon scientific research. Stereotypes has a connotation of personal bias and fallacy. Eg if I were to say, "GROUPA do worse at school than GROUPB]" then that is a stereotype---it is a statement that might be true or false. Now, if I were to produce a study that showed GROUPB traditionally do better in school than GROUPA, I don't want my study to be seen as stereotyping, but rather presenting objective facts on a potentially controversial subject. Stereotypes are known to be wrong.

        Now, GROUPB may have stereotypes about GROUPA, and those stereotypes might be a subject worthy of studying on their own merit. In this case, the scholar might choose to use the term stereotype because they are talking about GROUPB's perceptions of GROUPA which may or may not be based on reality.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

        • However, I would suggest that rather than seeing this from a purely academic approach the challenge would be to prove the notability of the topic of stereotypes of XYZ, and solely from that angle the topic would prove worthy. WP is not so much about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a topic insomuch as it is about notability, right? If it were purely an issue of "rightness" as much as half of the project would simply *poof* disappear. • Freechild'sup? 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the preceding conversation I rewrote Stereotypes of white people. I hope that you let me know what you think of its present form. • Freechild'sup? 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect speedy deletion

Note that your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people wasn't actually correct. The article that you deleted was created 1 day after the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of whites. However, note that at the time of that latter closure the article had been renamed, during the AFD discussion, first to Stereotypes of white race ethnic groups and then to Stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race, which is where it was deleted at the closure of that discussion. Compare the "re-creation" at Stereotypes of white people to the deleted Stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race. They are noticably different. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take another look at this to see if I can make heads or tails of this...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The history is complex. It took me a fair while to track through all of the deleted edits, move logs, and AFD discussions. Have a look at what I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Stereotypes of Jews. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is your mail working?

Wikipedia's been having technical issues and that may be affecting mail. I sent you a mail several days ago. I resent it yesterday. I got cc's both times. If it's not in your mailbox or spam folder, this needs to be tested further and reported to WP:Village Pump (technical). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, missed them for some reason.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Review

Thank you for your time you put into my review. I just did a review because I reached the edit benchmark stated on the admin coaching page. Maybe when I finish school I will start working on content building. Thanks again. Leujohn ^(talk) 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Closed discussion

The discussion about Stereotypes about White people was perhaps prematurely closed. 24 hours ( rough estimate) is not enough time to close the discussion IMHO. Could we perhaps open it again so that I might vote and also to give others a chance to weigh in?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look into it, but the version that was on there was a clear G10 violation. There was an older version that looked ok but it appeared to be a version that was previously deleted via an AFD. That being said, I've been told that the AFD was actually for a different article, but that there were a number of page moves/etc. I'm going to research this tonight, and if what I've been told about the page moves/renames/etc is accurate, then I will have no problem reopening. IF the article as of August 27 is different from the one that was debated, then I will have no problem reopening the discussion. Let me look into it, and trust me, I am not afraid to admit I don't know everything.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No accusation on my part, we are cool. If it is not something that can be done becasue of the possiblities listed above, I'm alright with that. TRhank you for taking the time to respond. Cordially,- Die4Dixie (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't take it as an accusation. This article apparently has a complex history. Like I said, the version that was originally nominated is a G10--attack page delete. The question is, is there an older version that can be used? If there is, then I have no problem reverting to THAT version and starting the debate over. But the version originally nominated, G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hi Balloonman. To expand on my addition to your RfA Reviews list, I am considering an RfA in the near future, but I would really appreciate your input first. One of the tasks I enjoy is new page patrolling, and CSD is one of the areas I'd like to work in. Would you be able to review my edits in general, but particularly those related to speedy deletion? Thanks in advance, and no hurry. :) Somno (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Spartacus!. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crat track?

Re: a comment you made elsewhere: I thought in a project like Wikipedia, the "people" hierarchy was reversed: good-content creators were at the top of the pecking orders, then the janitors, then the plumbers and sewer-cleaner-outers, and so on. Good content writers should be too busy to mess around with wikipolitics and making administrative decisions, if they have the tools at all, it's so they can be more efficient creating content. This is distinct from the article hierarchy, which works normally: spamcruft to be deleted on the bottom, C- and B-class articles in the middle, and featured content at the top.

I kid only slightly, many of the personality traits that make a good content writer, especially someone working collaboratively, are the very traits that make a good admin, at least as far as the human-relationship and side and article-rescue-from-deletion sides go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a good content builder is a sign that people may share the same skills that make good admins... but it isn't always the case. Let me use two examples, Malleus and Tony1, both of them are great content builders and the project would be worse off without them. But neither of them will ever pass an RfA unless they underwent complete personality changes in regards to the project. There are others who are great content builders, but would never pass an rfa. There are also people who are great with consensus building and working in contentious areas who are lousy content builders. Being good at one is not the same as being good at both. Crat Track involves people who have the interpersonal ability AND spend time learning the policies/guidelines. Somebody on the 'crat track isn't necessarily going to be somebody who promotes a lot of articles to FA. In fact, I suspect that most people who work on FA's wouldn't become a crat.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, what does Crat Track mean? At first I thought you were making fun of the horrid WP:Coatrack essay.

Would you both agree that the fastest way to become an editor is to become a policeman: help delete articles and stop vandals, not writing good content?

A very intelligent and thoughtgul editor wrote on my talk page today:

"I think wikipedia rewards the tenacious (obviously) and tenacity without need or talent is usually an odious thing, as neurosis or other character disorders are often its engine. I wonder what system you could construct that would reward the reasonable."

travb (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not part of both, but: you become an editor by pressing the edit button once. The path to what's usually called an established editor is I think engange in discussions, observe other editors' changes, and read the consensus pages (policies and guidelines) to get a feeling for why things are done the way they are. This all should be focused of course on the encyclopaedic content, but I don't think it matters if you focus more on building or on maintaining. The maintainance route may be faster, but only because researching and writing an article is harder work that takes more time. Both routes however have their distinct rewards.
  The Crat Track would then be the path to becoming a bureaucrat.
  Interesting thought about attracting the reasonable. I'm afraid that's a more general problem, since life rewards the tenacious, too. --Amalthea 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Crat Track is talking about the path to becoming a beraucrat---basically an admin on steroids. They have a few more buttons than non-admins (name changes and promoting admins mainly.) But no, I would not agree that the fastest way to become an editor is to become a policeman. In fact, deleting articles and stopping vandals doesn't require much skill/knowledge. One becomes a better editor by understanding the process and how to improve things. Deleting articles doesn't show that you can improve an article, getting in there an making changes does that. Stopping vandals does not show that you know how to collaborate with others, but it might show that you know how to be a bully! A person can become an admin without ever reporting somebody to AIV or submitting a single article for CSD. A person can not become an admin without showing some costructive work on articles.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clarification and the thoughtful comments. travb (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IPA

May be bitter and hoppy, but always the coldest in the fridge! LeadSongDog (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I thought nobody would catch the joke... people were responding as if I made a serious comment! I feel much better now!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a stout one, myself;-) LeadSongDog (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

You have some :~) MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong...

But don't you have the RfA scoreboard twice on your talk? Enigma^msg 08:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always be wrong... actually, I have two different score boards... I probably could get rid of one. One doesn't report RFB's and that one tends to be more up-to-date than the one that does.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah, and have you seen User talk:Balloonaman? It came up under suggestions as I was entering your talk into the search box. Enigma^msg 06:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a vandalism only account... hadn't made any edits since november, but I went ahead and indef blocked it as it was an obvious spoof account, and performing vandalism only. (all edits were deleted.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is given to Balloonman for his tireless and brilliant work on WP:Criteria for speedy deletion, you are truly an inspiration to all wikipedians who are here to write an encyclopedia. Your dedication touches the lives of hundreds of editors, who never even know that you helped them. Thank you so much. travb (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is always cool to get recognition from people... especially those that you don't know too well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Boulder Beer Company

Boulder Beer Company? Hey, what a great article...very nice! I'll drink to that! (P.S. Check your e-mail about that used car.) Ecoleetage (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Woahh, Balloonman and article writing? I've only ever seen you in RfA situations so this came as a little shock :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have 2 FA to my name... one where I was the primary force and the other as a supporting cast... and I've started 62 articles.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And this should be heading to DYK very soon, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Working on Great Divide Brewing Company now...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spread the word! Plenty of stuff to work with, too: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Poke

Dear BALLOONMAN, your rename is done. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks giggy---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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) 02:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Across the Great Divide (Brewery)

Hey, the new article is smashing...but you originally called it Great American Brewery Company instead of Great Divide Brewery Company. I just moved the title to its proper name. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It was also "Brewing Company" rather than "Brewery Company." Changes made. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey

I mentioned your study here: User_talk:Inclusionist#Study Comments are welcome about my proposal and if it is worth the time. travb (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How would I rate their experience? Do you think this proposal is worth my time? travb (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Boulder Beer Company

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boulder Beer Company, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CSDer of the week - thank you

Wow - thank you. Worlds away from the the usual "you f*ck*ng b*tch, why did you delete my page?" that usually results from a CSD session!! Thanks again, best, Nancy ^talk 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was really impressed with your work... I was becoming very disenheartened because a few of the people I was reviewing were failing to meet my criteria. Two of the three came close, but then would drop the ball--usually with a G1 or A7 deletion. I was starting to get discouraged, when I spotted you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again

After basically blowing us off at the poker Project Special:Contributions/DegenFarang he's on another wild vandalism spree. It would be nice if you reverted him this time, and blocked him. 2005 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for one hour to stop him from his rampage. He needs to discuss the edits and reach a consensus on them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of his edits don't |even make sense. Apparently he thinks the Las vegas Sun and Pokerstars and Poker babes are the same site or something. Obviously he's both just attacking my edits, and he wants to spam his website amongst the mess. I hope someone else reverts all those edits, but I'll do it if I have to. I'm not going to have someone mess up every article I've worked on, and those I have not to. 2005 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if he gets back into the vandalism schtick after his block... and I will block for longer... if I don't respond immediately (say 5 minutes) goto ANI, and let them know... if I'm on, I'll see it right away---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Username change

Hi, I've replied to the post you made on the username change page. Thanks for your initial response. Oral Thrush (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I have found everything you have said to all involved about this poker babes issue very fair and impartial, and I just wanted to thank you for it. I'm sorry I went about this in the way that I did, I was not aware there were people like you to appeal to or pages such as the one we are using now to talk about it. So thanks again!DegenFarang (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, there are options out there. If you need help, feel free to ask for it at WP:help, that's the helpdesk where you can get guidance from an experienced voice, or you can add {{helpme}} to your page, and this will attract the attention of somebody who will come to your page an help. There are also wp:AN and WP:ANI. WP:AN is where you can go to ask administrators for guidance/help. WP:ANI is where you can go if there is a problem and you need administrator intervention. Generally, when you get into a content dispute with somebody, it is generally best to discuss it with them on the articles talk page. Or, if there are multiple pages involved, check to see if there is a common project for all of those pages. Projects that monitor the page can be found on the articles talk page, and you can raise the question there. Wikipedia is about consensus and working together. Some people have to be reminded that they don't own the articles but generally our goal is to Assume Good Faith. Eg I made the assumption that you were working to improve the articles you were working on, which is why I only gave you an hour block... it wasn't meant to be a punative, but rather I needed to stop you from making changes on 50 pages without discussing them. It was turning into an edit war. (Since you are a newbie, I'm going to leave a talk back template on your page, but as a general rule, I assume that if you leave a message on my page that you are watching my page.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not watching your page, I am now. Thanks again that was some helpful info there! DegenFarang (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD'er of the week (belated)

A belated "thank you". A nice change from the normal loads of vandalism I get on my talk page ;) (or the continual "why did you delete my image" after they just saw the deletion reason when they uploaded it!!) It must have been a daunting task to go through my deletion log, considering that I've got about 475 deletions in sum in just the last week alone! My one comment that I'd make is that if one makes an error in the reason (say you're thinking A7 and use G7) and then have that D'oh! moment, there's no way to go back and say, 'bloody... expletive deleted... wrong #, should have been X instead of Y, my bad'. I've wanted to do that a couple of times, but found that the only possible way was to restore the article/file and the re-delete it with the right number - not something that seems worthwhile at all! But, my gripe on that little missing feature aside, thanks for the recognition! Skier Dude (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, that is part of the reason why I include in my criteria that if it is deleted under the wrong criteria, there are more options. But you are welcome, I've been trying to recognize people who do a good job with CSD's... I want to see people doing a better more thoughtful job with it and decided the best way to encourage that would be positive reinforcement... recognize superior work!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD award userbox

Hey Balloonman, I've created (well, borrowed) a userbox (located at User:Balloonman/CSD award/userbox) to identify recipients of your CSD'er of the Week award. I just did this on a whim - if you don't feel that this is something you're interested in, feel free to delete it (especially since it's in your user space). I assure you my feelings won't be hurt. :-) Cheers, faithless (^speak) 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was something that I was thinking of doing myself... I just hadn't gotten around to it, so thank you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 12:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My User Name

I'm the same user as Ali Saeed on the Arabic Wiki.

http://ar.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85:Ali_Said

This links leads to my new User page, It has converted from my old one "Ali Said", it's in Arabic but you can find in the top of it

(تم التحويل من مستخدم:Ali Said)

that means (Redirected from user page: Ali Said)

Thanks for your effort. Ali Said (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD'er of the Week

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I share your concerns, as I see things speedied that I would not have. While I believe strongly in Admin autonomy, I think we sometimes confuse speedy deletion and hasty deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Credit goes in part to Rlevse, who inspired me with his Wikipedian of the Day.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your !vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CRGreathouse

I just wanted to let you know how much it means to have you soften your "Obvious oppose" to "Weak oppose". That just about made my day.

Cheers!

**CRGreathouse** (t | c) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the right attitude, which is ultimately the most important thing in becoming an admin. BUT I wish you had experience in the area where you've expressed a desire to work... or fewer "per nom" !votes at AFD. Ultimately, I decided that if you became an admin, it wouldn't be the end of the world... I considered moving to neutral or even support, but decided that I couldn't. I gave the !vote a lot of thought... and I gave the change a lot of thought.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind that you're !voting oppose; you have good reasons for that. (I do mind when people mis!vote for apparently bad reasons—I will try to change their minds in those cases.) But it takes some amount of courage to change your mind, and I appreciate that you did so for me. The !vote is inconsequential next to the goodwill. :)

**CRGreathouse** (t | c) 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And once again, thanks for the kindness: [2]. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA#WP:AAAD

Hm. It's not dying but it's not getting much response either. Thoughts? Should I tweak? (Watchlisting.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Go on then, tell me where I'm going wrong on CSD!

I like the idea of the CSD review - I'd appreciate some feedback and tips for improvement, so if you get the chance and the time to put me under the microscope, please do. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

will do.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting and helpful. If I could just point out that I did in fact delete this via G10 though the talk page was tagged G1. Hope that partially redeems me in your eyes! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope it was helpful and didn't come accross too strong.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But, but, but

Hah. If I catch anyone at that, they get a reminder from me about how CSD tag removal != CSD criteria. Dlohcierekim 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Beware acronym-atitus

Hello Balloon, I was looking at your research, and I am struck at how much you use the acronym CSD. I think your message would be better recieved if you wrote out this acronym. At the bare minimum you should write it out at the beginning. People have to translate what CSD means everytime they see it, and also many users, maybe the majority of wikipedians (myself included up until a week or two ago) have no clue what CSD means. travb (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned your study

WikiThanks

I mentioned your study here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution Please comment if you care too. travb (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You deserve this Wikidraco scholasticus award for User:Balloonman/Why I hate Speedy Deleters. --Philcha (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ecoleetage

I suppose it's small beer, but his deletion request had already been turned down. User talk pages are not generally deleted. Friday (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not unless an admin deletes them: User talk:Pilotguy. Majorly talk 20:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I view it as a request to vanish, thus acceptable.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

imo, his request may reasonably be construed as invocation of the RTV clause. –xeno (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. Well, this guy has stomped off before, right? Is there any reason to believe he's really leaving? If/when he comes back, whether with this account or another one, having a record of his past may be useful. We certainly don't want someone like this ever getting a position of responsibility, so I don't see where helping him cover his tracks is useful. I think doing what's best for the project is more important than giving a tantrum-thrower whatever he demands. Friday (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same. RTV is only appropriate if the editor intends never to return, which is highly unlikely in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps we should keep them deleted until/if he comes back. For all we know, he may have gone for good. Majorly talk 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, if he comes back, we can restore.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, if I was him I wouldn't. Check out AN/I... :( Majorly talk 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is truly disappointing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing, but also predictable. Those who chose not to see the obvious truth need to think a little bit more deeply before supporting unstable editors like Eco "because they've been nice to me". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was shocked at how well he was doing... I didn't think he'd pass. Even when I supported (a mistake) and it was at 85%, I still thought it wouldn't pass. Oh well... he definitely blew it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To save reposting, my comment here pretty much sums up my attitude. I don't think anyone could call me a fan of Eco – I opposed last time and my interaction since then has been at the "occasionally we both posted at Keeper's talk page but I don't think we ever spoke" level (my interest in Mozambique is fairly minimal, as is his in the geography of south-east England), but I really did think this was someone who'd pulled themself together and was being beaten up for a single one-off burst of bad temper. – iridescent 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all understand the occasional bout of "bad temper", but that wasn't what was on evident display; it was bullying, intimidation, and harrassment. And he very nearly got away with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in this case it s not likely to be a true RTC, & the p. should therefore not be deleted. DGG (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Was that admin banter? I don't speak admin, but assuming you meant RTV, then that was yet another attempted abuse of process. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to the allegation of abuse of process. I saw a request to have a page deleted by somebody who was retiring, unaware of the extra drama at ANI, and obliged. Another admin decided to undelete the page, and I'm fine with that.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Retiring is not the same thing as vanishing. I take exception to the increasing secrecy and deception that appears to be becoming institutionalised here on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism policy

Hi, Balloonman. There's a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Policy_change for a tougher policy on vandals. Since admins have to implement anti-vandalism policy, we need some input. Please respond there, and feel free to bring in other admins. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Philcha, I know you were hoping that we'd go there and agree with the proposed changes, but I think they would be a huge mistake.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Which proposed changes? I disagreed with immediate blocking and counter-proposed faster and clearer escalation. --Philcha (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded already at the discussion. Also, just so you know, I keep an eye on the pages I edit, so you don't need to repeat it here ;-) But thanks for the thought. I do have to leave, so further responses may be limited.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFB

Balloonman, after reading through your RFB nomination statement, there are quite a few typographical errors. Obviously you don't have to fix them, but they're bugging me (as a WikiGnome), so I thought I'd mention it to you. Useight (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it... spelling, however isn't my strong suit :( ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks much better now, but there is what appears to be a glaring error. The last word of your first sentence is "admin", but I think you wanted "bureaucrat". But I could be wrong. Useight (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, you are entirely correct. Thanks. And regardless of which way you ultimately go, thank you for your kind words. Like I said, I was not planning on running...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I didn't say that I had lost interest in RfA, I just don't like the role I'm playing there. I'd rather have people think or themselves.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 09:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA Review

After voting on your RfB, I saw your RfA review page, and the criteria associated with it. I believe that I meet the criteria on the admin coaching page, and subsequently would like to request admin coaching. Now instead of just adding my name to the list, I feel that I should talk to you about it first, due to the fiasco that occurred the last time I approached WP:RFA as a candidate. All I can really say is that I made a bad decision (we all do sometimes, don't we?) and point out the BN thread and this comment by Deskana post-rfa and let you decided for yourself. I sincerely thank you for your time. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments below, if this rfb fails, as it appears on course to do, my involvement at RfA will probably be significantly curtailed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well thanks anyway. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RFB

If you care to visit my talk page, you'll see that I've decided to retire from RFA/RFB unless completely necessary. Best of luck at RFB. Ceran^→→ 12:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Great Divide Brewing Company

On January 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Great Divide Brewing Company, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfB

Hey, good luck for your RfB. I hope you plan on staying in your usual fashion even if it doesn't quite pan out? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, but not as a result of what happens at the RfB... as I mentioned in my statement, I don't like the role I've been playing at RfA. I don't think it is healthy that some people seem to think that I am the authority/go to person. And have been thinking about backing down in that area for a while. I saw becoming a crat as a means to continue working in an area that I enjoy, but where the job/role I've been serving isn't one I enjoy anymore. My views on the project have changed, but role hasn't. In other words, my departure from RfA won't be a reaction to the RfB, but rather the RfB was a possible means to not leave RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a shame, you'll be greatly missed should the RfB not quite succeed. Will you continue to serve on Wikipedia in other areas like CSD? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan on leaving the project, I'm just not sure where I will end up. I'll probably wander around aimlessly for a while looking for places that capture my interest---similar to what I did before getting involved with RfA's. CSD is not a place that I see myself working, except possibly for reform.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck then, I suppose! Hope to see you around. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you better not disappear completely; this project would be worse for the wear without your help. Useight (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have no intention of disappearing completely---even from RfA. But my role WILL be different.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfB 2

Your RfB looks like what my RfA would look like, except not as many opposes. : D I love how you have opposes from the "admin is no big deal" crowd. LOL. Apparently, RfB is a major big deal even though they merely weigh the "votes" at RfA! Or, hypocrisy is merely something that they do not understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. we should really start working on that Versity project. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, this is probably a great time to approach me... see comments above. ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its funny how they are willing to support people with limited understanding of policy and experience with corrupt practices (CoI, Canvassing, Civility, etc) but when it comes time for people with a clue, they balk. I am starting to see "Its No Big Deal" more as a front for Anarchism and not an actual passivity towards the process. People honestly started saying "more admin dropped out last month than were promoted, so we need more". That's scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I only wish that even more admins had dropped out than did. I've hardly ever seen a better example of the devil making work for empty hands as within the present sanctimonious and self-congratulatory admin corps. But that's not why I'm here. Balloonman, I'm sorry to see the way your RfB is panning out, but in a rare reversal of roles I could have pretty much predicted it's what would happen, as I'm sure you realised yourself. It's no reflection on you though, never believe that. Hopefully we'll see a bit more of you at the coal face after the dust settles. :-)

Oh, and Ottava, if you want to get an idea of what your RfA would look like, just take a look at mine. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I expected it... I just had to test the waters... I knew that there would be 3 camps against me: 1) Doesn't have enough CHU/USURP/BRFA experience. 2) I will never trust him after the Giggy/DMHO affair. 3) I disagree with his take on RfA. I entered the fray knowing that it was probably going to fail, but I do believe that I would be a good crat and can help the project out in that role, thus decided to throw my hat in the ring.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I would have made a good administrator, but some things are just not meant to be, --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:BN#Take-home message from Balloonman's RfB. I'm really asking a question about me, not about you, but since I mention your RfB, someone might say something relevant to that, so I'm just letting you know about the thread. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it matters? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for all the help. Pattont/c 20:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for the future - research needed articles

Seeing as how you are good at research, if you decide to scale back your RFA involvement, I'd suggest replacing it with stub expansion or most-wanted-articles development. Wikipedia:Most wanted articles could use a refresh with current data followed by article development. Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery seems morbund, it could use an injection of new life. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:your message

clarified my question over at your rfb. Sorry, I should have tried a little harder to do that before hitting save, but at the time it made sense to me. Also, I wanted to let you know that the questions I ask rarely effect my !vote, they are more intended to pick your brain so I can understand your train of thought on such matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Help?

I can't find the image concern after a quick read of the FLC. It seems to me that everything is above board wrt. images. Giggy (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfB

Waddya know... Doesn't really matter by now, but —iyho— should I have registered that sockpuppet account to be able to support you? Just being a bit of a dick here, but you know you sorta kinda deserve it for assuming I'd do that sort of thing... Anyhow, I'd have supported you, and for whatever it's worth, in spirit I do. 78.34.134.183 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

that means a lot to me knowing that we were both thinking about an RfC on each other at one point.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

cratship

I think you should try again in a year or so. I get the sense you're processing, even if it's subconsciously. That is, that your thinking and perceptions are undergoing an adjustment, and that once that's past you'll have insights and judgment you don't have. And I think that RFB is part of that. But I think that getting cratship now will derail or change the process. And that you will unquestionably be ready then. Hope this makes sense. Best regards, Dlohcierekim 04:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably continue to make edits in other 'crat' areas, but I honestly don't know if I'll run again. There are some people whom you see run for Admin, and based upon the opposes you know that they will never get the bit. Some of the opposes I've received are of the nature that I question if they will ever change their !vote. I will listen to them and take them to heart. But we'll see what happens.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't say "never." Do say "never, unless they radically change their editing behavior." Even some of the "gawd I wouldn't trust him to pump my gas" RFA candidates could become great Wikipedians and great administrators after turning themselves around. Ever read Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter? By the end of the book it's 20 years after her adultry and she's considered a valuable member of the community. In Internet time, that could be as little as 12 months, less in some cases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty I don't think you'd make a very good crat. I don't know exactly why, you just don't have the mindset I'd expect from a crat. You're the kind of person who'd become an arb rather than a crat...--Patton^t/c 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(splutters) Now that vote would be epic lulz. – iridescent 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, I can spell G*U*I*L*T*Y!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Patton - if you are saying I'd make a good arb, thanks. It's way too soon for me to be thinking 'crat-tish. If you mid-indented and are saying Balloonman would make a good admin, I concur. I still haven't given him the thought he deserves before deciding if he'd make a good crat the next go-around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting vote at your RFB

See this -- Tinu Cherian - 11:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered that you are at RFB; why isn't it listed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report? I've had problems with that report before, don't know why someone doesn't fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know why you aren't, but it is showing up on the SQLbot.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

I don't believe in thankspam, so I wanted to thank those who participated in my RfB. I did leave an extended closing comment on it if you are interested in reading it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you will have a better chance when the misinterpretation of No Big Deal is finally put to rest. That meme is plaguing the whole RfA process and it should be removed as with all other forms of wiki anarchy. Its sad that there are so many people out there that cling to such absurd notions, especially when the hypocritically apply a high standard to ensure those with high standards are not put in. I am glad that people like that have not dominated areas that require the utmost attention to quality like FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think if we had an effective way to get rid of admins, that getting the tools would really become no-big deal. The problem, IMO, is that adminship is essentially for life. Take away that parameter, then you give the person the tools without much concern, and only do an RFDA when necessary.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(cough) – iridescent 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think that there should be minimum standards. There is a lot of problems someone can accomplish before becoming an admin, and if adminship is made easier, it would be easier to have multiple admin accounts. There are plenty of expert vandals who salivate for such a chance as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's the old question whether RfA is broken or not. I am still not sure if the fact that I passed is a sign that it works (as I am no content creator or suchlike) or that it's broken (because it allows people like me to pass). Point is, RfA is just an extension of human nature and most people will let their personal opinions of a candidate influence them, the question is just how much or how little. No easier process can change that unless you give it out without any user consensus asked. Same with RfB. This one failed not because B'man is a bad admin but because he made a mistake that many people still think is unforgivable and because some people don't like his views (on RfA for example). That's very sad to see (I really hoped he'd make it) but imho it has nothing to do with high standards...just people. You can't change them though... SoWhy 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't even realize you had stood for RfB, sorry that I wasn't there to support. –xeno (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My proposal for RfA---in concept form only

Do away with the current structure, and create a system similar to CHU/USURP wherein "clerks" can add notes. Assert the assumption that anybody with even a minimal history (3 months and a thousand quality edits) could become and admin! That unless there is reason to deny (blocks/bans/NPOV violations/3RR Violations/serious civility issues) that ANYBODY can easily come an admin!

BUT add a mechanism for speedy/easier RFDA. Once a legit concern is raised for deadminship, the persons sysop powers are suspended, and discussion occurs similar to the current RfA process we have today. The difference is that if a person is a SYSOP we could actually guage how they use the tools, not speculate on how they might use them. If you could take away the tools relatively easily, ala taking away rollback, then granting them really does become no big deal.

This would, by necessity, mean an increase to our 'crat population, which could continue as is (at least for now.) As long as adminship is for life, and there is no viable means to get rid of an admin (short of the nightmare that we subjected User:Majorly to) then adminship will remain a big deal. I'd rather undergo another RFA and RFB simultaneously than subject somebody to the abuse heaped upon Majorly during his RfC.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Oh yeah, another piece of the puzzle, make re-sysopping easier as well. If desysopping is for life, then we are just replacing one nightmare with another. If we make it so that people can relatively painlessly get the bit back after loosing it, then the RfDA process isn't as big of a deal either.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(coughs again) – iridescent 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman, do you really think that relying on a purely negative process for selection of admins will reduce drama? The amount of argument, conflict, ego-busting, and general unhappiness caused by a desysop procedure will be many times more than the already unpleasant RfAdmin procedure. It hurts people not to get the mop, yes. But it will hurt them much more to lose it. there is no way of painlessly removing someone's status. And then the real drama will move to the resysop procedure--don;t think you can make that automatic, or every bad admin will be back again, certainly angrier but probably no wiser. DGG (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why it has to be an easy process both ways. Right now it is a huge deal to get the bit and a huge effort to take it away. I know, this is an idealistic perspective, but as long as getting or taking away the bit is a big deal, RfA will be a big deal.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tea?

• 
  Let's have a cup of tea

Despite our differences, I think that you conducted yourself admirably during the difficult process. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you Axl, I appreciate it, and would be happy to share a glass of tea with you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

I responded to your message at the versity on that talk page. You will immediately see that Moulton decided to express his opinion on the matter. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dennis MacDonald

On January 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dennis MacDonald, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

Got nothing. Did you do it via special:emailuser/giggy? Giggy (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Balloonman's (and others') Day!

Balloonman has been identified as an almost awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, he's officially declared today as Balloonman's day! For being almost awesome enough to have someone else declare his own day, and for offering barnstars in exchange for friendship, enjoy being (one of the) star(s) of the day, Balloonman! Best Wishes, Giggy (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey wait, this is conflicting with others people's almost days!...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on this achievement, Balloonman. SPEECH! Majorly talk 03:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth to form a more perfect union for the right to bear arms and... damn I already messed up my speech...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Dlohcierekim 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

SO SHINY...

		Civility Award
		For resolving comments in a calm and easy manner. Mmm...coffee... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 06:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I don't know what I did to deserve this... I was actually impressed with you and Chris and the effort the two of you put into improving FL's.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For someone who is new to the FL process, meeting a swamp of comments can be daunting. On the other hand, you do have two Featured articles... Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FLC compared to FAC is a walk in the park... but entirely different... I'm not used to formatting tables like this. So, it's forcing me to learn something new.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: but yes, when I first looked at all of the comments I got that first day, I questioned if I really wanted to do this... but decided that I threw my hat in the ring, I had to, and the comments weren't that bad.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just that you were one of the only ones who have never had any conflicts deciding whether or not to do this or that. You reasonably handled the situations like they were nothing. You good job on your first FLC! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 22:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good job—Chris! _ct 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you are given good time tested advice, you'd be a fool not to listen to it. Plus, you guys were reasonable as well, if I gave a reason not to do something that was suggested, you responded positively as well. (plus I've learned it doesn't do anybody any good to get into a fight with people who are reviewing you or your work.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of World Series of Poker Main Event Champions

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of World Series of Poker Main Event Champions, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

fixed

thx DegenFarang (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

I have decided to become active on this Wikipedia once again. Just thought that I would let you know :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, welcome back.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember me from that time (about 6 months ago?). Cheers, Razorflame 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember your name, but I'm not sure what you are referencing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From when I was last active (which was a while ago). That was what I was referencing. Razorflame 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is something specific that I should be remembering, I don't.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nothing that specific. Razorflame 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whew, I was worried there... I thought there was something that I SHOULD have remembered... I do remember you, but you were making me think we had a conflict, or I had made a promise, or something that I had forgotten.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nothing like that ;). Razorflame 05:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Men Nguyen

I don't understand why RGP first hand accounts from Daniel Negreanu and John Juanda are not considered reliable, especially with Poker-Babes.com is linked all over the place in BLP's as the lone source on things and that site is the second hand accounts of a former coctail waitress at the bicycle casino. Please explain. If those postings were on the Los Angeles Times you would include them, so what difference does it make, either way the information and the source are the same. DegenFarang (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been answered for me on the talk page of that article by Sirex DegenFarang (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I missed your question, glad you got an answer though.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at an apology

I doubt you will accept it (and I don't blame you if you don't) but I owe you an apology. I had no place in saying that or even bringing up that incident. An explanation is definitely in order so here goes; I was going through the archives of the admin noticeboard and I came across your post about your CSD survey. So I read through your CSD subpage, followed a few links and found a comment from you about an administrator that you called out for misdeleting articles, curious I was looking through the history of your talkpage trying to find the discussion and came across that diff. Being a strong supporter of animal rights, things like that generally make me quite angry and seeing that you were up at RfB at the time that I seen the diff I hastily made the decision to oppose based on it. Obviously it wasn't your fault nor something you encourage and opposing based on that ... well Deskana was right, no bureaucrat would ever give any weight to that oppose. You're a nice guy, you do excellent work at RFA (and other areas around here) and you really didn't deserve that. I will be honest, the reason for the delay in this apology was I had resolved not to comment but this is more than a website, there are people with feelings on the other end and the more I thought about it the more leaving it wouldn't be right. Your assessment was very accurate and I doubt you need to worry about anyone else thinking differently. Sorry and good luck with RfB #2 if you decide to try for it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you will find that I am very forgiving especially when I get a heartfelt apology, so as far as I am concerned that issue is in our past. I pissed me off because I do take care of my kids and we do take care of our pets... but if you know anything about 4 year olds, you cannot watch them non-stop. They are reaching the age where they want to be independent. They also don't always understand the consequences of their actions... You made a judgement about me, my care of my child, and our pets without even bothering to know what happened or how it happened. An instance that obviously bothered me tremendously when it happened (I blanked my page because of how distraught I was to have a beloved pet of 10 years die on us.) That being said, the issue is now in our past.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I was actually surprised that nobody reverted my comment... I was halfway expecting somebody to delete it as vandalism or a personal attack... but I suspect that if they clicked the link, they would leave it.;-) As for RfB_2...I really don't know about that right now. I'm dubious, but won't say it won't happen.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Can you give me your opinion on [[Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#Peregrine_Fisher .E2.86.92_1]? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Thought you might be interested in thread on my talk which demonstrates rather neatly all your concerns about CSD. I'm more used to being "told off" for deleting so have an established user turn up to have a go because I turned a speedy down was somewhat surprising! Nancy ^talk 08:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Parviz Haghendish

Thanks for the heads-up, but I don't think I'll be able to pull up any reliable sources for him. I've been to the guy's fencing camp in Ottawa, but that's about it. Most sources for Parviz are probably pre-internet anyways, and I have no way of getting print sources. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, it is possible that he might in fact be notable, but without some sources validating that, the article will likely be deleted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Babara Freer

FYI I speedied this article - looks like a misspelling of Barbara Freer. Keep up the good gambling article work! ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you were correct.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, poker isn't gambling ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Don't tell that to any of the donks on Full Tilt! ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a section that I want to add to the Poker article... is Poker a game of skill/luck and discuss the various legal cases that have revolved around it and how different states/countries have ruled on the subject.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck, start it up. There is (are) plenty of good source material for either side of that argument. Some judge in Pennsylvania last week ruled it to be a game of skill - was an article on Pokerpages, I think. "Pennsylvania Judge Rules Poker is a Game of Skill" article in CardPlayer (can't access it from work or I would post a link) ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Walter Watkins???

yep that would be it, you beat me to it! ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I refuse to play on Full Tilt anymore... I had 3 hand in about an hour where I lost $200. On all three hands I was dealt A-Q, and hit a Queens full of Aces Full house on the flop and LOST! In two I lost to Aces full of Queens, on the third, the Kings full of Aces. If I was smarter at the time, I would have raised a stink with FT about it, but I am highly dubious about their software... of course, that is just my opinion.... but I refuse to play there now.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pier Review

Hi Balloonman, I have been working on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and hopefully ‘Featured Article’ status. The article is currently in Pier Review, so I though I would invite you to take a look, and maybe give your opinion. Any help to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of World Series of Poker Ladies Champions

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of World Series of Poker Ladies Champions, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Those URLs what I mashed

Oh, thanks for catching that. The first one I missed the last digit of the diff number, so it gave a different diff, and the second I ... I'm not sure how I fucked that up. Plain idiocy, I guess. WilyD 21:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was looking at them and couldn't figure out why you were including them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A close inspection should reveal that the article listed in the URL was not the article shown in the diff, which is usually a giveaway that indicates that's what happened. Certainly that's how I realised what I'd done. WilyD 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for getting rid of Davidthedograt. i was getting scared he'd sue me. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by David the Dogman (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, he doesn't have a copyright to the name, and even if he did, it wasn't your name---plus, we have rules about making legal threats. His edits were all vandalism, but the fact that he compounded his vandalism with legal threats made it easy for me to block him.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Poker Review

I really don't know what you were talking about...please tell me ASAP. Thanks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _anyone? 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I did fix it on my own... when I first transcluded my latest article, it wasn't showing up properly... I made several edits trying to get it to work, including one with the edit summary, "Why isn't this working." You then made an edit with the summary LOL, and I assumed that you saw something silly that I was doing wrong, and fixed it for me... but my list was then showing properly.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Walter Watkins

On January 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Walter Watkins, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikicops

(moved from WP:UAA)

• Wikicops (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a misleading username; Indicates a position of authority on Wikipedia which the user does not possess.. Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My take: The user has been around for 8 months. Based upon discussion at WP:CHU, I believe that this name is acceptable as there are other wiki's out there and we've got a precidents of using "WIKI" in user names not being synonymous with wikipedia.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, I was scrolling through some AFD log, and this username caught my eye, and it was red-linked. Bleh, shouldn't jump to conclusions. User's contributions seem okay, though focused on one topic. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a recent discussion about this a few weeks ago at WP:CHU somebody wanted the name "Wikipedia_Editor", the consensus there was that "wiki_editor" is acceptable, but "wikipedia_editor" is not, because wiki can be any of a thousand wiki's, but wikipedia was too specific.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On a second glance, there do seem to be sockpuppet allegations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cork Graham, but that's outside WP:UAA, and User:Redvers is there. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

help

is chocolateroar an administrator? he says he is and he put the block template on my talk page, its still there. also, im not blocked, i did nothing wrong, and he barley has a talk page. David the Dogman (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not. Balloonman has blocked him indefinitely for impersonating an administrator. Feel free to remove that block template from your talk page. Useight (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just expanded the rationale for blocking him as well. He is targetting the same people whom User talk:Davidthedograt targeted a few days ago, thus, I expanded the block to include block evasion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an eamil a couple days ago and was wondering if you had a chance to read/answer it yet? MBisanz ^talk 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, but I have to look back through my notes to find the answer. Let me see if I can find it...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I'm sorry, I just know chocolateroar in school (I figured out who he is and that's why he's targeting me and foxcow who is in his class too) and I didn't want him to know who I was because he knows my account. I'm sorry, I wont do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David the Dogman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspected that the three of you knew each other, and the behavior I've seen from you and Chocolateroar (who I suspect to be Davethedograt?) is generally not acceptable at WP. This isn't Myspace. That being said, I accept the apology.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi Balloonman, I think my consulting opposers phase has about run its course. So "Ping" :) WereSpielChequers 12:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help

Hello. I had an account, and due to some vandalism created by my roommates, I exercised my right to vanish and changed my username to the current one, and have retired. I use the former username for correspondence (email, etc.). As I searched google, the former username appeared in a search, as some of the comments have been preserved on another editor's user page. I would like these comments removed if possible, as they no longer link to an active account. The user appears to have a history of conflict with other editors, and I feel he is leaving these comments up to be vindictive and spiteful despite my apologies. This is the user page in question: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Duke53 Any help would be appreciated. Hoopsphanatic (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching?

Hi Balloonman, I have been on Wikipedia since August 2006 and am trying to continue getting experience here, so I decided to get involved in the admin coaching program so I could have someone to discuss my goals with, as well as getting ready to become an Administrator someday. I have put a request on the coaching request page, but seeing the backlog, I contacted Juliancolton and Pedro, JC initially accepted, but has told me via IRC that he may be taking a Wikibreak in the near future, and that I should find another coach, Pedro seems to be full. Patton123 told me that you are a good coach, so I decided to ask you. It doesn't really matter to me what style you use, whether it be general floating of ideas or formal coaching. I already have a subpage set up,User:Res2216firestar/Coaching from when it was looking like JC was going to be my coach, feel free to update it or replace it with anything you might want there if you accept. Thanks--Res2216firestar 18:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually taking some time off of coaching and backing down some from Wikipedia, it has become too much of a drain on my time and resources.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the quick reply.--Res2216firestar 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2008 World Series of Poker results

Replied to comment.--TRUCO 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vanish

Dear Balloonman, I asked the following to Majorly, but thought it worth asking you as well: back in September I attempted to vanish after some disconcerting circumstances arose. At the time I was not indefinitely blocked, involved in arbitration, etc. An account created shortly after the attempt to vanish was alleged to be me and I was subsequently unvanished, but renamed. It was then made clear to me while being renamed that we cannot vanish and start over, which I now see is bolded on the RTV page: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity;" however, Secret while invoking the right to vanish says he will come back as a hidden account as a fresh start. If I and others are not allowed to do that, then I do not think it is fair if others can. Thus, should this be taken to an admin board as you suggested? I am concerned if it is allowed then it reflects a double standard of sorts. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded on Majorly's page before I realized you were asking it here as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've responded there as well. I am not going to force this issue, but it just would be a bit disappointing if others can do what was decisively made clear to me I can't do, especially as I get mocked for even changing names. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)